Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendment presents claims 1-4, 6, 9, 11, 14-17, 19, and 22 as amended and claim 27 as added. Claims 1-27 are, therefore, pending examination.
The amendment is sufficient in overcoming the interpretation under 35 USC 112 (f), the rejections under 35 USC 112 (b), and the prior art rejections under 35 USC 102 (a)(1) previously indicated.
Further grounds of rejection, necessitated by the amendment, are presented herein.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/17/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant traverses the objection to the Drawings in that, citing 37 CFR 1.81 (a), the statutory requirement only requires drawings where necessary for the understanding of the subject matter to be sought. Applicant also amends claims 9 and 22 to replace “removable separator” with “removable shutter separator.”
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The basis of the objection is under 37 CFR 1.83 (a) and not 1.81 (a). As Applicant has filed drawings, 37 CFR 1.83 (a) also must be adhered to. The objection is maintained as the drawings still fail to show the claimed removable shutter separator. While Figure 4 shows shutter 406, the specification does not clearly link shutter 406 to the claimed removable shutter separator. Applicant may consider replacing “removable shutter separator” with “shutter” to address this objection, assuming that the shutter 406 and the removable shutter separator are the same structure.
With respect to the prior art, Applicant traverses Norman as not showing “a module configured to fit within the opening, the module including a beam window, and the module being removable from the enclosure.” According to Applicant, the “beam entry window 26 in Norman is not analogous to the claimed module” as it is not “removable from the process chamber” Applicant also contends that Norman fails to teach that the process chamber has an opening and that the process chamber 12 includes a module configured to fit within the opening.
In response, the examiner respectfully disagrees. It is clear from the teachings of Norman that the process chamber has an opening of sufficient size to receive the beam window. The claim defines the module as including the beam window. Norman teaches the beam window fitting within the opening of the chamber. As such, Norman teaches the enclosure having an opening and a module configured to fit within the opening, where the module includes a beam window. Norman is not currently relied upon to teach the module being removable from the enclosure.
Applicant’s additional arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “removable shutter separator” of claims 9 and 22 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-13 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Independent claim 1 recites a controller controlling the energy source based at least in part on “information related to the beam window” which renders the claim indefinite. As “information related to the beam window” can properly be understood to include geometric properties (e.g., size, shape, thickness, relative positioning, etc.), physical properties (e.g., material composition, defects from damage, etc.), and optical properties (e.g., transmittance, deflection, etc.), it is unclear in what way the controller controls the energy source based, at least in part, on the wide range of “information related to the beam window.” The claim can properly be interpreted in mutually exclusive ways: 1) the controller relies on data from a sensor [For instance, a position sensor, an optical sensor, etc.) to receive such information to control the energy source, and 2) the controller relies solely on data stored within its memory or data input by a user (For instance, a user inputs the material of beam window and the controller controls the energy source according to the input). As the broadest reasonable interpretation includes both understandings, if not more, it is unclear as to the structural requirements of the controller that allows it to function as claimed based on the “information related to the beam window.”
Claim 27 recites “wherein the module is entirely removable from the enclosure for exchange with a different module” which renders the claim indefinite as claim 1, from which claim 27 depends, already requires the module to be removable from the enclosure. As such, it is unclear in what way claim 27 is intended to further limit or define the apparatus of claim 1. The limitation of “for exchange with a different module” does not further define or limit the structure of claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5, 7, 9-11 14, 15, 18, 20, 22-24, and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Norman in view of Van Vaerenbergh (US20180345375).
Regarding claim 1, Norman teaches an apparatus for additive manufacturing (title, abstract, Fig.1, 10), comprising:
a build chamber (chamber 12) having an enclosure, the enclosure having an opening (opening closed by window 26);
a module configured to fit within the opening, the module including a beam window (beam window 26) (para. 0016 discloses 26 as forming a light transmissible barrier) (Window 26, being light transmissible, is an optical element that inherently has a number of optical properties, e.g., transmittance, reflectance, etc. Still further, window 26 has a number of physical and material properties, e.g., size, shape, thickness, strength, etc.);
an energy source (42) that generates an energy beam (44);
an optical element (galvo 48A/B or splitter 45) configured to direct the energy beam (44) through the beam window (26); and
a controller (16), coupled to the energy source (para. 0021; “configured to communicate with…light source 42…”) (see also para. 0022), wherein the controller controls the energy source based at least in part on information related to the beam window (paras. 0025-0029; controller 16 uses data from light sources 30a-30n to monitor the transmittance of window 26. The controller then determines the transmittances of window 26 and compares to a threshold value. Controller 16 can trigger an abort process or stop processing parts in the affected zone.).
Norman teaches substantially the claimed invention, as applied in claim 1, except for the module being removable from the enclosure.
Van Vaerenbergh relates to the field of additive manufacturing (Abstract; layered printing of a 3D object in a process chamber via laser sintering) (Figs. 1-3; laser energy source 16, beam window 1, opening 4, process chamber 3) and teaches one or more fasteners, wherein the one or more fasteners positively engage and locate the module (13 includes one or more fasteners 19 and/or removable hinge with which the laser window 1 can be detached-para. 0042).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Norman with Van Vaerenbergh, by adding to the module and beam window of Norman, with the one of more fasteners of Van Vaerenbergh, in order to provide a means for easily and completely detaching the beam window from the process chamber wall. See also MPEP 2144.04-V-C.
Regarding claim 2, the primary combination teaches the claimed invention, as applied in claim 1, and further teaches [Norman] a memory (para. 0020), coupled to the controller, wherein the memory stores the information related to the beam window (see citations above in claim 1. It is understood that the controller comparing the sensed transmittance of the window to a threshold value means that the threshold value is stored data).
Regarding claim 5, the primary combination teaches the claimed invention, as applied in claim 1, and further teaches [Norman] wherein the energy source is a laser energy source (see citations above in claim 1).
Regarding claim 7, the primary combination teaches the claimed invention, as applied in claim 1, and further teaches [Norman] wherein the module engages with the opening such that the beam window (26) is located at a consistent distance from the optical element (48A/B, 45) (See Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 9, the primary combination teaches substantially the claimed invention, as applied in claim 1, except for a removable shutter separator configured to be positioned between the optical element and the opening.
Van Vaerenbergh relates to the field of additive manufacturing (Abstract; layered printing of a 3D object in a process chamber via laser sintering) (Figs. 1-3; laser energy source 16, beam window 1, opening 4, process chamber 3) and teaches a removable shutter separator configured to be positioned between the laser source (16) [Note: the optical element of Norman is downstream from source 42] and the opening (4) (shutter separator 6 is moved between Figures 1 to 3 and shows 6 moving into and out of position. ).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Norman with Van Vaerenbergh, by adding to the beam window and between the optical element and the opening of Norman, with the removable shutter separator of Van Vaerenbergh, in order to provide a means for closing off the opening, thereby preventing unwanted foreign matter ingress to the process chamber. Additionally, making the shutter separator of Van Vaerenbergh removable would be an obvious engineering choice. In this case, making the shutter separator removable would allow for the separator to be replaced when needed. See MPEP 2144.04-V-C.
Here, the proposed combination suggests adding the removable shutter separator of Van Vaerenbergh to the beam window of Norman and to be disposed between the optical element (48A/B or 45) and opening of Norman. As such, the combination teaches the shutter separator being positioned between the optical element and the opening.
Regarding claim 10, the primary combination teaches substantially the claimed invention, as applied in claim 1, except for a seal arranged between the module and the opening, the seal configured to maintain an environment in the build chamber.
Van Vaerenbergh relates to the field of additive manufacturing (Abstract; layered printing of a 3D object in a process chamber via laser sintering) (Figs. 1-3; laser energy source 16, beam window 1, opening 4, process chamber 3) and teaches a seal (seal rings 5 and 7) arranged between the module (beam window 1) and the opening (4), the seal configured to maintain an environment in the build chamber (3) (see Figures 1-3 for progression from opening to closed positions. Figures 1 and 2 show a closed position in which the beam window is sealed against the opening) (see para. 0021).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Norman with Van Vaerenbergh, by adding to the beam window and between the beam window and the opening of Norman, with the sealing rings of Van Vaerenbergh, in order to provide a means for sealing off the opening, thereby preventing unwanted foreign matter ingress to the process chamber.
Regarding claim 11, the primary combination teaches substantially the claimed invention, as applied in claim 1, except for one or more fasteners, wherein the one or more fasteners positively engage and locate the module.
Van Vaerenbergh relates to the field of additive manufacturing (Abstract; layered printing of a 3D object in a process chamber via laser sintering) (Figs. 1-3; laser energy source 16, beam window 1, opening 4, process chamber 3) and teaches one or more fasteners, wherein the one or more fasteners positively engage and locate the module (13 includes one or more fasteners 19 and/or removable hinge with which the laser window 1 can be detached-para. 0042).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Norman with Van Vaerenbergh, by adding to the beam window of Norman, with the one of more fasteners of Van Vaerenbergh, in order to provide a means for easily and completely detaching the beam window from the process chamber wall. See also MPEP 2144.04-V-C.
Claim 14 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 1 and is rejected under substantially the same rational.
Claim 15 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 2 and is rejected under substantially the same rational.
Claim 18 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 5 and is rejected under substantially the same rational.
Claim 20 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 7 and is rejected under substantially the same rational.
Claim 22 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 9 and is rejected under substantially the same rational.
Claim 23 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 10 and is rejected under substantially the same rational.
Claim 24 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 11 and is rejected under substantially the same rational.
Regarding claim 27, the primary combination teaches substantially the claimed invention, as applied in claim 1, including wherein the module is entirely removable from the enclosure for exchange with a different module (See claim 1 above. The module/beam window of Norman, modified to be removable, allows for the module to be entirely removed as claimed).
Claim(s) 3 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Norman in view of Van Vaerenbergh (US20180345375) and in further view of Van Haendel (US20220161328; relying on earlier filing date).
Regarding claim 3, the primary combination teaches substantially the claimed invention, as applied in claim 2, except for wherein the information related to the beam window includes an optical caustic.
Norman states, in paragraph 0005, the following:
Condensate that is not removed can build up on the surfaces of the process chamber, including on the window between the process chamber and the optical bench. The condensate can degrade the quality of laser light entering the process chamber by attenuating or defocusing the laser light or by warming the beam entry window and distorting the optical properties of the window. Lower quality (or non-uniform) laser light can lead to defects in the manufactured objects. Often, the detection of condensate content by an observer outside the process chamber is difficult or even impossible, thereby limiting evaluations of the chamber for condensate buildup during the additive manufacturing process.
Here, Norman discloses that build up on the surfaces of the chamber (and of the window) can degrade the quality of laser light by attenuating/defocusing the laser light or by distorting the optical properties of the window itself.
It is understood that the build up on the surfaces and window can alter the optical properties of the window and, thereby, alter the transmittance (and other optical properties) of the window that the controller monitors.
Norman does not explicitly describe caustics. However, such may very well be implied as caustics is an optical property.
Van Haendel relates to a system and method for additive manufacturing an object via laser (Title; Abstract; Figs. 1 or 2) and teaches determining a caustic characteristic (para. 0017 and 0019) of the beam (para. 0026 describes the determined characteristic being power, caustic and a focus position of the beam) (see also Fig. 1 and paragraphs 0077-0079; controller 31 coupled to determining units 23 and 25 for determining a caustic characteristic at various points along the beam path).
Van Haendel teaches that the caustics of the beam is a known, and desirable, property to determine in order to improve quality of the manufactured object (para. 0012-0013).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Norman, as modified above, with Van Haendel, by adding to the control of the laser source of Norman, with the determining of beam caustics taught by Van Haendel, in order to improve quality of the object being manufactured.
Claim 16 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 3 and is rejected under substantially the same rational.
Claim(s) 4 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Norman in view of Van Vaerenbergh (US20180345375) and in further view of Cooper (US20130154160).
Regarding claim 4, the primary combination teaches substantially the claimed invention, as applied in claim 1, except for wherein the information related to the beam window includes a beam propagation ratio.
Norman states, in paragraph 0005, the following:
Condensate that is not removed can build up on the surfaces of the process chamber, including on the window between the process chamber and the optical bench. The condensate can degrade the quality of laser light entering the process chamber by attenuating or defocusing the laser light or by warming the beam entry window and distorting the optical properties of the window. Lower quality (or non-uniform) laser light can lead to defects in the manufactured objects. Often, the detection of condensate content by an observer outside the process chamber is difficult or even impossible, thereby limiting evaluations of the chamber for condensate buildup during the additive manufacturing process.
Here, Norman discloses that build up on the surfaces of the chamber (and of the window) can degrade the quality of laser light by attenuating/defocusing the laser light or by distorting the optical properties of the window itself.
It is understood that the build up on the surfaces and window can alter the optical properties of the window and, thereby, alter the transmittance (and other optical properties) of the window that the controller monitors.
Norman does not explicitly describe beam propagation ratio. However, such may very well be implied as beam propagation ratio is an intrinsic beam property.
Cooper relates to systems and methods of using a laser to additively manufacture an object (para. 0003) and teaches that various beam parameters, including beam waist position, beam quality factor M2 (also known as beam propagation ratio), and laser power, are characteristics that are important to the quality of manufacturing process (see para. 0006).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Norman, as modified above, with Cooper, by adding to the control of the laser source of Norman, with the determining of beam quality factor of Cooper, in order to improve quality of the object being manufactured (Cooper teaches that M2 is a beam factor that effects beam quality and, as a result, the quality of the object being manufactured. It would be obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art to rely on such beam parameters to improve quality during the AM process).
Claim 17 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 4 and is rejected under substantially the same rational.
Claim(s) 6 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Norman in view of Van Vaerenbergh (US20180345375) and in further view of Chimmalgi (US20200361140).
Regarding claim 6, Norman teaches substantially the claimed invention, as applied in claim 1, except for wherein the controller is further coupled to the module, and wherein the controller is configured to identify the module and select information related to the beam window from a memory based on an identification of the module.
Chimmalgi relates to system and methods of additively manufacturing an object (para. 0002; Fig. 1, laser source 18, beam window 15, controller 23) and teaches wherein the controller is further coupled to the module (Fig. 1), and wherein the controller is configured to identify the module and select the information related to the beam window from a memory based on an identification of the module (para. 0013; window has at least one variable property) (para. 0073; controller 23 is operatively associated with tag reader 22 that reads tag 21 on window 15. Controller 23 transmits the unique identifier to a database and receives specific optical instructions from that database so appropriate corrections can be made.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Norman, as modified above, with Chimmalgi, by adding to the control of the laser source and to the beam window of Norman, with the identification of the window of Chimmalgi, in order to accurately identify the beam window being used and to retrieve control instructions accordingly, thereby ensuring appropriate manufacturing based on the installed beam window.
Claim 19 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 6 and is rejected under substantially the same rational.
Claim(s) 8 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Norman in view of Van Vaerenbergh (US20180345375) and in further view of Mamrak (US20210170494).
Regarding claim 8, Norman teaches substantially the claimed invention, as applied in claim 1, except for a gas supply system configured to supply a positively pressured gas around the optical element. configured to supply a positively pressured gas around the optical element.
Norman teaches that it is known in the art to remove condensate from the chamber by applying a stream of inert gas (para. 0004). Norman is silent on a gas supply system configured to supply a positively pressured gas around the optical element.
Mamrak relates to an additive manufacturing apparatus (para. 0002; Fig. 7, apparatus 900, laser source 908, optical element 914) and teaches a gas supply system (930) configured to supply a positively pressured gas around the optical element (para. 0059; purge loop for cleaning lens 114).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Norman, as modified above, with Mamrak, by adding to the inert gas supply of Norman, with the gas supply around the optical element of Mamrak, in order to provide a flow of gas over the optical element in order to clean any contaminates thereon.
Claim 21 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 8 and is rejected under substantially the same rational.
Claim(s) 12, 13, 25, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Norman in view of Van Vaerenbergh (US20180345375) and in further view of Buller (US20190366638)
Regarding claim 12, the primary combination teaches substantially the claimed invention, as applied in claim 1, except for wherein the module includes a plurality of beam windows, and the optical element is further configured to direct a plurality of energy beams such that each energy beam of the plurality of energy beams is directed through a separate beam window in the plurality of beam windows.
Norman does teach the optical element including a galvanometer mirror (para. 0012) that scans the entirety of working layer 24 (para. 0022 and 0026). Therefore, Norman does suggest the optical element being configured to direct a plurality of beams (for instance, 48A/B would direct a plurality of beams if a plurality of beams were incident upon the galvo mirrors).
Buller relates to the field of additive manufacturing a 3D object (para. 002) (Fig.8) and teaches using a plurality of beam windows (815 and 816) the optical element (optical elements 831/833) is further configured to direct a plurality of energy beams (801, 802) such that each energy beam of the plurality of energy beams is directed through a separate beam window in the plurality of beam windows (Fig. 8.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Norman, as modified above, with Buller, by duplicating the laser beam and beam window of Norman, with the plurality of beams and windows taught by Buller for in doing so merely duplicate the number of laser beams and beam windows, which has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See MPEP 2144.04-VI-B.
Claim 25 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 12 and is rejected under substantially the same rational.
Regarding claim 13, the primary combination teaches substantially the claimed invention, as applied in claim 12, including wherein each of the plurality of beam windows is separately removable.
Van Vaerenbergh relates to the field of additive manufacturing (Abstract; layered printing of a 3D object in a process chamber via laser sintering) (Figs. 1-3; laser energy source 16, beam window 1, opening 4, process chamber 3) and teaches the beam window being removable (13 includes one or more fasteners 19 and/or removable hinge with which the laser window 1 can be detached-para. 0042).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Norman, as modified by Buller, with Van Vaerenbergh, by adding to the beam windows of modified Norman, with the removable separator of Van Vaerenbergh, in order to provide a means for easily and completely detaching the beam windows from the process chamber wall. See also MPEP 2144.04-V-C.
Claim 26 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 13 and is rejected under substantially the same rational.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN C DODSON whose telephone number is (571)270-0529. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 1:00-9:00 PM (ET).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Steven Crabb can be reached at (571)270-5095. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JUSTIN C DODSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761