DETAILED ACTION
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
Applicant’s amendment to the claims filed on October 28, 2025, has been entered. Claims 1, and 15 are currently amended. Claims 1 – 15 are pending and under examination. The amendment necessitated the new grounds of rejection.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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 – 15 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.
The term “wherein the contour approximates the target contour” in claims 1 and 15, is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “approximates” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In this case, the meets and bounds of how much the contour needs to approximate the target contour are subjective and not clear, and one of ordinary skill in the art could have come up with a degree of approximation beyond or different from Applicant’s envisioned approximation, and therefore would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claims 2 – 15 are rejected based in their dependent status from the rejected independent claim 1.
New Grounds of Rejection
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1 – 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kehrl et al. (US 2011/0097554 A1; of record), in view of Hawkins et al. (US Pat. No. 7,943,076 B1).
Regarding claim 1. Kehrl teaches a method of manufacturing an arc-shaped fiber composite component (see [0005], [0049 – 0050], FIG. 2), comprising:
forming a preform (“frame sections 36”) with a planar fiber layer arrangement (“strips of fiber pre-preg tape to form a flat ply stack 50”) formed along an arc (see [0060 – 0063] and FIGs. 14 – 17), having an outer edge (e.g., edge 51, [0067]) assigned to a convex outer side of the arc (see FIGs. 12 – 15),
wherein the outer edge (51) is provided with gaps extending into the planar fiber layer arrangement (see FIG. 6; [0051] “The outer chord 38 as well as one edge of the web 42 may include a plurality of spaced apart, mousehole-shaped stringer cutouts 53 through which the stringers 32b extend.”) in such a way that a contour of the gaps is formed in each case at least in parts close to a target contour (see “webs 42,” [0050 – 0054] and FIG. 12) of a recess (“cutouts 53,” see [0051, 0067 – 0068], FIG. 12) to be provided in the fiber composite component (see FIG. 12, [0051, 0060 – 0063]), and
reshaping (i.e., “bent” [0077 – 0078]) the preform (36) in such a way that at least a first region (i.e., the region where an “outer cord 38,” is formed, see [0078], FIG. 21) of the planar fiber layer arrangement (50), which adjoins the outer edge (51), extends essentially in the direction of the arc (see FIGs. 15 – 17 and 21), is bent or angled relative to a second region of the planar fiber layer arrangement adjoining the first region and facing away from the outer side of the arc (i.e., see the annotated copy of Kehrl FIG. 2 above),
wherein, during the formation of the formed preform, the gaps, which the preform
the method further comprising: curing the reshaped preform (Kehrl [0081], [0039] and claim 24);
Kehrl does not explicitly disclose, wherein the outer edge is formed with gaps extending into the planar fiber layer arrangement in such a way that a contour of the gaps is formed in each case at least in parts close to a target contour of a recess to be provided in the fiber composite component, at least in sections except for a projection which, after further processing of the preform in a later step, enables material-removing processing for achieving the target contour,
wherein the projection comprises material extending beyond the target contour and configured to be removed in a subsequent step to achieve the target contour,
wherein the contour approximates the target contour, and material-removing processing of the cured preform, wherein the target contour is achieved.
Kehrl, however, discloses at [0054] “Use of the polar coordinate system 35 in designing the frame sections 36 including ply layout may also permit optimizing the design of other features such as without limitation, the thickness of the inner and outer chords 38, 40 and the pad-up 44, as well as the shape and dimensions of the stringer cutouts 52” [notice that Kehrl discloses the “cutouts” as 53 throughout the disclosure, these cutouts being analogous to the claimed “gaps”]. Kehrl discloses the gaps are cut “after the flat ply stack 50 has been fully placed” [hence, a material-removing processing for achieving the target contour”], and that “The cutouts 53 may be created using any of various techniques such as, by way of example and without limitation, using an NC controlled ultrasonic cutter”, to reduce weight and/or reduce the possibility of ply wrinkling during subsequent fabrication processes (see Kehrl [0067]-[0068], FIG. 12).
In the same field of endeavor of automated fiber placement systems and methods, Hawkins et al. teaches method of manufacturing an arc-shaped fiber composite component (“curved composite structural elements”, Col. 1 lines 45-52), that can include a web ply trimming process, in which a web ply can be trimmed to remove excess composite and substrate material from the edges of the web ply e.g., by a numerically-controlled ply cutting machine to conform to the shape of a perimeter of a possibly curved web surface of a mandrel or other similar manufacturing tool (Col. 5, lines 1 – 9),
the method comprising forming a preform with a planar fiber layer arrangement (ply segments 1100 forming layup charge 1400, FIG. 14, FIG. 17, Col. 11 lines 50-57, Col. 12 lines 34-43) formed along an arc (Col. 11 lines 37-49, Col. 7 lines 55 – 67, cont. Col. 8 lines 1-3), having an outer edge (e.g., 1404) assigned to a convex outer side of the arc (FIG. 17, Col. 11 lines 37-57),
wherein the outer edge (1404) is formed with gaps (cutouts 1410) extending into the planar fiber layer arrangement (1100) in such a way that a contour (see FIG. 14, “funnel-like shape” Col. 11 lines 37-49) of the gaps (1410) is formed in each case at least in parts close to a target contour of a recess to be provided in the fiber composite component, at least in sections except for a projection (e.g., Hawkins et al. discloses a projection in the form of the material forming the funnel-like shaped outer edge of the cutouts 1410, and the extra material at opposite ends of the ply segments 1100 that enables clamping of the ply segments Col. 12 lines 11-43; e.g., said “target contour” is analogous to Hawkins’ final contour achieved by material removal, for example, Hawkins et al. discloses that “after the structural element layup has cured… the structural element layup can be trimmed, if necessary, to remove any excess material. In addition, cutouts, or "mouse holes," such as those shown in FIG. 1B, can be trimmed into the structural element.” Col. 9 lines 56-60 – analogous to the claimed “a projection which, after further processing of the preform in a later step, enables material-removing processing for achieving the target contour”, and analogous to the claimed “wherein the projection comprises material extending beyond the target contour [e.g., the material forming the funnel-like shaped outer edge of the cutouts 1410, and the clamped ends of the ply 1100] and configured to be removed in a subsequent step to achieve the target contour” [e.g., the contour achieved by the removal of excess material and the shaping of the desired cutouts, see Hawkins et al. Col. 9 lines 56-60]),
wherein the contour approximates the target contour (e.g., the contour as in FIG. 14 approximates the target contour as in FIG. 1B, before the extra material removal and the trimming of the desired cutouts as in FIG. 1B, see Col. 9 lines 56-60).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modify the preform’ outer edge in the method of Kehrl, so that the outer edge is formed with gaps (e.g., cutouts, mousehole) extending into the planar fiber layer arrangement, as suggested by the prior art of Hawkins et al. e.g., 1410), in such a way that a contour of the gaps (e.g., Hawkins et al. “funnel-like shape” see FIG. 14 Col. 11 lines 37-49) is formed in each case at least in parts close to a target contour of a recess to be provided in the fiber composite component, at least in sections except for a projection (e.g., the material forming the funnel-like shaped outer edge of the cutouts 1410, and the clamped ends of the ply 1100) which, after further processing of the preform in a later step, enables material-removing processing for achieving the target contour (e.g., the contour achieved by the removal of excess material and the shaping of the desired cutouts), as suggested by Hawkins et al. Col. 9 lines 56-60, while designing the ply layout with Kehrl’s system 35, as taught by Kehrl [0054], for the purpose of e.g., as suggested by Kehrl, “to reduce weight and/or reduce the possibility of ply wrinkling during subsequent fabrication processes” (see Kehrl [0067]-[0068], FIG. 12). See MPEP 2143 (I) (G).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modify the method of manufacturing an arc-shaped fiber composite component of Kehrl/Hawkins, wherein the projection comprises material extending beyond (e.g., Hawkins et al. material forming the funnel-like shaped outer edge of the cutouts 1410, and the clamped ends of the ply 1100) the target contour (e.g., the contour achieved by the removal of excess material and the shaping of the desired cutouts, see Hawkins et al. Col. 9 lines 56-60), and configured to be removed in a subsequent step to achieve the target contour, as suggested by Hawkins et al. Col. 9 lines 56-60, wherein the contour approximates the target contour (e.g., the contour as in FIG. 14 approximates the target contour as in FIG. 1B, before the extra material removal and the trimming of the desired cutouts as in FIG. 1B, see Hawkins et al. Col. 9 lines 56-60), and material-removing processing of the cured preform, wherein the target contour is achieved, as suggested by the prior art (e.g., Hawkins et al. discloses that the material removing process that achieves the target contour e.g., final product with excess material removed and desired cutout shape done, is performed “after the structural element layup has cured” Col. 9 lines 56-60), since "The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). See MPEP § 2141 (I).
Regarding claim 2. Kehrl/Hawkins teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the gaps extend through the first region of the planar fiber layer arrangement and further extend in sections into the second region of the planar fiber layer arrangement (see the above annotated Kehrl’s FIG. 2).
Regarding claim 3. Kehrl/Hawkins teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the gaps are arranged along the arc (see Kehrl’s FIG. 2), except for specifically disclosing, in at least regionally irregular intervals.
Nonetheless, Kehrl discloses that “the cutouts 53 provide openings through which the stringers 32b extend (FIG. 1). However, in other applications it may be desirable to provide similar cutouts 53 to reduce weight and/or reduce the possibility of ply wrinkling during subsequent fabrication processes.” [0068].
Therefore, arranging the gaps along the arc “in at least regionally irregular intervals” would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effectively filing the claimed invention, since it has been held that a mere change in shape of an element is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in art when the change in shape is not significant to the function of the combination. See MPEP § 2144.04 (IV) (B):
“It has been held that a mere change in shape without affecting the functioning of the part would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47; Eskimo Pie Corp. v, Levous et aI., 3 USPQ 23.”
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify Kehrl/Hawkins method such that the gaps are arranged in at least regionally irregular intervals for the purpose of e.g., provide the gaps in regions where high ply wrinkling may occur during the manufacturing process, such as isolated curves which might formed irregularly in an arc-shaped fiber composite component, as taught by Kehrl [0068].
PNG
media_image1.png
528
1074
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4. Kehrl/Hawkins teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the recess (i.e., cutouts, mousehole, as taught by Kehrl and Hawkins) in the fiber composite component according to the target contour thereof each has a rounded-out base (see Kehrl’s annotated FIG. 2 below).
Regarding claim 5. Kehrl/Hawkins teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the outer edge (Kehrl 51, e.g., Hawkins 1100c) is additionally formed with at least one rear offset (Kehrl “outer cord 38,” is formed, see [0083] “Each of the ply segments 188 extends radially beyond the inner and outer chords 38, respectively, to form extensions 200 that are later trimmed so that the full ply 201 formed by the ply segments 188 substantially matches the contour of the structure 36 (FIG. 2).”; FIG. 20 – 22) extending into the planar fiber layer arrangement (50) and ending before reaching the second region (see the above annotated FIG. 2).
Regarding claim 6. Kehrl/Hawkins teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein during forming the preform (Kehrl 36, Hawkins 1100), the planar fiber layer arrangement is formed on a layup surface having an area with a succession of depressions and/or elevations relative to a base area of the layup surface following one another in the direction of the arc (e.g., see Hawkins FIG. 24 and Col. 13 lines 34-53), wherein the planar fiber layer arrangement is formed with an inner edge assigned to a concave inner side of the arc (e.g., see Kehrl FIG. 15, inner chord 40), and a third region (e.g., Hawkins 2410) of the planar fiber layer arrangement, which extends adjacent to the inner edge substantially in the direction of the arc (see FIG. 24), is formed at least partially on the region of the layup surface provided with the depressions and/or elevations (see Hawkins FIG. 24 and Col. 13 lines 34-53).
Regarding claim 7. Kehrl/Hawkins teaches the method according to claim 1, except for explicitly disclosing, wherein the first region and the second region of the planar fiber layer arrangement of the preform are formed prior to the forming of the preform on a substantially planar or only slightly curved surface part, compared to the region of the layup surface provided with the depressions and/or elevations.
However, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to rearrange the order of forming the first, second, and/or third regions, and the rearrangement would have successfully and predictably yielded nothing more than an arc-shaped fiber composite component comprising first, second, and third regions and a region of the layup surface Ex parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 440 (Bd. Pat. App. 1959); In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946); In re Gibson, 39 F.2d 975, 5 USPQ 230 (CCPA 1930)). See MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(C).
Regarding claim 8. Kehrl/Hawkins teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the fiber composite component (Kehrl’s 36, e.g., Hawkins ply segments 1100 forming layup charge 1400) is formed in a profiled shape with an outer flange (Kehrl’s 38), an inner flange (Kehrl’s 40) and a web (i.e., web 42, [0050 – 0053]; see Kehrl at [0082] “various other contoured structures are possible in which one or more legs extend outwardly from a structural feature such as a web”) connected to the outer flange (Kehrl’s 38) and the inner flange (Kehrl’s 40) between the outer flange (see Kehrl’s FIG. 2) and the inner flange (Kehrl’s 40), wherein the outer flange is formed with the first area of the planar fiber layer arrangement (Kehrl’s 50), the web (Kehrl’s 42) is formed with the second area of the planar fiber layer arrangement (Kehrl’s 50), and the inner flange is formed with the third area of the planar fiber layer arrangement (see the above annotated Kehrl’s FIG. 2).
Regarding claim 9. Kehrl/Hawkins teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the planar fiber layer arrangement (Kehrl 50, Hawkins 1100) is formed by automated laying down of fiber tapes (Kehrl’s [0060] “Referring now to FIGS. 5-7, an AFP machine 58 may be used as an end effecter on a robot 60 to laydown fiber tows or strips of fiber pre-preg tape to form a flat ply stack 50.”; e.g., see Hawkins Col. 7 lines 55 – 67, cont. Col. 8 lines 1-3 “The process starts in step 902 where an advanced fiber placement (AFP) machine lays contiguously adjoined strips of a composite material.”).
Regarding claim 10. Kehrl/Hawkins teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the fiber layer arrangement is formed with reinforcing fibers pre-impregnated with a matrix material. (Kehrl’s [0076] “During the tension controlled hot drape forming process, the fibers can slide within a ply as a result of the viscosity of the matrix resin decreasing due to heating.”).
Regarding claim 11. Kehrl/Hawkins teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein, the forming and/or reshaping of the preform and/or the further processing thereof are carried out in such a way that the, cured, workpiece which emerges from the reshaped preform has, before material-removing processing thereof, a geometry which deviates in a targeted manner (e.g., Hawkins FIG. 14, see the discussion of claim 1 above) from the target geometry of the fiber composite component in such a way that the geometry of the workpiece after the material-removing processing corresponds to the target geometry ([e.g., the contour achieved by the removal of excess material and the shaping of the desired cutouts, see Hawkins et al. Col. 9 lines 56-60); and/or
wherein the forming of preform takes place on a layup surface, the reshaping of the preform takes place by a shaping tool and a further processing of the shaped, cured, preform takes place by a further processing tool, wherein a shaping of the layup surface and/or of a base surface thereof and/or of the shaping tool and/or of the further processing tool deviates specifically from the target geometry of the fiber composite component to take into account shape deviations during further processing and shape deviations during material-removing processing, such that the finished fiber composite component corresponds to the target geometry (e.g., Hawkins et al. Col. 12 lines 11-43; e.g., said “target geometry” is analogous to Hawkins’ final contour achieved by material removal, for example, Hawkins et al. discloses that “after the structural element layup has cured… the structural element layup can be trimmed, if necessary, to remove any excess material. In addition, cutouts, or "mouse holes," such as those shown in FIG. 1B, can be trimmed into the structural element.” Col. 9 lines 56-60 see the discussion of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 12. Kehrl/Hawkins teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the fiber composite component is formed as a frame or a section of a frame for an aircraft or spacecraft (Kehrl [0092] “Embodiments of the disclosure may find use in a variety of potential applications, particularly in the transportation industry, including for example, aerospace, marine and automotive applications. Thus, referring now to FIGS. 25 and 26, embodiments of the disclosure may be used in the context of an aircraft manufacturing and service method 200 as shown in FIG. 25 and an aircraft 202 as shown in FIG. 26. Aircraft applications of the disclosed embodiments may include, for example, without limitation, composite stiffened members such as fuselage skins, wing skins, control surfaces, hatches, floor panels, door panels, access panels and empennages, to name a few.”; see Hawkins Col. 14 lines 55-67, Col. 15 lines 1-23).
Regarding claim 13. Kehrl/Hawkins teaches the method
Regarding claim 14. Kehrl/Hawkins teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein at least one or more or all of the recesses in the fiber composite component is/are formed with a mousehole-like shape (Kehrl’s [0051] “The outer chord 38 as well as one edge of the web 42 may include a plurality of spaced apart, mousehole-shaped cutouts 53 through which the stringers 32b extend.”; Hawkins Col. 9 lines 56-60).
Regarding claim 15. The Examiner notes that the preamble “A preform for the manufacture of an arc-shaped fiber composite component by a process according to claim 1” relates to a product-by-process limitation. For purposes of examination, the product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulation of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. As provided in the MPEP, "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
In this case, the final product shape (the preform) in the prior art of Kehrl/Hawkins is virtually structurally identical to the claimed preform. Furthermore, Kehrl/Hawkins teaches a preform (36) for the manufacture of an arc-shaped fiber composite component by a process according to claim 1, with forming of the preform (36), with a planar fiber layer arrangement (50) formed along an arc with an outer edge assigned to a convex outer side of the arc (see the above discussion of claim 1 and FIG. 2), which is formed with gaps (see the above annotated FIG. 2) extending into the planar fiber layer arrangement (50), a contour of the gaps (53) in each case being close, at least in sections, to a target contour of a fiber composite componentleast in sections as far as a projection which, after further processing of the preform in a later step, enables material-removing processing for reaching the target contour wherein the contour approximates the target contour; and wherein the preform is configured such that after a curing of the reshaped preform, and a material-removing processing of the cured preform, the final geometry of target contour is achievable. (see the above discussion of claim 1 and annotated Kehrl’s FIG. 2 above, Kehrl [0050 – 0052]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-15 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.
Applicant’s arguments are based on newly amended limitations which have been addressed by the new grounds of rejection above.
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 EDGAREDMANUEL TROCHE whose telephone number is (571)272-9766. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:30.
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, Sam Zhao can be reached at 571-270-5343. 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.
/EDGAREDMANUEL TROCHE/Examiner, Art Unit 1744
/JEFFREY M WOLLSCHLAGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742