DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on April 30, 2025 has been entered.
Claims 1-4, 6, 7, 9-11, 17 and 22 are currently amended. Claims 8 and 19-21 are canceled. Claims 23-25 are newly added. Claims 1-4, 6, 7, 9-18 and 22-25 are pending review in this action. The previous objections to the claims are withdrawn in light of Applicant’s corresponding amendments.
New grounds of rejection necessitated by Applicant’s amendments are presented below.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 includes the limitation: “the amorphous phase is in a form of a mesh pattern” (lines 6-7).
Subsequently, multiple claims refer to “the mesh-patterned amorphous phase”.
For the purposes of examination the limitation “the mesh-patterned amorphous phase” is understood to refer to the limitation “the amorphous phase is in a form of a mesh pattern”.
Claim Objections
Claim 25 is objected to because of the following informalities. Line 2 of the claim recites the limitation “the compound of formula 1”.
The word “formula” should be capitalized to maintain consistency with usage elsewhere in the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claim 9 is 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c).
In the present instance, claim 9 recites multiple general formulas as well as specific compounds represented by the general formulas. Examples are provided below:
Claim 9 recites the broad recitation “a garnet ceramic of the formula Li3+xLa3M2O12 wherein 0 ≤ x ≤ 5, and M is tellurium, niobium, or zirconium”, and the claim also recites “Li7La3Zr2O12”, which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
Claim 9 further recites the broad recitation “LixGeyPzSw wherein 0 < x < 4, 0 < y < 1, 0 < z < 1, and 0 < w < 5”, and the claim also recites “Li3.25Ge0.25P0.75S4”, which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
Claim 9 further recites the broad recitation “Li1+yAlyTi2-y(PO4)3 wherein 0 ≤ y ≤ 1”, and the claim also recites “Li1.3Al0.3Ti1.7(PO4)3” and “LiT27(PO4)3”, which are the narrower statements of the range/limitation.
Claim 9 further recites the broad recitation “Li1+zAlzGe2-z(PO4)3 wherein 0 ≤ z ≤ 1”, and the claim also recites “LiGe2(PO4)3”, which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Applicant is invited to review the claim and resolve all instances of broad and narrow limitations recited within the same claim.
Claim 11 is 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.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “a total content of the dopant” on line 3.
Previously, the claim defines multiple dopants.
The phrasing creates ambiguity as to the intended dopant.
Applicant may wish to amend the limitation to read: “a total dopant content”.
Claim 24 is 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.
Claim 24 recites the limitation “a total content of the dopant” on line 3.
Previously, the claim defines multiple dopants.
The phrasing creates ambiguity as to the intended dopant.
Applicant may wish to amend the limitation to read: “a total dopant content”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 9 and 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2015/0010804, hereinafter Laramie in view of U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2016/0079634, hereinafter Onodera.
Regarding claim 1, Laramie teaches a multi-layer protective structure, which is formed of solid electrolyte.
The multi-layer protective structure includes a lithium ion conductive layer (e.g. 20A-20D) (paragraph [0034]). The material of the inorganic lithium ion conductive layer may be lithium nitride (paragraphs [0038, 0113]).
A second layer (e.g. 5A-5D) positioned on the lithium ion conductive layer includes an array of cavities within a matrix (paragraph [0034]). The matrix is formed of an inorganic lithium ion conductive material, which is a glass – an amorphous material (paragraph [0112]). The cavities are filled with a polymer. The matrix is in the form of a mesh (paragraph [0038] and figures 8A-10B). Given that the matrix is in the mesh shape, it is only deposited on a portion of the underlying lithium ion conductive layer.
The entirety of the multi-layer protective structure is conductive to lithium ions and all layers include inorganic lithium ion conductive material (paragraph [0040]).
Laramie teaches that there may be multiple layers (paragraph [0070]). In an arrangement with six layers of equal size, the five bottom layers could be considered the “inorganic lithium ion conductive layer” and the sixth top layer would be the mesh-patterned layer. In such an arrangement the ratio of thicknesses of the inorganic lithium ion conductive layer to the mesh-patterned layer would be 1:0.2.
Each layer may have a thickness in the range 10 nm to 1000 nm (paragraph [0080]).
The multi-layer protective structure is applied to an electrode to protect the electrode (paragraph [0025]).
Laramie fails to report on the surface area of the mesh pattern.
Electrodes with an area of 1 cm2 for a solid electrolyte battery are known in the art – see, e.g. Onodera (paragraphs [0064, 0065]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form Laramie’s multi-layer protective structure at a customary size such as an area of 1 cm2 without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success.
Within the range of thicknesses taught by Laramie are multiple possibilities that would result in the claimed surface area. For example, a mesh-patterned layer with a thickness of 50 nm and an area of 1 cm2 would have a volume of 5 x 10-6 cm3 and therefore a surface area of 2 x 105 cm2/cm3.
Regarding claim 2, Laramie teaches that the mesh-patterned layer may have a thickness in the range 10 nm to 1000 nm (paragraph [0080]).
The optimum range for the thickness of the mesh-patterned layer overlaps the instant application's optimum range of 50 nm to 300 nm. It has been held that in the case where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 6, Laramie teaches a mesh-patterned layer.
A solid electrolyte could be constructed of the same materials as Laramie’s solid electrolyte, but without the mesh-patterned layer such that it has a surface area of 200-500 percent smaller – at least, by making the electrolyte to have a smaller area.
Regarding claim 7, Laramie teaches a mesh pattern that is a grid of perpendicular and parallel lines. The lines are formed of inorganic material and the spaces between them are cavities filled with polymer.
Laramie teaches that the cavities have a width of less than 10 µm (paragraph [0074]).
Laramie further teaches that the average width of the inorganic material portions (the lines) is 1 to 100 times the average width of the polymer portions (the cavities) (paragraph [0045]).
Therefore within Laramie’s teaching are cavities with a width of 5 µm and lines with a width of 10 µm.
The optimum range for the width of the lines overlaps the instant application's optimum range of 10 µm to 30 µm. It has been held that in the case where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 9, Laramie teaches Li3N (paragraph [0038]).
Regarding claim 13, Laramie teaches that the multi-layer protective structure (“solid electrolyte”) is liquid-impermeable and non-porous (paragraph [0035]).
Regarding claim 14, Laramie teaches that the thickness of the multi-layer protective structure (“solid electrolyte”) is 2 µm to 200 µm (paragraph [0035]).
Regarding claim 15, Laramie teaches a lithium battery comprising an anode, a cathode and the multi-layer protective structure (“solid electrolyte”) positioned between the anode and the cathode (paragraphs [0134-0136, 0139]).
Regarding claim 16, Laramie teaches that the second layer (e.g. 5A) is positioned adjacent the anode (30) (paragraph [0036] and figure 3).
Regarding claim 17, Laramie teaches that the second layer (e.g. 5A) is positioned adjacent the anode (30) (paragraph [0036] and figure 3). The anode comprises lithium metal or a lithium alloy (paragraph [0135]).
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2015/0010804, hereinafter Laramie and U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2016/0079634, hereinafter Onodera as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2016/0248118, hereinafter Chan.
Regarding claim 10, Laramie teaches a ceramic lithium ion conductive layer (e.g. 20A-20D) (paragraphs [0034, 0113]).
Laramie fails to teach that the lithium ion conductive layer includes a compound satisfying the instantly claimed formulas.
LLZO (Li7La3Zr2O12) is a well-known and widely used ceramic electrolyte – see, e.g. Chan (paragraph [0035] and claim 12).
This compound satisfies both instantly claimed formulas with x = 0, a = 0 and b = 0.
Therefore it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the well-known ceramic electrolyte LLZO without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 11, Laramie as modified by Chan teaches the ceramic electrolyte LLZO as the material of the lithium ion conductive layer.
The dopant in the second layer would be present at 0 mole %.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2015/0010804, hereinafter Laramie, U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2016/0079634, hereinafter Onodera and U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2016/0248118, hereinafter Chan as applied to claim 10 above and further in view of J. Korean Ceram. Soc, vol. 54, pp 278-284, hereinafter Yoon.
Regarding claim 12, Laramie as modified by Chan teaches that the LLZO may include the dopant Al, Nb, W or Ta (Chan’s paragraph [0047]).
Laramie as modified by Chan teaches that the dopant content is to be tuned to optimize the performance of the electrolyte.
Laramie as modified by Chan does not disclose one of the claimed formulas.
Yoon teaches the solid electrolyte Li7La3Zr1.5Ta0.5O12 (abstract, conclusion).
Therefore, it would have been within the purview of the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select Yoon’s compound as the doped LLZO without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2015/0010804, hereinafter Laramie and U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2016/0079634, hereinafter Onodera as applied to claim 17 above and further in view of U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2017/0338522, hereinafter Hu.
Regarding claim 18, Laramie teaches that the anode comprises lithium metal (paragraph [0135]).
Laramie fails to report the interfacial resistance between the lithium metal electrode and the multi-layer protective structure (“solid electrolyte”).
Hu teaches including an interlayer between a lithium metal electrode and solid state electrolytes (paragraph [0035]). The purpose of the interlayer is to reduce the interfacial impedance between the electrode and the electrolyte (paragraph [0032]). Hu teaches that the presence of the interlayer allows for an interfacial impedance between the lithium metal electrode and the solid electrolyte of less than 500 Ω·cm2 (Hu’s paragraph [0070]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include an interlayer between the lithium metal electrode and the solid electrolyte in Benson’s battery for the purpose of reducing the interfacial impedance between them and to improve the performance of the battery.
Claims 23 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2015/0010804, hereinafter Laramie in view of U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2016/0248118, hereinafter Chan.
Regarding claim 23, Laramie teaches a multi-layer protective structure, which is formed of solid electrolyte.
The multi-layer protective structure includes a ceramic lithium ion conductive layer (e.g. 20A-20D) (paragraphs [0034, 0113]).
A second layer (e.g. 10A-10D) positioned on the lithium ion conductive layer includes an array of cavities within a matrix (paragraphs [0033, 0034]). The matrix is formed of an inorganic lithium ion conductive material, which is a glass – an amorphous material (paragraph [0112]). The cavities are filled with a polymer. The matrix is in the form of a mesh – a regular line pattern (paragraph [0038] and figures 8A-10B). Given that the matrix is in the mesh shape, it is only deposited on a portion of the underlying lithium ion conductive layer.
Laramie fails to teach that the lithium ion conductive layer includes a compound satisfying the instantly claimed formulas.
LLZO (Li7La3Zr2O12) is a well-known and widely used ceramic electrolyte – see, e.g. Chan (paragraph [0035] and claim 12).
This compound satisfies both instantly claimed formulas with x = 0, a = 0 and b = 0.
Therefore it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the well-known ceramic electrolyte LLZO without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 24, Laramie as modified by Chan teaches the ceramic electrolyte LLZO as the material of the lithium ion conductive layer.
The dopant in the second layer would be present at 0 mole %.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2015/0010804, hereinafter Laramie in view of U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2016/0248118, hereinafter Chan as applied to claim 23 above and further in view of J. Korean Ceram. Soc, vol. 54, pp 278-284, hereinafter Yoon.
Regarding claim 25, Laramie as modified by Chan teaches that the LLZO may include the dopant Al, Nb, W or Ta (Chan’s paragraph [0047]).
Laramie as modified by Chan teaches that the dopant content is to be tuned to optimize the performance of the electrolyte.
Laramie as modified by Chan does not disclose one of the claimed formulas.
Yoon teaches the solid electrolyte Li7La3Zr1.5Ta0.5O12 (abstract, conclusion).
Therefore, it would have been within the purview of the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select Yoon’s compound as the doped LLZO without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 23 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2004/0023106, hereinafter Benson in view of U.S. Patent No. 7,682,733, hereinafter Eisenbeiser and U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2016/0248118, hereinafter Chan.
Regarding claim 23, Benson teaches a multi-layer solid electrolyte. The multi-layer solid electrolyte includes multiple amorphous layers and multiple interlayers (paragraphs [0044, 0084]).
In an example shown in figure 10, Benson teaches an uppermost amorphous film (370) (paragraph [0080]). This is considered the instantly claimed “amorphous phase”. It is formed on a portion, and not all, of a surface of the lithium ion inorganic conductive layer (see Figure 1 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
363
1025
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Figure 1 - Benson's assembly (second interpretation).)]
The “lithium ion inorganic conductive layer” includes layers (330 and 350) and interlayer (340). Benson teaches that the interlayer may include a ceramic electrolyte (claim 9).
Benson fails to teach that: 1) the amorphous phase is in a form of a regular or irregular line pattern; and 2) that the “lithium ion inorganic conductive layer” comprises a compound satisfying one of the recited formulas.
Regarding 1), Eisenbreiser teaches a thin-film solid state battery formed of materials analogous to Benson’s (col. 3, lines 10-12, 36-37, 40-42, 61-62). Eisenbreiser teaches forming all of the layers of the battery to have a grooved shape (figure 3). This shape results in parallel lines on all the layers. The purpose of the grooved shape is to increase the surface area of the layers and thus the capacity of the battery (col. 2, lines 63-66).
Therefore it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form Benson’s layers in a grooved shape and thus have parallel lines on all the layers for the purpose of increasing the capacity of the battery.
Regarding 2), Chan teaches the ceramic electrolyte LLZO - Li7La3Zr2O12 (paragraph [0035] and claim 12).
This compound satisfies both instantly claimed formulas with x = 0, a = 0 and b = 0.
Therefore it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select LLZO as the ceramic electrolyte without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 24, Benson as modified by Chan teaches that the LLZO may include the dopant Al, Nb, W or Ta (Chan’s paragraph [0047]).
The LLZO would be present in the interlayer of Benson’s electrolyte, therefore a total content of the dopant in the amorphous film (370) would be present at 0 mole %.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2004/0023106, hereinafter Benson in view of U.S. Patent No. 7,682,733, hereinafter Eisenbeiser and U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2016/0248118, hereinafter Chan as applied to claim 23 above and further in view of J. Korean Ceram. Soc, vol. 54, pp 278-284, hereinafter Yoon.
Regarding claim 25, Benson as modified by Chan teaches that the LLZO may include the dopant Al, Nb, W or Ta (Chan’s paragraph [0047]).
Benson as modified by Chan teaches that the dopant content is to be tuned to optimize the performance of the electrolyte.
Benson as modified by Chan does not disclose one of the claimed formulas.
Yoon teaches the solid electrolyte Li7La3Zr1.5Ta0.5O12 (abstract, conclusion).
Therefore, it would have been within the purview of the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select Yoon’s compound as the doped LLZO without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-4, 6, 7, 9-18 and 22-24 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-42 of U.S. Patent No. 12,476,277 in view of U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2004/0023106, hereinafter Benson, U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2017/0149093, hereinafter Sun.
Benson teaches the claimed ratio of thicknesses. It would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist to implement the ratio of thicknesses for the purpose of forming a robust multi-layer solid electrolyte as taught by Benson.
Sun teaches a typical area of a solid electrolyte. It would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist to form the solid electrolyte with the size taught by Sun. Combined with the layer thicknesses taught by Benson, the resulting surface area would satisfy the claimed range.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s newly added limitations have been considered. However, after further search and consideration, the combination of the Laramie and Onodera references and the combination of the Benson, Eisenbeiser and Chan references have been provided, as recited above, to address the amended claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LILIA V NEDIALKOVA whose telephone number is (571)270-1538. The examiner can normally be reached 8.30 - 5.00 PM.
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, Miriam Stagg can be reached at 571-270-5256. 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.
LILIA V. NEDIALKOVA
Examiner
Art Unit 1724
/MIRIAM STAGG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1724