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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 3/28/23 and 2/19/25 have been considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of claims 1-10 in the reply filed on 9/30/25 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the common technical feature is a special technical feature and not found in the art. This is not found persuasive because claim 1 is rejected over the art of record, as detailed below.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 11-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 9/30/25.
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 quench chamber comprises a tank for condensed water 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.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "an apparatus for water spray quenching comprising a quenching chamber … and at least one atomizer … wherein the at least one atomizer and the apparatus are designed and set up …". The limitation “the at least one atomizer and the apparatus” is unclear because the apparatus includes the atomizer. Accordingly, it is unclear if only the atomizer is designed and set up to operate at the claimed limitations, or if any other part of the apparatus can meet the claimed limitations. Claims 2-10 are rejected due to their dependence on rejected claim 1.
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 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.
Language from the reference(s) is shown in quotations. Limitations from the claims are shown in quotations within parentheses. Examiner explanations are shown in italics.
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.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hummel et al. (DE 102017001210 A1), as machine translated, previously cited.
Regarding claim 1, Hummel teaches “a device and two methods for quenching cooling of metal components” (which reads on “an apparatus for water spray quenching comprising”; paragraph [0001]). Hummel teaches “a cooling chamber for accommodating at least one (metal) component to be cooled,” (which reads on “a quenching chamber which has been designed and set up to accommodate metallic workpieces and has a charge volume (Vo) of 0.045 to 3.5 m3”; paragraph [0006]). A change in size (dimension) is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and the device having the claimed dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device, See MPEP § 2144.04 IV A. Hummel teaches “a plurality of nozzles arranged in the cooling chamber for the direct flow of a cooling medium onto the component to be cooled” (which reads on “at least one atomizer [which] is fluidically connected to the quenching chamber”; paragraph [0006]). Hummel teaches that “the cooling medium can be water, air or Compressed air, gas or even a water-air mixture (water mist) can be used” (which reads on “water spray quenching, which is configured for the atomization of water in air or nitrogen”; paragraph [0010]).
Hummel is silent regarding wherein the at least one atomizer and the apparatus are designed and set up to generate a spray mist having a water content of 2.5 % to 40 % by volume. Hummel teaches that “the nozzles can be designed as single-component nozzles or as multi-component nozzles, in particular as dual-component nozzles (e.g. for applying a water-air mixture)” (paragraph [0013]). Hummel teaches that “multi-component nozzles also allow the cooling medium to be changed during cooling (e.g. first air, then water or a water-air mixture)” (paragraph [0013]). Accordingly, the multi-component nozzles of Hummel are designed and set up to generate a spray ranging from pure air to pure water including a water-air mixture of any desired water content, and thus read on the instant limitation. The actual water content applied may be varied during cooling (paragraph [0013]). Accordingly, the actual water content applied is a function of the manner of operating the apparatus. Regarding limitations which are directed to a manner of operating disclosed apparatus, it is noted that neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. Further, it has been held that process limitations do not have patentable weight in an apparatus claim. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.”
Hummel is silent regarding a Sauter diameter of 20 to 2000 µm. Hummel is silent regarding a spray mist flow through the charge volume Vo of 0.05 to 25 m3/s or to recirculate the spray mist in the charge volume Vo at a spray mist volume flow rate of 0.05 to 25 m3/s. Hummel teaches that “cooling medium volume flows are applied, which can differ both in their flow directions determined by the nozzle orientation and in the flow rates, pressures and/or flow velocities in order to achieve an optimal flow to the component to be cooled, especially in the case of complex component shapes” (paragraph [0009]). The Sauter diameter, more commonly, Sauter mean diameter (SMD), is a property of the mist, not the apparatus. The spray mist volume flow rate is a property of the mist, not the apparatus. The spray mist is considered contents of the apparatus or material worked upon. The size and volume of the mist is dependent on the flow rates, pressures and/or flow velocities, in other words, the manner of operating the apparatus. Regarding limitations which are directed to a manner of operating disclosed apparatus, it is noted that neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. Further, it has been held that process limitations do not have patentable weight in an apparatus claim. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.”
Regarding claim 2, modified Hummel teaches the apparatus of claim 1 as stated above. Hummel teaches that “cooling medium volume flows are applied, which can differ both in their flow directions determined by the nozzle orientation and in the flow rates, pressures and/or flow velocities in order to achieve an optimal flow to the component to be cooled, especially in the case of complex component shapes” (paragraph [0009]). The spray mist throughput is a property of the mist, not the apparatus. The spray mist is considered contents of the apparatus or material worked upon. The volume of the mist is dependent on the flow rates, pressures and/or flow velocities, in other words, the manner of operating the apparatus. Regarding limitations which are directed to a manner of operating disclosed apparatus, it is noted that neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. Further, it has been held that process limitations do not have patentable weight in an apparatus claim. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.”
Regarding claim 3, modified Hummel teaches the apparatus of claim 1 as stated above. Hummel teaches that “the nozzles 120 each have a nozzle head 121 and a valve 122” (paragraph [0023]). Hummel Fig. 1 shows that each head 121 has at least 3 nozzles. Hummel teaches that “the nozzles 120 arranged on a carrier 130 form a nozzle array, i.e., the device 100 has two nozzle arrays ” (paragraph [0024]). Hummel teaches that “a nozzle array has 10 x 10 nozzles” (paragraph [0024]).
Regarding claim 4, modified Hummel teaches the apparatus of claim 1 as stated above. Hummel teaches that “the component 200 is accommodated in a frame not shown” which reads upon “one or two receptacles”, as recited in the instant claim; (paragraph [0024]). Hummel teaches that “the supports 130 are horizontally movable or displaceable and can be moved towards the component 200, as shown in the figure, as illustrated by the two double arrows B” (paragraph [0024]). Hummel teaches that “during the quench cooling shown, the nozzles 120 are distributed around the component 200 to be cooled and positioned close to the contour” (paragraph [0025]; nozzles are repositionable). Hummel Fig. 1 shows outlets of the atomizer nozzles of the first atomizer disposed in a first horizontal plane, outlets of the atomizer nozzles of the second atomizer disposed in a second horizontal plane, and the receptacle disposed in vertical direction between the first and second horizontal planes
Regarding claim 5, modified Hummel teaches the apparatus of claim 1 as stated above. Hummel teaches “for example with a grid dimension of 50 mm x 50 mm” (paragraph [0024]). A change in size (dimension) is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and the device having the claimed dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device, See MPEP § 2144.04 IV A.
Regarding claim 6, modified Hummel teaches the apparatus of claim 5 as stated above. Hummel teaches that “cooling medium volume flows are applied, which can differ both in their flow directions determined by the nozzle orientation and in the flow rates, pressures and/or flow velocities in order to achieve an optimal flow to the component to be cooled, especially in the case of complex component shapes” (paragraph [0009]). The vertical component of the spray mist flow rate is a property of the mist, not the apparatus. The spray mist is considered contents of the apparatus or material worked upon. The vertical component of the spray mist flow rate of the mist is dependent on the flow rates, pressures and/or flow velocities, in other words, the manner of operating the apparatus. Regarding limitations which are directed to a manner of operating disclosed apparatus, it is noted that neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. Further, it has been held that process limitations do not have patentable weight in an apparatus claim. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.”
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hummel et al. (DE 102017001210 A1), as machine translated, previously cited, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Grobler et al. (US 20120247627 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Hummel teaches the apparatus of claim 1 as stated above. Hummel teaches that “cooling medium volume flows are applied, which can differ both in their flow directions determined by the nozzle orientation and in the flow rates, pressures and/or flow velocities in order to achieve an optimal flow to the component to be cooled, especially in the case of complex component shapes” (paragraph [0009]).
Hummel is silent regarding a ventilator or fan and at least one recirculator which is fluidically connected to the quench chamber and has a recirculation drive.
Grobler is similarly concerned with a method for quenching heat treated metallic work pieces and to an apparatus for carrying out the method (paragraph [0003]). Grobler teaches “spraying the liquid quenchant in a preselected direction in the pressure vessel” (paragraph [0017]). Grobler teaches that the “quenching chamber preferably includes a recirculation fan 13 which operates to circulate the quenching gas” (which reads upon “one or more ventilators or fans”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0042]). Grobler teaches that “a heat exchanger (not shown) is also included for extracting heat from the quenching gas as it is recirculated through the heat exchanger” (paragraph [0042]). Grobler teaches that “the recirculation fan preferably continues to run so that the quenching gas is recirculated through the heat exchanger to remove additional heat from the load” (paragraph [0054]). Grobler teaches that “depending on the geometry of the load of metal parts, it may be advantageous to spray the liquid quenchant in a particular direction to maximize penetration of the gas/mist mixture into the work load, and that when such directional spraying is used, it may also be preferable to circulate the gas/mist mixture in a direction selected to further enhance contact of the cooling gas and mist with the metal parts” (paragraph [0055]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Hummel to include a fan to recirculate the mist through a heat exchanger, as taught by Grobler so that the quenching gas is recirculated through the heat exchanger to remove additional heat from the load and to further enhance contact of the cooling gas and mist with the metal parts.
The spray mist volume flow rate is a property of the mist, not the apparatus. The spray mist is considered contents of the apparatus or material worked upon. The spray mist volume flow rate of the mist is dependent on the flow rates, pressures and/or flow velocities, in other words, the manner of operating the apparatus. Regarding limitations which are directed to a manner of operating disclosed apparatus, it is noted that neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. Further, it has been held that process limitations do not have patentable weight in an apparatus claim. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.”
Regarding claim 8, Hummel teaches the apparatus of claim 1 as stated above. Hummel teaches that “cooling medium volume flows are applied, which can differ both in their flow directions determined by the nozzle orientation and in the flow rates, pressures and/or flow velocities in order to achieve an optimal flow to the component to be cooled, especially in the case of complex component shapes” (paragraph [0009]).
Hummel is silent regarding at least one recirculator which is fluidically connected to the quench chamber and has a recirculation drive.
Grobler is similarly concerned with a method for quenching heat treated metallic work pieces and to an apparatus for carrying out the method (paragraph [0003]). Grobler teaches “spraying the liquid quenchant in a preselected direction in the pressure vessel” (paragraph [0017]). Grobler teaches that the “quenching chamber preferably includes a recirculation fan 13 which operates to circulate the quenching gas” (paragraph [0042]). Grobler teaches that “a heat exchanger (not shown) is also included for extracting heat from the quenching gas as it is recirculated through the heat exchanger” (which reads upon “at least one recirculator which is fluidically connected to the quench chamber”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0042]). Grobler teaches that “the recirculation fan preferably continues to run so that the quenching gas is recirculated through the heat exchanger to remove additional heat from the load” (which reads upon “a recirculation drive”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0054]). Grobler teaches that “depending on the geometry of the load of metal parts, it may be advantageous to spray the liquid quenchant in a particular direction to maximize penetration of the gas/mist mixture into the work load, and that when such directional spraying is used, it may also be preferable to circulate the gas/mist mixture in a direction selected to further enhance contact of the cooling gas and mist with the metal parts” (paragraph [0055]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Hummel to include a fan to recirculate the mist through a heat exchanger, as taught by Grobler so that the quenching gas is recirculated through the heat exchanger to remove additional heat from the load and to further enhance contact of the cooling gas and mist with the metal parts.
The spray mist volume flow rate is a property of the mist, not the apparatus. The spray mist is considered contents of the apparatus or material worked upon. The spray mist volume flow rate of the mist is dependent on the flow rates, pressures and/or flow velocities, in other words, the manner of operating the apparatus. Regarding limitations which are directed to a manner of operating disclosed apparatus, it is noted that neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. Further, it has been held that process limitations do not have patentable weight in an apparatus claim. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.”
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hummel et al. (DE 102017001210 A1), as machine translated, previously cited, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Crafton (US 20160083813 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Hummel teaches the apparatus of claim 1 as stated above. Hummel teaches that “the component 200 is accommodated in a frame not shown” which reads upon “disposed on a charge carrier when the charge carrier is being held in a charge carrier receptacle of the apparatus”, as recited in the instant claim; (paragraph [0024]). Hummel teaches that “each of the valves 122 can be controlled individually, for example by a control device” (paragraph [0026]).
Hummel is silent regarding an electronic controller and at least one infrared sensor, the at least one infrared sensor is designed and set up to measure the temperature of workpieces, and an electrical output from the at least one infrared sensor is connected to an electrical input of the electronic controller.
Crafton is similarly concerned with a quench system for cooling a hot casting through a quenching cycle (paragraph [0003]). Crafton teaches that “the quench system generally includes an enclosure that defines a quench chamber that is sized and shaped to receive one or more castings in a heated state” (paragraph [0003]). Crafton teaches that “the system further includes a programmable controller” (which reads upon “an electronic controller”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0003]). Crafton teaches a “temperature sensing system 60 that can measure and monitor the surface temperature of the casting 80 through the use of one or more temperature sensors” (paragraph [0027]). Crafton teaches that “the temperature sensors 62 can remotely measure the surface temperature of the casting 80 at one or more locations without contacting the surface, such as with an infrared sensor” (which reads upon “at least one infrared sensor, the at least one infrared sensor is designed and set up to measure the temperature of workpieces”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0027]). Crafton teaches that “electrical communication can be established between the temperature sensors 62 and the programmable controller 66 through control wiring 64, with the programmable controller 66 being used to monitor and record the reduction in the surface temperature of the casting 80 as it undergoes the quenching process” (which reads upon “and an electrical output from the at least one infrared sensor is connected to an electrical input of the electronic controller”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0027]). Crafton teaches that “the controller 466 can also be used to automatically adjust the positioning and flow of cooling air through individual nozzles 432, as described above” (paragraph [0046]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the control device of Hummel to include a temperature sensing system, such as infrared sensors, as taught by Crafton to monitor the reduction in the surface temperature and control the valves such that the cooling rate of the quench can be controlled.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hummel et al. (DE 102017001210 A1), as machine translated, previously cited, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Katsumata et al. (US 20170081737 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Hummel teaches the apparatus of claim 1 as stated above.
Hummel is silent regarding a tank for condensed water.
Katsumata is similarly concerned with a cooling apparatus including: cooling nozzles which are disposed around an object to be treated accommodated inside a cooling room and spray a cooling medium onto the object to be treated (paragraph [0012]). Katsumata teaches that “the cooling apparatus R includes a cooling chamber 1, a plurality of cooling nozzles 2, a plurality of mist headers 3 (header pipes), a cooling pump 4, a cooling drainpipe 5 (a cooling water discharge pipe), a cooling water tank 6, a cooling circulation pipe 7 (a cooling water circulation pipe), a plurality of stirring nozzles 8 and the like” (paragraph [0027]). Katsumata teaches that “the cooling water tank 6 is a liquid container that stores the cooling medium released from the cooling chamber 1 through the cooling drainpipe 5 or the cooling circulation pipe 7” (which reads upon “a tank for condensed water”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0040]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Hummel to include a water tank, as taught by Katsumata to provide storage for the cooling medium.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Aamir et al., Study on ultra-fast cooling behaviors of water spray cooled stainless steel plates, Experimental heat transfer, 2016, Vol.29(3), pp.299-321, ISSN: 0891-6152 , 1521-0480; DOI: 10.1080/08916152.2014.976722. Aamir teaches that Spray cooling is an effective tool to dissipate high heat fluxes from hot surfaces (abstract). Aamir teaches ultra fast cooling (Title). Aamir teaches a Sauter mean diameter (SMD) of 436 µm (Table 2).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REBECCA JANSSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-5434. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thurs 10-7 and alternating Fri 10-6.
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. The Examiner requests that interviews not be scheduled during the last week of each fiscal quarter or the last half of September, which is the end of the fiscal year. Q1: 1/5-1/9/26; Q2: 3/30-4/3/26; Q3: 6/22-6/26/26; Q4: 9/21-9/30/26.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Keith Hendricks can be reached on (571)272-1401. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/REBECCA JANSSEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733