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 .
Claim Status
Claim 1 is amended. Support for amendment can be found in originally filed claim 2.
Claim 2 is cancelled.
Claim 13 is new. Support can be found in [0200] of instant specification.
Claims 1, 3-13 are examined on the merits.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/02/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/17/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the instant application has specific differences from the cited references as follows:
Smalley fails to teach or suggest “carbon nanotube structures comprising a plurality of single-walled carbon nanotube units bonded to each other side by side” and “wherein the carbon nanotube structures are interconnected in the conductive layer to form a network structures” (Remarks pp. 5; Kim Declaration pp. 3-4).
Applicant argues that Smalley is not in the same field or pertinent because “Smalley is directed to manufacturing carbon nanotubes on a laboratory scale” (Remarks pp. 5; Kim Declaration #8-10, 13).
Smalley fails to teach or suggest dispersing carbon nanotubes, and thus, also fails to teach or suggest the claimed “carbon nanotube structure” or conductive “network structure” (Remarks p. 5-7; Kim Declaration #11-14).
The starting material for the claimed “carbon nanotube structure” is commercially available ‘bundle-type’ raw material having a form of aggregated single-walled carbon nanotubes in a ‘seaweed’ shape and the bundle-type large aggregates are processed through a specific dispersion process to obtain the claimed “carbon nanotube structure” (Remarks p. 5-6; Kim Declaration #11-12).
Applicant presents a declaration under §132 executed by Taegon Kim showing differences between the instant invention and the Smalley reference.
Regarding argument a, Smalley teaches carbon nanotube structures in which a plurality of single-walled carbon nanotube units are bonded to each other side by side (column 1, lines 30-34 “ropes of single-walled carbon nanotubes”; column 12 lines 19-38, single-walled carbon nanotubes run generally parallel to other single-walled carbon nanotubes; column 4 lines 11-16), and the carbon nanotube structures have an average diameter of 2 nm to 500 nm (Column 14 lines 21-34, rope diameter of 2-20nm; column 13-14, Example 3). Smalley teaches wherein a tangle collected of ropes stuck together form a conductive mat and carbon nanotube ropes can have occasional branching (column 14 lines 46-55; column 14 lines 2-20). Smalley’s tangles collection of ropes are considered a conductive network structure.
Regarding argument b, in response to applicant's argument that Smalley is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, a problem faced by the inventors was achieving sufficient electrical conductivity (paragraphs 5-7). Smalley is directed to solving this problem (column 4, lines 11-17); therefore Smalley is analogous prior art.
Regarding argument c, the present claim does not require “dispersing carbon nanotubes”, so it is not required that Smalley teach this. Claim 1 requires “”carbon nanotube structures comprising a plurality of single-walled carbon nanotube units bonded to each other side by side” and “wherein the carbon nanotube structures are interconnected in the conductive layer to form a network structure”. Smalley teaches a conductive network structure. Smalley describes a tangled collection of ropes (column 14, lines 47-53), which is interpreted as corresponding to a network structure. Smalley’s ropes of single-walled carbon nanotubes conduct electrical charge due to low resistance (column 4, lines 10-17), so Smalley’s tangles collection of ropes are a conductive network structure.
Regarding argument d, the arguments are not commensurate in scope with the claims. Applicant has presented in the arguments many terms not present in the claims e.g. bundle-type, seaweed shape.
In regards to argument e, the arguments presented in the Kim Declaration are not commensurate in scope with the claims. Specifically, the Kim Declaration states “It is my opinion that the claimed conductive "network structure" can only be formed because the claimed SWCNT structures have a flexible form which is durable and resistant to breakage, even during a dispersion process, which thereby maintains the long length of the claimed "carbon nanotube structures" (Kim Declaration #6) and further “In my opinion, Smalley fails to recognize the problems and therefore is silent how to solve the issues such as 1) successfully scaling up to obtain the single-walled carbon nanotubes at a commercial scale, and 2) properly dispersing the carbon nanotubes manufactured in Smalley to form SWCNT structures capable of forming the network structure. In view of the above, it is my opinion that it is inappropriate to consider Smalley as a basis for arguing against the patentability of the claimed invention.” (Kim Declaration #15). Dispersion of large aggregates of carbon nanotubes in a slurry are not claim limitations. The claims require a “network structure” and Smalley teaches a network structure (“tangled collection of ropes”, column 14, lines 47-50).
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 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.
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, 3-6, 8, 10-11, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamura et al. (JP2016007816A) hereinafter "Tamura", cited on the IDS filed 06/04/2024, in view of Smalley et al. (US 6183714 B1) hereinafter "Smalley". Reference is made to the enclosed machine translation.
Regarding claim 1, Tamura teaches a separator comprising a porous substrate and a conductive layer disposed on the porous substrate ([0007]; [0028]), wherein the conductive layer comprises carbon nanotubes ([0028] “carbon nanotube being particularly preferred”; [0026]-[0029]; [0098]-[0099]).
Tamura does not teach wherein the conductive layer comprises carbon nanotube structures, each of the carbon nanotube structures comprising a plurality of single-walled carbon nanotube units bonded to each other side by side, and wherein the carbon nanotube structures have an average diameter of 2 nm to 500 nm, and wherein the carbon nanotube structures are interconnected in the conductive layer to form a network structure.
However, Smalley teaches carbon nanotube structures in which a plurality of single-walled carbon nanotube units are bonded to each other side by side (column 1, lines 30-34 “ropes of single-walled carbon nanotubes”; column 12 lines 19-38, single-walled carbon nanotubes run generally parallel to other single-walled carbon nanotubes; column 4 lines 11-16), and the carbon nanotube structures have an average diameter of 2 nm to 500 nm (Column 14 lines 21-34, rope diameter of 2-20nm; column 13-14, Example 3). Smalley teaches carbon nanotube structures in which a plurality of single-walled carbon nanotube units are bonded to each other side by side (column 1, lines 30-34 “ropes of single-walled carbon nanotubes”; column 12 lines 19-38, single-walled carbon nanotubes run generally parallel to other single-walled carbon nanotubes; column 4 lines 11-16). Smalley teaches that the ropes of single-walled carbon nanotubes will conduct electrical charges with a relatively low resistance and can be used in any application where an electrical conductor is needed (column 4 lines 11-16). Smalley teaches wherein the single-walled carbon nanotubes are more likely to be free of defects and are stronger and more conductive that multi-walled carbon nanotubes of similar diameter (column 3 lines 43-52). Smalley further teaches wherein a tangle collected of ropes stuck together form a conductive mat and carbon nanotube ropes can have occasional branching (column 14 lines 46-55; column 14 lines 2-20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the conductive layer taught by Tamura by using the carbon nanotube rope material taught by Smalley as the conductive carbon nanotube material.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have modified the conductive layer taught by Tamura by using the carbon nanotube rope material taught by Smalley as the conductive carbon nanotube material with a reasonable expectation of successfully producing a separator with a conductive coating because ropes of single-walled carbon nanotubes with an average diameter of 2-20nm is a known type of conductive carbon nanotube material. The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP §2144.07).
The single-walled carbon nanotube ropes taught by Smalley, when used as the conductive carbon nanotube material in the coating layer taught by Tamura, would tangle together and form a mat, or network, structure thereby meeting the limitation of claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, Tamura in view of Smalley teaches the separator of claim 1. Smalley further teaches wherein the carbon nanotube structures have an average length of 0.1-1000µm (column 14 lines 21-46).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have further modified the conductive layer taught by Tamura by using the carbon nanotube rope material with a length of 0.1-1000µm taught by Smalley as the conductive carbon nanotube material.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have modified the conductive layer taught by Tamura by using the carbon nanotube rope material with a length of 0.1-1000µm taught by Smalley as the conductive carbon nanotube material with a reasonable expectation of successfully producing a separator with a conductive coating because ropes of single-walled carbon nanotubes with a length of 0.1-1000µm is a known type of conductive carbon nanotube material. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP §2144.05).
Regarding claim 4, Tamura in view of Smalley teaches the separator of claim 1. Tamura further teaches wherein the conductive layer has a thickness of 10 nm to 2,000 nm ([0035] “thickness of the conductive layer is…more preferably 10 to 100 nm.”).
Regarding claim 5, Tamura in view of Smalley teaches the separator of claim 1. Tamura further teaches wherein the conductive layer has a surface resistance of 1x102 Ω/□ to 1x1011 Ω/□ ([0007]; [0025]; [0025] of the original document supports this conclusion, showing a resistivity of 1x102 Ω/□ to 1x1011 Ω/□). The range taught by Tamura overlaps with the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP §2144.05).
Regarding claim 6, Tamura in view of Smalley teaches the separator of claim 1. Tamura further teaches wherein the conductive layer further comprises an additive covering at least a portion of a surface of the carbon nanotube structure ([0032] “dispersant”).
Regarding claim 8, Tamura in view of Smalley teaches the separator of claim 1. Tamura teaches wherein air permeability of the separator is in a range of 50 to 1,000 seconds/100 ml ([0024]; [0007]). The range taught by Tamura fully encompasses the claimed range. "[A] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness." In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
Regarding claim 10, Tamura in view of Smalley teaches the separator of claim 1. Tamura further teaches wherein the conductive layer is disposed on one surface of the porous substrate ([0022]; [0056]; the conductive layer may be disposed on only one side, or on both sides, of a porous film, both of which meet the claimed limitation).
Regarding claim 11, Tamura in view of Smalley teaches the separator of claim 1. Tamura further teaches a secondary battery comprising an electrode and a separator ([0066]; [0090]).
Regarding claim 13, Tamura teaches a separator comprising a porous substrate and a conductive layer disposed on the porous substrate ([0007]; [0028]), wherein the conductive layer comprises carbon nanotubes ([0028] “carbon nanotube being particularly preferred”; [0026]-[0029]; [0098]-[0099]).
Tamura does not teach wherein the conductive layer comprises carbon nanotube structures, each of the carbon nanotube structures comprising a plurality of single-walled carbon nanotube units bonded to each other side by side, and wherein the carbon nanotube structures have an average diameter of 2 nm to 500 nm, and wherein the carbon nanotube structures are interconnected in the conductive layer to form an entangled net structure.
However, Smalley teaches carbon nanotube structures in which a plurality of single-walled carbon nanotube units are bonded to each other side by side (column 1, lines 30-34 “ropes of single-walled carbon nanotubes”; column 12 lines 19-38, single-walled carbon nanotubes run generally parallel to other single-walled carbon nanotubes; column 4 lines 11-16), and the carbon nanotube structures have an average diameter of 2 nm to 500 nm (Column 14 lines 21-34, rope diameter of 2-20nm; column 13-14, Example 3). Smalley teaches carbon nanotube structures in which a plurality of single-walled carbon nanotube units are bonded to each other side by side (column 1, lines 30-34 “ropes of single-walled carbon nanotubes”; column 12 lines 19-38, single-walled carbon nanotubes run generally parallel to other single-walled carbon nanotubes; column 4 lines 11-16). Smalley teaches that the ropes of single-walled carbon nanotubes will conduct electrical charges with a relatively low resistance and can be used in any application where an electrical conductor is needed (column 4 lines 11-16). Smalley teaches wherein the single-walled carbon nanotubes are more likely to be free of defects and are stronger and more conductive that multi-walled carbon nanotubes of similar diameter (column 3 lines 43-52). Smalley further teaches wherein a tangled collection of ropes stuck together (column 14 lines 46-55; column 14 lines 2-20; “tangled collection of ropes stuck together” reads on “entangled net structure”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the conductive layer taught by Tamura by using the carbon nanotube rope material taught by Smalley as the conductive carbon nanotube material.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have modified the conductive layer taught by Tamura by using the carbon nanotube rope material taught by Smalley as the conductive carbon nanotube material with a reasonable expectation of successfully producing a separator with a conductive coating because ropes of single-walled carbon nanotubes with an average diameter of 2-20nm is a known type of conductive carbon nanotube material. The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP §2144.07).
The single-walled carbon nanotube ropes taught by Smalley, when used as the conductive carbon nanotube material in the coating layer taught by Tamura, would tangle together and form an entangled structure thereby meeting the limitation of claim 1.
Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamura (JP2016007816A) in view of Smalley (US 6183714 B1), as applied above, in further view of Hatanaka et al. (US 20210028463 A1) hereinafter "Hatanaka".
Regarding claim 7, Tamura in view of Smalley teaches the separator of claim 6. Tamura further teaches wherein when carbon nanotubes are used as the conductive component of the conductive layer dispersants can include water-soluble cellulose, or water-soluble cellulose derivative ([0032]).
Tamura in view of Smalley does not teach wherein the additive specifically comprises a carboxymethyl cellulose.
However, Hatanaka teaches a conductive layer ([0021]; abstract) wherein the conductive layer includes a conductive carbon material, such as carbon nanotubes ([0034]; [0050]), a dispersant and a solvent ([0021]). Hatanaka teaches wherein the dispersant may be selected from known dispersants used for conductive carbon materials, for example carboxymethylcellulose ([0051]).
Tamura teaches the use of water-soluble cellulose, or water-soluble cellulose derivatives as dispersants for carbon nanotubes ([0032]). Hatanaka teaches carboxymethylcellulose as a dispersant for carbon nanotubes ([0051]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected carboxymethylcellulose, as taught by Hatanaka, as the water-soluble cellulose dispersant of Tamura.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have selected carboxymethylcellulose, as taught by Hatanaka, as the water-soluble cellulose dispersant of Tamura with a reasonable expectation of success because it is a known water-soluble cellulose derivative.
Claim(s) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamura (JP2016007816A) in view of Smalley (US 6183714 B1), as applied above, in further view of Huang et al. (US 20190207191 A1) hereinafter "Huang".
Regarding claim 9, Tamura in view of Smalley teaches the separator of claim 1.
Tamura in view of Smalley does not teach wherein the separator further comprises an inorganic coating layer comprising inorganic particles between the porous substrate and the conductive layer.
However, Huang teaches a separator including a porous substrate and an inorganic layer disposed on the substrate (abstract; [0006]). Huang teaches that providing an ultra-thin inorganic layer containing no binder on the surface of the porous substrate, improves interfacial wettability and thermal shrinkage resistance ([0009]). Huang further teaches wherein the separator has favorable mechanical strength and thermal shrinkage while having high energy density ([0009]). Huang teaches that the inorganic layer is prevented from cracking and falling off which minimizes decrease of mechanical strength and blockage of pores, thereby improving safety ([0009]; [0031]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the separator taught by Tamura in view of Smalley by including an inorganic coating layer on the porous substrate as taught by Huang.
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify the separator taught by Tamura in view of Smalley by including an inorganic coating layer on the porous substrate as taught by Huang to increase safety ([0009]; [0031]).
Claim(s) 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamura (JP2016007816A) in view of Smalley (US 6183714 B1), as applied above, in further view of Chun (US 20150295270 A1). Cited on the IDS filed 2/10/2023.
Regarding claim 12, Tamura in view of Smalley teaches the battery of claim 11. Tamura in view of Smalley further teaches wherein the electrode comprises a positive electrode and a negative electrode, wherein the separator is disposed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode, wherein the positive electrode comprises a positive electrode collector and a positive electrode active material layer ([0090] aluminum foil is considered a positive electrode collector).
Tamura in view of Smalley does not teach wherein the positive electrode collector comprises an uncoated portion that does not overlap the positive electrode active material layer, wherein the uncoated portion comprises a current applying part corresponding to an end region of the uncoated portion, and wherein the conductive layer is in contact with the current applying part.
However, Chun teaches an electrode assembly comprising a positive electrode and a negative electrode, a separator disposed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode, wherein the positive electrode comprises a positive electrode collector and a positive electrode active material layer (abstract; [0010]; Fig. 4), wherein the positive electrode collector comprises an uncoated portion that does not overlap the positive electrode active material layer (Fig. 4; the uncoated portion is located adjacent to the positive electrode active material layer), the uncoated portion comprises a current applying part corresponding to an end region of the uncoated portion ([0010]; Fig. 4; [0043]-[0046]; [0051]). Chun teaches wherein during external short circuits, a high current flow may flow through the positive electrode tab cause an increase in temperature and a deformation of a separator ([0064]) whereby a positive electrode tab may come in contact with a negative electrode coating portion causing burning or explosion ([0064]). Chun teaches that appropriately setting the widths of uncoated portions of the positive and negative collectors, contact between a positive electrode tab and a negative electrode coating portion can be avoided, increasing the safety of the battery ([0065]).
PNG
media_image1.png
452
569
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the battery taught by Tamura in view of Smalley such that a positive electrode collector comprises an uncoated portion that does not overlap the positive electrode active material layer, the uncoated portion comprises a current applying part corresponding to an end region of the uncoated portion as taught by Chun.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the battery taught by modified Tamura such that a positive electrode collector comprises an uncoated portion that does not overlap the positive electrode active material layer, the uncoated portion comprises a current applying part corresponding to an end region of the uncoated portion as taught by Chun to increase the safety of the battery ([0064]-[0065]).
Tamura in view of Smalley in view of Chun does not explicitly teach wherein a conductive layer is in contact with the current applying part.
However, Tamura in view of Smalley teaches wherein the conductive layer is disposed on one surface of the porous substrate ([0022]; [0056]; the conductive layer may be disposed on only one side, or on both sides, of a porous film).
Therefore, in the case where the conductive layer is disposed on both sides of a porous substrate to form a separator, and the separator is used in a battery configuration as taught by Chun, the conductive layer would necessarily be in contact with the current applying part (see Chun Fig. 4).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Nishino et al. (JP 2017084759 A) teaches a fibrous carbon nanotube aggregate formed from single-layer carbon nanotubes (abstract). Cited on the IDS filed 2/20/2023.
Lee et al. (US20190074538A1) teaches a conductive carbon material composed of carbon nanotubes wherein the carbon nanotube is a secondary structure which is formed by assembling a plurality of carbon nanotube units wherein the carbon nanotube may be a bundle type having the form of a bundle or rope, in which axes in longitudinal directions of the plurality of carbon nanotube units are arranged side by side in substantially the same orientation ([0049]-[0052]).
Choi et al. (US 20180248195 A1) the conductive layer includes a porous network structure formed by a plurality of second carbon nanotubes (abstract; [0069])
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 FELICITY B. ALBAN whose telephone number is (703)756-5398. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30-6:30.
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, Matthew Martin can be reached at 571-270-7871. 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.
/F.B.A./Examiner, Art Unit 1728
/MATTHEW T MARTIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights