DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-18 are presented for examination, wherein claim 9 and the subject matter of sub-species (1)-(3) are withdrawn.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of species A and sub-species (4) in the reply filed on January 12, 2026 is acknowledged.
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 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528 (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.
Claim 1, 8, 11-12, and 16-18 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4, 6, 8, and 12 of copending Application No. 18/039428 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the reference application claims a secondary battery, wherein depending on whether the battery is charging or discharging, the claimed first electrode may be either a positive or negative electrode, while the second electrode is understood to the opposite of said first electrode.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §§ 102/103
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed 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 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.
Claims 1 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Arai et al (JPH 10172615, published 1998).
Regarding independent claim 1, Arai teaches a nonaqueous secondary battery comprising
a positive electrode comprising a positive electrode layer (e.g. item 2) laminated on a current collector (e.g. item 1);
a negative electrode comprising a negative electrode layer (e.g. item 4) laminated on a current collector (e.g. item 3);
a nonaqueous electrolyte, and
a separator/solid polymer electrolyte layer between said positive electrode and said negative electrode, insulating said positive electrode from said negative electrode, and retaining said electrolyte,
wherein said negative electrode layer containing an active material that absorbs and desorbs lithium ions, such e.g. graphite; a flame retardant that generates volatile non-flammable substances at high temperatures, such as e.g. tetrabromobisphenol A; a non-aqueous electrolyte; a polymer that retains said electrolyte; and, a conductive material,
wherein C-Br bonds of said tetrabromobisphenol A dissociates when the temperature in the battery raises to 300-400°C,
a blending amount of said flame retardant is preferably in a range of 5 to 20 wt % relative to the polymer that retains said electrolyte,
an example of a blending amount of said active material may be approximately 80 wt% of said negative electrode layer, said polymer that retains said electrolyte plus said flame retardant and may be approximately 20 wt%,
said conductive materials may be e.g. graphite, carbon black, acetylene black, ketjen black, nickel powder, and carbon fiber,
(e.g. ¶¶ 0007-12, 14-21, 35-47, and 52-57 plus e.g. Figure 1), reading on “secondary battery,” said battery comprising:
(1) said positive electrode (e.g. supra), reading on “a positive electrode;” and,
(2) said negative electrode comprising said negative electrode layer (e.g. item 4) laminated on said current collector (e.g. item 3), wherein said negative electrode layer containing said active material that absorbs and desorbs lithium ions, such e.g. graphite; and, said flame retardant that generates volatile non-flammable substances at high temperatures, such as e.g. tetrabromobisphenol A; said non-aqueous electrolyte (e.g. supra), reading on “a negative electrode, wherein the negative electrode includes a first layer including a negative electrode active material, andthe first layer further includes a fire retardant including a halogen atom.”
Regarding claim 18, Arai teaches the battery of claim 1, wherein said negative electrode comprising said negative electrode layer (e.g. item 4) laminated on said current collector (e.g. item 3), wherein said negative electrode layer containing said flame retardant that generates volatile non-flammable substances at high temperatures, such as e.g. tetrabromobisphenol A (e.g. supra), reading on “the fire retardant is at least one selected from the group consisting of ethylene-1,2-bis pentabromo phenyl, ethylenebistetra bromophthalimide, tetrabromobisphenol A, hexabromocyclododecane, 2,4,6-tribromophenol, 1,6,7,8,9,14,15,16,17,17,18,18-dodecachloropentacyclo (12.2.1.16,9.02,13.05,10) octadeca-7,15-diene, and tris (2,2,2-trifluoroethyl) phosphate.”
Claims 6-7 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arai et al (JPH 10172615, published 1998).
Regarding claims 6-7, Arai teaches the battery of claim 1, wherein said negative electrode comprising said negative electrode layer (e.g. item 4) laminated on said current collector (e.g. item 3), wherein said negative electrode layer includes said example of said blending amount of said active material may be approximately 80 wt% of said negative electrode layer, said polymer that retains said electrolyte plus said flame retardant and may be approximately 20 wt%, wherein a broader teaching provides said blending amount of said flame retardant is preferably in said range of 5 to 20 wt % relative to said polymer that retains said electrolyte (e.g. supra), severably establishing a prima facie case of obviousness of the claimed ranges, see also e.g. MPEP § 2144.05(I), reading on “when a mass ratio between the negative electrode active material and the fire retardant in the first layer is represented by, the negative electrode active material : the fire retardant = 100: a, the “a” is larger than 0 and less than 15” (claim 6) and “the “a” is 1 or more and less than 5” (claim 7).
Regarding claims 16-17, Arai teaches the battery of claim 1, wherein said negative electrode comprising said negative electrode layer (e.g. item 4) laminated on said current collector (e.g. item 3), wherein said negative electrode layer containing said flame retardant that generates volatile non-flammable substances at high temperatures, such as e.g. tetrabromobisphenol A, wherein C-Br bonds of said tetrabromobisphenol A dissociates when the temperature in the battery raises to 300-400°C (e.g. supra), severably establishing a prima facie case of obviousness of the claimed ranges, see also e.g. MPEP § 2144.05(I), reading on the limitations “the fire retardant includes a cyclic structure to which the halogen atom is bonded, a ratio of the halogen atom in the fire retardant is 45 mass% or more” (claim 16); and, “the fire retardant releases the halogen atom at a temperature of 180° C. or more” (claim 17).
Claims 8 and 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arai et al (JPH 10172615, published 1998), as provided supra, in view of Liu et al (CN 105733332, published 2016).
Regarding claims 8 and 10-14, Arai teaches the battery of claim 1, wherein said negative electrode comprising said negative electrode layer (e.g. item 4) laminated on said current collector (e.g. item 3), wherein said negative electrode layer contains said active material that absorbs and desorbs lithium ions, such e.g. graphite; and, said flame retardant that generates volatile non-flammable substances at high temperatures, such as e.g. tetrabromobisphenol A, as provided supra,
wherein said negative electrode layer corresponds with the claimed “second layer” (claim 8) and a portion of “first layer” as further defined in claim 8,
reading on “the first layer includes a second layer including at least the negative electrode active material…” (claim 8), but does not expressly teach the limitations “the first layer includes…a third layer including at least the fire retardant disposed at a surface of the second layer” (claim 8); “the third layer has a basis weight of 0.1 g/m2 or more and 10 g/m2 or less” (claim 10); “including a separator interposed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode, and the third layer is disposed between the second layer and the separator” (claim 11); “the third layer has a thickness of 0.1 µm or more and 10 µm or less” (claim 12); “the third layer has a fire retardant content of more than that of the second layer” (claim 13); and, “a ratio of the fire retardant contained in the third layer relative to the third layer as a whole is 50% or more by mass” (claim 14).
However, Liu teaches a lithium-ion battery comprising a flame-retardant coating, which can effectively prevent and suppress large-scale thermal runaway of lithium-ion batteries through both chemical and physical means, thereby improving the safety of lithium-ion batteries, while said flame-retardant coating and its battery are also easy to process and low in cost,
wherein said lithium-ion battery includes a positive electrode, a negative electrode, a separator, and an electrolyte, wherein at least one side of said positive electrode, negative electrode, or separator is coated with said flame-retardant coating,
said flame-retardant coating having a composition including a flame retardant additive in an amount of 15-50 wt%, preferably 35-50 wt%, solvent in an amount of 45-80 wt%, preferably 55-65 wt%; and, and an adhesive 0.5-12 wt%, preferably 2-10 wt%;
said flame-retardant coating having an areal density of 0.05–1.3 mg/cm³; and,
said flame-retardant coating having a thickness of 0.5–10 μm
(e.g. ¶¶ 0008-25 and 31-32).
As a result, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to apply the flame-retardant coating of Liu on at least one surface of the negative electrode of Arai and/or at least one surface of the separator of Arai, since Liu teaches said flame-retardant coating of Liu applied on at least one side of said negative electrode or separator can effectively prevent and suppress large-scale thermal runaway of lithium-ion batteries through both chemical and physical means, thereby improving the safety of lithium-ion batteries, while said flame-retardant coating and its battery are also easy to process and low in cost.
Further, it would have been obvious to locate said flame-retardant coating of Liu on the outer surface of the negative electrode layer (e.g. item 4) of Arai so that it is between said negative electrode layer (e.g. item 4) and said separator of Arai, since Liu teaches said flame-retardant coating of Liu applied on at least one side of said negative electrode or separator, and since said outer surface of the negative electrode layer (e.g. item 4) of Arai is one of a limited number of major surfaces; and/or, since it is a surface that would also be applied against said separator, a configuration that Liu teaches can effectively prevent and suppress large-scale thermal runaway of lithium-ion batteries through both chemical and physical means, thereby improving the safety of lithium-ion batteries, while said flame-retardant coating and its battery are also easy to process and low in cost.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to substitute the tetrabromobisphenol A flame retardant of Liu for the flame retardant additive of Liu since Aria teaches said tetrabromobisphenol A flame retardant is provided in the negative electrode layer (e.g. item 4) and using the same flame retardant composition of tetrabromobisphenol A as the flame retardant additive in the flame-retardant coating of Liu would simplify the manufacturing of the battery.
wherein said negative electrode layer corresponds with the claimed “second layer” (claim 8) and a portion of “first layer” as further defined in claim 8; and,
wherein said flame-retardant coating of Liu corresponding with the claimed “third layer” (claim 8) and a portion of “first layer” as further defined in claim 8,
reading on “the first layer includes a second layer including at least the negative electrode active material, and a third layer including at least the fire retardant disposed at a surface of the second layer” (claim 8).
Still regarding claim 10, wherein Arai as modified teaches the battery of claim 8, wherein said flame-retardant coating of Liu having said areal density of 0.05–1.3 mg/cm³ plus said thickness of 0.5–10 μm (e.g. supra), establishing a prima facie case of obviousness of the claimed range, see also e.g. MPEP § 2144.05(I), reading on “the third layer has a basis weight of 0.1 g/m2 or more and 10 g/m2 or less.”
Still regarding claim 11, wherein Arai as modified teaches the battery of claim 8, wherein Arai teaches said separator is between said positive electrode and said negative electrode, and insulates said positive electrode from said negative electrode; and, said flame-retardant coating of Liu on the outer surface of the negative electrode layer (e.g. item 4) of Arai so that it is between said negative electrode layer (e.g. item 4) and said separator of Arai (e.g. supra),
wherein said negative electrode layer corresponds with the claimed “second layer” and a portion of “first layer” as further defined in claim 8; and,
wherein said flame-retardant coating of Liu corresponding with the claimed “third layer,”
reading on including a separator interposed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode, and the third layer is disposed between the second layer and the separator.
Still regarding claim 12, wherein Arai as modified teaches the battery of claim 8, wherein said flame-retardant coating of Liu having said thickness of 0.5–10 μm (e.g. supra), establishing a prima facie case of obviousness of the claimed range, see also e.g. MPEP § 2144.05(I), reading on “the third layer has a thickness of 0.1 µm or more and 10 µm or less.”
Still regarding claim 13, wherein Arai as modified teaches the battery of claim 8, wherein Arai teaches said negative electrode layer (e.g. item 4) includes said example of said blending amount of said active material may be approximately 80 wt% of said negative electrode layer, said polymer that retains said electrolyte and flame retardant and may be approximately 20 wt%, wherein a broader teaching provides said blending amount of said flame retardant is preferably in said range of 5 to 20 wt % relative to said polymer that retains said electrolyte (e.g. supra); and, said flame-retardant coating of Liu having said composition including said flame retardant additive in said amount of 15-50 wt%, preferably 35-50 wt%, solvent in said amount of 45-80 wt%, preferably 55-65 wt%; and, and said adhesive 0.5-12 wt%, preferably 2-10 wt% (e.g. supra),
wherein said negative electrode layer corresponds with the claimed “second layer” and a portion of “first layer” as further defined in claim 8; and,
wherein said flame-retardant coating of Liu corresponding with the claimed “third layer,”
establishing a prima facie case of obviousness of the claimed relationship, see also e.g. MPEP § 2144.05(I), reading on “the third layer has a fire retardant content of more than that of the second layer.”
Still regarding claim 14, wherein Arai as modified teaches the battery of claim 8, wherein said flame-retardant coating of Liu having said composition including said flame retardant additive in said amount of 15-50 wt%, preferably 35-50 wt%, solvent in said amount of 45-80 wt%, preferably 55-65 wt%; and, and said adhesive 0.5-12 wt%, preferably 2-10 wt% (e.g. supra),
wherein said flame-retardant coating of Liu corresponding with the claimed “third layer,”
establishing a prima facie case of obviousness of the claimed range, see also e.g. MPEP § 2144.05(I), reading on “a ratio of the fire retardant contained in the third layer relative to the third layer as a whole is 50% or more by mass.”
Claims 2-5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arai et al (JPH 10172615, published 1998), as provided supra, in view of Noguchi et al (US 2015/0010831).
Regarding claims 2-5 and 15, Arai teaches the battery of claim 1, wherein said negative electrode layer containing said active material that absorbs and desorbs lithium ions, such e.g. graphite; said flame retardant that generates volatile non-flammable substances at high temperatures, such as e.g. tetrabromobisphenol A; said non-aqueous electrolyte; said polymer that retains said electrolyte; and, said conductive material (e.g. supra), reading on “the negative electrode active material includes a graphite…,” but does not expressly teach the negative electrode active material includes…particles, the particles including at least one type selected from the group consisting of first particles of silicon oxide represented by a formula SiOx (0.5 ≤ X< 1.6), second particles including a lithium silicate phase and silicon particles dispersed in the lithium silicate phase, and third particles including a carbon phase and silicon particles dispersed in the carbon phase” (claim 2);” “the lithium silicate phase includes lithium silicate represented by a formula Li2ZSiO(2+Z) (0 < Z< 2)” (claim 3); “the negative electrode active material has a particle content of the at least one type of particles of 1 mass% or more” (claim 4); “the negative electrode active material includes plural types of particles selected from the group consisting of the first particles, the second particles, and the third particles” claim 5); and, “the first layer includes carbon nanotube” (claim 15).
However, Noguchi teaches a lithium secondary battery comprising a positive electrode including a positive electrode active material capable of intercalating and deintercalating lithium ions, a negative electrode including a negative electrode active material capable of intercalating and deintercalating lithium ions, and a nonaqueous electrolytic solution,
wherein said negative electrode active material capable of intercalating and deintercalating lithium ions may include graphite (a) particles alone or a combination of the following negative electrode active materials:
(1) carbon material (a) particles composed of e.g. graphite and carbon nanotube, in a range of 2-80 mass%, preferably 2-30 mass%, of said negative electrode active material;
(2) metal (b) particles composed of e.g. silicon, in a range of 5-90 mass%, preferably 40-70 mass%, of said negative electrode active material;
(3) metal oxide (c) particles composed of e.g. silicon oxide, such as SiO, in a range of 5-90 mass%, preferably 20-50 mass%, of said negative electrode active material when present; and,
(4) aggregates of graphite (a) particles and silicon (b) particles, wherein said silicon (b) particles have an average particle size is smaller than an average particle size of graphite (a) particles, thereby suppressing generation of residual stress and residual strain caused by a difference in volume change accompanying charge and discharge
(e.g. ¶¶ 0001, 24, and 82-101).
As a result, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the negative electrode active material of Noguchi—including the graphite (a) particles, carbon nanotube (a) particles, silicon (b) particles, silicon oxide (c) particles, and aggregates of graphite (a) particles and silicon (b) particles, in the taught proportions—for the graphite active material of Arai, since Arai teaches they are equivalent negative electrode active materials for use in a lithium-ion battery.
Still regarding claims 2-5 and 15, said negative electrode active material of Arai as modified comprising
(1) said graphite (a) particles and carbon nanotube (a) particles, in said range of 2-80 mass%, preferably 2-30 mass%, of said negative electrode active material;
(2) said silicon (b) particles, in a range of 5-90 mass%, preferably 40-70 mass%, of said negative electrode active material;
(3) said silicon oxide (c) particles, such as SiO, in said range of 5-90 mass%, preferably 40-70 mass%, of said negative electrode active material when present; and,
(3) aggregates of graphite (a) particles and silicon (b) particles, wherein said silicon oxide (c) particles have said n average particle size of less than ½ of said average particle size of graphite (a) particles, thereby suppressing generation of residual stress and residual strain caused by a difference in volume change accompanying charge and discharge (e.g. supra), noting in said aggregate, said graphite (a) particles and said silicon (b) particles are dispersed within each other,
said aggregates of graphite (a) particles and silicon (b) particles, wherein said silicon (b) particles have an average particle size is smaller than an average particle size of graphite (a) particles corresponding with the claimed “third particles including a carbon phase and silicon particles dispersed in the carbon phase,”
reading on “the negative electrode active material includes a graphite and particles, the particles including at least one type selected from the group consisting of first particles of silicon oxide represented by a formula SiOx (0.5 ≤ X< 1.6), second particles including a lithium silicate phase and silicon particles dispersed in the lithium silicate phase, and third particles including a carbon phase and silicon particles dispersed in the carbon phase” (claim 2); wherein the option of second particles, “the lithium silicate phase includes lithium silicate represented by a formula Li2ZSiO(2+Z) (0 < Z< 2)” (claim 3), is not required and does not patentably distinguish the instant invention, see supra; establishing a prima facie case of obviousness of the claimed range, see also e.g. MPEP § 2144.05(I), reading on “the negative electrode active material has a particle content of the at least one type of particles of 1 mass% or more” (claim 4); “the negative electrode active material includes plural types of particles selected from the group consisting of the first particles, the second particles, and the third particles” (claim 5); and, “the first layer includes carbon nanotube” (claim 15).
Conclusion
The art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Jang (US 2022/0255080);
Jang et al (US 2022/0190438);
Jang et al (US 2022/0190437);
Jang et al (US 2022/0190346);
Yoon et al (US 2021/0098791);
Kagami et al (US 2018/0019458);
Tsujikawa et al (US 2013/0252090);
Tsujikawa et al (US 2013/0230773);
Tsujikawa et al (US 2013/0216908);
Patterson et al (US 2013/0108930); and,
Timberlake et al (US 2012/0065297).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YOSHITOSHI TAKEUCHI whose telephone number is (571)270-5828. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8-4.
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, TIFFANY LEGETTE-THOMPSON can be reached at (571)270-7078. 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.
/YOSHITOSHI TAKEUCHI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723