1DETAILED 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 9-10 and 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Techtronic DE202020101193U1 (using machine English translation provided).
Regarding claim 1, Techtronic discloses a battery for a power tool (Techtronic, [0001]), the battery comprising:
a central housing (Techtronic, [0014], Fig. 1, housing 4) with a side terminated by a first gable portion (Techtronic, Fig. 1, housing 4, unlabeled first gabled/beveled portion), and by a second gable portion opposite to the first gable portion (Techtronic, Fig. 1, housing 4, unlabeled second gabled/beveled portion), wherein the first and second gable portions face in an insertion direction of the battery (Techtronic, Fig. 1, housing 4, unlabeled first and second gabled/beveled portions, insertion direction I),
one or more guiding members arranged on the central housing to guide the battery along the insertion direction into mating position with attachment means of the power tool (Techtronic, [0019], Fig. 1, connection projection 6, insertion direction I),
one or more electrical connectors arranged in respective elongated slots formed in the central housing (Techtronic, [0012], Fig. 6, slots 5, contacts P1-5), wherein the slots extend in the insertion direction (Techtronic, Fig. 1, slots 5, insertion direction I),
wherein the one or more guiding members and the one or more elongated slots extend in a plane tangential to the side of the central housing (Techtronic, Fig. 1, slots 5, connection projection 6, unlabeled plane tangential to the unlabeled side of housing 4),
wherein the battery further comprises a handle arranged on the second gable portion (Techtronic, Fig. 1, unlabeled gabled/beveled portion, unlabeled handle arranged on the second gabled/beveled portion), wherein the handle is offset from a center of the second gable portion towards the plane (Techtronic, Fig. 1, unlabeled gabled/beveled portion, unlabeled handle arranged on the second gabled/beveled portion, unlabeled plane tangential to the unlabeled side of housing 4). The examiner notes that the claim limitations do not provide additional metes and bounds to distinguish the broadly claimed features over that of the prior art.
Regarding claim 2, Techtronic further discloses wherein he handle intersects the plane in alignment with the elongated slots and with the one or more guiding members (Techtronic, Fig. 1, slots 5, connection projection 6, unlabeled handle, unlabeled plane).
Regarding claim 3, Techtronic also discloses wherein the one or more guiding members comprise a first guiding member and a second guiding member extending in the plane (Techtronic, Fig. 1, connection portion 6, unlabeled plane), the examiner notes the guiding member 6 of Techtronic comprises a first member and a second member on the unlabeled side comprising upper surface 9, satisfying the claim limitation,
wherein the one or more elongated slots are arranged in-between the first and second guiding members on the side of the central housing (Techtronic, Fig. 1, slots 5, connection portion 6).
Regarding claim 4, Techtronic additionally discloses wherein the first gable portion and/or the second gable portion is formed with a beveled edge (Techtronic, Fig. 1, unlabeled first and second gabled/beveled portions).
Regarding claim 9, Techtronic further discloses wherein the elongated slots and the one or more guiding members are formed in a cuboid shaped protrusion extending from the central housing along a normal vector to the plane, wherein a surface of the cuboid shaped protrusion is parallel to the plane (Techtronic, Fig. 1, slots 5, connection portion 6, upper surface 9, unlabeled plane).
Regarding claim 10, Techtronic also discloses wherein a leading edge of the cuboid shaped protrusion forms an abutment arranged to support the battery relative to the power tool when in the mating position (Techtronic, Fig. 1, upper surface 9, front end of connecting projection 10).
Regarding claim 13, Techtronic additionally discloses wherein the one or more guiding members are arranged to mate with corresponding dove-tail grooves formed in the power tool (Techtronic, [0040]).
Regarding claim 14, Techtronic further discloses comprising a groove extending in the insertion direction, arranged on a side of the central housing opposite to the elongated slots (Techtronic, Fig. 3, unlabeled groove extending in the insertion direction I of housing 4), the examiner notes that the groove has several dimensions, at least one of which extending in the insertion direction, satisfying the claim limitation,
and the one or more guiding members to mate with a supporting heel arranged on a wall of a battery compartment formed in the power tool (Techtronic, [0044], “wherein the electric tool has a second axial stop which is designed to cooperate with a first axial stop of the battery pack in order to define an inserted position”).
Regarding claim 15, Techtronic also discloses comprising at least one recess configured to receive a respective locking member of a battery lock mechanism, wherein the recess comprises a surface arranged with an arcuate form to match that of a leading edge portion of the locking member (Techtronic, [0058], Fig. 1, grooves 7), the examiner notes the at least one recess of Techtronic comprises a shapes like a bow or a curve, satisfying the claim limitation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 5-7 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Techtronic DE202020101193U1 (using machine English translation provided), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Nakano US20200212505A1.
Regarding claims 5-7, Techtronic discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and wherein the battery is for a power tool (Techtronic, [0001], [0009]) and a modular battery system, including circuitry to control operations (Techtronic, [0001], [0026]). Techtronic additionally discloses wherein the one or more electrical connectors are surface mounted onto a carrier structure arranged in the central housing (Techtronic, [0012-0013], [0027]), the examiner notes that the teaching of Techtronic wherein the electrical contacts are arranged within the housing of the battery pack behind slots in the housing of the battery pack (Techtronic, [0012]) would be understood by the skilled artisan to satisfy the claim limitation as the electrical connectors are not disembodied. Techtronic however does not disclose wherein the carrier structure further comprises a control unit for controlling an operation of the battery, wherein the first and/or second gable portion comprises a manual control input interface arranged communicatively coupled to the control unit, and wherein the first and/or second gable portion comprises an information output interface arranged communicatively coupled to the control unit.
In a battery for a power tool Nakano teaches a modular battery system comprising a plurality of battery types (Nakano, [0092-0093], [0095], Fig. 1, body 1, body 30, battery 15, battery 100), wherein each battery type is configured for insertion in an insertion direction into mating position with attachment means of a power tool (Nakano, Fig. 1, body 1, body 30, battery 15, battery 100), wherein each battery comprising a central housing defining a central volume (Nakano, [0095], Fig. 3, battery 100, casing 110), the examiner notes that the central housing occupies 3D space and therefore defines a volume, satisfying the claim limitation, wherein a first and second gabled portions wherein the first and second gable portions face in an insertion direction of the battery (Nakano, [0095], Fig. 3, unlabeled first and second gabled portions in casing 101, mounting direction of battery pack), wherein the central housing is the same for each battery type in the plurality of battery types, and wherein the first and/or second gable volumes differs between a first battery type and a second battery type in the plurality of battery types (Nakano, Fig. 1, body 1, body 30, battery 15, battery 100), the examiner notes it would be obvious to the skilled artisan wherein that the central housing volume for each battery type is the same for each battery type and the first and/or second gable volumes differs between battery types as the circuitry (see below) remains the same for each battery type and therefore the central housing volume would be the same for each type thereby reducing manufacturing costs, while the first and/or second gable volumes differs between battery types as additional battery cells are used to change the battery type (Nakano, Fig. 1, battery 15, battery 100).
Nakano also teaches wherein one or more guiding members arranged on the central housing to guide the battery along the insertion direction into mating position with attachment means of the power tool (Nakano, [0095], Fig. 3, rails 138a-b), one or more electrical connectors arranged in respective elongated slots formed in the central housing (Nakano, [0096], [0101-0102], Figs. 3-4, slots 121-126, terminals 161-168 and 171-172 and 177), wherein the slots extend in the insertion direction, wherein the one or more guiding members and the one or more elongated slots extend in a plane tangential to the side of the central housing (Nakano, Fig. 3, slots 121-126, rails 138a-b, unlabeled plane, unlabeled side), wherein the one or more electrical connectors are surface mounted onto a carrier structure arranged in the central housing (Nakano, [0101], [0134], Fig. 4, circuit board 150, terminals 161-168 and 171-172 and 177).
Nakano further teaches wherein the carrier structure further comprises a control unit for controlling an operation of the battery (Nakano, [0133], [0159], Figs. 4 and 19, circuit 150, IC 300 and 320, controller 350), wherein the first and/or second gable portion comprises a manual control input interface arranged communicatively coupled to the control unit (Nakano, [0107], Fig. 4, unlabeled gabled portion, circuit 150, switch 190), and wherein the first and/or second gable portion comprises an information output interface arranged communicatively coupled to the control unit (Nakano, [0107], Fig. 4, prisms 191-194, LEDs not shown), in order to execute a cell balancing function, a cascade connecting function, and a disconnection detecting function, in addition to an over-charging protecting function and an over-discharging protecting function (Nakano, [0161]).
Techtronic and Nakano are considered in the same field of endeavor as they are both concerned with a battery for a power tool.
Therefore 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 battery of Techtronic with the teaching of Nakano wherein the carrier structure further comprises a control unit for controlling an operation of the battery, wherein the first and/or second gable portion comprises a manual control input interface arranged communicatively coupled to the control unit, and wherein the first and/or second gable portion comprises an information output interface arranged communicatively coupled to the control unit thereby executing a cell balancing function, a cascade connecting function, and a disconnection detecting function, in addition to an over-charging protecting function and an over-discharging protecting function.
Regarding claim 18, modified Techtronic teaches all of the claim limitations as set forth above including
a modular battery system (Techtronic, [0001], [0009], [0026]; Nakano, [0092-0093], [0095], Fig. 1, body 1, body 30, battery 15, battery 100) comprising a plurality of battery types (Nakano, [0092-0093], [0095], Fig. 1, body 1, body 30, battery 15, battery 100),
wherein each battery type is configured for insertion in an insertion direction into mating position with attachment means of a power tool (Techtronic, [0019], Fig. 1, connection projection 6, insertion direction I; Nakano, Fig. 1, body 1, body 30, battery 15, battery 100), wherein each battery type comprising a central housing defining a central volume (Techtronic, [0014], Fig. 1, housing 4;Nakano, [0095], Fig. 3, battery 100, casing 110), the examiner notes that the central housing occupies 3D space and therefore defines a volume, satisfying the claim limitation,
one or more guiding members arranged on the central housing to guide the battery into the mating position along the insertion direction (Techtronic, [0019], Fig. 1, connection projection 6, insertion direction I; Nakano, [0095], Fig. 3, rails 138a-b),
one or more electrical connectors arranged in respective elongated slots formed in the central housing, wherein the elongated slots extend in the insertion direction (Techtronic, [0012], Fig. 6, slots 5, contacts P1-5; Nakano, [0096], [0101-0102], Figs. 3-4, slots 121-126, terminals 161-168 and 171-172 and 177, mounting direction),
each battery type further comprising a first gable portion, and a second gable portion arranged opposite to the first gable portion, wherein the first and second gable portions face in the insertion direction and wherein each of the first and second gable portions defines a respective first and second gable volume (Techtronic, Fig. 1, housing 4, unlabeled first and second gabled/beveled portion, insertion direction I; Nakano, [0095], Fig. 3, unlabeled first and second gabled portions in casing 101, mounting direction of battery pack), he examiner notes that the first and second gabled portions occupy 3D space and therefore define a respective first and second gable volume, satisfying the claim limitation,
wherein the central housing is the same for each battery type in the plurality of battery types, and wherein the first and/or second gable volumes differs between a first battery type and a second battery type in the plurality of battery types (Nakano, Fig. 1, body 1, body 30, battery 15, battery 100), the examiner notes it would be obvious to the skilled artisan wherein that the central housing volume for each battery type is the same for each battery type and the first and/or second gable volumes differs between battery types as the circuitry (see below) remains the same for each battery type and therefore the central housing volume would be the same for each type thereby reducing manufacturing costs, while the first and/or second gable volumes differs between battery types as additional battery cells are used to change the battery type (Nakano, Fig. 1, battery 15, battery 100).
Claim(s) 8, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Techtronic DE202020101193U1 (using machine English translation provided), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Rosskamp US20100221594A1.
Regarding claim 8, Techtronic discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and additionally discloses wherein the battery is for a power tool (Techtronic, [0001], [0009]) and a modular battery system (Techtronic, [0001]) but is not directed toward the manner of attaching the gabled portions to the central housing.
In a battery for a power tool Rosskamp teaches a modular battery system comprising a plurality of battery types (Rosskamp, [0030]), the battery comprising a housing (Rosskamp, [0025], Fig. 1, battery 1, housing 2), one or more electrical connectors arranged in respective elongated slots formed in the central housing (Rosskamp, [0027], Fig. 1, slots 10, clips 12). Rosskamp also teaches wherein the a first portion facing a second portion in the insertion direction is fixed to the central housing by one or more releasable fastening members (Rosskamp, [0031]) in order secure the first portion to the central housing (Rosskamp, [0031]). Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the battery of Techtronic with the teaching of Rosskamp wherein the first gable portion and/or the second gable portion are attached to the central housing by one or more releasable fastening members thereby securing the portion(s) to the central housing.
Regarding claim 16, Techtronic discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses wherein the battery is for a power tool (Techtronic, [0001], [0009]) and a modular battery system (Techtronic, [0001]) but is not directed toward the weight of the battery.
In a battery for a power tool Rosskamp teaches a modular battery system comprising a plurality of battery types (Rosskamp, [0030]), the battery comprising a housing (Rosskamp, [0025], Fig. 1, battery 1, housing 2), one or more electrical connectors arranged in respective elongated slots formed in the central housing (Rosskamp, [0027], Fig. 1, slots 10, clips 12). Rosskamp further teaches wherein when it is necessary to provide greater voltage and greater power, the battery packs requires more battery cells which can increase the weight of the battery pack to where it become difficult to contact the electric contacts provided within the power tool (Rosskamp, [0003]) and wherein the number of battery cells, and therefore the weight, depends on the desired voltage (Rosskamp, [0030]).
Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the battery of Techtronic with the teaching of Rosskamp through routine experimentation wherein the battery having a weight between 2500g and 5500g obtaining the completely expected result of a battery having the number of battery cells for the desired voltage for use of the battery with a power tool.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Techtronic DE202020101193U1 (using machine English translation provided), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Manion US20190059667A1.
Regarding claim 11, Techtronic discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above including wherein the battery further comprises a handle arranged on the second gable portion (Techtronic, Fig. 1, unlabeled gabled/beveled portion, unlabeled handle arranged on the second gabled/beveled portion), wherein the handle is offset from a center of the second gable portion towards the plane (Techtronic, Fig. 1, unlabeled gabled/beveled portion, unlabeled handle arranged on the second gabled/beveled portion, unlabeled plane tangential to the unlabeled side of housing 4) (see claim 1 above). Techtronic however does not disclose wherein the handle is formed as a recess in the second gable portion.
In a battery for a power tool Manion teaches the battery comprising a central housing (Manion, [0020], Fig. 2, battery pack 100, housing 104), with a side terminated by a first portion (Manion, [0020], Fig. 2, side 108), and by a second portion opposite to the first portion (Manion, [0020], Fig. 2, side 112), wherein the first and second gable portions face in an insertion direction of the battery (Manion, [0020], Fig. 2, sides 108 and 112), one or more guiding members arranged on the central housing to guide the battery along the insertion direction into mating position with attachment means of the power tool (Manion, [0023], Fig. 2, rails 140 and 144). Manion additionally teaches wherein the battery further comprises a handle arranged on the second portion (Manion, [0024], Fig. 2, handle 160) wherein the handle is offset from a center of the second portion towards a plane (Manion, Fig. 2, side 112, handle 160, unlabeled plane) and wherein the handle is formed as a recess in the second portion (Manion, [0024], Fig. 2, aperture 168) in order to receive a user’s hand so that the used can grasp a grip portion of the handle (Manion, [0024]).
Techtronic and Manion are considered to be in the same field of endeavor as they are both directed toward a battery for a power tool.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have therefore been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the handle of Techtronic with the teaching of Manion wherein the handle is formed as a recess in the second portion thereby receiving the user’s hand so that the user can grasp a grip portion of the handle.
Claim(s) 12 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Techtronic DE202020101193U1 (using machine English translation provided), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Pellenc US20190267585A1.
Regarding claim 12, Techtronic discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above but is not directed toward the cooling of the battery.
In a battery for a power tool (Pellenc, [0086]) Pellenc teaches the battery comprising central a housing (Pellenc, [0038], Fig. 1, battery 1, housing 2), comprising a plurality of rechargeable battery cells arranged in a battery cell pack (Pellenc, [0039], Fig. 3, elements 4) and the central housing with at least a side terminated by a first gable portion, and by a second gable portion opposite to the first gable portion, the first and second gable portions facing each other (Pellenc, Fig. 1, battery 1, housing 2, unlabeled first and second gable portions). Pellenc additionally teaches wherein the housing comprises perforated housing portions, which defines a passage into an internal volume of the central housing for passing a flow of cooling air from the internal volume and out into an ambient environment, in order to circulate air, actually accelerating the cooling of the battery elements (Pellenc, [0066]).
Techtronic and Pellenc are considered in the same field of endeavor as they are both directed toward a battery for a power tool.
Therefore it would be obvious to the skilled artisan to modify the central housing comprising perforations, such as the elongated slots of Techtronic before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with the teaching of Pellenc wherein at least one of the elongated slots defines a passage into an internal volume of the central housing for passing a flow of cooling air from the internal volume and out into an ambient environment thereby circulating air, actually accelerating the cooling of the battery elements.
Regarding claim 17, modified Techtronic further teaches comprising a plurality of rechargeable battery cells arranged in a battery cell pack (Pellenc, [0039], Fig. 3, elements 4).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Techtronic DE202020101193U1 (using machine English translation provided) in view of Nakano US20200212505A1, as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Rosskamp US20100221594A1.
Regarding claim 19, modified Techtronic teaches all of the claim limitations as set forth above including wherein the battery is for a power tool and a modular battery system (Techtronic, [0001], [0009], [0026]; Nakano, [0092-0093], [0095], Fig. 1, body 1, body 30, battery 15, battery 100) but is not directed toward the weight of the battery.
In a modular battery system Rosskamp teaches comprising a battery for a power tool comprising a plurality of battery types (Rosskamp, [0030]), each battery type comprising a housing (Rosskamp, [0025], Fig. 1, battery 1, housing 2), one or more electrical connectors arranged in respective elongated slots formed in the central housing (Rosskamp, [0027], Fig. 1, slots 10, clips 12). Rosskamp further teaches wherein when it is necessary to provide greater voltage and greater power, the battery packs requires more battery cells which can increase the weight of the battery pack to where it become difficult to contact the electric contacts provided within the power tool (Rosskamp, [0003]) and wherein the number of battery cells, and therefore the weight, depends on the desired voltage (Rosskamp, [0030]).
Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the battery of modified Techtronic with the teaching of Rosskamp through routine experimentation wherein a battery of the first battery type weighs between 4500-5500g and wherein a battery of the second battery type weighs between 2500-3500g obtaining the completely expected result of each battery type having the number of battery cells for the desired voltage for use of each of the battery types with a power tool.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04 February 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the prior art applied does not teach all of the limitations of the claimed invention in claim 1 as currently drafted. Particularly, Techtronic does not teach (1) the alleged first and second gable portions do not face in the insertion direction of the battery; (2) the guiding members and elongated slots do not extend in a plane tangential to the side of the housing; and (3) the alleged handle is not arranged on the alleged second gable portion offset towards the plane. This is not persuasive. As shown below in the annotated Fig. 1 of Techtronic, alongside Instant Fig. 3a, all of the broadly claimed limitations are disclosed by the structure of Techtronic as set forth above, as additional metes and bounds are not provided to distinguish over the prior art.
PNG
media_image1.png
720
1280
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Nishikawa US20150214520A1 (discloses a similar structure to the broadly claimed structure of claim 1).
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 JARED HANSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4590. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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 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.
/JARED HANSEN/Examiner, Art Unit 1723 /TIFFANY LEGETTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1723