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 .
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendment received February 3, 2026:
Claims 1-17 are pending.
The previous claim objections are withdrawn in light of the amendment.
The previous rejection has been withdrawn in light of the amendment. However, a new prior art rejection has been made below in light of the amendment . All changes to the rejection are necessitated by the amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-11 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiroyuki et al. (JP 2012/015051A), provided in the Information Disclosure Statement received April 26, 2024 in view of Huang et al. (WO2020/155993A). The English machine translations of Hiroyuki et al. is attached in a prior Office action and is referenced below. The English machine translation of Huang et al. is attached and is referenced below .
Regarding Claim 1, Hiroyuki et al. teaches a lithium ion secondary battery comprising a negative electrode plate (Para. [0010], [0049]) (i.e. a negative electrode plate) comprising two types of mixture slurries applied to a negative electrode current collector foil forming a negative electrode with a two-layer structure (Para. [0049]) (i.e. comprising a negative electrode current collector and active material layers disposed on at least one surface of the negative electrode current collector) wherein a negative electrode material A of graphite (Para. [0050]) and a negative electrode active material B of amorphous carbon (Para. [0051]) was used for the respective layers wherein negative electrode mixture slurry B is applied onto the negative electrode on which the graphite carbon mixture layer had been formed (Para. [0053], [0054]) (i.e. the active layers comprising a first active material and a second active material layer disposed on a surface of the first active material layer and comprising a second active material layer, the first active material layer is arranged between the negative electrode current collector and the second active material layer), wherein a negative electrode material A has a (002) plane spacing value of 0.34 nm or less (i.e. d1 as claimed) wherein the negative electrode active material B has a (002) plane spacing value of 0.36 nm (Para. [0051]) and a ratio of a coating amount of the amorphous carbon mixture layer to the coating amount of the graphite carbon mixture layer was set to 1:4 (Para. [0059]) (i.e. CW2:CW1 ratio of 1:4) . Thus, at the very least, teaches an overlapping range as when d1 = 0.335, d2 = 0.36, CW2:CW1 = 1:4, α is 1.07, within the claimed range of 1≤α≤1.12, and 1.07x1≤4 satisfying αxCW2≤CW1.
Hiroyuki et al. does not teach a CW1 mass per unit area of the first active material layer is within a range of 80-200 g/m2.
However, Huang et al. teaches a negative electrode having first and second active material layers (Para. [0027]) wherein the first active material is graphite (Para. [0042]) wherein the first active material layer had a coating weight per unit area of 20 g/m2 -to 200 g/m2 (Para. [0039] and see also pg. 4, line 103 of the WIPO publication for correct units).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the CW1 mass per unit area of the first active material layer of Hiroyuki et al. to incorporate the teaching of the coating weight per unit area as taught by Huang et al., as such a coating weight per unit area provides desirable energy density and kinetic performance (Para. [0005], [0038], [0039]). 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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).” See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Regarding Claim 2, Hiroyuki et al. as modified by Huang et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Hiroyuki teaches a ratio of a coating amount of the amorphous carbon mixture layer to the coating amount of the graphite carbon mixture layer was set to 1:4 (Para. [0059]) (i.e. CW2:CW1 ratio of 1:4) and Huang et al. teaches the first active material is graphite (Para. [0042]) wherein the first active material layer had a coating weight per unit area of 20 g/m2 -to 200 g/m2 (i.e. CW1). See the rejection to claim 1 for full details of the combination, incorporated herein but not reiterated herein for brevity’s sake; this reasoning is applicable to the specific example of Huang cited herein.
Thus, the combination of Hiroyuki as modified by Huang et al., at the very least, teaches an overlapping range as when CW1 = 80 g/m2, -CW2 = 20 and 20/(20+80) = 0.2, satisfying 0.2≤CW2/(CW2 +CW1)≤0.45. Regarding the property of CW1/CW2 being inversely proportional to
d
1
x
D
a
50
d
2
x
D
b
50
, as Hiroyuki et al. as modified by Huang et al. teaches a substantially identical structure and composition as instant claim 2, (and also substantially identical volume median particle sizes recited in claims 3, 5 and 7), the negative electrode plate would either (a) be expected to satisfy the claimed property, or (b) differences in the claimed property set forth in the instant claim, having an inversely proportional relationship would be slight differences in ranges that would be obvious. With respect to (a): The reasons regarding expectedness are that the composition and structure is substantially identical to that of the instant claim, therefore it is expected that the negative electrode plate of modified Hiroyuki et al. would satisfy these conditions. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." See MPEP 2112.01. With respect to (b): If it is shown that such characteristics are not present, then any differences (regarding the inversely proportional relationship) would be small and obvious. 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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).” See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Regarding Claim 3, Hiroyuki et al. as modified by Huang et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Hiroyuki et al. further teaches the negative electrode active material A having an average particle diameter (D50) of 20 micrometers (i.e. the volume median particle size Da50 of the first active material is 20 micrometers) (Para. [0075]) and the negative electrode active material B having an average particle diameter (D50) of 13 micrometers (i.e. the volume median particle size Db50 of the first active material is 13 micrometers) (Para. [0075]), and thus, satisfying 0.2≤Db50/Da50≤0.8 as 13/20 = 0.65.
Regarding Claim 4, Hiroyuki et al. as modified by Huang et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Hiroyuki et al. teaches wherein a negative electrode material A has a (002) plane spacing value of 0.34 nm or less (i.e. d1 as claimed) wherein the negative electrode active material B has a (002) plane spacing value of 0.36 nm (Para. [0051]) and a ratio of a coating amount of the amorphous carbon mixture layer to the coating amount of the graphite carbon mixture layer was set to 1:4 (Para. [0059]) (i.e. CW2:CW1 ratio of 1:4) . Thus, at the very least, teaches an overlapping range as when d1 = 0.335, d2 = 0.36, CW2:CW1 = 1:4, α is 1.07, satisfying CW2≥(3/17)αxCW1. as (3/17)*1.07 = 0.189 =and 1≥0.189*4 or 1≥0.756. 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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).” See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Regarding Claim 5, Hiroyuki et al. as modified by Huang et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 4 as explained above.
Hiroyuki et al. further teaches the negative electrode active material A having an average particle diameter (D50) of 20 micrometers (i.e. the volume median particle size Da50 of the first active material is 20 micrometers) (Para. [0075]) and the negative electrode active material B having an average particle diameter (D50) of 13 micrometers (i.e. the volume median particle size Db50 of the first active material is 13 micrometers) (Para. [0075]), and thus, satisfying 0.2≤Db50/Da50≤0.8 as 13/20 = 0.65.
Regarding Claim 6, Hiroyuki et al. as modified by Huang et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 4 as explained above.
Hiroyuki et al. teaches wherein a negative electrode material A has a (002) plane spacing value of 0.34 nm or less (i.e. d1 overlapping with the claimed range of 0.335-0.3362 nm) wherein the negative electrode active material B has a (002) plane spacing value of 0.36 nm (Para. [0051]) (i.e. d2 within the claimed range of 0.3356-0.38 nm). 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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).” See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Regarding Claim 7, Hiroyuki et al. as modified by Huang et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 4 as explained above.
Hiroyuki et al. further teaches the crystalline carbon (i.e. the first active material) has an average particle size of 6 to 23 micrometers (i.e. a volume average particle size Da50 of the first active material overlapping with the range of 8-20 micrometers) and the average particle size of the amorphous carbon (i.e. second active material) of 10 to 20 micrometers (i.e. volume average particle size Db50 of the second active material overlapping with the range of 10-20 micrometers) (Para. [0014]), wherein the average particle size is the D50 value (Para. [0030]). 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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).” See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Regarding Claim 8, Hiroyuki et al. as modified by Huang et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 4 as explained above.
Hiroyuki et al. further teaches a ratio of a coating amount of the amorphous carbon mixture layer to the coating amount of the graphite carbon mixture layer was set to 1:4 (Para. [0059]) (i.e. CW2:CW1 ratio of 1:4) and Huang et al. teaches the first active material is graphite (Para. [0042]) wherein the first active material layer had a coating weight per unit area of 20 g/m2 -to 200 g/m2 (i.e. CW1). -Thus, the combination of Hiroyuki et al. with Huang et al. would provide a CW2 of 5 to 50 g/m2, overlapping with the claimed range of 10-110 g/m2. 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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).” See MPEP §2144.05(I). See the rejection to claim 1 for full details of the combination, incorporated herein but not reiterated herein for brevity’s sake; this reasoning is applicable to the specific example of Huang cited herein.
Regarding Claim 9, Hiroyuki et al. as modified by Huang et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Hiroyuki et al. further teaches the crystalline carbon is natural graphite or artificial graphite (i.e. the first active material is a natural graphite or artificial graphite material) (Para. [0024]).
Regarding Claim 10, Hiroyuki et al. as modified by Huang et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Hiroyuki et al. further teaches the amorphous carbon is not particularly limited (Para. [0024]) and amorphous carbon such as Ketjen black can be used (Para. [0041]) (i.e. hard carbon or soft carbon is contained in the second active material layer).
Regarding Claim 11, Hiroyuki et al. as modified by Huang et al. teaches all of the elements of the negative electrode plate in claim 1 as explained above.
Hiroyuki et al. further teaches teaches a lithium ion secondary battery comprising the negative electrode plate (Para. [0010], [0049]) (i.e. a secondary battery, comprising the negative electrode plate).
Regarding Claim 15, Hiroyuki et al. as modified by Huang et al. teaches all of the elements of the negative electrode plate in claim 1 as explained above.
Hiroyuki et al. teaches wherein a negative electrode material A has a (002) plane spacing value of 0.34 nm or less (i.e. d1 overlapping with the claimed range of 0.335-0.3362 nm) wherein the negative electrode active material B has a (002) plane spacing value of 0.36 nm (Para. [0051]) (i.e. d2 within the claimed range of 0.3356-0.38 nm) and the crystalline carbon is natural graphite or artificial graphite (i.e. the first active material is a natural graphite or artificial graphite material) (Para. [0024]).
Hiroyuki et al. further teaches a ratio of a coating amount of the amorphous carbon mixture layer to the coating amount of the graphite carbon mixture layer was set to 1:4 (Para. [0059]) (i.e. CW2:CW1 ratio of 1:4) and Huang et al. teaches the first active material is graphite (Para. [0042]) wherein the first active material layer had a coating weight per unit area of 20 g/m2 -to 200 g/m2 (i.e. CW1). -Thus, the combination of Hiroyuki et al. with Huang et al. would provide a CW2 of 5 to 50 g/m2, overlapping with the claimed range of 10-110 g/m2. 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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).” See MPEP §2144.05(I).
See the rejection to claim 1 for full details of the combination, incorporated herein but not reiterated herein for brevity’s sake; this reasoning is applicable to the specific example of Huang et al. cited herein.
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshima et al. (US 2020/0295375) in view of Hiroyuki et al. (JP 2012/015051A) and Huang et al. (WO2020/155993A). The English machine translation of Hiroyuki et al. is attached and is referenced below.
Regarding Claim 12, Yoshima et al. teaches a battery pack including a secondary battery (Para. [0021]) wherein the secondary battery uses carbon material and graphite material as a negative electrode active material (Para. [0080]).
Hiroyuki et al. as modified by Huang et al. teaches the secondary battery according to claim 11 as explained above.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the battery pack of Yoshima to incorporate the teaching of the secondary battery comprising the negative electrode plate of modified Hiroyuki et al., as it would provide improved output, input and cycle characteristics (Para. [0091])
Regarding Claim 13, Yoshima et al. further teaches an electrical system in a vehicle (Para. [0017]) wherein the battery pack is provided (Para. [0022]) (i.e. an electric apparatus comprising a secondary battery).
Hiroyuki et al. as modified by Huang et al. teaches the secondary battery according to claim 11 as explained above.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electrical system (i.e. electrical apparatus) of Yoshima to incorporate the teaching of the secondary battery comprising the negative electrode plate of modified Hiroyuki et al., as it would provide improved output, input and cycle characteristics (Para. [0091]).
Regarding Claim 14, Yoshima et al. teaches a battery module (Para. [0013]) comprising a plurality of secondary batteries (Para. [0173]) wherein the secondary battery uses carbon material and graphite material as a negative electrode active material (Para. [0080]).
Yoshima et al. does not explicitly teach the secondary battery according to claim 11.
Hiroyuki et al. as modified by Huang et al. teaches the secondary battery according to claim 11 as explained above.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electrical system (i.e. electrical apparatus) of Yoshima to incorporate the teaching of the secondary battery comprising the negative electrode plate of modified Hiroyuki et al., as it would provide improved output, input and cycle characteristics (Para. [0091]).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiroyuki et al. (JP 2012/015051A) in view of Zhang et al. (CN 112735836A). The English machine translations of Hiroyuki et al. and Zhang et al. are attached in a prior Office action and are referenced below.
Regarding Claim 16, Hiroyuki et al. teaches a lithium ion secondary battery comprising a negative electrode plate (Para. [0010], [0049]) (i.e. a negative electrode plate) comprising two types of mixture slurries applied to a negative electrode current collector foil forming a negative electrode with a two-layer structure (Para. [0049]) (i.e. comprising a negative electrode current collector and active material layers disposed on at least one surface of the negative electrode current collector) wherein a negative electrode material A of graphite (Para. [0050]) and a negative electrode active material B of amorphous carbon (Para. [0051]) was used for the respective layers wherein negative electrode mixture slurry B is applied onto the negative electrode on which the graphite carbon mixture layer had been formed (Para. [0053], [0054]) (i.e. the active material layers comprising a first active material disposed on the at least one surface of the electrode current collector and comprising a first active material; and a second active material layer disposed on a surface of the first active material layer and comprising a second active material layer, the first active material layer is arranged between the negative electrode current collector and the second active material layer), wherein a negative electrode material A has a (002) plane spacing value of 0.34 nm or less (i.e. d1 as claimed) wherein the negative electrode active material B has a (002) plane spacing value of 0.36 nm (Para. [0051]) and a ratio of a coating amount of the amorphous carbon mixture layer to the coating amount of the graphite carbon mixture layer was set to 1:4 (Para. [0059]) (i.e. CW2:CW1 ratio of 1:4) and teaches the negative electrode active material A having an average particle diameter (D50) of 20 micrometers (i.e. the volume median particle size Da50 of the first active material is 20 micrometers) (Para. [0075]) (i.e. Da50 within the claimed range of 18-22 micrometers) . Thus, at the very least, teaches an overlapping range as when d1 = 0.335, d2 = 0.36, CW2:CW1 = 1:4, α is 1.07, within the claimed range of 1≤α≤1.12, and 1.07x1≤4 satisfying αxCW2≤CW1.
Hiroyuki et al. does not teach a volume median particle size Db50 of the second active material is within a range of 4-8 micrometers.
However, Zhang et al. teaches a negative electrode sheet (Para. [0018]) (i.e. a negative electrode plate) comprising a hard carbon (i.e. amorphous carbon) (i.e. active material, see Para. [0006]) wherein the hard carbon has a particle size of 5 micrometers (see Table 1, Example 10 and Para. [0032]) (i.e. a volume median particle size of 5 micrometers).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the volume average particle size Db50 of the second active material of Hiroyuki et al. to incorporate the teaching of a volume average (i.e. median) particle size of 5 micrometers as taught by Zhang et al. as such a volume average particle size of an amorphous carbon can make the battery electrode have excellent wettability and improve the kinetic performance of the lithium ion secondary battery (Para. [0105]) and increased contact with electrolyte making the battery faster to charge (Para. [0031]). The combination of Hiroyuki et al. as modified by Zhang et al. would provide a Db50/Da50 of 5/20 or 0.25, satisfying 0.18<(Db50/Da50)<0.44. 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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).” See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiroyuki et al. (JP 2012/015051A). The English machine translation of Hiroyuki et al. is attached in a prior Office action and is referenced below.
Regarding Claim 17, Hiroyuki et al. teaches a lithium ion secondary battery comprising a negative electrode plate (Para. [0010], [0049]) (i.e. a negative electrode plate) comprising two types of mixture slurries applied to a negative electrode current collector foil forming a negative electrode with a two-layer structure (Para. [0049]) (i.e. comprising a negative electrode current collector and active material layers disposed on at least one surface of the negative electrode current collector) wherein a negative electrode material A of graphite (Para. [0050]) and a negative electrode active material B of amorphous carbon (Para. [0051]) was used for the respective layers wherein negative electrode mixture slurry B is applied onto the negative electrode on which the graphite carbon mixture layer had been formed (Para. [0053], [0054]) (i.e. the active material layers comprising a first active material disposed on the at least one surface of the electrode current collector and comprising a first active material; and a second active material layer disposed on a surface of the first active material layer and comprising a second active material layer, the first active material layer is arranged between the negative electrode current collector and the second active material layer), wherein a negative electrode material A crystalline carbon has a (002) plane spacing value of 0.34 nm or less (i.e. d1 as claimed, overlapping with the claimed range of 0.335-0.3358 nm) wherein the amorphous carbon negative electrode active material B has a (002) plane spacing value of 0.36 nm or more (Para. [0024]) (i.e. d2 as claimed) and a ratio of a coating amount of the amorphous carbon mixture layer to the coating amount of the graphite carbon mixture layer was set to 1:4 (Para. [0059]) (i.e. CW2:CW1 ratio of 1:4) and teaches the negative electrode active material A having an average particle diameter (D50) of 20 micrometers (i.e. the volume median particle size Da50 of the first active material is 20 micrometers) (Para. [0075]) (i.e. Da50 within the claimed range of 18-22 micrometers) . Thus, at the very least, teaches an overlapping range as when d1 = 0.3358, d2 = 0.37 , CW2:CW1 = 1:4, α is 1.1018, within the claimed range of 1.1018≤α≤1.045, and 1.1018x1≤4 satisfying αxCW2≤CW1. 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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).” See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed February 3, 2026 have been fully considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the combination references being used in the current rejection in light of the amendment.
Applicant’s arguments are drawn to a previous prior art combination and thus, are not persuasive in light of the newly cited prior art.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ARMINDO CARVALHO JR. whose telephone number is (571)272-5292. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30a.m.-5p.m..
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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at 571 272-1481. 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.
/ARMINDO CARVALHO JR./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights