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 .
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.
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.
Claim(s) 8 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kano et al (US 2015/0079470).
Regarding claim 8, Kano et al teaches a lithium secondary battery (paragraph [0002-0005]), comprising:
a positive electrode having a positive active material (paragraph [0012], paragraph [0022], preferably lithium-containing nickel-cobalt-manganese composite oxide);
a negative electrode having a negative active material (paragraph [0049-0051], paragraph [0052], negative electrode active material may include one or more negative electrode active materials, including graphitized material and carbonaceous material such as natural graphite, artificial graphite, carbon fibers, spherical carbon, and the like);
an electrolyte system (abstract, nonaqueous electrolyte) providing ionic conductivity between the positive electrode and the negative electrode to allow lithium ions to move between the positive electrode and the negative electrode to perform an electrochemical reaction for charging and discharging (known function of electrolyte in the lithium-ion secondary battery); and
a lithium receiver disposed in the negative electrode, wherein the lithium receiver is capable of reacting with lithium to form lithium alloy or lithium compound (paragraph [0052], note that the negative electrode active material may include more than one active material, including sulfides such as TiS2 and FeS2, these materials are capable of reacting with lithium);
wherein an electric potential which the lithium receiver is reacted with lithium is different from an electric potential which the negative active material of the negative electrode is reacted with lithium (FeS2 reacts at a different potential than carbon, known material property, see applicant’s specification p.9 lines 8-25 disclosing the same material); wherein the lithium receiver is an inorganic material, wherein the inorganic material includes FeS2 or TiS2, or a mixture thereof (paragraph [0052], FeS2, TiS2).
Kano et al is quiet to the lithium receiver does not involve in the electrochemical reaction.
However, regarding the properties that the lithium receiver is capable of reacting with lithium but is not involved in the electrochemical reaction and that the electric potential of the receiver is different from that of the active material, note that as the structure of the prior art is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties are functions are presumed to be inherent. 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. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01(I). If the composition is physically the same, it must have the same properties. "Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2112.01(II). Note that applicant’s specification describes the same materials, and that due to the material, such as FeS2 alloying at 1.5-2.5 volts whereas the electrochemical potential of carbon or silicon is at 0-0.1 volts, the lithium receiver is inactive (applicant’s spec, p.9 lines 8-25).
Regarding claim 10, Kano et al teaches wherein the lithium receiver is distributed between negative active material particles or coated on a surface of the negative electrode (paragraph [0052], may include one or more negative electrode active material, suggesting the materials are mixed).
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 3-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kano et al (US 2015/0079470) in view of Choi et al (US 2023/0187620).
Regarding claim 1, Kano et al teaches a lithium secondary battery (paragraph [0002-0005]), comprising:
a positive electrode having a positive active material (paragraph [0012]), which includes a lithium cobalt manganese oxide in which a weight percentage of nickel is more than 75% (paragraph [0022], preferably lithium-containing nickel-cobalt-manganese composite oxide, overlap of ranges as e can b 0, and c and d can be close to 0);
a negative electrode having a negative active material (paragraph [0049-0051], paragraph [0052], negative electrode active material may include one or more negative electrode active materials, including graphitized material and carbonaceous material such as natural graphite, artificial graphite, carbon fibers, spherical carbon, and the like);
an electrolyte system (abstract, nonaqueous electrolyte) providing ionic conductivity between the positive electrode and the negative electrode to allow lithium ions to move between the positive electrode and the negative electrode to perform an electrochemical reaction for charging and discharging (known function of electrolyte in the lithium-ion secondary battery).
Kano et al is quiet to a thermal-energy-absorbing ionic provider added in the positive electrode and being inactive during the electrochemical reaction, wherein the thermal-energy-absorbing ionic provider includes an anionic group and a reactive cation bonded to the anionic group, and the thermal-energy-absorbing ionic provider releases the reactive cation by absorbing thermal energy to react with the positive active material and deactivate the positive active material; wherein the reactive cation is sodium or potassium; wherein the anionic group is NO-, Al(OH)4-, AlSiO4-, B4O72-, CF3SO3-, SiO3-, PSS-, H2PO2-, P2O6-, P3O93-, BO2-, BO3-, S2O72-, S2O32-, SO52-, S2O82-, S2O62-, S2O42-, B2O54-, SO3C4F9-, SO2CF3-, or S2O52-.
Choi et al teaches a cathode active material that includes a lithium composite oxide and a lithium-aluminum-sulfur-boron oxide formed on a surface of the lithium composite oxide (abstract). The oxide coating is formed by mixing an aluminum source, a sulfur source, which may be a sodium metabisulfite (Na2S2O5)(paragraph [0029]) and a boron source. The sulfur component may also be coated at an interface between primary particles of the lithium composite oxide, thus suppressing side reactions between the electrolyte and the cathode active material (paragraph [0034]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Kano such that the lithium composite oxide may further include a sulfur component coated at an interface between primary particles of the lithium composite oxide, as Choi et al teaches the sulfur component suppresses side reactions between the electrolyte and the cathode active material. Note that the sulfur source is a sodium metabisulfite (Na2S2O5), the cation would be a sodium and the anion is S2O52-.
Note that although the combination is quiet to the ionic provider being a thermal-energy absorbing ionic provider that is inactive during the electrochemical reaction, and that the thermal-energy absorbing ionic provider releases the reactive cation by absorbing thermal energy, note that the combination suggests the same materials as discussed in applicant’s specification and claims.
As the structure of the prior art is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties are functions are presumed to be inherent. 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. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01(I). Note that if the composition is physically the same, it must have the same properties. "Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2112.01(II).
Regarding claim 3, the combination teaches wherein the anionic group is asymmetrical (note combination, S2O52- is asymmetrical).
Regarding claim 4, the combination teaches wherein the thermal-energy absorbing ionic provider is distributed between positive active material particles or is coated on a surface of the positive electrode (see combination, Choi, paragraph [0034], coated at an interface between primary particles).
Regarding claim 5, the combination teaches a lithium receiver distributed between negative electrode active material particles, wherein the lithium receiver is capable of reacting with lithium to form lithium alloy or lithium compound (Kano et al, paragraph [0052], note that the negative electrode active material may include more than one active material, including sulfides such as TiS2 and FeS2, these materials are capable of reacting with lithium); wherein an electric potential which the lithium receiver is reacted with lithium is different from an electric potential which the negative active material of the negative electrode is reacted with lithium (FeS2 reacts at a different potential than carbon, known material property, see applicant’s specification p.9 lines 8-25 disclosing the same material).
Kano et al is quiet to the lithium receiver does not involve in the electrochemical reaction.
However, regarding the properties that the lithium receiver is capable of reacting with lithium but is not involved in the electrochemical reaction and that the electric potential of the receiver is different from that of the active material, note that as the structure of the prior art is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties are functions are presumed to be inherent. 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. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01(I). If the composition is physically the same, it must have the same properties. "Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2112.01(II). Note that applicant’s specification describes the same materials, and that due to the material, such as FeS2 alloying at 1.5-2.5 volts whereas the electrochemical potential of carbon or silicon is at 0-0.1 volts, the lithium receiver is inactive (applicant’s spec, p.9 lines 8-25).
Regarding claim 6, the combination teaches the lithium receiver is an inorganic material, wherein the inorganic material comprises FeS2 or TiS2 (Kano et al, paragraph [0052]).
Regarding claim 7, the combination teaches the ionic provider is not dissociable in a polar solution.
Note that the phrase “not dissociable in a polar solution” is defined in applicant’s specification, p.7 lines 7-10, as “not necessary for the ionic provider of this invention to be dissociated in a polar solution.” The prior art teaches the identical structure to the claimed invention, including the same ionic provider as claimed, and thus would have the same properties as being not necessary for the ionic provider to be dissociated in a polar solution.
As the structure of the prior art is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties are functions are presumed to be inherent. 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. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01(I).
Note that if the composition is physically the same, it must have the same properties. "Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2112.01(II).
Claim(s) 11-12 and 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kano et al in view of Tagawa (JP 2006-156317 A).
Regarding claim 11, Kano et al is quiet to further comprising an ionic provider disposed in the positive electrode and being inactive during the electrochemical reaction, wherein the ionic provider includes an anionic group and a reactive cation bonded to the anionic group, and the ionic provider releases the reactive cation by absorbing thermal energy to react with the positive active material and deactivate the positive active material; wherein the reactive cation is sodium or potassium.
Tagawa teaches a Lithium Manganese oxide positive electrode (paragraph [0005-0006]) that is provided with sodium phosphate (paragraph [0005]) to suppress severe degradation of the lithium ion secondary battery (paragraph [0004-0005]). The added sodium phosphate inhibits the dissolution of Mn from the lithium manganate (paragraph [0011]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Kano so as to include a sodium phosphate with the positive electrode, as Tagawa teaches that the inclusion of sodium phosphate suppresses Mn dissolution and battery deterioration (paragraph [0015]).
Note that although Tagawa is quiet as to whether the sodium phosphate is an ionic provider that is inactive during the electrochemical reaction and absorbs thermal energy to react and deactivate the positive active material, the combination suggests the same materials for the positive electrode and the ionic provider as claimed. As the structure of the prior art is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties are functions are presumed to be inherent. 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. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01(I). Note that if the composition is physically the same, it must have the same properties. "Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2112.01(II).
Regarding claim 12, the combination teaches the anionic group is PO43- (Tagawa, paragraph [0004-0005], sodium phosphate).
Regarding claim 14, the combination teaches the ionic provider is distributed between positive active material particles (Tagawa, paragraph [0008], the sodium phosphate is mixed with the lithium manganate particles).
Regarding claim 15, the combination teaches the ionic provider is not dissociable in a polar solution.
Note that the phrase “not dissociable in a polar solution” is defined in applicant’s specification, p.7 lines 7-10, as “not necessary for the ionic provider of this invention to be dissociated in a polar solution.” The prior art teaches the identical structure to the claimed invention, including the same ionic provider as claimed, and thus would have the same properties as being not necessary for the ionic provider to be dissociated in a polar solution.
As the structure of the prior art is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties are functions are presumed to be inherent. 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. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01(I).
Note that if the composition is physically the same, it must have the same properties. "Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2112.01(II).
Regarding claim 16, Kano et al teaches a lithium secondary battery (paragraph [0002-0005]), comprising:
a positive electrode having a positive active material (paragraph [0012], paragraph [0022], preferably lithium-containing nickel-cobalt-manganese composite oxide);
a negative electrode having a negative active material (paragraph [0049-0051], paragraph [0052], negative electrode active material may include one or more negative electrode active materials, including graphitized material and carbonaceous material such as natural graphite, artificial graphite, carbon fibers, spherical carbon, and the like);
an electrolyte system (abstract, nonaqueous electrolyte) providing ionic conductivity between the positive electrode and the negative electrode to allow lithium ions to move between the positive electrode and the negative electrode to perform an electrochemical reaction for charging and discharging (known function of electrolyte in the lithium ion secondary battery); and
a lithium receiver disposed in the negative electrode, wherein the lithium receiver is capable of reacting with lithium to form lithium alloy or lithium compound (paragraph [0052], note that the negative electrode active material may include more than one active material, including sulfides such as TiS2 and FeS2, these materials are capable of reacting with lithium);
wherein an electric potential which the lithium receiver is reacted with lithium is different from an electric potential which the negative active material of the negative electrode is reacted with lithium (FeS2 reacts at a different potential than carbon, known material property, see applicant’s specification p.9 lines 8-25 disclosing the same material); wherein the lithium receiver is an inorganic material, wherein the inorganic material includes FeS2 or TiS2, or a mixture thereof (paragraph [0052], FeS2, TiS2).
Kano et al is quiet to the lithium receiver does not involve in the electrochemical reaction.
However, regarding the properties that the lithium receiver is capable of reacting with lithium but is not involved in the electrochemical reaction and that the electric potential of the receiver is different from that of the active material, note that as the structure of the prior art is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties are functions are presumed to be inherent. 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. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01(I). If the composition is physically the same, it must have the same properties. "Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2112.01(II). Note that applicant’s specification describes the same materials, and that due to the material, such as FeS2 alloying at 1.5-2.5 volts whereas the electrochemical potential of carbon or silicon is at 0-0.1 volts, the lithium receiver is inactive (applicant’s spec, p.9 lines 8-25).
Kano et al is quiet to further comprising an ionic provider added in the positive electrode and being inactive during the electrochemical reaction, wherein the ionic provider includes an anionic group and a reactive cation bonded to the anionic group, and the ionic provider releases the reactive cation by absorbing thermal energy to react with the positive active material and deactivate the positive active material; wherein the reactive cation is sodium or potassium.
Tagawa teaches a Lithium Manganese oxide positive electrode (paragraph [0005-0006]) that is provided with sodium phosphate (paragraph [0005]) to suppress severe degradation of the lithium ion secondary battery (paragraph [0004-0005]). The added sodium phosphate inhibits the dissolution of Mn from the lithium manganate (paragraph [0011]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Kano so as to include a sodium phosphate with the positive electrode, as Tagawa teaches that the inclusion of sodium phosphate suppresses Mn dissolution and battery deterioration (paragraph [0015]).
Note that although Tagawa is quiet as to whether the sodium phosphate is an ionic provider that is inactive during the electrochemical reaction and absorbs thermal energy to react and deactivate the positive active material, the combination suggests the same materials for the positive electrode and the ionic provider as claimed. As the structure of the prior art is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties are functions are presumed to be inherent. 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. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01(I). Note that if the composition is physically the same, it must have the same properties. "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2112.01(II).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kano et al as modified by Tagawa as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Univ Nagoya (JP 2007-220335 A, previously cited).
Regarding claim 13, the combination is quiet to wherein the anionic group is asymmetrical.
Univ Nagoya teaches a lithium ion secondary battery (paragraph [0001]) comprising a positive electrode formed using a mixture containing a lithium-containing metal oxide and an alkali metal phosphate (paragraph [0006]). The alkali metal phosphate is not particularly limited (paragraph [0009]), and may preferably include pyrophosphates such as M4P2O7 (paragraph [0009]), where the alkali metal can be sodium or potassium (paragraph [0009]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination such that the ionic provider is a sodium pyrophosphate (NaP2O7), as taught in Univ Nagoya, as an obvious alternative of sodium phosphate, as Univ Nagoya teaches that the inclusion of the sodium pyrophosphate can improve capacity retention rate of the battery (paragraph [0023]). Note that the anion group of a pyrophosphate is asymmetrical.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 9/23/25 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of any patent granted on Application Number 18/083,038 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Independent claim 1 has been amended to require a lithium cobalt manganese oxide in which a weight percentage of nickel is more than 75%. Claim 1 was further amended to narrow the anionic group. Independent claims 8 and 16 were amended such that the lithium receiver includes Fe4(P2O7)3, FeS2, Cu2P2O7, TiS2, or a mixture thereof.
Applicant argues that NEC Corp fails to teach the claimed invention, as NEC Corp’s sodium ions are involved in the formation of a surface coating on the negative electrode by reacting with active sites on the active material surface, and thus are involved in the electrochemical reactions by reacting with the active sites on the active material surface of the negative electrode in the initial charging process.
NEC Corp is no longer cited in the current rejections. However, the examiner disagrees, and notes the paragraphs applicant has cited, paragraph [0036] describes prior to first charge, and that during subsequent charging, lithium ions are prevented from being consumed (paragraph [0036]). Thus, the SEI film is formed prior to the subsequent charging, where the sodium and potassium ions have already reacted with the SEI film. This would prevent the lithium ions from being consumed and reacted with the SEI film. Note, however, the sodium/potassium are not involved in the electrochemical reaction, as they have already reacted prior to the subsequent charging. Regarding applicant’s argument that NEC Corp does not suggest a problem-solving of thermal runway, note that the limitations that the ionic provider is “thermal-energy-absorbing” are functional limitations directed to a material property of the ionic provider, and not to a different material or structure.
Applicant argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would not recognize the characteristics of the present application.
However, note that "[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer." Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Thus the claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). MPEP 2112 (I).
Applicant similarly argues Noguchi fails to teach the claimed invention. Noguchi is no longer cited in the current rejections, as claim 8 has been amended such that the inorganic material no longer includes LTO.
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 JACKY YUEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5749. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30 - 6:00.
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, Keith Walker can be reached at 571-272-3458. 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.
/JACKY YUEN/
Examiner
Art Unit 1735
/KEITH WALKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1735