DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Elections/Restrictions
2. This office action is a response to Applicant's election filed on 01/30/2026 with traverse of Group II, sub-species II-1B, claims 10-15 & 17 for further examination. Claims 1-9, 16 & 18-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
3. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 01/30/2026. Applicant's election with traverse of Group II, sub-species II-1B, claims 10-15 & 17.
The traversal is on the grounds that the elected group includes concepts that are common the non-elected claims such that the non-elected claims are not mutually exclusive. More than one different wavelength as in claim 17 does not preclude the same wavelength as in claim 16. There would be no search burden. This is not found persuasive because regardless of the search method, inventions with different limitations will require different search strategies, and the times to consider the relevancy of collective references would increase proportionality as well. Examiner also contends controller functions are mutually exclusive since they may have to be simultaneously controlled or not controlled at all and if there are only two (plurality) lights with the same wavelength, they cannot be different. Further, even though a few U.S. Patents disclosing a plurality of species may be found in subclass B25J, subgroup 11/00, it is recognized that apparatus species containing different structural components and/or different combinations of structural components with different functional limitations are characterized as separate and distinct subject for inventive efforts. Thus, it is necessary to search for one of the inventions in a manner that is not likely to result in finding art pertinent to the other invention. The findings of different structural components and/or different combinations of structural components with different functional limitations and different field of search would justify a serious burden on the examiner if restriction is not required. See MPEP 808.02.
Thus far, applicant has not proved or provided convincing argument that there is no material difference between the three species and subspecies on the record. Therefore, the requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 01/11/2023 & 01/30/2026 are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections
5. 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 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.
6. 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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 of this title, 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.
8. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
9. Claims 10-15 & 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwartz (US 2004/0076919 A1) hereinafter Schwartz in view of Barber (US 20210060606 A1) hereinafter Barber and Wilson et al. (US 20140246603 A1) hereinafter Wilson (the terminology of the claims in the application is used, but the references of Schwartz, Barber and Wilson are included between parentheses).
Regarding claim 10, the recitation “paint… vehicle”, this recitation is a statement of process expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and intended use which does not patentably distinguish over Schwartz since Schwartz meets all the structural elements of the claim and is capable of curing paint on a vehicle, if so desired, and does not add structure to the claim. Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and intended use of a known apparatus does not give it patentable weight. See In re Thuau, 57 USPQ 324, CCPA 979 135 F2d 344, 1943. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus shows all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). It is additionally noted that it is well settled that the intended use of a claimed apparatus is not germane to the issue of the patentability of the claimed structure. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the claimed use then it meets the claim. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235, 238 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 459 (CCPA 1963). Furthermore, “expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666,667 (Bd. App. 1969). Thus, the “inclusion of material or article worked upon does not impart patentability to the claims.” In re Young, 75 F.2d 966, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 (USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)). Therefore, Examiner is disregarding any structural limitations to the apparatus based on process expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and the process intended to be used with the apparatus. See MPEP 2114 & 2115.
As regards to claim 10, Schwartz discloses a paint curing system (abs; fig 1-3), comprising: a heater (36) configured to supply heated air to the vehicle (46); and a control module (48) configured to selectively turn on and off the heater (36) ([0007]-[0008]; [0017]-[0024]; fig 1-3), however Schwartz does not disclose a robot arm including a first end and a second end that opposes the first end; a first light disposed at the second end of the robot arm and that is configured to cure paint on a first panel of a vehicle; a lamp panel positioned adjacent to the vehicle and that includes a second light configured to cure paint on a second panel of the vehicle; and the control module (48) configured to actuate the robot arm and position the first light relative to the first panel of the vehicle (46); selectively turn on and off the first light and the second light.
Barber discloses a paint curing system (abs; fig 1-4), comprising a robot arm (14) including a first end (see fig 2-3) and a second end (see fig 2-3) that opposes the first end (see fig 2-3); a first light (15) disposed at the second end (see fig 2-3) of the robot arm (14) and that is configured to cure paint on a first panel (24) of a vehicle (11+24); and the control module (implicit, see description of [0005]-[0006]; [0012]-[0017]) configured to actuate the robot arm (14) and position the first light (15) relative to the first panel (24) of the vehicle (11+24) and selectively turn on and off the first light (15) [0005]-[0006]; [0012]-[0017]; fig 2-3). Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a robot arm (14) including a first end (see fig 2-3) and a second end (see fig 2-3) that opposes the first end (see fig 2-3); a first light (15) disposed at the second end (see fig 2-3) of the robot arm (14) and that is configured to cure paint on a first panel (24) of a vehicle (11+24); and the control module (implicit, see description of [0005]-[0006]; [0012]-[0017]) configured to actuate the robot arm (14) and position the first light (15) relative to the first panel (24) of the vehicle (11+24) and selectively turn on and off the first light (15) in the system of Schwartz, because Barber teaches the use of a robot arm (14) including a first end (see fig 2-3) and a second end (see fig 2-3) that opposes the first end (see fig 2-3); a first light (15) disposed at the second end (see fig 2-3) of the robot arm (14) and that is configured to cure paint on a first panel (24) of a vehicle (11+24); and the control module (implicit, see description of [0005]-[0006]; [0012]-[0017]) configured to actuate the robot arm (14) and position the first light (15) relative to the first panel (24) of the vehicle (11+24) and selectively turn on and off the first light (15) to allow movement of the first light (15) along the vehicle surface to selectively cure liquid applied to the vehicle (11+24) ([0006]; [0016]-[0017]), however the combination of Schwartz & Barber does not disclose a lamp panel positioned adjacent to the vehicle and that includes a second light configured to cure paint on a second panel of the vehicle; and the control module (48) configured to selectively turn on and off the second light.
Wilson discloses a paint curing system (abs; fig 1-5), comprising a lamp panel (1) positioned adjacent to the vehicle (31) and that includes a second light (20) configured to cure paint on a second panel (34) of the vehicle (31); and the control module (2) configured to selectively turn on and off the second light (20) ([0007]; [0056]-[0063]; [0064]; [0072]; [0076]; [0079]-[0080]; fig 1A-5). Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a lamp panel (1) positioned adjacent to the vehicle (31) and that includes a second light (20) configured to cure paint on a second panel (34) of the vehicle (31); and the control module (2) configured to selectively turn on and off the second light (20) in the system of modified Schwartz, because Wilson teaches the use of a lamp panel (1) positioned adjacent to the vehicle (31) and that includes a second light (20) configured to cure paint on a second panel (34) of the vehicle (31); and the control module (2) configured to selectively turn on and off the second light (20) to allow the second light (20) to irradiate along the vehicle surface to selectively cure liquid applied to the vehicle (31) at various wavelengths ([0007]; [0056]-[0063]; [0064]; [0072]; [0076]; [0079-[0080]).
Regarding claim 11, the recitation “vehicle… room”, this recitation is a statement of process expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and intended use which does not patentably distinguish over Schwartz since Schwartz meets all the structural elements of the claim and is capable of curing paint on a vehicle in a room, if so desired, and does not add structure to the claim. Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and intended use of a known apparatus does not give it patentable weight. See In re Thuau, 57 USPQ 324, CCPA 979 135 F2d 344, 1943. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus shows all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). It is additionally noted that it is well settled that the intended use of a claimed apparatus is not germane to the issue of the patentability of the claimed structure. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the claimed use then it meets the claim. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235, 238 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 459 (CCPA 1963). Furthermore, “expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666,667 (Bd. App. 1969). Thus, the “inclusion of material or article worked upon does not impart patentability to the claims.” In re Young, 75 F.2d 966, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 (USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)). Therefore, Examiner is disregarding any structural limitations to the apparatus based on process expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and the process intended to be used with the apparatus. See MPEP 2114 & 2115.
As regards to claim 11, Schwartz discloses a paint curing system (abs; fig 1-3), wherein the vehicle (46) is disposed within a room (12) and the heater (36) is disposed outside of the room (12) and configured to supply heated air into the room (12) ([0007]-[0008]; [0017]-[0024]; fig 1-3).
Regarding claim 12, the recitation “room”, this recitation is a statement of process expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and intended use which does not patentably distinguish over Schwartz since Schwartz meets all the structural elements of the claim and is capable of curing paint on a vehicle in a room, if so desired, and does not add structure to the claim. Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and intended use of a known apparatus does not give it patentable weight. See In re Thuau, 57 USPQ 324, CCPA 979 135 F2d 344, 1943. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus shows all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). It is additionally noted that it is well settled that the intended use of a claimed apparatus is not germane to the issue of the patentability of the claimed structure. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the claimed use then it meets the claim. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235, 238 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 459 (CCPA 1963). Furthermore, “expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666,667 (Bd. App. 1969). Thus, the “inclusion of material or article worked upon does not impart patentability to the claims.” In re Young, 75 F.2d 966, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 (USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)). Therefore, Examiner is disregarding any structural limitations to the apparatus based on process expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and the process intended to be used with the apparatus. See MPEP 2114 & 2115.
As regards to claim 12, Schwartz discloses a paint curing system (abs; fig 1-3), further comprising: a first duct (28+34) extending between the room (12) and the heater (36) and that is configured to carry air from the room (12) to the heater (36) ([0007]-[0008]; [0017]-[0024]; fig 1-3).
Regarding claim 13, the recitation “room… sidewall… floor”, this recitation is a statement of process expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and intended use which does not patentably distinguish over Schwartz since Schwartz meets all the structural elements of the claim and is capable of curing paint on a vehicle in a room with a sidewall and floor, if so desired, and does not add structure to the claim. Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and intended use of a known apparatus does not give it patentable weight. See In re Thuau, 57 USPQ 324, CCPA 979 135 F2d 344, 1943. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus shows all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). It is additionally noted that it is well settled that the intended use of a claimed apparatus is not germane to the issue of the patentability of the claimed structure. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the claimed use then it meets the claim. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235, 238 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 459 (CCPA 1963). Furthermore, “expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666,667 (Bd. App. 1969). Thus, the “inclusion of material or article worked upon does not impart patentability to the claims.” In re Young, 75 F.2d 966, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 (USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)). Therefore, Examiner is disregarding any structural limitations to the apparatus based on process expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and the process intended to be used with the apparatus. See MPEP 2114 & 2115.
As regards to claim 13, Schwartz discloses a paint curing system (abs; fig 1-3), further comprising a second duct (26+32) extending between the heater (36) and the room (12) and that is configured to carry heated air from the heater (36) to the room (12), wherein the second duct (26+32) is attached to a sidewall (18+20) of the room (12) and the second duct (26+32) is attached to a floor (14) of the room (12) via sidewall (18+20) ([0007]-[0008]; [0017]-[0024]; fig 1-3).
Regarding claim 14, the recitation “vehicle”, this recitation is a statement of process expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and intended use which does not patentably distinguish over Schwartz since Schwartz meets all the structural elements of the claim and is capable of curing paint on a vehicle in a room, if so desired, and does not add structure to the claim. Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and intended use of a known apparatus does not give it patentable weight. See In re Thuau, 57 USPQ 324, CCPA 979 135 F2d 344, 1943. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus shows all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). It is additionally noted that it is well settled that the intended use of a claimed apparatus is not germane to the issue of the patentability of the claimed structure. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the claimed use then it meets the claim. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235, 238 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 459 (CCPA 1963). Furthermore, “expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666,667 (Bd. App. 1969). Thus, the “inclusion of material or article worked upon does not impart patentability to the claims.” In re Young, 75 F.2d 966, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 (USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)). Therefore, Examiner is disregarding any structural limitations to the apparatus based on process expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and the process intended to be used with the apparatus. See MPEP 2114 & 2115.
As regards to claim 14, Schwartz discloses a paint curing system (abs; fig 1-3), wherein the second duct (26+32) includes a first branch (26) positioned on a first side (see fig 1-3) of the vehicle (46) and a second branch (32) positioned on a second side (see fig 1-3) of the vehicle (46) ([0007]-[0008]; [0017]-[0024]; fig 1-3).
Regarding claim 15, the recitation “wherein interior surfaces of the room are covered using a UV light shielding film”, this recitation is a statement of process expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and intended use which does not patentably distinguish over Schwartz since Schwartz meets all the structural elements of the claim and is capable of curing paint on a vehicle in a room wherein interior surfaces of the room (12) are covered using a UV light shielding film, if so desired, and does not add structure to the claim. Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and intended use of a known apparatus does not give it patentable weight. See In re Thuau, 57 USPQ 324, CCPA 979 135 F2d 344, 1943. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus shows all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). It is additionally noted that it is well settled that the intended use of a claimed apparatus is not germane to the issue of the patentability of the claimed structure. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the claimed use then it meets the claim. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235, 238 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 459 (CCPA 1963). Furthermore, “expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666,667 (Bd. App. 1969). Thus, the “inclusion of material or article worked upon does not impart patentability to the claims.” In re Young, 75 F.2d 966, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 (USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)). Therefore, Examiner is disregarding any structural limitations to the apparatus based on process expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and the process intended to be used with the apparatus. See MPEP 2114 & 2115.
As regards to claim 15, Schwartz discloses a paint curing system (abs; fig 1-3), interior surfaces of the room (12) ([0007]-[0008]; [0017]-[0024]; fig 1-3), however the combination of Schwartz & Barber does not disclose are covered using a UV light shielding film.
Wilson discloses a paint curing system (abs; fig 1-5), comprising one or more UV blocking elements (6/7) that block UV radiations wherein radiation blocking elements can include metal sheets or blocks, ceramic sheets or blocks, or any other materials that can block UV radiations and visible radiations ([0058]-[0060]; [0065]-[0066]; fig 1A-5). Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include interior surfaces of the room (12) are covered using a UV light shielding film in the system of modified Schwartz, because Wilson teaches the use one or more UV blocking elements (6/7) that block UV radiations wherein radiation blocking elements can include metal sheets or blocks, ceramic sheets or blocks, or any other materials that can block UV radiations and visible radiations, one advantage of the system disclosed herein is that the UV blocking elements 6 can permit visible radiations 21 to exit the radiation blocker so an operator can visually confirm that the UV source is actually powered when the mobile radiation device is seated on the radiation blocker nest without being exposed to the UV irradiation ([0065]-[0066]).
As regards to claim 17, Schwartz discloses a paint curing system (abs; fig 1-3), however Schwartz does not disclose wherein the first light and the second light each include a plurality of lights having more than one different wavelength.
Barber discloses a paint curing system (abs; fig 1-4), comprising a first light (15) including a light having a peak wavelength of 395 nm and is ideally positioned at a distance of less than or equal to 25 mm ([0012]-[0017]; fig 2-3).
Wilson discloses a paint curing system (abs; fig 1-5), comprising a second light (20) including a light having sources of UV irradiation for curing including natural sunlight or artificial UV radiation sources, wherein examples of UV irradiation for curing can include, but not limited to, UV-A radiation, which falls within the wavelength range of from 320 nanometers (nm) to 400 nm; UV-B radiation, which is radiation having a wavelength falling in the range of from 280 nm to 320 nm; UV-C radiation, which is radiation having a wavelength falling in the range of from 100 nm to 280 nm; and UV-V radiation, which is radiation having a wavelength falling in the range of from 400 nm to 800 nm ([0007]; [0064]; [0079]-[0080]; fig 1A-5).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include wherein the first light and the second light each include a plurality of lights having more than one different wavelength in the system of Schwartz, because Barber teaches the use of a light having a peak wavelength of 395 nm and is ideally positioned at a distance of less than or equal to 25 mm to allow movement of the first light (15) along the vehicle surface to selectively cure liquid applied to the vehicle (11+24) ([0006]; [0016]-[0017]); and Wilson teaches the use a second light (20) including a light having sources of UV irradiation for curing including natural sunlight or artificial UV radiation sources, wherein examples of UV irradiation for curing can include, but not limited to, UV-A radiation, which falls within the wavelength range of from 320 nanometers (nm) to 400 nm; UV-B radiation, which is radiation having a wavelength falling in the range of from 280 nm to 320 nm; UV-C radiation, which is radiation having a wavelength falling in the range of from 100 nm to 280 nm; and UV-V radiation, which is radiation having a wavelength falling in the range of from 400 nm to 800 nm to allow the second light (20) to irradiate along the vehicle surface to selectively cure liquid applied to the vehicle (31) at various wavelengths ([0007]; [0064]; [0079-[0080]).
Conclusion
10. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: all references cited on the attached PTO-892 Notice of References Cited excluding the above relied upon references.
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jethro M Pence whose telephone number is (571)270-7423. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 8:00 A.M. - 6:30 P.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, Dah-Wei D. Yuan can be reached on 571-272-1295. 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.
/Jethro M. Pence/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1717