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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 6 line 2 recites “flow between the dilute compartments into the concentrate compartments”, but should recite “flow between the dilute compartments [[into]] and the concentrate compartments” or “flow [[between]] from the dilute compartments into the concentrate compartments” to be grammatically correct.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 3-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 3, claim 3 recites the limitation “the flow into and out of the compartments” in lines 18-19. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Specifically, claim 3 does not recite “a flow into and out of the compartments” or “flow into and out of the compartments”, and it is therefore unclear to what the term “the flow into and out of the compartments” refers.
Furthermore, claim 3 recites the limitation "the compartments" in line 19, it is unclear to what compartments this limitation refers. Specifically, claim 3 recites four distinct compartments: “a concentrate compartment”, “a dilute compartment”, and, “a first electrode compartment”, and “a second electrode compartment”. It is unclear whether the term “the compartments” is intended to refer to one or more of these compartments in particular, or whether it is intended to refer to each of these compartments.
Furthermore, claim 3 recites the limitation “the input line of the concentrate compartments” in line 23. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Specifically, while claim 3 recites “a plurality of input lines for supplying feed solution to … the concentrate compartments”, it does not recite “an input line of the concentrate compartments”. It is therefore unclear whether this limitation is intended to refer to the input line that supplies feed to the concentrate compartments, or if it is intended to require an input line directly connected to the concentrate compartments.
Furthermore, claim 3 recites the limitation “diluting compartments” in line 25. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Specifically, while claim 3 recites “a dilute compartment”, it does not recite “a diluting compartment”. It is therefore unclear whether the term “diluting compartments” is intended to refer to the “dilute compartments”, or whether the term is intended to recite an additional component of the system.
Furthermore, claim 3 recites the limitation “the diluted stream” in line 30. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Specifically, claim 3 recites “dilute product solution” in line 30, but does not recite “a diluted stream”. It is therefore unclear to what this limitation is intended to refer.
Claim 3 is therefore indefinite.
Regarding claim 4, claim 4 recites the limitation “the flow through the output lines of the concentrate compartments” in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. Specifically, claim 3, from which claim 4 depends, does not recite “a flow through the output lines of the concentrate compartments” or “flow through the output lines of the concentrate compartments”. It is therefore unclear to what the limitation “the flow through the output lines of the concentrate compartments” refers.
Furthermore, claim 4 recites the limitation “the output lines of the concentrate compartments” in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. Specifically, claim 3, from which claim 4 depends, does not recite “output lines of the concentrate compartments”, but instead recites “a plurality of output lines for removing product solution from … the concentrate compartments”. It is therefore unclear whether the term “the output lines of the concentrate compartments” is intended to refer to the output lines that remove product solution from the concentrate compartments, or if the term is intended to further require the output lines to have a discrete output line.
Furthermore, claim 4 recites the limitation “diluting compartments” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Specifically, while claim 3, from which claim 4 depends, recites “a dilute compartment”, it does not recite “a diluting compartment”. It is therefore unclear whether the term “diluting compartments” is intended to refer to the “dilute compartments”, or whether the term is intended to recite an additional component of the system.
Furthermore, claim 4 depends from claim 3, and therefore incorporates the indefinite language of claim 3.
Claim 4 is therefore indefinite.
Regarding claim 5, claim 5 recites the limitation “the input line of the concentrate compartments” in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Specifically, while claim 3, from which claim 5 depends, recites “a plurality of input lines for supplying feed solution to … the concentrate compartments”, it does not recite “an input line of the concentrate compartments”. It is therefore unclear whether this limitation is intended to refer to the input line that supplies feed to the concentrate compartments, or if it is intended to require the concentrate compartments to have an independent input line.
Furthermore, claim 5 depends from claims 3 and 4, and therefore incorporates the indefinite language of these claims.
Claim 5 is therefore indefinite.
Regarding claim 6, claim 6 recites the limitation “the step of pressurizing the concentrate compartments” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. Specifically, claim 3, from which claim 6 depends, does not recite “a step of pressurizing the concentrate compartments”. It is therefore unclear to what the limitation “the step of pressurizing the concentrate compartments” refers.
Furthermore, claim 6 depends from claim 3, and therefore incorporates the indefinite language of claim 3.
Claim 6 is therefore indefinite.
Regarding claims 7 and 8, claims 7 and 8 recite the limitation “the diluted stream” in lines 1 and 1, respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Specifically, claim 3, from which claims 7 and 8 depend, recites “dilute product solution” in line 30, but does not recite “a diluted stream”. It is therefore unclear to what this limitation is intended to refer.
Furthermore, claims 7 and 8 depend from claim 3, and therefore incorporates the indefinite language of claim 3.
Claims 7 and 8 are therefore indefinite.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tanaka et al. (“Batch ion-exchange membrane electrodialysis of mother liquid discharged from a salt-manufacturing process. Experiment and simulation.” Separation and Purification Technology 156 (2015) 276–287).
Regarding claim 1, Tanaka teaches a method for improving the current efficiency and recovery of an electrodialysis system (abstract),
the electrodialysis system comprising a plurality of ion exchange membranes placed adjacent to one another (“Aciplex K172 cation-exchange membranes” and “A172 anion exchange membranes” § 3 para. 1 and Fig. 2) and a plurality of spacers compressed between each of the plurality of ion exchange membranes (“gasket (desalting cell and concentrating cell). Diagonal net spacers [22] were integrated into the gasket.” § 3 para. 1 and Fig. 3), each of the plurality of ion exchange membranes creating a concentrate compartment on one side and a dilute compartment on the other side when the system is filled with a feed solution and acted upon by a direct current passing therethrough (see Fig. 2 and § 3 para. 2), wherein the method comprises operating the electrodialysis system without providing feed solution to the concentrate compartments (see § 3 and Fig. 2).
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yazdanbod (US Pat. Pub. 2014/0374256 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Yazdanbod teaches a method for improving the current efficiency and recovery of an electrodialysis system (title and abstract),
the electrodialysis system comprising a plurality of ion exchange membranes placed adjacent to one another (“plurality of ion exchange membranes for placement adjacent to one another” para. 15) and a plurality of spacers compressed between each of the plurality of ion exchange membranes (“a plurality of spacers for placing between each of the plurality of ion exchange membranes” Id.), each of the plurality of ion exchange membranes creating a concentrate compartment on one side and a dilute compartment on the other side when the system is filled with a feed solution and acted upon by a direct current passing therethrough (“each ion exchange membrane creating a concentrate compartment on one side and a diluate compartment on the other side when the device is filled with solution and acted upon by a direct current passing therethrough” Id.), wherein the method comprises operating the electrodialysis system without providing feed solution to the concentrate compartments (“after filling and de-airing the device as described immediately above, all valves 42 on the input lines 38, 40 and output lines 39, 41, 44, 45 were closed.” Para. 52, and see para. 51 and Fig. 4, i.e., both the input and output lines to the concentrate compartments are sealed after filling and during operation of the system).
Regarding claim 2, Yazdanbod further teaches the electrodialysis system comprises: a first electrode compartment housing a first electrode, a second electrode compartment housing a second electrode (“electrode compartments 31 and 32 can include high surface area, high capacitance electrodes,” para. 40 and Fig. 4),
a support structure (“a support structure/frame, such as endplates 36 and 37” Id.) for compressing and holding the electrode compartments, the spacers and the ion exchange membranes together (“This support structure compresses and holds the electrode compartments 31, 32, the spacers 33, and the ion exchange membranes 34, 35 together,” Id.),
a plurality of input lines for supplying feed solution to the dilute compartments, the concentrate compartments (“input lines 38, 40 to the diluate and concentrate compartments, respectively” para. 58 and Fig. 4), and the electrode compartments (“Connecting lines to and from electrode compartments are not shown” para. 58), and a plurality of output lines for removing product solution from the dilute compartments, the concentrate compartments (“Output lines 39, 41, 44 and 45 to the concentrate and diluate compartments” para. 58 and Fig. 4), and the electrode compartments (“Connecting lines to and from electrode compartments are not shown” para. 58), wherein each of the plurality of input lines and each of the plurality of output lines includes a valve for controlling the flow into and out of the electrodialysis system (“All input and output lines were equipped with plastic high pressure valves 42” para. 58 and Fig. 4).
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.
Claims 3-4 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka et al. (“Batch ion-exchange membrane electrodialysis of mother liquid discharged from a salt-manufacturing process. Experiment and simulation.” Separation and Purification Technology 156 (2015) 276–287) in view of Yazdanbod (US Pat. Pub. 2014/0374256 A1) and Liang (US Pat. Pub. 2021/0340031 A1).
Regarding claim 3, claim 3 has been interpreted as “(f) a plurality of input lines for supplying feed solution to the dilute compartments, a plurality of input lines for supplying feed solution to the concentrate compartments, and a plurality of input lines for supplying feed to the electrode compartments” and “(g) … a valve for controlling flow into and out of each of the compartments”.
Tanaka teaches a method for improving current efficiency and recovery of an electrodialysis system (title and abstract), wherein the electrodialysis system comprises:
(a) a first electrode compartment housing a first electrode (“both electrode cells as shown in Fig. 2” § 3 para. 1 and Fig. 2);
(b) a second electrode compartment housing a second electrode (Id.);
(c) a plurality of ion exchange membranes placed between the first and second electrode and adjacent to one another, each of the plurality of ion exchange membranes creating a concentrate compartment on one side and a dilute compartment on the other side when the electrodialysis system is filled with a feed solution and acted upon by a direct current passing therethrough (“Aciplex K172 cation-exchange membranes” and “A172 anion exchange membranes” § 3 para. 1 and Fig. 2);
(d) a plurality of spacers, each of the plurality of spacers being placed between opposing ion exchange membranes (“gasket (desalting cell and concentrating cell). Diagonal net spacers [22] were integrated into the gasket.” § 3 para. 1 and Fig. 3);
(e) a support structure for compressing and holding the electrode compartments, the spacers, and the ion exchange membranes together (Fig. 3 shows the electrode compartments, spacers, and ion exchange membranes are held together, and thus implicitly teaches a support structure for compressing and holding them together);
(f) a plurality of input lines for supplying feed solution to the dilute compartments (see Fig. 3), and a plurality of input lines for supplying feed to the electrode compartments (Id.); and
(g) a plurality of output lines for removing product solution from the dilute compartments, the concentrate compartments, and the electrode compartments (see Fig. 3), wherein the method comprises the steps of:
i) delivering feed solution to the concentrate compartments and the dilute compartments via the input lines (“It [i.e., the feed] was supplied to the electrodialyzer at the linear velocity of 5 cm/s in desalting cells keeping temperature to 25 or 40 °C. Passing 4 A/dm2 of an electric current, the desalted solution was returned to the feeding solution circulation tank. Concentrated solutions accumulated in concentrating cells were extracted and returned to the feeding solution circulation tank at first.” § 3 para. 1 and see below),
ii) thereafter restricting the flow to the concentrate compartments (“After the concentration of the concentrated solution was increased and became stable, it was collected into the concentrated solution tank and the batch operation was started” § 3 para. 1 and see Fig. 2 i.e., the flow to the concentrate compartments is restricted to osmosis and electro-osmosis during operation) while continuing to deliver the feed solution to the dilute compartments (“circulating solution in the desalting side” § 3 para. 2 and Fig. 2);
iii) passing the direct current through the electrodialysis system (“current density of 4 A/dm2.” § 3 para. 1), wherein a concentrated solution is formed in the concentrating compartments and a dilute solution is formed in the dilute compartments (see § 3 para. 1 and Fig. 2); and
iv) thereafter removing concentrated product solution from the concentrate compartments (“Concentrated solutions were sampled at the outlets of the concentrating cells and the concentrated solution tank and their salt concentrations were defined as C” and C# respectively” § 3 para. 1 and see Fig. 2) and dilute product solution from the dilute compartments (“the desalted solution was returned to the feeding solution circulation tank.” § 3 para. 1 and see Fig. 2).
Regarding the limitation “delivering feed solution to the concentrate compartments … via the input lines”, Tanaka teaches the concentrate compartments are filled via osmosis and/or electro-osmosis from the input lines connected to the dilute compartments (“Passing 4 A/dm2 of an electric current, the desalted solution was returned to the feeding solution circulation tank. Concentrated solutions accumulated in concentrating cells were extracted and returned to the feeding solution circulation tank at first.” § 3 para. 1) prior to operation of the electrodialyzer (“After the concentration of the concentrated solution was increased and became stable, it was collected into the concentrated solution tank and the batch operation was started at current density of 4 A/dm2” Id.). Thus, Tanaka teaches the input lines connected to the dilute compartments supply feed to the concentrate compartments. Tanaka therefore reads on the limitation “delivering feed solution to the concentrate compartments … via the input lines”.
Tanaka does not teach the electrodialysis system used in the method comprises a plurality of input lines for supplying feed solution to the concentrate compartments, each of the plurality of input and output lines includes a valve for controlling flow into and out of each of the compartments, or the step of restricting flow to the concentrate compartments comprises restricting the flow in the input line to the concentrate compartments to prevent further deliver of the feed solution to the concentrate compartments.
However, Yazdanbod teaches a method for improving the current efficiency and recovery of an electrodialysis system (title and abstract), wherein a plurality of input lines supply feed solution to the concentrate compartments (“input lines 38, 40 to the diluate and concentrate compartments, respectively” para. 58 and Fig. 4), each of a plurality of input and output lines includes a valve for controlling flow into and out of each of the compartments (“All input and output lines were equipped with plastic high pressure valves 42” para. 58 and Fig. 4), and the flow to the concentrate compartments is stopped during operation of the electrodialysis system by restricting the flow in the input line of the concentrate compartments to prevent further delivery of the feed solution to the concentrate compartments (“after filling and de-airing the device as described immediately above, all valves 42 on the input lines 38, 40 and output lines 39, 41, 44, 45 were closed.” Para. 52, and see para. 51 and Fig. 4), which configuration provides the predictable benefit of allowing the solution in the concentrate compartments to be recovered via application of compressed air to the input or output line(s) of the concentrate compartments (“… supplying compressed air to line 39 will result in speedy withdrawal of diluted solution” para. 44, and “the content of diluate and concentrate compartments were extracted using air flow through lines 39 and 41” para. 51, which indicates the benefit of solution removal by compressed air is also achieved for the concentrate compartments).
As Tanaka and Yazdanbod each teach methods for operating electrodialysis systems without flow through the concentration compartment, Tanaka and Yazdanbod are analogous art to the instant invention.
It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the method of Tanaka, such that the electrodialysis system comprises a plurality of input lines for supplying feed solution to the concentrate compartments, each of the plurality of input and output lines includes a valve for controlling flow into and out of each of the compartments, and the step of restricting flow to the concentrate compartments comprises restricting the flow in the input line to the concentrate compartments to prevent further delivery of the feed solution to the concentrate compartments, as taught by Yazdanbod. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to allow the contents of the concentrate compartments to be easily removed via application of compressed air, as taught by Yazdanbod. Furthermore, simple substitution of one known element for another (i.e., using the means of restricting flow to the concentrate compartment(s) taught by Yazdanbod rather than the means of restricting flow to the concentrate compartment(s) taught by Tanaka) to achieve predictable results (i.e., restricting feed flow into the concentrate compartments) establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(B)).
Modified Tanaka does not teach the dilute product solution recovery is equal to or greater than 80%.
Tanaka is silent on the dilute product solution recovery.
However, Liang teaches that it is desirable for an electrodialysis desalination method (title and abstract) to have a dilute product solution recovery of greater than 95%, a range fully within the claimed range (“the recovery of water at an individual electrochemical separation stage or an electrochemical separation stage comprising a plurality of electrochemical separation stages is … greater than about 95%.” Para. 28), because this reduces the operating cost of the electrodialysis system (“Recovery is generally expressed as a percentage. Increasing recovery may reduce the capital and operating cost per unit product.” Id.).
As Liang teaches a method of improving the recovery of an electrodialysis system by reducing losses to the concentrate (abstract), Liang is analogous art to the instant invention.
It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the method of Tanaka, such that the dilute product solution recovery is greater than about 95%, a range fully within the claimed range, as taught by Liang. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to achieve the predictable result of reducing the cost of operating the electrodialysis system, as taught by Liang. Furthermore, combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(A)).
Regarding claim 4, the limitation “wherein over time substantially all of the flow through the output lines of the concentrate compartments is generated from electro-osmotic flow into the concentrate compartments from the dilute compartments” is an intended result of following the method according to claim 3. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, a method is limited only by the recited steps, not the intended result thereof (MPEP § 2111.04(I)).
In the instant case, the limitation “wherein over time substantially all of the flow through the output lines of the concentrate compartments is generated from electro-osmotic flow into the concentrate compartments from the dilute compartments” is considered to be the result of “(ii) restricting the flow in the input line of the concentrate compartments to prevent further delivery of the feed solution to the concentrate compartments while continuing to deliver the feed solution to the dilute compartments”, as recited in claim 3. Therefore, as modified Tanaka renders the limitation “(ii) restricting the flow in the input line of the concentrate compartments to prevent further delivery of the feed solution to the concentrate compartments while continuing to deliver the feed solution to the dilute compartments” obvious, modified Tanaka is also considered to render the limitation “wherein over time substantially all of the flow through the output lines of the concentrate compartments is generated from electro-osmotic flow into the concentrate compartments from the dilute compartments” obvious.
Regarding claim 6, modified Tanaka teaches the limitations of claim 3, as described above.
Modified Tanaka does not teach a step of pressurizing the concentrate compartments to reduce electro-osmotic flow between the dilute compartments into the concentrate compartments to further improve current efficiency.
However, Yazdanbod further teaches a step of pressurizing the concentrate compartments to reduce electro-osmotic flow between the dilute compartments into the concentrate compartments to further improve current efficiency (para. 2 and abstract).
It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the method of Tanaka, by adding a step of pressurizing the concentrate compartments to reduce electro-osmotic flow between the dilute compartments into the concentrate compartments to further improve current efficiency, as taught by Yazdanbod. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to improve current efficiency, as taught by Yazdanbod. Furthermore, combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(A)).
Regarding claim 7, modified Tanaka teaches the limitations of claim 3.
Modified Tanaka further teaches, via Liang, the dilute product solution recovery is greater than 95%, a range fully within the claimed range (“the recovery of water at an individual electrochemical separation stage or an electrochemical separation stage comprising a plurality of electrochemical separation stages is … greater than about 95%.” Para. 28).
Regarding claim 8, modified Tanaka teaches the limitations of claim 3.
Modified Tanaka further teaches, via Liang, the dilute product solution recovery is greater than 95%, a range fully encompassing the claimed range (“the recovery of water at an individual electrochemical separation stage or an electrochemical separation stage comprising a plurality of electrochemical separation stages is … greater than about 95%.” Para. 28).
A range in the prior art fully encompassing a claimed range establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2144.05).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka in view of Yazdanbod and Liang, as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Fu (US Pat. Pub. 2014/0183045 A1).
Regarding claim 5, modified Tanaka teaches the limitations of claim 4, as described above.
Modified Tanaka does not teach precipitation preventing solutions are later added to the concentrate compartments via the input lines of the concentrate compartments for preventing precipitation of solids within the concentrate compartments.
However, Fu teaches a method for operating an electrodialysis system (abstract), wherein the method comprises addition of precipitation preventing solutions to the compartments via the input lines of said compartments for preventing precipitation of solids within said compartments (para. 81).
As Fu teaches a method of operating an electrodialysis system, Fu is analogous art to the instant invention.
It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the method of Tanaka, by adding a step of adding teach precipitation preventing solutions to the concentrate compartments via the input lines of the concentrate compartments for preventing precipitation of solids within the concentrate compartments, as taught by Fu. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to achieve the predictable result of preventing precipitation of solids within said compartments, as taught by Fu. Furthermore, combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(A)).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER R PARENT whose telephone number is (571)270-0948. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11:00 AM - 6 PM EST.
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, Luan V. Van can be reached at (571)272-8521. 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.
/ALEXANDER R. PARENT/Examiner, Art Unit 1795
/LUAN V VAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1795