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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on May 14, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 14, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Amendments to the current set of claims have not significantly changed the scope of the claimed invention, and the previous prior art rejection still stands.
On page 6 of the Remarks section as indicated by the page number at the bottom of each page, Applicant discusses the claim status, and the amendments made to the claims to address the previous 112 rejections. In response, the Examiner has withdrawn the previous 112 rejections. However, the Examiner notes that new 112 rejections have been made.
On pages 6-8, Applicant begins arguments against the previous 103 prior art rejection on independent Claim 1. Specifically, Applicant argues against the previous combination of references using primary reference Ibrahim and previous secondary reference Shafiq. Applicant argues that these references do not disclose impregnating hydrogel into internal foam pores, and states that Shafiq allegedly teaches only using surface coating, not impregnation. The Examiner notes that Shafiq is no longer used in the current prior art rejection, and so the remarks directed toward the combination of Ibrahim and Shafiq are considered moot. Furthermore, Applicant also argues that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, so it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). Thus, this argument is also unpersuasive.
The remainder of Applicant’s remarks are considered moot since no specific arguments have been presented in regard to the previous references and their disclosures for the highlighted dependent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-4 & 12-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ibrahim et al., (“Ibrahim”, “Unveiling Fabrication and Environmental Remediation of MXene-Based Nanoarchitectures in Toxic Metals Removal from Wastewater: Strategy and Mechanism”, Nanomaterials, 2020, 10, 885, 29 total pages, provided by Applicant), in view of Li et al., CN109535476A, (“Li”, “Machine Translation of CN109535476A”, published 2019, 59 total pages).
Claims 1-4, 12-25 are directed to a foam composite, a device or composition type invention group.
Regarding Claims 1-4, 12-25, a first embodiment of Ibrahim discloses a composite, comprising a chitosan-cellulose-MXene, (See page 9, “a novel MXene compound...chitosan” and See page 16, “nanofiber composites were synthesized…addition of…cellulose”), material wherein the chitosan-cellulose-MXene material comprises MXene nanosheets, wherein the MXene nanosheets are hydrophilic surface-modified two-dimensional MXene nanosheets, and one-dimensional activated cellulose microfibers, (See page 2, “merits of MXene, such as hydrophilicity, large surface area, activated metallic hydroxide sites, accessible adsorption sites”, and “The interlayer spacing between MXene nanosheets”), and the foam composite is a volumetric composite, (See page 9, “a novel MXene compound...chitosan” and See page 16, “nanofiber composites were synthesized”; inherently the composite has volume).
This embodiment of Ibrahim does not disclose a porous polymer-based foam or including a MXene hydrogel and a three-dimensional neutralized hydrogel. This embodiment also does not disclose the overall chitosan-MXene absorbed into disposed with the pores of the polymer-based foam. However, Ibrahim contemplates incorporating its composition into a polymer, (See page 24, “The stability…of Ti3C2Tx and other MXenes for removal of toxic metals from wastewater could be improved significantly via recombination with low-cost, abundant, and stable polymers…”).
A second embodiment of Ibrahim discloses a MXene hydrogel, (“MXene flakes…has hydrogel characteristics”, See page 19), and a three-dimensional neutralized hydrogel, (“MXene core-shell spheres…hydrogel characteristics” and “pH 6-8 was attainted”, See page 19).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the composite of the first embodiment of Ibrahim by incorporating a MXene hydrogel and a three-dimensional neutralized hydrogel as in the second embodiment of Ibrahim in order to provide a form which “exhibited outstanding adsorption ability of Hg(II)” with a “wide range of adsorption capacities of these spheres…given the stability increase of these spheres in a variety of pH conditions”, (pages 20-21, Ibrahim).
Li discloses a foam composite using MXene and chitosan adsorbed into and disposed with the pores of a porous polymer-based foam, (See paragraph [0055], and [0036], Li; the porous polyurethane foam is impregnated with MXene and chitosan, indicating that they penetrate the pores therein).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the composite of Ibrahim by incorporating a foam composite using MXene and chitosan adsorbed into a polymer-based foam as in Li in order to provide “a three-dimensional composite material of Mxene-chitosan-polyurethane foam” for “significantly improving the stability for long-term cyclic use”, (See paragraph [0014], Li), using a “preparation method [that] is simple and low cost”, (See paragraph [0037], Li), in which Ibrahim calls for “the stability of Ti3C2Tx and other MXenes for removal of toxic metals from wastewater could be improved significantly via recombination with low-cost, abundant, and stable polymers”, See page 24, Ibrahim).
Additional Disclosures Included:
Claim 2: The foam composite of claim 1, wherein the MXene nanosheets are of the formula: Mn+1XnTx wherein M is selected from scandium (Sc), titanium (Ti), vanadium (V), chromium (Cr), zirconium (Zr), niobium (Nb), molybdenum (Mo), hafnium (Hf), and tantalum (Ta); X is carbon and/or nitrogen, (See page 24, “The stability…of Ti3C2Tx and other MXenes for removal of toxic metals from wastewater could be improved significantly via recombination with low-cost, abundant, and stable polymers…” or see page 2; M is Ti (titanium) and X is C carbon); and, Tx comprises hydroxyl, oxygen, and/or fluorine, (Tx is…OH, O…or F”, See page 2, Ibrahim).
Claim 3: The foam composite of claim 2, wherein the MXene nanosheets are of the formula M3X2Tx, (See page 24, “The stability…of Ti3C2Tx and other MXenes for removal of toxic metals from wastewater”, Ibrahim).
Claim 4: The foam composite of claim 1, wherein the porous polymer-based foam comprises polyurethane, (See paragraph [0055], and [0036], Li).
Claim 12: The foam composite of claim 1, for the removal of at least one heavy metal from water wherein the at least one heavy metal is selected from zinc, cadmium, lead, chromium, copper, mercury, and barium, (See Abstract, Ibrahim).
Claim 13: The foam composite of claim 12, wherein the removal of at least one heavy metal from water is conducted at room temperature, atmospheric pressure, and without electricity, (See Table 1, several at “room temperature” or “25oC”; no mention of electricity and performed in typical conditions hence atmospheric pressure, Ibrahim).
Claim 14: The foam composite of claim 12, wherein the foam composite adsorbs at least about 70% of the at least one heavy metal from the water within less than about 5 minutes, (See Table 1, (MoS2/MX), 98.5% 2 min, Ibrahim).
Claim 15: The foam composite of claim 12, wherein the foam composite adsorbs at least about 80% of the at least one heavy metal from the water within less than about 5 minutes, (See Table 1, (MoS2/MX), 98.5% 2 min, Ibrahim).
Claim 16: The foam composite of claim 12, wherein the foam composite adsorbs at least about 90% of the at least one heavy metal from the water within less than about 5 minutes, (See Table 1, (MoS2/MX), 98.5% 2 min, Ibrahim).
Claim 17: The foam composite of claim 12, wherein the foam composite adsorbs at least about 95% of the at least one heavy metal from the water within less than about 5 minutes, (See Table 1, (MoS2/MX), 98.5% 2 min, Ibrahim).
Claim 18: The foam composite of claim 12, wherein the foam composite adsorbs about 100% of the at least one heavy metal from the water within less than about 5 minutes, (See Table 1, (MoS2/MX), 98.5% 2 min, Ibrahim; 98.5 is “about” 100).
Claim 19: The foam composite of claim 12, wherein the at least one heavy metal is adsorbed from the water within less than 3 minutes, (See Table 1, (MoS2/MX), 98.5% 2 min, Ibrahim).
Claim 20: The foam composite of claim 12, wherein the at least one heavy metal is adsorbed from the water within less than 1 minute, (“contact times that range from seconds to two hours”, “4.2. Removal and Reduction of Chromium Ions by MXenes”, See page 11, Ibrahim).
Claim 21: The foam composite of claim 12, wherein the at least one heavy metal is adsorbed from the water within less than 30 seconds, (“contact times that range from seconds to two hours”, “4.2. Removal and Reduction of Chromium Ions by MXenes”, See page 11, Ibrahim).
Claim 22: The foam composite of claim 12, wherein the at least one heavy metal is zinc and/or cadmium, (See Abstract, Ibrahim).
Claim 23: The foam composite of claim 12, wherein the water is acidic, (See Table 1, “pH” is “acidic”, “2”, “4.5” or “5”, Ibrahim).
Claim 24: The foam composite of claim 12, wherein the water is neutral, (See Table 1, “pH” is “7”, Ibrahim).
Claim 25: The foam composite of claim 12, wherein the water is alkaline, (See Table 1, “pH” is “2-11”, Ibrahim).
Claim(s) 5 & 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ibrahim et al., (“Ibrahim”, “Unveiling Fabrication and Environmental Remediation of MXene-Based Nanoarchitectures in Toxic Metals Removal from Wastewater: Strategy and Mechanism”, Nanomaterials, 2020, 10, 885, 29 total pages), in view of Li et al., CN109535476A, (“Li”, “Machine Translation of CN109535476A”, published 2019, 59 total pages), in further view of Eid et al., (“Eid”, US 2020/0254396).
Claims 5 & 7 are directed to a foam composite, a device or composition type invention group.
Regarding Claim 5, modified Ibrahim discloses the foam composite of claim 1, but does not disclose characterized by an atomic percentage of carbon as measured by EDX of about 70%.
Eid discloses a composite characterized by an atomic percentage of carbon as measured by EDX of about 70%, (See Figure 2A; Examiner interprets “65.39%” for “C” to round up to 70%).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the composite of modified Ibrahim by incorporating it being characterized by an atomic percentage of carbon as measured by EDX of about 70% as in Eid for “introducing various surface functionalities’, (See paragraph [0182], Eid), in which “combinations of improved physical and/or chemical properties of the combination of the inorganic compound with the organic compound allows for improved efficiency for water treatment(s)”, (See paragraph [0058], Eid).
Regarding Claim 7, modified Ibrahim discloses the foam composite of claim 1, but does not disclose characterized by an atomic percentage of oxygen as measured by EDX of about 5%.
Eid discloses a composite characterized by an atomic percentage of oxygen as measured by EDX of about 5%, (See Figure 2A; Examiner interprets “6.91%” for “O” to be “about” 5%).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the composite of modified Ibrahim by incorporating it being characterized by an atomic percentage of oxygen as measured by EDX of about 5% as in Eid for “introducing various surface functionalities’, (See paragraph [0182], Eid), in which “combinations of improved physical and/or chemical properties of the combination of the inorganic compound with the organic compound allows for improved efficiency for water treatment(s)”, (See paragraph [0058], Eid).
Claim(s) 6 & 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ibrahim et al., (“Ibrahim”, “Unveiling Fabrication and Environmental Remediation of MXene-Based Nanoarchitectures in Toxic Metals Removal from Wastewater: Strategy and Mechanism”, Nanomaterials, 2020, 10, 885, 29 total pages), in view of Li et al., CN109535476A, (“Li”, “Machine Translation of CN109535476A”, published 2019, 59 total pages), in further view of Anasori et al., (“Anasori”, US 2023/0174787).
Claim 6 is directed to a foam composite, a device or composition type invention group.
Regarding Claim 6, modified Ibrahim discloses the foam composite of claim 1, but does not disclose characterized by an atomic percentage of titanium as measured by EDX of about 10%.
Anasori discloses a composite characterized by an atomic percentage of titanium as measured by EDX of about 10%, (See paragraph [0139], Anasori, Examiner interprets “9%” for “Ti” to be “about” 10%).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the composite of modified Ibrahim by incorporating it being characterized by an atomic percentage of titanium as measured by EDX of about 10% as in Anasori to make “new composites containing MXenes”, (See paragraph [0003], Anasori), to create “a network…which can be used for multi-functional structural and/or conductive metal composites” which is “scalable to form large batches”, (See paragraph [0143], Anasori).
Claim 8 is directed to a foam composite, a device or composition type invention group.
Regarding Claim 8, modified Ibrahim discloses the foam composite of claim 1, but does not disclose characterized by an atomic percentage of fluorine as measured by EDX of about 1%.
Anasori discloses a composite characterized by an atomic percentage of fluorine as measured by EDX of about 1%, (See Figure 7, “F” “Atomic Percentage” “1.0”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the composite of modified Ibrahim by incorporating it being characterized by an atomic percentage of fluorine as measured by EDX of about 1% as in Anasori to make “new composites containing MXenes”, (See paragraph [0003], Anasori), to create “a network…which can be used for multi-functional structural and/or conductive metal composites” which is “scalable to form large batches”, (See paragraph [0143], Anasori).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ibrahim et al., (“Ibrahim”, “Unveiling Fabrication and Environmental Remediation of MXene-Based Nanoarchitectures in Toxic Metals Removal from Wastewater: Strategy and Mechanism”, Nanomaterials, 2020, 10, 885, 29 total pages), in view of Li et al., CN109535476A, (“Li”, “Machine Translation of CN109535476A”, published 2019, 59 total pages), in further view of Eid et al., (“Eid”, US 2020/0254396), in further view of Anasori et al., (“Anasori”, US 2023/0174787), in further view of Fasching et al., (“Fasching”, US 2016/0049655), in further view of Swett et al., (“Swett”, US 10,418,143).
Claim 9 is directed to a foam composite, a device or composition type invention group.
Regarding Claim 9, modified Ibrahim discloses the foam composite of claim 1, but does not disclose it exhibits an atomic ratio of carbon:titanium:oxygen:fluorine (C:Ti:O:F) of the foam composite as measured by EDX is about 80:14:5:1.
Anasori discloses a composite characterized by an atomic percentage of fluorine as measured by EDX of about 1%, (See Figure 7, “F” “Atomic Percentage” “1.0”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the composite of modified Ibrahim by incorporating it being characterized by an atomic percentage of fluorine as measured by EDX of about 1% as in Anasori to make “new composites containing MXenes”, (See paragraph [0003], Anasori), to create “a network…which can be used for multi-functional structural and/or conductive metal composites” which is “scalable to form large batches”, (See paragraph [0143], Anasori).
Eid discloses a composite characterized by an atomic percentage of oxygen as measured by EDX of about 5%, (See Figure 2A; Examiner interprets “6.91%” for “O” to be “about” 5%).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the composite of modified Ibrahim by incorporating it being characterized by an atomic percentage of oxygen as measured by EDX of about 5% as in Eid for “introducing various surface functionalities’, (See paragraph [0182], Eid), in which “combinations of improved physical and/or chemical properties of the combination of the inorganic compound with the organic compound allows for improved efficiency for water treatment(s)”, (See paragraph [0058], Eid).
Fasching discloses a composite characterized by an atomic percentage of titanium of 14%, (See paragraph [0117], Fasching).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the composite of modified Ibrahim by incorporating it being characterized by an atomic percentage of titanium of 14% as in Fasching for “improved rate performance”, (See paragraph [0149], Fasching).
Swett discloses a composite characterized by an atomic percentage of carbon of 80%, (See column 6, lines 60-67, column 7, lines 1-20, Swett).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the composite of modified Ibrahim by incorporating it being characterized by an atomic percentage of carbon of 80% as in Swett for “conditioning sheets” and “reduce the mobility…or reduce the volatility” of the carbon based material, (See column 2, lines 56-60, Swett).
Claim(s) 10 & 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ibrahim et al., (“Ibrahim”, “Unveiling Fabrication and Environmental Remediation of MXene-Based Nanoarchitectures in Toxic Metals Removal from Wastewater: Strategy and Mechanism”, Nanomaterials, 2020, 10, 885, 29 total pages), in view of Li et al., CN109535476A, (“Li”, “Machine Translation of CN109535476A”, published 2019, 59 total pages), in further view of Ma et al., (“Ma”, “Degradable Ti3C2Tx MXene Nanosheets Containing a Lignin Polyurethane Photothermal Foam (LPUF) for Rapid Crude Oil Cleanup”, ACS appl. Nano Mater., 5, 2848-2858, 2022).
Claims 10 & 11 are directed to a foam composite, a device or composition type invention group.
Regarding Claim 10, modified Ibrahim discloses the foam composite of claim 1 wherein the average pore diameter of the porous polymer-based foam is in the range of about 250 microns and 150 microns.
Ma discloses a foam composite wherein the average pore diameter of the porous polymer-based foam is in the range of about 250 microns and 150 microns, (See page 2853, “We control the pore size…100-200 micron pore size”, Ma; anticipates the claimed range from 150 to 200 microns).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the composite of modified Ibrahim by incorporating wherein the average pore diameter of the porous polymer-based foam is in the range of about 250 microns and 150 microns as in Ma because “within a certain extent, the appropriate increase in the size of the pores can help to improve the adsorption rate”, (See page 2853, Ma).
Regarding Claim 11, modified Ibrahim discloses the foam composite of claim 1 but does not disclose the average pore diameter of the porous polymer-based foam is in the range of about 210 microns and 190 microns.
Ma discloses a foam composite the average pore diameter of the foam is between about 210 microns and 190 microns, (See page 2853, “We control the pore size…100-200 micron pore size”, Ma; anticipates the claimed range from 190 to 200 microns).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the composite of modified Ibrahim by incorporating the average pore diameter of the foam is between about 210 microns and 190 microns as in Ma because “within a certain extent, the appropriate increase in the size of the pores can help to improve the adsorption rate”, (See page 2853, Ma).
Claim(s) 26 & 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ibrahim et al., (“Ibrahim”, “Unveiling Fabrication and Environmental Remediation of MXene-Based Nanoarchitectures in Toxic Metals Removal from Wastewater: Strategy and Mechanism”, Nanomaterials, 2020, 10, 885, 29 total pages), in view of Li et al., CN109535476A, (“Li”, “Machine Translation of CN109535476A”, published 2019, 59 total pages), in further view of Eid et al., (“Eid”, US 2020/0254396).
Regarding Claims 26 & 27, modified Ibrahim discloses a method for preparing the foam composite of claim 1, (See rejection of Claim 1), comprising:1) forming MXene nanosheets by etching a MAX phase precursor, (“etching Ti3AlC2 powder using 40% HF”, See page 8, Ibrahim); 2) preparing activated cellulose microfibers, (“a NaOH solution…followed by addition of…cellulose…and then autoclaved”, See page 16, Ibrahim); 3) mixing the MXene nanosheets with activated cellulose microfibers in an aqueous medium to form a mixture; 4) adding the mixture to a chitosan solution, (“supernatant was collected and added to…acetic acid…that contained 0.1 g of CS [chitosan]”, See page 9, Ibrahim), and 5) impregnating the hydrogel into internal pores of the porous polymer-based foam, (See paragraphs [0055] & [0056], Li), and drying or annealing the impregnated foam at a temperature in the range of 50oC to 120oC to stabilize the hydrogel without altering the pore structure, (See paragraphs [0018] or [0034], Li; anticipates the claimed range from 50 to 60 oC; and See paragraphs [0014] & [0037], Li, structure is stable; and See paragraph [0020], Li; pore structure is within a certain range).
Modified Ibrahim does not disclose adding the mixture to a chitosan solution to form hydrogel.
Eid discloses a method of adding the mixture to a chitosan solution to form hydrogel, (See paragraph [0177], Eid).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the method of modified Ibrahim by incorporating adding the mixture to a chitosan solution to form hydrogel as in Eid in order to “remove any air bubbles”, (See paragraph [0177], Eid).
Additional Disclosures Included:
Claim 27: The method of claim 26, wherein the porous polymer-based foam is polyurethane foam, (See paragraph [0055], and [0036], Li).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN M PEO whose telephone number is (571)272-9891. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9AM-5PM.
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, Bobby Ramdhanie can be reached at 571-270-3240. 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.
/JONATHAN M PEO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1779
Prosecution Insights