DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Applicant amendments filed 03/02/2026 have been entered. Applicant amendments overcomes the previous 112(b) rejection set forth in the Office Action mailed 11/28/2025, the previous 112(b) rejection is withdrawn.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-22 remain pending in the application, with claims 1-12 and 20-22 being examined and claims 13-19 being withdrawn pursuant to the election filed 10/10/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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) 1-3, 6, 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Den Dulk (US-2012/0126154-A1).
Regarding claim 1, Den Dulk teaches a device (multi-region device 1) comprising ([0079], Figure 1):
a first planar surface (first layer 11) comprising ([0080], Figure 1):
a) a first hydrophilic flow path comprising (Figure 9, [0119] which describes where the multi-region device can have the shape and number of hydrophilic regions separated by hydrophobic valve regions, where these regions define a first flow path):
a sample area (second region 7) ([0079], Figure 1);
a liquid deposition area (first region 6) ([0079], Figure 1); and
a liquid removal area (analyzing region 8) ([0081], Figure 1);
wherein the sample area (7) is disposed between the liquid deposition area (6) and the liquid removal area (8) (Figure 1); and
b) a hydrophobic surface pattern surrounding the flow path ([0103] see where the first layer of the multi-region device is a bottom part made of plastic or glass on which a self-assembled monolayer (SAM) is applied, and then the SAM is partly removed to leave a pattern of hydrophilic regions (regarded as hydrophilic chambers) as islands in a hydrophobic background); and
at least one valve (valves 2, 3) disposed to control flow in the hydrophilic flow path in response to an external stimulus ([0014] see valve material is a phase-change material, [0081], [0083], [0089] see by controlling the temperature of the valve material at least one of the phase and the viscosity of the valve material is controlled to control the degree of penetrability of the valve material, Figure 1).
Please note the limitation “sized for placement of a tissue sample” is directed to the function of the apparatus and/or the manner of operating the apparatus, all the structural limitations of the claim has been disclosed by Den Dulk and the apparatus of Den Dulk is capable of placing a tissue sample. As such, it is deemed that the claimed apparatus is not differentiated from the apparatus of Den Dulk (see MPEP §2114). 20
Further, please note that the sample nor the external stimulus have been positively recited in the claim, and are therefore not a part of the claimed device.
Regarding claim 2, Den Dulk teaches the device of claim 1. Den Dulk further teaches wherein the at least one valve (2, 3) comprises a first valve (3) disposed in the hydrophilic flow path after the sample area (7) and/or a second valve (2) disposed in the hydrophilic flow path before the sample area (7) (see Figure 1).
Regarding claim 3, Den Dulk teaches the device of claim 1. Please note that the external stimulus is currently not positively recited in the claim, and is therefore not a part of the claimed device.
However, Den Dulk does teach wherein the external stimulus comprises thermal energy ([0089] see heating elements 17, 29 for modifying the temperature of valve materials and are controlled by control unit 18).
It is noted that under a different interpretation, the external stimulus comprises electrical energy as because the heating elements 17, 29 are controlled by control unit 18, and thus it is electrical energy that is affecting the valves.
Regarding claim 6, Den Dulk teaches the device of claim 1. Den Dulk further teaches further comprising a reservoir in fluid communication with the liquid deposition area (please see below where one of the distributions of hydrophilic and hydrophobic regions seen in Figure 9 has been annotated. The enclosed area labeled “reservoir” will be in fluid communication with the first region 6 (liquid deposition area) of the flow path as fluid will be capable of traveling to all of the chambers shown).
PNG
media_image1.png
233
595
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, Den Dulk teaches the device of claim 1. Den Dulk further teaches further comprising a heating and/or cooling element (heating elements 17, 29) operatively coupled to the hydrophilic flow path ([0019] see temperature of the valve material can be controlled using electrical heating elements and also by using cooling elements, [0089], [0107] see heating can be applied only once or several heating and cooling cycles can be applied, Figure 2).
Regarding claim 12, Den Dulk teaches the device of claim 1. Den Dulk further teaches wherein the at least one valve (2, 3) comprises a material that changes phase in response to the external stimulus ([0014], [0081], [0083], [0089]).
Please note that the external stimulus has not been positively recited in the claim, and is therefore not a part of the claimed device. However, as described in claim 3 supra the external stimulus may be thermal (or electrical energy under an alternative interpretation) energy and the valves are changing phases depending on the applied energy.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Den Dulk (US-2012/0126154-A1) and as evidenced by Iida (US-2007/0099290-A1).
Regarding claim 7, Den Dulk teaches the device of claim 1. Den Dulk further teaches further comprising:
a second planar surface (second layer 12) facing the first planar surface (11) ([0080], Figure 1);
a spacer (constraining elements 13) separating the first planar surface (11) and the second planar surface (12) ([0081], Figure 1);
an inlet (inlet opening 26) in fluid communication with the liquid deposition area (6) ([0082], Figure 1); and
an outlet (outlet opening 27) in fluid communication with the liquid removal area (8) ([0082], Figure 1);
wherein at least a portion of the second planar surface (12) complementary to the hydrophilic flow path is hydrophobic ([0103] see where the bottom part is plastic or glass with a SAM applied that is then removed to leave a patten of hydrophilic regions (hydrophilic chambers) in a hydrophobic background, and the second layer is a top part, the top part is an untreated slide of PMMA).
It is evidenced by Iida that PMMA is hydrophobic (Iida; [0308] see the interior of the channel is made of a hydrophobic material such as PMMA).
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.
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Den Dulk (US-2012/0126154-A1) in view of Ueda “Emerging Applications of Superhydrophilic-Superhydrophobic Micropatterns” herein Ueda.
Regarding claim 4, Den Dulk teaches the device of claim 1. While Den Dulk teaches that the SAM on the first layer is removed to reveal a pattern of hydrophilic regions (Den Dulk; [0103]), it is understood that hydrophilic and superhydrophilic are not the same.
In the same problem solving area of superhydrophilic and superhydrophobic patterned regions, Ueda teaches various advantages arising from the extreme difference in wettability between superhydrophilic and superhydrophobic regions (Ueda; page 1234 column 2 paragraph 2).
Specifically, Ueda comments on how hydrophilic or hydrophobic patterns may benefit from the extreme wetting or non-wetting properties of superhydrophilicity or superhydrophobicity (Ueda; page 1236 column 1 paragraph 1). On page 1237 column 1 paragraph 1 it is described that hydrophilic-hydrophobic patterns could be improved using a superhydrophlic surface that rapidly and uniformly spreads the solution that eliminates the need for surfactant, and that by increasing the hydrophobicity and using a surface with low water contact angles (WCAs) hysteresis as the background could eliminate leftover droplets after liquid patterning. On pages 1244-1245 in the summary and outlook section, several advantages of superhydrophlic and superhydrophobic patterned regions are described that includes: a) complex geometries and the positioning of liquid droplets can be easily controlled, b) micropatterns can be pre-filled with aqueous solutions without the need for surfactants, c) superhydrophlic patterns can be used as surface tension confined microchannels in microfluidic separation or diagnostic applications, d) droplets can be positioned extremely close to each other on a surface without merging, e) the existence of the Cassie-Baxter state in superhydrophobic regions creates “air-grid” patterns that can be used to control protein and cell adhesion as well as cell migration, and f) the discontinuous dewetting effect arising from the extreme differences in WCAs between superhydrophlic and superhydrophobic regions allows passive dispensing of aqueous solutions into the superhydrophlic spots without wetting the superhydrophobic background, even for very small separation distances between the spots.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the hydrophilic regions of Den Dulk such that they are instead superhydrophlic as taught by Ueda because Ueda teaches that superhydrophlic-superhydrophobic patterns are an improvement over hydrophilic-hydrophobic patterns that allows rapidly and uniformly spreads solution and eliminates the need for surfactant, as well as eliminating leftover droplets after liquid patterning, and that the superhydrophlic patterns can be used as surface tension confined microchannels (Ueda; pages 1237 column 1 paragraph 1, pages 1244-1245 summary and outlook section).
Regarding claim 5, Den Dulk teaches the device of claim 1. While Den Dulk teaches that the SAM on the first layer is removed to reveal a pattern of hydrophilic regions surrounded by a hydrophobic backgrounds (Den Dulk; [0103]), it is understood that hydrophobic and superhydrophobic are not the same.
In the same problem solving area of superhydrophilic and superhydrophobic patterned regions, Ueda teaches various advantages arising from the extreme difference in wettability between superhydrophilic and superhydrophobic regions (Ueda; page 1234 column 2 paragraph 2).
Specifically, Ueda comments on how hydrophilic or hydrophobic patterns may benefit from the extreme wetting or non-wetting properties of superhydrophilicity or superhydrophobicity (Ueda; page 1236 column 1 paragraph 1). On page 1237 column 1 paragraph 1 it is described that hydrophilic-hydrophobic patterns could be improved using a superhydrophlic surface that rapidly and uniformly spreads the solution that eliminates the need for surfactant, and that by increasing the hydrophobicity and using a surface with low water contact angles (WCAs) hysteresis as the background could eliminate leftover droplets after liquid patterning. On pages 1244-1245 in the summary and outlook section, several advantages of superhydrophlic and superhydrophobic patterned regions are described that includes: a) complex geometries and the positioning of liquid droplets can be easily controlled, b) micropatterns can be pre-filled with aqueous solutions without the need for surfactants, c) superhydrophlic patterns can be used as surface tension confined microchannels in microfluidic separation or diagnostic applications, d) droplets can be positioned extremely close to each other on a surface without merging, e) the existence of the Cassie-Baxter state in superhydrophobic regions creates “air-grid” patterns that can be used to control protein and cell adhesion as well as cell migration, and f) the discontinuous dewetting effect arising from the extreme differences in WCAs between superhydrophlic and superhydrophobic regions allows passive dispensing of aqueous solutions into the superhydrophlic spots without wetting the superhydrophobic background, even for very small separation distances between the spots.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the hydrophobic regions of Den Dulk such that they are instead superhydrophobic as taught by Ueda because Ueda teaches that superhydrophilic-superhydrophobic patterns are an improvement over hydrophilic-hydrophobic patterns that allows rapidly and uniformly spreads solution and eliminates the need for surfactant, as well as eliminating leftover droplets after liquid patterning, and that the superhydrophlic-superhydrophobic patterns can be used as surface tension confined microchannels (Ueda; pages 1237 column 1 paragraph 1, pages 1244-1245 summary and outlook section).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Den Dulk (US-2012/0126154-A1) in view of McMillan (US-2002/0039783-A1) and Dorrestijn (WO-2020/178562-A1).
Regarding claim 8, Den Dulk teaches the device of claim 7. Den Dulk does teach where there are reagents necessary for analyzing the sample are present in the multi-region device in dried form (Den Dulk; [0096], [0097]). As such, it is understood that there will be dried reagents in second region 7 (sample area). However, Den Dulk does not teach wherein the second planar surface comprises an array of bound reagents that aligns with the sample area.
In the same problem solving area of cartridges with reagents, McMillan teaches reagent spot arrays (McMillan; [0084], [0090]).
Specifically, McMillan teaches different techniques to provide for solid reagent deposition patterns to facilitate uniform reconstitution, for example the reagent is deposited in a parabolic pattern mirroring the flow pattern of the fluid front in a channel to increase the likelihood of uniform exposure of the sample contents to the reagent (McMillan; [0089]). McMillan further teaches that the selection of sheets of dried reagents, layers of reagents, or individual spot arrays depends on the desired reconstitution event, the rate of reconstitution, and whether additional mixing is employed.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the dried reagents of Den Dulk such that they are spot arrays as taught by McMillan because McMillan teaches that the pattern of spot arrays facilitate uniform reconstitution (McMillan; [0089]).
Den Dulk in view of McMillan do not teach that the dried reagents are on the second surface.
In the analogous art of cartridges for detecting a target component in a liquid sample, Dorrestijn teaches detection reagents provided within a fluid pathway (Dorrestijn; abstract).
Specifically, Dorrestijn teaches where detection reagent 24 is located in various positions in an elongate flow pathway 48 where in Figure 5C the reagent 24 is on the bottom surface of the elongate flow pathway 48 and in Figure 5D the reagent 24 is on the top surface of the elongate flow pathway 48.
Den Dulk is silent with regards to specific location of the reagent, therefore, it would have been necessary and thus obvious to look to the prior art for conventional reagent locations. Dorrestijn provides this conventional teaching showing that it is known in the art to have reagents on the top surface of a flow path. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to place the dried reagents on the second layer (top surface) because it is taught by Dorrestijn that it is effective to place reagents on the upper surface of a flow path.
Examiner further finds that the prior art included each element claimed (as set forth above), although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements within a single reference. Moreover, an ordinarily skilled artisan could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (e.g., reagents placed on the top or bottom of a channel), and that in combination, each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately (i.e., reaction with a sample), and an ordinarily skilled artisan would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Therefore, pursuant to MPEP §2143 (I), Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan to combine the placement of the dried reagents of reference Den Dulk and place them on the top surface of the channel (second layer), since the result would have been predictable.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Den Dulk (US-2012/0126154-A1) in view of McMillan (US-2002/0039783-A1).
Regarding claim 9, Den Dulk teaches the device of claim 1. Den Dulk does teach where there are reagents necessary for analyzing the sample are present in the multi-region device in dried form (Den Dulk; [0096], [0097]). As such, it is understood that there will be dried reagents in second region 7 (sample area). However, Den Dulk does not teach that the reagents are an array of bound reagents.
In the same problem solving area of cartridges with reagents, McMillan teaches reagent spot arrays (McMillan; [0084], [0090]).
Specifically, McMillan teaches different techniques to provide for solid reagent deposition patterns to facilitate uniform reconstitution, for example the reagent is deposited in a parabolic pattern mirroring the flow pattern of the fluid front in a channel to increase the likelihood of uniform exposure of the sample contents to the reagent (McMillan; [0089]). McMillan further teaches that the selection of sheets of dried reagents, layers of reagents, or individual spot arrays depends on the desired reconstitution event, the rate of reconstitution, and whether additional mixing is employed.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the dried reagents of Den Dulk such that they are spot arrays as taught by McMillan because McMillan teaches that the pattern of spot arrays facilitate uniform reconstitution (McMillan; [0089]).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Den Dulk (US-2012/0126154-A1) in view of Lee (WO-2006/104467-A1).
Regarding claim 10, Den Dulk teaches the device of claim 1. While Den Dulk does teach heating elements for modifying the temperature of the valve materials (Den Dulk; [0089]), Den Dulk does not specify what the heating elements are.
In the same problem solving area of a microfluidic device with a fluid channel and blocker that is removable by heating, Lee teaches a heating element formed on the substrate for heating the blocker (Lee; abstract).
Specifically, Lee teaches where an electrode 30 may be conveniently used as a heating element for heating and removing blocker 22, where an electrical current is induced in the electrode 30 to energize the heating element to heat blocker 22 (Lee; [0046]).
Den Dulk is silent with regards to specific type of heating elements, therefore, it would have been necessary and thus obvious to look to the prior art for conventional heating elements. Lee provides this conventional teaching showing that it is known in the art to use electrodes. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use electrodes as the heating elements because it is taught by Lee that electrodes are effective heating elements used for modifying a blocker in a microfluidic channel (Lee; [0046]).
Claim(s) 20-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Den Dulk (US-2012/0126154-A1) in view of Hosokawa (US-2012/0301966-A1).
Regarding claim 20, Den Dulk teaches a system for contacting a tissue sample to a liquid, comprising:
a) the device of claim 1 (see claim 1 supra); and
Den Dulk does teach where the inlet opening 26 allows fluid to be introduced into first region 6 and the outlet opening 27 allowing gas like air and/or the introduced fluid to leave the multi-region device (Den Dulk; [0082]), however Den Dulk does not teach a liquid dispenser, liquid handling robot, or tilt stage.
In the same problem solving area of adding and removing fluid from a microchip, Hosokawa teaches a reservoir and outlet duct (Hosokawa; [0087]).
Specifically, Hosokawa teaches a second embodiment of the microchip seen in Figure 3 that includes an inlet 206 (see [0096] that has both reference numbers 106 and 206 being an inlet, thus the description for inlet 106 will be similarly applied to inlet 206), and an air hole 209 (Hosokawa; [0054], Figure 3). [0087] and [0088] describes where microchip 1 is placed on a stage-shaped heater 112 and a reservoir 109 (filled with anticoagulated blood) is connected to the inlet 106 of microchip 1 and an outlet duct 114 is connected to an outlet so blood after analysis can be discharged. It is understood that the reservoir 109 and outlet duct 114 may be similarly connected to the microchip seen in Figure 3.
Den Dulk is silent with regards to specific way sample is introduced to the device and how the introduced fluid leaves the device, therefore, it would have been necessary and thus obvious to look to the prior art for conventional ways of introducing sample to a device and removing the sample from the device. Hosokawa provides this conventional teaching showing that it is known in the art to use a reservoir and outlet duct. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the multi-region device of Den Dulk such that it includes a reservoir and an outlet duct as taught by Hosokawa because Hosokawa teaches that the reservoir is effective for delivering sample to the microchip and that the outlet duct is effective for allowing for sample to be discharged from the microchip after analysis (Hosokawa; [0087]).
Regarding claim 21, modified Den Dulk teaches the system of claim 20. Den Dulk further teaches further comprising a source of thermal energy (Den Dulk; heating elements 17, 29, Figure 2).
Note that under a different interpretation, the source of thermal energy can be the control unit described in [0043] for controlling the temperature of the valve material, where the heating element, the heat element control unit, and temperature sensor form a valve control unit. Thus, the control unit will be the source of thermal energy for the heating elements. Additionally, under a different interpretation the control unit will be a source of electrical energy as it is what supplies the heating elements with energy to control the temperature of the valve material.
Regarding claim 22, modified Den Dulk teaches the system of claim 20. Hosokawa further teaches further comprising an aspirator (Hosokawa; [0054] describes where an outlet duct may be connected to the air hole 209 for removal of the blood waste by suction, the outlet duct 114 is therefore an aspirator).
Response to Arguments
Due to amendments to the claims, the rejections in view of Dun Dulk under 35 USC 102(a)(1) have been modified to address this amendment.
Applicant's arguments filed 03/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on page 6 that while Den Dulk teaches that the first layer may include a pattern of hydrophilic and hydrophobic regions, Den Dulk makes it clear that such a pattern is not necessary.
While examiner does agree that [0134] of Den Dulk describes that the pattern of hydrophilic or hydrophobic regions is not necessary, this is not to be taken as the reference not teaching these patterns at all, or that the patterns taught earlier in the specification are not required. As seen in Figure 9 (cited in the above rejection), and described by [0130] the first layer can have the SAM applied and subsequently have portions removed to create hydrophilic chambers in a hydrophobic background. Additionally, Figure 1 (cited in the above rejection) still depicts there being hydrophobic and hydrophilic regions as well as having the constraining elements 13. As such, it is maintained that Den Dulk still teaches the limitations of claim 1.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the hydrophobic surface confines a hydrophilic liquid on the planar surface (e.g., without a wall)) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Additionally, it is noted that claim 7 describes there being a second planar surface facing the first planar surface with a spacer separating the two.
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 SOPHIA LYLE whose telephone number is (571)272-9856. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:00 M-Th.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at (571)272-1234. 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.
/S.Y.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1796
/MELVIN C. MAYES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1759