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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/14/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The numbering of claims is not in accordance with 37 CFR 1.126 which requires the original numbering of the claims to be preserved throughout the prosecution. When claims are canceled, the remaining claims must not be renumbered. When new claims are presented, they must be numbered consecutively beginning with the number next following the highest numbered claims previously presented (whether entered or not).
Misnumbered claim 4 (duplicated claim 4) has been renumbered as claim 21. Misnumbered Claim 98 has been renumbered as Claim 9.
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.
Claims 1-6, 9-11, 13, and 15-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laicer et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20240194955 A1, equivalent to WO Pat. No. 2022221636 A2) in view of Zuo et al. (CN Pat No. 108011125 A).
Regarding Claim 1, Laicer et al. teaches an electrochemical cell comprising ([0053]):
a cathode comprising sulfur ([0004]);
an anode comprising lithium metal ([0004]);
an electrolyte comprising: a non-aqueous solvent ([0026] teaches a DOL: DME solvent) and lithium bis(nonafluorobutanesulfonyl)imide (LiNFBSI) ([0055]).
Laicer et al. does not teach the electrolyte comprising an additive comprising a fluorinated borate or a fluorinated borane.
Zuo et al. teaches an electrolyte for a lithium-sulfur battery comprising an additive comprising a fluorinated borate (the additive comprises a boron-containing element and a fluorine-containing functional group, such as tris(2,2,2-trifluoroethyl) borate (para. 14, 44)) in which is used to promote the formation of a stable SEI film on the surface of the negative electrode and suppress the decomposition of the electrolyte, reduce gas production, and improving cycle and safety performance of lithium-sulfur batteries (para. 14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electrolyte of Laicer et al. to include a fluorinated borate such as tris(2,2,2-trifluoroethyl) borate as taught by Zuo et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the described modification to promote the formation of a stable SEI film on the surface of the negative electrode and suppress the decomposition of the electrolyte, reduce gas production, and improve cycle and safety performance of lithium-sulfur batteries (para. 14).
Regarding Claim 2, Laicer et al. is modified by Zuo et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. As applied to Claim 1, the electrolyte of Laicer et al. is modified by Zuo et al. to include a fluorinated borate comprising tris(2,2,2-trifluoroethyl) borate (TFEB) to promote the formation of a stable SEI film on the surface of the negative electrode and suppress the decomposition of the electrolyte, reduce gas production, and improve cycle and safety performance of lithium-sulfur batteries (para. 14, 44). Therefore, all claim limitations are met.
Regarding Claim 3, Laicer et al. is modified by Zuo et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. As applied to Claim 1, the electrolyte of Laicer et al. is modified by Zuo et al. to include a fluorinated borate comprising tris(2,2,2-trifluoroethyl) borate to promote the formation of a stable SEI film on the surface of the negative electrode and suppress the decomposition of the electrolyte, reduce gas production, and improve cycle and safety performance of lithium-sulfur batteries (para. 14, 44). Therefore, all claim limitations are met.
Regarding Claim 4, Laicer et al. is modified by Zuo et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above.
Laicer et al. does not disclose wherein the fluorinated borate is present in the electrolyte in a concentration of about 20 mM to about 500 mM.
Zuo et al. teaches the fluorinated borate such as TTFEB (tris(2,2,2-trifluoroethyl) borate) (para. 44) present in an amount of 400 mM (0.4 M, para. 31), within the claimed range of about 20mM to about 500 mM.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the electrolyte of Laicer et al. to include the fluorinated borate present in a concentration of 400 mM (0.4 M, para. 31) as taught by Zuo et al., within the claimed range of about 20mM to about 500 mM. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the described modification to promote the formation of a stable SEI film on the surface of the negative electrode and suppress the decomposition of the electrolyte, reduce gas production, and improve cycle and safety performance of lithium-sulfur batteries (para. 14).
Regarding Claim 5, Laicer et al. is modified by Zuo et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. Claim 1 does not require the presence of the fluorinated borane within the electrolyte. As applied to Claim 1, Laicer et al. is modified by Zuo et al. to teach a fluorinated borate comprising tris(2,2,2-trifluoroethyl) borate to promote the formation of a stable SEI film on the surface of the negative electrode and suppress the decomposition of the electrolyte, reduce gas production, and improving cycle and safety performance of lithium-sulfur batteries (para. 14, 44). Therefore, all claim limitations are met.
Regarding Claim 6, Laicer et al. is modified by Zuo et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. As applied to Claim 1, Laicer et al. teaches an electrolyte comprising at least one lithium salt such as lithium bis(nonafluorobutanesulfonyl)imide (LiNFBSI) ([0055]). The Li salt has a concentration of 0.01 M to 10 M ([0059]), overlapping the claimed range of 0.9 M to about 1.1 M. "In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976)" (see MPEP 2144.05.I). "The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945)" (MPEP 2144.07). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select LiNFSBI from the list of Li salts disclosed by Laicer et al. as LiNFSBI is deemed a suitable strongly bonded Li salt ([0062]); Laicer et al. further teaches that salt and solvent combinations can be tailored by those skilled in the art for specific application such as high rate, low temperature, or reduced flammability ([0065]).
Regarding Claim 9, Laicer et al. is modified by Zuo et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. Laicer et al. teaches lithium polysulfide present in the electrolyte at a concentration of 0 mM to 8000 mM (0 M to 8 M, [0058]), overlapping the claimed range of 10 mM to 200 mM (see MPEP 2144.05.I). Therefore, all claim limitations are met.
Regarding Claim 10, Laicer et al. is modified by Zuo et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. Laicer et al. teaches the non-aqueous solvent comprising 1,3-dioxolane (DOL) and 1,2-dimethoxyethane (DME) solvent ([0052]). Therefore, all claim limitations.
Regarding Claim 11, Laicer et al. is modified by Zuo et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. Laicer et al. teaches that the electrolyte comprises lithium nitrate (LiNO3) ([0052]). Therefore, all claim limitations.
Regarding Claim 13, Laicer et al. teaches preparation of polysulfide pre-dissolved electrolyte in which Li2S and S8 are contacted with a baseline nonaqueous electrolyte comprising DOL and DME ([0095]-[0096]) to form a lithium polysulfide of formula Li2S6 (meeting the claim limitations). Laicer et al. discloses the use of pre-dissolved lithium polysulfides to prevent polysulfide dissolution in the electrolyte by decreasing the solubility of the polysulfide ([0066]). Laicer et al. teaches that fluorinated ether cosolvents have been used in lithium sulfur batteries to mitigate polysulfide dissolution at room temperature conditions and provide improvements in capacity retention, coulombic efficiency, and self-discharge performance in LSB cells compared to baseline DOL/DME electrolytes ([0006]).
As the method disclosed is taught and/or suggested by the prior art, the function of providing a method for recovering insoluble sulfur species in an electrochemical cell is deemed inherent, and does not impart any structural limitations to the claims or require any additional method steps. "Where applicant claims a composition in terms of a function, property or characteristic and the composition of the prior art is the same as that of the claim but the function is not explicitly disclosed by the reference, the examiner may make a rejection under both 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103. ‘There is nothing inconsistent in concurrent rejections for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 and for anticipation under 35 U.S.C. 102.’ In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255 n.4, 195 USPQ 430, 433 n.4 (CCPA 1977). This same rationale should also apply to product, apparatus, and process claims claimed in terms of function, property or characteristic. Therefore, a 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 rejection is appropriate for these types of claims as well as for composition claims" (emphasis added to original, see MPEP 2112(III)).
Laicer et al. does not teach the nonaqueous solvent comprising tris- (2,2,2-trifluoroethyl) borate (TFEB).
Zuo et al teaches an electrolyte for a lithium-sulfur battery (LSB) comprising an additive comprising a fluorinate borate (the additive comprises a boron-containing element and a fluorine-containing functional group, such as tris(2,2,2-trifluoroethyl) borate (para. 14, 44)). Zuo et al. teaches that the fluorinated borate additive solves the problem of gas production and decomposition of the electrolyte (para. 14).
It would have been obvious to modify the baseline nonaqueous solvent used to form the lithium polysulfide of Laicer et al. to include tris(2,2,2-trifluoroethyl) borate (TFEB) as taught by Zuo et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the described modification to prevent gas production and decomposition of the electrolyte as described above.
Regarding Claim 15, Laicer et al. is modified by Zuo et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 13 above. The formation of the dissolved lithium polysulfide in less than 60 seconds is deemed a whereby clause and is a result of a step positively recited. In this case, the formation of the dissolved lithium polysulfide in the timeframe disclosed is formed based on the addition of TFEB in which is taught by Laicer et al. as modified by Zuo et al. as applied to Claim 1. “The court noted that a "‘whereby clause in a method claim is not given weight when it simply expresses the intended result of a process step positively recited.’" Id. (quoting Minton v. Nat’l Ass’n of Securities Dealers, Inc., 336 F.3d 1373, 1381, 67 USPQ2d 1614, 1620 (Fed. Cir. 2003))”(see MPEP 2111.04.I.). Therefore, all claim limitations are met.
Regarding Claim 16, Laicer et al. is modified by Zuo et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 13 above. Laicer et al. teaches that the nonaqueous solvent mixture comprises LiNO3 ([0095]). Therefore, all claim limitations are met.
Regarding Claim 17, Laicer et al. is modified by Zuo et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 13 above. As applied to Claim 13, the non-aqueous solvent of Laicer et al. is modified by Zuo et al. to include TFEB to suppress the decomposition of the electrolyte, reduce gas production, and improving cycle and safety performance of lithium-sulfur batteries (para. 14, 44).
Laicer et al. does not teach wherein the TFEB is present in the electrolyte in a concentration of about 200 mM to about 300 mM.
Zuo et al. teaches the fluorinated borated such as TTFEB (tris(2,2,2-trifluoroethyl) borate, para. 44) present in the electrolyte in a concentration of 100 mM to 1000 mM (0.1 to 1.0 mol/L, para. 27), overlapping the claimed range of about 200 mM to about 300 mM.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the electrolyte of Laicer et al. to include TFEB present in a concentration of 100 mM to 1000 mM (0.1 to 1.0 mol/L, para. 27) as taught by Zuo et al., overlapping the claimed range of about 200 mM to about 300 mM (see MPEP 2144.05.I). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the described modification to suppress the decomposition of the electrolyte, reduce gas production, and improve cycle and safety performance of lithium-sulfur batteries (para. 14).
Regarding Claim 18, Laicer et al. is modified by Zuo et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 13 above. As applied to Claim 13, Laicer et al. teaches that the non-aqueous solvent comprises 1,3- dioxolane (DOL) and 1,2-dimethoxyethane (DME) ([0095]-[0096]). Therefore, all claim limitations are met.
Regarding Claim 19, Lacier et al. teaches an electrolyte for a lithium-sulfur battery ([0004]) comprising: a non-aqueous solvent ([0022] teaches a DOL: DME solvent) and lithium bis(nonafluorobutanesulfonyl)imide (LiNFBSI) ([0052]). Therefore, all claim limitations are met.
Regarding Claim 20, Laicer et al. is modified by Zuo et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 19 above. As applied to Claim 19, Laicer et al. teaches an electrolyte comprising at least one lithium salt such as lithium bis(nonafluorobutanesulfonyl)imide (LiNFBSI) ([0055]). The Li salt has a concentration of 0.01 M to 10 M ([0059]), overlapping the claimed range of 0.9 M to about 1.1 M (see MPEP 2144.05.I). "The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945)" (MPEP 2144.07). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select LiNFSBI from the list of Li salts as LiNFSBI is deemed a suitable strongly bonded Li salt ([0062]); Laicer et al. further teaches that salt and solvent combinations can be tailored by those skilled in the art for specific application such as high rate, low temperature, or reduced flammability ([0065]).
Regarding Claim 21, Laicer et al. is modified by Zuo et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. As applied to Claim 1, Laicer et al. is modified by Zuo et al. to teach a fluorinated borate comprising tris(2,2,2-trifluoroethyl) borate to promote the formation of a stable SEI film on the surface of the negative electrode and suppress the decomposition of the electrolyte, reduce gas production, and improving cycle and safety performance of lithium-sulfur batteries (para. 14, 44).
Laicer et al. does not teach wherein the fluorinated borate is present in the electrolyte in a concentration of about 200 mM to about 300 mM.
Zuo et al. teaches that the fluorinated borated such as TTFEB (tris(2,2,2-trifluoroethyl) borate, para. 44) is present in the electrolyte in a concentration of 100 mM to 1000 mM (0.1 to 1.0 mol/L, para. 27), overlapping the claimed range of about 200 mM to about 300 mM.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the electrolyte of Laicer et al. to include the fluorinated borate present in a concentration of 100 mM to 1000 mM (0.1 to 1.0 mol/L, para. 27) as taught by Zuo et al., overlapping the claimed range of about 200 mM to about 300 mM (see MPEP 2144.05.I). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the described modification to promote the formation of a stable SEI film on the surface of the negative electrode and suppress the decomposition of the electrolyte, reduce gas production, and improve cycle and safety performance of lithium-sulfur batteries (para. 14).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laicer et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20240194955 A1), equivalent to WO Pat. No. 2022221636 A2) in view of Zuo et al. (CN Pat No. 108011125 A), and further in view of Visco et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20130295471 A1).
Regarding Claim 7, Laicer et al. is modified by Zuo et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. As applied to Claim 1, Laicer et al. is modified by Zuo et al. to teach a fluorinated borate comprising tris(2,2,2-trifluoroethyl) borate to promote the formation of a stable SEI film on the surface of the negative electrode and suppress the decomposition of the electrolyte, reduce gas production, and improving cycle and safety performance of lithium-sulfur batteries (para. 14, 44).
Laicer et al. does not teach the additive comprising the fluorinated borate and the fluorinated borane.
Visco et al. teaches a nonaqueous electrolyte comprising tris(pentafluorophenyl)borane (a fluorinated borane) ([0087]). Visco et al. teaches fluorinated borates such as tris(2,2,2-trifluoroethyl) borate (TTFEB) as suitable anion receptors ([0082]); and further teaches that one or more anion receptors can be used in the electrolyte ([0128]). The teachings of Visco et al. can also be applied to lithium-sulfur batteries ([0133]). Visco et al. teaches that the anion receptor functions as a solubilizing agent within a non-aqueous electrolyte and aids to improve cell cycle life and/or delivered discharge capacity ([0128]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the electrolyte of Laicer et al. to include one or more additives (anion receptors) selected from a group comprising a fluorinated borate and fluorinated borane as taught by Visco et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the described modification to provide a suitable additive composition for a nonaqueous electrolyte for a Li-S battery in which can improve cell cycle life and/or delivered discharge capacity as described above.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laicer et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20240194955 A1, equivalent to WO Pat. No. 2022221636 A2) in view of Zuo et al. (CN Pat No. 108011125 A), and further in view of Kondo et al. (JP Pat. No. 2017091715 A).
Regarding Claim 8, Laicer et al. is modified by Zuo et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 6 above. As applied to Claim 6, Laicer et al. teaches that LiNFBSI can be present in the electrolyte at a concentration of 0.01 M to 10 M ([0059]), overlapping the claimed range of 0.9 M to about 1.1 M (see MPEP 2144.05.I).
Laicer et al. does not teach that the fluorinated borate is present in the electrolyte at a concentration of about 20 mM to about 30 mM.
Kondo et al. teaches a fluorinated borate compound present in an electrolyte in a concentration of about 10 mM to 400 mM (0.01 mol/L to 0.4 mol/L, para. 23). When the concentration is within said range, gas generation in the lithium battery can be further suppressed and higher temperature durability can be further enhanced (para. 23).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the electrolyte of Laicer et al. to include the fluorinated borate in a concentration of about 10 mM to 400 mM (0.01 mol/L to 0.4 mol/L, para. 23) as taught by Kondo et al., overlapping the claimed range of about 20 mM to about 30 mM (see MPEP 2144.05.I). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the described modification to suppress gas generation in a lithium battery and enhance high temperature durability as described above.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laicer et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20240194955 A1, equivalent to WO Pat. No. 2022221636 A2) in view of Zuo et al. (CN Pat No. 108011125 A), and further in view of Badding et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20210175542 A1).
Regarding Claim 12, Laicer et al. is modified by Zuo et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above.
Laicer et al. does not teach that the cathode further comprises a conductive carbon.
Badding et al. teaches a cathode for a lithium sulfur secondary battery comprising conductive carbon to impart the cathode with high lithium ion conductivity and improved impedance ([0044]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the cathode of Laicer et al. to include a conductive carbon as taught by Badding et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the described modification to impart the cathode with high lithium ion conductivity and improved impedance as described above.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laicer et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20240194955 A1, equivalent to WO Pat. No. 2022221636 A2) in view of Zuo et al. (CN Pat No. 108011125 A), and further in view of Nimon et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20220399567 A1).
Regarding Claim 14, Laicer et al. is modified by Zuo et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 13 above.
Laicer et al. does not teach wherein the non-aqueous solvent has a temperature of about 20°C to about 30°C.
Nimon et al. teaches preparation of a lithium polysulfide in a nonaqueous solvent at room temperature (universally known as 20-22°C) ([0299]), for use in high performance battery cells and high energy density secondary batteries ([0004]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the non-aqueous solvent of Laicer et al. to have a temperature between 20-22 °C as taught by Nimon et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the described modification to provide a method of forming a lithium polysulfide for use in high energy density secondary batteries as described above; further, it is well known in the field of endeavor that processes requiring lower temperature can reduce costs related to high energy requirements and reduce overall processing/manufacturing time.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINA RENEE DAULTON whose telephone number is (703)756-5413. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, ULA RUDDOCK can be reached at (571) 272-1481. 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.
/C.R.D./Examiner, Art Unit 1729
/ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729