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 .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed U.S. Provisional Application No. 63/148,365 (filed on 02/11/2021) under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) is acknowledged.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference character that is mentioned in the description: 36 (in paragraph 0076). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character which is not mentioned in the description: 40e (in figure 3). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because in figure 2, the reference character “30” has been used to designate both a bearing of the terminal portion/member 12 and a bearing of the terminal portion/member 14. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 16, 20, and 24 are objected to because of the following informalities that requires appropriate corrections:
.
In claim 1, line 8-9, the limitation “an identical further housing” should read -- an identical further housing of an identical further wire guide module --.
In claim 1, line 22, the limitation “the at least two bearings” should read -- the at least two rotatable bearings --.
In claim 1, line 22-24, the limitation “a first bearing is disposed…and second and third bearings are disposed” should read -- a first bearing of the three bearings is disposed…and second and third bearings of the three bearings are disposed --.
In claim 16, line 10-11, the limitation “the first longitudinal end and…the second longitudinal end” should read -- the first longitudinal end of each wire guide module and…the second longitudinal end of each wire guide module --.
In claim 20, line 32-33, the limitation “the plurality of bearings includes…the channel and a pair of bearings, on…the channel” should read -- the plurality of bearings in the first wire guide module includes…the channel in the first wire guide module and a pair of bearings on…the channel in the first wire guide module --.
In claim 20, line 35, the limitation “the wire guide module” should read -- the first wire guide module --.
In claim 24, line 1, the limitation “The wire guide module of claim 16” should read -- The system of claim 16 --.
In claim 24, line 2-3, the limitation “the channel and a pair of bearings, on the second side of the channel” should read -- the module channel and a pair of bearings on the second side of the module channel --.
In claim 24, line 5, the limitation “disposed in the wire guide module” should read -- disposed in each wire guide module --.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 20, 22, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 20 recites “the single bearing and the pair of bearings are the only bearings disposed in the wire guide module” (in lines 34-35); however, the original disclosure of the claimed invention fails to provide explicit support for this limitation, and it is therefore considered to be new matter. Examiner further notes that according to MPEP 2173.05(i), the negative limitation or exclusionary proviso must have literal basis in the original disclosure. In this case, the term “only” effectively excludes additional bearings (e.g. more than three total bearings) being included within a given wire guide module; nevertheless, neither the specification nor the drawings clearly specify exclusion of such additional bearings.
Claim 22 recites “the first bearing is the only bearing on the first side of the channel and the second and third bearings are the only bearings on the second side of the channel” (in lines 1-2); however, the original disclosure of the claimed invention fails to provide explicit support for this limitation, and it is therefore considered to be new matter. Examiner further notes that according to MPEP 2173.05(i), the negative limitation or exclusionary proviso must have literal basis in the original disclosure. In this case, the term “only” effectively excludes additional bearings (e.g. more than one bearing) being disposed on the first side of the channel, additional bearings (e.g. more than two bearings) being disposed on the second side of the channel, and/or additional bearings (e.g. more than three total bearings) being deposed within the wire guide module; nevertheless, neither the specification nor the drawings clearly specify exclusion of such additional bearings.
Claim 24 recites “the single bearing and the pair of bearings are the only bearings disposed in the wire guide module” (in lines 4-5); however, the original disclosure of the claimed invention fails to provide explicit support for this limitation, and it is therefore considered to be new matter. Examiner further notes that according to MPEP 2173.05(i), the negative limitation or exclusionary proviso must have literal basis in the original disclosure. In this case, the term “only” effectively excludes additional bearings (e.g. more than three total bearings) being disposed within each wire guide module of the flexible wire guide module system; nevertheless, neither the specification nor the drawings clearly specify exclusion of such additional bearings.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 14-16, 18-19, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 14 limitation “the same lateral side of the channel” (in line 2) renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear if the lateral side in claim 14 is referring to the first side of the channel (which is described in line 23 of the parent claim 1), if it’s referring to the second side of the channel (which is described in lines 24-25 of the parent claim 1), or if it’s referring to another structural feature of the channel. Clarification by the applicant is required.
Claim 15 depends from parent claim 14. Subsequently, claim 15 is also rejected as being indefinite for the reasons set forth above.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “the housing” in lines 20 and 21. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 18-19 and 24 depends from parent claim 16. Subsequently, claims 18-19 and 24 are also rejected as being indefinite for the reasons set forth above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 3, 6-13, 21, and 23 looks to be allowable over at least the cited prior art, for the flowing reasons:
In regards to claim 1, the prior art of record, either individually or in combination, fails to teach or render obvious, a wire guide module with the specific collective structure recited by independent claim 1. In particular, a wire guide module comprising: a housing including a first end, a second end, a main body extending longitudinally between the first end and the second end, a first edge on a first lateral sides of the housing, and a second edge on a second lateral sides of the housing; a slot portion defined at the first end of the housing; a tongue portion defined at the second end of the housing, and having a thickness generally corresponding to a space defined by the slot portion such that the tongue portion of the wire guide module is receivable within a slot portion of an identical further housing of an identical further wire guide module; a first port defined at the slot portion; a second port defined at the tongue portion; a channel extending longitudinally from the first port to the second port for feeding a wire therethrough; the channel including a central section that extends parallel to a longitudinal axis of the housing, a tapered portion that extends from the central section towards the second port, a first lateral side that is closest to the first edge of the housing, and a second lateral side that is closest to the second edge of the housing; a first bearing that is disposed (i.e. within the main body) on the first lateral side of the channel; and a second bearing and a third bearing that are disposed (i.e. within the main body) on the lateral second side of the channel; wherein the first edge of the housing has a concave curvature, the second edge of the housing has a convex curvature, and the first, second, and third bearings are equally spaced relative to each other.
As set forth in the previous office action (dated 06/23/2025), Cooper et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2017/0144243 A1) and Cooper (U.S. PGPUB 2013/0168479 A1), looks to be the closes related prior to applicant’s claimed invention. However, the housing (body portion 12) of the wire guide module (wire guide module 10) taught by Cooper-243, does not define a first lateral edge (front edge 30) that has a concave curvature or a second lateral side edge (rear edge 32) that has a convex curvature, and said wire guide module (wire guide module 10) does not include three total bearings that are disposed within the main body (combined structure of the upper half 12a and the lower half 12b) of the housing (body portion 12) and that are equally spaced apart from each other. Instead, the first and the second lateral edges (front edge 30 and read edge 32) of the housing (body portion 12) in Cooper’s wire guide module (wire guide module 10) has a straight/linear/flat profile; and Cooper-243 explicitly states (e.g. in paragraphs 0086) that said wire guide module (wire guide module 10) can preferably include only two total bearings (roller bearings 112), where the first bearing (roller bearing 112 that is proximate to the front edge 30) is located on the first lateral side of the channel (front side of the channel 102 that is proximate to the front edge 30) while the second bearing (roller bearing 112 that is proximate to the rear edge 32) is located on the second lateral side of the channel (rear side of the channel 102 that is proximate to the rear edge 32). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would not had any sufficient rational/motivation to respectively provide the first and second lateral side edge of housing in the wire guide module proposed by Cooper-243, with corresponding concave and convex curvatures, or to provide said wire guide module with three total bearings that are arranged in the exact manner describe by claim 1 limitation (i.e. to position one bearing on one lateral side of the channel, to position two bearing on the other lateral side of the channel, and to dispose each bearing at an equal distance away from the other bearings); in fact, placing two bearings at the second lateral side of the channel would requires significant modifications to the overall structure of said wire guide module (e.g. size of the bearings, sizing/location of the bearing receiving cavities in the housing, sizing/location of the channel in the housing, overall sizing of the housing, etc.), without yielding in any structural, functional, and/or performance improvements. Nevertheless, Cooper-479 does suggest, a wire guide module (wire guide module 10) comprising a housing (housing 12) having first lateral side edge (inner side 12C) with a concave curvature (as clearly illustrated in figure 1-5 and 11) and a second lateral side edge (outer side 12D) with a convex curvature (as clearly illustrated in figure 1-5 and 11), one bearing (lower roller 20, as indicated in the modified figure 2 shown in the office action dated 06/23/2025) disposed on a first lateral side of the channel (inner passageway 22) that is closest to the first lateral side edge (inner side 12C) of the housing (housing 12), and two bearings (two upper rollers 20, as indicated in the modified figure 2 shown in the office action dated 06/23/2025) disposed on a second lateral side of the channel (inner passageway 22) that is closest to the second lateral side edge (outer side 12D) of the housing (housing 12). Yet, Cooper-479 fail to explicitly reveal, the wire guide module (wire guide module 10) including only three total bearing (rollers 20), and the bearings (rollers 20) in said wire guide module (wire guide module 10) being equally spaced relative to each other. On the contrary, Cooper’s wire guide module (wire guide module 10) requires minimum of seven bearings (rollers 20). Moreover, paragraph 0031 of Cooper-479 explicitly state, the bearings (rollers 20) in the wire guide module (wire guide module 10) being parallelly spaced apart from each other by an equal distant (e.g. approximately 1.5 inches) along the longitudinally extending direction (e.g. direction along the longitudinal center B-B/C-C) of the channel (inner passageway 22) between the first and second ends (first end 12A and second end 12B) of the housing (housing 12), and the spacing of the bearings (rollers 20) can be varied depending on the length/shape/size of the wire guide module (wire guide module 10), the channel (inner passageway 22), and/or the wire (wire 10) being guided, as long as equal spacing between the adjacent bearings (rollers 20) can be maintained in a parallel relation, such that the bearings (rollers 20) do not overlap along the length of the wire (wire 100) and such that only one of the bearings (rollers 20) contacts a section of the wire (wire 100) at a given time. In other words, Cooper-479 simply teach each bearing to be spaced away from another adjacent bearing in the longitudinally extending direction of the channel (inner passageway 22)/housing (housing 12); which would cause a first distance between two adjacent lower bearings to always be greater than a second distance between a lower bearing and an adjacent upper bearing, as opposed to said first and second distances being the same value. In addition, all other applicable/analogues prior art of record, neither disclose nor conceive, a wire guide module including a housing, a slot portion, a tongue portion, a first port, a second port, a channel, and a plurality of bearings, that has the exact features and the precise structural configuration recited within claim 1. Accordingly, claim 1 limitations appear to contain allowable subject matter over the cited prior art references; specially when said limitations are viewed in light of applicant’s specification.
Claims 3, 6-13, 21, and 23 depends from claim 1. Subsequently, claims 3, 6-13, 21, and 23 also contain the above noted allowable subject matter in parent claim 1.
Claims 16 and 20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the correspond rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 35 U.S.C. 102(b), for the following reasons:
In regards to claim 16, the prior art of record, either individually or in combination, fails to teach or render obvious, a flexible wire guide module system with the precise collective structure recited by independent claim 16. In particular, a flexible wire guide module system comprising: a plurality of interconnected wire guide modules that has at least a first wire guide module and a second wire guide module; each wire guide module including a housing that defines a first lateral side edge having a concave curvature and a second lateral side edge having a convex curvature, a slot portion that is defined by a pair of slot flanges at a first longitudinal end of each wire guide module, a tongue portion that is defined by a pair of tongue flanges at a second longitudinal end of each wire guide module, a module channel that extend between a first port at the first longitudinal end and a second port at the second longitudinal end, and a plurality of bearings that are disposed within each wire guide module such that at least one bearing is located on each lateral side of the module channel; the first and second wire guide modules being pivotally connected via a positive connection fit between the tongue portion of the first wire guide module and the slot portion of the second wire guide module, such that an overall channel is defined by the module channels of each wire guide modules; wherein the plurality of interconnected wire guide modules are pivotally adjustable between a straight configuration (when they are each pivoted toward the second lateral side edge of the housing) and a curved configuration (when they are each pivoted toward the first lateral side edge of the housing), so as to change the orientation of the overall channel.
As set forth in the previous office action (dated 06/23/2025), Cooper et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2017/0144243 A1) looks to be the closest related prior art to applicant’s claimed invention. However, as explained above, the housing (body portion 12) of the wire guide module (wire guide module 10) taught by Cooper-243, does not define a first lateral edge (front edge 30) that has a concave curvature or a second lateral side edge (rear edge 32) that has a convex curvature, and said wire guide module (wire guide module 10) does not include three total bearings that are disposed within the main body (combined structure of the upper half 12a and the lower half 12b) of the housing (body portion 12) and that are equally spaced apart from each other. Conversely, the first and the second lateral edges (front edge 30 and read edge 32) of the housing (body portion 12) in Cooper’s wire guide module (wire guide module 10) has a straight/linear/flat profile, and one of ordinary skill in the art would lack sufficient rational/motivation to provide said first and second lateral side edges with corresponding concave and convex curvatures. Additionally, Cooper (U.S. PGPUB 2013/0168479 A1) fails to propose, each wire guide modules forming the flexible wire guide module system being pivotally connected, or the orientation of said interconnected wire guide modules being pivotally adjustable between a straight configuration and a curved configuration in order to change the overall module channel defined by the module channel in each wire guide module. In the contrary, orientation of the interconnected wire guide modules in the flexible wire guide module system suggested by Cooper-479, are fixed to have a curved configuration, and the overall module channel defined within the interconnected wire guide modules cannot be changed via the pivoting of the two adjacent wire guide modules. Furthermore, all other applicable/analogues prior art of record, neither disclose nor conceive, a wire guide module being formed of multiple interconnected wire guide modules that are pivotally connected together in the exact manner described within claim 16, and each said wire guide module having the specific structural arrangement/features that is also described within claim 16. Therefore, claim 16 limitations appear to contain allowable subject matter over the cited prior art references; specially when said limitations are considered in light of applicant’s specification.
In regards to claim 20, the prior art of record, either individually or in combination, fails to teach or render obvious, the specific wire guide module interconnecting method that is recited by independent claim 20. As explained above, Cooper et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2017/0144243 A1) does not reveal, total of three bearings being disposed with a first/second wire guide module (i.e. a single bearing being positioned on the first lateral side of a channel, and a pair of bearings being positioned on the second lateral side of the channel), or the first/second wire guide module having a curved shape that is longer on a second lateral side of a channel (which is defined in the first/second wire guide module) than a first lateral side of said channel; while Cooper (U.S. PGPUB 2013/0168479 A1) fails to propose, a first wire guide module and a second wire guide module being pivotally connected together via a positive locking engagement formed of the posts projecting from the slot flanges of said wire guide modules and the pivot holes in the tongue flanges of said wire guide modules, or the first wire guide module only including three total bearings (instead, Cooper’s wire guide module/10) requires minimum of seven bearings/20). Additionally, all other applicable/analogues prior art of record, neither cures the deficiencies in Cooper-243/Cooper-479, disclose, nor suggest, a plurality of wire guide modules being interconnected using the precise method described within claim 20, where each said wire guide modules has the exact structural arrangement/features also described within claim 20. Consequently, claim 20 limitations appear to contain allowable subject matter over the cited prior art references; specially when said limitations are viewed in light of applicant’s specification.
Claims 14-15, 18-19, 22, and 24 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, for the following reasons:
Claims 14-15 and 22 depends from claim 1. Subsequently, claims 14-15 and 22 also contain the above noted allowable subject matter in parent claim 1.
Claims 18-19 and 24 depends from claim 16. Subsequently, claims 18-19 and 24 also contain the above noted allowable subject matter in parent claim 16.
Response to Arguments
With respect to applicant's arguments in pages 13-14 of the remarks filed on 10/23/2025, regarding the previously set forth objections to the drawings, all have been fully considered but they are not persuasive:
Although the applicants state that the objections pertaining to the reference characters 30, 36, and 40e, were properly addressed through the amendments to the figure 2 of drawings and the amendments to the specification, examiner notes that no replacement drawings was filed by the applicant and the currently presented drawings does not show the corrections (e.g. to figures 2-3) that are discussed in arguments/remarks filed on 10/23/2025.
With respect to applicant's arguments in page 14 of the remarks filed on 10/23/2025, regarding the previously set forth objections to the specification, all have been fully considered and are persuasive. Thus, said specification objections has been withdrawn.
With respect to applicant's arguments in page 14 of the remarks filed on 10/23/2025, regarding the previously set forth objections to claims 1-2, 4, 10, 13, and 16-20, all have been fully considered and are persuasive. Hence, said rejection has been withdrawn. Nevertheless, upon further consideration, new objections are made for claims 1, 6, 20 and 24, as detailed above.
Examiner notes that claims 1, 16, 20 and 24 now includes multiple indefinite limitations due to the amendments made to said claims by the applicant.
With respect to applicant's arguments in pages 14-15 of the remarks filed on 10/23/2025, regarding the previously set forth 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections for claims 1, 3, and 6-15 and 20, all have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, said rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection are made for claims 1, 3, 6-16, and 18-24 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as detailed above.
Examiner notes that claims 1, 16, and 20 now includes multiple indefinite limitations due to the amendments made to said claims by the applicant.
With respect to applicant's arguments in pages 15-22 of the remarks filed on 10/23/2025, regarding the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejections for claims 1, 16, and 20, based on the Cooper et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2017/0144243 A1), all have been fully considered and are persuasive. Resultingly, said prior rejections in view of Cooper et al. has been withdrawn.
With respect to applicant's arguments in pages 15-22 of the remarks filed on 10/23/2025, regarding the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejections for claims 1-2, 16-17, and 20, in view of Cooper et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2017/0144243 A1), all have been fully considered and are persuasive. Resultingly, said prior rejections has been withdrawn.
With respect to applicant's arguments in pages 15-22 of the remarks filed on 10/23/2025, regarding the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejections for claims 1-2 and 4-5, in view of Cooper (U.S. PGPUB 2013/0168479 A1), all have been fully considered and are persuasive. Resultingly, said prior rejections has been withdrawn.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new grounds 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 RAVEEN J DIAS whose telephone number is (571) 272-2195. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 8:00AM - 4:30PM, Alternate Fridays.
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, VICTORIA P AUGUSTINE can be reached at (313) 446-4858. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/R.J.D./Examiner, Art Unit 3654
/ANNA M MOMPER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3619