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 statements (IDS) submitted on April 21, 2023, and November 30, 2023 are being considered by the examiner in view of the information provided in the Remarks on page 7 as well as the additional documents submitted in the IDS dated October 14, 2025. It is noted that while Applicant is correct that no translation was required for WO 2013/156968 since it turned out to be an English language document (which was not apparent due to no copy of the document being provided), 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2)(i) and (ii) requires a legible copy to be provided for each foreign patent or publication. As a legible copy of this reference was provided in the IDS dated October 14, 2025, it has been considered.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a remote material removal device” in claim 22. This limitation recites a generic placeholder (i.e., “a remote material removal device”) modified by a function (e.g., “output a material removing beam towards a target area”) without reciting sufficient structure to perform the function. The corresponding structure is interpreted as the fluid jet knife 800 (Para. [0206]) and equivalents thereof.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-18 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2020/260307 A1 to Schroers (US 2022/0250081 A1 is relied upon as the translation as it is the US counterpart to the WO application) in view of US 2012/0199402 A1 to Rupp.
Regarding claim 1, Schroers teaches a roller crusher having two generally parallel rollers 12, 14 arranged to rotate in opposite directions, towards each other, and separated by a gap (Fig. 1), each roller 12, 14 having two ends (Fig. 1), the roller crusher comprising:
a flange 18, 20 attached to at least one of the ends of one of the rollers 12, the flange 18, 20 extending in a radial direction of the roller 12, the flange 18, 20 having a height (H) above an outer surface of the roller 12 (Figs. 1 and 3; Para. [0046]; the roller 12 includes flanges 18, 20 attached to its ends, and each of the flanges 18, 20 extend in a radial direction above an outer surface of the roller by a height),
wherein the roller crusher further comprises at least one scraper 42, 44 arranged at an end of the roller 12 with a flange 18, 20 for at least partially removing material accumulated on the flange 18, 20 and/or on the outer surface at the end of the roller 12 (Fig. 1; Para. [0046]), and
wherein each of the at least one scraper 42, 44 comprises a scraping element 52 having a scraping surface (Figs. 1 and 3; Para. [0062]) and
wherein the scraping surface 52 is arranged tangential to a radial axis which extends from a rotational axis of the roller 12 with the flange 18, 20 (Figs. 1 and 3; this limitation is interpreted as the scraping surface is tangential to an imaginary axis extending in the radial direction from the axis of rotation, as shown in Fig. 5A of the present application with axis A extending out from the axis of rotation to the tip of the scraping surface which touches the axis A, which Schroers teaches because the radial axis may be chosen to be the line extending from the axis of rotation that touches the scraping surface).
wherein the scraping surface of the at least one scraper 52 is arranged to incline in a relation to a normal to the inner surface of the flange 20, and incline such that a distance between the normal to the inner surface of the flange and the scraping surface decreases towards the flange (Figs. 1 and 4; Para. [0063]; the angle of the scraping surface of the scraper decreases such that the spacing between the plate and the grinding roll decreases in the direction of the roller end where the flange is located, which would also result in the distance to a normal positioned, for example, at a location under the scraper 52 of the inner surface of the flange decreasing).
Schroers fails to explicitly teach the scraping surface comprises a polycrystalline diamond (PCD).
Rupp teaches a surface for mill scrapers (Para. [0030]) that includes a polycrystalline diamond with a wear coating (Paras. [0032] and [0036]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the scraper of Schroers to include the PCD and wear resistant coating as taught by Rupp to provide a strong scraping material with a long lifespan (Rupp, Paras. [0013]-[0015]).
Regarding claim 2, modified Schroers teaches the roller crusher as claimed in claim 1 (Fig. 3), wherein the scraping element further comprises a wear resistant material in which the polycrystalline diamond (PCD) is at least partly embedded (Rupp, Paras. [0032] and [0036]; modified Schroers includes the surface material of Rupp, which includes a wear resistant material with the PCD).
Regarding claim 3, modified Schroers teaches the roller crusher as claimed in claim 2 (Fig. 3), wherein the wear resistant material is one from the list of: a ceramic material, a metal ceramic composite material, and a metal matrix composite material (Rupp, Para. [0036]; modified Schroers includes the surface material of Rupp, which includes a wear resistant material that is ceramic).
Regarding claim 5, modified Schroers teaches the roller crusher as claimed in claim 1 (Fig. 3) wherein the at least one scraper 42, 44 has a surface facing the flange 18, 20, which surface has an extension from the scraping element 52 towards a rear end of the at least one scraper (Figs. 3-5; Paras. [0062]-[0063]; the scrapers 42, 44 each includes surfaces, i.e., portions of arm 50, plate 58 and plate 56, that face the flange), wherein the at least one scraper 42, 44 is structured and arranged such that a distance between the surface facing the flange and an inner surface of the flange decreases towards the scraping element over at least a part of the extension (Fig. 3 shows that a distance between the surface of the extension that faces the flange and the inner surface of the flange decreases towards the scraping element 52 with the surface of the extension at the holders 38, 40 being farthest away from the inner surface of the flange).
Regarding claim 6, modified Schroers teaches the roller crusher as claimed in claim 1 (Fig. 3), wherein the at least one scraper 42, 44 has a surface facing away from the flange, which surface has an extension from the scraping element towards a rear end of the at least one scraper (Figs. 3-5; Paras. [0062]-[0063]; the scrapers 42, 44 each includes surfaces, i.e., portions of arm 50, plate 58 and plate 56, that face away from the flange), wherein the at least one scraper is structured and arranged such that a distance between the surface facing away from the flange and an inner surface of the flange decreases towards the scraping element over at least a part of the extension (Fig. 3 shows that a distance between the surface of the extension that faces away from the flange and the inner surface of the flange decreases towards the scraping element 52 with the surface of the extension at the holders 38, 40 being farthest away from the inner surface of the flange).
Regarding claim 7, modified Schroers teaches the roller crusher as claimed in claim 1 (Fig. 3), wherein the scraping element 52 comprises a front portion 52 and a back portion 58 which are attached to each other (Figs. 3-5; Paras. [0062]-[0063]; the scrapers each include a scraping plate 52 at the front of the assembly and a scraping plate 58 in the back of the assembly), and wherein the front portion 52 has the scraping surface (Figs. 3-5).
Regarding claim 8, modified Schroers teaches the roller crusher as claimed in claim 7 (Fig. 3), wherein the back portion 58 has a surface facing the flange 18, 20 and a surface facing away from the flange 18, 20 (Figs. 3-5 show that the plate 58 has sides facing towards and away from the flanges), said surfaces being parallel with an inner surface of the flange 18, 20 (Figs. 3-5; the scraping elements 42, 44 are positioned vertically and the inner surface of the flange 18, 20 is also oriented vertically, therefore the walls of the plate 58 that define the sides of the assembly are parallel to the inner surface of the flange as they are both vertical).
Regarding claim 9, modified Schroers teaches the roller crusher as claimed in claim 1 (Fig. 3).
Schroers fails to explicitly teach the at least one scraper is arranged at a lower part of the roller crusher because Schroers is silent regarding the positioning of the scrapers 42, 44 relative to the rolls.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the scrapers of Schroers to be arranged at a lower part of the roller crusher so that the crushed material removed by the scrapers may be directed away from the rolls by gravity and towards a collection or processing area for the crushed material.
Regarding claim 10, modified Schroers teaches the roller crusher as claimed in claim 1 (Fig. 3), wherein the at least one scraper 42, 44 is arranged such that the scraping surface 52 of the at least one scraper at least partly faces downwards for allowing removed material to leave from the roller and the scraping surface by gravitational force (Figs. 3-5 show that the scraping surface includes a tilt that results in part of it facing downwardly to direct removed material from the roller).
Regarding claim 11, modified Schroers teaches the roller crusher as claimed in claim 1 (Fig. 3), wherein the at least one scraper 42, 44 has a fastening position 38, 40 located at a distance from the outer surface of the roller 12 (Fig. 3; Para. [0061]), wherein the at least one scraper 42, 44 is arranged such that a position of the scraping surface 52 of the at least one scraper is located at, or offset from in the rotation direction of the roller, a radial axis which extends from a rotational axis of the roller 12 and through the fastening position (Figs. 1 and 3; the radial axis may be chosen to be the line extending from the axis of rotation that touches the scraping surface and extends back to the fastening position 38, 40).
Regarding claim 12, modified Schroers teaches the roller crusher as claimed in claim 1 (Fig. 3), wherein the roller crusher further comprises at least one holding fixture 38, 40 for the at least one scraper 42, 44, which at least one holding fixture connects to a frame of the roller crusher at a fastening position of the at least one scraper 42, 44 (Fig. 3; Para. [0052]; the holders 38, 40 are fastened to the machine frame).
Regarding claim 13, modified Schroers teaches the roller crusher as claimed in claim 12 (Fig. 3), wherein the at least one holding fixture 38, 40 comprises at least one bracket and at least one wedge element (Figs. 3-5 show that the holding element includes a bracket, i.e., the top of the elements that would be attached to the machine frame, and a wedge element, i.e., the wedge element shown above the scraping surfaces in Fig. 3), which wedge element is structured and arranged to attach the at least one scraper 42, 44 to the at least one bracket such that an angular position of the at least one scraper is shifted in relation to an angular position of the at least one bracket in a rotational plane of the roller 10 (Figs. 3-5 show that the scraping element is connected to the bracket of the holding element via the wedge, and adjustments to the bracket or wedge would shift the angular position of the scraper).
Regarding claim 14, modified Schroers teaches the roller crusher as claimed in claim 1 (Fig. 1), wherein the roller crusher further comprises a flexible retaining arrangement arranged to intercouple the at least one scraper with a frame of the roller crusher (Fig. 3; Para. [0054]; the holders 38, 40 of the scraping element are attached to the frame such that they are movable relative to the movement of the roller, i.e., there is a flexibly retaining arrangement).
Regarding claim 15, modified Schroers teaches roller crusher as claimed in claim 1 (Fig. 3), wherein the at least one scraper 42, 44 is at least two scrapers 42, 44 arranged consecutive to each other at an end of the roller with a flange for at least partially removing material accumulated on the flange and/or on the outer surface at the end of the roller (Fig. 3; Paras. [0052]-[0054]).
Regarding claim 16, modified Schroers teaches the roller crusher as claimed in claim 15 (Fig. 3), wherein the at least two consecutive scrapers 42, 44 are arranged at equal distances to the flange and/or to the outer surface at the end of the roller (Fig. 3; Para. [0053]; the scrapers 42, 44 are configured to be identical, i.e., configured in the same way with respect to distance from the elements of the system).
Regarding claim 17, modified Schroers teaches the roller crusher as claimed in claim 15 (Fig. 3), wherein the at least two consecutive scrapers 42, 44 are arranged at different distances to the flange and/or to the outer surface at the end of the roller (Para. [0054]; the scrapers 42, 44 are on holders 38, 40 that are movable such that the distance to the roller may be increased or decreased for each scraper).
Regarding claim 18, modified Schroers teaches the roller crusher as claimed in claim 17 (Fig. 3), wherein the at least two consecutive scrapers 42, 44 are arranged in decreasing distance from the flange and/or from the outer surface of the roller seen from a front scraper to consecutive scrapers (Para. [0054]; the scrapers 42, 44 are on holders 38, 40 that are movable such that the distance to the roller may be increased or decreased for each scraper, and in an instance in which one scraper moves to be closer to the roller then the scrapers are arranged with decreasing distance to the other surface of the roller).
Regarding claim 21, modified Schroers teaches the roller crusher as claimed in claim 1 (Fig. 3), wherein the roller crusher comprises two flanges 18, 20 attached to opposite ends of one of the rollers 12 (Fig. 1) and wherein the at least one scraper comprises a first subset of at least one scraper and a second subset of at least one scraper which first and second subsets are each disposed on a respective end region of the roller with the two flanges.
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schroers in view of Rupp in further view of DE 739,462 C to Buehler.
Regarding claim 19, modified Schroers teaches the roller crusher as claimed in claim 17 (Fig. 3).
Schroers fails to explicitly teach wherein the at least two consecutive scrapers comprise at least two subsets of at least two consecutive scrapers, wherein the at least two consecutive scrapers within each subset are arranged at the same distance from the flange and/or roller surface, wherein the at least two subsets of consecutive scrapers are arranged at different distance to the flange and/or the outer surface at the end of the roller as the scrapers are at different distances from the outer surface of the roller.
Buehler teaches a roller crusher (Abstract) including a scraper 1 formed as a subset of scrapers 5, 11 (Fig. 1; P. 1, Paragraph starting “It denotes”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify each scraper in Schroers to be composed of a subset of scrapers including a blade and a brush as taught by Buehler so that the material on the crusher may be subjected to different scraping actions, i.e., brushing and cutting, to ensure the material is properly removed. It is noted that modifying Schroers to include the subsets taught by Buehler results in the at least two subsets of consecutive scrapers are arranged at different distance to the flange and/or the outer surface at the end of the roller as the scrapers are at different distances from the outer surface of the roller because Schroers teaches that the holders 38, 40 of the scraping elements 42, 44 are movable to increase or decrease the distance to the roller.
Regarding claim 20, modified Schroers teaches the roller crusher as claimed in claim 19 (Fig. 3), wherein the at least two subsets of consecutive scrapers are arranged at a decreasing distances to the flange and/or the outer surface at the end of the roller seen from a front subset to consecutive subsets (Para. [0054]; the scrapers 42, 44 are on holders 38, 40 that are movable such that the distance to the roller may be increased or decreased for each scraper, and in an instance in which one scraper moves to be closer to the roller then the scrapers are arranged with decreasing distance to the other surface of the roller).
Claims 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schroers in view of Rupp in further view of US 3,404,424 to Drayton.
Regarding claim 22, modified Schroers teaches the roller crusher as claimed in claim 1 (Fig. 3).
Schroers fails to explicitly teach wherein the roller crusher further comprises a remote material removal device configured to output a material removing beam towards a target area, wherein the remote material removal device and the at least one scraper are arranged consecutive to each other at an end of the roller with a flange for at least partially removing material accumulated on the flange and/or on the outer surface at the end of the roller.
Drayton teaches a roller crusher including a scraper 38 and remote material removal device 106 configured to output a material removing beam towards a target area (Fig. 3; Col. 2, Ln. 68 through Col. 3, Ln. 6), wherein the remote material removal device 106 and the at least one scraper 38 are arranged consecutive to each other at an end of the roller (Fig. 3; Col. 2, Ln. 68 through Col. 3, Ln. 6; the scraper 38 and nozzle 106 are arranged consecutive to each other, i.e., one after the other, at an outer edge of the roller).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the roller crusher of Schroers to include the remote material removal device of Drayton to that the material being removed from the roller may be directed to a desired location and prevented from reaching any unintended areas. It is noted that modifying Schroers to include the remote material removal device results in the remote material removal device and the at least one scraper are arranged consecutive to each other at an end of the roller with a flange for at least partially removing material accumulated on the flange and/or on the outer surface at the end of the roller as the roller in Schroers includes a flange.
Regarding claim 23, modified Schroers teaches the roller crusher as claimed in claim 22 (Fig 3), wherein the target area of the remote material removal device is located in front of the at least one scraper (Drayton, Fig. 3; modified Schroers includes the remote material removal device of Drayton, which shows the target area of the nozzle 106 is positioned in front of the scraper in Fig. 3).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and remarks with respect to the claim objections and rejections under 35 USC 112 have been fully considered and are persuasive. These objections and rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments and remarks with respect to the rejections of the claims under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of WO 2020/260307 A1 to Schroers (cited in 892 dated June 17, 2025), which teaches the newly added features to the independent claims, as discussed above. It is noted that Applicant argues that Schroers fails to teach the claimed invention because the scrapers “in Schroers are (substantially) radially directed towards the roller surface… [and] [a]s such, the scraping surfaces defined by the front edges of the scraping plates in Schroers face the surface of the roller, i.e., such that a surface normal of the scraping surface would intersect the roller.” Remarks, PP. 9. Applicant points to the language regarding the scraping surface being tangential to a radial axis of the roller to argue that this is the claim feature that Schroers fails to teach. Id. This argument has been carefully considered and it is not persuasive because it is not commensurate in scope with the claims. Claim 1, the only independent claim, recites “wherein the scraping surface is arranged tangential to a radial axis which extends from a rotational axis of the roller with the flange.” This limitation is interpreted as the scraping surface is tangential to an imaginary axis extending in the radial direction from the axis of rotation, as shown in Fig. 5A of the present application with axis A extending out from the axis of rotation to the tip of the scraping surface which touches the axis A. Accordingly, Schroers teaches such a feature as the radial axis may be chosen as any axis extending from the rotational axis in a radial direction, and thus may be an axis that touches the scraping surface such that is tangential to the axis.
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 MATTHEW STEPHENS whose telephone number is (571)272-6722. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 930-630.
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, Chris Templeton can be reached at (571)270-1477. 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.
/MATTHEW STEPHENS/Examiner, Art Unit 3725
/Christopher L Templeton/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3725