DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
2. Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. KR10-2022-0102018, filed on 8/16/2022.
Claim Interpretation
3. For the purposes of claim interpretation, the definition of “a curved shape”, as written in claims 4 and 10, is read from the special definition listed in page 9, paragraph 53 of the instant specification.
4. For the purposes of claim interpretation, the definition of “integrally formed”, as written in claim 8, is interpreted in line with the special definition outlined on page 12 and paragraph 60 of the instant specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. Claims 1-5, 7-10, and 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by MacLean (US-20040067416-A1; henceforth, MacLean).
8. Regarding claim 1, MacLean teaches a secondary battery (an electrolytic cell, Page 1, paragraph 6) comprising an electrode assembly (an assembly of electrolytic stackable cells, page 1, paragraph 5), an exterior member accommodating the electrode assembly, and a protective member disposed inside the exterior material and surrounding a vertex of the electrode assembly (see Figures 2 and 5, reproduced below).
PNG
media_image1.png
603
1190
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
758
1105
media_image2.png
Greyscale
9. Regarding claim 2, MacLean teaches the secondary battery according to claim 1, wherein an inner surface of the protective member contacts with a vertex of the electrode assembly (the outer areas that are specifically protected by the protective barrier include the edges and corners of the stackable cell, page 2, paragraph 19; also see Figure 2, reproduced above) , and wherein an outer surface of the protective member contacts with the exterior material (the laminate packaging material (e.g., foil 60) would be wrapped and sealed around the protective frame including the cell stack, page 2, paragraph 25; also see Figure 5, reproduced above).
10. Regarding claim 3, MacLean teaches the secondary battery according to claim 2, wherein an inner surface of the protective member comprises a shape corresponding to the vertex (see Figures 2 (reproduced above) 4 and 9 (reproduced below). Figure 9 depicts rectangular corner, matching the shape of the electrode assembly of 4).
PNG
media_image3.png
363
1258
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
806
1009
media_image4.png
Greyscale
111. Regarding claim 4, MacLean teaches the secondary battery according to claim 2, wherein an outer surface of the protective member comprises a curved shape (The corners and edges of the cell support can have, but need not have, a curved radius to prevent tearing of the laminate packaging material, page 2, column 2, paragraph 21).
12. Regarding claim 5, MacLean teaches the secondary battery according to claim 1, wherein the protective member comprises at least one among a thermoplastic resin, a thermosetting resin, a rubber resin, a non-conductive metal alloy, and a non-conductive ceramic (materials that would be suitable for use in constructing a light, strong cell-protecting frame may be: polyolefins (i.e. polyethylene or polypropylene), polyacrylic acid esters, polyacetates, cellulose acetate and butyrate, nylons, polycarbonates, polyterephthalates, polystyrenes, polyacrylonitriles, polytetrafluoroethylene, polyfluorochloroethylenes, polyvinylchloride, polyvinylchloride acetate, and copolymers and mixtures thereof, page 2, columns 1-2, paragraph 20). The examiner notes the list includes thermoplastic resins, thermosetting resins and rubber resins.
13. Regarding claim 7, MacLean teaches the secondary battery according to claim 1, wherein the electrode assembly comprises a plurality of edges (See Figures 2 and 5, reproduced above; the electrolytic stacked cells, element 60, is a rectangular parallelopiped structure, which has several well-defined edges), and wherein the secondary battery further comprises a supplementary member surrounding at least one edge among the plurality of edges (Figures 2, 5 and 9, reproduced above. The frame, element 10, extends along all the edges of the electrolytic stacked cells, element 50. As shown in Figure 9 (reproduced above), the frame may be composed of multiple members).
14. Regarding claim 8, MacLean teaches the secondary battery according to claim 7, wherein the protective member and the supplementary member are integrally formed (the protective frame may be constructed as a unitary piece that protects each edge and corner of the cell stack, page 2, column 2, paragraph 21; In Figure 2, annotated below, the corner of the frame constitutes a protective member disposed inside the external material (as shown in Figure 5) surrounding the vertex of the electrode assembly (The assembly of claim 1 wherein the frame comprises at least one corner protector, claim 3). This corner is composed of 3 edges meeting, each edge constituting a supplementary member that surrounds the edge of the electrode assembly (the assembly of claim 1, wherein the frame comprises at least one edge protector, claim 2). Since the edge and corner protectors of MacLean make up the frame and can be a unitary piece, as shown in Figures 2 and 9, they are integrally formed).
PNG
media_image5.png
782
1369
media_image5.png
Greyscale
15. Regarding claim 9, MacLean teaches the secondary battery according to claim 7, wherein an inner surface of the supplementary member comprises a shape corresponding to the edge ("the shape and construction of the protective frame may be varied to meet the form and fit requirements of any given application, such as the size and construction of the cell and positioning of its terminal tabs, page 2, column 2, paragraph 21; also see Figure 9, reproduced above).
16. Regarding claim 10, MacLean teaches the secondary battery according to claim 7, wherein an outer surface of the supplementary member comprises a curved shape (The corners and edges of the cell support can have, but need not have, a curved radius to prevent tearing of the laminate packaging material, page 2, column 2, paragraph 20).
17. Regarding claim 13, MacLean teaches the secondary battery according to claim 8, wherein the supplementary member surrounds an edge in the thickness direction of the electrode assembly (see Figure 2 and 5; the frame (element 10) covers all the edges and corners of the electrolytic stacked cells (element 60)).
18. Regarding claim 14, MacLean teaches the secondary battery according to claim 8, wherein the supplementary member surrounds an edge in the length direction of the electrode assembly (see Figure 2 and 5; the frame (element 10) covers all the edges and corners of the electrolytic stacked cells (element 50)).
19. Regarding claim 15, MacLean teaches the secondary battery according to claim 8, wherein the supplementary member surrounds an edge in the width direction of the electrode assembly and an edge in the length direction of the electrode assembly (see Figure 2 and 5; the frame (element 10) covers all the edges and corners of the electrolytic stacked cells (element 60)).
20. Regarding claim 16, MacLean teaches the secondary battery according to claim 8, wherein the supplementary member surrounds an edge in the thickness direction of the electrode assembly and an edge in the length direction of the electrode assembly (see Figure 2 and 5; the frame (element 10) covers all the edges and corners of the electrolytic stacked cells (element 50)).
21. Regarding claim 17, MacLean teaches the secondary battery according to claim 7, wherein the supplementary member comprises at least one among a thermoplastic resin, a thermosetting resin, a rubber resin, a non-conductive metal alloy, and a non-conductive ceramic (materials that would be suitable for use in constructing a light, strong cell-protecting frame may be: polyolefins (i.e. polyethylene or polypropylene), polyacrylic acid esters, polyacetates, cellulose acetate and butyrate, nylons, polycarbonates, polyterephthalates, polystyrenes, polyacrylonitriles, polytetrafluoroethylene, polyfluorochloroethylenes, polyvinylchloride, polyvinylchloride acetate, and copolymers and mixtures thereof, page 2, columns 1-2, paragraph 20). The examiner notes the list includes thermoplastic resins, thermosetting resins and rubber resins.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
22. 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.
23. 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.
24. 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.
25. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MacLean as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Uh (US- 7951485-B2; henceforth, Uh) and Kaneda (US-6743546-B1, henceforth Kaneda).
26. Regarding Claim 6, the instant claim teaches the secondary battery according to claim 1, where the protective member is made out of a transparent material. The intention of using the transparent material is to ensure the vertex of the electrode assembly properly lies within the protective member (page 10, paragraph 55, lines 7-10).
26. Regarding claim 6, MacLean teaches the secondary battery according to claim 1. MacLean additionally teaches suitable materials for use in constructing the light, strong cell-protecting frame including polyolefins (i.e. polyethylene or polypropylene), polyacrylic acid esters, polyacetates, cellulose acetate and butyrate, nylons, polycarbonates, polyterephthalates, polystyrenes, polyacrylonitriles, polytetrafluoroethylene, polyfluorochloroethylenes, polyvinylchloride, polyvinylchloride acetate, and copolymers and mixtures thereof (page 2, columns 1-2, paragraph 20). MacLean teaches that the frame is intended to protect the edges and corners of the cell stack from damage that could occur due to mechanical shock of the cell (page 1, columns 1 and 2, paragraph 4), and that using rounded edges and corners would prevent the tearing of the laminate packaging material (page 2, column 2, paragraph 20).
27. MacLean does not explicitly teach the use of transparent materials in the construction of the protective frame. Additionally, MacLean does not expressly teach that the intended use of the frame is to prevent the sharp edges or corners of the stacked electrolytic cells from punctuating the outer casing of the secondary battery.
28. Uh teaches a lithium rechargeable battery that includes an insulating case, an electrode assembly, and an outer can (page 4, paragraph 15 and page 7, paragraph 38; Figure 6, annotated below). Uh teaches the insulating case may be made out of a polymer resin with insulating properties, including polypropylene, polyphenylene sulfide, polyethersulfone, or modified polyphenylene oxide (page 11, paragraph 50). Specifically, Uh teaches that polyethersulfone has superior transparent characteristics and superior mechanical strength (page 11, paragraph 50).
PNG
media_image6.png
766
639
media_image6.png
Greyscale
29. However, Uh does not teach a motivation for the use of a transparent insulating case.
30. Kaneda teaches a battery including an electrode assembly accommodated within a sealed casing, using a frame or insulating spacer in between the electrode assembly and the casing (page 2, columns 3 and 4). Kaneda teaches that the purpose of the invention is to create a battery which can withstand repeated vibration or large impact, so that there is no risk that the positive and negative electrode leads joined to their respective electrode plates are bent or cut, or that the flexible laminate casing is damaged by pointed corners, edges or burrs on the electrode assembly (page 1, column 2, line 63 and page 2, column 3 and 4).
31. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to create a battery utilizing the components taught by MacLean and the materials of the transparent insulating case of Uh, from the same field of endeavor, to create a secondary battery disposed within an external casing, with a frame surrounding the electrode assembly, with the express intent of preventing the sharp edges corners or burrs of the electrode assembly from puncturing the outer casing of the battery, as taught by Kaneda. The substitution of the material used in the protective frame taught by MacLean for the material of the insulation cover one taught by Uh is a simple substitution using materials and components from the same field of endeavor, where a person of ordinary skill in the art would have the reasonable expectation that the function of the frame would not change. In addition, there would have been a motivation, as outlined by Kaneda, for a person of ordinary skill in the art at the before the effective filing date, to use a frame, as taught by both Kaneda and MacLean, to prevent the sharp edges, corners, and burrs on the electrode assembly from puncturing the outer casing of the secondary battery, to prevent the leakage of the internal electrolytes, corrosion of the outer casing and output failure.
32. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MacLean as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Harutyunyan (US-20200243807-A1; henceforth, Harutyunyan) and Kaneda.
33. Regarding Claim 11, the instant claim teaches the secondary battery according to claim 7, wherein the width of the supplementary member is within a range of 5 mm to 50 mm.
34. MacLean teaches the secondary battery of claim 7 (see above). MacLean also teaches that the frame encasing the stacked electrolytic assembly can have length and width dimensions of 40 and 42 in, respectively (Figure 9), and the shape and construction of the protective frame may be varied to meet the form and fit requirements of any given application, such as the size and construction of the cell and positioning of its terminal tabs (page 2, column 2, paragraph 21). MacLean teaches that the frame is intended to protect the edges and corners of the cell stack from damage that could occur due to mechanical shock of the cell (page 1, columns 1 and 2, paragraph 4), and that using rounded edges and corners would prevent the tearing of the laminate packaging material (page 2, column 2, paragraph 20).
35. However, MacLean does not teach that the components of the frame have the dimensions of 5 to 50 mm. Additionally, MacLean does not expressly teach that the intended use of the frame is to prevent the sharp edges or corners of the stacked electrolytic cells from punctuating the outer casing of the secondary battery.
36. Harutyunyan teaches a flexible battery composed of an electrode assembly within a polymer pouch cell whose dimensions can range from 0.01 mm to 10 mm thick and 0.1 to 10000 mm in length and width (page 5, column 1, paragraph 40). Since the pouch cell has a thickness of 0.025 mm to 0.040 mm (page 4, columns 1 and 2, paragraph 36), the electrode assembly has appreciably the same dimensions of the battery.
37. Harutyunyan does not teach using a frame around the electrode assembly to prevent the sharp edges and corners of the electrode assembly from puncturing the pouch cell.
38. Kaneda teaches a battery including an electrode assembly accommodated within a sealed casing, using a frame or insulating spacer in between the electrode assembly and the casing (page 2, columns 3 and 4). Kaneda teaches that the purpose of the invention is to create a battery which can withstand repeated vibration or large impact, so that there is no risk that the positive and negative electrode leads joined to their respective electrode plates are bent or cut, or that the flexible laminate casing is damaged by pointed corners, edges or burrs on the electrode assembly (page 1, column 2, line 63 and page 2, column 3 and 4).
39. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to create a battery utilizing the electrode assembly of Harutyunyan from the same field of endeavor and the casings of either Kaneda or MacLean to create a secondary battery disposed within an external casing, with the express intent of preventing the sharp edges corners or burrs of the electrode assembly from puncturing the outer casing of the battery, as taught by Kaneda. The substitution of the electrode assembly of MacLean with the one taught by Harutyunyan is a simple substitution using components from the same field of endeavor, where a person of ordinary skill in the art would have the reasonable expectation that the function of the battery would not change. Since MacLean teaches the size and shape of the frame can be modified to accommodate the electrode assembly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the present invention to use supports with the range of 5 to 50 mm. In addition, there would have been a motivation, as outlined by Kaneda, for a person of ordinary skill in the art at the before the effective filing date, to use a frame, as taught by both Kaneda and MacLean, to prevent the sharp edges, corners, and burrs on the electrode assembly from puncturing the outer casing of the secondary battery, to prevent the leakage of the internal electrolytes, corrosion of the outer casing and output failure.
40. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MacLean as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Busacca et al. (US-202031346-A1; henceforth Busacca) and Kaneda.
41. Regarding claim 12, the instant claim teaches a secondary battery according to claim 8, wherein an angle formed by the protective member and the supplementary member is greater than 90 degrees and less than 180 degrees.
42. MacLean teaches the secondary battery of claim 7 (see above). MacLean also teaches that a frame encasing a rectangular parallelepiped-shaped stacked electrolytic assembly (Figure 9), and the shape and construction of the protective frame may be varied to meet the form and fit requirements of any given application, such as the size and construction of the cell and positioning of its terminal tabs (page 2, column 2, paragraph 21). MacLean teaches that the frame is intended to protect the edges and corners of the cell stack from damage that could occur due to mechanical shock of the cell (page 1, columns 1 and 2, paragraph 4), and that using rounded edges and corners would prevent the tearing of the laminate packaging material (page 2, column 2, paragraph 20).
43. However, MacLean does not teach the angle formed by the protective member and the supplementary member is greater than 90 degrees and less than 180 degrees. Additionally, MacLean does not expressly teach that the intended use of the frame is to prevent the sharp edges or corners of the stacked electrolytic cells from punctuating the outer casing of the secondary battery.
44. Busacca teaches secondary batteries utilizing various shapes of electrode assemblies, including pentagonal and hexagonal prisms (page 30, paragraph 104; Figure 3d-e, reproduced below).
PNG
media_image7.png
572
1195
media_image7.png
Greyscale
45. Busacca does not teach using a frame around the electrode assembly to prevent the sharp edges and corners of the electrode assembly from puncturing the pouch cell.
46. Kaneda teaches a battery including an electrode assembly accommodated within a sealed casing, using a frame or insulating spacer in between the electrode assembly and the casing (page 2, columns 3 and 4). Kaneda teaches that the purpose of the invention is to create a battery which can withstand repeated vibration or large impact, so that there is no risk that the positive and negative electrode leads joined to their respective electrode plates are bent or cut, or that the flexible laminate casing is damaged by pointed corners, edges or burrs on the electrode assembly (page 1, column 2, line 63 and page 2, column 3 and 4).
47. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to create a battery utilizing the electrode assembly of Busacca from the same field of endeavor and the casings of either Kaneda or MacLean to create a secondary battery disposed within an external casing, with the express intent of preventing the sharp edges corners or burrs of the electrode assembly from puncturing the outer casing of the battery, as taught by Kaneda. The substitution of the electrode assembly of MacLean with the one taught by Busacca is a simple substitution using components from the same field of endeavor, where a person of ordinary skill in the art would have the reasonable expectation that the function of the battery would not change. Since MacLean teaches the size and shape of the frame can be modified to accommodate the electrode assembly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the present invention to make a frame with internal angles ranging from 90 to 180 degrees to accommodate the pentagonal and hexagonal electrode assemblies taught by Busacca. In addition, there would have been a motivation, as outlined by Kaneda, for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention, to use a frame, as taught by both Kaneda and MacLean, to prevent the sharp edges, corners, and burrs on the electrode assembly from puncturing the outer casing of the secondary battery, to prevent the leakage of the internal electrolytes, corrosion of the outer casing and output failure.
48. Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MacLean as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Uh and Kaneda.
49. Regarding Claim 18, the instant claim teaches the secondary battery according to claim 7, where the supplementary member is made out of a transparent material. The intention of using the transparent material is to ensure the vertex and edge of the electrode assembly properly lies within the protective members (page 14, paragraph 66, lines 9-12).
50. Regarding claim 6, MacLean teaches the secondary battery according to claim 7. MacLean additionally teaches suitable materials for use in constructing the light, strong cell-protecting frame including polyolefins (i.e. polyethylene or polypropylene), polyacrylic acid esters, polyacetates, cellulose acetate and butyrate, nylons, polycarbonates, polyterephthalates, polystyrenes, polyacrylonitriles, polytetrafluoroethylene, polyfluorochloroethylenes, polyvinylchloride, polyvinylchloride acetate, and copolymers and mixtures thereof (page 2, columns 1-2, paragraph 20). MacLean teaches that the frame is intended to protect the edges and corners of the cell stack from damage that could occur due to mechanical shock of the cell (page 1, columns 1 and 2, paragraph 4), and that using rounded edges and corners would prevent the tearing of the laminate packaging material (page 2, column 2, paragraph 20).
51. MacLean does not explicitly teach the use of transparent materials in the construction of the protective frame. Additionally, MacLean does not expressly teach that the intended use of the frame is to prevent the sharp edges or corners of the stacked electrolytic cells from punctuating the outer casing of the secondary battery.
52. Uh teaches a lithium rechargeable battery that includes an insulating case, an electrode assembly, and an outer can (page 4, paragraph 15 and page 7, paragraph 38; Figure 6, annotated version reproduced above). Uh teaches the insulating case may be made out of a polymer resin with insulating properties, including polypropylene, polyphenylene sulfide, polyethersulfone, or modified polyphenylene oxide (page 11, paragraph 50). Specifically, Uh teaches that polyethersulfone has superior transparent characteristics and superior mechanical strength (page 11, paragraph 50).
53. However, Uh does not teach a motivation for the use of a transparent insulating case.
54. Kaneda teaches a battery including an electrode assembly accommodated within a sealed casing, using a frame or insulating spacer in between the electrode assembly and the casing (page 2, columns 3 and 4). Kaneda teaches that the purpose of the invention is to create a battery which can withstand repeated vibration or large impact, so that there is no risk that the positive and negative electrode leads joined to their respective electrode plates are bent or cut, or that the flexible laminate casing is damaged by pointed corners, edges or burrs on the electrode assembly (page 1, column 2, line 63 and page 2, column 3 and 4).
55. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to create a battery utilizing the components taught by MacLean and the materials of the transparent insulating case of Uh, from the same field of endeavor, to create a secondary battery disposed within an external casing, with a frame surrounding the electrode assembly, with the express intent of preventing the sharp edges corners or burrs of the electrode assembly from puncturing the outer casing of the battery, as taught by Kaneda. The substitution of the material used in the protective frame taught by MacLean for the material of the insulation cover one taught by Uh is a simple substitution using materials and components from the same field of endeavor, where a person of ordinary skill in the art would have the reasonable expectation that the function of the frame would not change. In addition, there would have been a motivation, as outlined by Kaneda, for a person of ordinary skill in the art at the before the effective filing date, to use a frame, as taught by both Kaneda and MacLean, to prevent the sharp edges, corners, and burrs on the electrode assembly from puncturing the outer casing of the secondary battery, to prevent the leakage of the internal electrolytes, corrosion of the outer casing and output failure.
Conclusion
56. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN P MURPHY whose telephone number is (571)272-9321. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 am - 5:00 pm.
57. 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.
58. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nicholas A Smith can be reached at (571) 272-8760. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
59. 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.
/RPM/Examiner, Art Unit 1752
/NICHOLAS A SMITH/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752