BATTERY

§103 §112

DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Response to Amendment In response to the amendment received on July 29, 2026: Claims 1-3 and 6-17 are pending in the current application. Claims 1 and 3 have been amended and claims 7-17 are newly added. Claims 4 and 5 are canceled. The previous objections to the specification are overcome in light of the amendment. The previous claim objections have been overcome in light of the amendment. The previous rejections under USC §112 are overcome in light of the amendment. The rejection of claim 1 over Kim in view of Cho is withdrawn in light of the amendments; however, a new rejection is made over Ota in view of Chow, Xue, and Kim, below. The previous prior art rejections are overcome in light of the amendment, and new rejections are presented below. All changes to the rejection are necessitated by the amendment. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 1. Claim 11 recites the limitation "the second slanted part approaches a tip" and "the third slanted part approaches a tip" for the multiple second tabs. Claim 1 recites “a tip connecting the first edge” and “the tip extends” for the first tab. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of expediting examination, “tip” will be interpreted to be “tip of the first tab” in Claim 1, and “tip of the multiple second tabs” in Claim 11. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. Claims 1-3 and 6-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ota et al, (US 2022/0149439A1), hereinafter Ota, as applied to the claims above, and further in view of Cho, et al., (KR20160092748A), hereinafter Cho, and further in view of Xue et al., (US 2020/0235368A1), hereinafter Xue, and in further view of Kim et al., (US 2016/0218345A1), hereinafter Kim. Regarding Claim 1 (amended), Ota teaches a battery having: a wound electrode body comprising a strip-shaped first electrode and a strip-shaped second electrode stacked with a strip-shaped separator in between and wound in a winding direction, wherein ([0051] Ota teaches a wound electrode body 20a has a positive electrode 22, a negative electrode 24 and a separator 26. The wound electrode body 20a is configured with the strip-shaped positive electrode 22 and strip-shaped negative electrode 24 superimposed with two strip-shaped separators 26 in between and wound around a winding axis. The wound electrode body 20a has a flat shape.) the first electrode has multiple tabs that protrude from an edge extending in the winding direction to a protruding direction perpendicular to the winding direction, ([0053] Multiple positive electrode tabs 22t are provided at one end of the positive electrode current collector 22c in the long-side direction Y (left end in FIG. 7). these multiple tabs include a first tab and multiple second tabs, ([0058] Ota teaches a detection tab 27 (first tab) and multiple normal tabs (second tabs)) wherein the first tab has a first edge near the starting end in the winding direction and a second edge near the end in the winding direction, and a tip connecting the first edge and the second edge, ([0057-0058],Fig. 8. in Ota shows a detection tab 27 (first tab) with a first edge 27S and a second edge connected by a tip near the end of the winding direction W1) the first edge has a slanted part that is slanted relative to the protruding direction, and this slanted part is inclines towards the end in the winding direction as it approaches the tip in the protruding direction. ([0115] Figs. 15C and 15D in Ota show embodiments with a slanted first edge that is inclined toward the end in the winding direction as it approaches the tip in the protruding direction) Ota does not teach given W1 (mm) as the width of the first tab at a position at a distance L (L = 3 to 10 mm) in the protruding direction from the base connecting to the edge, W2 (mm) as the width of the second tabs at the distance L in the protruding direction from the base connecting to the edge, and W3 (mm) as the width of the base of the first tab, W1, W2 and W3 are in the relation expressed by the following formulae (1) and (2): o (W2/W1) > 1.2 (formula 2). Kim teaches an electrode assembly having plurality of electrode tabs, where the electrode assembly includes a first electrode and a second electrode which are wound with a separator placed between. (Abstract) Kim teaches the width WC2 of the tab of each of the other first electrode tabs Sn-Sn−1 can be about 1.5 times to about 2.5 times the width WC2 of each of the tabs SA1 and SA2 of the first electrode tab Sn placed at the outermost side [0090]. Since the first electrode tab is different from the other electrode tables, the winding start point can be accurately measured by recognizing the different width of first electrode tab [0091]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to incorporate a shorter width of the first tab in Kim into the first tab Ota in order to facilitate the accurate detection of the winding starting point. Ota is silent with respect to calculating the width ratio of the base portion (W3) of the first tab with the upper portion (W1) of the first tab: o (W3/W1) > 1.5 (formula 1); Cho teaches: o (W3/W1) > 1.5 (formula 1) Cho teaches an electrode assembly including a positive electrode plate, a negative electrode plate and a separator interposed therebetween, with electrode tabs that extend from the positive and negative plates respectively protruding to the upper part of the electrode assembly. Cho also teaches the length of the first region 114a (W3) of the tab is 3 to 4 times the length of the second region 114b (W1) of the tab, Fig. 6, [0049]. The ratio in Cho (3 to 4 times) falls within the range of the claimed invention (>1.5). Cho further teaches tabs having a wider base have a higher stress dispersion effect during winding, reducing folding of the electrode tab. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the first tab ratio value of 3 to 4 disclosed in Cho into the first tab ratio calculation in Kim in order to enhance the stress dispersion effect during the winding process and reduce electrode tab folding. The ratio of widths between the base portion and upper portion of the tab disclosed in Cho falls completely within the claimed range. Absent any additional and more specific information, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP § 2144.05) Ota does not teach: the second edge has a first straight part, a second straight part and a third straight part, of which the first straight part and the third straight part extend in the protruding direction, the second part connecting the first straight part and the third straight part and extending in the winding direction. Xue teaches an electrode member, an electrode assembly and a secondary battery. The electrode member comprises an electrode body and a conductive structure. The conductive structure is welded with the second portion 5132 (tab) and extends along a direction away from the first portion (electrode) 5131. Xue also teaches that because of the width of 51322 is larger than the width at 51321, when the electrode assembly 5 is formed by winding the electrode members or stacking the electrode members, it can reduce the flex of the second portion 515132 and improve the quality of the electrode assembly 5 [0045-0046]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate an electrode tab with a stepped structure from Xue to one side of the tab of Ota to increase the connecting reliability of the tab to the electrode. PNG media_image1.png 368 634 media_image1.png Greyscale Regarding Claim 2 (original), the teachings of Ota as modified by Cho, Xue, and Kim in claim 1 are incorporated herein. Ota teaches: - wherein the wound electrode body has a flat shape, and the first tab and multiple second tabs are superimposed and joined to a collector member. ([0051] The wound electrode body 20a has a flat shape. [0015] multiple electrode tabs are superimposed at the end of the wound electrode body in the direction extending along the first side walls, and the current collector part has a tab connection surface where the first electrode tab is connected at the end in the direction extending along the first side walls.) Regarding Claim 3 (amended), the teachings of Ota as modified by Cho, Xue, and Kim in claim 1 are incorporated herein. Ota does not teach the battery according to claim 1, wherein - The second edge has a stepped portion. Xue shows a tab with a stepped structure in Fig. 4 (see annotated Fig. 4) [0046]. Claim 3 is a limitation that further describes the structure described in claim 1 with respect to the first, second, and third straight parts, and the same discussion and rationale for this part of the claim 1 limitation also applies to claim 3. PNG media_image2.png 766 1248 media_image2.png Greyscale Regarding Claim 6 (original), all the teachings of Ota as modified by Cho, Xue, and Kim in claim 1 are incorporated herein. Ota teaches the battery according to claim 1: wherein the wound electrode body has a flat shape, ([0051] the wound electrode body 20a has a flat shape.) Ota is silent on: and one first electrode is provided with at least 20 of the second tabs. Ota does teach multiple electrode tabs that include a first electrode tab different from the second electrode tabs (Abstract) and express the number of tabs in terms relative to the number of superimpositions [0017], but is silent on the number of tabs. Kim teaches a plurality of electrode tabs T1-Tn, protruding outwardly from the first coated portion, wherein n is a natural number greater than 2 [0025]. The claimed range of “at least 20 of the second tabs” is within the range of “wherein n is a natural number greater than 2” disclosed by Kim. The Supreme Court decided that a claim can be proved obvious merely by showing that the combination of known elements was obvious to try. In this regard, the Supreme Court explained that, “[w]hen there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill in the art has a good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp.” An obviousness determination is not the result of a rigid formula disassociated from the consideration of the facts of the case. Indeed, the common sense of those skilled in the art demonstrates why some combinations would have been obvious where others would not. Therefore, choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation for success, is likely to be obvious to a person if ordinary skill in the art. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. , , 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, E.). Further, 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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (MPEP § 2144.05(I)). Regarding Claim 7 (new) the teachings of Ota as modified by Cho, Xue and Kim in claim 1 are incorporated herein. Ota teaches the battery according to claim 1, wherein: - the first edge and the second edge are located asymmetrical relative to a center line in the winding direction of the first tab. [0063] The detection tab 27 has an asymmetrical shape in the longitudinal direction W.) Regarding Claim 8 (new), the teachings of Ota as modified by Cho, Xue and Kim in claim 1 are incorporated herein. Ota does not teach the battery according to claim 1, wherein - a first boundary exists between the first straight part and the second straight part, a second boundary exists between the second straight part and the third straight part, and a third boundary exists between the third straight part and the edge, and each of the first boundary, the second boundary and the third boundary has a rounded corner shape. Xue teaches at least at one side of the second portion 5132 in the abovementioned length direction X, the transition portion 51322 and the main portion 51321 is connected via a rounded corner. The transition portion 51322 and the main portion 51321 can be connected via rounded corners at two sides of the second portion 5132 in the abovementioned length direction X, or be connected only via one rounded corner at one side of the second portion 5132 in the abovementioned length direction X. By configuring the second portion 5132 in the abovementioned way, it can prevent stress concentration after forming the second portion 5132, and improve the reliability of the second portion 5132 [0049]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to incorporate the rounded corner shapes in Xue into the detection tab in Ota to prevent stress in the concentration in forming the tab, and improve the reliability of the tab. Regarding Claim 9, (new), the teachings of Ota as modified by Cho, Xue and Kim in Claim 8 are incorporated herein. Ota does not teach the battery according to claim 8, wherein - a boundary between the edge and the first edge has a rounded corner shape. Xue teaches in an embodiment, the second portion 5132 is connected with the first portion 5131 via a rounded corner; such a stepped structure can better increase the overcurrent area of the second portion 5132 [0047]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to incorporate the rounded corner of Xue into the corner connecting the tab to the electrode in Ota better increase the overcurrent area in the tab. Regarding Claim 10 (new), the teachings of Ota as modified by Cho, Xue and Kim in claim 1 are incorporated herein. Ota does not teach the battery according to claim 1, wherein - a boundary between the edge and the first edge has a rounded corner shape. Xue teaches in an embodiment, the second portion 5132 (tab) is connected with the first portion 5131 (electrode) via a rounded corner; such a stepped structure can better increase the overcurrent area of the second portion 5132 [0047]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to incorporate the rounded corner of Xue into the corner connecting the tab to the electrode in Ota better increase the overcurrent area in the tab. Regarding Claim 11 (new), the teachings of Ota as modified by Cho, Xue and Kim in claim 1 are incorporated herein. Ota teaches the battery according to claim 1, wherein each of the multiple second tabs includes: a third edge near the starting end in the winding direction; and a fourth edge near the end in the winding direction, the third edge includes a second slanted part that is slanted relative to the protruding direction, the fourth edge includes a third slanted part that is slanted relative to the protruding direction, the second slanted part inclines towards the end in the winding direction as the second slanted part approaches a tip in the protruding direction, and the third slanted part inclines towards the starting end in the winding direction as the third slanted part approaches a tip in the protruding direction. The claim 12 limitations outline a trapezoidal shape for the second tabs. Ota teaches that the normal tabs may also have a trapezoidal shape such as an isosceles trapezoidal shape [0068]. Regarding Claim 12 (new), the teachings of Ota as modified by Cho, Xue and Kim in claim 11 are incorporated herein. Ota teaches the battery according to claim 11, wherein a number of the first tab is one or two, and ([0058] there may also be 2 or more (multiple) detection tabs) Ota is silent on: a number of the multiple second tabs is ten or more. Kim teaches a plurality of electrode tabs T1-Tn, protruding outwardly from the first coated portion, wherein n is a natural number greater than 2 [0025]. The claimed range of “at least 20 of the second tabs” is within the range of “wherein n is a natural number greater than 2” disclosed by Kim. 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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (MPEP § 2144.05(I)). Regarding Claim 13 (new), the teachings of Ota as modified by Cho, Xue and Kim in claim 11 are incorporated herein. Ota teaches the battery according to claim 11, wherein: the first tab is joined to a collector member, ([0052] the electrode has an electrode current collector. [0062] The detection tab extends from a base contiguous with the edge of the electrode) Ota does not teach the first tab has a region closer to the tip than the second straight part, and the region includes an entire area where the first tab and the collector member are joined. Xue teaches the width of 51322 is larger than the width at 51321, and when the electrode assembly 5 is formed by winding the electrode members or stacking the electrode members, it can reduce the flex of the tab (second portion) 5132 and improve the quality of the electrode assembly 5 [0045]. Fig. 4 also shows that the tab 5132 has a region 51321 closer to the tip than the second straight part, and a region 51322 where the tab 5132 is joined with the electrode. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate an electrode tab with a stepped structure to increase the connecting reliability of the tab to the electrode. Regarding Claim 14 (new), the teachings of Ota as modified by Cho, Xue and Kim in claim 1 are incorporated herein. Ota does not teach the battery according to claim 1, wherein - a length of the third straight part in the protruding direction is longer than a length of the first straight part in the protruding direction. Xue teaches a similar stepped structure [0046], but is silent on the relative dimensions with respect to the lengths of the first and third straight parts. Xue notes that when a fuse hole is provided in some embodiments, if the main portion of the stepped tab 51321 is too large, it may cover the fuse hole; thereby affecting the reliability of the fuse hole, and reducing battery safety [0046]. Therefore, the change in form or shape of the tab, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP § 2144.04). Regarding Claim 15 (new), the teachings of Ota as modified by Cho, Xue and Kim in claim 1 are incorporated herein. Ota teaches the battery according to claim 1, wherein - the first tab is closer to the starting end in the winding direction of the first electrode than the multiple second tabs. (Fig. 8, [0060] the detection tab 27 is disposed at the front end (leading end W1) in the predetermined winding length in the longitudinal direction W of the positive electrode 22) Regarding Claim 16 (new), the teachings of Ota as modified by Cho, Xue and Kim in claim 1 are incorporated herein. Ota does not teach the battery according to claim 1, wherein - (W2/W1) is 1.5 or less. Kim teaches the width WC2 of the tab of each of the other first electrode tabs Sn-Sn−1 can be about 1.5 times to about 2.5 times the width WC2 of each of the tabs SA1 and SA2 of the first electrode tab Sn placed at the outermost side [0090]. Since the first electrode tab is different from the other electrode tables, the winding start point can be accurately measured by recognizing the different width of first electrode tab [0091]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to incorporate a shorter width of the first tab in Kim into the first tab Ota in order to facilitate the accurate detection of the winding starting point. Further, ratio of 1.5 times to 2.5 times the width in Kim overlaps the claimed range of 1.5 or less. Absent any additional and more specific information, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP § 2144.05) Regarding Claim 17 (new), the teachings of Ota as modified by Cho, Xue and Kim in claim 14 are incorporated herein. Ota teaches the battery according to claim 14, wherein - the first edge and the second edge are located asymmetrical relative to a center line in the winding direction of the first tab. ([0063] The detection tab 27 here has an asymmetrical shape in the longitudinal direction W) Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims are based on the claims as amended. The amended claims have been addressed in the new rejection above. Applicant's arguments with respect to Claim 1 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. 2. Applicant argues that the applied references fail to teach, alone or in combination the following recited features in amended Claim 1: "the first tab has a first edge near the starting end in the winding direction, a second edge near the end in the winding direction, and a tip connecting the first edge and the second edge, the second edge has a first straight part, a second straight part and a third straight part, of which the first straight part and the third straight part extend in the protruding direction, the second straight part connecting the first straight part and the third straight part and extending in the winding direction, the first edge has a slanted part that is slanted relative to the protruding direction, and this slanted part is inclined towards the end in the winding direction as the first edge approaches the tip in the protruding direction, and the tip extends in the winding direction." (Page 8, paragraph 2) As discussed in the new rejection, Ota in view of Xue teach the recited limitations in amended Claim 1. Furthermore, in response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). Therefore, Claim 1 is rejected under new grounds necessitated by the Applicant’s amendment and as taught by Ota in view of Xue. Applicant argues that the combination of Kim and Cho does not teach or suggest the first edge slanted part, the three straight part second edge, or the tip extending in the winding direction as recited by claim 1. Kim and Cho address only the width relationships of formulae (1) and (2) and remain silent regarding the edge and tip geometries recited by claim 1. (Page 8, paragraph 4) As discussed in the new rejection, Ota in view of Xue teach the limitations with respect to the edge and tip geometries in recited in amended Claim 1. Furthermore, in response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). Therefore, Claim 1 is rejected under new grounds necessitated by the Applicant’s amendment and as taught by Ota in view of Xue. The applicant argues that the combination of Xue and Morishima fails to reasonably teach or suggest the single first tab recited by claim 1: that integrates, on one edge, "the second straight part connecting the first straight part and the third straight part and extending in the winding direction, the first edge has a slanted part that is slanted relative to the protruding direction, and this slanted part is inclined towards the end in the winding direction as the first edge approaches the tip in the protruding direction.” (Page 8, paragraph 5) In the new rejection of this limitation, the combination of Ota and Xue recite these limitations of amended Claim 1. Furthermore, in response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). Therefore, Claim 1 is rejected under new grounds necessitated by the Applicant’s amendment and as taught by Ota in view of Xue. The applicant argues that the proposed modification cannot support a conclusion of obviousness under MPEP § 2143.01. Modifying the symmetric stepped tab of Xue so that one edge becomes a slanted part inclined toward the end in the winding direction while the other edge remains a first, second, and third straight part step would require a substantial reconstruction and redesign of the tab of Xue and would change the basic principle under which the tab of Xue is configured, namely that the electrode tab is "symmetrical with respect to a central surface." (Page 9, paragraph 2) In the new rejection of this limitation, the combination of Ota and Xue recite these limitations of amended Claim 1. Furthermore, the change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP § 2144.04). Therefore, Claim 1 is rejected under new grounds necessitated by the Applicant’s amendment and as taught by Ota in view of Xue. The applicant traverses the rejection of claims 3 and 4 (Page 9, paragraph 4). The arguments concerning claims 3 and 4 are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection above. 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 Mario Gamboa whose telephone number is (571)272-9213. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thur 8:00 -5:00, Fri 8:00- 12:00 EST. 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. /MARIO R GAMBOA/ Examiner, Art Unit 1729 /ULA C RUDDOCK/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729