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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “latch means” of claims 9-10 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: Latch means must be properly defined for the claim limitations of claim 9 and 10, and the missing structure must be provided for the limitations of claim 17 as outlined below.
Claim Objections
Claims 8 and 18 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 8 should read “wherein the support comprises two supports spaced traversely…”
Regarding claim 18,"removable" is grammatically incorrect, examiner notes that "removably" was likely meant and examined under that assumption.
Appropriate correction is required.
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:
“latch means” in claims 9-10.
“spring means” in claims 1, 14.
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.
When looking to the specification the “latch means” is lacking a structural disclosure and thus the 112(a) and 112(b) rejections below are given.
When looking to the specification the “spring means” is described to be a leaf spring, a coil spring or a spiral spring. This is a structure required of the claim or equivalents thereof.
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 9-10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, because the claim purports to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, but fails to recite a combination of elements as required by that statutory provision and thus cannot rely on the specification to provide the structure, material or acts to support the claimed function. As such, the claim recites a function that has no limits and covers every conceivable means for achieving the stated function, while the specification discloses at most only those means known to the inventor. Accordingly, the disclosure is not commensurate with the scope of the claim. In claims 9 and 10 "latch means" invokes 112.
Claim 17 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 claim(s) 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 17 recites the limitation: “wherein in the upper position the attachment cannot be coupled to the housing” the specification does not gleam any structural limitations in which this is limitation is possible. Further, it also recites the limitation: “being unable to move from the lower position to the upper position when the attachment is secured to the lower face” the specification again does not indicate any structural limitations in which this limitation is possible. (Examiner notes: on page 12 lines 11-20 there is some indication that a latchable support would be able to perform these limitations, however presently there is not sufficient structure to support claim 17)
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 6, 9-10 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 6 recites the limitation "the spring" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In claim 1, spring means is used, while in claim 6, “the spring” is used. The spring lacks antecedent basis and it is unclear if it is meant to be the same, or in addition to the spring means. As such the claim is determined to be indefinite. For examination purposes, it will be interpreted as “the spring means comprising a spring”.
Specifically, claims 9-10 recite the limitation “latch means” which invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, as described above, however, the disclosure fails to support the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function of latch means. The particular scope of the term “latch means” is not known. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 17 is 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. The claim limitation: “in the lower position projects through the attachment” is indefinite as it is unclear what is projecting through the attachment. Due to the 112(a) and 112(b) rejections, the claim contains too many issues to make an assumption on what Applicant is trying to claim. Thus, the claim is not to be examined for art purposes. This does not mean the prior art could not be applied.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-6, 8, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Vines et al (U.S. Patent no. 8656552).
Regarding claim 1, Vines discloses:
A vacuum-cleaner nozzle comprising:
a housing (Lower assembly or base 104, col. 5 lines 63-67 Fig 5) formed with a downwardly open suction mouth opening on a lower face of the housing (inlet nozzle 502, col. 6 lines 61-67 Fig 5), having a front mouth edge and a rear mouth edge (shown below in annotated Fig 5), and adapted to move on a surface to be cleaned in a working direction;
a suction fitting relative to the direction on a rear end of the housing and opening into the housing for drawing air in through the mouth (connection hose 510, col. 9 lines 28-62 Fig 5);
a floor-engaging support rearward of the rear mouth edge and vertically displaceable relative to the housing between upper and lower positions respectively spaced far and closely from the surface (wheel carriage 2102, col. 10 lines 36-58 and col. 17 lines 24-38 Figs 1, 21-22);
and spring means for biasing the support into one of the positions (spring 808, col. 7 lines 57-67 and col. 8 lines 1-15 Fig 8A-8B).
PNG
media_image1.png
631
671
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Vines discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses:
wherein the support is an arm having an upper end pivoted on the housing and a lower end projecting rearward from the housing (wheel carriage 2102 projects rearward from motor housing 110 which is connected to vacuum nozzle housing 104, col. 17 lines 24-38 Figs 21-22).
Regarding claim 3, Vines discloses the limitations of claim 2, as described above, and further discloses:
a wheel on the lower end of the support (wheel carriage 2102 connects to wheels 112, col. 17 lines 24-38 Figs 21 and 22).
Regarding claim 4, Vines discloses the limitations of claim 2, as described above, and further discloses:
a pivot connecting the upper end of the arm to the housing (pivot post 602, col. 7 lines 32-56 Figs 6, 8A).
Regarding claim 5, Vines discloses the limitations of claim 4, as described above, and further discloses:
wherein the lower end of the housing is pivotal through an acute angle between the upper and lower positions (the housing is pivotal through a 90-degree angle which includes an acute angle, col. 7 lines 9-31 Figs 21 and 22 demonstrate the supports pivoting through an acute angle).
Regarding claim 6, Vines discloses the limitations of claim 2, as described above, and further discloses:
wherein the spring biases the arm into the lower position (Spring 808 biases pin 804 into the track 810 and detent 802, when the pin is in contact with the deeper section of the track 814 the wheels are in the lower position and the spring biases the pin into 814 thus biasing the arm into the lower position, see Fig 8A).
Regarding claim 8, Vines discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses:
wherein there are two such supports spaced transversely apart on the housing (wheel carriage assembly comprises of two wheels 112 and two arms, col. 17 lines 24-38 Figs 21-22).
Regarding claim 19, Vines discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses:
another support on a front end of the housing, adapted to hold the housing at a fixed spacing from the surface, and not movable toward or away from the housing (front wheels 114, col. 6 lines 23-26 Figs 21-22).
Regarding claim 20, Vines discloses the limitations of claim 19, as described above, and further discloses:
wherein the other supports carries a floor-engaging wheel rotatable about an axis fixed relative to the housing (front wheels 114, col. 6 lines 23-26 Figs 21-22).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vines et al (U.S. Patent no. 8656552) in view of Hüsig (DE102015109975A1).
Regarding claim 7, Vines discloses a vacuum-cleaner nozzle with two support arms with wheels on the ends where the springs bias the arms into the lower position. However, Vines does not explicitly disclose the lower end of the nozzle traveling through vertically at least 5mm between the upper and lower positions.
Hüsig teaches wherein the lower end travels through vertically at least 5 mm between the upper position and the lower position (Paragraph 10 of the description explains that there is a lower position setting of the support element, working position, and an upper position, coarse material setting, and that when in the coarse material setting the support elements extend to move the suction mouth a certain range, e.g. 5mm, farther from the ground than in the working position). By modifying the vacuum cleaner of Vines with the adjustable support of Hüsig that would allow for improved extraction of coarse material (Paragraph 9 and 10 of the description).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added an adjustable support like that of Hüsig to the vacuum cleaner of Vines. Hüsig discusses in paragraphs 9 and 10 of the description how the adjustable support exhibits the advantage of being able to pick up debris that the vacuum nozzle might otherwise miss.
Claims 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vines (U.S. Patent no. 8656552) in view of Burke et al (U.S. PGPUB no. 20160174793).
Regarding claims 11-13, Vines discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above. Vines fails to teach an extension on the lower face of the housing and adapted for connection to a cleaning attachment is provided on the lower face; wherein the extension projects rearward from the housing; wherein the extension is below the fitting.
Burke teaches an extension on the lower face of the housing (cleaning element support structure 130) and adapted for connection to a cleaning attachment is provided on the lower face ([0026] and [0027] Figs 1-3); wherein the extension projects rearward from the housing (the cleaning element support structure 130 projects rearward from the suction conduit 120 as shown in Figs 2-3); wherein the extension is below the fitting (illustrated well in Figs 1A and 1B where fitting 150 is above the cleaning element support structure 130). By modifying the vacuum cleaner of Vines with the cleaning attachment extension of Burke that would allow the collection of debris that the vacuum would otherwise miss via the cleaning surface contact with the cleaning attachment.
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added an extension and cleaning attachment like that of Burke to the vacuum cleaner of Vines. Burke discusses in [0004] and [0005] how the cleaning attachment is commonly used in the art and exhibits the advantage of being able to pick up debris that the vacuum nozzle might otherwise miss.
Regarding claim 14, Vines teaches a vacuum-cleaner nozzle assembly comprising:
a housing (Lower assembly or base 104, col. 5 lines 63-67 Fig 5) formed with a downwardly open suction mouth opening on a lower face of the housing (inlet nozzle 502, col. 6 lines 61-67 Fig 5), having a front mouth edge and a rear mouth edge (shown above in annotated Fig 5), and adapted to move on a surface to be cleaned in a working direction;
a suction fitting relative to the direction on a rear end of the housing and opening into the housing for drawing air in through the mouth (connection hose 510, col. 9 lines 28-62 Fig 5);
a floor-engaging support rearward of the rear mouth edge and vertically displaceable relative to the housing between upper and lower positions respectively spaced far and closely from the surface (wheel carriage 2102, col. 10 lines 36-58 and col. 17 lines 24-38 Figs 1, 21-22);
and spring means for biasing the support into one of the positions (sporing 808, col. 7 lines 57-67 and col. 8 lines 1-15 Fig 8A-8B); however, Vines fails to teach a removable cleaning attachment securable to the lower face of the housing.
Burke teaches a removable cleaning attachment securable to the lower face of the housing (cleaning element 132 shown in Fig 2 [0027] [0028] and [0029]). By modifying the vacuum cleaner of Vines with the cleaning attachment extension of Burke that would allow the collection of debris that the vacuum would otherwise miss via the cleaning surface contact with the cleaning attachment.
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added an extension and cleaning attachment like that of Burke to the vacuum cleaner of Vines. Burke discusses in [0004] and [0005] how the cleaning attachment is commonly used in the art and exhibits the advantage of being able to pick up debris that the vacuum nozzle might otherwise miss.
Regarding claim 15, Vines in view of Burke teaches the limitations of claim 14, wherein the attachment includes a water-absorbing element for damp cleaning. (Burke; [0028] and [0029] describe that the cleaning pad 136 (replaceable to cleaning element 132) may also be made of an absorbent material).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vines (U.S. Patent no. 8656552) in view of Burke et al (U.S. PGPUB no. 20160174793) as applied above, further in view of Martin et al (US PGPUB no. 20040031121).
Regarding claim 16, Vines in view of Burke teaches the limitations of claim 14 as described above. Vines in view of Burke does not teach wherein the attachment is formed with a cutout through which the support projects.
Martin teaches an attachment formed with a cutout through which the support projects (the cleaning attachment is dust collecting device 20 and has apertures 40 through which support wheels 30 fit through Figs 2-4 [0031]). The inclusion of the cleaning attachment of Martin to the vacuum cleaner of Vines in view of Burke would allow the supports of the vacuum cleaner to maintain contact with the cleaning surface while the cleaning attachment would have maximum surface area on the cleaning surface to clean up as much debris missed by the vacuum as possible.
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added the cleaning attachment of Martin to the vacuum cleaner of Vines in view of Burke. Martin discusses in [0006] and [0008] how the use of a cleaning attachment with maximum surface area contact on the cleaning surface is advantageous for cleaning.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vines (U.S. Patent no. 8656552) in view of Burke et al (U.S. PGPUB no. 20160174793) as applied above, further in view of Murosaki et al (US PGPUB no. 20200165147).
Regarding claim 18, Vines in view of Burke teaches the limitations of claim 14 as described above. Vines in view of Burke does not teach an extension removable secured to the lower face of the housing and adapted for connection to the cleaning attachment.
Murosaki teaches an extension (wiping-member attachment 45 is removable from cleaning head 26 [0051] Fig 2) removable secured to the lower face of the housing and adapted for connection to the cleaning attachment (connects to wiping member 43). By modifying the vacuum cleaner of Vines in view of Burke with the removable extension of Murosaki it would allow the extension to be replaced if damaged or otherwise deemed faulty which would lengthen the lifetime of the vacuum cleaner.
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added the removable extension of Murosaki to the vacuum cleaner of Vines in view of Burke. It is well known in the art that vacuum cleaner parts experience a varying degree and direction of forces while moving over potentially uneven surfaces which leads to the degradation of parts over time, therefore it is advantageous to have replaceable parts to extend the lifetime of the vacuum cleaner.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN M LARSON whose telephone number is (571)272-2765. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-5:00pm.
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, Brian Keller can be reached at 571-272-8548. 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.
/J.M.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/TOM RODGERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723