DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is a response to the application filed on 19 January 2024.
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 were received on 19 January 2024. These drawings are acceptable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3; 10; 15; 18; 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Zhang et al. (US 20250219543 A1; hereinafter “Zhang”).
Examiner notes that Zhang is available as valid prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(2) for all aspects used in the below rejections in views of its effectively-filed of 28 December 2023, which is the filing date of the foreign priority application CN 119853456 A. A copy and machine translation of the application of the above foreign priority document has been cited and attached to this Office action.
In re claim 1, Zhang discloses the system (Figs. 5 - 8) comprising: a switched mode power supply to provide an output voltage (Vout), the output voltage comprising a predefined voltage and a droop or kick voltage that deviates from the predefined voltage (voltages shown in Fig. 2); and control circuitry (31, 32, 33) configured to control the switched mode power supply based on a first voltage and a second voltage to reduce the droop or kick voltage at least partly ([0019] the control circuit also can include switch control circuit 33, which may generate switch control signal PWM based on positioning signal V.sub.VAP to control the switching states of power switches Q1 and Q2 in power stage circuit 30), the control circuitry comprising: first circuitry (31) comprising digital circuitry configured to obtain the first voltage based on the output voltage (VSEN); and second circuitry (32) comprising analog circuitry configured to obtain the second voltage based on the output voltage (VSEN).
In re claim 2, Zhang discloses the system, wherein the first circuitry (31) operates at a first speed and the second circuitry (32) operates at a second speed, the second speed being greater than the first speed ([0021] a digital loop can be introduced to correct the output voltage, and a rough but fast setting of the output voltage realized by using the fast response of the analog current inner).
In re claim 3, Zhang discloses the system, wherein the first circuitry comprises a feedback circuitry ([0020] compensation signal generation circuit 31 may form a digital loop to generate compensation signal VCOMP) and the second circuitry comprises feedforward circuitry ([0020] adaptive voltage positioning control circuit 32 may form an analog loop to adjust output voltage V.sub.OUT according to compensation signal V.sub.COMP.).
In re claim 15, Zhang discloses the system, wherein the control circuitry is configured to control the switched mode power supply to counteract the droop or kick voltage by 50% or more (shown in Fig. 2 as 0.5).
In re claim 18, Zhang discloses a method comprising: generating an output voltage using a switched mode power supply (Figs. 5-8), the output voltage comprising a predefined volage and a droop or kick voltage that deviates from the predefined voltage (voltages shown in Fig. 2); obtaining a first voltage that is based on the output voltage (Vout), the first voltage being obtained at a first speed; obtaining a second voltage that is based on the output voltage, the second voltage being obtained at a second speed that is greater than the first speed ([0021] a digital loop can be introduced to correct the output voltage, and a rough but fast setting of the output voltage realized by using the fast response of the analog current inner); and controlling the switched mode power supply based on the first voltage and the second voltage to counteract the droop or kick voltage at least partly ([0019] the control circuit also can include switch control circuit 33, which may generate switch control signal PWM based on positioning signal V.sub.VAP to control the switching states of power switches Q1 and Q2 in power stage circuit 30).
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.
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (US 20250219543 A1; hereinafter “Zhang”) in view of Chiu et al. (US 20210050780 A1; hereinafter “Chiu”).
Examiner notes that Zhang is available as valid prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(2) for all aspects used in the below rejections in views of its effectively-filed of 28 December 2023, which is the filing date of the foreign priority application CN 119853456 A. A copy and machine translation of the application of the above foreign priority document has been cited and attached to this Office action.
In re claim 4, Zhang discloses a system (Fig. 5) wherein a digital circuitry (31) uses a PI compensation controller ([0026] the error amplification compensation network can use any of the existing technologies (e.g., PI compensation, etc.)) for the error amplification compensation network (311) configured to obtain a voltage (VSEN[n]) and to output a modified voltage (VCOMP[n]) based on a reference voltage (VID[n]) and the inputted voltage (VSEN[n]).
Zhang does not disclose a proportional-integral-derivative (PID) controller configured to obtain a voltage and to output a modified voltage based on a reference voltage and the inputted voltage.
Whereas, Chiu discloses a power supply apparatus (Fig. 1) wherein a digital circuitry (140; shown in Fig. 2) comprises a proportional-integral-derivative (PID) controller (140), the PID controller being configured to obtain the output voltage (VO) and to output a modified voltage (VE) that is based on the inputted voltage (VO) and a reference voltage (VREF), the outputted voltage (VE) being based on the inputted voltage (VO).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Zhang’s apparatus by wherein a system with a digital circuitry using a proportional-integral-derivative (PID) controller configured to obtain an output voltage to output a modified voltage that is based on the inputted voltage and a reference voltage, such that the outputted voltage being based on the inputted voltage, as taught by Chiu, to have better control of the system disclosed by Zhang.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (US 20250219543 A1; hereinafter “Zhang”) in view of Chiu et al. (US 20210050780 A1; hereinafter “Chiu”) and Sreenivas et al. (US 20230006556 A1; hereinafter “Sreenivas”).
In re claim 5, Zhang discloses a system (Fig. 6) comprising: an inverting summing amplifier (321) configured to sum a version of a first voltage (V3) and a second voltage (V1) to produce a summed voltage (VMOD) with respect to the system of Chiu.
Zhang and Chiu do not disclose a control circuitry to control the switched mode power supply using the summed voltage.
Whereas, Sreenivas discloses a system (Fig. 4) comprising a summer (141) configured to sum a version of a first voltage (131) and a second voltage (175) to produce a summed voltage (132) with a control circuitry (142-2, 142-3) to control the power supply (100) using the summed voltage (Further explained in [0294] The summer 141 outputs the error voltage signal 132 to control function 142-2, control function 142-3, and transient detection circuit 810.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one in ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date to modify Zhang and Chiu’s system by wherein an inverting summing amplifier configured to sum a version of a first voltage and a second voltage to produce a summed voltage with a control circuitry to control the switched mode power supply using the summed voltage, as taught by Sreenivas, to have better control and efficiency of Zhang’s system.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (US 20250219543 A1; hereinafter “Zhang”) in view of Chiu et al. (US 20210050780 A1; hereinafter “Chiu”), Sreenivas et al. (US 20230006556 A1; hereinafter “Sreenivas”), and Meehan et al. (US 8885376 B2; hereinafter “Meehan”).
In re claim 6, Zhang discloses a system (Fig. 5), wherein a filtering circuit (FL) in a digital circuitry (31) that can filter a current sampling signal of a switched mode power supply that will output a modified signal (iL(DC)) with respect to the systems of Sreenivas and Chiu.
Zhang, Chiu, and Sreenivas do not disclose an analog circuitry comprising of a notch filter to remove undesired switched mode power supply ripple voltage and to output a modified voltage.
Whereas, Meehan discloses an analog circuitry (Fig. 1, excluding the Switching Reg. Circuitry, 12) comprising of a resonant circuit having an associated notch filter response to remove undesired switched mode power supply ripple voltage (Vout1) and to output a modified voltage (Vout2, further explained in [11] A resonant circuit theoretically provides infinite attenuation at its resonant frequency. In practice, when the resonant notch and the fundamental frequency of the ripple are matched, the resonant circuit provides far more ripple attenuation than would the conventional alternative of a low pass filter).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one in ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date to modify Zhang’s system of an analog circuitry by including a notch filter to remove undesired switched mode power supply voltage to output a modified voltage, as taught by Meehan, to have better control and efficiency of the Zhang’s system.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (US 20250219543 A1; hereinafter “Zhang”) in view of Hartman (US 8330437 B1; hereinafter “Hartman), Chiu et al. (US 20210050780 A1; hereinafter “Chiu”), Sreenivas et al. (US 20230006556 A1; hereinafter “Sreenivas”), and Meehan et al. (US 8885376 B2; hereinafter “Meehan”)..
In re claim 7, Zhang discloses a power switched power supply system but does not disclose said system, wherein the circuitry comprises a non-inverting differentiator configured differentiate a first voltage to produce a differentiated second voltage, which is a version of the first voltage having an increased slope. The systems of Chiu, Sreenivas, and Meehan also do not disclose a system as stated.
Whereas, Hartman discloses a system (228 in Fig. 2) wherein a non-inverting derivative unit (230) is configured differentiate a first voltage (VFB) to produce a differentiated second voltage (as shown in Figs. 2 and 3B), which is a version of the first voltage having an increased slope (shown in Fig. 3b and explained further in [34] The derivative of the output voltage V.sub.OUT or the feedback voltage V.sub.FB (denoted d/dt) increases rapidly and exceeds a threshold TH.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date to modify Zhang’s system by including circuitry comprising a non-inverting differentiator configured differentiate a first voltage to produce a differentiated second voltage, which is a version of the first voltage having an increased slope, as taught by Hartman, to have better control and efficiency of Zhang’s system.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (US 20250219543 A1; hereinafter “Zhang”).
In re claim 10, Zhang discloses a system (Fig. 5), further comprising: a non-inverting summing amplifier (321) that is configured to sum the first voltage and a version of the second voltage to produce a summed voltage (VMOD).
Whereas, Zhang has a control circuitry to control the switched mode power supply using a summed voltage and a ramp signal voltage ([0028] Comparison circuit 322 can compare modulation signal V.sub.MOD against ramp signal Vramp to generate positioning signal V.sub.VAP.). The application only uses a summed voltage and not a V-Ramp.
Therefore, it will be obvious for someone skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify Zhang’s system, wherein the control circuitry to control the switched mode power supply using the summed voltage, without a ramp signal voltage, to simplify Zhang’s system.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (US 20250219543 A1; hereinafter “Zhang”) in view of Meehan et al. (US 8885376 B2; hereinafter “Meehan”).
In re claim 11, Zhang discloses a system (Fig. 5), wherein a filtering circuit (FL) in a digital circuitry (31) that can filter a current sampling signal of a switched mode power supply that will output a modified signal (iL(DC)).
Zhang does not disclose an analog circuitry comprising of a notch filter to remove undesired switched mode power supply ripple voltage and to output a modified voltage.
Whereas, Meehan discloses an analog circuitry (Fig. 1, excluding the Switching Reg. Circuitry, 12) comprising of a resonant circuit having an associated notch filter response to remove undesired switched mode power supply ripple voltage (Vout1) and to output a modified voltage (Vout2, further explained in [11] A resonant circuit theoretically provides infinite attenuation at its resonant frequency. In practice, when the resonant notch and the fundamental frequency of the ripple are matched, the resonant circuit provides far more ripple attenuation than would the conventional alternative of a low pass filter).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one in ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date to modify Zhang’s system of an analog circuitry by including a notch filter to remove undesired switched mode power supply voltage to output a modified voltage, as taught by Meehan, to have better control and efficiency of Zhang’s system.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (US 20250219543 A1; hereinafter “Zhang”) in view of Meehan et al. (US 8885376 B2; hereinafter “Meehan”) and Sreenivas et al. (US 20230006556 A1; hereinafter “Sreenivas”).
In re claim 12, Zhang discloses a power switched power supply system but does not disclose said system, wherein the circuitry comprises an inverting differentiator configured differentiate a first voltage to produce a differentiated second voltage, which is a version of the first voltage having an increased slope. Meehan also does not disclose a system as stated.
Whereas, Sreenivas discloses a system (Fig. 2) wherein a derivative control function (821) is configured differentiate a first voltage (132) to produce a differentiated second voltage (822), a version of the first voltage (824) having an increased slope ([0244] Derivative gain control function 823 applies a respective gain of KD2 to the signal 822 to produce the signal 824.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date to modify Zhang’s system by including circuitry comprising a derivative control function (821) is configured differentiate a first voltage to produce a differentiated second voltage, a version of the first voltage having an increased slope, as taught by Sreenivas, to have better control and efficiency of Zhang’s system.
PNG
media_image1.png
299
491
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 8 of Sreenivas (annotated for Claim 13)
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (US 20250219543 A1; hereinafter “Zhang”) in view of Sreenivas et al. (US 20230006556 A1; hereinafter “Sreenivas”).
In re claim 13, Zhang discloses a power switched power supply system but does not disclose said system including a differentiator comprising of a two or more inverting differentiator configured differentiate a first voltage to produce a differentiated second voltage, which is a respective voltage based of the first voltage having an increased slope.
Whereas, Sreenivas discloses a differentiator (Fig. 2, shown above) wherein two derivative control function of PD1 (821) and derivative control function of PD2 (841) are configured differentiate a first voltage (132) to produce a differentiated second voltages (822 of PD1 and 842 of PD2), versions of the first voltage (824 and 824) having an increased slope (Further explained in [0244] Derivative gain control function 823 applies a respective gain of KD2 to the signal 822 to produce the signal 824 and [0249] During operation, the derivative control function 841 receives the error voltage signal 132 and produces a respective signal 842 indicating a change in the error voltage signal 132 over time. Derivative gain control function 843 applies a respective gain of KD1 to the signal 842 to produce the signal 844.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date to modify Zhang’s system, by including a differentiator comprising of two inverting differentiators each configured to differentiate a first voltage to produce a respective second voltage, each respective second voltage being based on the first voltage and having an increased slope relative to the first voltage, as taught by Sreenivas, to have better control and efficiency of Zhang’s system..
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (US 20250219543 A1; hereinafter “Zhang”) in view of Shimizu et al. (US 9318955 B2; hereinafter “Shimizu”).
In re claim 16, Zhang discloses a power switched power supply system but does not disclose said system being a part of automatic test equipment (ATE) configured to test a device under test (DUT); and wherein the DUT is powered based on the output voltage.
Whereas, Shimizu discloses a power supply apparatus (Fig. 2) being a part of test apparatus (2) configured to output a test pattern signal to a device under test (DUT, 1); and wherein the DUT is powered based on an output voltage (VDD-). ([15] The power supply apparatus 100 is configured to generate a power supply signal S.sub.PS to be supplied to the DUT 1, and to supply the power supply signal S.sub.PS thus generated to a power supply terminal P1 of the DUT 1 via a power supply cable (power supply line) 4 or the like.). Therefore, it would be have been obvious to one of ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date to modify Zhang’s system, by being a part of automatic test equipment (ATE) configured to test a device under test (DUT); and wherein the DUT is powered based on the output voltage, as taught by Shimizu, to have better clarity and productivity of Zhang’s system..
In re claim 17, Zhang discloses a power switched power supply system but does not disclose said system and comprising: a power distribution network comprising a cable between the switched mode power supply and the DUT.
Whereas, Shimizu discloses a power supply apparatus (Fig. 2) being a part of a test apparatus (2) comprising a cable between the switched mode power supply and the DUT (1). (Explained in [15] The power supply apparatus 100 is configured to generate a power supply signal S.sub.PS to be supplied to the DUT 1, and to supply the power supply signal S.sub.PS thus generated to a power supply terminal P1 of the DUT 1 via a power supply cable (power supply line) 4 or the like.). Therefore, it would be have been obvious to one of ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date to modify Zhang’s system, by adding a power distribution network comprising of a cable between the switched mode power supply and the DUT, as taught by Shimizu, to have better clarity and productivity of Zhang’s system..
Claim 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (US 20250219543 A1; hereinafter “Zhang”).
In re claim 19, Zhang discloses a method (shown in Fig. 5), further comprising: a non-inverting summing amplifier (321) that is configured to sum the first voltage and a version of the second voltage to produce a summed voltage (VMOD).
Whereas, Zhang controls the switched mode power supply using the summed voltage and ramp signal voltage ([0028] Comparison circuit 322 can compare modulation signal V.sub.MOD against ramp signal Vramp to generate positioning signal V.sub.VAP.). The application only uses a summed voltage and not a V-Ramp.
Therefore, it would be obvious for someone skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify Zhang’s method to control the switched mode power supply using the summed voltage, without a ramp signal voltage, to simplify Zhang’s system.
In re claim 20, Zhang discloses a method, wherein counteracting the droop or kick voltage comprises reducing the droop or kick voltage by 50% or more (shown in Fig. 2 as 0.5).
Therefore, it would be obvious for someone skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify Zhang’s method of claim 19 to have better efficiency.
In re claim 21, Zhang discloses a method (shown in Fig. 5), wherein the output voltage (Vout) is associated with a device powered by the switched mode power supply; wherein controlling the switched mode power supply based on a digital circuitry’s voltage is performed using feedback circuitry (VCOMP); and wherein controlling the switched mode power supply based on an analog circuitry’s voltage (VMOD) is performed using feedforward circuitry ([0020] compensation signal generation circuit 31 may form a digital loop to generate compensation signal VCOMP, and adaptive voltage positioning control circuit 32 may form an analog loop to adjust output voltage V.sub.OUT according to compensation signal V.sub.COMP.)
Therefore, it would be obvious for someone skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify Zhang’s method of claim 20 to have better efficiency and control.
In re claim 22, Zhang discloses a method (shown in Fig. 5), wherein the feedback circuitry comprises the first circuitry (31) and the feedforward circuitry comprises the second circuitry (32). ([0020] compensation signal generation circuit 31 may form a digital loop to generate compensation signal VCOMP, and adaptive voltage positioning control circuit 32 may form an analog loop to adjust output voltage V.sub.OUT according to compensation signal V.sub.COMP.)
Therefore, it would be obvious for someone skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify Zhang’s method of claim 21 to have better efficiency and control.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8, 9; 14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With respect to the dependent claim 8, Zhang (see the above rejection) is the considered the closest prior art. Additionally, Sreenivas et al. (US 20230006556 A1; hereinafter “Sreenivas”) discloses a similar differentiator (Fig. 2, shown above) wherein two derivative control function of PD1 (821) and derivative control function of PD2 (841) are configured differentiate a first voltage (132) to produce a differentiated second voltages (822 of PD1 and 842 of PD2), versions of the first voltage (824 and 824) having an increased slope (Further explained in [0244] Derivative gain control function 823 applies a respective gain of KD2 to the signal 822 to produce the signal 824 and [0249] During operation, the derivative control function 841 receives the error voltage signal 132 and produces a respective signal 842 indicating a change in the error voltage signal 132 over time. Derivative gain control function 843 applies a respective gain of KD1 to the signal 842 to produce the signal 8744.).
Despite the similarity of the reference with the Applicant’s invention, Sreenivas does not teach a non-inverting differentiator comprising of two or more non-inverting differentiators. The other prior art on record does not provide the suggestion to modify Zhang or Sreenivas.
With respect to the dependent claim 9, Zhang (see the above rejection) is the considered the closest prior art. Additionally, Sreenivas discloses a similar system (Fig. 4) comprising a summer (141) configured to sum a version of a first voltage (131) and a second voltage (175) to produce a summed voltage (132) with a control circuitry (142-2, 142-3) to control the power supply (100) using the summed voltage (Further explained in [0294] The summer 141 outputs the error voltage signal 132 to control function 142-2, control function 142-3, and transient detection circuit 810.).
Despite the similarity of the reference with the Applicant’s invention, Sreenivas does not teach an inverting summing amplifier that is configured to receive each respective differentiated voltage. The other prior art on record does not provide the suggestion to modify Zhang or Sreenivas
With respect to the dependent claim 14, Zhang (see the above rejection) is the considered the closest prior art. Additionally, Sreenivas discloses a similar system (Fig. 4) comprising a summer (141) configured to sum a version of a first voltage (131) and a second voltage (175) to produce a summed voltage (132) with a control circuitry (142-2, 142-3) to control the power supply (100) using the summed voltage (Further explained in [0294] The summer 141 outputs the error voltage signal 132 to control function 142-2, control function 142-3, and transient detection circuit 810.).
Despite the similarity of the reference with the Applicant’s invention, Sreenivas does not teach an inverting summing amplifier that is configured to receive each respective differentiated voltage. The other prior art on record does not provide the suggestion to modify Zhang or Sreenivas
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nicolas A Chapa Mills whose telephone number is (571)272-3683. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am-5pm.
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, Crystal L Hammond can be reached at (571) 270-1682. 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.
/NICOLAS ALDEN CHAPA MILLS/Examiner, Art Unit 2838
/CRYSTAL L HAMMOND/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2838