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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1,3,23,29 (and their dependent claims) claim “where the first end effector is configured to support at least one substrate thereon” twice, once after first claiming “a first end effector” & then again after next claiming “a second end effector”.
Claim 2 repeatedly states “is rotatably along”, which doesn’t make sense. It is believed applicant meant “is rotatable along” instead.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 6 lacks and ending “.”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 18-22,28 are 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. The original claims, written, specification and drawings do not mention the specific angles claimed. These specific angles only appear later in a claim amendment on 2/8/24. While applicant states that the changes are supported by the drawings, there are no specific numbers or scales on the drawings and so it is unclear how far the “about” before the specific angle number is to be understood as nowhere in the original case is the subject matter disclosed.
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 8,16-17,24-25,27,32-33, 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.
Re claim 8, line 2 states “first ends” but there are already “first ends” in parent claim 7, making it unclear whether there are different “first ends” being claimed or not.
Re claim 16, line 10 states “relative” but does not say relative to what making the claim indefinite & unclear.
Re claim 24, lines 4-5 states “at respective rotatably connections” which does not make sense & appears to be missing a word after “rotatably”.
Re claim 27, line 12 states “relative” but does not say relative to what making the claim indefinite & unclear.
Claim 27 recites the limitation "the substantially straight path" in lines 10-11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Re claim 27, line 7 states “the first shoulder axis” but lines 9 & 24 state “the shoulder axis” making the claim indefinite & unclear as to whether these are the same limitations being claimed or if there is more than one shoulder axis being claimed.
Re claim 32, line 10 states “relative” but does not say relative to what making the claim indefinite & unclear.
Re claim 32, line 4 states “the first shoulder axis” but lines 6 & 8 state “the shoulder axis” making the claim indefinite & unclear as to whether these are the same limitations being claimed or if there is more than one shoulder axis being claimed.
Re claim 33, line 10 states “the shoulder axis” but parent claim 32 has 112 issues (see above) with claiming “the first shoulder axis” & “the shoulder axis” as noted above and there is no “a shoulder axis” so there is lack of antecedent issues if the limitation was meant to be “the shoulder axis” as well.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. The “program” is only for “the moving” of claim 3 as opposed to the entirety of claim 3. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
For sake of examination, the claims are interpreted as shown in the prior art rejections below.
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)(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.
(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 1-4,6-7,23,26-27,29-33, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)(2) as being anticipated by Gilchrist (US 8,918,203).
Re claims 1-2, Gilchrist teaches an apparatus and inherent method of use comprising: a first upper arm 155UA rotatable about a first shoulder axis SX; a second upper arm 155UB rotatable about the first shoulder axis SX; a first forearm rotatably 155FA connected to the first upper arm; a second forearm 155FB rotatably connected to the second upper arm; a first end effector 155EA rotatably connected to the first forearm, where the first end effector is configured to support at least one substrate thereon; and a second end effector 155EB rotatably connected to the second forearm where the first end effector is configured to support at least one substrate thereon; where the first and second upper arms are configured to rotate in different first and second horizontal planes (see figures 1,2,3,5,6, etc.), where the first and second forearms are configured to rotate in a common different third horizontal plane (column 15 lines 14-15,figures 3A,4,6, etc.), and where the first and second end effectors are configured to rotate in a common different fourth horizontal plane (TP, etc.), where the first and second end effectors in retracted positions are angled relative to each other with substrate holding areas of the first and second end effectors being located laterally opposite each other (figure 2A,4,15,etc.).
Re claim 3, Gilchrist teaches an apparatus and inherent method of use comprising: providing a robot arm assembly comprising:
a first upper arm 155UA rotatable about a first shoulder axis SX;
a second upper arm 155UB rotatable about the first shoulder axis SX;
a first forearm 155FA rotatably connected to the first upper arm;
a second forearm 155FB rotatably connected to the second upper arm;
a first end effector 155EA rotatably connected to the first forearm, where the first end effector is configured to support at least one substrate thereon;
and a second end effector 155EB rotatably connected to the second forearm where the first end effector is configured to support at least one substrate thereon;
where the first and second end effectors, in retracted positions, are angled relative to each other with substrate holding areas of the first and second end effectors being located laterally opposite each other (figure 2A,4,4O,15,etc.); moving the first and second upper arms in substantial unison (figure 4O) to position a first substrate holding area of the first end effector in a line with an intended substantially straight path of extension R1 of the first substrate holding area from a retracted position to an extended position; moving a substrate on the first end effector in the intended substantially straight path of extension R1 from the retracted position to the extended position comprising: rotating the first upper arm about the first shoulder axis, rotating the first forearm on the first upper arm, and rotating the first end effector on the first forearm.
Re claims 4,31, Gilchrist teaches the upper arms are configured to rotate in different first and second horizontal planes (see figures 1,2,3,5,6, etc.), where the first and second forearms are configured to rotate in a common different third horizontal plane (column 15 lines 14-15,figures 3A,4,6, etc.), and where the first and second end effectors are configured to rotate in a common different fourth horizontal plane TP.
Re claim 6, Gilchrist teaches, in the retracted positions, the first and second end effectors are located on opposite sides of the first shoulder axis SX.
Re claim 7, Gilchrist teaches, in the retracted positions, the first and second end effectors have first ends at respective rotatably connections to the first and second forearms which are located closer together than opposite second ends of the first and second end effectors (figure 2A,4O,etc.).
Re claim 23, Gilchrist teaches an apparatus comprising: a first upper arm 155UA rotatable about a first shoulder axis SX; a second upper arm 155UB rotatable about the first shoulder axis SX; a first forearm 155FA rotatably connected to the first upper arm; a second forearm 155FB rotatably connected to the second upper arm; a first end effector 155EA rotatably connected to the first forearm, where the first end effector is configured to support at least one substrate thereon; and a second end effector 155EB rotatably connected to the second forearm where the first end effector is configured to support at least one substrate thereon; where the first and second end effectors, in retracted positions, are angled relative to each other with substrate holding areas of the first and second end effectors being located laterally adjacent each other (figure 2A,4,4O,15, etc.).
Re claim 26, Gilchrist (figure 2I,4A) teaches, when the first upper arm, the first forearm and the first end effector are in an extended position and the second upper arm, the second forearm and the second end effector are in the retracted position, the first and second upper arms are substantially aligned.
Gilchrist (figure 2I,4A, column 12, lines 39-41) teaches the first upper arm, the first forearm and the first end effector are configured to move a substrate holding area on the first end effector from the retracted position to the extended position along a substantially straight path aligned with the shoulder axis.
Gilchrist (figure 2I,4A,4D column 12, lines 39-41) teaches the apparatus is configured such that the second upper arm, the second forearm and the second end effector do not move relative to one another retained in the retracted position as the first upper arm, the first forearm and the first end effector are moved to the extended position.
Re claim 27, Gilchrist teaches, in the retracted positions the first end effector crosses over the first upper arm and the second end effector crosses over the second upper arm (see figures such as 4O, and many others shows end effectors crossing over at least some portion of the respective upper arms).
Gilchrist (figure 4O,2I,4A; column 12, lines 39-41; column 13 lines 52-57) teaches the apparatus is configured such that, to extend the first end effector from the retracted position to the extended position, when the first and second end effectors are located on the opposite sides of the first shoulder axis, the first and second upper arms are configured to rotate together about the shoulder axis to substantially align the substrate holding area of the first end effector with the substantially straight path aligned with the shoulder axis, and then rotate the first upper arm relative to extend the substrate holding area of the first end effector along the substantially straight path while the second upper arm remains stationary.
Gilchrist (figure 4O) teaches the apparatus is configured to: limit location of the first end effector to within a circular area unless the first end effector is being moved between its retracted position and its extended position, and limit location of the second end effector to within the circular area unless the second end effector is being moved between its retracted position and its extended position, where the circular area is defined by a distance between the shoulder axis and an outer most location of substrates on the substrate holding areas of the first and second end effectors when the first and second end effectors are at their retracted positions.
Re claim 29, Gilchrist teaches an apparatus comprising: a first upper arm 155UA rotatable about a first shoulder axis SX; a second upper arm 155UB rotatable about the first shoulder axis SX; a first forearm 155FA rotatably connected to the first upper arm; a second forearm 155FB rotatably connected to the second upper arm; a first end effector 155EA rotatably connected to the first forearm, where the first end effector is configured to support at least one substrate thereon; and a second end effector 155EB rotatably connected to the second forearm where the first end effector is configured to support at least one substrate thereon; where, in a retracted position of the first end effector, the first end effector crosses over the first upper arm (see figures such as 4O, and many others shows end effectors crossing over at least some portion of the respective upper arms), and where the first and second end effectors, in their retracted positions, are angled relative to each other with substrate holding areas of the first and second end effectors being located laterally opposite each other (figure 2A,4,4O,15, etc.).
Re claim 30, Gilchrist teaches, in a retracted position of the first end effector, the second end effector crosses over the second upper arm (see figures such as 4O, and many others shows end effectors crossing over at least some portion of the respective upper arms).
Re claim 32, Gilchrist teaches (figure 4O, column 12, lines16-17,39-41; column 13 lines 54-57), to extend the first end effector from the retracted position to the extended position, when the first and second end effectors are located on opposite sides of the first shoulder axis: rotating the first and second upper arms together about the shoulder axis to substantially align the substrate holding area of the first end effector with the substantially straight path aligned with the shoulder axis; and subsequently rotating the first upper arm relative to extend the substrate holding area of the first end effector along the substantially straight path while the second upper arm remains stationary.
Re claim 33, Gilchrist teaches (figure 4O) limiting location of the first end effector to within a circular area unless the first end effector is being moved between its retracted position and its extended position, and limiting location of the second end effector to within the circular area unless the second end effector is being moved between its retracted position and its extended position, where the circular area is defined by a distance between the shoulder axis and an outer most location of substrates on the substrate holding areas of the first and second end effectors when the first and second end effectors are at their retracted positions.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 18-22,28, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gilchrist (US 8,918,203).
Re claims 18-22, 28,Gilchrist teaches (figures 2-2Q, 4A-4O,etc.; paragraphs 39,40,47,48,54,55,59,64,66,97,98,100; column 4, lines 39-43; column 6, lines 35-39; column 13, lines 13-57; column 27, lines 21-24; column 29, lines 6-8) that the upper arms, forearms & end effectors independently moved or moved together and may be varied in lengths, configurations and movement to meet the needs of varied system configurations and processing requirements. The various figures show relative angles that seem to include angles claimed and about those angles and with independent & constrained control abilities taught by Gilchrist, these limitations would be within the capabilities at least. Further changes in size, shape, proportion & rearrangement of parts are also known to be obvious modifications (MPEP2144; In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966); In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Gilchrist as claimed in order to allow configurations and movements to best fit varied given processing system arrangements and requirements.
Claims 5,8-17,24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gilchrist (US 8,918,203) in view of Hosek (US 2014/0365005A1 / US 9,330,951).
The applied reference has a common applicant and inventor with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). It also is prior art under 102(a)(1).
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103, based on 102(a)(2), might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
Re claim 5, Gilchrist does not mention a non-transitory program storage device readable by an apparatus, tangibly embodying a program of instructions executable with the apparatus for performing operations, however Hosek does (summary, claims, throughout written specification) for controlling the device as needed for varied given processing system movement / processing needs. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to have modified Gilchrist as claimed in order to control the device as needed for varied given processing system movement / processing needs.
Re claims 8,24, Gilchrist does not show, in the retracted positions, first ends of the first and second end effectors and the second ends of the first and second end effectors are located on opposite sides of the first shoulder axis. Gilchrist however, does state that the robots may have any configuration (column 6, lines 35-39) and that the end effectors may have any length to reach as desired / needed. Also, Hosek (figures 20,35) shows that it is already known to have configurations that in the retracted positions, first ends of the first and second end effectors and the second ends of the first and second end effectors are located on opposite sides of the first shoulder axis. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to have modified Gilchrist as claimed in order to control the device as needed for varied given processing system movement / processing needs and have a smaller retraction radius / areas.
Re claim 9, Gilchrist does not show, in the retracted positions, the first upper arm is angled relative to the second upper arm with an acute angle facing the first ends of the first and second end effectors. Gilchrist however, does state that the robots may have any configuration (column 6, lines 35-39) and the end effectors (etc.) may have any length (column 29, lines 6-10) to achieve the movement reach / pattern desired. Also, Hosek (figures 20,35) shows that it is already known to have configurations that in the retracted positions, the first upper arm is angled relative to the second upper arm with an acute angle facing the first ends of the first and second end effectors. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to have modified Gilchrist as claimed in order to control the device as needed for varied given processing system movement / processing needs and have a smaller retraction radius / areas.
Re claim 10, Gilchrist (figure 2N,2N, column 4, line 42) as well as Gilchrist as already modified (Hosek figure 20,35) teaches the first forearm has a shorter length than the first upper arm, and the second forearm has a shorter length than the second upper arm.
Re claim 11, Gilchrist (column 29, lines 6-10) as well as Gilchrist as already modified (Hosek figure 20,35) teaches the first end effector has a longer length than the first upper arm, and the second end effector has a longer length than the second upper arm.
Re claim 12, Gilchrist (figure 2I,4A) as well as Gilchrist as already modified (Hosek figure 35B) teaches, when the first upper arm, the first forearm and the first end effector are in an extended position and the second upper arm, the second forearm and the second end effector are in the retracted position, the first and second upper arms are substantially aligned.
Re claim 13, Gilchrist (figure 2I,4A, column 12, lines 39-41) as well as Gilchrist as already modified (Hosek figure 35B) teaches the first upper arm, the first forearm and the first end effector are configured to move a substrate holding area on the first end effector from the retracted position to the extended position along a substantially straight path aligned with the shoulder axis.
Re claim 14, Gilchrist (figure 2I,4A,4D column 12, lines 39-41) as well as Gilchrist as already modified (Hosek figure 35B) teaches the apparatus is configured such that the second upper arm, the second forearm and the second end effector do not move relative to one another retained in the retracted position as the first upper arm, the first forearm and the first end effector are moved to the extended position.
Re claim 15, Gilchrist as already modified teaches, in the retracted positions the first end effector crosses over the first upper arm and the second end effector crosses over the second upper arm.
Re claim 16, Gilchrist (figure 4O,2I,4A; column 12, lines 39-41; column 13 lines 52-57) & Gilchrist as already modified teaches the apparatus is configured such that, to extend the first end effector from the retracted position to the extended position, when the first and second end effectors are located on the opposite sides of the first shoulder axis, the first and second upper arms are configured to rotate together about the shoulder axis to substantially align the substrate holding area of the first end effector with the substantially straight path aligned with the shoulder axis, and then rotate the first upper arm relative to extend the substrate holding area of the first end effector along the substantially straight path while the second upper arm remains stationary.
Re claim 17, Gilchrist (figure 4O) & Gilchrist as already modified teaches the apparatus is configured to: limit location of the first end effector to within a circular area unless the first end effector is being moved between its retracted position and its extended position, and limit location of the second end effector to within the circular area unless the second end effector is being moved between its retracted position and its extended position, where the circular area is defined by a distance between the shoulder axis and an outer most location of substrates on the substrate holding areas of the first and second end effectors when the first and second end effectors are at their retracted positions.
Re claim 25, Gilchrist does not show, in the retracted positions, the first upper arm is angled relative to the second upper arm with an acute angle facing the first ends of the first and second end effectors. Gilchrist however, does state that the robots may have any configuration (column 6, lines 35-39) and the end effectors (etc.) may have any length (column 29, lines 6-10) to achieve the movement reach / pattern desired. Also, Hosek (figures 20,35) shows that it is already known to have configurations that in the retracted positions, the first upper arm is angled relative to the second upper arm with an acute angle facing the first ends of the first and second end effectors. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to have modified Gilchrist as claimed in order to control the device as needed for varied given processing system movement / processing needs and have a smaller retraction radius / areas.
So, Gilchrist (figure 2N,2N, column 4, line 42) as well as Gilchrist as already modified (Hosek figure 20,35) teaches the first forearm has a shorter length than the first upper arm, and the second forearm has a shorter length than the second upper arm.
And also, Gilchrist (column 29, lines 6-10) as well as Gilchrist as already modified (Hosek figure 20,35) teaches the first end effector has a longer length than the first upper arm, and the second end effector has a longer length than the second upper arm.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Schmidt teaches [0011] a motion control program in a non-transitory computer readable storage medium to move the system to meet the performance parameters desired.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL S LOWE whose telephone number is (571)272-6929. The examiner can normally be reached Hoteling M,Th,F & alternating W 6:30am-6:30pm.
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, Saul Rodriguez can be reached at 5712727097. 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.
MICHAEL S. LOWE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3652
/MICHAEL S LOWE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3652