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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Claims 10-20 in the reply filed on June 8, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no search burden. This is not found persuasive because the inventions of Group I, claims 1-9, and Group II, claims 10-20, are distinct inventions and require a separate field of search. Specifically, as provided in the Requirement for Restriction dated April 28, 2026, Group I is drawn to a battery stack and Group II is drawn to a system for stacking a battery. Therefore, different searching resources and search strings are required for the different inventions as described in more detail in the recited Office Action.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 1-9 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. In the response dated June 8, 2026, Applicant withdrew claims 1-9, advancing prosecution.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 17 requires a “folded edge” and “a pre-folded edge” of the plurality of foil support surfaces. The Examiner has interpreted the folded edge to be the edge of the foil support surface after being folded by the folding arm and the pre-folded edge to be the edge of the foil support surface prior to being folded, which is different from another possible interpretation of a pre-folded edge as a folded edge that is formed prior to folding. Further, the applied interpretation is supported by the instant specification [0036, Fig. 3, pre-folded edge 58 and folded edge 56].
Further, Claim 19 recites the pre-folded edge and depends on claims 18 and 17. Thus, the same interpretation is applied.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claim 20 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.
Claim 20 recites the limitations “the first dimension and the second dimension”" in lines 2-3. Claim 20 depends on claim 11 and claim 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, making the claim indefinite. For purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner has interpreted the limitation as “a first dimension and a second dimension”. Correction is required.
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.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 10-11 and 14-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Kim et al. US20230081470A1, hereinafter Kim, in view of Reusch et al. DE102017216131A1, machine translation relied upon provided, hereinafter Reusch.
Regarding Claim 10, Kim discloses a system for stacking and bonding a battery cell [Kim abstract and throughout, Figs. 1-9, apparatus 1 for stacking and bonding battery cell 10] comprising:
a stack table including a stack surface [Kim 0053 and throughout, Figs. 2-7 and throughout, table 16];
a first battery foil supply table arranged on a first side of the stack table [Kim 0062 and throughout, Figs. 2-7 first transfer device 141 shown on the left side of stack table 16 as the first battery foil supply table for first electrode sheet 1111, which reads on the claimed first battery foil)];
a second battery foil supply table arranged at a second side of the stack table [Kim 0062 and throughout, Figs. 2-7 second transfer device 142 shown on the right side of stack table 16 as the second battery foil supply table for second electrode sheet 1121, which reads on the second battery foil]; and
a fold arm supporting an electrically insulated sheet feed system [Kim 0055 and throughout, Figs. 2-7, fold arm includes parts reel 121 and separator guides 125 for the separator 122 feed system including first and second regions 1221, 1222] and a fold guide [Kim 0087 and throughout, Figs. 2-7, guides 125 as a part of the fold arm] the fold arm being operable to form a series of folds in an electrically insulative sheet creating a plurality of foil support surfaces [Kim 0053-0059, 0086-0118 and throughout, Figs. 2-8. The series of folds of separator 122 is shown in Figs. 7-8 for the plurality of foil support surfaces, first and second regions 1221, 1222. See below for clarity. ]; and
a battery foil assembly system operable to position a battery foil from each of the first battery foil supply table and the second battery foil supply table on select ones of the plurality of foil support surfaces [Kim 0053-0118, battery foil assembly includes headers 151 and 152 for positioning first battery foil 1111 from the first battery foil supply table 141 and a second battery foil 1121 from the second battery foil supply table 142 on the selected foil support surfaces 1221 and 1222], wherein the select ones of the plurality of foil support surfaces include adhesive [Kim 0068-0086, 0094-0118 and throughout, Figs. 1-8, adhesive 1700 as discussed throughout on the selected foil support surfaces 1221 and 1222.]
PNG
media_image1.png
657
858
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kim is silent to the type of adhesive and therefore does not anticipate the limitation an amount of ultra violet (UV) activated adhesive. Reusch teaches the use of adhesive that can be cured by UV radiation in the ultraviolet range [Reusch 0021 and throughout] for the manufacturing of stacked electrodes [Reusch 0015-0016, 0024-0025 and throughout]. Further, Reusch teaches the application of the adhesive 131, 132, 133 on the separator 16 along the edges of the electrode foil 56 [Reusch 0050, Fig. 3], and the adhesive is cured by UV radiation 135 from a UV lamp 136 adjacent to the stack during assembly [Reusch 0061 and throughout, Figs. 3-6]. Reusch’s teaching demonstrates UV curable adhesive is art recognized as suitable for use in adhering an electrode with a separator per MPEP 2144.07. It would be within the ambit of the skilled artisan to apply Reusch’s teaching to Kim’s system by substituting a UV activated adhesive and a UV lamp for Kim’s adhesive in Kim’s system described above. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine Reusch’s teaching with Kim’s system as described above for the predictable result of a system for stacking anode and cathode foils for a battery using adhesive between separator layers (claimed foil support surfaces) [Reusch 0001-0010 and throughout, Kim 0053 and throughout] where the system uses UV activated adhesive and a UV lamp for activation [Reusch 0020-0021 and throughout, Figs. 3-6] to prevent the electrode foils from being displaced [Kim 0053 and throughout]. See MPEP 2143 A, B, D.
Regarding Claim 11, modified Kim discloses the system according to claim 10, further comprising a source of UV light arranged adjacent to the stack table [For the combination of Reusch with Kim as described in claim 10 above, Reusch’s UV light 136 supplying UV radiation 135 is adjacent to Reusch’s stack [Reusch Figs. 4-6 show this configuration] for curing the adhesive 131-133 for each electrode layer as it is placed between separator structures [Reusch 0055]. Further, Reusch teaches UV radiation curing prior to the second layer of the separator being placed on the composite electrode structure [Reusch 0055], which the skilled artisan would understand requires the UV light to be adjacent to the stack table. Further, Kim teaches adhesive is applied to prevent the electrode foil 11 from being displaced during assembly [Kim 0053 and throughout]. To prevent displacement, it would be understood by the skilled artisan that the adhesive would be cured/activated; otherwise, it would not provide the function of preventing displacement. Further, the UV radiation light source would either be adjacent to the stack table or non-adjacent to the stack table; thus, providing the UV light source adjust to the stack table would be obvious to try (MPEP 2143 E). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine Kim and Reusch as described above with the UV light source adjacent to Kim’s stacking table 16 for the predictable result of the adhesive being activated to prevent displacement of the electrode [Kim 0053]. See MPEP 2143 A, B, D, and E.
Regarding Claim 14, modified Kim discloses the system according to claim 10, wherein the fold arm creates a battery stack [Kim 0053-0076, 0080-0097, Figs. 1-9] with each of the plurality of foil support surfaces [Kim 0053-0118, Kim’s foil support surfaces 1221 and 1222 for respective foils 1111 and 1121 of the respective first and second electrodes 1112 and 1122 as shown in Figs. 2, 5-7 are fully covered by the separator 122 in a z-fold [0059].] includes a first dimension defining a first axis and a second dimension defining a second axis [Kim 0059, 0080-0097 and throughout, Figs. 1-9, Kim teaches that the plurality of foil support surfaces (of separator 122, see claim 10 above) cover the electrode sheets/electrodes 1111/1112 and 1121/1122 as described above [0059]. The broadest reasonable interpretation of Kim is that the plurality of foil support surfaces forming the z-folds has the same planar shape as the electrode 1112 as shown in Figs. 2-9. Thus, the claimed first dimension/first axis and second dimension/second axis of the foil support surfaces would be the surfaces of the separator adjacent to the first dimension/first axis and second dimension/second axis of the electrode as shown below for clarity.] , the first dimension being smaller than the second dimension [Kim does not explicitly teach a first dimension being smaller than a second dimension and Fig. 4 does not provide a scale; however, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date that Kim’s electrode 1112 in Fig. 4 could be interpreted that the first dimension is smaller than the second dimension (see annotated Figs. 4 and 7 below). If Kim’s foil support surfaces are not such that the first dimension is smaller than the second dimension, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date that the first dimension and the second dimension would be a design choice dependent on the application requirements for the battery. Thus, changes in the shape of Kim’s battery/foil support surfaces to meet the limitation would be obvious as a matter of design choice for the specific application per MPEP 2144.04 I. Further, changes in size/proportion and shape are obvious per MPEP 2144.04 IV A, B.
PNG
media_image2.png
339
723
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
811
495
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Further, Reusch teaches foil support surfaces 16 with a first dimension/axis and a second dimension/axis. Like Kim, Reusch does not explicitly teach the first dimension being smaller than the second dimension; however, Reusch adhesive 131 and 132 are provided on the foil support surface in what can be interpretated as a first dimension/axis [Reusch 0050 and throughout, Fig. 3] and adhesive 133 is provided on the foil support surface in what can be interpreted as the second dimension/axis [Reusch 0050 and throughout, Fig. 3] for the same reasons as provided for Kim above. See annotated Reusch Fig. 3 below for clarity. Thus, modified Kim meets the requirements of the claim.
PNG
media_image4.png
452
673
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 15, modified Kim discloses the system according to claim 14, wherein the amount of UV activated adhesive is applied to each of the plurality of foil support surfaces along the first axis [Kim 0053-0076, 0080-0097, Figs. 1-9; As described in Claim 14 above and as shown in the recited paragraphs and Figs. adhesive 1700, the broadest reasonable interpretation of Kim is adhesive 1700 is applied along the first axis (left-right in Figs. 2-8). As combined with Reusch in claim 10 and 14, the adhesive is UV activated adhesive. Further, the broadest reasonable interpretation of Reusch [Reusch 0050, Fig. 3] is adhesives 131 and 132 are applied along a first axis. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply Reusch’s adhesive configuration to Kim’s system for the predictable result of preventing the electrode foils from being displaced [Kim 0053 and throughout]. See annotated Figs. in claim 14 above for clarity.
Regarding Claim 16, modified Kim discloses the system according to claim 14, wherein the fold arm forms each of the plurality of foil support surfaces to include a first end and a second end opposite the first end the second end being spaced from the first end by the second dimension [Kim 0053-0076, 0080-0097, Figs. 1-9 , Kim teaches that the plurality of foil support surfaces (of separator 122, see claims 10/14 above) cover the electrode sheets/electrodes 1111/1112 and 1121/1122 as described above [0059]. The broadest reasonable interpretation of Kim is that the plurality of foil support surfaces forming the z-folds have the same planar shape as the electrode 1112 as shown in Fig. 4 below, which is supported by Figs. 2-9. See enlarged, annotated Fig. 7 below. Also, see Fig. 8 for the z-folds and Fig. 9 for the shape of the battery cell. Thus, the claimed first end and second end of the foil support surfaces would be the surfaces of the separator adjacent to the first end and second ends of the electrode 1112 shown below, which are spaced apart by the second dimension. See below for clarity .], the amount of UV activated adhesive being applied to each of the plurality of foil support surfaces along the first axis at each of the first end and the second end [Kim 0117-0118, Kim as modified by Reusch (in claim 10 where the adhesive is a UV activated adhesive) does not explicitly teach the amount of adhesive is applied to the first and second end; however, Kim teaches the adhesive layers 1700 may be formed of various shapes. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply adhesive at each of the first end and second end to prevent displacement of the electrode [Kim 0118]. Further, if modified Kim does not meet the limitation, such modifications are obvious per the MPEP sections recited below since such modifications would be obvious design choices based on the shape requirements of the battery/electrode to prevent displacement of the electrode [Kim 0118 and throughout]. See MPEP 2144.04 I, design choice, MPEP 2144.04 IV A, B, changes in size/proportion or shape, and/or MPEP2144.04 VI, rearrangement of parts.
PNG
media_image5.png
351
723
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
811
495
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Further, Reusch teaches the amount of UV activated adhesive being applied to each of the plurality of foil support surfaces along the first axis at each of the first end and the second end [Reusch Fig. 3, As described in claim 14 above and as indicated below for clarity.]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine Reusch teaching about UV activated adhesive applied to each of the plurality of foil support surfaces along the first axis at each of the first end and second end in Kim’s system for the predicted result of preventing displacement of the electrode [Kim 0053].
PNG
media_image6.png
481
673
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 17, modified Kim discloses the system according to claim 14, wherein the fold arm forms each of the plurality of foil support surfaces to include a folded edge extending along the second axis, and a pre- folded edge extending along the second axis spaced from the folded edge by the first dimension [Kim 0053-0076, 0080-0097, Figs. 1-9. See enlarged and annotated Fig. 7 below for clarity. Reusch teaches the claimed UV activated adhesive as described in claim 10.].
PNG
media_image3.png
811
495
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 18, modified Kim discloses the system according to claim 17, wherein the amount of UV activated adhesive is applied to the folded edge along the second axis [Kim 0053-0076, 0080-0097, Figs. 1-9. See enlarged and annotated Fig. 7 below for clarity. Reusch teaches the claimed UV activated adhesive as described in claim 10.].
PNG
media_image7.png
712
825
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 19, modified Kim discloses the system according to claim 18, wherein the amount of UV activated adhesive is applied to the pre-folded edge [Kim 0053-0076, 0080-0097, Figs. 1-9. See enlarged and annotated Fig. 7 in claim 18 for clarity. Reusch teaches the claimed UV activated adhesive as described in claim 10.].
Regarding Claim 20, modified Kim discloses the system according to claim 11, wherein the fold arm forms each of the plurality of foil support surfaces [Kim 0053-0118, Kim’s foil support surfaces 1221 and 1222 for respective foils 1111 and 1121 of the respective first and second electrodes 1112 and 1122 as shown in Figs. 2, 5-7 are fully covered by the separator 122 in a z-fold [0059].] to include a foil support area defined by a first dimension and a second dimension [Kim 0059, 0080-0097 and throughout, Figs. 1-9, Kim teaches that the plurality of foil support surfaces (of separator 122, see claim 10 above) cover the electrode sheets/electrodes 1111/1112 and 1121/1122 as described above [0059]. The broadest reasonable interpretation of Kim is that the plurality of foil support surfaces forming the z-folds has the same planar shape as the electrode 1112 as shown in Figs. 2-9. Thus, the claimed first dimension and second dimension on the plurality of foil supports are the surfaces of the separator 122 adjacent to the first dimension and second dimension of the electrodes, which as combined the first and second dimensions form the claimed foil support area. See Fig. 4 below for clarity.]the amount of UV activated adhesive covering the foil support area [Kim 0069-0084, 0117 and throughout, Figs. 2-9, as combined with Reusch in claims 10 and 11 above for the recited UV activated adhesive, The broadest reasonable interpretation of Kim is that the electrode surfaces are coated with dots and or lines of adhesive over and area of the electrode [Kim 0069-0076]. This is evidenced by the recited paragraphs and Figs. above, and, Fig. 4 shows the application of adhesive with two nozzles 173 forming adhesive layer 1710 on the bottom side of an electrode. Figs. 5-7 shows the transfer of electrode 1122 with coating 1710 on the underside to the top of foil support layer 1222. Likewise, Kim recites that the adhesive nozzles 171 and 172 can have the same configuration as 173 [Kim 0084], which would indicate that both nozzles 171/172 coat the upper surface area of the electrode prior to applying the separator. Thus, Kim’s invention as combined with Reusch has an amount of UV activated adhesive covering the foil support area at least in lines, lattice, or dots [Kim 0117] across an the foil support area, which reads on the claimed configuration. Further, Kim teaches that other configurations of applying the adhesive layer may be utilized [Kim 0117]. Thus, if Kim does not explicitly teach the claimed configuration, it would be obvious over Kim per MPEP 2144.04 IV, A, B by merely changing the size/proportion or shape of the adhesive layer.
PNG
media_image8.png
356
723
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 12 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Kim in view of Reusch, as applied to claims 10 and 11 above, and further in view of Liu et al., CN116749505A, machine translation relied upon provided, hereinafter Liu .
Regarding Claim 12, modified Kim discloses the system according to claim 11 but does not explicitly teach wherein the source of UV light is fixedly mounted relative to the stack table. However, in combining Reusch with Kim as described in claims 10 and 11 above, the skilled artisan would know to fixedly mount the source of UV light relative to the stack table to provide the function of UV activation of the adhesive. While neither Kim or Reusch explicitly teach the fixed configuration, fixed mounting would be expected; otherwise, it would not be possible to cure the adhesive reliably. For example, Kim teaches the application of adhesive can be performed simultaneously with the folding for purposes of improving process efficiency [Kim 0086 and throughout], which would require UV activation of the adhesive quickly after application to prevent displacement [Kim 0080, 0112 and throughout]. Further, such modification merely requires making Reusch’s UV light 136 integral with Kim’s system, which is obvious per MPEP 2144.04 V, B. Further, Reusch’s UV light 136 would either be fixedly mounted or not mounted. For the reasons provided above, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to select fixedly mounted per MPEP 2143 E.
For purpose of compact prosecution, Liu teaches a system for battery assembly [Liu n0013, Fig. 4] which includes a source of UV light 140 for curing adhesive [Liu 0079], where the source of UV light 140 is fixedly mounted to Liu separator feed arm [Liu Fig. 4, UV light 140 is shown fixed to the separator feed arm 100]. It would be within the ambit of the skilled artisan to apply Liu’s teaching to modified Kim’s system such the a UV light source, as taught by Reusch and Liu, is fixedly mounted to the fold arm 121/125 of Kim’s system near Kim’s adhesive nozzles 171/172 and stack table 16 so that the electrode as sufficiently fixed to the separator [Kim 0076-0081] by curing prior to movement of the fold arm 121/125 to provide the Z-folds as taught throughout [Kim 0053, 0059, 0076-0081, 0095 and throughout, Figs. 2-7]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply Liu’s teaching to modified Kim by fixedly mount Reusch’s UV light 136 to Kim’s fold arm [Kim 0055 and throughout, Figs. 2-7, fold arm includes parts reel 121 and separator guides 125] in Kim’s system relative to the stack table 16 to facilitate reliably activating the UV curable adhesive taught by Reusch for the predictable result of the adhesive being activated to prevent displacement of the electrode [Kim 0053]. See MPEP 2143 A, B, D, and E.
Regarding Claim 13, modified Kim discloses the system according to claim 11 but does not explicitly teach wherein the source of UV light is mounted to the fold arm. Liu teaches a system for battery assembly [Liu n0013, Fig. 4] which includes a source of UV light 140 for curing adhesive [Liu 0079], where the source of UV light 140 is fixedly mounted to Liu’s separator feeding system [Liu Fig. 4, UV light 140 is shown fixed to the separator feed arm 100]. It would be within the ambit of the skilled artisan to apply Liu’s teaching to modified Kim’s system such the a UV light source, as taught by Reusch and Liu, is attached the fold arm 121/125 of Kim’s system near Kim’s adhesive nozzles 171/172 and stack table 16 so that the electrode as sufficiently fixed to the separator [Kim 0076-0081] by curing prior to movement of the fold arm 121/125 to provide the Z-folds as taught throughout [Kim 0053, 0059, 0076-0081, 0095 and throughout, Figs. 2-7]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply Liu’s teaching to modified Kim by mounting Reusch’s UV light 136 to Kim’s fold arm 121/125 [Kim 0055 and throughout, Figs. 2-7, fold arm includes parts reel 121 and separator guides 125] in Kim’s system to facilitate reliably activating the UV curable adhesive taught by Reusch for the predictable result of the adhesive being activated to prevent displacement of the electrode [Kim 0053]. See MPEP 2143 A, B, D, and E.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to M. T. LEONARD whose telephone number is (571)270-1681. The examiner can normally be reached Monday, Wednesday, Thursday 9:00-5:00 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, Miriam Stagg can be reached at (571)270-5256. 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.
/M. T. LEONARD/ Examiner, Art Unit 1724
/STEWART A FRASER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1724
Prosecution Insights