DETAILED ACTION
This Non-Final Office Action is in response to the above identified patent application filed on September 25, 2023. Claims 1 – 20 are pending and currently being examined.
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 2 & 6 – 9 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.
The term “substantially” in Claim 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 2, lines 2 & 3 recites: “the spine is rotatable about an axis substantially perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the spine”.
The term “substantially” is a relative term that is UNCLEAR what it encompasses and how much of the spine is requires to be perpendicular in order to be considered “substantially” perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the spine.
The term “substantially” in Claim 6 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 6, lines 6 – 8 recites: “the securing member is engageable with the second end of the collar to reduce lateral movement of the object in all directions substantially perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the spine.”
The term “substantially” is a relative term that is UNCLEAR what it encompasses and how much of the securing member is engageable with the second end of the collar to reduce lateral movement of the object in all directions in order to be considered “substantially” perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the spine.
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.
Claim(s) 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by (U.S. Patent Number 5,474,273 B2) to Vinal.
Regarding claim 1, Vinal discloses the pack-based holder (10) (See Figure 1), comprising:
the spine (13) defining the longitudinal axis (See Figure 1), the spine (13) comprising:
the first end (i.e. Bottom / Lower End of (13) in Figure 1); and
the second end (i.e. Top / Upper End of (13) in Figure 1);
the collar (14) attached to the spine (13), wherein:
the collar (14) reduces movement of an object (i.e. Beverage Container (11) in Figure 1) placed therein in the direction away from the longitudinal axis of the spine (13); and
an arm (19) movably coupled to the first end (i.e. Bottom / Lower End of (13) in Figure 1) of the spine (13), the arm (19) being movable between an open position (i.e. Stowed Pivoted Vertical Position) (See Column 4, lines 53 – 57) and the closed position (i.e. Deployed Horizontal Position in Figure 1), wherein:
in the closed position (i.e. Deployed Horizontal Position in Figure 1), the arm (19) restrains gravitational movement of the object (i.e. Beverage Container (11) in Figure 1); and
in the open position (i.e. Pivoted Vertical Position), the arm (19) does not restrain gravitational movement of the object (i.e. Beverage Container (11) in Figure 1).
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.
Claim(s) 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (U.S. Patent Number 5,474,273 B2) to Vinal in view of (U.S. Patent Number 5,697,587) to Israel.
Regarding claim 2, Vinal discloses wherein: the spine (13) (See Figure 1).
However, Vinal does not explicitly disclose the spine (13) rotatable about an axis substantially perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the spine.
Israel teaches wherein: the spine (6A & 6B) is rotatable about an axis substantially perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the spine (6A & 6B) (i.e. See Curve Horizontal Directional Arrows in Figure 20).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to make the spine rotatable about an axis substantially perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the spine as taught by Israel with the pack-based holder of Vinal because the motivation only requires a simple substitution of one known equivalent spine configuration for another to obtain predictable results.
Claim(s) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (U.S. Patent Number 5,474,273 B2) to Vinal in view of (U.S. Patent Number 6,820,770 B2) to Makino.
Regarding claim 3, Vinal lacks and does not explicitly disclose wherein: the spine further comprises: the first member; the second member, wherein: the second member is slidably coupled to the first member to adjust the length of the spine; and the locking member that fixes the position of the second member relative to the first member.
Makino teaches wherein: the spine (See Figure 4) further comprises: the first member (104); the second member (110), wherein: the second member (110) is slidably coupled to the first member (104) to adjust the length of the spine (See Figure 4); and the locking member (202 / 204 & 410) that fixes the position of the second member (110) relative to the first member (104).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to make the spine further comprises: the first member; the second member, wherein: the second member is slidably coupled to the first member to adjust the length of the spine; and the locking member that fixes the position of the second member relative to the first member as taught by Makino with the pack-based holder of Vinal because the motivation only requires a simple substitution of one known equivalent spine configuration for another to obtain predictable results.
Claim(s) 5, 6, 7, 11 & 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (U.S. Patent Number 5,474,273 B2) to Vinal in view of (U.S. Patent Number 6,059,245) to Hermansen et al.
Regarding claim 5, Vinal discloses wherein: the collar (14) further reduces lateral movement of the object (i.e. Beverage Container (11) in Figure 1) in all directions away from the longitudinal axis of the spine (13).
However, Vinal does not explicitly disclose comprising the tube.
Hermansen et al., teaches the collar (22 & 24) further comprises: the tube (See Figure 1) that reduces lateral movement of the object (90, 94 & 96) (i.e. Beverage Bottle in Figure 7) in all directions away from the longitudinal axis of the spine (20).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to make the collar further comprises the tube that reduces lateral movement of the object in all directions away from the longitudinal axis of the spine as taught by Hermansen et al., with the pack-based holder of Vinal because the motivation only requires a simple substitution of one known equivalent spine configuration for another to obtain predictable results.
Regarding claim 6, Vinal as modified by Hermansen et al., discloses wherein: the collar (22 & 24) further comprises: the first end (i.e. End Portion of (24) in Figure 4); the second end (i.e. End Portion (34) of (22) in Figure 4); and the securing member (32) attached to the first end (i.e. End Portion of (24) in Figure 4) of the collar (22 & 24), wherein: the securing member (32) is engageable with the second end (i.e. End Portion (34) of (22) in Figure 4) of the collar (22 & 24) to reduce lateral movement of the object (90, 94 & 96) (i.e. Beverage Bottle in Figure 7) in all directions substantially perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the spine (20).
Regarding claim 7, Vinal as modified by Hermansen et al., discloses wherein: the securing member (32) further comprises the latch (See Column 4, lines 28 & 29) (See Figures 1 – 5).
Regarding claim 11, Vinal as modified by Hermansen et al., discloses wherein: the collar (22 & 24) is expandable (See Figure 3) in the direction away from the longitudinal axis of the spine (20) (See Figures 3 & 4).
Regarding claim 12, Vinal as modified by Hermansen et al., discloses wherein: at least the portion of the collar (22 & 24) is curved to form an arc shape (See Figures 1 – 5).
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (U.S. Patent Number 5,474,273 B2) to Vinal and (U.S. Patent Number 6,059,245) to Hermansen et al., as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of (U.S. Patent Number 4,570,835) to Criqui et al.
Regarding claim 8, Vinal as modified by above lacks and does not explicitly disclose wherein: the collar further comprises: the plurality of adjustment holes spaced along a portion of the collar; and the securing member further comprises: the protrusion that is insertable in an adjustment hole.
Criqui et al., teaches wherein: the collar (34) further comprises: the plurality of adjustment holes (36) spaced along the portion of the collar (34); and the securing member (38) further comprises: the protrusion (See Figure 3) that is insertable in an adjustment hole (36) (See Column 2, lines 11 – 14) (See Figures 1 – 3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to make wherein: the collar further comprises: the plurality of adjustment holes spaced along the portion of the collar; and the securing member further comprises: the protrusion that is insertable in an adjustment hole as taught by Criqui et al., with the pack-based holder of Vinal because the motivation only requires a simple substitution of one known equivalent collar configuration for another to obtain predictable results.
Claim(s) 9 & 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (U.S. Patent Number 5,474,273 B2) to Vinal and (U.S. Patent Number 6,059,245) to Hermansen et al., as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of (U.S. Patent Number 9,975,492 B2) to Cardonna et al.
Regarding claim 9, Vinal as modified by above lacks and does not explicitly disclose wherein: the securing member further comprises: the cord removably attached to the first end of the collar, and removably attached to the second end of the collar.
Cardonna et al., teaches wherein: the securing member (76 or 86) further comprises: the cord (See Figures 1 & 2) removably attached (i.e. via loop) to the first end (75 or 85) of the collar (74 or 84), and removably attached (i.e. via opposite loop) to the second end (i.e. Opposite End (75 & 85) in Figure 1) of the collar (74 or 84) (See Figures 1 & 2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to make wherein: the securing member further comprises: the cord removably attached to the first end of the collar, and removably attached to the second end of the collar as taught by Cardonna et al., with the pack-based holder of Vinal because the motivation only requires a simple substitution of one known equivalent securing collar configuration for another to obtain predictable results.
Regarding claim 10, Vinal as modified by Cardonna et al., wherein: the collar (74 or 84) is slidably (i.e. via Channel (41) in Figures 2, 7 & 8) coupled to the spine (40) to adjust the position of the collar (74 or 84) along the longitudinal axis of the spine (40); and the pack-based holder (1) further comprises: the locking member (81, 82 & 83) that fixes the position of the collar (74 or 84) along the longitudinal axis of the spine (40) (See Column 5, lines 21 – 67) (See Figure 7).
Claim(s) 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (U.S. Patent Number 5,474,273 B2) to Vinal in view of (U.S. Patent Number 9,944,209 B1) to Carnevali.
Regarding claim 13, Vinal discloses wherein: the arm (14) (See Figure 1).
However, Chuang does not explicitly disclose biased toward the closed position.
Carnevali teaches the wherein: the arms (122) is biased toward the closed position (See Column 4, lines 18 – 21) (See Figures 1, 2, 5, 6, 7 & 8).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to make the arm biased toward the closed position as taught by Carnevali with the pack-based holder of Vinal in order to securely hold and prevent the beverage container from slippage and excess movement.
Claim(s) 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (U.S. Patent Number 5,474,273 B2) to Vinal in view of (U.S. Patent Number 5,697,587) to Israel and (U.S. Patent Number 7,669,742 B2) to Rush.
Regarding claim 14, Vinal lacks and does not explicitly disclose the second arm movably coupled to the second end of the spine, the second arm being movable between an open position and the closed position, wherein: in the closed position, the second arm inhibits the movement of the object in the direction parallel to the longitudinal axis of the spine; and in the open position, the second arm does not inhibit the movement of the object in the direction parallel to the longitudinal axis of the spine.
Israel teaches the second arm (8) movably (i.e. See Curve Horizontal Directional Arrows in Figure 20) coupled to the second end (i.e. Upper End Portion of (6A & 6B) in Figure 1) of the spine (6A & 6B), the second arm (8) being movable (i.e. See Curve Horizontal Directional Arrows in Figures 20 & 22) between an open position (i.e. Rotated Angled Position of (8) in Figure 22) and the closed position (i.e. Forward Position of (8) in Figure 20), wherein:
in the open position (i.e. Rotated Angled Position of (8) in Figure 22), the second arm (8) does not inhibit the movement of the object (i.e. Can) in the direction parallel to the longitudinal axis of the spine (6A & 6B).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to make the second arm movably coupled to the second end of the spine, the second arm being movable between an open position and the closed position, wherein: in the open position, the second arm does not inhibit the movement of the object in the direction parallel to the longitudinal axis of the spine as taught by Israel with the pack-based holder of Vinal because the motivation only requires a simple substitution of one known equivalent spine configuration for another to obtain predictable results.
However, Vinal does not explicitly disclose the second arm (110) inhibiting the movement of the object in the direction parallel to the longitudinal axis of the spine.
Rush teaches in the closed position (i.e. Forward Extended Position of (110) in Figure 1), the second arm (110) inhibits the movement of the object (10) in the direction parallel to the longitudinal axis of the spine (102) (See Figure 3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to make the second arm inhibiting the movement of the object in the direction parallel to the longitudinal axis of the spine as taught by Rush with the pack-based holder of Vinal because the motivation only requires a simple substitution of one known equivalent pack-based holder configuration for another to obtain predictable results.
Claim(s) 16, 17, 19 & 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (U.S. Patent Number 2007 / 0267454 A1) to Baiz in view of (U.S. Patent Number 5,474,273 B2) to Vinal.
Regarding claim 16, Baiz discloses the bag (125); and
the pack-based holder (180) coupled (i.e. via (120) in Figure 2) to the bag (125) (See Figure 2), the pack-based holder (180) comprising:
the spine (i.e. Vertical Back Plate Portion of (180) in Figure 2) defining the longitudinal axis, the spine (i.e. Vertical Back Plate Portion of (180) in Figure 2) comprising:
the first end (i.e. Top End Portion of (180) in Figure 2); and
the second end (i.e. Top End Portion of (180) in Figure 2);
the collar (i.e. Arc Loop Portion of (180) in Figure 2) attached to the spine (i.e. Vertical Back Plate Portion of (180) in Figure 2), wherein:
the collar (i.e. Arc Loop Portion of (180) in Figure 2) reduces movement of an object (i.e. See Bottle Phantom Lines in Figure 2) placed therein in the direction away from the longitudinal axis of the spine (i.e. Vertical Back Plate Portion of (180) in Figure 2).
However, Biaz does not explicitly disclose the arm movably coupled to the first end of the spine, the arm being movable between an open position and a closed position, wherein: in the closed position, the arm restrains gravitational movement of the object; and in the open position, the arm does not restrain gravitational movement of the object.
Vinal teaches an arm (19) movably (i.e. Pivoting Movement) (See Column 4, lines 53 – 57) coupled to the first end (i.e. Bottom End of (13) in Figure 1) of the spine (13), the arm (19) being movable (i.e. Pivoting Movement) (See Column 4, lines 53 – 57) between an open position (i.e. Stowed Pivoted Vertical Position Configuration) (See Column 4, lines 53 – 57) and the closed position (i.e. Deployed Horizontal Position in Figure 1), wherein:
in the closed position (i.e. Deployed Horizontal Position in Figure 1), the arm (19) restrains gravitational movement of the object (i.e. Beverage Container (11) in Figure 1); and in the open position (i.e. Stowed Pivoted Vertical Position Configuration) (See Column 4, lines 53 – 57), the arm (19) does not restrain gravitational movement of the object (i.e. Beverage Container (11) in Figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to make the arm movably coupled to the first end of the spine, the arm being movable between an open position and a closed position, wherein: in the closed position, the arm restrains gravitational movement of the object; and in the open position, the arm does not restrain gravitational movement of the object as taught by Baiz with the pack-based holder of Vinal because the motivation only requires a simple substitution of one known equivalent the pack-based holder configuration for another to obtain predictable results.
Regarding claim 17, Baiz discloses further comprising the baseplate (i.e. Horizontal Hook & Loop Fastener Patch engagable w/ (120) in Figure 2) removably coupled to the backpack (125), wherein the pack-based holder (180) is coupled to the baseplate (i.e. Horizontal Hook & Loop Fastener Patch engagable w/ (120) in Figure 2).
Regarding claim 19, Baiz discloses wherein: the pack-based holder (180) is positioned on the portion of the backpack (125) (See Figure 2) such that the arm is accessible to a person wearing the backpack (125) without doffing the backpack (125) (See Figure 2).
Furthermore, Baiz as modified by Vinal discloses the pack-based holder (10) with the arm (19) accessible to a person (See Figure 1).
Regarding claim 20, Baiz as modified by Vinal discloses wherein: movement of the arm (19) from the closed position (i.e. Deployed Horizontal Position in Figure 1) to the open position (i.e. Stowed Pivoted Vertical Position Configuration) (See Column 4, lines 53 – 57) is facilitated when the object (i.e. Beverage Container (11) in Figure 1) moves toward the collar (14) and comes into contact with the arm (19) (See Figure 1).
Claim(s) 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (U.S. Patent Number 2007 / 0267454 A1) to Baiz and (U.S. Patent Number 5,474,273 B2) to Vinal as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of (U.S. Patent Number 5,697,587) to Israel and (U.S. Patent Number 7,669,742 B2) to Rush.
Regarding claim 18, Baiz discloses the pack-based holder (80 & 180) (See Figures 1 & 2).
In addition, Baiz as modified by Vinal also discloses the pack-based holder (10) (See Figure 1).
However, Vinal as modified by above lacks and does not explicitly disclose the second arm movably coupled to the second end of the spine, the second arm being movable between an open position and the closed position and the closed position, wherein: in the closed position, the second arm reducing the movement of the object in the direction parallel to the longitudinal axis of the spine; and in the open position, the second arm does not reduce the movement of the object in the direction parallel to the longitudinal axis of the spine.
Israel teaches the second arm (8) movably (i.e. See Curve Horizontal Directional Arrows in Figure 20) coupled to the second end (i.e. Upper End Portion of (6A & 6B) in Figure 1) of the spine (6A & 6B), the second arm (8) being movable (i.e. See Curve Horizontal Directional Arrows in Figures 20 & 22) between an open position (i.e. Rotated Angled Position of (8) in Figure 22) and the closed position (i.e. Forward Position of (8) in Figure 20), wherein:
in the open position (i.e. Rotated Angled Position of (8) in Figure 22), the second arm (8) does not reduce the movement of the object (i.e. Can) in the direction parallel to the longitudinal axis of the spine (6A & 6B).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to make the second arm movably coupled to the second end of the spine, the second arm being movable between an open position and the closed position, wherein: in the open position, the second arm does not reduce the movement of the object in the direction parallel to the longitudinal axis of the spine as taught by Israel with the pack-based holder of Vinal because the motivation only requires a simple substitution of one known equivalent spine configuration for another to obtain predictable results.
However, Vinal does not explicitly disclose the second arm (110) inhibits the movement of the object in the direction parallel to the longitudinal axis of the spine.
Rush teaches in the closed position (i.e. Forward Extended Position of (110) in Figure 1), the second arm (110) reduces the movement of the object (10) in the direction parallel to the longitudinal axis of the spine (102) (See Figure 3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to make the second arm reduces the movement of the object in the direction parallel to the longitudinal axis of the spine as taught by Rush with the pack-based holder of Vinal because the motivation only requires a simple substitution of one known equivalent pack-based holder configuration for another to obtain predictable results.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 & 15 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
(U.S. Patent Design Number 279,836) to Tanaka teaches the pack-based holder, comprising; the spine defining the longitudinal axis, the spine comprising; the first end; and the second end; the collar attached to the spine, wherein: the collar reduces movement of an object placed therein in the direction away from the longitudinal axis of the spine; and the arm movably coupled to the first end of the spine, the arm being movable between an open position and a closed position, wherein: in the closed position, the arm restrains gravitational movement of the object; and in the open position, the arm does not restrain gravitational movement of the object (See Figures 1 & 2).
(U.S. Patent Number 5,040,709) to Neugent teaches wherein: the collar (32, 36, 38, 45, 47 & 48) further comprises: the plurality of adjustment holes (44 & 46) spaced along the portion of the collar (32, 36 & 38); and the securing member (53 & 55) further comprises: the protrusion (See Figure 6) that is insertable in an adjustment hole (44 & 46) (See Figures 5 & 6).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LESTER L VANTERPOOL whose telephone number is (571)272-8028. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:00.
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, Nathan J. Newhouse can be reached at 571-272-4544. 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.
/L.L.V/Examiner, Art Unit 3734
/NATHAN J NEWHOUSE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3734