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, 8, 12-13, 17 and 19-20 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.
Claims 2 and 12 recite the term "about" which is a relative term that renders the claim indefinite. The term "about" 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. In such a device, any distance can be considered "about" 10% of a length since the specification is silent as to how close a distance must be to be considered "about" 10% of another. For examination purposes, the limitation in the claims has been construed to be “a distance 10% of a length…”. Claim 13, which is dependent on claim 12, is similarly rejected.
Claims 6 and 17 relies on the limitation “a distance between the first and second gripping surfaces.” When looking to the specification, the claim relies on a dimension D3. D3 has two values (best shown in Fig. 7), which is confusing because it is unclear which distance D3 should be used for comparing against the “3 to 4 times a depth of the teeth.” Since it is unclear what specific range is trying to be claimed, the claim is determined to be indefinite. The Examiner does not have a solution to recommend to the Applicant on how to resolve this indifference.
Claims 8 and 19 recite the term "approximately" which is a relative term that renders the claim indefinite. The term "approximately" 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. In such a device, any length can be considered "approximately" equal to another since the specification is silent as to how close a length must be to be considered "approximately" equal to another. For examination purposes, the limitation in the claims has been construed to be “a largest width disposed a length away from the smallest width, that is equal to…”. Claim 20, which is dependent on claim 19, is similarly rejected.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tseng (US 6786117 B1) in view of Murphy (US 4280265 A).
Regarding claim 1, Tseng teaches a hand tool comprising: a head section including a top jaw and a bottom jaw; (embodiment 10 comprising a first pair of jaws 12 including a top jaw 18 and a bottom jaw 20 in Fig. 1)
a handle section including a top handle and a bottom handle; (a handle section including handle member 28 and handle member 34)
a joint assembly operably coupling the head section to the handle section; (joint assembly operably couples the pair of jaws 12 to handle members 28 and 34; Col. 5, Lines 41-51)
and a gripping assembly comprising a first gripping surface disposed at the top jaw and a second gripping surface disposed at the bottom jaw, (a gripping assembly comprising a first serrated gripping planar surface 76 disposed at the top jaw and a second serrated gripping planar surface 84 disposed at the bottom jaw)
wherein the first and second gripping surfaces grip objects therebetween responsive to the top jaw and the bottom jaw moving towards each other (wherein the serrated gripping planar surfaces 76 and 84 grip objects therebetween responsive to the top jaw and the bottom jaws moving towards each other; Col. 4, Lines 26-28);
Tseng does not explicitly disclose a pin assembly having a first pin disposed at a distal end of the top jaw and a second pin disposed at a distal end of the bottom jaw; however, Murphy, in the same field of endeavor, related to pliers, teaches a hand tool comprising: a head section including a top jaw and a bottom jaw; (tool 10 comprising: a head section including a top jaw 12 and a bottom jaw 14 in Fig. 1)
a handle section including a top handle and a bottom handle; (a handle section including a top handle 24 and a bottom handle 26)
a joint assembly operably coupling the head section to the handle section; (a joint assembly operably couples the jaws 12 and 14 to the handles 24 and 26; Col. 4, Lines 9-14)
a pin assembly having a first pin disposed at a distal end of the top jaw and a second pin disposed at a distal end of the bottom jaw; (a pin assembly having a first tip 64 disposed at a distal end of jaw 12 and a second pin 64 disposed at a distal end of jaw 14)
and a gripping assembly comprising a first gripping surface disposed at the top jaw proximate to the first pin and a second gripping surface disposed at the bottom jaw proximate to the second pin, (assembly comprising a first gripping surface disposed on the inner portion of the top jaw 12 proximate to first pin 64 and a second gripping surface disposed on the inner portion of the bottom jaw 14 proximate to second pin 64)
wherein the first and second gripping surfaces grip objects therebetween responsive to the top jaw and the bottom jaw moving towards each other (the inner portions of jaws 12 and 14 grip objects therebetween responsive to the jaws moving towards each other).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the hand tool of Tseng with a pin assembly having a first pin disposed at a distal end of the top jaw and a second pin disposed at a distal end of the bottom jaw, as taught by Murphy. Tseng discloses the pliers has multiple uses ( and discloses another embodiment of the pliers used to install snap rings (Col. 1, Lines 55-59), so one would have been motivated to make such a modification to additionally “fit the apertures in the [retaining] rings to squeeze or expand the ring as necessary for removal” (Murphy, Col. 1, Lines 19-21 ).
Regarding claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Tseng and Murphy do not explicitly teach that the first and second gripping surfaces extend a distance that is 10% of a length of the top and bottom jaws, respectively. However, Murphy teaches that the first and second gripping surfaces extend a distance that is less than 25% of a length of the top and bottom jaws (a distance D1 of the serrated gripping planar surface 74 is less than 25% of D2, a length of the top jaw 18, see annotated Fig. 3 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
666
507
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the length of the gripping surfaces to be roughly 10% of the overall jaw length. Such a modification is viewed as change in size, which has been held to be of routine by one skilled in the art (see MPEP 2144.04). Changing the length of the gripping surface would affect the area in which the plier interacted with the object being worked upon, which would change for different intended functions. Further in the instant application, there is no criticality/unexpected results that come from the 10% limitation (see Detailed Description, ¶[0025]).
Regarding claim 3, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated. Tseng further discloses that the first and second gripping surfaces extend from the distal end of the top and bottom jaws, respectively, towards the joint assembly (the serrated gripping planar surfaces 76 and 84 extend from the distal end of the top and bottom jaws 18 and 20, respectively, towards the joint assembly).
Regarding claim 4, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Tseng further discloses that the first and second gripping surfaces each comprise teeth, wherein the teeth of the first gripping surface interlace with the teeth of the second gripping surface when the top jaw is proximate to the bottom jaw (the serrated gripping planar surfaces 76 and 84 each comprise teeth, wherein the teeth of the first gripping surface 76 interlace with the teeth of the second gripping surface 84 when the top jaw 18 is proximate to the bottom jaw 20 as shown in Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 5, the rejection of claim 4 is incorporated. Tseng does not teach first and second pins disposed in respective bores formed in the top and bottom jaws. However, Murphy further discloses that the first and second pins are disposed in respective bores formed in the top and bottom jaws, respectively (pins 64 are disposed in passages 66 formed in formed in jaws 12 and 14 shown in Fig. 2; Col. 3, Lines 29-31). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the hand tool of Tseng with a pin assembly having the first and second pins are disposed in respective bores formed in the top and bottom jaws, respectively, as taught by Murphy. Tseng discloses the pliers has multiple uses (Abstract) and discloses another embodiment of the pliers used to expand snap rings (Col. 1, Lines 55-59), so one would have been motivated to make such a modification to additionally “fit the apertures in the [retaining] rings to squeeze or expand the ring as necessary for removal” (Murphy, Col. 1, Lines 19-21).
Regarding claim 6 (as best understood), the rejection of claim 5 is incorporated. Tseng and Murphy do not explicitly disclose that a distance between the first and second gripping surfaces and the bores for the first and second pins, respectively, is within a range of 3 to 4 times a depth of the teeth. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the distance between the gripping surfaces and the bores of Tseng, combined with Murphy, to be roughly 3 to 4 times a depth of the teeth. Such a modification is viewed as a change in size, which has been held to be of routine by one skilled in the art (see MPEP 2144.04). Depending on the intended function and base material, a manufacturer would modify this dimension to ensure the tool has enough clearance to adequately manipulate a particular style of circlip. Further, in ¶[0029]-[0030] of the instant application, there is no criticality or unexpected results discussed on why this dimension would be used. The discussion of adequate strength is not an unexpected result—it is simply a design criterion.
Regarding claim 7, the rejection of claim 5 is incorporated. Tseng and Murphy do not explicitly disclose that the first and second gripping surfaces have a smallest width proximate to the distal end of the head section that is greater than two times a diameter of the bores. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a width of the gripping surfaces, combined with Murphy, to be greater than two times a diameter of the bores. Such a modification is viewed as a change in size, which has been held to be of routine by one skilled in the art (see MPEP 2144.04). Depending on the intended function and base material, a manufacturer would modify this dimension to ensure the pins have sufficient support to manipulate a particular style of circlip without causing damage or deformation to the tool. Further, in ¶[0031]-[0032] of the instant application, there is no criticality or unexpected results discussed on why this dimension would be used. The discussion of adequate strength is not an unexpected result—it is simply a design criterion.
Regarding claim 8, the rejection of claim 7 is incorporated. Tseng and Murphy do not explicitly disclose that the first and second gripping surfaces have a largest width disposed a length away from a smallest width, that is equal to three times a diameter of the bores. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a width of the gripping surfaces, combined with Murphy, to be equal to three times a diameter of the bores. Such a modification is viewed as a change in size, which has been held to be of routine by one skilled in the art (see MPEP 2144.04). Depending on the intended function and base material, a manufacturer would modify this dimension to ensure the pins have sufficient support to manipulate a particular style of circlip without causing damage or deformation to the tool. Further, in ¶[0031]-[0032] of the instant application, there is no criticality or unexpected results discussed on why this dimension would be used. The discussion of adequate strength is not an unexpected result—it is simply a design criterion.
Regarding claim 9, the rejection of claim 5 is incorporated. Tseng and Murphy do not explicitly disclose that a length of the first and second gripping surfaces is substantially equal to a depth of the bores. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a length of the gripping surfaces, combined with Murphy, to be substantially equal to a depth of the bores. Such a modification is viewed as a change in size, which has been held to be of routine by one skilled in the art (see MPEP 2144.04). Depending on the intended function and base material, a manufacturer would modify this dimension to ensure the tool would to ensure the pins have sufficient support to manipulate a particular style of circlip without causing damage or deformation to the tool. Further, in ¶[0034] of the instant application, there is no criticality or unexpected results discussed on why this dimension would be used. The discussion of adequate strength is not an unexpected result—it is simply a design criterion.
Regarding claim 10, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Tseng teaches another embodiment of the hand tool, which is a multi-functional tool (Tseng: pliers 166 shown in Fig. 8) in which a first function comprises operably coupling with a circlip (Tseng: Col. 6, Lines 61-67) and a second function comprises gripping an object with the gripping assembly (Tseng: set of jaws 170; Col. 6, Lines 50-54), but does not explicitly teach coupling with the circlips with a pin assembly. Murphy teaches a hand tool in which a first function comprises operably coupling with a circlip via the pin assembly (Murphy: Col. 3, Lines 41-46) and a second function comprises gripping an object with the gripping assembly (jaws 12 and 14 capable of gripping an object). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the hand tool of Tseng to further comprise a pin assembly for operably coupling with a circlip. One would have been motivated to make such a modification to be further capable of “use on parts other than retaining rings, such as fuses, lights and other small parts which fit into sockets or grooves” (Murphy: Col. 3, Lines 35-40).
Regarding claim 11, Tseng discloses a dual function hand tool (Abstract) comprising: a head section including a top jaw and a bottom jaw (a first pair of jaws 12 including a top jaw 18 and a bottom jaw 20 in Fig. 1);
a handle section including a top handle and a bottom handle; (a handle section including handle member 28 and handle member 34)
a joint assembly operably coupling the head section to the handle section; (joint assembly operably couples the pair of jaws 12 to handle members 28 and 34; Col. 5, Lines 41-51)
and a gripping assembly comprising a first gripping surface disposed at the top jaw and a second gripping surface disposed at the bottom jaw, (a gripping assembly comprising a first serrated gripping planar surface 76 disposed at the top jaw and a second serrated gripping planar surface 84 disposed at the bottom jaw)
wherein the dual function hand tool grips an object with the gripping assembly to define a second function (Col. 4, lines 26-28 and Col. 1, lines 56-59).
Tseng does not explicitly disclose a pin assembly having a first pin disposed at a distal end of the top jaw and a second pin disposed at a distal end of the bottom jaw; however, Murphy, in the same field of endeavor, related to pliers, discloses a hand tool comprising: a head section including a top jaw and a bottom jaw; (tool 10 comprising: a head section including a top jaw 12 and a bottom jaw 14 in Fig. 1)
a handle section including a top handle and a bottom handle; (a handle section including a top handle 24 and a bottom handle 26)
a joint assembly operably coupling the head section to the handle section; (a joint assembly operably couples the jaws 12 and 14 to the handles 24 and 26; Col. 4, Lines 9-14)
a pin assembly having a first pin disposed at a distal end of the top jaw and a second pin disposed at a distal end of the bottom jaw; (a pin assembly having a first tip 64 disposed at a distal end of jaw 12 and a second pin 64 disposed at a distal end of jaw 14)
a gripping assembly comprising a first gripping surface disposed at the top jaw proximate to the first pin and a second gripping surface disposed at the bottom jaw proximate to the second pin, (assembly comprising a first gripping surface disposed on the inner portion of the top jaw 12 proximate to first pin 64 and a second gripping surface disposed on the inner portion of the bottom jaw 14 proximate to second pin 64)
wherein the dual function hand tool operably couples with a circlip via the pin assembly to define a first function (Col. 3, Lines 41-46) and grips an object with the gripping assembly to define a second function (jaws 12 and 14 capable of gripping an object).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the hand tool of Tseng with a pin assembly having a first pin disposed at a distal end of the top jaw and a second pin disposed at a distal end of the bottom jaw, as taught by Murphy. One would have been motivated to make such a modification to “fit the apertures in the [retaining] rings to squeeze or expand the ring as necessary for removal” (Col. 1, Lines 19-21).
Tseng also does not explicitly teach the dual function hand tool operably couples with a circlip via the pin assembly, but Tseng teaches another embodiment of the hand tool, which is a multi-functional tool (Tseng: pliers 166 shown in Fig. 8) in which a first function comprises operably coupling with a circlip (Tseng: Col. 6, Lines 61-67). Murphy teaches a hand tool in which a first function comprises operably coupling with a circlip via the pin assembly (Murphy: Col. 3, Lines 41-46). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the hand tool of Tseng to further comprise a pin assembly for operably coupling with a circlip. One would have been motivated to make such a modification to be further capable of “use on parts other than retaining rings, such as fuses, lights and other small parts which fit into sockets or grooves” (Murphy: Col. 3, Lines 35-40).
Regarding claim 12, the rejection of claim 11 is incorporated. Tseng and Murphy do not explicitly disclose that the first and second gripping surfaces extend a distance that is 10% of a length of the top and bottom jaws, respectively. However, Murphy teaches that the first and second gripping surfaces extend a distance that is less than 25% of a length of the top and bottom jaws (a distance D1 of the serrated gripping planar surface 74 is less than 25% of D2, a length of the top jaw 18, see annotated Fig. 3 above in the discussion of Claim 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the length of the gripping surfaces to be roughly 10% of the overall jaw length. Such a modification is viewed as change in size, which has been held to be of routine by one skilled in the art (see MPEP 2144.04). Changing the length of the gripping surface would affect the area in which the plier interacted with the object being worked upon, which would change for different intended functions. Further in the instant application, there is no criticality/unexpected results that come from the 10% limitation (see Detailed Description, ¶[0025]).
Regarding claim 13, the rejection of claim 12 is incorporated. Murphy further discloses the first and second gripping surfaces extend from the distal end of the top and bottom jaws, respectively, towards the joint assembly (the serrated gripping planar surfaces 76 and 84 extend from the distal end of the top and bottom jaws 18 and 20, respectively, towards the joint assembly).
Regarding claim 14, the rejection of claim 11 is incorporated. Tseng, as modified, further discloses that the first and second gripping surfaces each comprise teeth (the serrated gripping planar surfaces 76 and 84 each comprise teeth, as shown in Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 15, the rejection of claim 14 is incorporated. Tseng, as modified, further teaches the teeth of the first gripping surface interlace with the teeth of the second gripping surface when the top jaw is proximate to the bottom jaw (the serrated gripping planar surfaces 76 and 84 each comprise teeth, wherein the teeth of the first gripping surface 76 interlace with the teeth of the second gripping surface 84 when the top jaw 18 is proximate to the bottom jaw 20, as shown in Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 16, the rejection of claim 15 is incorporated. Tseng does not teach first and second pins disposed in respective bores formed in the top and bottom jaws. However, Murphy further discloses that the first and second pins are disposed in respective bores formed in the top and bottom jaws, respectively (pins 64 are disposed in passages 66 formed in formed in jaws 12 and 14 shown in Fig. 2; Col. 3, Lines 29-31). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the hand tool of Tseng with a pin assembly having the first and second pins are disposed in respective bores formed in the top and bottom jaws, respectively, as taught by Murphy. Tseng discloses the pliers has multiple uses (Abstract) and discloses another embodiment of the pliers used to expand snap rings (Col. 1, Lines 55-59), so one would have been motivated to make such a modification to additionally “fit the apertures in the [retaining] rings to squeeze or expand the ring as necessary for removal” (Murphy, Col. 1, Lines 19-21).
Regarding claim 17 (as best understood), the rejection of claim 16 is incorporated. Tseng and Murphy do not explicitly teach that a distance between the first and second gripping surfaces and the bores for the first and second pins, respectively, is within a range of 3 to 4 times a depth of the teeth. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the distance between the gripping surfaces and the bores of Tseng, combined with Murphy, to be roughly 3 to 4 times a depth of the teeth. Such a modification is viewed as a change in size, which has been held to be of routine by one skilled in the art (see MPEP 2144.04). Depending on the intended function and base material, a manufacturer would modify this dimension to ensure the tool has enough clearance to adequately manipulate a particular style of circlip. Further, in ¶[0029]-[0030] of the instant application, there is no criticality or unexpected results discussed on why this dimension would be used. The discussion of adequate strength is not an unexpected result—it is simply a design criterion.
Regarding claim 18, the rejection of claim 16 is incorporated. Tseng and Murphy do not explicitly teach that the first and second gripping surfaces have a smallest width proximate to the distal end of the head section that is greater than two times a diameter of the bores. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a width of the gripping surfaces, combined with Murphy, to be greater than two times a diameter of the bores. Such a modification is viewed as a change in size, which has been held to be of routine by one skilled in the art (see MPEP 2144.04). Depending on the intended function and base material, a manufacturer would modify this dimension to ensure the pins have sufficient support to manipulate a particular style of circlip without causing damage or deformation to the tool. Further, in ¶[0031]-[0032] of the instant application, there is no criticality or unexpected results discussed on why this dimension would be used. The discussion of adequate strength is not an unexpected result—it is simply a design criterion.
Regarding claim 19, the rejection of claim 18 is incorporated. Tseng and Murphy do not explicitly teach that the first and second gripping surfaces have a largest width disposed a length away from the smallest width, that is equal to three times a diameter of the bores. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a width of the gripping surfaces, combined with Murphy, to be equal to three times a diameter of the bores. Such a modification is viewed as a change in size, which has been held to be of routine by one skilled in the art (see MPEP 2144.04). Depending on the intended function and base material, a manufacturer would modify this dimension to ensure the pins have sufficient support to manipulate a particular style of circlip without causing damage or deformation to the tool. Further, in ¶[0031]-[0032] of the instant application, there is no criticality or unexpected results discussed on why this dimension would be used. The discussion of adequate strength is not an unexpected result—it is simply a design criterion.
Regarding claim 20, the rejection of claim 19 is incorporated. Tseng and Murphy do not explicitly teach that the length of the first and second gripping surfaces is substantially equal to a depth of the bores. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a length of the gripping surfaces, combined with Murphy, to be substantially equal to a depth of the bores. Such a modification is viewed as a change in size, which has been held to be of routine by one skilled in the art (see MPEP 2144.04). Depending on the intended function and base material, a manufacturer would modify this dimension to ensure the tool would to ensure the pins have sufficient support to manipulate a particular style of circlip without causing damage or deformation to the tool. Further, in ¶[0034] of the instant application, there is no criticality or unexpected results discussed on why this dimension would be used. The discussion of adequate strength is not an unexpected result—it is simply a design criterion.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Takayuki (US20040148746A1) teaches circlip pliers with teeth disposed on the surfaces of the jaws.
Park (US 5280659 A) teaches a multifunctional tool including a working edge that functions as circlip pliers.
Heinsohn (US 20070074610 A1) teaches circlip pliers with the tips placed in bores at the distal ends of the jaws.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CATHERINE JOH whose telephone number is (571)272-0410. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8a-5p.
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, David Posigian can be reached at (313) 446-6546. 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.
/C.J./Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/DAVID S POSIGIAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723