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
Claims 1-10 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 2/19/2026.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the thermally insulative layer must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “heat-producing device” in claim 11 understood to be an electronic component that needs cooling.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
“Patterned wire” is understood to be referring to how the wire is formed such that the wire is formed on a substrate by being patterned.
“Set of electromagnets” found in multiple claims is understood to be referring to at least two electromagnets.
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.
Claim 14 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 14 recites “a first section” and “a second section” for locations of part of the set of electromagnets but it is unclear how this relates to the “first region” that the set of electromagnets are required to be located in. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is understood that the first section and the second section are within the first region.
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) 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiang et al. (US PG Pub 20040182086), hereinafter referred to as Chiang and further in view of Vetrovec (US PG Pub 20090126922), hereinafter referred to as Vetrovec
With respect to claim 11, Chiang teaches a cooling system (Figure 7) comprising:
a magnetocaloric medium (the plurality of magnetocaloric refrigeration devices 1 arranged in series contain a magnetocaloric medium 10, paragraphs 44-45),
a first electromagnetic located adjacent to a first region of the magnetocaloric medium (electromagnet 7b mounted near one side of one of the magnetocaloric refrigeration devices, paragraph 45 is on the left side of the three overall devices shown which can be considered the first region),
a second electromagnet located adjacent to a second region of the magnetocaloric medium (electromagnet 7a mounted near one side of a different one of the magnetocaloric refrigeration devices, paragraph 45 is on the right side of the three overall devices shown which can be considered the second).
Chiang does not teach a heat-producing device and a system heat sink wherein the first region is located adjacent heat-producing device and where the second region is located adjacent to the system heat sink. It should be noted that as shown, heat is flowed from left to right in Figure 7, which could be and is likely from a heat producing device to a heat sink, but they are not shown in Chiang.
Vetrovec teaches that a magnetic cooling system (Figure 1B, body 102) is connected on one side with a heat generating component such as electronic chips and vacuum electronic components and other the other side to a heat sink (paragraph 12 and 53) and .
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have when operating Chiang to transfer heat from one side of the device to the other for the first region to have been in contact (and thus adjacent) with a heat generating component such as electronic chips (which would read on heat-producing device as interpreted under 35 USC 112(f)) to have had the second region be in contact (and thus adjacent) with a heat sink based on the teaching of Vetrovec since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby this would provide what is common knowledge in the art of a specific way that Chiang can be used to provide cooling to a component that requires cooling with the benefits described Chiang (Chiang teaches high efficiency).
Chiang does not teach the first electromagnet is a first set of electromagnets or the second electromagnet is a second set of electromagnets.
Chiang does teach that there are a plurality of magnetocaloric refrigeration devices in series as well as a plurality of equally spaced electromagnets (paragraphs 44-45). Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have had at least two additional electromagnets spaced along the device corresponding to two additional magnetic refrigeration devices in Chiang such that there can be consider to be a first and second set of electromagnets, two on one side, two on the other as the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new an unexpected result is produced whereby having additional units instead of only the three shown is within the scope of “plurality” as described by Chiang and would only either increase the size of the cooling device which would increase cooling capacity or allow for the individual refrigeration devices to be smaller.
With respect to claims 12-13, Chiang does not teach further comprising a third set of electromagnets located adjacent to a third region of the magnetocaloric medium, wherein the third region partially overlaps the first region, wherein the first set of electromagnets comprises a first electromagnet and second electromagnet and wherein the third set of electromagnets comprises the second electromagnet and a third electromagnet.
Chiang does teach that there are a plurality of magnetocaloric refrigeration devices in series as well as a plurality of equally spaced electromagnets (paragraphs 44-45). Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have had at least one additional electro magnets spaced along the device corresponding between the two previously established sets in Chiang such that there can be consider to be another electromagnet which can be considered the third electromagnet, and the second electromagnet of the first set can be considered both part of the first and third region as claimed as the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new an unexpected result is produced whereby having additional units totaling five electromagnets instead of only the two shown is within the scope of “plurality” as described by Chiang and would only either increase the size of the cooling device which would increase cooling capacity or allow for the individual refrigeration devices to be smaller.
With respect to claim 14, Chiang as modified teaches wherein the first set of electromagnets comprises a first electromagnet and a second electromagnet and wherein the first electromagnet is located adjacent to a first section of the magnetocaloric medium and wherein the second electromagnet is located adjacent to a second section of the magnetocaloric medium (as modified the first set of electromagnets is two electromagnets side by side, which would provide them in this configuration).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiang/Vetrovec and further in view of Holmes et al. (US PG Pub 20210305480), hereinafter referred to as Holmes.
With respect to claim 15, Chiang as modified does not teach wherein the electromagnets within the first set of electromagnets take the form of a set of patterned wires.
Holmes teaches that to form an electromagnet a superconductor can be deposited on a substrate and then patterned to form wires (paragraph 42).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have formed the first set of electromagnets by depositing a superconductor onto a surface which is then patterned to form wires since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would consider it common knowledge in the art for the design of the electromagnet to have been chosen from a known method for the electromagnet to have been formed.
Claim(s)16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiang/Vetrovec and further in view of Carroll et al. (US PG Pub 20110094243), hereinafter referred to as Carroll.
With respect to claim 16, Chiang as modified does not teach further comprising a thermally insulative layer between the magnetocaloric medium and the heat-producing device.
Carroll teaches it is important to surround a magnetocaloric material with sufficient insulation to allow temperature to build up through the magnetocaloric bed and without using insulation, the losses become too large for a temperature gradient to build up in the bed (paragraph 163-164).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have provided insulation surrounding the magnetocaloric medium of Chiang as modified (which would provide an insulative layer between the medium and the heat producing device) in order to ensure that the temperature gradient can be formed across the magnetocaloric material which would be understood as allowing the heat transfer to occur through the magnetocaloric material.
Claim(s) 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiang/Vetrovec and further in view of Tolinski et al. (Specific heat and magnetocaloric effect of the Mn5Ge3 ferromagnet).
With respect to claim 17, Chiang (Figure 7) as modified teaches a first magnetocaloric thermal transport medium (the plurality of magnetocaloric refrigeration devices 1 arranged in series contain a magnetocaloric medium 10, paragraphs 44-45
Chiang does not teach a system heat sink, the first magnetocaloric thermal transport medium is connected to the heat sink a system heat sink.
Vetrovec teaches that a magnetic cooling system (Figure 1B, body 102) is connected on one side with a heat generating component such as a LED, solid-state laser crystal, optical component and other the other side to a heat sink (paragraph 53).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have when operating Chiang to transfer heat from one side of the devices to the other for the first region to have been in contact (and thus adjacent) with a heat generating component and to have had the second region be in contact (and thus adjacent) with a heat sink based on the teaching of Vetrovec since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby this would provide what is common knowledge in the art of a specific way that Chiang can be used to provide cooling to a component that requires cooling with the benefits described Chiang (Chiang teaches high efficiency).
Chiang does not teach wherein the first magnetocaloric thermal transport medium comprise a semimetal.
Tolinski teaches that Mn5Ge3 (which is a semimetal) has a known magnetocaloric effect (abstract, introduction).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have based on the teaching of Tolinski had the magnetocaloric material of Chiang to have been a semimetal (such as Mn5Ge3) as it has been shown that a simple substitution of one known element for another to yield predictable results is obvious whereby as a semimetal is known to be useable for the magnetocaloric material it would have been prima facie obvious to have used a semimetal in the magnetocaloric material of Chiang for the predictable result of a material suitable to provide the predictable result of providing a magnetocaloric response.
With respect to claim 18, Chiang as modified teaches wherein the first magnetocaloric thermal transport medium takes the form of an intermediate magnetocaloric heat sink (as heat is transferred from the device to the heat sink via the magnetocaloric material, it can be considered to be an intermediate heat sink).
With respect to claim 19, Chiang as modified teaches a first electromagnetic located adjacent to a first region of the magnetocaloric medium (electromagnet 7b, paragraph 45 is on the left side of the three overall devices shown which can be considered the first region),
a second electromagnet located adjacent to a second region of the magnetocaloric medium (electromagnet 7a, paragraph 45 is on the right side of the three overall devices shown which can be considered the second).
Chiang does not teach the first electromagnet is a first set of electromagnets or the second electromagnet is a second set of electromagnets.
Chiang does teach that there are a plurality of magnetocaloric refrigeration devices in series as well as a plurality of equally spaced electromagnets (paragraphs 44-45). Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have had at least two additional electro magnets spaced along the device corresponding to two additional magnetic refrigeration devices in Chiang such that there can be consider to be a first and second set of electromagnets, two on one side, two on the other as the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new an unexpected result is produced whereby having additional units instead of only the three shown is within the scope of “plurality” as described by Chiang and would only either increase the size of the cooling device which would increase cooling capacity or allow for the individual refrigeration devices to be smaller.
Claim(s) 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiang/Vetrovec/Tolinski and further in view of Liu et al. (Comparative Raman study of Weyl semimetals TaAs, NbAs, TaP and NbP).
With respect to claim 20, Chiang does not teach wherein the semimetal is niobium phosphide.
Liu teaches that because of their large magneto-resistance Weyl semimetals are appealing for applications (introduction) and Niobium Phosphide is a known Weyl semimetal (experiment).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention as filed to have when using a semimetal in Chiang as modified for it to have been obvious based on Liu for that semimetal to have been Niobium Phosphide instead of Mn5Ge3 as they are both know Weyl semimetals and as such would be expected to have similar properties and as such it would be considered prima facie obvious to have substituted one for the other to provide the predictable result of a material that would predictably provide a magnetocaloric response.
With respect to claim 21, Chiang (Figure 7) does not teach further comprising a second magnetocaloric thermal transport medium.
Chiang (Figure 8) teaches that multiple magnetocaloric materials can be used in different ratios to provide a temperature ranges layer larger compared to the prior art (paragraph 46).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have based on the teaching of Chiang (Figure 8) to have included a second magnetocaloric material in Chiang (Figure 7) as modified in order to be able to tolerate a larger temperature range layer.
Further it has already been established obvious in Chiang (Figure 7) as modified that using a Weyl semimetal is a known and suitable magnetocaloric material; however, this modification does not teach wherein the second magnetocaloric thermal transport medium comprises tantalum arsenide.
Liu teaches that because of their large magneto-resistance Weyl semimetals are appealing for applications (introduction) and Tantalum Arsenide is a known Weyl semimetal (experiment).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have based on the teaching of Liu to have when using a second magnetocaloric material for that material to have been Tantalum Arsenide since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby as Weyl semimetals are known to be used as a magnetocaloric material that it would have been obvious to have chosen among them including Tantalum Arsenide for the predictable result of providing a magnetocaloric response.
Claim(s) 22-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiang.
With respect to claim 22, Chiang (Figure 7) teaches a method comprising:
activating a first electromagnet that is adjacent to a magnetocaloric region (electromagnet 7a is magnetized, which activates opposite of 7b, paragraph 45, which creates periodic magnetic fields along the device, paragraph 44) wherein activating the first set of electromagnets divides the magnetocaloric medium into an activated region and an inactivated region (as 7a and 7b are activated opposite one another, there would be an active region where 7a is magnetized) on the left right side and an inactive region when 7b is not magnetized).
Chiang does not teach the first electromagnet is a set of electromagnets.
Chiang does teach that there are a plurality of magnetocaloric refrigeration devices in series as well as a plurality of equally spaced electromagnets (paragraphs 44-45). Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have had at least two additional electro magnets spaced along the device corresponding to two additional magnetic refrigeration devices in Chiang such that there can be consider to be a first (7a formed as two electromagnets) and second set of electromagnets (7b formed as two electromagnets), two on one side, two on the other as the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new an unexpected result is produced whereby having additional units instead of only the three shown is within the scope of “plurality” as described by Chiang and would only either increase the size of the cooling device which would increase cooling capacity or allow for the individual refrigeration devices to be smaller. The two together replacing the one 7a would do the work of 7a, and the two together in place of the one 7b would do the work of 7b.
With respect to claim 23, Chiang as modified teaches deactivating the first set of electromagnets (7a and 7b are alternatively magnetized and demagnetized, paragraph 45, which would be the set that is 7a and 7b as modified), and activating a second electric magnet (when 7a is demagnetized, 7b is magnetized), wherein activating the second set of electromagnets results in a second activated region in the magnetocaloric medium (when 7b is magnetized, a different region would be activated in the magnetocaloric working unit 10 than when 7a is magnetized).
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiang and further in view of Buchalla (US PG Pub 20160090979), hereinafter referred to as Buchalla.
With respect to claim 24, Chiang as modified does not teach wherein the activated region has a higher specific heat capacity than the inactivated region. Chiang does teach that the magnetocaloric working material can be one material (paragraph 33).
Buchalla teaches that applying a magnetic field to magnetocaloric material changes the specific heat capacity.
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have chosen a material that when the magnetic field is applied (activated) it has a higher specific heat capacity than the other region (the same material with no magnetic field) since it has been shown from choosing form a finite number of identified predictable solutions is obvious whereby as it is known that applying a magnetic field changes the specific heat capacity of magnetocaloric material, such change can only be either an increase or decrease and as such it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed for the activated region to have a higher specific heat capacity than the inactivated region for the predictable result of being able absorb more heat for transfer without increasing in temperature as much as when it had a lower specific heat capacity.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Sohn (US PG Pub 20110302930) which teaches using a magnetocaloric unit to connect a heat load to a heat sink.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN M KING whose telephone number is (571)272-2816. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 0800-1700.
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, Frantz Jules can be reached at 5712726681. 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.
/BRIAN M KING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights