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 .
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 8, “thicknesses;” should read “thicknesses; and”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 7, 17 and 19 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.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the sealing element" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The limitation of “at least one sealing element” is previously introduced in line 5 of claim 1. Therefore, in the case of more than one sealing element, it is unclear which individual “sealing element” is being referred to in the recitation of claim 7.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the sealing element" in lines 1 and 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The limitation of “at least one sealing element” is previously introduced in line 5 of claim 1. Therefore, in the case of more than one sealing element, it is unclear which individual “sealing element” is being referred to in the recitations of claim 17.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the media passages" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no previous explicit mention of “media passages” in the claims.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "The assembly according to claim 17" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no “assembly” presenting in claim 17. For examination purposes, claim 19 has been interpreted as intending to be dependent on claim 18, which recites “An assembly…”.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the sealing element" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The limitation of “at least one sealing element” is previously introduced in line 5 of claim 1. Therefore, in the case of more than one sealing element, it is unclear which individual “sealing element” is being referred to in the recitation of claim 19.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7, 12, 15-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Stahl et al. (U.S. 2022/0320533).
Regarding claim 1, Stahl discloses a separator plate for an electrochemical system (see e.g. Figs. 1-2, bipolar plate 104 of electrochemical device; Paragraph 0070), the separator plate comprising:
a first metal plate (see e.g. Fig. 2, second bipolar plate layer 110 made of second metallic material; Paragraphs 0072-0073), the first plate having a flow field with channel structures integrally formed in the first plate, the flow field guiding a reaction medium or product medium along the first plate (see e.g. Paragraphs 0078 and 0088, flow field formed on respective outer surface of the bipolar plate layer),
a second metal plate having at least one sealing element for sealing off at least one region of the separator plate (see e.g. Fig. 2, first bipolar plate layer 108 made of first metallic material comprising fixed sealing element 140 for sealing medium channel; Paragraphs 0072-0073 and 0089),
wherein the first plate and the second plate differ from each other in at least one material property (see e.g. Paragraphs 0042 and 0074, the first and second metallic materials being different, particularly in their thermal conductivity) and/or in their thickness (see e.g. Fig. 2, bipolar plate layers 108 and 110 having different respective thicknesses H1 and H2 at least in region of welding seam 126; Paragraph 0109), and
wherein the first plate and the second plate are connected to each other in a materially bonded manner (see e.g. Figs. 1-2, bipolar plate layers 108 and 110 fixed in materially bonded manner along welding seams 126; Paragraph 0081).
Regarding claim 2, Stahl discloses said material property comprising a chemical composition (see e.g. Paragraphs 0042 and 0074, the first and second metallic materials being different metallic materials of different thermal conductivity, i.e. having different compositions).
Regarding claim 4, Stahl discloses the first plate and the second plate overlapping in the region of the channel structures of the first plate (see e.g. Figs. 1-2, flow fields 116 formed on respective outer surfaces of the two bipolar plate layers 108 and 110, thereby overlapping each other; Paragraphs 0078 and 0088).
Regarding clam 5, Stahl discloses the second plate being a continuous closed plate at least in the region of overlap with the first plate (see e.g. Paragraph 0078, flow field in interspace, i.e. overlapping region of the two bipolar plate layers, enabling medium to flow transversely therebetween, indicating that the layers are closed and continuous in said region).
Regarding claim 7, Stahl discloses the second plate having a frame-like border region which extends around the circumferential edge of the first plate, wherein the sealing element is arranged in the frame-like border region (see e.g. Figs. 1-2, sealing element 140 on first bipolar plate layer 108 forming medium sealing arrangement arrangements 136 located in frame-like border region shown around flow field 116; Paragraphs 0083-0084 and 0089).
Regarding claim 12, Stahl discloses the first plate and the second plate being welded in an abutting or overlapping manner (see e.g. Fig. 2, bipolar plate layers 108 and 110 overlapping at welding seam 126; Paragraph 0081).
Regarding claim 15, Stahl discloses the first plate and the second plate being welded to each other by laser welding (see e.g. Paragraph 0081).
Regarding claim 16, Stahl discloses the flow field of the first plate forming a support surface for a membrane electrode assembly of an electrochemical cell (see e.g. Fig. 1, flow field sealing element of flow field sealing arrangement 132 produced on gas diffusion layer of membrane electrode assembly abutting the flow field 116 of the respective bipolar plate layer 110, which thereby forms a support surface; Paragraphs 0071, 0078, 0085 and 0088).
Regarding claim 17, Stahl discloses the sealing element comprising an elastomer bead bonded to a plate body of the second plate (see e.g. Fig. 2, sealing element 140 comprising elastomer fixed/bonded to side of first bipolar plate layer 108; Paragraphs 0056, 0089 and 0092), and the sealing element sealing off media passages (see e.g. Figs. 1-2, sealing element 140 forming medium channel sealing arrangements 136 around medium channels 114; Paragraphs 0084 and 0089).
Regarding claim 18, Stahl discloses an assembly for an electrochemical system (see e.g. Fig. 1, electrochemical device 100; Paragraph 0069, lines 1-3), comprising a separator plate according to claim 1, a membrane electrode assembly (MEA) arranged on the flow field side of the first plate, and a media diffusion structure arranged between the MEA and the flow field (see e.g. Fig. 1, respective bipolar plate 104 and MEA including catalyst coated membrane and gas diffusion layer which abuts the respective flow field 116 of the respective bipolar plate layer 110 via flow field sealing element; Paragraphs 0070-0071, 0078, 0085 and 0088).
Regarding claim 20, Stahl discloses an electrochemical system, comprising a plurality of stacked separator plates according to claim 1 or a plurality of assemblies (see e.g. Fig. 1, electrochemical device 100 comprising a stack of a plurality of electrochemical units each including a respective bipolar plate 104 and membrane electrode assembly; Paragraphs 0069-0070).
Claims 1 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Boyer et al. (U.S. 2004/0159543).
Regarding claim 1, Boyer discloses a separator plate for an electrochemical system (see e.g. Paragraph 0013, lines 1-3, Paragraph 0017, lines 1-5, and Paragraph 0038, lines 10-12, electrochemical cell component comprising plate accommodating flow field provided between respective MEAs, i.e. forming a separator plate) the separator plate comprising:
a first metal plate, the first plate having a flow field with channel structures integrally formed in the first plate, the flow field guiding a reaction medium or product medium along the first plate (see e.g. Fig. 1, metal flow field 14 comprising passages for reactant fluids; Paragraph 0007, lines 6-9, Paragraph 0023, and Paragraph 0050, lines 1-5),
a second metal plate having at least one sealing element for sealing off at least one region of the separator plate (see e.g. Fig. 1, frame 11 made of metal and including integral sealing element 25 or 26; Paragraph 0013, lines 7-9, Paragraph 0050, line 1, and Paragraph 0054),
wherein the first plate and the second plate differ from each other in at least one material property (see e.g. Paragraph 0013, lines 7-9, and Paragraph 0017, porous flow field, i.e. as metal mesh, screen, felt or foam, differing from solid metal plate forming frame, thereby differing in at least material porosity along with flexibility in the case of the mesh, screen and felt), and
wherein the first plate and the second plate are connected to each other in a materially bonded manner (see e.g. Paragraph 0043, lines 1-3, flow field bonded to frame).
Regarding claim 10, Boyer discloses the first plate and the second plate not overlapping in the region of the channel structures of the first plate (see e.g. Fig. 1, frame 11 surrounding flow field 14 but not overlapping; Paragraph 0050, line 1).
Regarding claim 11, Boyer discloses the second plate being frame-like and the first plate terminating in the outward direction at its circumferential edge, wherein the first plate is inserted into the frame-like second plate (see e.g. Figs. 1, flow field 14 with terminated circumferential edge inserted into frame 11 so as to be surrounded by it; Paragraph 0043, lines 1-3, and Paragraph 0050, line 1).
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.
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.
Claims 3 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stahl in view of Stewart et al. (U.S. 2016/0315332).
Regarding claim 3, Stahl teaches all the elements of the separator plate of claim 1 as stated above. Stahl does not explicitly teach a material thickness of the first plate being between 0.1 and 0.6 mm, and/or a material thickness of the second plate being between 0.1 and 1.2 mm, but does teach them having different material thicknesses (see e.g. Paragraph 0109).
Stewart teaches a bipolar plate for a fuel cell comprising a two half plates (see e.g. Abstract) wherein the two half plates have different thicknesses, the thicker of the two taking over the load-bearing function of the bipolar plate (see e.g. Paragraph 0013, lines 1-6) and having a thickness preferably in the range of 0.1 to 0.2 mm (see e.g. Paragraph 0020), while the other plate may be thinner and thus reduce the overall weight of the bipolar plate and with it the material costs (see e.g. Paragraph 0013, lines 6-11 and Paragraph 0014).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the separator plate of Stahl to provide either the first plate or the second plate with a material thickness in the range of 0.1 to 0.2 mm while the other plate is thinner as taught by Stewart to enable the specified plate to take over the load-bearing function of the separator plate while reducing overall weight and thus material costs.
Regarding claim 14, Stahl teaches all the elements of the separator plate of claim 1 as stated above. Stahl does not explicitly teach a plate body of the first plate and/or a plate body of the second plate being made of stainless steel and/or titanium, but does teach the metallic material of the second plate preferably having a higher thermal conductivity than that of the first plate (see e.g. Paragraph 0042), though the two metallic materials may be identical in principle (see e.g. Paragraph 0041).
Stewart teaches a bipolar plate for a fuel cell comprising a two half plates (see e.g. Abstract) wherein the half plates may be formed of metals having high electrical and thermal conductivity, with stainless steel being particularly preferred (see e.g. Paragraph 0018).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the separator plate of Stahl to have at least the first or both the first and second plates made of stainless steel as taught by Stewart as a particularly preferable metal for forming a bipolar plate with high electrical and thermal conductivity. MPEP § 2144.07 states “The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945)”.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stahl in view of Blank et al. (WO 2009015712 A1, citations based on translation).
Regarding claim 6, Stahl teaches all the elements of the separator plate of claim 5 as stated above. Stahl further teaches a cavity being defined between the first plate and the second plate in the region of the flow field (see e.g. Paragraph 0078, cooling medium flow field in the interspace between the first and second bipolar plate layers). Stahl does not teach pressure-equalizing openings being provided in the channel structures in order to fluidically connect the cavity to a side of the first plate facing away from the second plate. Stahl does however teach a side of the first plate facing away from the second plate comprising a flow field adjacent an anode side or a cathode side of an adjoining membrane electrode assembly (see e.g. Paragraphs 0071, 0078, 85 and 0088, flow field formed on respective outer surface of the bipolar plate layer abutting gas diffusion layer on anode or cathode side of MEA), as well as the separator plate being used in an electrochemical device such as a fuel cell comprising the membrane electrode assembly (see e.g. Paragraphs 0069-0070).
Blank teaches a bipolar plate for a fuel cell (see e.g. Paragraph 0001) comprising at least two parallel metal plates formed by an anode plate and cathode plate (see e.g. Figs. 1-2, anode plate 2 and cathode plate 3; Paragraph 0029 and Paragraph 0030, lines 1-2) wherein at least one coolant channel and at least one metering channel are formed between the two plates (see e.g. Figs. 1-2, coolant channels K3 and metering channels K4; Paragraph 0031, lines 1-4), wherein the cathode plate in the area of the metering channels has recesses/boreholes that fluidly connect, and thereby equalize in pressure, the metering channel with cathode channels forming the cathode flow field on the outer surface of the cathode plate (see e.g. Figs. 1-2, recesses/boreholes 4 in cathode plate 2; Paragraph 0033 and Paragraph 0015, lines 7-8), the provision of this connected metering channel allowing for simple dosing of the membrane of an adjacent fuel cell with water so that it may exhibit sufficient ionic conductivity (see e.g. Paragraphs 0006-0008 and Paragraph 0011, lines 8-10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the separator plate of Stahl to comprise metering channels between the two plates with boreholes formed in one of the two plates, i.e. the first plate or the second plate, that fluidly connect, and thereby equalize in pressure, to a flow field on the outer surface of said plate as taught by Blank to allow for simple dosing of the membrane of an adjacent electrochemical cell assembly with water so that it may exhibit sufficient ionic conductivity. The specific plate is a finite choice between the two. MPEP § 2143(I)(E) states that it may be obvious to choose “from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success”.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stahl in view of Newman et al. (U.S. 2005/0252892).
Regarding claim 8, Stahl teaches all the elements of the separator plate of claim 1 as stated above. Stahl does not teach a third metal plate which has a flow field with channel structures which guide a product medium or reaction medium along the third plate, wherein the second plate is arranged between the first plate and the third plate,
wherein the third plate and the second plate differ from each other in at least one material property and/or in their material thicknesses, and wherein the third plate and the second plate are connected to each other in a materially bonded manner. Stahl does however teach both outer surfaces of the separator plate comprising a flow field as well as a cooling medium flow field being formed between the respective two outer layers (see e.g. Paragraphs 0078 and 0088, respective flow fields on bipolar plate layers forming the surfaces of the bipolar plate as well as a cooling medium flow field in the interspace therebetween), and that a thermal conduction coating with a thermal conductivity greater than the outer two layers may be provided between the first and second layers (see e.g. Fig. 3, thermal conduction coating 146; Paragraphs 0110 and 0112-0113).
Newman teaches a bipolar plate for fuel cells (see e.g. Abstract) comprising two exterior metal sheets each comprising an outer reactant gas grooves forming flow fields and inner coolant channels (see e.g. Fig. 3, exterior metal sheets 90 and 92 with reactant gas grooves 100 and 128 and coolant channels 112 and 118; Paragraph 0027, lines 1-3 and 8-15, Paragraph 0028, lines 1-4 and Paragraph 0029, lines 1-8) which are bonded to either side of an interior spacer metal sheet (see e.g. Fig. 3, interior spacer metal sheet 94; Paragraph 0027, lines 3-5, and Paragraph 0030, lines 1-5), the interior spacer plate including apertures that permit coolant to flow between the coolant channels of the two exterior sheets, thereby enhancing heat exchange with the inside surfaces of the respective exterior sheets (see e.g. Paragraph 0029, lines 8-15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the separator plate of Stahl to have its two layers form exterior metal plates each comprising flow fields that are bonded to an interior spacer metal plate with a thermal conductivity greater than that of the two exterior plates that has apertures permitting coolant to flow between inner channels of the two exterior plates as taught by Newman to enhance heat exchange with the inside surfaces of the respective exterior plates, while also providing the desired intervening thermal conduction layer of Stahl.
Regarding claim 9, modified Stahl teaches the first plate and the third plate being made of the same material (see e.g. Stahl Paragraphs 0041 and 0112-0113, the first and second metallic materials may be identical to each other, and may both have lower thermal conductivity than the thermal conduction coating).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stahl in view of Blanchet et al. (U.S. 2014/0051007).
Regarding claim 13, Stahl teaches all the elements of the separator plate of claim 1 as stated above. Stahl does not teach the second plate having a depression, and the first plate being connected to the second plate in the region of the depression.
Blanchet teaches a bipolar plate for an electrochemical cell (see e.g. Paragraph 0002) comprising a first frame part in which a flow field is provided and a second plate part (see e.g. Fig. 7, first framing piece 30A forming pocket for flow structure 20 and second flat plate 30B; Paragraphs 0027, lines 5-8, and Paragraph 0037, lines 1-8), wherein the second plate may comprise depressions which mate with protrusions on the first part to form interlocking features which may be secured by additional attachment mechanisms such as welding (see e.g. Fig. 7, interlocking features 40 comprising protrusions 41 on frame 30A and indentations/depressions on flat plate 30B; Paragraphs 0039-0040 and Paragraph 0049, lines 1-6), these interlocking features providing a nesting arrangement that provides a strong and secure connection between the two parts (see e.g. Paragraph 0050, lines 1-5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the separator plate of Stahl to have the second plate comprise depressions that mate with protrusions on the first plate at a point at which they are attached as taught by Blanchet to provide a strong and secure connection between the two plates.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stahl in view of Kaiser et al. (U.S. 2008/0124610).
Regarding claim 19, Stahl teaches all the elements of the assembly of claim 18 as stated above. Stahl does not teach a cell frame which is arranged around the first plate and is arranged on the sealing element of the second plate. Stahl does teach both the first and second plates comprising flow fields (see e.g. Paragraphs 0078 and 0088, respective flow fields on bipolar plate layers forming the surfaces of the bipolar plate).
Kaiser teaches a bipolar plate for a fuel cell stack (see e.g. Abstract) comprising two metal disc parts which are joined together by a process such as welding (see e.g. Fig. 1, disc parts 2.1 and 2.2; Paragraph 0044, lines 8-14), wherein the first part is smaller than the second part and has external dimensions corresponding to the dimensions of its flow field (see e.g. Figs. 1 and 3, disc part 2.1 sized to flow field F1; Paragraph 0047, lines 1-7) while the second part is larger with external dimensions corresponding to a frame which surrounds its flow field (see e.g. Figs. 1-2, disc part 2.2 with frame R and flow field F2; Paragraph 0047, lines 7-9), the frame of the second part including an inlet and outlet for reaction media (see e.g. Figs. 1-2, inlet 6.2 and outlet 6.1; Paragraph 0048, lines 1-7) as well as a sealing web for sealing the upper face (see e.g. Figs. 11, sealing web 18; Paragraph 0063, liens 1-6 and 9-13), and a frame-like sealing element, i.e. forming a cell frame, is provided surrounding the first part and resting on the sealing web of the second part (see e.g. Figs. 1, 6 and 15-16, sealing element 10.1 resting on sealing web 18; Paragraph 0057, and Paragraph 0063, lines 6-8), thereby providing complete sealing of the bipolar plate on the outside (see e.g. Paragraph 0050, lines 1-2), the reduction in size of one of the disk parts saving both material and manufacturing costs, as well as reducing the effort required for quality assurance and leak testing (see e.g. Paragraph 0018, lines 14-19).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the assembly of Stahl to have the first plate with smaller external dimensions than the second plate while a frame-like sealing element, i.e. cell frame, is provided around the first plate and resting on the sealing element of the second plate as taught by Kaiser to save material and manufacturing costs, as well as reducing the effort required for quality assurance and leak testing, while ensuring complete sealing of the separator plate.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Gao (U.S. 2013/0022896) discloses a bipolar plate comprising a central electrochemical reaction region joined to a frame-shaped non-electrochemical reaction region in a depression therein, the material of the non-electrochemical reaction region metal portion may be formed of a material of reduced material density.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOFOLUWASO S JEBUTU whose telephone number is (571)272-1919. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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, Luan Van can be reached at (571) 272-8521. 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.
/MOFOLUWASO S JEBUTU/Examiner, Art Unit 1795
Prosecution Insights