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 .
Introduction
Claims 1-20 are currently pending in this application and are subject to examination herein.
Information Disclosure Statements
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/02/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
However, the information disclosure statement filed 05/07/2024 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature (“NPL”) publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. No copy of the NPL document was provided in the instant application for the IDS filed on 05/07/2024. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 103 (Figs. 5C, 5D). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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
Claims 1-20 recite the invention as an “electric work vehicle”. However, it does not appear that Applicant defines what constitutes an “electric work vehicle” and does not appear to limit the scope of the invention in that way. While the instant Specification does give an example of an electric work vehicle being a tractor (Spec at Para. [0001]; see also Paras. [0003], [0055]), the Specification expressly states that “[e]lectric work vehicles according to the present invention may be a tractor or other agricultural vehicle, but any desirable type of electric work vehicle is applicable to and usable with preferred embodiments of the present invention.” (Para. [0055]). For purposes of examination, the Examiner must utilize the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (“BRI”) consistent with the specification, see MPEP 2111, and the Examiner interprets “electric work vehicle” as “a vehicle utilizing electric motors to do work.”
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 7 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 7 recites the limitation "the second inlet opening" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claimed “second inlet opening” appears in Claim 2, but Claim 7 depends from Claim 3 (which depends from Claim 1) and does not depend from Claim 2.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3 and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Int’l. Pat. Pub. No. WO 2022/210486 to Yanagihara et al. (hereinafter Yanagihara) (cited by Applicant in IDS filed on 07/02/2025) (Page and line citations refer to the translation filed by Applicant).
Regarding claim 1, Yanagihara discloses an electric work vehicle (Fig. 1; P. 2, lines 25-40) comprising:
a rear housing (rear portion of case 3 formed by first surrounding wall 41A and second surrounding wall 41B) (Fig. 2; P. 13, lines 18-23);
a first motor (first rotating electrical machine 1A) (Fig. 1; P. 4, lines 22 to p. 5, line 20; p. 5, line 35 to p. 6, line 11) to drive a first rear wheel (first wheel W1) (Fig. 1; P. 4, lines 22-35), the first motor (first rotating electrical machine 1A) (Fig. 1; P. 4, lines 22 to p. 5, line 20; p. 5, line 35 to p. 6, line 11) being supported by the rear housing (rear portion of case 3 formed by first surrounding wall 41A and second surrounding wall 41B) (Fig. 2; P. 13, lines 18-23); and
a second motor (second rotating electrical machine 1B) (Fig. 1; P. 4, lines 22 to p. 5, line 20; p. 5, line 35 to p. 6, line 11) to drive a second rear wheel (second wheel W2) (Fig. 1; P. 4, lines 22-35), the second motor (second rotating electrical machine 1B) (Fig. 1; P. 4, lines 22 to p. 5, line 20; p. 5, line 35 to p. 6, line 11) being supported by the rear housing (rear portion of case 3 formed by first surrounding wall 41A and second surrounding wall 41B) (Fig. 2; P. 13, lines 18-23);
wherein a first oil path (one or more of oil path(s) 24-27) (Figs. 5-7; P. 16, line 14 to p. 19, line 37) is defined within the rear housing (rear portion of case 3 formed by first surrounding wall 41A and second surrounding wall 41B) (Fig. 2; P. 13, lines 18-23);
and the first oil path (one or more of oil path(s) 24-27) (Figs. 5-7; P. 16, line 14 to p. 19, line 37) includes a first inlet opening (second oil passage 24B) (Fig. 7; P. 16, lines 14-33) which is provided in a front portion (see Figs. 5-7) of the rear housing (rear portion of case 3 formed by first surrounding wall 41A and second surrounding wall 41B) (Fig. 2; P. 13, lines 18-23) in a front-rear direction (see Figs. 1-2, 5-7) of the electrical vehicle (Fig. 1; P. 2, lines 25-40).
Regarding claim 3, Yanagihara discloses the electric work vehicle according to claim 1 (see above). Furthermore, Yanaghihara discloses an electric work vehicle (Fig. 1; P. 2, lines 25-40) further comprising:
a second oil path (second of oil path(s) 24-27) (Figs. 5-7; P. 16, line 14 to p. 19, line 37) which is defined within the rear housing (rear portion of case 3 formed by first surrounding wall 41A and second surrounding wall 41B) (Fig. 2; P. 13, lines 18-23);
wherein the first motor (first rotating electrical machine 1A) (Fig. 1; P. 4, lines 22 to p. 5, line 20; p. 5, line 35 to p. 6, line 11) is connected to a first motor shaft (first rotor shaft 13A) (Figs. 1-2; P. 19, lines 22-37) and the second motor (second rotating electrical machine 1B) (Fig. 1; P. 4, lines 22 to p. 5, line 20; p. 5, line 35 to p. 6, line 11) is connected to a second motor shaft (second rotor shaft 13B) (Figs. 1-2; P. 19, lines 22-37);
the first motor shaft (first rotor shaft 13A) (Figs. 1-2; P. 19, lines 22-37) and the second motor shaft (second rotor shaft 13B) (Figs. 1-2; P. 19, lines 22-37) are at least partially hollow (Fig. 2; P. 19, lines 22-37) and arranged coaxially with one another (see Figs. 1-2) within the rear housing (rear portion of case 3 formed by first surrounding wall 41A and second surrounding wall 41B) (Fig. 2; P. 13, lines 18-23);
the first oil path (one or more of oil path(s) 24-27) (Figs. 5-7; P. 16, line 14 to p. 19, line 37) introduces oil above (via second cooling oil passage 28A, 28B) (Figs. 1-2; P. 19, lines 1-9) the first motor shaft (first rotor shaft 13A) (Figs. 1-2; P. 19, lines 22-37) in an up-down direction of the electrical vehicle; and
the second oil path (second of oil path(s) 24-27) (Figs. 5-7; P. 16, line 14 to p. 19, line 37) introduces oil (via third oil cooling passage 27C) (Fig. 2; P. 19, lines 11-37) to an inside of the first motor shaft (first rotor shaft 13A) (Figs. 1-2; P. 19, lines 22-37) and the second motor shaft (second rotor shaft 13B) (Figs. 1-2; P. 19, lines 22-37).
Regarding claim 16, Yanagihara discloses the electric work vehicle according to claim 1 (see above). Furthermore, Yanaghihara discloses an electric work vehicle (Fig. 1; P. 2, lines 25-40) wherein
the first motor (first rotating electrical machine 1A) (Fig. 1; P. 4, lines 22 to p. 5, line 20; p. 5, line 35 to p. 6, line 11) is connected to a first gearing (first transmission system T1) (Fig. 1; P. 6, lines 13-44) to drive the first rear wheel (first wheel W1) (Fig. 1; P. 4, lines 22-35);
the second motor (second rotating electrical machine 1B) (Fig. 1; P. 4, lines 22 to p. 5, line 20; p. 5, line 35 to p. 6, line 11) is connected to a second gearing (second transmission system T2) (Fig. 1; P. 6, lines 13-44) to drive the second rear wheel (second wheel W2) (Fig. 1; P. 4, lines 22-35);
an outermost portion (first differential input gear 7A) (Figs. 1-2; P. 6, lines 13-44) of the first gearing (first transmission system T1) (Fig. 1; P. 6, lines 13-44) is located to an inside of the first motor (first rotating electrical machine 1A) (Fig. 1; P. 4, lines 22 to p. 5, line 20; p. 5, line 35 to p. 6, line 11) in a left-right (L1, L2) (see Fig. 1) direction of the electric work vehicle (Fig. 1; P. 2, lines 25-40); and
an outermost portion (second differential input gear 7B) (Figs. 1-2; P. 6, lines 13-44) of the second gearing (second transmission system T2) (Fig. 1; P. 6, lines 13-44) is located to an inside of the second motor (second rotating electrical machine 1B) (Fig. 1; P. 4, lines 22 to p. 5, line 20; p. 5, line 35 to p. 6, line 11) in the left-right direction (first side L1, second side L2) (see Fig. 1; P. 5, lines 9-33) of the electric work vehicle (Fig. 1; P. 2, lines 25-40).
Regarding claim 17, Yanagihara discloses the electric work vehicle according to claim 16 (see above). Furthermore, Yanaghihara discloses an electric work vehicle (Fig. 1; P. 2, lines 25-40) further comprising:
a gear casing (portion 42 of case 3) (Fig. 2; P. 10, lines 23-38) affixed to a portion of the rear housing (rear portion of case 3 formed by first surrounding wall 41A and second surrounding wall 41B) (Fig. 2; P. 13, lines 18-23);
wherein a portion of the first gearing (first transmission system T1) (Fig. 1; P. 6, lines 13-44) and a portion of the second gearing (second transmission system T2) (Fig. 1; P. 6, lines 13-44) is located within the gear casing (portion 42 of case 3) (Fig. 2; P. 10, lines 23-38).
Regarding claim 18, Yanagihara discloses the electric work vehicle according to claim 17 (see above). Furthermore, Yanaghihara discloses an electric work vehicle (Fig. 1; P. 2, lines 25-40) wherein a width of the gear casing (portion 42 of case 3) (Fig. 2; P. 10, lines 23-38) in the left-right direction (first side L1, second side L2) (see Fig. 1; P. 5, lines 9-33) of the vehicle is thinner than a width of the rear housing (rear portion of case 3 formed by first surrounding wall 41A and second surrounding wall 41B) (Fig. 2; P. 13, lines 18-23) in the left-right direction (first side L1, second side L2) (see Fig. 1; P. 5, lines 9-33).
Regarding claim 19, Yanagihara discloses the electric work vehicle according to claim 17 (see above). Furthermore, Yanaghihara discloses an electric work vehicle (Fig. 1; P. 2, lines 25-40) wherein the first rear wheel (first wheel W1) (Fig. 1; P. 4, lines 22-35) and the second rear wheel (second wheel W2) (Fig. 1; P. 4, lines 22-35) are connected to respective rear wheel hubs (first output member 2A, second output member 2B) (Fig. 2; P. 6, line 46 to p. 7, line 4) which are mounted to the gear casing (portion 42 of case 3) (Fig. 2; P. 10, lines 23-38).
Regarding claim 20, Yanagihara discloses the electric work vehicle according to claim 16 (see above). Furthermore, Yanaghihara discloses an electric work vehicle (Fig. 1; P. 2, lines 25-40) wherein the first gearing (first transmission system T1) (Fig. 1; P. 6, lines 13-44) and the second gearing (second transmission system T2) (Fig. 1; P. 6, lines 13-44) each respectively include a plurality of interlinking gears (first counter input gears 51A, 52A and second counter input gears 51B, 52B) (Figs. 1-2; P. 6, lines 21-44) and extend from the rear housing (rear portion of case 3 formed by first surrounding wall 41A and second surrounding wall 41B) (Fig. 2; P. 13, lines 18-23) into the gear casing (portion 42 of case 3) (Fig. 2; P. 10, lines 23-38).
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.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yanagihara.
Regarding claim 2, Yanagihara discloses the electric work vehicle according to claim 1 (see above). Furthermore, Yanaghihara discloses an electric work vehicle (Fig. 1; P. 2, lines 25-40) wherein
the first oil path (one or more of oil path(s) 24-27) (Figs. 5-7; P. 16, line 14 to p. 19, line 37) further includes a second inlet opening (27A and/or 27B) (Fig. 7; P. 18, lines 7 to p. 19, line 9) which is provided in a side portion (see Figs. 2, 7) of the rear housing (rear portion of case 3 formed by first surrounding wall 41A and second surrounding wall 41B) (Fig. 2; P. 13, lines 18-23) in a left-right direction of the electrical vehicle (Fig. 1; P. 2, lines 25-40).
However, Yanagihara does not expressly disclose that an extending direction of the first inlet opening intersects with an extending direction of the second inlet opening. Nevertheless, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to adjust the orientation of the extension of the first inlet opening to be intersecting with an extending direction of the second inlet opening, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(C); In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
Claim(s) 4, 8 and 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yanagihara in view of Int’l. Pat. Pub. No. WO 2020/165819 to Tyagi et al. (hereinafter Tyagi) (cited by Applicant in IDS filed on 07/02/2025).
Regarding claim 4, Yanagihara discloses the electric work vehicle according to claim 1 (see above). However, Yanagihara does not expressly disclose an electric work vehicle further comprising:
a third motor to drive a Power Take-Off, the third motor being supported by the rear housing;
wherein an axis of the third motor is below an axis of the first motor and an axis of the second motor in the up-down direction of the electrical vehicle.
Nevertheless, Tyagi teaches an electric work vehicle further comprising:
a third motor (power take-off motor 32) (Figs. 3-4; Paras. [0045]-[0049]) to drive a Power Take-Off (Figs. 3-4; Paras. [0045]-[0049]), the third motor (power take-off motor 32) (Figs. 3-4; Paras. [0045]-[0049]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the electric work vehicle disclosed in Yanagihara with the PTO motor taught in Tyagi mounted on the rear housing with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide power for attached implements, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is obvious. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Furthermore, it would have obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the electric work vehicle disclosed in Yanagihara with the PTO motor taught in Tyagi and have an axis of the third motor be below an axis of the first motor and an axis of the second motor with a reasonable expectation of success, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(C); In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
Regarding claim 8, Yanagihara in view of Tyagi teaches the electric work vehicle according to claim 4 (see above). However, neither Yanagihara nor Tyagi expressly discloses or teaches a vehicle further comprising a fourth motor to drive a second electric work vehicle component other than a wheel, the fourth motor being supported by the rear housing. Nevertheless, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yanagihara in view of Tyagi to include a fourth motor to drive an additional component (e.g., a second PTO motor), since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8 (CA7 1977).
Regarding claim 11, Yanagihara in view of Tyagi teaches the electric work vehicle according to claim 4 (see above). Furthermore, the combination of Yanagihara and Tyagi teaches a vehicle wherein an axis of the third motor (power take-off motor 32) (Figs. 3-4; Paras. [0045]-[0049]) extends through a location between (see Fig. 3) the first motor (traction motor 35) (Fig. 3; Para. [0032]) and the second motor (traction motor 36) (Fig. 3; Para. [0032]).
Regarding claim 13, Yanagihara in view of Tyagi teaches the electric work vehicle according to claim 4 (see above). Furthermore, the combination of Yanagihara and Tyagi teaches a vehicle wherein an axis of the third motor (power take-off motor 32) (Figs. 3-4; Paras. [0045]-[0049]) extends perpendicular or substantially perpendicular (see Fig. 3) to an axis of the first motor (traction motor 35) (Fig. 3; Para. [0032]) and an axis of the second motor (traction motor 36) (Fig. 3; Para. [0032]).
Regarding claim 14, Yanagihara in view of Tyagi teaches the electric work vehicle according to claim 4 (see above). Furthermore, the combination of Yanagihara and Tyagi teaches a vehicle wherein the third motor (power take-off motor 32) (Figs. 3-4; Paras. [0045]-[0049]) is located closer (power take-off motor 32 is closer to traction motor 36) (see Fig. 3) to one of the first motor or the second motor (traction motor 36) (Fig. 3; Para. [0032]) and farther (power take-off motor 32 is farther from traction motor 35) (see Fig. 3) from another one of the first motor (traction motor 35) (Fig. 3; Para. [0032]) or the second motor. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to move power take-off motor 32 closer to one of the traction motors and farther from the other traction motor with a reasonable expectation of success, since applicant has not disclosed that the lateral location of the third motor solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with the third motor in any of a variety of lateral positions between the first and second motors.
Regarding claim 15, Yanagihara in view of Tyagi teaches the electric work vehicle according to claim 8 (see above). However, neither Yanagihara nor Tyagi expressly discloses or teaches that the third motor is larger than each of the first motor, the second motor, and the fourth motor. Nevertheless, in cases like the present, where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited within the claims, applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. See MPEP 2144.05(III)(A). As such, the claimed dimensions appear to be an obvious matter of engineering design choice and thus, while being a difference, does not serve in any way to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the applied prior art. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Kuhle, 526 F2d. 553, 555, 188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yanagihara in view of Tyagi as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Int’l. Pat. Pub. No. 2011/138308 to Husson et al. (hereinafter Husson).
Regarding claim 10, Yanagihara in view of Tyagi teaches the electric work vehicle according to claim 8 (see above). However, neither Yanagihara nor Tyagi expressly discloses or teaches a vehicle wherein the second electric work vehicle component includes a hydraulic system. Nevertheless, Husson teaches an electric work vehicle (hybrid/electric tractor 100) (Abstract) wherein the second electric work vehicle component includes a hydraulic system (Fig. 11; Para. [28]; Claim 18). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the electric work vehicle taught by Yanagihara in view of Tyagi with a motor powering the second electric work vehicle component that includes a hydraulic system, as taught in Husson, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is obvious. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-6 and 9-12 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.
Claim 7 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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. French Pat. Pub. No FR 3 062 094 A1 to Pellenc relates to a land utility vehicle with electric propulsion and multiple power supply sources.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CLAUDE J BROWN whose telephone number is (571)270-5924. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8AM-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, Joseph M. Rocca can be reached at (571) 272-8971. 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.
/CLAUDE J BROWN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671