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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 09/10/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s Amendment filed 09/10/2026 has been entered and is being considered. Claim 1 has been amended. Claim 26 has been canceled. Claims 1, 5, 18, 27, 30, 34, 38, 42, 46, 50-52, 56, 59, and 60 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s Amendments, and arguments stemming therefrom, have changed the scope of the claims and have rendered such scope outside that of the prior art – specifically Kim et al (US 20130099260 A1), which requires an anticorrosion agent that is excluded by the amended claim 1. As such, the rejections furnished in the prior Final Rejection are moot and are withdrawn.
However – regarding applicant’s remarks over Peters et al and the alleged requirement for an amine in the compositions contemplated by the reference, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. At [0009] the reference contemplates an embodiment that is free of amine species. Further, when discussing amines at [0030], the reference uses the language “In some embodiments, the amine may be present in an amount of…” (examiner’s emphasis where bolded) – the Examiner interprets this as a contemplation of optionality and that the reference does not require an amine in the contemplated compositions. Even if an amine were to be considered preferable in the contemplated compositions, alternative and nonpreferred embodiments still constitute prior art (See MPEP 2123.II)
After further search and consideration, the Examiner makes a new grounds of rejection as set forth in the body of the action below.
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 1, 5, 18, 27, 30, 34, 38, 42, 46, 50-52, 56, 59, and 60 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.
Regarding Claim 1, the claim limitation “wherein the total wt% of components… is equal to or less than 100wt%...” renders the scope of the claims unclear. Each of the components (i), (ii) and (iii) have defined endpoints in their claimed ranges and (iv) is undefined in an amount – but is optional.
The minimum weight% of the claimed composition having components (i)-(iii) is not simply “less than 100wt%”, it is 91.01wt%.
Turning to applicant’s specification, there are no examples wherein the composition(s) comprise(s) 91.01 as a total amount of materials added – rather the amounts of the composition are totaled to 99.78-99.95 (within rounding of 100%), wherein other ingredients are present so as to account for the ~9% difference between the 91.01% and the exemplary compositions’ wt% values. The composition uses comprising language and may comprise unrecited elements, in addition to the unclaimed wt% of optional secondary solvent(s).
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
The dependent claims 5, 18, 27, 30, 34, 38, 42, 46, 50-52, 56, 59, and 60 are similarly rejected by nature of dependency.
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) 1, 5, 18, 27, 30, 38, 50-52, 56 and 60 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rath et al (US 20090118153 A1) and Yoon et al (KR 20150087905 A)
As a matter of claim interpretation – the photoresist stripper is claimed using “comprising” language, meaning additional unrecited components are not excluded from the composition. The corrosion inhibitors genus at (iii) is claimed using “consisting of” and as such is considered a closed group.
Regarding Claims 1, 5, 18, 27, 30, 38, 50-52, 56 and 60, Rath discloses a liquid removal composition and process for removing photoresist and/or sacrificial antireflective coatings materials from microelectronic devices having such thereon (Abstract).
The compositions of Rath are generally disclosed from [0024]-[0048] , and specific embodiments are discussed from [0049]-[0066]. Methods of using the composition are discussed from [0067]-[0082], while experimental data are discussed and tabulated at [0083]-[0100].
In one embodiment, at [0039], the composition comprises a quaternary organic base in about 2.0% to about 15%, an alkali or alkaline earth metal source in 0.001 to about 2%, solvents in 0.01% to about 90%, a chelator/passivation agent in about 0.1 to about 5.0%, and water in about 5% to 40% (claim 56, where water is a secondary solvent and present).
The compositions may further include additional components, including active and inactive ingredients such as fillers, dispersants, antioxidants, penetration agents, adjuvants, excipients, fillers, etc ([0042]).
The organic/quaternary base of the reference may be a tetraalkylammonium hydroxide having an alcohol group, such as choline, or another quaternary ammonium hydroxide as discussed at [0043] such as tetrabutyl ammonium hydroxide. As above, this component may be present in about 2.0% to about 15%. This component is not excluded from the claimed composition by way of the claim language using “comprising”.
The alkali metal source component may be a salt such as potassium hydroxide ([0044]) – as above, this component may be present in about 0.001% to about 2% by weight (claims 5 and 18 for where the range disclosed overlaps the claimed range of 1.75wt% to about 2.25 wt%, and where potassium hydroxide is a species claimed in claim 18).
Solvents contemplated by the reference include those at [0045], such as but not limited to ethylene glycol, propylene glycol, triethylene glycol monomethyl ether, diethylene glycol monobutyl ether, and combinations thereof. The Examiner points out that while there are sulfone, amine, and pyrrolidinone solvents listed – None of these are Required solvents and as such the reference clearly contemplates compositions that are each of sulfur-containing solvents, amines, and amides (Claims 50-52, where sulfur-containing solvents such as sulfones are not required by the reference and DMSO is not specifically mentioned in an embodiment and therefore also not required, and where the compositions of the reference may be free of an amide-containing solvent).
The chelator/passivation agent may be, among others, benzotriazole (The examiner notes that, in regard to corrosion inhibitors, Applicant’s specification makes specific mention of chelating species, and though BZT is not specifically named as a chelating compound it is presented together with them in paragraph [0069], where corrosion inhibitors are discussed broadly), where as discussed above this component may be present in 0.1 to about 5.0% by weight (claim 27, where .the claimed range of 0.5 to 1wt% of BZT is encompassed by the referenced range).
The compositions of the reference are used in a cleaning application such as by spraying or dipping or otherwise contacting the material or article to be cleaned with the material of the composition(s). At [0076]-[0077], the substrate is contacted with the liquid removal composition for a time ranging from 1-60 minutes in a temperature range of 50 to 80 degrees Celsius to remove the material to be stripped from the substrate. After, the substrate is rinsed with a rinse solution such as deionized (DI) water, and may be dried (claim 60).
The amounts of the claimed compositional elements meet the limitations of the claim where:
Solvent is present in “about 90”% by weight
No amine or amide or NMP is present in the solvent
TEGME , EG, and PG are all present in the composition
An inorganic base is present in 0.001% to about 2% by weight (KOH)
BZT is present in 0.1 to about 2.0% by weight
Water is present in 5% by weight
The reference does not explicitly teach a particular amount of a particular solvent when multiple solvents are blended together.
This limitation is met by Yoon.
Yoon teaches a composition for removing an organic layers from metallic components, electronic components and components such as semiconductors ([0061] and [0002]-[0004].
The composition of Yoon generally comprises a quaternary ammonium hydroxide, a glycol ether compound, an aliphatic polyhydric alcohol, a silicon compound, a thiol compound, a lactone compound, and a balance of water.
The quaternary ammonium hydroxide is discussed from [0023]-[0029] and is a compound conforming to the formula of [0026], such as but not limited to tetraethyl-, tetrapropyl- and tetrabutylammonium hydroxides. This component is present in 0.1 to 20wt% of the composition.
The glycol ether compound is discussed from [0030]-[0036], where triethylene glycol monomethyl ether may be the compound used, and is preferably included in an amount ranging from 50 to 90% by weight, more preferably 60-80wt%. Including the amount of glycol ether in the taught ranges is purported by the reference to inhibit corrosion as the reference asserts that when the amount of the glycol ether is lower than 50%, wiring and metal components may be corroded.
The aliphatic polyhydric alcohol is described from [0037] to [0039], where the compound may be one or more of glycerol or sorbitol, among others, and may be present in the composition from 1-20wt% (claims 30 and 38, respectively, where the reference range meets the claimed range at 1%). When present, the reference ascribes improved corrosion resistance, as when the content is less than 1% the metal components may be corroded.
The silicon compound and thiol compound are discussed from [0040]-[0052] each present in an amount ranging from 0.001 to 1% by weight, where both compounds are purported to improve the corrosion resistance when aluminum is present (silicon compound – such as a silicate) and/or when a copper component such as wiring is present (thiol compound). The lactone is discussed from [0053]-[0057], where the lactone compound is present in order to help prevent damage to organic substrate components whose continued presence is desired during the removal of unwanted organic components.
Deionized water is discussed as being present so as to bring the total wt% of components to 100wt% at [0060].
Yoon and Rath are related in endeavor as both compositions are used in the removal of organic film components from semiconductor/electronic substrate and articles. A person having ordinary skill in the art would consider the taught range of incorporation of the glycol ether compound of Yoon as advantageous in reducing corrosion in Rath’s composition and would conceive of including the glycol ether, such as triethylene glycol monomethyl ether, in the preferred range of 60-80% in the composition of Rath. Rath also teaches this solvent. Rath requires 90% solvent in some embodiments and teaches other solvents, such as ethylene glycol, and propylene glycol , may be present therein – in order to balance the 90% solvent requirement of Rath. An ordinarily skilled artisan would consider it a matter of routine experimentation to pick solvents for combination out of a list of solvents provided by the reference for the purpose of serving as a solvent – and further, the chemical similarity of ethylene and propylene glycol to the triethylene glycol monomethyl ether would abet their combination as they are expected to behave similarly to each other by nature of their structural similarity (glycol solvents are structurally similar to a glycol monomethyl ether).
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to arrive at the claimed invention prior to the effective filing date in view of the teachings of Yoon and Rath, combining compositional elements such as solvents and corrosion inhibitors with the expectation that because the components and compositions of each are presented to be usable in a photoresist stripper the resultant combination will also be usable in a photoresist stripper (See MPEP 2144.06).
Claim(s) 1, 5, 18, 20 27, 34, 38, 42, 46, 50-52, 56, 59,and 60 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rath et al (US 20090118153 A1) and Peters et al (US 20190317409 A1).
Regarding Claims 1, 5, 18, 26, 27, 50-52, 56, and 60, Rath discloses a liquid removal composition and process for removing photoresist and/or sacrificial antireflective coatings materials from microelectronic devices having such thereon (Abstract).
The compositions of Rath are generally disclosed from [0024]-[0048] , and specific embodiments are discussed from [0049]-[0066]. Methods of using the composition are discussed from [0067]-[0082], while experimental data are discussed and tabulated at [0083]-[0100].
In one embodiment, at [0039], the composition comprises a quaternary organic base in about 2.0% to about 15%, an alkali or alkaline earth metal source in 0.001 to about 2%, solvents in 0.01% to about 90%, a chelator/passivation agent in about 0.1 to about 5.0%, and water in about 5% to 40% (claim 56, where water is a secondary solvent and present).
The compositions may further include additional components, including active and inactive ingredients such as fillers, dispersants, antioxidants, penetration agents, adjuvants, excipients, fillers, etc ([0042]).
The organic/quaternary base of the reference may be a tetraalkylammonium hydroxide having an alcohol group, such as choline, or another quaternary ammonium hydroxide as discussed at [0043] such as tetrabutyl ammonium hydroxide. As above, this component may be present in about 2.0% to about 15%. This component is not excluded from the claimed composition by way of the claim language using “comprising”.
The alkali metal source component may be a salt such as potassium hydroxide ([0044]) – as above, this component may be present in about 0.001% to about 2% by weight (claims 5 and 18 for where the range disclosed overlaps the claimed range of 1.75wt% to about 2.25 wt%, and where potassium hydroxide is a species claimed in claim 18).
Solvents contemplated by the reference include those at [0045], such as but not limited to ethylene glycol, propylene glycol, triethylene glycol monomethyl ether, diethylene glycol monobutyl ether, and combinations thereof. The Examiner points out that while there are sulfone, amine, and pyrrolidinone solvents listed – None of these are Required solvents and as such the reference clearly contemplates compositions that are each of sulfur-containing solvents, amines, and amides (Claims 50-52, where sulfur-containing solvents such as sulfones are not required by the reference and DMSO is not specifically mentioned in an embodiment and therefore also not required, and where the compositions of the reference may be free of an amide-containing solvent).
The chelator/passivation agent may be, among others, benzotriazole (The examiner notes that, in regard to corrosion inhibitors, Applicant’s specification makes specific mention of chelating species, and though BZT is not specifically named as a chelating compound it is presented together with them in paragraph [0069], where corrosion inhibitors are discussed broadly), where as discussed above this component may be present in 0.1 to about 5.0% by weight (claim 27, where .the claimed range of 0.5 to 1wt% of BZT is encompassed by the referenced range).
The compositions of the reference are used in a cleaning application such as by spraying or dipping or otherwise contacting the material or article to be cleaned with the material of the composition(s). At [0076]-[0077], the substrate is contacted with the liquid removal composition for a time ranging from 1-60 minutes in a temperature range of 50 to 80 degrees Celsius to remove the material to be stripped from the substrate. After, the substrate is rinsed with a rinse solution such as deionized (DI) water, and may be dried (claim 60).
The amounts of the claimed compositional elements meet the limitations of the claim where:
Solvent is present in “about 90”% by weight
No amine or amide or NMP is present in the solvent
TEGME , EG, and PG are all present in the composition
An inorganic base is present in 0.001% to about 2% by weight (KOH)
BZT is present in 0.1 to about 2.0% by weight
Water is present in 5% by weight
Rath does not disclose that the secondary solvent may be two or more of ethylene glycol, diethylene glycol, triethylene glycol, glycerol, propylene glycol, or mixtures thereof. Rath describes a generic organic solvent or combination thereof where in some embodiments the solvent is present in 90%, and gives examples as to what that solvent may comprise but broadly describes such solvent compositions.
This limitation is met by Peters.
Peters discloses stripper solutions for removing photoresists (Abstract), as discussed from [0005]-[0072]. The composition(s) of Peters comprise a solvent such as a glycol ether solvent, as well as inorganic bases such as potassium hydroxide or lithium hydroxide ([0018] and [0022]-[0033). Additional components include surfactants and corrosion inhibitors. Peters contemplates compositions free of amine-containing compounds as part of its disclosure - At [0009] the reference contemplates an embodiment that is free of amine species. Further, when discussing amines at [0030], the reference uses the language “In some embodiments, the amine may be present in an amount of…” (examiner’s emphasis where bolded) – the Examiner interprets this as a contemplation of optionality and that the reference does not require an amine in the contemplated compositions.
Peters also discloses inclusion amounts for primary and secondary solvents wherein the primary solvent may be present in between 20-95% of the composition by weight, secondary solvent may be present in between 5-60% of the composition by weight. A tertiary solvent may be present in 0.1-50 wt% of the composition ([0031]-[0033).
Peters describes primary solvents at [0023], where they may be but art not limited to glycol ether solvents such as ethylene glycol propyl ether and diethylene glycol. Secondary solvent include the same solvents are primary solvents as described at [0024]. Tertiary solvents are described at [0025] and [0041]-[0044], and include diethylene glycol, propylene glycol, propylene glycol monomethyl ether, and ethylene glycol, among others. When used, the secondary and tertiary solvents are not the same solvent as the primary solvent.
The compositions of Peters were used in a stripping procedure at [0060], where compositions were treated with the composition by immersion, then removed, rinsed with water and isopropyl alcohol, and dried with an air stream (claim 60).
Peters discloses solvents, corrosion inhibitors, alkaline components – all in the context of and purpose for providing a stripping solution, and names compounds and solvents that are likewise recited in Rath . It is prima facie obvious to combine components and compositions to that are recognized to be useful for a purpose in the prior art to form a new composition presumed to also be useful for the same purpose (See MPEP 2144.06.I). A person having ordinary skill would have found it obvious to incorporate the solvents of Peters into the composition of Rath, where the ranges of Rath and Peters overlap the claimed ranges of the instant application – Rath discloses up to 90% of a solvent or combination of solvents including EG, PG, and TEGME, while Peters discloses that the tertiary solvents discussed above (any of the DEG, PG, or EG, or a mixture of two or three) are present in 0.1-50wt% of the composition (overlapping the claimed “about 10wt% to about 30wt%”).
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to arrive at the claimed invention prior to the effective filing date in view of the teachings of Rath and Peters, combining compositional elements such as solvents with the expectation that because the components and compositions of each are presented to be usable in a photoresist stripper the resultant combination will also be usable in a photoresist stripper.
Regarding Claims 30, 34, 38, 42, and 46, Rath teaches the limitations of the claims as discussed above regarding claim 1.
Rath does not disclose or teach a composition comprising sorbitol, resorcinol, glycerol, sebacic acid, or copper(II) nitrate. Rath does teach corrosion inhibitors such as BZT as discussed above.
These limitations are met by Peters.
Peters discusses stripper solutions for removing photoresists (Abstract), as discussed from [0005]-[0072]. The composition(s) of Peters comprise a solvent such as a glycol ether solvent, as well as inorganic bases such as potassium hydroxide or lithium hydroxide ([0018] and [0022]-[0033). Additional components include surfactants and corrosion inhibitors.
Corrosion inhibitors are discussed at [0045]-[0046] and include but are not limited to benzotriazole, glycerol, sebacic acid, copper (II) nitrate, sorbitol, and resorcinol. Corrosion inhibitors may be present in between 0.0001% and 7% by weight of the composition.
Peters discloses solvents, corrosion inhibitors, alkaline components – all in the context of and purpose for providing a stripping solution, and names corrosion inhibitors and solvents that are likewise recited in Rath . It is prima facie obvious to combine components and compositions to that are recognized to be useful for a purpose in the prior art to form a new composition presumed to also be useful for the same purpose (See MPEP 2144.06.I). A person having ordinary skill would have found it obvious to incorporate the corrosion inhibitors of Peters into the composition of Rath recognizing that as both Peters and Rath consider the use of corrosion inhibitors (and share a common inhibitor in BZT) the combinability amounts to combining components known for the same purpose
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to arrive at the claimed invention prior to the effective filing date in view of the teachings of Rath and Peters, combining compositional elements such as corrosion inhibitors with the expectation that because the components and compositions of each are presented to be usable in a photoresist stripper the resultant combination will also be usable in a photoresist stripper.
Regarding Claim 59, Rath discloses the limitations of the claims as discussed above regarding claim 1. Rath however does not teach diethylene glycol, and sorbitol. Rath does teach propylene glycol, triethylene glycol monomethyl ether, a corrosion inhibitor, and KOH components.
These limitations are met by Peters.
Peters discloses stripper solutions for removing photoresists (abstract), as discussed from [0005]-[0072]. The composition(s) of Peters comprise a solvent such as a glycol ether solvent, as well as inorganic bases such as potassium hydroxide or lithium hydroxide ([0018] and [0022]-[0033). Additional components include surfactants and corrosion inhibitors. Corrosion inhibitors are discussed at [0045]-[0046] and include but are not limited to benzotriazole, glycerol, sebacic acid, copper (II) nitrate, sorbitol, and resorcinol. Corrosion inhibitors may be present in between 0.0001% and 7% by weight of the composition.
Peters also discloses inclusion amounts for primary and secondary solvents wherein the primary solvent may be present in between 20-95% of the composition by weight, secondary solvent may be present in between 5-60% of the composition by weight. A tertiary solvent may be present in 0.1-50 wt% of the composition ([0031]-[0033).
Peters describes primary solvents at [0023], where they may be but art not limited to glycol ether solvents such as ethylene glycol propyl ether and diethylene glycol. Secondary solvent include the same solvents are primary solvents as described at [0024]. Tertiary solvents are described at [025], and include diethylene glycol, propylene glycol, among others. When used, the secondary and tertiary solvents are not the same solvent as the primary solvent.
The examples of Peters disclose corrosion inhibitors (copper (II) nitrate, xylitol, glycerol, sorbitol, among others) may be present in amounts ranging from 0.01% to 0.5%, primary solvents in a range from 57.975 to 80%, secondary solvents (DME – diethylene glycol methyl ethyl ether, MMB – 3,methoxy,3-methylbutanol, DEG – diethylene glycol) in a range from 10% to 40%, and tertiary solvents in a range from 5% to 20% (DEG).
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to arrive at the claimed invention prior to the filing date through routine experimentation – both Rath and Peters disclose common solvents and additives that are explicitly directed to stripping organic compositions from substrates and disclose ranges that are both similar and encompassing to each other and to the claimed inventions. Absent evidence of unexpected superior results, a person having ordinary skill in the art would consider it routine to substitute a solvent in for another or to incorporate a similar solvent into a composition, to vary solvent concentrations in formulations, and to vary the concentrations of additives within formulations as guided by the generally taught ranges of the specifications of Rath and Peters and the more specific experimental ranges of Peters. The solvents and additives of Rath and Peters are presented as alternatives to one another – for example, an ordinarily skilled artisan would expect that by nature of their presentation together diethylene glycol and propylene glycol or propylene glycol monomethyl ether and triethylene glycol monomethyl ether would behave similarly to one another.
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to arrive at the claimed invention prior to the filing date through routine experimentation, using known solvents presented as alternatives to one another by the references and within workable ranges as delimited by the references to arrive at a composition having suitable stripping properties.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW PRESTON TRAYWICK whose telephone number is (571)272-2982. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8-5.
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, Sally Merkling can be reached at 571-272-6297. 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.
/A.P.T./Examiner, Art Unit 1737
/SALLY A MERKLING/SPE, Art Unit 1738
