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 .
Applicant’s Amendment dated May 28, 2025 and Supplemental Remarks dated October 21, 2025 have been carefully considered, but are non-persuasive. The specification has been amended to correct the informalities therein. Claim 8 has been canceled, making moot the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Claim 14 has been amended to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Correction of these matters is noted with appreciation.
Applicant has argued that withdrawn claim 10 reads on the elected species because paragraph [0052] of the specification states that the thermal control module can be provided in any of the examples of the bearing arrangement.
Respectfully, this argument is non-persuasive. In the Restriction Requirement mailed on September 4, 2024, the Species are identified as:
Species I, as represented by figures 3-5.
Species II, as represented by figure 6, with a vent.
Species III, as represented by figures 7-8.
Species IV, as represented by figure 9, with a thermal control module.
Species V, as represented by figure 10, with a chamber that extends more horizontally than vertically.
Species VI, as represented by figures 11-13, with the chamber in a bearing cover.
Species VII, as represented by 14, with a chamber housing spaced apart from the bearing housing.
Figures 1-2 appear to be generic.
Species I, , as represented by figures 3-5, which was elected without traverse, is directed to a bearing arrangement without a thermal control module. Because the Species are identified by figures, Species IV does not read on the elected Species I.
Applicant has argued concerning the drawing objection with regard to claim 2, that amended figure 12 shows the chamber 210 inside the bearing housing 201 and figure 8 shows the chamber 210 outside the bearing housing 201.
Respectfully, this argument is non-persuasive. The drawing objection with regard to claim 2 states that the claimed combination of the chamber arranged outside of the bearing housing and inside the bearing housing, is not shown in the drawings. This combination of features is not shown in the drawings.
Applicant has argued concerning the drawing objections with regard to claims 11, 12, and 14, that 37 CFR 1.83(a) states that “… conventional features disclosed in the description and claims, where their detailed illustration is not essential for a proper understanding of the invention, should be illustrated in the drawing in the form of a graphical drawing symbol or a labeled representation (e.g., a labeled rectangular box).”, and that “showing the damper including an orifice plate, a mesh, a gap, a deflector plate, and a guide vane as claimed in applicant’s claim 11 is not essential for a person of ordinary skill in the art to properly understand the invention and the graphical representation of the damper 212 is sufficient for the understanding of the invention. For this reason, the objections to the drawings with respect to claims 12 and 13 should also be moot. Similarly, the applicant respectfully submits that the relative arrangement of the dampers as claimed in claim 14 need not be shown in each permutation for a proper understanding of the invention.”
Respectfully, these arguments are non-persuasive. The bearing arrangement as claimed, comprising a damper including an orifice plate, a mesh, a gap, a deflector plate, and a guide vane, and combinations thereof, are not conventional features, and their detailed illustration is essential for a proper understanding of the invention. As set forth in 37 CFR 1.83(a), the drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims.
Applicant’s arguments that amended independent claims 1 and 15 define over EP 2657556A2, because EP 2657556A2 does not dampen the flow of grease, and does not disclose that the screw pump is fixed to the chamber, have been carefully considered, and are persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments that EP 4166802A1 does not disclose that the damper 5 is fixed to the chamber, have been carefully considered, and are persuasive. However, dependent claim 13 does not require that the damper is fixed to the chamber, but that the damper is movably arranged inside the chamber. Therefore, dependent claim 13 is anticipated by EP 4166802A1, as set forth in detail later below.
Applicant’s arguments that Eichler et al. 3,683,673 does not disclose or suggest a damper arranged within the chamber and fixed to the chamber, have been carefully considered, and are persuasive. However, dependent claim 13 does not require that the damper is fixed to the chamber, but that the damper is movably arranged inside the chamber.
Applicant has further argued that Eichler et al. 3,683,673 does not disclose or suggest a chamber including an inlet opening, the chamber fluidly communicating with a drain opening via an inlet opening, wherein the chamber receives the lubricant drained out of the interior space via the inlet opening.
Respectfully, these arguments are non-persuasive. As set forth in detail later below, Eichler et al. discloses a bearing arrangement for a wind turbine, the bearing arrangement comprising: a bearing 10; a bearing housing 20 defining an interior space for accommodating said bearing therein; said bearing housing having a drain opening 24 for draining lubricant from said interior space; a chamber (annotated globally) defining an inlet opening, said chamber fluidly communicating with said drain opening via said inlet opening, wherein said chamber is configured to receive the lubricant drained out of said interior space via said inlet opening; a damper 32 arranged within said chamber; and a damping space formed within said chamber, wherein said damper is configured to throttle a flow of said lubricant drained out of said interior space, wherein said damper is movably arranged inside said chamber for adjusting the throttle of the flow of lubricant in dependence upon a position of said damper. Note the annotated figure later below.
Applicant has argued that Bauduin et al. 2020/0256209 does not disclose or suggest a chamber including an inlet opening, the chamber fluidly communicating with a drain opening via an inlet opening, wherein the chamber receives the lubricant drained out of the interior space via the inlet opening, does not disclose or suggest a damper arranged within the chamber and fixed to the chamber, and dos not disclose or suggest a damping space formed within said chamber, wherein the damper is configured to throttle a flow of said lubricant drained out of said interior space.
Respectfully, these arguments are non-persuasive. As set forth in detail later below, Bauduin et al. discloses a bearing arrangement for a wind turbine, the bearing arrangement comprising: a bearing 10; a bearing housing 52 defining an interior space for accommodating said bearing therein; said bearing housing having a drain opening for draining lubricant from said interior space; a chamber formed by 60, 80 defining an inlet opening 41, said chamber fluidly communicating with said drain opening via said inlet opening, wherein said chamber is configured to receive the lubricant that will be drained out of said interior space via said inlet opening; a damper 64 or 66 arranged within said chamber and fixed to said chamber; and a damping space formed within said chamber, wherein said damper is configured to throttle a flow of said lubricant drained out of said interior space. Note the annotated figure below.
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 following features must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
The combination of the chamber arranged outside of the bearing housing and inside the bearing housing (claim 2).
All of the permutations and combinations of the damper includes at least one of the following: a baffle, an orifice plate, a mesh, a gap, a deflector plate and a guide vane (claim 11). Note that only the damper comprises a baffle is shown.
All of the permutations and combinations of the damper is movably arranged inside the chamber for adjusting the throttle of the flow of lubricant in dependence upon a position of the damper (claim 13), in combination with the above features recited in claim 11.
All of the permutations and combinations of the dampers of the plurality of dampers are arranged in at least one of: mutually parallel, mutually in series, and mutually inclined relative to one another (claim 14). Note that only the plurality of dampers are arranged parallel is shown.
All of the permutations and combinations of the damper includes at least one of the following: an orifice plate, a mesh, and a guide vane (new claim 16). Note that only the damper comprises a baffle is shown.
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 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 3-4, 11, and 13 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.
In claim 3, line 2, “an inlet opening” is a double recitation of the inlet opening recited in claim 1, causing ambiguity.
In claim 11, if the damper includes a gap, it is unclear how the gap can be fixed to the chamber, as recited in claim 1.
Claims 13, lines 1-2 recite that the damper is movably arranged inside the chamber. This conflicts with claim 1 upon which claim 13 depends, which recites that the damper is fixed to the chamber.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claims 13, lines 1-2 recite that the damper is movably arranged inside the chamber. However, claim 1 recites that the damper is fixed to the chamber.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-4, 11, and 14 (as far as claims 3-4 and 11 are definite and understood) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bauduin et al. 2020/0256209.
Disclosed is a bearing arrangement for a wind turbine, the bearing arrangement comprising: a bearing 10; a bearing housing 52 defining an interior space for accommodating said bearing therein; said bearing housing having a drain opening for draining lubricant from said interior space; a chamber formed by 60, 80 defining an inlet opening 41, said chamber fluidly communicating with said drain opening via said inlet opening, wherein said chamber is configured to receive the lubricant that will be drained out of said interior space via said inlet opening; a damper 64 or 66 arranged within said chamber and fixed to said chamber; and a damping space formed within said chamber, wherein said damper is configured to throttle a flow of said lubricant drained out of said interior space (claim 1).
The chamber is arranged inside said bearing housing (claim 2).
The chamber includes an inlet opening 41 and an outlet opening 43; and said inlet opening is connectable to said drain opening (claim 3).
The inlet opening and said damping space have respective cross-sections mutually different from one another (claim 4).
The damper includes at least one of the following: a baffle 64 or 66, or a deflector plate 64 or 66 (claim 11).
A plurality of dampers 64 or 66 is arranged inside said chamber; and, the dampers of said plurality of dampers are arranged at least one of mutually parallel (they are shown as parallel to one another), mutually in series (they are in series in terms of lubricant flow), and mutually inclined (in the case of dampers 64) (claim 14).
The recitation of “for a wind turbine” is recited in the preamble of claim 1. When reading the preamble in the context of the entire claim, the recitation “for a wind turbine” is not limiting because the body of the claim describes a complete invention and the language recited solely in the preamble does not provide any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations. Thus, the preamble of the claim(s) is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02.
The recitation of “for a wind turbine” in claim 1 is a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Here, the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, as it is capable of performing in a bearing of a wind turbine.
Note the annotated figure below.
PNG
media_image1.png
525
818
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 13, as far as it is definite and understood, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by EP 4166802A1 (figures 1-4).
Disclosed is a bearing arrangement for a wind turbine (not shown, see paragraph [0001], for example), the bearing arrangement comprising: a bearing 30; a bearing housing defining an interior space for accommodating said bearing therein; said bearing housing having a drain opening 3 for draining lubricant from said interior space; a chamber (the whole interior of body 2) defining an inlet opening, said chamber fluidly communicating with said drain opening via said inlet opening, wherein said chamber is configured to receive the lubricant drained out of said interior space via said inlet opening; a damper 5 arranged within said chamber; and a damping space 6 formed within said chamber, wherein said damper is configured to throttle a flow of said lubricant drained out of said interior space, wherein said damper is movably arranged inside said chamber for adjusting the throttle of the flow of lubricant in dependence upon a position of said damper.
Note the annotated figure below.
PNG
media_image2.png
880
736
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim 13, as far as it is definite and understood, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Eichler et al. 3,683,673.
Disclosed is a bearing arrangement for a wind turbine, the bearing arrangement comprising: a bearing 10; a bearing housing 20 defining an interior space for accommodating said bearing therein; said bearing housing having a drain opening 24 for draining lubricant from said interior space; a chamber (annotated globally) defining an inlet opening, said chamber fluidly communicating with said drain opening via said inlet opening, wherein said chamber is configured to receive the lubricant drained out of said interior space via said inlet opening; a damper 32 arranged within said chamber; and a damping space formed within said chamber, wherein said damper is configured to throttle a flow of said lubricant drained out of said interior space, wherein said damper is movably arranged inside said chamber for adjusting the throttle of the flow of lubricant in dependence upon a position of said damper.
The recitation of “for a wind turbine” is recited in the preamble of claim 1. When reading the preamble in the context of the entire claim, the recitation “for a wind turbine” is not limiting because the body of the claim describes a complete invention and the language recited solely in the preamble does not provide any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations. Thus, the preamble of the claim(s) is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02.
The recitation of “for a wind turbine” in claim 1 is a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Here, the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, as it is capable of performing in a bearing of a wind turbine.
Note the annotated figure below.
PNG
media_image3.png
664
898
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claims 1-4, 11, and 16 (as far as claims 3-4 and 11 are definite and understood) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP 2008-303988A.
Disclosed is a bearing arrangement for a wind turbine, the bearing arrangement comprising: a bearing 1; a bearing housing 8, 9, defining an interior space for accommodating said bearing therein; said bearing housing having a drain opening 9a for draining lubricant from said interior space; a chamber defining an inlet opening 9b, said chamber fluidly communicating with said drain opening via said inlet opening, wherein said chamber is configured to receive the lubricant that will be drained out of said interior space via said inlet opening; a damper 10 arranged within said chamber and fixed to said chamber; and a damping space formed within said chamber, wherein said damper is configured to throttle a flow of said lubricant drained out of said interior space (claim 1).
The chamber is arranged inside said bearing housing (claim 2).
The chamber includes an inlet opening 9b and an outlet opening 6; and said inlet opening is connectable to said drain opening (claim 3).
The inlet opening and said damping space have respective cross-sections mutually different from one another (claim 4).
The damper an orifice plate (claim 11).
Also disclosed is the bearing arrangement for a wind turbine, the bearing arrangement comprising: the bearing; the bearing housing defining the interior space for accommodating said bearing therein; said bearing housing having the drain opening for draining lubricant from said interior space; the chamber fluidly communicating with said drain opening; and the damping space formed within said chamber to throttle the flow of said lubricant out of said interior space; and the damper arranged within said chamber and said damper comprising the orifice plate (claim 16).
The recitation of “for a wind turbine” is recited in the preambles of claims 1 and 16. When reading the preamble in the context of the entire claim, the recitation “for a wind turbine” is not limiting because the body of the claim describes a complete invention and the language recited solely in the preamble does not provide any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations. Thus, the preamble of the claim(s) is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02.
The recitation of “for a wind turbine” in claims 1 and 16 is a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Here, the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, as it is capable of performing in a bearing of a wind turbine.
Note the annotated figure below.
PNG
media_image4.png
946
924
media_image4.png
Greyscale
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.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bauduin et al. 2020/0256209 in view of EP 2657556A2.
Bauduin et al. discloses a bearing arrangement substantially as claimed, the bearing arrangement comprising: a bearing 10; a bearing housing 52 defining an interior space for accommodating said bearing therein; said bearing housing having a drain opening for draining lubricant from said interior space; a chamber formed by 60, 80 defining an inlet opening 41, said chamber fluidly communicating with said drain opening via said inlet opening, wherein said chamber is configured to receive the lubricant that will be drained out of said interior space via said inlet opening; a damper 64 or 66 arranged within said chamber and fixed to said chamber; and a damping space formed within said chamber, wherein said damper is configured to throttle a flow of said lubricant drained out of said interior space
However, Bauduin et al. does not disclose a nacelle and the bearing arrangement arranged within the nacelle.
EP 2657556A2 shows a bearing arrangement for a wind turbine 10, the bearing arrangement comprising: a bearing 21; a bearing housing 23 defining an interior space for accommodating the bearing therein; the bearing housing having a drain opening (40, or as annotated) for draining lubricant from the interior space; a chamber fluidly communicating with the drain opening; and, a damping space formed within the chamber to throttle a flow of the lubricant out of the interior space. A wind turbine comprises a nacelle 13; and, the bearing arrangement arranged within the nacelle, for the purpose of providing a lubricated bearing arrangement which supports a rotor 11 and a shaft 14 of the wind turbine.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to utilize the bearing arrangement of Bauduin et al. in a wind turbine having a nacelle and the bearing arrangement arranged within the nacelle, as taught by EP 2657556A2, for the purpose of providing a lubricated bearing arrangement which supports a rotor and a shaft of the wind turbine.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2008-303988A in view of EP 2657556A2.
JP 2008-303988A discloses a bearing arrangement for a wind turbine substantially as claimed, the bearing arrangement comprising: a bearing 1; a bearing housing 8, 9, defining an interior space for accommodating said bearing therein; said bearing housing having a drain opening 9a for draining lubricant from said interior space; a chamber defining an inlet opening 9b, said chamber fluidly communicating with said drain opening via said inlet opening, wherein said chamber is configured to receive the lubricant that will be drained out of said interior space via said inlet opening; a damper 10 arranged within said chamber and fixed to said chamber; and a damping space formed within said chamber, wherein said damper is configured to throttle a flow of said lubricant drained out of said interior space.
However, JP 2008-303988A does not disclose a nacelle and the bearing arrangement arranged within the nacelle.
EP 2657556A2 shows a bearing arrangement for a wind turbine 10, the bearing arrangement comprising: a bearing 21; a bearing housing 23 defining an interior space for accommodating the bearing therein; the bearing housing having a drain opening (40, or as annotated) for draining lubricant from the interior space; a chamber fluidly communicating with the drain opening; and, a damping space formed within the chamber to throttle a flow of the lubricant out of the interior space. A wind turbine comprises a nacelle 13; and, the bearing arrangement arranged within the nacelle, for the purpose of providing a lubricated bearing arrangement which supports a rotor 11 and a shaft 14 of the wind turbine.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to utilize the bearing arrangement of JP 2008-303988A in a wind turbine having a nacelle and the bearing arrangement arranged within the nacelle, as taught by EP 2657556A2, for the purpose of providing a lubricated bearing arrangement which supports a rotor and a shaft of the wind turbine.
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Christopher Verdier whose telephone number is (571)272-4824. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00-3:30.
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, Courtney Heinle can be reached at 571-270-3508. 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.
/Christopher Verdier/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745