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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: Regarding claim 2, the phrase “wherein a ratio of the first blade angle to the second blade angle is 2:1 to 4:1” is redundant to the limitation set forth in Claim 1 (lines 17-18). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1 and 6-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent No. 6,212,777 to Gilder et al. in view of US Patent No. 10,773,401 to Walker et al.
In re claim 1, Gilder teaches a shaving razor cartridge, comprising:
a housing (1);
a guard (2) at a front of the housing;
a cap (3) at a rear of the housing;
a first blade (11) mounted to the housing between the guard and the cap, the first blade having a cutting edge (as shown in at least Figure 1) nearest the guard (2) and a primary span (S1) measured from the cutting edge of the first blade to the guard (as shown in at least Figures 1);
a second blade (12) mounted to the housing between the first blade (11) and the cap (3), the second blade having a cutting edge (as shown in at least Figure 1); and
a third blade (13) mounted to the housing between the second blade (12) and the cap (3), the third blade having a cutting edge (as shown in at least Figure 1);
a blade plane (P) defined by the cutting edges of the first blade, the second blade and the third blade;
a first blade angle (A) defined by the blade plane (P) and a plane extending from the cutting edge of the first blade to a top surface of the guard;
a second blade angle (A) defined by the blade plane (P) and a plane extending from the cutting edge of the third blade to the top surface of the guard.
In re claim 6, wherein the primary span (S1) is greater than 1.0 mm (Col. 3, lines 25-27).
In re claim 7, wherein the primary span (S1) is less than or equal to 1.25 mm (Col. 3, lines 25-27).
In re claim 8, wherein the primary span (S1) is greater than 1.0 mm and less than or equal to 1.25 mm (Col. 3, lines 25-27).
In re claim 9, wherein the ratio of the first blade angle to the second blade angle is 1:1 (Col. 2, lines 41-49).
Note, the first blade angle and the second blade angle can have the same value between 19-28 degrees.
In re claim 10, wherein a first blade span (S2) measured from the cutting edge of the second blade (12) to the cutting edge of the first blade (11) is less than the primary span (Col. 3, lines 27-29).
Note, there are values of the first blade span that are less than the top value of 1.5mm of the primary span.
In re claim 11, a second blade span (S3) measured from the cutting edge of the second blade (12) to the cutting edge of the third blade is less than the primary span (Col. 3, lines 27-29).
Note, there are values of the second blade span that are less than the top value of 1.5mm of the primary span.
In re claim 12, the first blade span is 5% to 20% less than the primary span (Col. 3, lines 25-29).
Note, there are values within the first blade span that are 5% to 20% less than values within the (range of the) primary span.
In re claim 13, wherein the first blade span 8% to 16% less than the primary span (Col. 3, lines 25-29).
Note, there are values within the first blade span that are 8% to 16% less than values within the (range of the) primary span.
Regarding claim 1, Gilder teaches a shaving angle A, which is the angle between the plane bisecting the blade tip and the plane with respect to which the blade exposure is measured, having an angle of between 19-28 degrees. Gilder teaches that all three blades do not have to be the same angle and the most effective values may depend on the span or exposure selected for each blade. Gilder also teaches the angles are not critical and a broad range of angles are acceptable. The advantage of the shaving angle is that it influences drag forces associated with the blade (Col. 2, lines 41-49). Given the disclosed angles, the ratio of the first blade angle to the second blade angle would be 4:5 (if the first blade angle is 20 degrees and the second blade angle is 25 degrees). Based on the disclosed angles, Gilder does not teach the ratio of the first blade angle to the second blade angle is 2:1 to 4:1.
Walker teaches a shaving razor cartridge having blade oriented at a shaving angle (or blade tangent angle). Referring to Figures 5, the blade (18) is disposed at a first blade angle of about 10 to about 25 degrees and blade (20) is disposed at a second blade angle of about 10 degrees, which is a ratio is 2:1 (if the first blade angle is 20 degrees and the second blade angle is 10 degrees) a which falls within the claimed range of 2:1 to 4:1.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to orient the blades of Gilder for the first blade angle and the second blade angle to have a ratio of 2:1 as taught by Walker which is advantageous for providing a close and comfortable shave in order to prevent skin issues caused by shave the face and the body ( Col. 2, lines 21-25).
The most effective blade angle values may depend on the span or exposure selected for each blade and the blade angles are also influential on the drag forces (Col. 2, lines 41-49, Gilder).
In re claim 2, modified Gilder teaches wherein a ratio of the first blade angle to the second blade angle is 2:1 to 4:1 (Col. 9, lines 59-67; if the first blade angle is 20 degrees and second blade angle is 10 degrees, the ratio is 2:1).
In re claim 3, modified Gilder teaches wherein the first blade angle is 3 degrees to 13 degrees (Col. 9, lines 59-67).
Regarding claims 4-5, Gilder teaches a first blade angle and a second blade angle, but does not teach the second blade angle is 1 to 5 degrees and the first blade angle is 3 to 10 degrees.
Walker teaches a second blade angle (β2) which is about 10 degrees (Para 0038) and a first blade angle first blade angle (β1) in the range of 10 degrees to 25 degrees (which satisfies the top portion of the range of 3 to 10 degrees).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to orient the blades of modified Gilder to have a first blade angle between 10 and 25 degrees and the second blade angle at a smaller angle (than the first blade angle) as taught Walker which is advantageous for providing a close and comfortable shave in order to prevent scraping the skin. The orientation of the blades and the blade angles also are influential on drag forces and vary depending on the span or exposure for each blade (Col. 2, lines 41-49, Gilder). A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. MPEP 2143, Section I, Part E. The combination of modified Gilder would have been obvious to try for the reasons set forth below:
(1) A finding that at the time of the invention, there had been a recognized problem or need in the art, which may include a design need or market pressure to solve a problem.
The Examiner recognized there was a design need to orient the modified blade of Gilder in view of Walker to have a blade angle in order to influence drag forces during shaving to reduce skin irritation, which is a design need based in the art of shaving. Based on the teachings provided by Walker, the Examiner concluded the blade angle orientation of modified Gilder maintains the desired angular orientation to influence drag.
(2) a finding that there had been a finite number of identified, predictable potential solutions to the recognized need or problem.
The Examiner recognized that Walker provided a teaching of a specific second blade angle of about 10 degrees. Based on the teachings of Walker, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found that there are a finite number of identified values that could be implemented as the angle to perform the intended cutting operation. The angular value of about 10 degrees as taught by Walker, would have provided one of ordinary skill in the art with a baseline value to being experimentation. In other words, one would have been prompted to try various angular values above and below about 10 degrees before arriving at the angle which allows the integrity of the shaving device to be retained.
(3) A finding that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success.
The Examiner determined that based on the teachings of Walker, that the modified blade of Gilder could have an angular orientation as set forth by Walker, since the angle of about 10 degrees would not jeopardize the intended cutting purpose of the blade. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been knowledgeable that the expectation of success, of orienting the blade at an angle of less than 10 degrees would still permit the blade to perform its intended cutting operation.
(4) Whatever additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries may be necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness.
The Examiner recognized that Walker teaches a blade angle of about 10 degrees being applied to a cutting blade, which is in view of the facts of the case under consideration. Therefore, based on the facts of the case, one would have been prompted to try various angles above and below the values about 10 degrees as taught by Walker to find the angular orientation that did not jeopardize the integrity of the shaver in order to influence drag.
Claims 14-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication No. 20050198837 to Rawle in view of US Patent No. 20180345512 to Walker, Jr. (hereinafter, Walker).
In re claim 14, Rawle teaches a shaving razor cartridge, comprising:
a housing (20);
a guard (22) at a front of the housing;
a cap (24) at a rear of the housing;
a first blade (28, left) mounted to the housing between the guard and the cap, the first blade having a cutting edge (as shown in at least Figure 3) nearest the guard and a primary span (S1) measured from the cutting edge of the first blade to the guard;
a second blade (28, second blade from the left in Figure 3) receives a cutting blade mounted to the housing between the first blade (28, left) and the cap (24), the second blade having a cutting edge (as shown in at least Figure 3); and
a third blade (28, third blade from the left in Figure 3) mounted to the housing between the second blade and the cap (24), the third blade having a cutting edge (as shown in at least Figure 3);
a fourth blade (28, fourth blade from the left in Figure 3) mounted to the housing between the third blade and the cap, the fourth blade having a cutting edge (as shown in at least Figure 3);
a fifth blade (28, last blade from the left in Figure 3) mounted to the housing between the fourth blade and the cap (24), the fifth blade having a cutting edge (as shown in at least Figure 30;
a blade plane defined by the cutting edges of the first blade, the second blade, the third blade, the fourth blade and the fifth blade (as shown in at least Figure 3, the blade lie in a plane);
a first blade angle defined by the blade plane and a plane extending from the cutting edge of the first blade to a top surface of the guard (Para 0005);
a second blade angle defined by the blade plane and a plane extending from the cutting edge of the fifth blade to the top surface of the guard (Para 0005).
In re claim 20, wherein the primary span is less than or equal to 1.25 mm (Para 0016).
Regarding claims 14 and 16, Rawle teaches a first and second blade angle are between 18 and 25 degrees, and does not teach wherein a ratio of the first blade angle to the second blade angle is 2:1 to 7:1 and the first blade angle is 3 degrees to 13 degrees.
Walker teaches a first blade angle (β1) in the range of 10 degrees to 25 degrees (which overlaps the claimed range of 3 to 13 degrees) and a second blade angle (β2) which is about 10 degrees (Para 0038). The ratio of the first blade angle to the second blade angle is 2:1 (if the first blade angle is 20 degrees and the second blade angle about 10 degrees).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to orient the blades of Rawle to have a first blade angle between 10 and 25 degrees and a second blade angle of about 10 degrees to satisfy the ratio of 2:1 as taught Walker to maintain providing a close and comfortable shave to prevent scraping and skin irritation.
Regarding claims 15, 17, and 18, Rawle teaches a first blade angle of 18-23 degrees, and does not teach a ratio of the first blade angle to the second blade angle is 4:1 to 5:1 (claim 15), the second blade angle is 0.5 degrees to 5 degrees (claim 17), and wherein the first blade angle is 3 degrees to 10 degrees and the second blade angle is 0.5 degrees to 5 degrees (claim 18).
Walker teaches a second blade angle (β2) which is about 10 degrees (Para 0038) and a first blade angle first blade angle (β1) in the range of 10 degrees to 25 degrees (which satisfies the top portion of the range of 3 to 10 degrees).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to orient the blades of Rawle to have a first blade angle between 10 and 25 degrees and the second blade angle at a smaller angle (than the first blade angle) as taught Walker which is advantageous for providing a close and comfortable shave in order to prevent scraping the skin. Orienting the first blade at an angle of 25 degrees and the second angle at 10 degrees would lead to a ratio of 5:2 (which is just outside the claimed range). A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. MPEP 2143, Section I, Part E. The combination of Rawle would have been obvious to try for the reasons set forth below:
(1) A finding that at the time of the invention, there had been a recognized problem or need in the art, which may include a design need or market pressure to solve a problem.
The Examiner recognized there was a design need to orient the blade of Rawle in view of Walker to have a blade angle in order to influence drag forces during shaving to reduce skin irritation, which is a design need based in the art of shaving. Based on the teachings provided by Walker, the Examiner concluded the blade angle orientation of Rawle maintains the desired angular orientation to influence drag.
(2) a finding that there had been a finite number of identified, predictable potential solutions to the recognized need or problem.
The Examiner recognized that Walker provided a teaching of a specific second blade angle of about 10 degrees. Based on the teachings of Walker, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found that there are a finite number of identified values that could be implemented as the angle to perform the intended cutting operation. The angular value of about 10 degrees as taught by Walker, would have provided one of ordinary skill in the art with a baseline value to being experimentation. In other words, one would have been prompted to try various angular values above and below about 10 degrees before arriving at the angle which allows the integrity of the shaving device to be retained.
(3) A finding that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success.
The Examiner determined that based on the teachings of Walker, that the blade of Rawle could have an angular orientation as set forth by Walker, since the angle of about 10 degrees (which includes values less than 10 degrees) would not jeopardize the intended cutting purpose of the blade. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been knowledgeable that the expectation of success, of orienting the blade at an angle of less than 10 degrees would still permit the blade to perform its intended cutting operation.
(4) Whatever additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries may be necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness.
The Examiner recognized that Walker teaches a blade angle of about 10 degrees being applied to a cutting blade, which is in view of the facts of the case under consideration. Therefore, based on the facts of the case, one would have been prompted to try various angles above and below the values about 10 degrees as taught by Walker to find the angular orientation that did not jeopardize the integrity of the shaver in order to influence drag.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rawle in view of Walker, Jr. (hereinafter, Walker), as applied to the above claims, and in further view of Guilder.
In re claim 19, modified Rawle teaches the primary span is 0.65mm (Para 0016), which is less than one. While Rawle teaches reducing spans for an increased number of blades tends to desirably reduce the overall area taken up by blades and to reduce the bulge of skin between cutting edges with a potential improvement in comfort. In a five-bladed razor, the lower end of the span range of 0.95 mm provides good comfort but increased potential for problems associated with clearing shaving debris, and the upper end of the span range of 1.15 mm provides good clearing of shaving debris but potential for skin bulge and decreased comfort, such that span values within the range, and in particular, values closer to the most preferred 1.05 mm span, provide a good balance of reduced size and good comfort while maintaining sufficient rinsiblity to avoid shaving debris problems (Para 0017). While Rawle provides a span for the blades, Rawle does not teach the primary span is greater than 1.00 mm.
Gilder teaches the primary span is 0.5 to 1.5 mm (Col. 3, lines 25-27, the range contains values 1.01 to 1.5 which are greater than 1mm).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention for the primary span of the blade of modified Rawle to be greater than 1 mm as taught by Gilder to maintain producing very good shaving results in terms of closeness of shave achieved with an acceptable overall performance taking into account all shaving characteristics (Col. 3, lines 36-40).
Response to Arguments
The drawing objection in the Office Action mailed January 5, 2026 has been obviated by the amendments field March 25, 2026.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-13 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argues with respect to claims 14-18 and 20 that the rejection is based on impermissible hindsight and fails to establish a proper motivation for combining the structurally and functionality of the dissimilar features. Applicant argues that one having ordinary skill in the art would not be able to arrive at a first blade angle to a second blade angle having a ratio of 2:1 to 7:1 and that the Examiner “cherry-pick” angles to satisfy the claim limitation.
The pending disclosure has not set forth the ratio of the first blade angle to the second blade angle being 2:1 to 7:1 as critical. Rowle teaches the blades having a blade tangent angle between 18 and 25 degrees (Para 0005) and that the spacing of the blades has a directed impact on the blade tangent angle and exposure (Para 0003). The range of 4:3 (if the first angle is 24 degrees and the second angle is 18 degrees of Rowle) is just outside of the claimed range of 2:1 to 7:1. Walker teaches a first blade angle (β1) in the range of 10 degrees to 25 degrees and a second blade angle (β2) which is about 10 degrees. The angular values of Walker are very close to the blade tangle angles of Rowle. Depending on the spacing required for rinsability, the first and second blade angle would adjust. Walker teaches an angular range, in which the first and second blade angles could adjust to in order to maintain an improved shaving experience (which is a parameter Rowle also wants to maintain, Para 0003). Rowel and Walker teach a first and second blade angle range; therefore, any of the disclosed values can be relied on to teach the claim limitation.
Applicant argues with respect to claim 15, the obvious to try rationale is improper since it applies only when there are a finite number of identified predictable solutions. Applicant argues Walker provides no teaching to increase the angle ratio.
Walker teaches the first second blade angle is about 10 to about 25 degrees and the second blade angle is about 10 degrees. The term “about” per Merriam Webster Dictionary is defined as “reasonably close to; almost.” Rowle teaches the first and second blade angle is in a range of 18 to 25 degrees. The angles of Rowle and the angles of Walker are “about” the same, per the BRI of the term (and more specifically, the ranges overlap). Rowle teaches the advantages of the blade spacing with respect to rinsiblity has a direct relationship on the blade tangent angle and the exposure. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been prompted to try various angles to permit adequate blade spacing while adjusting the parameter of the blade tangent angle to maintain a smooth shave. Further, the argument to hindsight is not persuasive because it appears to insert on an explicit teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art to establish obviousness, where such an argument has been foreclosed by the Supreme Court, KSR 550 U.S. at 419 (stating that a rigid insistence on a teaching, suggestion, or motivation is incompatible with its precedent concerning obviousness). The count noted that an obviousness analysis “need not to seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for [an examiner] can take account of the interferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” Id. at 418. Instead, the relevant inquiry is whether the Examiner has set forth “some articulated reasoning with some rationale underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” In re Kahn, 441 F,3d977,988 (Fed. Cir. 2006). As set forth in the above argument, the pending disclosure has not set forth any criticality to the first and second blade angle having a ratio of 4:1 to 5:1.
Applicant argues with respect to claims 17-18 the prior art does not teach the second blade angle of 0.5 to 5 degrees, since Walker teaches a second blade angle of about 10 degrees, which is significantly different and lower than about 10 degrees.
Walker teaches the first second blade angle is about 10 to about 25 degrees and the second blade angle is about 10 degrees. The term “about” per Merriam Webster Dictionary is defined as “reasonably close to; almost.” Rowle teaches the first and second blade angle is in a range of 18 to 25 degrees. The angles of Rowle and the angles of Walker are “about” the same, per the BRI of the term (and more specifically, the ranges overlap). Rowle teaches the advantages of the blade spacing with respect to rinsiblity has a direct relationship on the blade tangent angle and the exposure. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been prompted to try various angles to permit adequate blade spacing while adjusting the parameter of the blade tangent angle to maintain a smooth shave. 10 degrees is about 5 degrees. The pending disclosure has not set forth the angular range of 0.5 degrees to 5 degrees as being critical. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been prompted to try various angles to permit adequate blade spacing while adjusting the parameter of the blade tangent angle to maintain a smooth shave. Further, the argument to hindsight is not persuasive because it appears to insert on an explicit teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art to establish obviousness, where such an argument has been foreclosed by the Supreme Court, KSR 550 U.S. at 419 (stating that a rigid insistence on a teaching, suggestion, or motivation is incompatible with its precedent concerning obviousness). The count noted that an obviousness analysis “need not to seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for [an examiner] can take account of the interferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” Id. at 418. Instead, the relevant inquiry is whether the Examiner has set forth “some articulated reasoning with some rationale underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” In re Kahn, 441 F,3d977,988 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
Applicant argues with respect to claim 19, Gilder teaches away from a specific blade angle ratio being important. Applicant further argues Rawle teaches reducing the blade span and incorporating a larger blade span as taught by Gilder would teach against Rawle.
Gilder was not relied upon to teach the blade ratio, so this argument is moot. Rawle in view of Walker was relied on to teach the blade ratio. Rawle teaches a decreased exposure on the first blade and an increased exposure on the last blade improves shaving performance. Rawle teaches the blade space is 0.65mm, which is just outside the value of 1.00mm or greater. Rawle does not teach against a larger blade span. Rawle teaches as the desired blade spacing is achieved for rinsibility, the parameter to the blade exposure can change. Gilder provides a teaching that it is known for a shaving device to have an exposure greater than 1mm. "A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automation. "KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397. "[I]n many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle."Id. at 420, 82 USPQ2d at 1397. Office personnel may also take into account "the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ."Id. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
Conclusion
The Examiner conducted an updated search, but there are no additional pertinent prior art at this time.
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 JENNIFER S MATTHEWS whose telephone number is (571)270-5843. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8am-4pm.
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, Boyer Ashley can be reached at 571-272-4502. 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.
/JENNIFER S MATTHEWS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724
