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 .
Drawings
Figure 1 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. 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 Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: “is a section” appears to be in error for “in a section”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 6 and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities: “Φ” appears to be redundant in view of the recitation of “diameter”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-13 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “among a plurality of refrigerant pipe portions affecting a refrigerant pressure in the refrigerant pipe portions on the intake and discharge sides of the compressor”. It is unclear if the “a plurality of refrigerant pipe portions” are the same or different from the “refrigerant pipe portions”. If they are the same, it is unclear how the pressure in the plurality of pipe portions affects the pressure in the same pipe portions. It is believed that “in the refrigerant pipe portions” may be redundant and/or that the specific pipe portion may be the pipe portion intended to affect a refrigerant pressure in a/the plurality. Additionally, it should first be established that the compressor has an intake and discharge side before referring to the intake and discharge sides of the compressor for proper antecedent basis. Claim 1 also recites the limitation “other refrigerant pipe portions”. Are these the same or different from “a plurality of refrigerant pipe portions” and “the pipe portions on the intake and discharge sides of the compressor”? Additionally, limitation “increasing the diameter” cannot be understood, as there is no reference. Increasing with respect to what? Is the pipe section larger than standard? Does the pipe include a bulged section? It is believed the prior art would meet either understanding. To expedite prosecution, Examiner has interpreted the claim to require a pipe portion that is larger in diameter than other pipe portions of the system, which is believed to meet the structural recitations of the claim. Claims 2-13 are rejected insofar as they are dependent on claim 1 and therefore include the same error(s).
Claims 2-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the refrigerant pipe portions on the discharge port sides of the low pressure side heat exchangers”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the refrigerant pipe portions on the discharge port sides […]” and “the discharge port sides”. Applicant should first establish the discharge port sides and that there are refrigerant pipe portions on the discharge port sides. Claims 3-13 are rejected insofar as they are dependent on claim 2 and therefore include the same error(s).
Claims 3-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 3 recites the limitations “wherein the first enlarged portion is formed in a specific section of each of the refrigerant pipe portions between the low pressure side heat exchangers and the compressor that extends from the specific refrigerant pipe portion on the side of the low pressure side heat exchangers to an intake port of the compressor”. Claim 2, upon which claim 3 depends, recites “formed in a specific section of the refrigerant pipe of the refrigerant circulation line between the low pressure side heat exchangers and the compressor”. It is unclear if the specific section of claim 3 is the same or different from the specific section of claim 2, particularly since claim 3 appears to require a plurality of first enlarged portions. Additionally, limitation “the specific refrigerant pipe portion on the side of the low pressure side heat exchangers” lacks appropriate antecedent basis in the claims since it was not established that “a specific refrigerant pipe portion” of claim 1 was “on the side of the lower pressure side heat exchangers”. To expedite prosecution, prior art was applied to the claim as best it could be understood as presented. Claims 4-7 are rejected insofar as they are dependent on claim 3 and therefore include the same error(s).
Claims 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “a section extending from the confluence point to the intake port of the compressor”. It is unclear if this section is the same or different from the previously recited section. It is recommended to further limit the section(s) the first enlarged portion was earlier formed in to clarify the relationship. Claims 5-7 are rejected insofar as they are dependent on claim 4 and therefore include the same error(s).
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 5 recites the limitations “a connector configured to connect the refrigerant pipe portions on the side of the first enlarged portion to the refrigerant pipe portions on the side of the low pressure side heat exchangers” followed by “a third connection port to which the refrigerant pipe portion on the side of the first enlarged portion is connectable”. It is unclear how many refrigerant pipe portions are on the side of the first enlarged portion. It is believed, based on the disclosure, that there is only one. Claims 6-7 are rejected insofar as they are dependent on claim 5 and therefore include the same error(s).
Claims 9-13 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.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the entire section”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the entire section”. It is believed Applicant intended to further limit the specific section to require an entire section. Claim 9 recites the limitation “a specific section”. It is unclear if this is the same or different from “a specific section” of claim 8. It is believed to be the same. Claims 10-13 are rejected insofar as they are dependent on claim 9 and therefore include the same error(s).
Claims 11-13 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.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “the system further comprises a dehumidification line branched from a rear end of the heat pump mode expansion valve and connected to the low pressure side heat exchangers, and […] a refrigerant pipe of the dehumidification line”. It is unclear if these are the same or different from those of claim 9, upon which claims 11-13 depend.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ogata et al. (US 2017/0045269).
Regarding claim 1, Ogata et al. shows a vehicular heat management system, comprising: a refrigerant circulation line including a compressor (see at least Figure 1, compressor #11), a high pressure side heat exchanger (see at least Figure 1, heat exchanger #16), a heat pump mode expansion valve (see at least expansion valves #14/#17), an outdoor heat exchanger (see at least radiator #12), and a plurality of low pressure side heat exchangers installed parallel to each other (see at least evaporators #15/#18),
wherein the refrigerant circulation line further includes a refrigerant pipe having an increased diameter portion formed by increasing the diameter of a specific refrigerant pipe portion among a plurality of refrigerant pipe portions affecting a refrigerant pressure in the refrigerant pipe portions on the intake and discharge sides of the compressor so that the specific refrigerant pipe portion has a larger diameter than other refrigerant pipe portions (see at least diffuser #19d of ejector #19; paragraph [0067]).
Regarding claim 2, Ogata et al. further shows wherein the increased diameter portion includes a first enlarged portion formed in a specific section of the refrigerant pipe of the refrigerant circulation line between the low pressure side heat exchangers and the compressor (see at least diffuser #19d, which includes an enlarged portion in a specific section between the evaporators #15/#18 and the compressor #11), and the first enlarged portion is formed so that the diameter of the refrigerant pipe portion on the intake port side of the compressor is larger than the diameter of the refrigerant pipe portions on the discharge port sides of the low pressure side heat exchangers (see at least paragraph [0067]: diffuser #19d is the largest diameter portion of ejector #19, and thus, since the evaporators join ejector #19 upstream of the diffuser, the diameter on the compressor intake side is larger than on the evaporator discharge side).
Regarding claim 3, Ogata et al. further shows wherein the first enlarged portion is formed in a specific section of each of the refrigerant pipe portions between the low pressure side heat exchangers and the compressor that extends from the specific refrigerant pipe portion on the side of the low pressure side heat exchangers to an intake port of the compressor (see at least ejector #19 extending from each of #15/#18 to #19d leading to the intake of compressor #11).
Regarding claim 4, Ogata et al. further shows wherein the refrigerant pipe portions on the discharge port sides of the low pressure side heat exchangers are joined at a confluence point (see at least Figure 1, the discharge sides of #15/#18 join at a confluence point within ejector #19), and the first enlarged portion is formed is a section extending from the confluence point to the intake port of the compressor (see at least Figure 1, diffuser #19d extends from the confluence point within ejector #19).
Regarding claim 5, Ogata et al. further shows further comprising: a connector configured to connect the refrigerant pipe portions on the side of the first enlarged portion to the refrigerant pipe portions on the side of the low pressure side heat exchangers (see at least Figure 1, ejector #19 inherently forms a connector for the above),
wherein the connector has first and second connection ports to which the refrigerant pipe portions on the side of the low pressure side heat exchangers are connectable (see at least paragraphs [0049]; [0054]), and a third connection port to which the refrigerant pipe portion on the side of the first enlarged portion is connectable (see at least paragraph [0068]).
Regarding claim 8, Ogata et al. further shows wherein the increased diameter portion further includes a second enlarged portion formed in a specific section of the refrigerant pipe of the refrigerant circulation line between a discharge port of the compressor and the high pressure side heat exchanger (see at least Figure 1, one branch of branch portion #13; paragraph [0046]: joining pipes of three different diameters requires at least two to be increased in diameter with respect to a third).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 6 and7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogata et al. (US 2017/0045269).
Ogata et al. discloses all the elements of claim 5, upon which claims 6 and 7 depends.
Regarding claim 6, Ogata et al. does not disclose wherein the diameter of the refrigerant pipe in the first enlarged portion is Φ21 mm, and the diameter of the refrigerant pipe on the side of each of the low pressure side heat exchangers is Φ16 or Φ 19mm.
There is no evidence of record that establishes that providing wherein the diameter of the refrigerant pipe in the first enlarged portion is Φ21 mm, and the diameter of the refrigerant pipe on the side of each of the low pressure side heat exchangers is Φ16 or Φ 19mm would result in a difference in function of the Ogata et al. system. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the system of Ogata et al., would have reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears that the system would function as intended being given the claimed dimensions. Lastly, Applicant has not disclosed that the claimed dimensions solve any stated problem, indicating that the stated dimensions are ”preferably” as claimed (see paragraph [75]) and providing other options (see paragraphs [72]-[74]), and therefore there appears to be no criticality placed on the dimensions as claimed such that they produce an unexpected result.
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the system of Ogata et al. with wherein the diameter of the refrigerant pipe in the first enlarged portion is Φ21 mm, and the diameter of the refrigerant pipe on the side of each of the low pressure side heat exchangers is Φ16 or Φ 19mm as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art (see also In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.).
Regarding claim 7, Ogata et al. further discloses wherein the low pressure side heat exchangers include two of a front seat low pressure side heat exchanger, a rear seat low pressure side heat exchanger, and a battery-cooling low pressure side heat exchanger (see at least paragraph [0138]).
Claim(s) 9-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogata et al. as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of APPLICANT-ADMITTED-PRIOR-ART and Dressler (US 5,461,876).
Regarding claim 9, Ogata further discloses wherein the second enlarged portion is formed in the entire section or a specific section of the refrigerant pipe between the discharge port of the compressor and the high pressure side heat exchanger (see at least Figure 1, one branch portion #13; paragraph [0046]: joining pipes of three different diameters requires at least two to be increased in diameter with respect to a third; all three are situated between the discharge of the compressor #11 and the high pressure heat exchanger #16, thus the one branch portion will be so positioned).
Ogata et al. does not disclose the system further comprises a dehumidification line branched from a rear end of the heat pump mode expansion valve and connected to the low pressure side heat exchangers.
APPLICANT-ADMITTED-PRIOR-ART teaches that it was old and well known for a vehicle heat management system to include a dehumidification line branched from a rear end of the heat pump mode expansion valve and connected to the low pressure side heat exchangers (see Figure 1, line #14; paragraph [14]).
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the system of Ogata et al. with the system further comprises a dehumidification line branched from a rear end of the heat pump mode expansion valve and connected to the low pressure side heat exchangers, since as evidenced by APPLICANT-ADMITTED-PRIOR-ART, such provision was old and well-known and would provide the predicable benefit of allowing for additional conditioning modes with minimal additional components.
Ogata et al. in view of APPLICANT-ADMITTED-PRIOR-ART is silent regarding and the second enlarged portion is formed to have a larger diameter than a refrigerant pipe of the dehumidification line.
However, relative diameters of piping portions in a heat management system is a results effective variable, as recognized by Dressler (see at least column 7, lines 53-66): relative diameters of piping portions are dependent on system capacity and refrigerant phase in the specific piping portion.
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the system of Ogata et al. in view of APPLICANT-ADMITTED-PRIOR-ART with and the second enlarged portion is formed to have a larger diameter than a refrigerant pipe of the dehumidification line, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977)).
Regarding claim 10, Ogata et al. further discloses wherein the increased diameter portion further includes a third enlarged portion formed in a specific section of the refrigerant pipe of the refrigerant circulation line between the high pressure side heat exchanger and the outdoor heat exchanger (see at least Figure 1, another one branch of branch portion #13; paragraph [0046]: joining pipes of three different diameters requires at least two to be increased in diameter with respect to a third).
Regarding claim 11, Ogata et al. further discloses wherein the third enlarged portion is formed in the entire section or a specific section of the refrigerant pipe between the high pressure side heat exchanger and the outdoor heat exchanger (see at least Figure 1, another one branch portion #13; paragraph [0046]: joining pipes of three different diameters requires at least two to be increased in diameter with respect to a third; all three are situated between the outdoor heat exchanger #12 and the high pressure heat exchanger #16, thus the another one branch portion will be so positioned).
Ogata et al. does not disclose the system further comprises a dehumidification line branched from a rear end of the heat pump mode expansion valve and connected to the low pressure side heat exchangers.
APPLICANT-ADMITTED-PRIOR-ART teaches that it was old and well known for a vehicle heat management system to include a dehumidification line branched from a rear end of the heat pump mode expansion valve and connected to the low pressure side heat exchangers (see Figure 1, line #14; paragraph [14]).
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the system of Ogata et al. with the system further comprises a dehumidification line branched from a rear end of the heat pump mode expansion valve and connected to the low pressure side heat exchangers, since as evidenced by APPLICANT-ADMITTED-PRIOR-ART, such provision was old and well-known and would provide the predicable benefit of allowing for additional conditioning modes with minimal additional components.
Ogata et al. in view of APPLICANT-ADMITTED-PRIOR-ART is silent regarding and the third enlarged portion is formed to have a larger diameter than a refrigerant pipe of the dehumidification line.
However, relative diameters of piping portions in a heat management system is a results effective variable, as recognized by Dressler (see at least column 7, lines 53-66): relative diameters of piping portions are dependent on system capacity and refrigerant phase in the specific piping portion.
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the system of Ogata et al. in view of APPLICANT-ADMITTED-PRIOR-ART with and the third enlarged portion is formed to have a larger diameter than a refrigerant pipe of the dehumidification line, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977)).
Regarding claim 12, Ogata et al. in view of APPLICANT-ADMITTED-PRIOR-ART is silent regarding wherein the diameter of the refrigerant pipe in the second enlarged portion and the third enlarged portion is smaller than the diameter of the refrigerant pipe in the first enlarged portion.
However, relative diameters of piping portions in a heat management system is a results effective variable, as recognized by Dressler (see at least column 7, lines 53-66): relative diameters of piping portions are dependent on system capacity and refrigerant phase in the specific piping portion.
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the system of Ogata et al. in view of APPLICANT-ADMITTED-PRIOR-ART with wherein the diameter of the refrigerant pipe in the second enlarged portion and the third enlarged portion is smaller than the diameter of the refrigerant pipe in the first enlarged portion, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977)).
Regarding claim 13, Ogata et al. does not disclose wherein the diameter of the second enlarged portion and the third enlarged portion is Φ16 mm.
There is no evidence of record that establishes that providing wherein the diameter of the second enlarged portion and the third enlarged portion is Φ16 mm would result in a difference in function of the Ogata et al. system. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the system of Ogata et al., would have reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears that the system would function as intended being given the claimed dimensions. Lastly, Applicant has not disclosed that the claimed dimensions solve any stated problem, indicating that the stated dimensions are ”preferably” as claimed (see paragraphs [85]; [95]) and providing other options (see paragraphs [84]; [94]), and therefore there appears to be no criticality placed on the dimensions as claimed such that they produce an unexpected result.
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the system of Ogata et al. with wherein the diameter of the second enlarged portion and the third enlarged portion is Φ16 mm as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art (see also In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure as teaching other refrigerant pipe portions having increased diameter with respect to other system components.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAVIA SULLENS whose telephone number is (571)272-3749. The examiner can normally be reached M-R 6:30-4:30 Eastern.
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, Jianying Atkisson can be reached at 571-270-7740. 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.
/TAVIA SULLENS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763