DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, has been examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Remarks
Applicant is thanked for their thorough February 19, 2026 response to the office action filed December 4, 2025. In particular, Applicant is thanked for the claims filed February 19, 2026.
For clarity of record, the examiner respectfully notes that the claims filed February 19, 2026 represent amendments made to the June 4, 2025 claims that resulted in the claims filed September 19, 2025 claims.
Additionally, no amendments were made to the claims filed February 19, 2026 that changed the scope of the claims filed September 19, 2025.
In response to the 35 USC §102(a)(1) rejection of claim 19 as being unpatentable over Fowler, Jr (US 3,811,250), Applicant remarks (inter alia) that “Specifically, Fowler does not teach or suggest a movable cover element as set forth in claim 19….while the panel (23) of Fowler is removable, “removable” is not synonymous with movable in the context of independent claim 19… While the panel (23) of Fowler is removable, "removable" is not synonymous with movable in the context of independent claim 19.”
The examiner respectfully notes that it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the panel 23 of Fowler does not function to dynamically open and close a connecting opening for the passage of workpieces on a conveyor system) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to the 35 USC §103 rejection of claim 19, 22, and 23 as being unpatentable over Hayashi (US 3,625,133), in view of Lee (KR 2010 0226263), Applicant remarks (inter alia) that the “purported combination of Hayashi and Lee constitutes impermissible hindsight. A skilled person would not have been motivated to combine the teachings of Hayashi and Lee to arrive at the subject matter of claim 19, as they address different problems in non-analogous fields of art.
The examiner respectfully notes that:
First, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). After reviewing the disclosure of Hayashi and Lee, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized the benefits of a movable cover element to enclose and isolate harmful gases within a work space. An air curtain provides a fluid isolation barrier between adjacent spaces that can be traversed without the need for a physical access point. A movable shield, cover, or partition used in combination with an air curtain provides a physical isolation barrier that can be selectively positioned (moved) to “effectively seal an opening”. It is maintained that, after reviewing the disclosure of Hayashi and Lee, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize the benefit of including a movable/removable physical isolation barrier with a fluid isolation barrier, at least to improve the indoor environment and improve work efficiency.
Second, both Hayashi and Lee are classified in F24F9/00: “use of air currents for screening, e.g. air curtains” and so accordingly are in an analogous field of art to a person having ordinary skill. In that they may be interpreted to “address different problems”, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Note that "same field of endeavor" and "reasonably pertinent" are two separate tests for establishing analogous art; it is not necessary for a reference to fulfill both tests in order to qualify as analogous art. In this case, both Hayashi and Lee look to provide an air curtain that encloses and isolates harmful gases within a work space. Similar to the instant application, both Hayashi and Lee are reasonably pertinent to the instant application as they both utilize an air stream introduced into a region to isolate a work space.
PNG
media_image1.png
892
756
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In response to the 35 USC §103 rejection of claim 19, 22, and 23 as being unpatentable over Hayashi (US 3,625,133), in view of Lee (KR 2010 0226263), Applicant remarks (inter alia) – continued - that “Lee fails to overcome the deficiencies of Hayashi. Lee mentions a laboratory fume hood with a vertically sliding door or sash (14) that can be opened and closed by an operator. Thus, the references operate in fundamentally different technical contexts.
The examiner respectfully notes that while the environment in which Hayashi is utilized indeed is different from the environment in which Lee is utilized, both separating devices comprise air curtains configured to isolate a harmful/ toxic spaces. Additionally, the Federal Circuit reads KSR as "direct[ing] us to construe the scope of analogous art broadly" because "familiar items may have obvious uses beyond their primary purposes, and a person of ordinary skill often will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together” MPEP 2141.01(a).I.
In response to the 35 USC §103 rejection of claim 19, 22, and 23 as being unpatentable over Hayashi (US 3,625,133), in view of Lee (KR 2010 0226263), Applicant remarks (inter alia) – continued - Lee is related to laboratory equipment, specifically a fume hood designed for the manual access of a human operator. The problem addressed by Lee is providing a safe, adjustable opening for a person to conduct experiments by hand. A person seeking to improve the industrial system according to claim 19 (or a general system such as mentioned in Hayashi) for the purpose of conveying large, automated workpieces would not look to the design of a manual-access laboratory fume hood for a solution such as that set forth in Lee.
The examiner respectfully notes that:
First, it appears that Applicant may be anticipating an intended use of Lee, as nowhere is it disclosed that their separating device is operated manually by a human, or as automated by a robot. Additionally, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.
Second, while the size/proportion of the system of Hayashi appears to be larger than the system of Lee, it has been held that limitations relating the size of an item (“a package”) were not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art In re Rose, 2020F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1995). Accordingly inasmuch as the scale of the systems may be different, Lee teaches that while a separated space may be created by an air curtain, an inclusion of a “door” with an air curtain helps to prevent the outflow of harmful gases and odors from the separated space and into an adjacent space.
In response to the 35 USC §103 rejection of claim 19, 22, and 23 as being unpatentable over Hayashi (US 3,625,133), in view of Lee (KR 2010 0226263), Applicant remarks (inter alia) – continued that “One of the problems solved by the claimed cover element (e.g., the cover element 116), which can pivot, for example, is enabling rapid, synchronized passage of a workpiece on a conveyor with minimal opening time, amongst other advantages. In contrast, the problem solved by the sliding door (14) of Lee is to provide an adjustable but relatively static opening for a human to work through for extended periods. The dynamics, scale, and purpose of these applications are entirely different.”
The examiner respectfully notes that it appears that this remark may be based upon Applicant’s inference of a frequency/period/rate/time of the operation of Lee’s door, as nowhere is the frequency/period/rate/time of Lee’s door operation disclosed. Lee discloses that “the door 14 for lifting up and down to open and close the opening are known techniques, for example, mechanical linkage means such as rack and pinion gear, or the rotary tee-line lower air curtain device 40 is configured to be automatically bidirectionally hinged as the door 14 moves up and down by being connected by electrical linkage means such as a distance sensor and a servo mechanism.”1
In the instant application. it is disclosed that:
[0085] In a further embodiment, provision may be made for the conveying system to comprise an accelerating device, by means of which a workpiece is conveyable through the connecting opening with an increased speed and/or at a reduced step cycle time compared to a conveying speed and/or step cycle time in the treatment space.
[0086] The cover element is then open only for a shorter period of time in comparison to the conveyance of the workpieces without such an accelerating device, whereby the fluid exchange between the adjacent spaces, in particular the air exchange between the adjacent spaces, can be further minimized.
[0230] “(T)he period of time in which the cover element 116 is arranged in the open position depends on the conveying speed.”
Accordingly, it appears that the operational frequency/period/rate/time of the instant application cover and Lee’s door may both depend on the rate at which an object is placed within the treatment area. Additionally, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a “rapid, synchronized passage of a workpiece on a conveyor with minimal opening time”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
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 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable by Fowler, Jr. (US 3,811,250).
In re Claim 19, Fowler, Jr. discloses a separating device (figs 1 – 6) for minimizing a fluid exchange between adjacent spaces (col 2, lns 54 – 57; col 7, lns 15 – 18), the separating device comprising:
a nozzle device** (at (68), annotated, below), by which a separating fluid stream (via blower (48)) is introducible into a transition region (41) between the adjacent spaces; and
**Please note that as Fowler, Jr discloses a “high velocity air passing downward through slot 68”, it has been understood to disclose “a nozzle device” (col 7, lns 7 – 12, 23 – 25, 36 – 39)
a movable cover element (fig 1: (23)), by which a connecting opening connecting the adjacent spaces to each other is coverable or closeable at least in sections,
Please note that as cover element (23) is removable (col 3, lns 55 – 57), it is movable.
PNG
media_image2.png
457
798
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein the separating device further includes one or more suction openings (63) arranged in a base region (28) of the separating device,
wherein the one or more suction openings (63) are positioned to suction at least a portion of the separating fluid stream (col 6, lns 12 – 13, col 7, lns 12 – 14).
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 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.
Claims 19, 22, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi (US 3,625,133) in view of Lee (KR 201 00116263).
Claims 19, 22, and 23, Hayashi (fig 3) discloses a separating device for minimizing a fluid exchange between adjacent spaces and a transition region (8), the separating device comprising:
a nozzle device (36) (“being of a slit type” col 4, lns 4 – 7), by which a separating fluid stream (7) is introducible into a transition region (8) between the adjacent spaces (apparent); and
wherein the separating device further includes one or more suction openings (37) arranged in a base region of the separating device,
wherein the one or more suction openings (37) are positioned to suction at least a portion of the separating fluid stream (7).
Hayashi lacks a movable cover element, by which a connecting opening connecting the adjacent spaces to each other is coverable or closeable at least in sections. However, such a technique is known in the ventilation arts, as evidenced by Lee.
Lee teaches a separating device (figs 3 – 10) for minimizing a fluid exchange between adjacent spaces (annotated, below), the separating device comprising:
a nozzle device (30/31), by which a separating fluid stream is introducible into a transition region (annotated, below) between the adjacent spaces;
a movable cover element (14) by which a connecting opening (12) connecting the adjacent spaces to each other is coverable or closeable at least in sections (figs 9, 10);
a drive device for driving the movable cover element (14), and a positioning device *** (“The door 14 is linked by a known technique such as a mechanical coupling means such as a rack and pinion gear or an electrical coupling means such as a distance measuring sensor *** and a servo mechanism”2); and
PNG
media_image3.png
450
843
media_image3.png
Greyscale
wherein the movable cover element (14) is arranged on a rotatable shaft (not shown), and
“That is, the rotary tiller lower air curtain device 40 formed on the outside of the lower end of the opening, and the door 14 for lifting up and down to open and close the opening are known techniques, for example, mechanical linkage means such as rack & pinion gear, or the rotary tiller lower air curtain device 40 is configured to be automatically bidirectionally hinged as the door 14 moves up and down by being connected by electrical linkage means such as a distance sensor and a servo mechanism.”1
wherein the movable cover element (14) is arranged on an upper side of the connecting opening (as seen in fig 10) in relation to the direction of gravity and is pivotable from above into the connecting opening (via the rotary tiller).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of Hayashi as taught by Lee, such that the system comprises a movable cover element and drive, by which a connecting opening connecting the adjacent spaces to each other is coverable or closeable at least in sections, for the benefit of easily containing harmful gases within the transition region, improving user safety.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi (US 3,625,133), in view of Lee (KR 201 00116263), and further in view of Russell (3,025,780).
In re Claim 20, the proposed system has been discussed (In re Claim 19), wherein Lee teaches a drive device (a mechanical coupling means) for driving the movable cover element and a positioning device (a distance measuring sensor) different from the drive device.
However, the proposed combination is silent as to whether the positioning device is configured to bring the movable cover element into an open position upon failure of the drive device.
Russell teaches a separating device (figs 1, 2) for minimizing a fluid exchange between adjacent spaces (in which the device is located), the separating device comprising a fluid stream inlet device (col 3, Ins 35 — 40), by which a separating fluid stream is introducible into a transition region (an opening formed when (15, 16) are raised) and a movable cover element (15, 16), by which a connecting opening (17) connecting the adjacent spaces to each other is coverable or closeable at least in sections [0102]; comprising:
a positioning device (counterweights (34, 35)) by which the cover element (15, 16) is brought into the open position upon failure of a drive means (col 2, Ins 6 — 14; col 4, Ins 34 – 48; 54 – 75)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the proposed system, as taught by Russell, such that the positioning device is configured to bring the movable cover element into an open position upon failure of the drive device, for the benefit of providing a safety system that operates without power, for improved user confidence.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi (US 3,625,133) in view of Lee (KR 201 00116263), and further in view of Schneck et al (US 5,216,782).
In re Claim 21, the proposed system has been discussed, wherein the movable cover element in a closing position is configured to project into a movement path of a workpiece.
Please note that “a movement path” has been understood to comprise a path that traverses between the connecting opening (Hayashi, fig 3 (8)) and an adjacent space (zones outside the air curtain (7) formed by the nozzle device (36)).
However, the proposed combination is silent as to whether the separating device further comprises a sensor device for detecting the workpiece and a control device configured to bring the movable cover element into an open position based on a detection by the sensor device.
Schneck et al teaches a separating device (fig 4) comprising a movable cover element (45),
wherein the movable cover element in a closing position is configured to project into a movement path of a workpiece, and wherein the separating device further comprises a sensor device (130) (col 8, lns 44 – 56) for detecting the workpiece and a control device (fig 5: (140)) configured to bring the movable cover element into an open position (“a predetermined position above the housing floor” col 9, lns 7 – 21; col 10, lns 24 – 37) based on a detection by the sensor device.
wherein the movable cover element (45) is arranged on a rotatable shaft (col 8, lns 1 – 16; col 11, lns 7 – 11).
wherein the movable cover element (45) is arranged on an upper side of the connecting opening (as seen in fig 4) in relation to the direction of gravity and is pivotable from above into the connecting opening.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the proposed system as taught by Schneck et al, such that the system comprises:
a sensor device for detecting the workpiece and a control device configured to bring the movable cover element into an open position based on a detection by the sensor device;
for the benefit of preventing user injury and separating device damage.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6 – 8, and 10 – 18 are allowed; please refer to the July 17, 2025 Notice of Allowability.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Prior art made of record, not relied upon, and yet considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure can be found in the PRO – 892: Notice of References Cited. Art of particular significance includes:
Kawakami et al (JP 08005213) discloses a separating device and treatment system, comprising a separating device for minimizing a fluid exchange between adjacent spaces, the separating device comprising:
a slit device (5a), by which a separating fluid stream is introducible into a transition region between the adjacent spaces; and
“According to the configuration corresponding to claim 1 described above; by providing vertical partition plates along both ends of the belt conveyor at the belt conveyor entrance and exit, it is possible to prevent outside air from being drawn in and entering from both ends of the conveyor entrance and exit. Furthermore, since the airflow blown out from the slit-shaped outlet blows down along the vertical partition plates, it acts as an air curtain, making it more difficult for outside air to enter.” [0011]
a movable cover element (figs 1 – 4: (9)), by which a connecting opening (7) connecting the adjacent spaces to each other is coverable or closeable at least in sections, wherein the cover element is selectively:
PNG
media_image4.png
560
934
media_image4.png
Greyscale
a) moveable into a closing position for covering or closing the connecting opening at least in sections, or
b) moveable into an open position for at least approximately completely unblocking the connecting opening,
In addition, the belt conveyor inlet and outlet openings 7, 7 are provided with air direction changing plates 9, 9 that slope downward from the top of the openings into the cooling chamber 10 above the conveyor 6, for the purpose of counteracting the energy of the airflow blown outwards from the conveyor inlet and outlet openings. As shown in Figure 4, the tilt angle θ of this wind direction changing plate is set to approximately 30° to 60°. The wind direction changing plates 9, 9 may also be attached to the second slit 5b and the third slit 5c.” [0017]
wherein the cover element (9) in the closing position faces with an inlet opening (downstream of (3)) of a fluid guiding portion of the cover element (9) toward an outflow opening of the slot device (5a) such that the separating fluid stream flowing out of the outflow opening is directed by the inlet opening into the fluid guiding portion, and
wherein in the closing position of the cover element, the outflow opening of the slot device together with the inlet opening of the fluid guiding portion forms a suction slot.
Huang et al (US 2010/0267321)3 discloses a separating device (fig 3) for minimizing a fluid exchange between adjacent spaces, the separating device comprising:
a nozzle device (downstream of (123)), by which a separating fluid stream (122) is introducible into a transition region between the adjacent spaces; and
As an “air pushing veil” (122) is generated to” provide a steady air flow” [0025], the separating device has been understood to comprise a nozzle, as such a structure is known to provide an airflow at “an air -blowing velocity” to control airflow across a transition region, such as (125)
Please note that while Huang et al discloses inverters (17a, 17b), they are provided to control air blowers (13, 15), not air blower (20).
a movable cover element (12), by which a connecting opening connecting the adjacent spaces to each other is coverable or closeable at least in sections,
wherein the separating device further includes one or more suction openings (141) arranged in a base region of the separating device (as seen in figs 1 – 3),
wherein the one or more suction openings are positioned to suction at least a portion of the separating fluid stream [0022].
Wiemann (EP 1462731) discloses a separating device (figs 1 – 6: (2)) for minimizing a fluid exchange between adjacent spaces (5, 6), the separating device comprising:
a nozzle device (3a, 3b), by which a separating fluid stream (4a, 4b) is introducible into a transition region (8) between the adjacent spaces; and
a movable cover element (9), by which a connecting opening connecting the adjacent spaces to each other is coverable or closeable at least in sections,
wherein the separating device further (2) includes one or more suction openings (at (10))
Valkeapaeae (CA 2596534) discloses a separating device (figs 1a, 1b) for minimizing a fluid exchange between adjacent spaces, the separating device comprising:
a nozzle device (12), by which a separating fluid stream (40) is introducible into a transition region between the adjacent spaces (as seen in fig 1b); and
a movable cover element (140), by which a connecting opening (120) connecting the adjacent spaces to each other is coverable or closeable at least in sections,
wherein the separating device further includes one or more suction openings (16) arranged in a region of the separating device (as seen in figs 1 – 3),
wherein the one or more suction openings are positioned to suction at least a portion of the separating fluid stream (apparent, as suction openings (16) are upstream of fan (20);
wherein the movable cover element (140) is arranged on an upper side of the connecting opening (as seen in fig 1b) in relation to the direction of gravity and is pivotable from above into the connecting opening.
Abraham (US 4,265,090) discloses a separating device (figs 1 – 7) for minimizing a fluid exchange between adjacent spaces, the separating device comprising:
a nozzle device (figs 2, 6: (24)), by which a separating fluid stream is introducible into a transition region (10) between the adjacent spaces; and
a movable cover element (12), by which a connecting opening (11) connecting the adjacent spaces to each other is coverable or closeable at least in sections,
wherein the separating device further includes one or more suction openings (26) arranged in a base region of the separating device (as seen in figs 2, 6)),
wherein the one or more suction openings (26) are positioned to suction at least a portion of the separating fluid stream (col 6, lns 51 – 60).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Frances Hamilton (she/her) whose telephone number is 571.270.5726. The examiner can normally be reached on Tu-Th; 9 – 6.
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, Michael Hoang can be reached on 571.272.6460. 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, please visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. For more information about Patent Center, please visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center and for information about filing in DOCX format please visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx.
For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866.217.9197 (toll-free). If you are a Pro Se inventor and would like assistance, please all the Pro Se assistance center at 866.767.3848. If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, please call 800.786.9199 (in USA or Canada) or 571.272.1000.
/Frances F Hamilton/
Examiner, Art Unit 3762
/MICHAEL G HOANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762
1 Page 6 of 25 of KR 20100116263A.pdf filed March 7, 2025
2 pg 6/25 of adobe file provided with March 7, 2025 office action
3 Please refer to paragraphs 51 – 56 of the 7 March 2025 Office Action
Prosecution Insights