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 .
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 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.
DETAILED ACTION
Acknowledged Receipt
This office action is responsive to amendment filed on 05 September 2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new grounds of rejection are based on amendment(s) to the Claim(s).
With respect to independent Claim(s) 1, 10 & 19: In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., carries a device hookup for a theodolite, adapted to support surveying equipment, configured to carry a theodolite, respectively ) 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).
The Drawing Objection(s) mailed on 05 March 2025 is/are overcome by the amendment filed on 05 September 2025.
The Specification received on 05 September 2025 is accepted by the examiner.
The Claim Objection(s) mailed on 05 March 2025 is/are overcome by the amendment filed on 05 September 2025.
However, with respect to amended Claim language filed on 05 September 2025, there is/are now Claim Objection(s).
The 112 Rejection(s) mailed on 05 March 2025 is/are overcome by the amendment filed on 05 September 2025.
Status
In the amendment filed 05 September 2025, independent Claim(s) 1, 10 and 19 has/have been amended. Claim(s) 9, 12 and 18 is/are canceled A Final Rejection is being issued in this paper with regards to Claim(s) 1-8, 10-11, 13-17 and 19-20.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 10 & 13 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 10, line 4, should read "the stability attachment” to correlate with the preamble which states in lines 1-2, “the stability attachment”;
Claim 13, line 1, should read “The stability attachment of claim 10”; currently Claim 12 is a canceled claim.
For examination purposes, the examiner understands that Claim 13 depends onto independent Claim 10.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 10, 13-14 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Johnson (US 2327982, see reference in its entirety).
With respect to independent Claim 1, Johnson disclose(s): A surveying stick system (Fig. 1) comprising:
a surveying stick (Fig. 2: 11) comprising a base (see annotated Fig. 2 below); and
a stability attachment (see annotated Fig. 2 below) attached to the base of the surveying stick (Fig. 2) ; the stability attachment comprising:
a body (Fig. 1: body 33 & 35-37); and
a spike (Fig. 1: 34) slidably extending from a bottom side of the body (Fig. 1) ,
wherein, when the spike is in a retracted position (page 1, col. 2, lines 28-39: it is understood that dowel holes 38 on the spike allow for it to be in a retracted position), the spike does not extend below a bottom of the surveying stick base (page 1, col. 2, lines 28-39: it is understood if the bottom dowel hole 38 is set at the spring dowel clamp 37 then the spike 34 does not extend below a bottom of the surveying stick base 11).
wherein the spike slidably shifts into an extended position (Fig. 2), and
wherein, when the spike is in the extended position, the spike extends below the bottom of the surveying stick base (Fig. 2).
With respect to Claim 3, Johnson teach(es) the system of Claim 1.
Johnson further disclose(s): wherein the stability attachment further comprises one or more attachment mechanisms (Fig. 1: 35-36) to removably attach the stability attachment to the surveying stick base (Fig. 1).
With respect to Claim 4, Johnson teach(es) the system of Claim 3.
Johnson further disclose(s): wherein each of the one or more attachment mechanisms comprise one or more of: a buckle and strap system, a clip and strap system, a hook-and-loop strap system, a hinged compression mechanism, a hose clamp system, a mast clamp system, and a molded clip system (Fig. 1: mast clamp system 35-37).
With respect to Claim 5, Johnson teach(es) the system of Claim 1.
Johnson further disclose(s): wherein the stability attachment further comprises a spring that applies force to the spike (Fig. 1: spring dowel clamp 37 applies force to spike 34).
As best understood: With respect to independent Claim 10, Johnson disclose(s): A stability attachment (see annotated Fig. 2 below) for a surveying stick system (Fig. 1) , the stability attachment comprising:
a body (Fig. 1: body 33 & 35-37); and
a plurality of attachment mechanisms (Fig. 1; 35-36) to removably attach the stability attachment to a base (see annotated Fig. 2 below) of a surveying stick (Fig. 2: 11); and
a spike (Fig. 1: 34) slidably extending from a bottom side of the body (Fig. 1),
wherein the spike slidably shifts from a retracted position (page 1, col. 2, lines 28-39: it is understood that dowel holes 38 on the spike allow for it to be in a retracted position) to an extended position (Fig. 2).
As best understood: With respect to Claim 13, Johnson teach(es) the system of Claim 10.
Johnson further disclose(s): wherein each of the one or more attachment mechanisms comprise one or more of: a buckle and strap system, a clip and strap system, a hook-and-loop strap system, a hinged compression mechanism, a hose clamp system, a mast clamp system, and a molded clip system (Fig. 1; mast clamp system 35-37).
With respect to Claim 14, Johnson teach(es) the system of Claim 10.
Johnson further disclose(s): wherein the stability attachment further comprises a spring that applies force to the spike (Fig. 1: spring dowel clamp 37 applies force to spike 34).
With respect to independent Claim 19, Johnson disclose(s): A method of capturing surveying measurements (Figs. 1-2 and page 1, col. 1, lines 11-14) , the method comprising:
attaching a stability attachment (see annotated Fig. 2 below) to a base (see annotated Fig. 2 below) of a surveying stick (Fig. 2: 11) , wherein the stability attachment comprises a body (Fig. 1: body 33 & 35-37) and a spike (Fig. 1: 34) slidably extending from a bottom side of the body (Fig. 1) ;
placing the base of the surveying stick base at a location to be surveyed (page 1, col. 1, lines 11-14 and page 1, col. 2, lines 28-39) ; and
sliding the spike from a retracted position to an extended position (Fig. 2), the extended position placing the spike into a ground surface at the location to be surveyed to provide stabilization to the base of the surveying stick (Fig. 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
334
253
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 1, 3, 10 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Black (US 6508006 B1, see reference in its entirety).
With respect to independent Claim 1, Black disclose(s): A surveying stick system (Fig. 1) comprising:
a surveying stick (12) comprising a base (24); and
a stability attachment (11) attached to the base of the surveying stick (Fig. 1) ; the stability attachment comprising:
a body (29); and
a spike (18) slidably extending from a bottom side of the body (Fig. 1) ,
wherein, when the spike is in a retracted position (col. 3, lines 38-45: it is understood that body/bracket 29 allows the spike to be in a retracted position), the spike does not extend below a bottom of the surveying stick base (col. 3, lines 38-45: it is understood if the stake is retracted along the bracket 29 then it does not extend below a bottom of the surveying stick base 12).
wherein the spike slidably shifts into an extended position (Fig. 1), and
wherein, when the spike is in the extended position, the spike extends below the bottom of the surveying stick base (Fig. 1).
With respect to Claim 3, Black teach(es) the system of Claim 1.
Black further disclose(s): wherein the stability attachment further comprises one or more attachment mechanisms (Fig. 1: 19 & 30) to removably attach the stability attachment to the surveying stick base (Fig. 1).
As best understood: With respect to independent Claim 10, Black disclose(s): A stability attachment (Fig. 1: 11) for a surveying stick system (Fig. 1) , the stability attachment comprising:
a body (29); and
a plurality of attachment mechanisms (19 & 30) to removably attach the stability attachment to a base of a surveying stick (Fig. 1); and
a spike (18) slidably extending from a bottom side of the body (Fig. 1),
wherein the spike slidably shifts from a retracted position (col. 3, lines 38-45: it is understood that body/bracket 29 allows the spike be in a retracted position) to an extended position (Fig. 1).
With respect to independent Claim 19, Black disclose(s): A method of capturing surveying measurements (col. 4, lines 9-24) , the method comprising:
attaching a stability attachment (Fig. 1: 11) to a base (24) of a surveying stick (12) , wherein the stability attachment comprises a body (29) and a spike (18) slidably extending from a bottom side of the body (Fig. 1 and col. 3, lines 38-45);
placing the base of the surveying stick base at a location to be surveyed (Fig. 3) ; and
sliding the spike from a retracted position to an extended position (col. 3, lines 38-45: it is understood that body/bracket 29 allows the spike to be in a retracted position to an extended position), the extended position placing the spike into a ground surface at the location to be surveyed to provide stabilization to the base of the surveying stick (Fig. 3).
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(s) 2 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson in view of Casas (US 5918565, see reference in its entirety).
Regarding Claim(s) 2, Johnson disclose(s) system of Claim 1.
Johnson does not specifically disclose(s): a compartment, accessible through a top portion of the body that receives one or more surveying flags.
However, Casas teach(es) a system (Fig. 1) including: a compartment (16), accessible through a top portion of the body that receives one or more surveying flags (20).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Johnson, with the teachings of Casas, for the purpose of providing a marking path of the system (col. 2, lines 25-27).
Regarding Claim(s) 11, Johnson disclose(s) system of Claim 10.
Johnson does not specifically disclose(s): a compartment, accessible through a top portion of the body that receives one or more surveying flags.
However, Casas teach(es) a system (Fig. 1) including: a compartment (16), accessible through a top portion of the body that receives one or more surveying flags (20).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Johnson, with the teachings of Casas, for the purpose of providing a marking path of the system (col. 2, lines 25-27).
Claim(s) 6 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson in view of Reinhardt (US 3000100, see reference in its entirety).
With respect to Claim 6, Johnson teach(es) the system of Claim 5.
Johnson further disclose(s): wherein the spring is in a resting position when the spike is in a retracted position (Fig. 1 and page 1, col. 2, lines 28-39: it is understood if the bottom dowel hole 38 is set at the spring dowel clamp 37 then the spike 34 does not extend below a bottom of the surveying stick base 11 and is considered to be in a retracted position and the spring is in a resting position), wherein the spring compresses as the spike slidably shifts into the extended position (Fig. 1) , and wherein the spring, when compressed, generates a first force that is less than a force needed to retract the spike from a ground surface penetrated by the spike (Fig. 1 and page 1, col. 2, lines 28-39), and wherein the first force is greater than a force needed to slidably shift the spike from the extended position into the retracted position when the spike is removed from the ground surface (Fig. 1 and page 1, col. 2, lines 28-39).
Johnson does not specifically disclose(s): a compression spring.
However, Reinhardt teach(es) a system (Fig. 3) including: a compression spring (16).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Johnson, with the teachings of Reinhardt, for the purpose of deterring movement of the system (col. 1, lines 48-56).
With respect to Claim 15, Johnson teach(es) the system of Claim 14.
Johnson further disclose(s): wherein the spring is in a resting position when the spike is in a retracted position (Fig. 1 and page 1, col. 2, lines 28-39: it is understood if the bottom dowel hole 38 is set at the spring dowel clamp 37 then the spike 34 does not extend below a bottom of the surveying stick base 11 and is considered to be in a retracted position and the spring is in a resting position), wherein the spring compresses as the spike slidably shifts into the extend position (Fig. 1) , and wherein the spring, when compressed, generates a first force that is less than a force needed to retract the spike from a ground surface penetrated by the spike (Fig. 1 and page 1, col. 2, lines 28-39), and wherein the first force is greater than a force needed to slidably shift the spike from the extended position into the retracted position when the spike is removed from the ground surface (Fig. 1 and page 1, col. 2, lines 28-39).
Johnson does not specifically disclose(s): a compression spring.
However, Reinhardt teach(es) a system (Fig. 3) including: a compression spring (16).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Johnson, with the teachings of Reinhardt, for the purpose of deterring movement of the system (col. 1, lines 48-56).
Claim(s) 8, 17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson in view of Sobczak (US 5,247,900, see reference in its entirety).
Regarding Claim(s) 8, Johnson disclose(s) system of Claim 1.
Johnson does not specifically disclose(s): a pedal attached to the spike.
However, Sobczak teach(es) a system (Fig. 11) including: a pedal attached to the spike (see annotated Fig. 11 below).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Johnson, with the teachings of Sobczak, for the purpose of enhancing increased stability of the system (col. 1, lines 39-42).
Regarding Claim(s) 17, Johnson disclose(s) system of Claim 10.
Johnson does not specifically disclose(s): a pedal attached to the spike.
However, Sobczak teach(es) a system (Fig. 11) including: a pedal attached to the spike (see annotated Fig. 11 below).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Johnson, with the teachings of Sobczak, for the purpose of enhancing increased stability of the system (col. 1, lines 39-42).
Regarding Claim(s) 20, Johnson disclose(s) the method of Claim 19.
Johnson further disclose(s): wherein sliding the spike into the ground surface comprises applying force to the spike to slide the spike from the retracted position to the extended position (Fig. 1 and page 1, col. 2, lines 28-39: it is understood that dowel holes 38 on the spike allow for the spike 34 to be in a retracted position to an extended position), and wherein the method further comprises, after capturing the surveying measurements, retracting the spike out of the ground surface and back into the retracted position (Fig. 1 and page 1, col. 1, lines 11-14 and page 1, col. 2, lines 28-39).
Johnson does not specifically disclose: a pedal attached to the spike
However, Sobczak teach(es) a method (Fig. 11 and col. 1, lines 39-42) including: a pedal attached to the spike (see annotated Fig. 11 below).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Johnson, with the teachings of Sobczak, for the purpose of enhancing increased stability of the system (col. 1, lines 39-42).
PNG
media_image2.png
817
320
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 2 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Black in view of Casas.
Regarding Claim(s) 2, Black disclose(s) system of Claim 1.
Black does not specifically disclose(s): a compartment, accessible through a top portion of the body that receives one or more surveying flags.
However, Casas teach(es) a system (Fig. 1) including: a compartment (16), accessible through a top portion of the body that receives one or more surveying flags (20).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Black, with the teachings of Casas, for the purpose of providing a marking path of the system (col. 2, lines 25-27).
Regarding Claim(s) 11, Black disclose(s) system of Claim 10.
Black does not specifically disclose(s): a compartment, accessible through a top portion of the body that receives one or more surveying flags.
However, Casas teach(es) a system (Fig. 1) including: a compartment (16), accessible through a top portion of the body that receives one or more surveying flags (20).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Black, with the teachings of Casas, for the purpose of providing a marking path of the system (col. 2, lines 25-27).
Claim(s) 5, 7, 14 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Black in view of Gouge (US 3603540, see reference in its entirety).
With respect to Claim 5, Black teach(es) the system of Claim 1.
Black does not specifically disclose(s): a spring that applies force to the spike.
However, Gouge teach(es) a system (Figs. 5-6) including: a spring that applies force to the spike (Fig. 5: spring 28 applies force to spike 23).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Black, with the teachings of Gouge, for the purpose of maintaining the system in a parallel position (col. 1, lines 65-67).
With respect to Claim 7, Black and Gouge teach(es) the system of Claim 5.
The combination does not specifically disclose(s): wherein the spring comprises an extension spring, wherein the extension spring is in a resting position when the spike is in a retracted position, wherein the extension spring extends as the spike slidably shifts into the extended position, and wherein the extension spring, when extended, generates a first force that is less than a force needed to retract the spike from a ground surface penetrated by the spike, and wherein the first force is greater than a force needed to slidably shift the spike from the extended position into the retracted position when the spike is removed from the ground surface.
However, Gouge further teach(es): wherein the spring comprises an extension spring (Fig. 5: extension spring 28), wherein the extension spring is in a resting position when the spike is in a retracted position (Fig. 5), wherein the extension spring extends as the spike slidably shifts into the extended position (Fig. 6; extension spring 28 extends), and wherein the extension spring, when extended, generates a first force that is less than a force needed to retract the spike from a ground surface penetrated by the spike (Fig. 6), and wherein the first force is greater than a force needed to slidably shift the spike from the extended position into the retracted position when the spike is removed from the ground surface (Fig. 5).
Motivation to combine is the same as Claim 5.
With respect to Claim 14, Black teach(es) the system of Claim 10.
Black does not specifically disclose(s): a spring that applies force to the spike.
However, Gouge teach(es) a system (Figs. 5-6) including: a spring that applies force to the spike (Fig. 5: spring 28 applies force to spike 23).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Black, with the teachings of Gouge, for the purpose of maintaining the system in a parallel position (col. 1, lines 65-67).
With respect to Claim 16, Black and Gouge teach(es) the system of Claim 14.
The combination does not specifically disclose(s): wherein the spring comprises an extension spring, wherein the extension spring is in a resting position when the spike is in a retracted position, wherein the extension spring extends as the spike slidably shifts into the extended position, and wherein the extension spring, when extended, generates a first force that is less than a force needed to retract the spike from a ground surface penetrated by the spike, and wherein the first force is greater than a force needed to slidably shift the spike from the extended position into the retracted position when the spike is removed from the ground surface.
However, Gouge further teach(es): wherein the spring comprises an extension spring (Fig. 5: extension spring 28), wherein the extension spring is in a resting position when the spike is in a retracted position (Fig. 5), wherein the extension spring extends as the spike slidably shifts into the extended position (Fig. 6; extension spring 28 extends), and wherein the extension spring, when extended, generates a first force that is less than a force needed to retract the spike from a ground surface penetrated by the spike (Fig. 6), and wherein the first force is greater than a force needed to slidably shift the spike from the extended position into the retracted position when the spike is removed from the ground surface (Fig. 5).
Motivation to combine is the same as Claim 14.
Claim(s) 8, 17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Black in view of Sobczak.
Regarding Claim(s) 8, Black disclose(s) system of Claim 1.
Black does not specifically disclose(s): a pedal attached to the spike.
However, Sobczak teach(es) a system (Fig. 11) including: a pedal attached to the spike (see annotated Fig. 11 below).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Black, with the teachings of Sobczak, for the purpose of enhancing increased stability of the system (col. 1, lines 39-42).
Regarding Claim(s) 17, Black disclose(s) system of Claim 10.
Black does not specifically disclose(s): a pedal attached to the spike.
However, Sobczak teach(es) a system (Fig. 11) including: a pedal attached to the spike (see annotated Fig. 11 below).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Black, with the teachings of Sobczak, for the purpose of enhancing increased stability of the system (col. 1, lines 39-42).
Regarding Claim(s) 20, Black disclose(s) the method of Claim 19.
Black further disclose(s): wherein sliding the spike into the ground surface comprises applying force to the spike to slide the spike from the retracted position to the extended position (Fig. 1 and page 1, col. 2, lines 28-39: it is understood that dowel holes 38 on the spike allow for the spike 34 to be in a retracted position to an extended position), and wherein the method further comprises, after capturing the surveying measurements, retracting the spike out of the ground surface and back into the retracted position (Fig. 1 and page 1, col. 1, lines 11-14 and page 1, col. 2, lines 28-39).
Black does not specifically disclose: a pedal attached to the spike
However, Sobczak teach(es) a method (Fig. 11 and col. 1, lines 39-42) including: a pedal attached to the spike (see annotated Fig. 11 below).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Black, with the teachings of Sobczak, for the purpose of enhancing increased stability of the system (col. 1, lines 39-42).
PNG
media_image2.png
817
320
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
The following reference(s) relate to surveying systems: Gardner (7487948 B2); Higgins, JR (US 2096638); JP-S62114311-U; JP-6373819 B2; Chang (CN-21695433-U); Makoto et al. (JP-2020139921-A).
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 TANIA COURSON whose telephone number is (571)272-2239. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (7am-3:30pm).
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, Kristina Deherrera, can be reached on (303) 297-4237. 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.
/TC/
12 November 2025
/KRISTINA M DEHERRERA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855 11/12/25