CTNF 18/240,112 CTNF 84989 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 07-29-01 AIA Claim( s) 3, 6, 11, 13, 15-16, 18-19 is/are o bjected to because of the following informalities: W ithin claim 3, line 2: “an anastomosis” should be replaced with --the anastomosis-- (in order to properly link back with the anastomosis within claim 1, line 2). Within claim 6, line 8: “a wall” should be replaced with –the wall-- (in order to properly link back with claim 6, line 5). Within claim 11, line 1: “a pair of implantable medical devices” should be replaced with --a pair of implantable medical devices-- (in order to maintain consistent claim terminology). Within claim 13, lines 3-4 (and claim 13, lines 4-5): “said second implantable medical” should be replaced with --said second implantable medical device-- (in order to maintain consistent claim terminology). Within claim 15, line 8: “a wall” should be replaced with –the wall-- (in order to properly link back with claim 15, line 5). Within claim 16, line 2: “a first implantable device” should be replaced with --a first implantable medical device-- (in order to maintain consistent claim terminology). Within claim 16, line 2: “and portion” should be replaced with --and a portion-- (for grammatical purposes). Within claim 18, line 2: “an elongated connector” should be replaced with – the connector—(to properly link with the connector within claim 16 and maintain consistent claim terminology with claims 19-20). Within claim 19, line 4: “the first implantable medical device” should be replaced with --the second implantable medical device --. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claim(s) 1-15 is/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 "the stomach" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim(s) 2-10, which depend from claim 1, inherit all the problems associated with claim 1. 07-34-05 AIA Claim 1 recites the limitation " the jejunum " in line 3 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. 07-34-05 AIA Claim 1 recites the limitation " the pylorus " in line 4 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 2 recites the limitation "the configurations of said first implantable medical device and said second implantable medical device" in lines 1-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim(s) 3, which depend from claim 2, inherit all the problems associated with claim 2. Claim 4 recites the limitation "the stomach wall" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim(s) 5-7, which depend from claim 4, inherit all the problems associated with claim 4. 07-34-05 AIA Claim 4 recites the limitation " the duodenum " in line 15 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Within claim 5, lines 1-3: Applicant claims, “wherein said connector is coupled to a proximal retention member of at least one of the said first medical device and said second implantable medical device”; it is unclear, and therefore indefinite, if Applicant is trying to claim a new/ additional proximal retention member (due to the “a”) or refer back to the previously claimed proximal retention members. Assuming Applicant is trying to link back to the previously claimed proximal retention members Applicant may want to amend the aforementioned claim clause to --wherein said connector is coupled to at least one of the proximal retention members--. Claim(s) 6-7, which depend from claim 5, inherit all the problems associated with claim 5. Within claim 7, line 7: Applicant claims, “said double-walled retention member”; it is unclear, and therefore indefinite, which singular double-walled retention member is being referred to of the potentially more than one previously claimed double-walled retention members. Within claim 9, line 2: Applicant claims, “said first implantable medical device anchors”; it is unclear, and therefore indefinite, what Applicant considers to be the scope of the claim. The scope of the claim is determined by the preamble, which is the system alone; however, the aforementioned claim requirement is directed to the method of use (due to the “anchors”) of the system. Applicant may want to consider amending the aforementioned claim clause to --said first implantable medical device is configured to anchor--. Within claim 9, line 3: Applicant claims, “said second implantable medical device anchors”; it is unclear, and therefore indefinite, what Applicant considers to be the scope of the claim. The scope of the claim is determined by the preamble, which is the system alone; however, the aforementioned claim requirement is directed to the method of use (due to the “anchors”) of the system. Applicant may want to consider amending the aforementioned claim clause to --said second implantable medical device is configured to anchor--. Within claim 10, line 2: Applicant claims, “said first implantable medical device displaces”; it is unclear, and therefore indefinite, what Applicant considers to be the scope of the claim. The scope of the claim is determined by the preamble, which is the system alone; however, the aforementioned claim requirement is directed to the method of use (due to the “displaces”) of the system. Applicant may want to consider amending the aforementioned claim clause to --said first implantable medical device is configured to displace--. Within claim 11, lines 10-11: Applicant claims, “each of said implantable medical devices holds the other of said implantable medical devices in place via said connector”; it is unclear, and therefore indefinite, what Applicant considers to be the scope of the claim. The scope of the claim is determined by the preamble, which is the system alone; however, the aforementioned claim requirement is directed to the method of use (due to the “hold”) of the system. Applicant may want to consider amending the aforementioned claim clause to --each of said implantable medical devices is configured to hold the other of said implantable medical devices in place via said connector--. Claim(s) 12-15, which depend from claim 11, inherit all the problems associated with claim 11. Claim 12 recites the limitation "the configurations" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim(s) 13, which depend from claim 12, inherit all the problems associated with claim 11. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-12-aia AIA (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-15-aia AIA Claim(s) 1-3, 8-9, 11-14, 16, 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Abu Dayyeh (US 2020/0390580 A1) . With respect to claim 1: Abu Dayyeh discloses a system, as can be seen in figs. 1-5, for forming a gastric bypass in a patient, said system comprising: a first implantable medical device (bypass device 70) configured to form an anastomosis between the stomach and a portion of the jejunum of the patient (portions of anchor member 72 can be located in the stomach and the jejunum) (paragraphs [0042-0043]); a second implantable medical device (occlusion member 56) configured to occlude the pylorus of the patient (paragraphs [0036, 0040]); and a connector (EITHER remaining portion of occlusion device 50 not including the occlusion member 56 OR expandable coil 100) coupling said first implantable medical device (bypass device 70) and said second implantable medical device (occlusion member 56) (paragraphs [0036, 0050]). With respect to claim 2: Wherein said connector (EITHER remaining portion of occlusion device 50 not including the occlusion member 56 OR expandable coil 100) has a configuration (structure making thereof) distinct from the configurations (structure making thereof) of said first implantable medical device (bypass device 70) and said second implantable medical device (occlusion member 56), as can be seen in figs. 2-5. With respect to claim 3: Wherein said connector (EITHER remaining portion of occlusion device 50 not including the occlusion member 56 OR expandable coil 100) is elongated (has a length greater than it’s thickness, as can be seen in figs. 4-5) and has a length capable of extending from said first implantable medical device (bypass device 70) when implanted to create an anastomosis between the stomach and the jejunum and said second implantable medical device (occlusion member 56) when implanted across the pylorus, as can be seen in figs. 4-5. With respect to claim 8: Wherein said connector (EITHER remaining portion of occlusion device 50 not including the occlusion member 56 OR expandable coil 100) is formed separately from said first implantable medical device (bypass device 70) and said second implantable medical device (occlusion member 56). (Claim 8 is a product by process claim. Patentable weight has only been given to the structure of the end product, not to the method of manufacture. The end product being considered a connector which is separate from the first and second implantable medical devices. Manufacturing steps such as forming separately are not given patentable weight in the claim. “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2113. In the instant case, the second implantable medical device (occlusion member 56) is considered “separate” from the connector (remaining portion of occlusion device 50 not including the occlusion member 56) as they do not take up the same space as each other and are made from different structures (balloon vs tube), thus they are “separate” (paragraphs [0037, 0040]); the first implantable medical device (bypass device 70) is considered separate from the connector (remaining portion of occlusion device 50 not including the occlusion member 56) as they are two distinct structures which are only joined upon implantation, thus they are “separate”.) With respect to claim 9: Wherein: said first implantable medical device (bypass device 70) anchors, via said connector (expandable coil 100), said second implantable medical device (occlusion member 56) against migrating distally from the stomach (prevents migration) (paragraph [0050]); and said second implantable medical device (occlusion member 56) anchors, via said connector (expandable coil 100), said first implantable medical device (bypass device 70) against migrating distally from the stomach (prevents migration) (paragraph [0050]). With respect to claim 11: Abu Dayyeh discloses a system, as can be seen in figs. 1-5, for maintaining a pair of implantable devices (bypass device 70 and occlusion member 56) in place with respect to respective deployment sites for said pair of implantable medical devices (bypass device 70 and occlusion member 56), said system comprising: a first implantable medical device (bypass device 70) (paragraphs [0042-0043]); a second implantable medical device (occlusion member 56) (paragraphs [0036, 0040]); and a connector (expandable coil 100) coupling said first implantable medical device (bypass device 70) and said second implantable medical device (occlusion member 56) (paragraph [0050]); wherein: the deployment sites are at anatomical environments tending to drive said first implantable medical device (bypass device 70) and said second implantable medical device (occlusion member 56) apart from each other; and each of said implantable medical devices (bypass device 70 and occlusion member 56) holds the other of said implantable medical devices (bypass device 70 and occlusion member 56) in place via said connector (expandable coil 100) (prevents migration) (paragraph [0050]). With respect to claim 12: Wherein said connector (expandable coil 100) has a configuration (structure making thereof) distinct from the configurations (structure making thereof) of said first implantable medical device (bypass device 70) and said second implantable medical device (occlusion member 56), as can be seen in figs. 2-5. With respect to claim 13: Wherein said connector (expandable coil 100) is elongated (has a length greater than it’s thickness, as can be seen in figs. 4-5, and is capable of being stretched) and has a length sufficient to extend between said first implantable medical device (bypass device 70) and said second implantable medical device (occlusion member 56), as can be seen in fig. 5, without exerting force on either of said first implantable medical device (bypass device 70) and said second implantable medical device (occlusion member 56) upon coupling said first implantable medical device (bypass device 70) and said second implantable medical (occlusion member 56) (as consistent force therebetween would contribute dislodgement/ migration which the expandable coil 100 is designed to prevent) (paragraph [0050]). With respect to claim 14: Wherein said connector (expandable coil 100) is formed separately from said first implantable medical device (bypass device 70) and said second implantable medical device (occlusion member 56). (Claim 14 is a product by process claim. Patentable weight has only been given to the structure of the end product, not to the method of manufacture. The end product being considered a connector which is separate from the first and second implantable medical devices. Manufacturing steps such as forming separately are not given patentable weight in the claim. “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2113. In the instant case, the first and second implantable medical devices (bypass device 70 and occlusion member 56) are considered “separate” from the connector (expandable coil 100) as they do not take up the same space, thus they are “separate”.) With respect to claim 16: Abu Dayyeh discloses a method of forming a gastric bypass, said method comprising: implanting a first implantable device (bypass device 70) across an apposed portion of a stomach wall and portion of a jejunum to form an anastomosis between the stomach and the jejunum (portions of anchor member 72 can be located in the stomach and the jejunum) (paragraphs [0042-0043, 0046, 0048]); implanting a second implantable medical device (occlusion member 56) in a pylorus to at least partially occlude the pylorus (paragraphs [0036, 0040, 0046-0047]); and coupling the first implantable medical device (bypass device 70) and the second implantable medical device (occlusion member 56) with an elongated connector (EITHER remaining portion of occlusion device 50 not including the occlusion member 56 OR expandable coil 100) (paragraphs [0036, 0047, 0050]). With respect to claim 18: Wherein coupling (connection created with the expandable coil 100 between) the first implantable medical device (bypass device 70) and the second implantable medical device (occlusion member 56) with an elongated connector (expandable coil 100) is performed after implanting the first implantable medical device (bypass device 70) and the second implantable medical device (occlusion member 56) (the first and second implantable medical devices (bypass device 70 and occlusion member 56) are implanted in separate steps, as such the connection therebetween created by the elongated connector (expandable coil 100) must be done after the first and second implantable medical devices (bypass device 70 and occlusion member 56) are implanted) (paragraphs [0048, 0050]). With respect to claim 19: Further comprising anchoring the second implantable medical device (occlusion member 56) against migrating distally from the stomach via the connector (expandable coil 100) and the first implantable medical device (bypass device 70), and anchoring the first implantable medical device (bypass device 70) against migrating distally from the stomach via the connector (expandable coil 100) and the first implantable medical device (occlusion member 56) (paragraph [0050]) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1-5, 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gupta et al. (US 2019/0298559 A1) in view of Abu Dayyeh (US 2020/0390580 A1) . With respect to claim 1: Gupta et al. discloses the invention substantially as claimed. Specifically, Gupta et al. discloses a system, as can be seen in figs. 2F, for forming a gastric bypass in a patient, said system comprising: a first implantable medical device (anastomosis stent 260) configured to form an anastomosis between the stomach and a portion of the jejunum of the patient (paragraphs [0029-0030]); a second implantable medical device (pyloric occlusion device 265/ 700), as can be seen in figs. 2F and 7, configured to occlude the pylorus of the patient (paragraphs [0030, 0035]). However, Gupta et al. does not disclose a connector coupling said first implantable medical device (anastomosis stent 260) and said second implantable medical device (pyloric occlusion device 265/ 700). Abu Dayyeh teaches a system, as can be seen in figs. 1-5, for forming a gastric bypass in a patient, said system comprising: a connector (expandable coil 100) coupling a first implantable medical device (bypass device 70), configured to form an anastomosis between the stomach and a portion of the jejunum of the patient (portions of anchor member 72 can be located in the stomach and the jejunum) (paragraphs [0042-0043]), and a second implantable medical device (occlusion member 56), configured to occlude the pylorus of the patient (paragraphs [0036, 0040]). The connector (expandable coil 100) prevents migration and unnecessary movement between the implantable medical devices (bypass device 70 and occlusion member 56) (paragraph [0050]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include the connector (expandable coil 100), as taught by Abu Dayyeh, between the first and second implantable medical devices (anastomosis stent 260 and pyloric occlusion device 265/ 700), as disclosed by Gupta et al., in order to aid with the anchoring thereof and prevent the migration and unnecessary movement between first and second implantable medical devices (anastomosis stent 260 and pyloric occlusion device 265/ 700), as disclosed by Gupta et al.. With respect to claim 2: Wherein said connector (expandable coil 100), as taught by Abu Dayyeh, has a configuration distinct from the configurations (structures) of said first and second implantable medical devices (anastomosis stent 260 and pyloric occlusion device 265/ 700), as disclosed by Gupta et al.. With respect to claim 3: Wherein said connector (expandable coil 100), as taught by Abu Dayyeh, is elongated (has a length greater than it’s thickness, as can be seen in fig. 5) and has a length capable of extending from said first and second implantable medical devices (anastomosis stent 260 and pyloric occlusion device 265/ 700), as disclosed by Gupta et al.. With respect to claim 4: Wherein: said first implantable medical device (anastomosis stent 260), as disclosed by Gupta et al., is a stent (anastomosis stent 260) configured to maintain patency of the anastomosis (paragraph [0029]), said stent (anastomosis stent 260) comprising a saddle region, as can be seen in fig. 2F, configured to extend through the stomach wall and a portion of a wall of the jejunum, a proximal retention member, as can be seen in fig. 2F, extending radially outwardly from a proximal end of said saddle region and configured to be seated within the stomach to inhibit distal migration of said first implantable medical device (anastomosis stent 260) away from the stomach, and a distal retention member, as can be seen in fig. 2F, extending radially outwardly from a distal end of said saddle region and configured to be seated within the jejunum to inhibit proximal migration of said first implantable medical device (anastomosis stent 260) into the stomach; said second implantable medical device (pyloric occlusion device 265/ 700), as disclosed by Gupta et al., has a saddle region (saddle 715) configured to occlude flow of material therethrough, a proximal retention member (second flange 710) extending radially outwardly from a proximal end of said saddle region (saddle 715) and configured to be seated within the stomach to inhibit distal migration of said second implantable medical device (pyloric occlusion device 265/ 700) away from the stomach, and a distal retention member (first saddle 705) extending radially outwardly from a distal end of said saddle region (saddle 715) and configured to be seated within the duodenum of the patient to inhibit proximal migration of said second implantable medical device (pyloric occlusion device 265/ 700) into the stomach (paragraphs [0035, 0039]) ; and said connector (expandable coil 100), as taught by Abu Dayyeh, is an elongated element (is capable of elongation) coupling said first implantable medical device (anastomosis stent 260) and said second implantable medical device (pyloric occlusion device 265/ 700) (as discussed above). With respect to claim 5: Wherein said connector (expandable coil 100), as taught by Abu Dayyeh, is coupled to (connected directly or indirectly) at least one of the proximal retention members (as discussed above). With respect to claim 8: Wherein said connector is formed separately from said first implantable medical device and said second implantable medical device. (Claim 8 is a product by process claim. Patentable weight has only been given to the structure of the end product, not to the method of manufacture. The end product being considered a connector which is separate from the first and second implantable medical devices. Manufacturing steps such as forming separately are not given patentable weight in the claim. “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2113. In the instant case, the first and second implantable medical device (anastomosis stent 260 and pyloric occlusion device 265/ 700), as disclosed Gupta et al., is considered “separate” from the connector (expandable coil 100), as taught by Abu Dayyeh, as they do not take up the same space as each other, thus they are “separate”.) With respect to claim 9: Wherein: said first implantable medical device (anastomosis stent 260), as disclosed by Gupta et al., anchors, via said connector (expandable coil 100), as taught by Abu Dayyeh, said second implantable medical device (pyloric occlusion device 265/ 700), as disclosed by Gupta et al., against migrating distally from the stomach (as discussed above); and said second implantable medical device (pyloric occlusion device 265/ 700), as disclosed by Gupta et al., anchors, via said connector (expandable coil 100), as taught by Abu Dayyeh, said first implantable medical device (anastomosis stent 260), as disclosed by Gupta et al., against migrating distally from the stomach (as discussed above) . Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim (s) 17, 20 is/are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. 07-43-02 AIA Claim (s) 6-7, 10, 15 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. 13-03-01 AIA The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Examiner can find no references alone nor in combination which would render obvious: With respect to claim(s) 6, 15: A system (as required by claim 1, 4, 5 or as required by claim 11) wherein the connector includes the specific claimed shape that is configured to transition between the first and second positions as claimed (Examiner does not consider it obvious to further modify the rejection based on Gupta et al. as modified by Abu Dayyeh, to replace the connector with another connecter with the claimed shape/ capabilities). With respect to claim(s) 10, 20: A system (as required by claim 1) or a method (as required by claim 16) wherein the first implantable medical device is configured to/ will displace said second implantable medical device upon migrating from the anastomosis to open the pylorus for passage of gastric materials therethrough (the system, as disclosed by Abu Dayyeh, or as disclosed by Gupta et al. and modified by Abu Dayyeh, both appear to teach away from the first and second implantable medical devices being configured to move to open the pylorus (as doing so would result in the failure of the systems thereof).) With respect to claim 17: A method (as required by claim 16) wherein the first and second implantable medical devices are implanted in separate procedures (on separate days) (the system, as disclosed by Abu Dayyeh, or as disclosed by Gupta et al. and modified by Abu Dayyeh, both appear to only work when both substructures are implanted in a single procedure and the incomplete/ partial implantation thereof would not be obvious). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REBECCA S PRESTON whose telephone number is (571)270-5233. The examiner can normally be reached M, W: 9-5; T, Th, F: 9-1. 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, Jerrah Edwards can be reached at (408)918-7557. 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. /REBECCA S PRESTON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3774 Application/Control Number: 18/240,112 Page 2 Art Unit: 3774 Application/Control Number: 18/240,112 Page 3 Art Unit: 3774 Application/Control Number: 18/240,112 Page 4 Art Unit: 3774 Application/Control Number: 18/240,112 Page 5 Art Unit: 3774 Application/Control Number: 18/240,112 Page 6 Art Unit: 3774 Application/Control Number: 18/240,112 Page 7 Art Unit: 3774 Application/Control Number: 18/240,112 Page 8 Art Unit: 3774 Application/Control Number: 18/240,112 Page 9 Art Unit: 3774 Application/Control Number: 18/240,112 Page 10 Art Unit: 3774 Application/Control Number: 18/240,112 Page 11 Art Unit: 3774 Application/Control Number: 18/240,112 Page 12 Art Unit: 3774 Application/Control Number: 18/240,112 Page 13 Art Unit: 3774 Application/Control Number: 18/240,112 Page 14 Art Unit: 3774 Application/Control Number: 18/240,112 Page 15 Art Unit: 3774 Application/Control Number: 18/240,112 Page 16 Art Unit: 3774 Application/Control Number: 18/240,112 Page 17 Art Unit: 3774