DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Status Claims 1-4 are pending: Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 08/09/2023 is/are being considered by the examiner. Double Patenting The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg , 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman , 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi , 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum , 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington , 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer . Claim 1 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/393,777 in view of Song (KR 2020-0038842). This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection. Although the claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from one another. The application claims are broader in at least one aspect and also recite additional features not claimed in the co-pending application claims. Regarding the broadening aspect of the application claims, the following comparison between the instant application and the co-pending application claims. Please see underlined terms that indicate subject matter that is patentably different / non-corresponding to the other application. Instant Application 18/264,766 Copending Application 18/393,777 Claim 1 Claim 1 An electrode-based heating device for heating a fluid, the electrode-based heating device comprising a body part and a heating unit part, wherein the body part is formed such that the fluid is arranged inside the body part, the heating unit part comprises a plurality of heating units spaced apart from each other , at least one heating unit of the plurality of heating units is formed such that electrolyzed water is arranged inside the at least one heating unit, and comprises an electrode part formed to heat the electrolyzed water, and the fluid and the electrolyzed water are arranged to overlap each other. A heating device comprising: a pipe part formed to allow a fluid to be disposed therein; a body part formed to allow an electrolyzed water to be disposed therein to overlap the fluid, and formed to surround at least one region of the pipe part; and at least one electrode for heating the electrolyzed water inside the body part. The office notes that instant “body part” corresponds to co-pending “pipe part”, while instant “ heating unit part“ corresponds to co-pending “body part”, as mapped above. The instant “body part” is broader than co-pending “pipe part”. Co-pending application is silent to there being a plurality of spaced apart heating units (instant terms) / body part (co-pending terms). Song teaches (best seen Fig12-19) that it is known in the art to duplicate heaters 101/102 and pass the fluid which is heated by the heating units (instant terms) / body part (co-pending terms) through connecting pipes 80 to expose the fluid to be heated to an additional and spaced apart heating units (instant terms) / body part (co-pending terms). Song further teaches (SpecQuote below) that the amount of applied heating units (instant terms) / body part (co-pending terms) is determined by the associated boiler capacity. SpecQuote: “Y ou can also connect As [sic] described above, in the present invention, a plurality of heaters can be easily connected according to the boiler capacity by varying the positions of the inlet and outlet connected to the main body. ” 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 arrangement of Copending Application Claim 1 to duplicate and space apart the heating units (instant terms) / body part (co-pending terms), as Song teaches that such a modification is a known in the art arrangement that one of ordinary skill in the art would make due to sizing the arrangement based on an associated boiler, and the resulting arrangement has the reasonable expectation of successfully providing the arrangement of Copending Application Claim 1 with additional spaced apart heating units (instant terms) / body part (co-pending terms) to better interface with an associated boiler system. Claim Interpretation - Language L anguage and/or terms in the claims are interpreted as follows: “overlaps” appears to be used in the specification to indicate that two components are in direct contact, in particular the electrodes ‘overl ap’ the electrolyzed water IW or the fluid WT overlaps the outer surfaces of the heating units, as informed by Para213/214 and Fig1 arrangement. Further, para 236 and Fig11 informs that passages TH1 and TH2 do “not overlap” due to a wall separating the two passages. Claim 1 “ the fluid and the electrolyzed water are arranged to overlap each other ” is interpreted as discussed in the 35 USC 112b rejection section below. Drawings The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. Claim 1 “ the fluid and the electrolyzed water are arranged to overlap each other ” , under the First Interpretation . The drawings never show the fluid WT and the electrolyzed water IW in direct contact. Further, the specification never states that the fluid and the electrolyzed water overlap each other, other than in generic statements independent of any embodiment – see Para8 for example. The closest that the specification does present is that the fluid WT “overlaps” the heating unit outer surfaces and that the electrolyzed water IW “overlaps” electrode part 160, however never that the fluid WT and the electrolyzed water IW “overlap” with each other. Claim 4 “the fluid is arranged to overlap an electrode part of each of the plurality of heating units of the heating unit art” . , under the First Interpretation Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). 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 Interpretation - 35 USC § 112(f) The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “heating unit part” first re cited in claim 1 Corresponding structure A plurality of heating units, where “heating units” itself is defined via 112f below Or equivalents “heating units” first recited in claim 1 Corresponding str ucture A heat dissipation body with internal electrode and electrolyzed water, as informed by Fig1, body 130, electrode part 160, and electrolyzed water IW. Or equivalents Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claim 1-4 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 L 8 “ the fluid and the electrolyzed water are arranged to overlap each other ” renders the claim indefinite, as the metes and bounds of the claim are unknown, as it is unknown what is structurally required by the cited limitation. The specification lacks an explicit definition to inform one of ordinary skill in the art, however the specification seems to use the term “overlap” to predominantly mean “in direct contact”. This invokes further confusion as the specification never states that the fluid and the electrolyzed water overlap each other, other than in generic statements independent of any embodiment – see Para8 for example. Further, the drawings fail to clarify the issue as they never show the fluid WT and the electrolyzed water IW in direct contact. The corresponding sections of the specification that discuss the shown embodiments the fluid WT “overlaps” the heating unit outer surfaces and that the electrolyzed water IW “overlaps” electrode part 160, however it is never indicated that the fluid WT and the electrolyzed water IW “overlap” with each other. Thus, it is unknown if the scope of the cited limitation is intended to require that the “ the fluid and the electrolyzed water are arranged to [ directly contact ] each other ” , or “ the fluid and the electrolyzed water are arranged to overlap [a particular horizontal/vertical plane/position/region relative] each other ” , or some other interpretation. For the purpose of applying art, the office will read the instant limitation as: 1) requiring direct contact (as best informed due to the overall specification usage of the term “overlap”), 2) a region of the fluid and the electrolyzed water functionally interact (as best informed due to what is presented in the figures) . Claim 4 L 1-2 “ the fluid is arranged to overlap an electrode part of each of the plurality of heating units of the heating unit art ” renders the claim indefinite, as the metes and bounds of the claim are unknown, as it is unknown what is structurally required by the cited limitation. The specification lacks an explicit definition to inform one of ordinary skill in the art, however the specification seems to use the term “overlap” to predominantly mean “in direct contact”. However, Para82 states that the fluid and the electrode “overlap … in one direction” which would seem to imply the “overlap” means to relate to relative directional/planar arrangement. Further, the drawings fail to clarify the issue as they never show the fluid WT and the electrodes 160 in direct contact. Thus, it is unknown if the scope of the cited limitation is intended to require that the “ the fluid is arranged to [directly contact] an electrode part of each of the plurality of heating units of the heating unit art ” , or “ the fluid is arranged to overlap [a particular horizontal/vertical plane/position/region relative to] an electrode part of each of the plurality of heating units of the heating unit art ” , or some other interpretation. For the purpose of applying art, the office will read the instant limitation as: 1) requiring direct contact (as best informed due to the overall specification usage of the term “overlap”), 2) a region of the fluid and the electrolyzed water functionally interact (as best informed due to what is presented in the figures) and Para82 . Dependent claims are rejected based on dependency Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 10 3 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) 1-4 , under the Second Interpretation , is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR 20-0269038) in view of Mizuno ( WO 01/2 6 117 ) Claim 1 Lee discloses: “An electrode-based heatin g device (Fig1-4, boiler with main body 2) for heating a fluid (Abstract; best seen Fig2, water shown by flow arrows in cells 5 between water inlet 10 and water outlet 9 ) , the electrode-based heating device comprising a body part ( Fig1-3, boiler body 2 ) and a heating unit part (Fig1-4, heating tubes 6) , wherein the body part ( body 2 ) is formed such that the fluid ( water ) is arranged inside the body part (Abstract; best seen Fig2, water shown by flow arrows in cells 5) , the heating unit part (Fig1-3, heat generating tube 6, close up shown in Fig4) comprises a plurality of heating units spaced apart from each other (best seen Fig1, heating tubes 6 spaced vertically in cells 5) , at least one heating unit (best seen Fig3/4, individual heating tube 6) of the plurality of heating units (best seen Fig1, arrangement) is formed such that … is arranged inside the at least one heating unit (best seen Fig4, heat medium oil 11 within heating tube 6) , and comprises an electrode part formed to heat the … (best seen Fig4, electrode inserted through part 8 in contact with heating oil 11; Abstract), and the fluid and the electrolyzed water are arranged to overlap each other (Fig1-4, water between inlet 10 and outlet 9 as shown by flow a rrows in cells 5 directly contacts the pipe 6 outer surface, while the heating oil 11 is in direct contact with the inner surface of pipe 6, and the water and heating oil 11 functionally interact to transfer heat, therefore Lee discloses the instant limitation as best understood in light of the claim interpretation due to the Second Interpretation above) .” Lee is silent to the use of “electrolyzed water” in the heating unit. Mizuno teaches (Fig1, heating container 5, reaction container 1, heating medium 21, electrolysis solution 4, negative electrode 2, positive electrode 3 ) that it is known in the art to form a fluid 21 heating arrangement using a n electrolyzed water 4 reaction container 1 inserted within fluid 21 flow within a heating container 5, such that the electrolyzed water 4 is heated by electrodes 2/3. Mizuno further teaches (SpecQuote1/2 below) that using such an electrolyzed water heating reaction container provides the advantage of an economically low cost to providing hot water from outlet 6b and low environmental impact. SpecQuote 1 : “ Further, as described above, since only the basically supplied power, the electrolyte and the electrodes are consumed in the thermal energy extracting device according to the present invention, the running cost of the hot water supply device can be reduced as a result. ” SpecQuote2: “The present invention has been made to solve the above-mentioned problems, and one object of the present invention is to provide a new energy source that has a small effect on the global environment, has a simple structure, and is low in cost. An object of the present invention is to provide a thermal energy extracting device used. Another object of the present invention is to provide a water heater using a thermal energy extracting device which has a small effect on the global environment, has a simple structure and is inexpensive. Another object of the present invention is to provide a power generator using a thermal energy extracting device which has a small effect on the global environment, has a simple structure, and is low in cost.” 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 arrangement of Lee to substitute the internal heating oil/electrode of the heating tube 6 of Lee with the electrolyzed water reaction container heated the electrodes as taught by Mizuno, as such a modification would merely be a simple substitution of one known in the art heating insert for heating an external fluid to be heated within a larger body for another, and Mizuno further teaches that such a modification would provide the advantage of a low environmental impact and a low economic cost for providing hot water, and the resulting arrangement has the reasonable expectation of successfully providing the arrangement of Lee with a working and known alternative heating fluid and electrode as taught by Mizuno to be placed within the heating tubes of the arrangement of Lee. Claim 2 The modified arrangement of Lee by the teachings of Mizuno discloses: “The electrode-based heating device of claim 1, wherein the plurality of heating units (Lee: individual tubes 6) of the heating unit part (Lee: collection of tubes 6) are arranged to be spaced apart from each other in a direction crossing a length wise direction of the plurality of heating units.” ( Lee: individual tubes 6 are spaced apart from each other in the vertical direction of Fig1/2, where the vertical direction of Fig1/2 is orthogonal to the lengthwise direction of the tube 6 which is horizontal in Fig1-3 and is best seen in Fig2 by the length of the tube 6 in the horizontal direction ) Claim 3 The modified arrangement of Lee by the teachings of Mizuno discloses: “The electrode-based heating device of claim 1, further comprising an inlet (Lee: inlet 10) through which the fluid is introduced (Lee: Fig2, see input arrow into inlet 10) into the body part (Lee: Abstract; best seen Fig2, water shown by flow arrows in cells 5 between water inlet 10 and water outlet 9 in body 2) , and an outlet (Lee: outlet 9) through which the fluid is discharged to an outside of the body par t (Lee: Fig2, see output arrow out of outlet 9) .” Claim 4 The modified arrangement of Lee by the teachings of Mizuno discloses: “The electrode-based heating device of claim 1, wherein the fluid (Lee: Abstract; best seen Fig2, water shown by flow arrows in cells 5 between water inlet 10 and water outlet 9 in body 2) is arranged to overlap an electrode part of each of the plurality of heating units of the heating unit part.” ( the water to be heated within each cell 5 directly contacts the pipe 6 outer surface, while the substituted electrodes from Mizuno are in contact with the electrolyzed water and electrodes within heating pipes 6, the water and the electrodes within heating pipes 6 functionally interact to transfer heat, and the water and the electrodes are both three-dimensional parts and therefore have extensions in the same directions/planes of the modified arrangement of Lee by the teachings of Mizuno, therefore the modified arrangement of Lee by the teachings of Mizuno discloses the instant limitation as best understood in light of the claim interpretation due to the Second Interpretation above ) Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: KR 10-0442986: Fig1/3/4, fluid to be heated within pipe 16 within electrically heated medium 11 Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT JOHN HUNTER JR whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-5093 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F, 9-18 . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Helena Kosanovic can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571 272 9059 . 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. /JOHN S HUNTER, JR/ Examiner, Art Unit 3761