CTNF 18/439,877 CTNF 101915 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 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. 07-15 AIA Claim (s) 1, 6, 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Esmond (US 20130230434A1) hereinafter ESMOND . PNG media_image1.png 246 649 media_image1.png Greyscale Annotated Figure 1 Regarding claim 1, ESMOND discloses an air passage type silencer (Title, Abstract, Annotated figure 1) comprising: an inlet-side ventilation pipe (12 in Annotated figure 1, paragraph [0050]) ; an expansion portion (‘Expansion section’ in Annotated figure 1, paragraph [0050]) that communicates with the inlet-side ventilation pipe and of which a cross-sectional area is larger than a cross-sectional area of the inlet-side ventilation pipe; an outlet-side ventilation pipe (18 in Annotated figure 1, paragraph [0050]) that communicates with the expansion portion and of which a cross-sectional area is smaller than a cross-sectional area of the expansion portion; an opening portion structure (47 in Annotated figure 1, “convergent cone” in paragraph [0050]) of which a cross-sectional area gradually decreases from an inside of the expansion portion toward a connection portion between the expansion portion and the outlet-side ventilation pipe; a rear surface space that (‘Rear surface space’ in Annotated figure 1, paragraph [0050]) is surrounded by the opening portion structure, a side surface of the expansion portion that is on an outlet-side ventilation pipe side, and a peripheral surface of the expansion portion; and a porous sound absorbing material (45 in Annotated figure 1, “sound deadening material” in paragraph [0050]) that is disposed at least in an opening portion of the rear surface space. Regarding claim 6, ESMOND discloses an air passage type silencer according to claim 1 as set forth above, and further discloses that a central axis of the outlet-side ventilation pipe and a central axis of the inlet-side ventilation pipe are on one straight line (paragraph [0041]: “… it should be understood that the inlet, or other components described and shown may be straight or curved with respect to the longitudinal axis depending upon the space limitations of a particular application.”) . Regarding claim 7, ESMOND discloses an air passage type silencer according to claim 1 as set forth above, and further discloses that the porous sound absorbing material (45 in Annotated figure 1, “sound deadening material” in paragraph [0008]) is disposed on a region from a side surface of the expansion portion that is on an inlet-side ventilation pipe side to a side surface on the outlet-side ventilation pipe side (paragraph [0008]:”… include sound deadening material integrated with one or more internal surface of the apparatus.”) . Regarding claim 9, ESMOND discloses an air passage type silencer according to claim 1 as set forth above. ESMOND further discloses that the opening portion structure includes a region (‘Rear surface space’ in Annotated figure 1) in which a wall thickness (‘Wall thickness’ in Annotated figure 1) decreases toward an inlet-side (12 in Annotated figure 1) ventilation pipe side. While, ESMOND is silent about wall thickness of the opening portion structure (47 in Annotated figure 1) the space between outer surface of the silencer (‘Silencer outer wall’ in Annotated figure 1) and the wall of opening portion structure (47 in Annotated figure 1) is equivalent to wall thickness of the ‘Rear surface space’ and this wall thickness (‘Wall thickness’ in Annotated figure 1) decreases towards the inlet-side ventilation pipe (12 in Annotated figure 1) . 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. 07-23-aia AIA The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. 07-20-02-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 2, 14, 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ESMOND in view of Jha et al. (https://journal.ump.edu.my/index.php/ijame/issue/view/191; "Optimal Automobile Muffler Vibration and Noise Analysis") hereinafter JHA and by Herrin et al. (https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Xin-Hua/publication/277570476_The_Proper_Use_of_Plane_Wave_Models_for_Muffler_Design/links/55b05d6008aeb92399172378/The-Proper-Use-of-Plane-Wave-Models-for-Muffler-Design.pdf; "The Proper Use of Plane Wave Models for Muffler Design") hereinafter HERRIN . Regarding claim 2, ESMOND discloses the air passage type silencer according to claim 1 as set forth above. However, ESMOND does not disclose the following range for resonance frequency F, wherein f 1 × (1 - 0.2) < F < fc is satisfied, where F is a resonance frequency in the rear surface space in a state where the porous sound absorbing material is not disposed, f 1 is a first resonance frequency of the air passage type silencer in the state where the porous sound absorbing material is not disposed, and fc is a cutoff frequency determined by a cross-sectional area of an opening of the outlet-side ventilation pipe. For practical muffler/ silencer design in industry, it is very common practice that the desired chamber resonance frequency is: (i) not to close to the fundamental system resonance frequency f 1 and, (ii) below higher-order acoustic or structural transition frequencies, also known as cutoff frequency fc. JHA(Abstract) teaches “The modes on the muffler should be located away from the engine’s operating frequencies in order to minimise the resonance.” , which covers part (i) of the aforementioned design practice. HERRIN (page 928) teaches “However, plane wave models can be used regardless of the complexity of the muffler provided the cutoff frequency is not exceeded.” , which covers part (ii) of the aforementioned design practice. JHA and HERRIN , when put together, teaches the common practice design rule f 1 < F < fc. The stated range of the current invention, where F is preferably in-between 80% of the fundamental system resonance frequency f 1 and the cutoff frequency fc, falls with the common practice design rule of f 1 < F < fc. JHA teaches f1<F and HERRIN teaches F<fc. These two taken together encompass the claimed range. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing date of the claimed invention to try a broad range of frequencies for F which would have included f 1 × (1 - 0.2) < F < fc on the device of ESMOND in order to minimize resonance and to be able to use the plane wave model. Regarding claim 14, ESMOND-JHA-HERRRIN discloses an air passage type silencer according to claim 2 as set forth above. ESMOND further discloses that a central axis of the outlet-side ventilation pipe and a central axis of the inlet-side ventilation pipe are on one straight line (paragraph [0041]: “… it should be understood that the inlet, or other components described and shown may be straight or curved with respect to the longitudinal axis depending upon the space limitations of a particular application.”) . Regarding claim 15, ESMOND-JHA-HERRIN discloses an air passage type silencer according to claim 2 as set forth above. ESMOND further discloses that the porous sound absorbing material (45 in Annotated figure 1, “sound deadening material” in paragraph [0008]) is disposed on a region from a side surface of the expansion portion that is on an inlet-side ventilation pipe side to a side surface on the outlet-side ventilation pipe side (paragraph [0008]: ”… include sound deadening material integrated with one or more internal surface of the apparatus.”) . Regarding claim 17, ESMOND-JHA-HERRIN discloses an air passage type silencer according to claim 2 as set forth above. ESMOND further discloses that the opening portion structure includes a region (‘Rear surface space’ in Annotated figure 1) in which a wall thickness (‘Wall thickness’ in Annotated figure 1) decreases toward an inlet-side (12 in Annotated figure 1) ventilation pipe side. While, ESMOND is silent about wall thickness of the opening portion structure (47 in Annotated figure 1) the space between outer surface of the silencer (‘Silencer outer wall’ in Annotated figure 1) and the wall of opening portion structure (47 in Annotated figure 1) is equivalent to wall thickness of the ‘Rear surface space’ and this wall thickness (‘Wall thickness’ in Annotated figure 1) decreases towards the inlet-side ventilation pipe (12 in Annotated figure 1) . 07-22-aia AIA Claim 3, 4 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ESMOND as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Merchant et al. (US 20110168482A1) hereinafter MERCHANT . Regarding claim 3, ESMOND discloses the air passage type silencer according to claim 1 as set forth above. Although ESMOND does not explicitly disclose about the cross-section of convergent cone section (47 in Annotated figure 1) , which is equivalent to opening portion structure of the claimed invention, being perpendicular to the central axis of the outlet, in the event the central axis of the outlet and the central axis of the convergent section are parallel to each other or on the same straight line, the cross-section of the convergent cone will be perpendicular to the axis of the outlet. However, ESMOND does not disclose that the cross-sectional shape of the opening portion structure being a quadrangular shape and that a distance between one pair of sides facing each other gradually decreases from the inside of the expansion portion toward the connection portion between the expansion portion and the outlet-side ventilation pipe, and a distance between the other pair of sides facing each other is constant. MERCHANT teaches about a silencer for bend pipe of a gas turbine (Title, Abstract, Figure 3) , that has quadrangular cross-section, where in certain portions spacing between two opposing walls are either converging (20 in Figure 3) or diverging (16 in Figure 3) and the other two opposing walls are constant. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the current claimed invention to apply the teachings of MERCHANT on the silencer of ESMOND so that the cross-section of the convergent cone section is quadrangular shape where, a distance between one pair of sides facing each other gradually decreases from the inside of the convergent cone toward the outlet pipe, and a distance between the other pair of sides facing each other is constant. Such modification would get to a reduced silencer size, make the silencer suitable for use in ducts with changing cross- section and improve sound attenuation performance of the silencer over a wide range of frequencies (paragraph [0039]) . Regarding claim 4, ESMOND discloses the air passage type silencer according to claim 1 as set forth above. However, ESMOND does not disclose a silencer where the opening portion structure has a structure in which two plate-shaped members face each other and a distance between the two plate-shaped members gradually decreases from the inside of the expansion portion toward the connection portion between the expansion portion and the outlet-side ventilation pipe. MERCHANT teaches about a silencer for bend pipe of a gas turbine (Title, Abstract, Figure 3) , that has rectangular cross-section, where in certain portions the spacing between two opposing walls are either converging (20 in Figure 3) or diverging (16 in Figure 3) and the spacing between the other two opposing walls is constant, where the constantly spaced apart opposing walls can just be the walls of the duct where the silencer is placed in. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the current claimed invention, to modify the convergent cone section (47 in Annotated figure 1) of ESMOND , which is equivalent to the opening portion structure of the claimed invention, to include the rectangular cross-section converging transition portion (20 in Figure 3) as taught by MERCHANT in order to make the silencer usable in a rectangular cross-section duct and to reduce the amount of material to be used by eliminating the two constantly spaced apart walls of the silencer. Regarding claim 20, ESMOND-MERCHANT discloses an air passage type silencer according to claim 3 as set forth above. ESMOND further discloses that a central axis of the outlet-side ventilation pipe and a central axis of the inlet-side ventilation pipe are on one straight line (paragraph [0041]: “… it should be understood that the inlet, or other components described and shown may be straight or curved with respect to the longitudinal axis depending upon the space limitations of a particular application.”) . 07-22-aia AIA Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ESMOND and MERCHANT as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Purhonen (US 4109754A) hereinafter PURHONEN . Regarding claim 19, ESMOND-MERCHANT discloses an air passage type silencer according to claim 3 as set forth above. However, ESMOND-MERCHANT does not disclose a cross-sectional shape of the expansion portion that is perpendicular to a central axis of the outlet-side ventilation pipe is a rectangular shape. PURHONEN teaches about a noise absorber (Title, Abstract, Figure 1-3), where the flow channel is placed within a box having shape of a rectangular cross-section channel (claim 5 in PURHONEN) , which is equivalent to the expansion section of the claimed invention of instant application. ESMOND-MERCHANT is silent about the casing of the muffler. PURHONEN teaches a muffler with a rectangular cross-section. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the current claimed invention, to modify ESMOND-MERCHANT to include a rectangular cross-section as taught by PURHONEN in order to make the silencer usable in ducts with rectangular cross-section . 07-22-aia AIA Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ESMOND as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of PURHONEN . Regarding claim 5, ESMOND discloses an air passage type silencer according to claim 1 as set forth above, where the divergent and convergent flow sections are placed inside a constant cross- section enclosure (‘Expansion section’ in Annotated figure, paragraph [0019]) which is equivalent to the expansion section of the claimed invention. However, ESMOND does not disclose a cross-sectional shape of the expansion portion that is perpendicular to a central axis of the outlet-side ventilation pipe is a rectangular shape. PURHONEN teaches about a noise absorber (Title, Abstract, Figure 1-3), where the flow channel is placed within a box having shape of a rectangular cross-section channel (claim 5 in PURHONEN) , which is equivalent to the expansion section of the claimed invention of instant application. ESMOND is silent about the casing of the muffler. PURHONEN teaches a muffler with a rectangular cross-section. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the current claimed invention, to modify ESMOND to include a rectangular cross-section as taught by PURHONEN in order to make the silencer usable in ducts with rectangular cross-section . 07-22-aia AIA Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ESMOND as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kuroki (JP2000248920A) hereinafter KUROKI . Regarding claim 8, ESMOND discloses an air passage type silencer according to claim 1 as set forth above. However, ESMOND does not disclose that a central axis of the outlet-side ventilation pipe is offset from a center of the side surface of the expansion portion. KUROKI teaches about an automobile silencer where the central axes of inlet-side port (5 in Figure 4) , out-let side port (6 in Figure 4) and expansion section (8 in Figure 4) are not aligned. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the current claimed invention, to modify the configuration of the silencer of ESMOND with the teachings of KUROKI to get to a silencer configuration where the central axes of inlet, that of expansion section and that of outlet are not aligned in order to provide a silencer that can be flexibly located within the vehicle as dictated by space constraint . 07-22-aia AIA Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ESMOND as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Petschenig (US20110186378A1) hereinafter PETSCHENIG . Regarding claim 10, ESMOND discloses an air passage type silencer according to claim 1 as set forth above. However, ESMOND does not disclose that the opening portion structure is attachable and detachable with respect to the expansion portion. PETSCHENIG teaches about an exhaust muffler (Title, Abstract, Figure 9) comprising multiple attachable and detachable members ([0015]: “… a first body member and a second body member attached to the first body member”, [0061]) . PETSCHENIG describes a configuration ([0061]) where converging section (64 in Figure 9) , which is equivalent to converging cone of ESMOND (47 in Annotated figure 1) and opening portion of current claimed invention, can be attached to and detached from the rest of the muffler portion (62 in Figure 9) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the current claimed invention, to modify the configuration of the silencer of ESMOND with the teachings of PETSCHENIG to make the convergent cone section (47 in Annotated figure 1) attachable and detachable and thereby making the silencer to have a more modular design to facilitate its use in areas of space constraint and also make silencer easily accessible for replacement and repair . 07-22-aia AIA Claim 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ESMOND-JHA-HERRIN as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of MERCHANT . Regarding claim 11, ESMOND-JHA-HERRIN, discloses the air passage type silencer according to claim 2 as set forth above. Although ESMOND-JHA-HERRIN does not explicitly disclose about the cross- section of convergent cone section (47 in Annotated figure 1) , which is equivalent to opening portion structure of the claimed invention, being perpendicular to the central axis of the outlet, in the event the central axis of the outlet and the central axis of the convergent section are parallel to each other or on the same straight line, the cross-section of the convergent cone will be perpendicular to the axis of the outlet. However, ESMOND-JHA-HERRIN does not disclose that the cross-sectional shape of the opening portion structure being a quadrangular shape and that a distance between one pair of sides facing each other gradually decreases from the inside of the expansion portion toward the connection portion between the expansion portion and the outlet-side ventilation pipe, and a distance between the other pair of sides facing each other is constant. MERCHANT teaches about a silencer for bend pipe of a gas turbine (Title, Abstract, Figure 3) , that has quadrangular (it is noted that a rectangle is quadrangular) cross-section, where in certain portions spacing between two opposing walls are either converging (20 in Figure 3) or diverging (16 in Figure 3) and the other two opposing walls are constant. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the current claimed invention to apply the teachings of MERCHANT on the silencer of ESMOND-JHA-HERRIN so that the cross-section of the convergent cone section is quadrangular shape where, a distance between one pair of sides facing each other gradually decreases from the inside of the convergent cone toward the outlet pipe, and a distance between the other pair of sides facing each other is constant. Such modification would get to a reduced silencer size, make the silencer suitable for use in ducts with changing cross-section and improve sound attenuation performance of the silencer over a wide range of frequencies (paragraph [0039]) . Regarding claim 12, ESMOND-JHA-HERRIN discloses the air passage type silencer according to claim 2 as set forth above. However, ESMOND-JHA-HERRIN does not disclose a silencer where the opening portion structure has a structure in which two plate-shaped members face each other and a distance between the two plate-shaped members gradually decreases from the inside of the expansion portion toward the connection portion between the expansion portion and the outlet-side ventilation pipe. MERCHANT teaches about a silencer for bend pipe of a gas turbine (Title, Abstract, Figure 3) , that has rectangular cross-section, where in certain portions the spacing between two opposing walls are either converging (20 in Figure 3) or diverging (16 in Figure 3) and the spacing between the other two opposing walls is constant, where the constantly spaced apart opposing walls can just be the walls of the duct where the silencer is placed in. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the current claimed invention, to modify the convergent cone section (47 in Annotated figure 1) of ESMOND-JHA-HERRIN , which is equivalent to the opening portion structure of the claimed invention, to include the rectangular cross-section converging transition portion (20 in Figure 3) as taught by MERCHANT in order to make the silencer usable in a rectangular cross-section duct and to reduce the amount of material to be used by eliminating the two constantly spaced apart walls of the silencer . 07-22-aia AIA Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ESMOND-JHA-HERRIN as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of PURHONEN . Regarding claim 13, ESMOND-JHA-HERRIN discloses an air passage type silencer according to claim 2 as set forth above, where the divergent and convergent flow sections are placed inside a constant cross-section enclosure (‘Expansion section’ in Annotated figure, paragraph [0019]) which is equivalent to the expansion section of the claimed invention. However, ESMOND-JHA-HERRIN does not disclose a cross-sectional shape of the expansion portion that is perpendicular to a central axis of the outlet-side ventilation pipe is a rectangular shape. PURHONEN teaches about a noise absorber (Title, Abstract, Figure 1-3), where the flow channel is placed within a box having shape of a rectangular cross-section channel (claim 5 in PURHONEN) , which is equivalent to the expansion section of the claimed invention of instant application. ESMOND-JHA-HERRIN is silent about the casing of the muffler. PURHONEN teaches a muffler with a rectangular cross-section. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the current claimed invention, to modify ESMOND-JHA-HERRIN to include a rectangular cross-section as taught by PURHONEN in order to make the silencer usable in ducts with rectangular cross-section . 07-22-aia AIA Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ESMOND-JHA-HERRIN as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of KUROKI . Regarding claim 16, ESMOND-JHA-HERRIN discloses an air passage type silencer according to claim 2 as set forth above. However, ESMOND-JHA-HERRIN does not disclose that a central axis of the outlet-side ventilation pipe is offset from a center of the side surface of the expansion portion. KUROKI teaches about an automobile silencer where the central axes of inlet-side port (5 in Figure 4) , out-let side port (6 in Figure 4) and expansion section (8 in Figure 4) are not aligned. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the current claimed invention, to modify the configuration of the silencer of ESMOND-JHA-HERRIN with the teachings of KUROKI to get to a silencer configuration where the central axes of inlet, that of expansion section and that of outlet are not aligned in order to provide a silencer that can be flexibly located within the vehicle as dictated by space constraint . 07-22-aia AIA Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ESMOND-JHA-HERRIN as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of PETSCHENIG . Regarding claim 10, ESMOND-JHA-HERRIN discloses an air passage type silencer according to claim 2 as set forth above. However, ESMOND-JHA-HERRIN does not disclose that the opening portion structure is attachable and detachable with respect to the expansion portion. PETSCHENIG teaches about an exhaust muffler (Title, Abstract, Figure 9) comprising multiple attachable and detachable members ([0015]: “… a first body member and a second body member attached to the first body member”, [0061]) . PETSCHENIG describes a configuration ([0061]) where converging section (64 in Figure 9) , which is equivalent to converging cone of ESMOND (47 in Annotated figure 1) and opening portion of current claimed invention, can be attached to and detached from the rest of the muffler portion (62 in Figure 9) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the current claimed invention, to modify the configuration of the silencer of ESMOND-JHA-HERRIN with the teachings of PETSCHENIG to make the convergent cone section (47 in Annotated figure 1) attachable and detachable and thereby making the silencer to have a more modular design to facilitate its use in areas of space constraint and also make silencer easily accessible for replacement and repair. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FAISAL AHMED whose telephone number is (571)270-0113. The examiner can normally be reached Tue, Wed 9:00am-7:00pm and Thurs 8:30am-2:30pm EST. 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 supervisors, Craig M Schneider can be reached at (571) 272-3607 or Kenneth Rinehart can be reached at (571) 272-4881. 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. /FAISAL AHMED/ Examiner, Art Unit 3753 /CRAIG M SCHNEIDER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3753 Application/Control Number: 18/439,877 Page 2 Art Unit: 3753 Application/Control Number: 18/439,877 Page 3 Art Unit: 3753 Application/Control Number: 18/439,877 Page 4 Art Unit: 3753 Application/Control Number: 18/439,877 Page 5 Art Unit: 3753 Application/Control Number: 18/439,877 Page 6 Art Unit: 3753 Application/Control Number: 18/439,877 Page 7 Art Unit: 3753 Application/Control Number: 18/439,877 Page 8 Art Unit: 3753 Application/Control Number: 18/439,877 Page 9 Art Unit: 3753 Application/Control Number: 18/439,877 Page 10 Art Unit: 3753 Application/Control Number: 18/439,877 Page 11 Art Unit: 3753 Application/Control Number: 18/439,877 Page 12 Art Unit: 3753 Application/Control Number: 18/439,877 Page 13 Art Unit: 3753 Application/Control Number: 18/439,877 Page 14 Art Unit: 3753 Application/Control Number: 18/439,877 Page 15 Art Unit: 3753 Application/Control Number: 18/439,877 Page 16 Art Unit: 3753 Application/Control Number: 18/439,877 Page 17 Art Unit: 3753
Prosecution Insights