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 .
Status of the Application
Claims 1—16 have been examined in this application. This communication is a Non-Final.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention II (Claims 1—16) in the reply filed on 07/25/2025 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The rejection made to claim(s) 12 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) in the Non-Final has been withdrawn in light of the claims’ amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (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.
Claim(s) 1—10, 12, 15 & 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S Patent 6,892,405 B1 to Dimitriu (Dimitriu hereafter) in view of U.S Patent Application 2015/0335507 A1 to Emmons et. al (Emmons hereafter).
As per claim 1, Dimitriu teaches:
A person support apparatus (30—Fig.2B; Col 6 lines 33—36),
comprising: a person support surface configured to support a subject (29—Fig.2B; Col 6 lines 33—36), the person support surface including an actuating device for rotating the person support surface from a flat orientation to a rotated position (claim 7: air supply for selectively inflating bladders achieving rotation);
one or more sensors (288—Fig.21; Col 12 lines 21—28)
configured to detect one or more parameters of the subject and the person support surface and generate sensor data based on the one or more parameters thereof (Col 12 lines 21—28); and a controller (300—Fig.22; Col 14 Lines 51—65) operable to: access a database comprising at least one predetermined angle of rotation associated with one or more continuous lateral rotation therapy routines (240 & 241—Fig.26A); retrieve a control signal (242—Fig.26A; claim 25); transmit the control signal to the actuating device to cause the person support surface to move (242, 244, 245, 247—Fig.26A; Col 19 lines 1—13);
determine, based on the sensor data, whether the subject is in the predetermined angle of rotation (253—Fig.26B; Col 16 lines 37—45); if the subject is in the predetermined angle of rotation, update the database to indicate that the control signal moved the person support surface to the predetermined angle of rotation (260—Fig.26B; Col 17 lines 10—15); if the subject is not in the predetermined angle of rotation, generate and transmit a correction control signal to the actuating device to cause the person support surface to move (258—Fig.26B; Col 17 lines 1—10: if the determined angle is different from predetermined angle adjustment is made); determine, based on the sensor data, whether the correction control signal moved the subject into the predetermined angle of rotation (261—Fig.26B; Col 17 lines 10—15: controller returns to algorithm 235 which upon initiation 236—Fig.26A determines whether correction control signal moved to the predetermined angle by calling sub algorithm 253—Fig.26B); and if the subject is in the predetermined angle of rotation, update the database to indicate that the control signal and the correction control signal moved the person support surface into the predetermined angle of rotation (260—Fig.26B; Col 17 lines 10—15).
Dimitriu does not explicitly teach retrieve a control signal for causing the actuating device to move the person support surface into the predetermined angle of rotation.
Emmons teaches retrieve a control signal for causing the actuating device to move the person support surface into the predetermined angle of rotation (para [0042]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Dimitriu (directed to directed to a patient support with a controller operable to provide rotational therapy including a sensor) and Emmons (directed to a patient support with a controller operable to retrieve a control signal for causing the actuating device to move the person support surface into the predetermined angle of rotation) and arrived at a patient support with a controller operable to retrieve a control signal for causing the actuating device to move the person support surface into the predetermined angle of rotation. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to determine whether the optimal lateral position has been achieved, and controlling the system to achieve a desired head lateral position and/or upper respiratory angle as taught in Emmons (para [0222]).
As per claim 2, Dimitriu (as modified) teaches:
The person support apparatus of claim 1, wherein the controller is further operable to: if the correction control signal moved the subject into the predetermined angle of rotation, generate a new control signal for moving the subject into the predetermined angle of rotation (260—Fig.26B; Col 17 lines 10—15 controller returns to algorithm 235 which upon initiation 236—Fig.26A determines whether correction control signal moved to the predetermined angle by calling sub algorithm 253—Fig.26B),
the new control signal comprising the control signal and the correction control signal (252—Fig.26B; Col 16 lines 37—45: new control signal based on previous and correction control signal); and transmit the new control signal to the actuating device to cause the person support surface to move to the predetermined angle of rotation when the continuous lateral rotation therapy routine subsequently includes positioning the person support surface in the predetermined angle of rotation (242, 244, 245, 247—Fig.26A; Col 19 lines 1—13).
As per claim 3, Dimitriu (as modified) teaches:
The person support apparatus of claim 1, wherein, when the correction control signal does not result in movement of the subject into the predetermined angle of rotation, the instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the processor to: generate and transmit a second correction control signal to the actuating device to cause the person support surface to move (258—Fig.26B; Col 17 lines 1—10: if the determined angle is different from predetermined angle an adjustment is made);
Note:
It may be appreciated that controller 300 is operable to continuously evaluate the support apparatus angle of rotation by calling sub algorithm 253.
determine, based on the sensor data, whether the subject is in the predetermined angle of rotation (examiner note; 261—Fig.26B; Col 17 lines 10—15: controller returns to algorithm 235 which upon initiation 236—Fig.26A determines whether second correction control signal moved to the predetermined angle by calling sub algorithm 253—Fig.26B); and if the subject is in the predetermined angle of rotation, update the database to indicate that the control signal , the correction control signal, and the second control signal moved the person support surface into the predetermined angle of rotation (examiner note above; 260—Fig.26B; Col 17 lines 10—15: signal can occur after multiple iterations including after a control correction and second correction signal); generate a new control signal for moving the subject into the predetermined angle of rotation, the new control signal comprising the control signal, the correction control signal, and the second correction control signal (238, 239, 240 & 241—Fig.26A; claim 25: new signal generated for moving a patient); and transmit the new control signal to the actuating device to cause the person support surface to move to the predetermined angle of rotation when the continuous lateral rotation therapy routine subsequently includes positioning the person support surface in the predetermined angle of rotation (claim 25: new signal generated for moving a patient).
As per claim 6, Dimitriu (as modified) teaches:
The person support apparatus of claim 1, wherein the actuating device comprises a pneumatic control system coupled to at least one bladder (Claim 17: air supply).
As per claim 7, Dimitriu (as modified) teaches:
The person support apparatus of claim 1, further comprising a user interface that comprises one or more left rotation buttons (215—Fig.13; Col 29 lines 62—67) and one or more right rotation buttons for entering parameters of the rotation position (213—Fig.13; Col 29 lines 18—25).
As per claim 4, Dimitriu (as modified) teaches: The person support apparatus of claim 1.
Dimitriu does not teach, wherein the one or more sensors comprises a load beam or load cell configured to detect a weight the subject, an infrared camera configured to generate at least one infrared image of the subject, a camera configured to generate at least one image of the subject, and/or a video camera configured to generate at least one video of the subject, and combinations thereof.
Emmons teaches , wherein the one or more sensors comprises a load beam or load cell configured to detect a weight the subject (para [00428]), an infrared camera configured to generate at least one infrared image of the subject, a camera configured to generate at least one image of the subject(para [0048]), and/or a video camera configured to generate at least one video of the subject (para [0048]), and combinations thereof.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Dimitriu (directed to directed to a patient support with a controller operable to provide rotational therapy including a sensor) and Emmons (directed to a patient support with a controller operable to provide rotational therapy including a sensor comprising an infrared sensor, a video camera, an accelerometer, a weight sensor, an angle sensor) and arrived at a patient support with a controller operable to provide rotational therapy including a sensor comprising an infrared sensor, a video camera, an accelerometer, a weight sensor, an angle sensor. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to determine the amount of inflation in a bladder to prevent over/under rotation as taught in Emmons (para [0048]).
As per claim 5, Dimitriu (as modified) teaches:
The person support apparatus of claim 1, wherein the person support surface includes a head end (70—Fig.1; Col 5 lines 42—45), a foot end (71—Fig.1; Col 5 lines 42—45), and a pair of side rails extending between the head end and the foot end (52, 53, 54 &55—Fig.1; Col 5 lines 42—45)
Dimitriu does not teach, wherein the one or more sensors are attached to at least one of the side rails, the head end, or the foot end.
Emmons teaches, wherein the one or more sensors are attached to at least one of the side rails, the head end, or the foot end (para [0222]: sensor attaches to siderail or patient support).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Dimitriu (directed to directed to a patient support with a controller operable to provide rotational therapy including a sensor) and Emmons (directed to a patient support with a controller operable to provide rotational therapy including a sensor comprising an infrared sensor, a video camera, an accelerometer, a weight sensor, an angle sensor attached to at least one of the side rails, the head end, or the foot end) and arrived at a patient support with a controller operable to provide rotational therapy including a sensor comprising an infrared sensor, a video camera, an accelerometer, a weight sensor, an angle sensor attached to at least one of the side rails, the head end, or the foot end. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to determine whether the optimal lateral position has been achieved, and controlling the system to achieve a desired head lateral position and/or upper respiratory angle as taught in Emmons (para [0222]).
As per claim 8, Dimitriu (as modified) teaches: The person support apparatus of claim 1.
Dimitriu does not teach, wherein: the controller is configured to determine an identity of the subject via the sensor data , and a determination of whether the person support surface has been moved into the predetermined angle of rotation is based on data associated with the identity of the subject.
Emmons teaches, wherein: the controller is configured to determine an identity of the subject via the sensor data (para [0240]), and a determination of whether the person support surface has been moved into the predetermined angle of rotation is based on data associated with the identity of the subject (para [0222 &428]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Dimitriu (directed to directed to a patient support with a controller operable to provide rotational therapy including a sensor) and Emmons (directed to a patient support with a controller configured to determine an identity of the subject via the sensor data) and arrived at a patient support with a controller configured to determine an identity of the subject via the sensor data. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to determine whether the optimal lateral position to help reduce the likelihood of an adverse event occurring and/or stop an adverse event in progress as taught in Emmons (para [0222]).
As per claim 9, Dimitriu (as modified) teaches: The person support apparatus of claim 1.
Dimitriu does not teach, wherein: the controller is configured to determine one or more physical or physiological characteristics of the subject via the sensor data, and a determination of whether the person support surface has been moved into the predetermined angle of rotation is based on data associated with the one or more physical or physiological characteristics of the subject.
Emmons teaches, wherein: the controller is configured to determine one or more physical or physiological characteristics of the subject via the sensor data (para [0240]), and a determination of whether the person support surface has been moved into the predetermined angle of rotation is based on data associated with the one or more physical or physiological characteristics of the subject (para [0222 &428]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Dimitriu (directed to directed to a patient support with a controller operable to provide rotational therapy including a sensor) and Emmons (directed to a patient support with a controller configured to determine an identity of the subject via the sensor data) and arrived at a patient support with a controller configured to determine an identity of the subject via the sensor data. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to determine whether the optimal lateral position to help reduce the likelihood of an adverse event occurring and/or stop an adverse event in progress as taught in Emmons (para [0222]).
As per claim 10, Dimitriu (as modified) teaches: The person support apparatus of claim 1.
Dimitriu does not teach, wherein the controller is configured to: determine an identity of the subject via EMR data retrieved from an EMR system; and update the EMR system with updated data captured by the one or more sensors.
Emmons teaches, wherein the controller is configured to: determine an identity of the subject via EMR data retrieved from an EMR system (para [0223 & 240]); and update the EMR system with updated data captured by the one or more sensors (para [0226]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Dimitriu (directed to directed to a patient support with a controller operable to provide rotational therapy including a sensor) and Emmons (directed to a patient support with a controller configured to determine an identity of the subject via EMR data retrieved from an EMR system) and arrived at a patient support with a controller configured to determine an identity of the subject via EMR data retrieved from an EMR system. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to determine whether the optimal lateral position to help reduce the likelihood of an adverse event occurring and/or stop an adverse event in progress by cautioning the caregiver against implementing the configurations based on information obtained from the occupant's EMR or other sources as taught in Emmons (para [0226]).
As per claim 12, Dimitriu (as modified) teaches: The person support apparatus of claim 1.
Dimitriu does not teach, wherein a memory device stores at least one continuous lateral therapy routine comprising a plurality of angles of rotation, wherein the plurality of angles of rotation includes the predetermined angle of rotation.
Emmons teaches, wherein a memory device (1198—Fig.36) stores at least one continuous lateral therapy routine comprising a plurality of angles of rotation (1114—Fig.36; para [0286 & 291]), wherein the plurality of angles of rotation includes the predetermined angle of rotation (Fig.39 predetermined angle of rotation).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Dimitriu (directed to directed to a patient support with a controller operable to provide rotational therapy including a sensor) and Emmons (directed to a patient support with a controller configured to store at least one CLT routine in a memory device) and arrived at a patient support with a controller configured to store at least one CLT routine in a memory device. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to determine whether the optimal lateral position to help reduce the likelihood of an adverse event occurring and/or stop an adverse event in progress as taught in Emmons (para [0222]).
As per claim 15, Dimitriu (as modified) teaches: The person support apparatus of claim 1.
Dimitriu does not teach, wherein the one or more sensors are configured to measure SpO2 of the subject and generate SpO2 data, and the controller is operable to adjust the predetermined angle of rotation at which the subject is held based on the SpO2 data.
Emmons teaches, wherein the one or more sensors are configured to measure SpO2 of the subject and generate SpO2 data (para [0288]), and the controller is operable to adjust the predetermined angle of rotation at which the subject is held based on the SpO2 data (para [0293]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Dimitriu (directed to directed to a patient support with a controller operable to provide rotational therapy including a sensor) and Emmons (directed to a patient support with a controller configured to store at least one CLT routine in a memory device) and arrived at a patient support with a controller configured to store at least one CLT routine in a memory device. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to determine whether the optimal lateral position to help reduce the likelihood of an adverse event occurring and/or stop an adverse event in progress as taught in Emmons (para [0222]).
As per claim 16, Dimitriu (as modified) teaches: The person support apparatus of claim 1.
Dimitriu does not teach, wherein the controller is operable to adjust a duration of time at which the subject is held in the predetermined angle of rotation based on the SpO2 data.
Emmons teaches, wherein the controller is operable to adjust a duration of time at which the subject is held in the predetermined angle of rotation based on the SpO2 data (para [0293]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Dimitriu (directed to directed to a patient support with a controller operable to provide rotational therapy including a sensor) and Emmons (directed to a patient support with a controller configured to store at least one CLT routine in a memory device) and arrived at a patient support with a controller configured to store at least one CLT routine in a memory device. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to determine whether the optimal lateral position to help reduce the likelihood of an adverse event occurring and/or stop an adverse event in progress as taught in Emmons (para [0222]).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S Patent 6,892,405 B1 to Dimitriu in view of U.S Patent Application 2015/0335507 A1 to Emmons in view of U.S Patent Application 2021/0338505 A1 to Nahavandi et. al (Nahavandi hereafter).
As per claim 11, Dimitriu (as modified) teaches: The person support apparatus of claim 1.
Dimitriu does not teach, wherein the controller is configured to determine a distance between the subject and a side of the person support surface via the sensor data, and if the controller determines that the distance between the subject and the side is less than a minimum distance, the controller generates an alert and/or ceases movement of the person support surface.
Nahavandi teaches, wherein the controller is configured to determine a distance between the subject and a side of the person support surface via the sensor data (para [0080]), and if the controller determines that the distance between the subject and the side is less than a minimum distance, the controller generates an alert and/or ceases movement of the person support surface (para [0083]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined (directed to a patient support with a controller operable to provide rotational therapy including a sensor) and Emmons (directed to a patient support with a controller configured to store at least one CLT routine in a memory device) and Nahavandi (directed to a patient support with a controller configured to determine a distance between the subject and a side of the person support surface via the sensor data) and arrived at a patient support with a controller is configured to determine a distance between the subject and a side of the person support surface via the sensor data. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to allow the caregiver to be alerted when the patient moves a little, moves a lot, fully exits from patient support apparatus as taught in Nahavandi (para [0064]).
Claim(s) 13 & 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S Patent 6,892,405 B1 to Dimitriu in view of U.S Patent Application 2015/0335507 A1 to Emmons in view of U.S Patent Application 2006/0016352 A1 to Copland (Copland hereafter).
As per claim 13, Dimitriu (as modified) teaches: The person support apparatus of claim 1.
Dimitriu does not teach, wherein the person support surface includes a subject contact surface comprising a hydro-chromic polymer layer that changes colors when contacted by an extraneous material, the hydro-chromic polymer layer provided on the subject contact surface as an ink or as a film.
Copland teaches, wherein the person support surface includes a subject contact surface (104—Fig.7; para [0050]) comprising a hydro-chromic polymer layer that changes colors when contacted by an extraneous material (para [0050]), the hydro-chromic polymer layer provided on the subject contact surface as an ink or as a film (para [0050]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Dimitriu (directed to directed to a patient support with a controller operable to provide rotational therapy including a sensor) and Emmons (directed to a patient support with a controller configured to store at least one CLT routine in a memory device) and Copland (directed to a patient support surface with a hydro-chromic polymer layer that changes colors when contacted by an extraneous material) and arrived at a patient support surface with a hydro-chromic polymer layer that changes colors when contacted by an extraneous material. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to change color in response to exposure to water or indicating the quantity or effectiveness of the surfactant as taught in (para [0050]).
As per claim 14, Dimitriu (as modified) teaches: The person support apparatus of claim 1.
Dimitriu does not teach, wherein the person support surface includes a base subject contact surface layer having a base color and a top subject contact surface layer comprising a polymer coating and provided over the base subject contact surface layer to cover the base color, wherein, when the subject abrades the top subject contact surface layer, the base color of the base subject contact surface layer is exposed.
Copland teaches, wherein the person support surface includes a base subject contact surface (106—Fig.7; para [0050]) layer having a base color and a top subject contact surface layer comprising a polymer coating (106—Fig.7;para [0050]) and provided over the base subject contact surface layer to cover the base color (106—Fig.7), wherein, when the subject abrades the top subject contact surface layer, the base color of the base subject contact surface layer is exposed (para [0050]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Dimitriu (directed to directed to a patient support with a controller operable to provide rotational therapy including a sensor) ) and Emmons (directed to a patient support with a controller configured to store at least one CLT routine in a memory device) and Copland (directed to a patient support surface with a hydro-chromic polymer layer that changes colors when contacted by an extraneous material) and arrived at a patient support surface with a hydro-chromic polymer layer that changes colors when contacted by an extraneous material. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to change color in response to exposure to water or indicating the quantity or effectiveness of the surfactant as taught in (para [0050]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pg.1—5, filed 12/18/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of U.S Patent 6,892,405 B1 to Dimitriu in view of U.S Patent Application 2015/0335507 A1 to Emmons.
Applicant’s Arguments:
Regarding the Non-Final Rejection filed on 12/18/2025, the Applicant argues,
During the telephonic interview conducted on December 11, 2025, agreement was reached that cited element 242 and FIG. 26A of Dimitriu fail to expressly or inherently describe "... retrieve a control signal for causing the actuating device to move the person support surface into the predetermined angle of rotation" as recited in independent Claim 1 and as supported by Applicant's specification at least at paragraph [0078] describing block 602 of FIG. 6.
Claims 2-3 and 6-7 are similarly rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as allegedly being anticipated by Dimitriu. Each of Claims 2-3 and 6-7 depend directly from allowable Claim 1, and are therefore allowable for similar reasons as discussed above. Accordingly, reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejection of Claims 2-3 and 6-7 is respectfully requested.
Examiner's Response to Arguments:
The examiner respectfully disagrees to the Applicant’s Arguments for the following reasons
1) Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S Patent 6,892,405 B1 to Dimitriu in view of U.S Patent Application 2015/0335507 A1 to Emmons. The examiner highlights that Dimitriu as modified by Emmons discloses retrieve a control signal for causing the actuating device to move the person support surface into the predetermined angle of rotation (Emmons Para [0042]) because Emmons includes a controller that receives a signal from a sensor and angle the support surface to a desired angle.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S Patent Application 2021/0045948 A1 teaches a controller configured for carrying out various functions and to display various screens on the touchscreen, including screens for controlling a mattress therapy function or for controlling a non-mattress function of the patient support apparatus.
U.S Patent Application 2008/0235872 A1 teaches a user module for a patient support apparatus one or more operational features of the patient support or to a person positionable on the patient support.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Deborah T Gedeon whose telephone number is (571)272-8863. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:30am to 4:30pm 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 supervisor, Justin Mikowski can be reached at 571-272-8525. 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.
/D.T.G./Examiner, Art Unit 3673 04/02/2026
/JUSTIN C MIKOWSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3673