CTNF 18/490,688 CTNF 93104 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. Election/Restrictions 08-25 AIA Applicant's election with traverse of Invention I, claims 1-17 in the reply filed on February 5, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the inventions as claimed do overlap in scope and/or are capable of use together . This is not found persuasive because Invention 1 does not require the method to occur in “real time” as the collection of the heart rate data can be done at a different time in which the estimation and notification to the worker occurs, and the bioenergetic model is already calibrated to the worker. However, Invention II requires the system to display requests to a user regularly in order to calibrate a bioenergetic model at the same time in order to use that bioenergetic model to estimate the whole body fatigue of the user in order to notify the worker of an exceeded threshold. There is an explicit step of “..in response to receiving a plurality of self-assessments…” that requires a calibration to occur once they are received so that the model can be used. Invention I could be using data from a database that was previously collected . The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. 08-05 AIA Claim s 18-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Inventive Group , there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on February 5, 2026 . Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 2 recites “wherein the biosensor is an photoplethysmogram…” and should actually recite “wherein the biosensor is a photoplethysmogram…” Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. Claims 1-17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is a process ( Step 1 ) directed to a judicial exception (i.e. a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. In accordance with MPEP 2106.04, each of Claims 1-17 has been analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exceptions. Step 2A, Prong 1 per MPEP 2106.04(a) Each of claims 1-17 recites at least one step or instruction for a method for assessing whole-body fatigue (WBF) of a worker, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) or a mathematical concept in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I). Accordingly, each of claims 1-17 recites an abstract idea. Specifically, Claim 1 recites A method for a WBF assessment device used to assess a whole-body fatigue (WBF) of a worker, the method comprising: collecting heart rate data of the worker via a biosensor of the WBF assessment device; (additional element) estimating the WBF of the worker based on the collected heart rate data, using a bioenergetic model; and (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I))) and/or a judgement or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)) in response to the WBF exceeding a threshold WBF, notifying the worker; (additional element) wherein the bioenergetic model is individually calibrated to the worker based on a plurality of WBF self-assessments performed by the worker via the WBF assessment device at time intervals while the worker is performing physical activity. (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I))) and/or a judgement or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)) Additionally, Claim 12 recites A wearable whole body fatigue (WBF) assessment device for determining a WBF of a worker, the wearable WBF assessment device comprising: a biosensor in contact with a skin of the worker; (additional element) a processor; (additional element) a memory including instructions that when executed, cause the processor to: monitor a heart rate of the worker via the biosensor (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I))) and/or a judgement or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)) estimate the WBF of the worker based on the measured heart rate, using a bioenergetic model calibrated to the worker; and (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I))) and/or a judgement or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)); in response to the WBF exceeding a threshold WBF, notify the worker. (additional element) Further, dependent claims 2-11 and 13-17 merely include limitations that either further define the abstract idea (and thus don’t make the abstract idea any less abstract) or amount to no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use because they’re merely incidental or token additions to the claims that do not alter or affect how the claimed functions/steps are performed. Accordingly, as indicated above, each of the above-identified claims recites an abstract idea as in MPEP 2106.04(a). Step 2A, Prong 2 per MPEP 2106.04(d) The above-identified abstract idea in each of independent Claims 1 and 12 (and their respective dependent Claims 2-11 and 13-17) is not integrated into a practical application under MPEP 2106.04(d) because the additional elements (identified above in independent Claims 1 and 12), either alone or in combination, generally link the use of the above-identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use according to MPEP 2106.05(h) or represent insignificant extra-solution activity according to MPEP 2106.05(g). More specifically, the additional elements of: biosensor, processor, memory and notification are generically recited computer elements in independent Claims 1 and 12 (and their respective dependent claims) which do not improve the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a). Nor do these above-identified additional elements serve to apply the above-identified abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine according to MPEP 2106.05(b), effect a transformation according to MPEP 2106.05(c), provide a particular treatment or prophylaxis according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) or apply or use the above-identified abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) and 2106.05(e). Furthermore, the above-identified additional elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer in accordance with MPEP 2106.05(f). For at least these reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent Claims 1 and 12 (and their respective dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application in accordance with MPEP 2106.04(d). Moreover, the above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application in accordance with MPEP 2106.04(d) because the claimed method and system merely implements the above-identified abstract idea (e.g., mental process and certain method of organizing human activity) using rules (e.g., computer instructions) executed by a computer (e.g., processor as claimed). In other words, these claims are merely directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements which do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer according to MPEP 2106.05(f). Additionally, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims according to MPEP 2106.05(a). That is, like Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution. Thus, for these additional reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent Claims 1 and 12 (and their respective dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application under MPEP 2106.04(d)(I). Accordingly, independent Claims 1 and 12 (and their respective dependent claims) are each directed to an abstract idea according to MPEP 2106.04(d). Step 2B per MPEP 2106.05 None of Claims 1-17 include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea in accordance with MPEP 2106.05 for at least the following reasons. These claims require the additional elements of: biosensor, processor, memory and notification. The above-identified additional elements are generically claimed computer components which enable the above-identified abstract idea(s) to be conducted by performing the basic functions of automating mental tasks. The courts have recognized such computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) along with Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am. , Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and OIP Techs. , 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93. Per Applicant’s specification, [0030] describes that the biosensor measures photoplethysmography at the wrist and this is captured in the form of an optical signal which is a generic well-known sensor that is generic and commercially available to purchase to gather these signals. Additionally, per applicant’s specification [0033] the processor and memory utilized by the processor can be a single core or multi-core, individual components or distributed throughout two or more devices or include cloud computing which is detailed with such generality that they are generic components that are readily available. Lastly, the instant specification details in [0047] that the notification can be on a display screen of the assessment device and can be accompanied by a sound and/or a vibration which details that the notification can be deployed in different ways including audio, visual or haptic which is generic and commercially known to notify users. Accordingly, in light of Applicant’s specification, the claimed term processor is reasonably construed as a generic computing device. Like SAP America vs Investpic, LLC (Federal Circuit 2018), it is clear, from the claims themselves and the specification, that these limitations require no improved computer resources, just already available technology, with their already available basic functions, to use as tools in executing the claimed process. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Furthermore, Applicant’s specification does not describe any special programming or algorithms required for the digital processors or microcontrollers. This lack of disclosure is acceptable under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) since this hardware performs non-specialized functions known by those of ordinary skill in the computer arts. By omitting any specialized programming or algorithms, Applicant's specification essentially admits that this hardware is conventional and performs well understood, routine and conventional activities in the computer industry or arts. In other words, Applicant’s specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the above-identified additional elements because it describes these additional elements in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(I)(2) and 2106.07(a)(III)). Adding hardware that performs “ ‘well understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry” will not make claims patent-eligible ( TLI Communications along with MPEP 2106.05(d)(I)). The recitation of the above-identified additional limitations in Claims 1-17 amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Simply using a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f) along with Affinity Labs v. DirecTV , 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); and TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto , LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Moreover, implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not add significantly more, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer. A claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(a) along with McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). However, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification for any assertion that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes. That is, per MPEP 2106.05(a), the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. Here, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. Instead, as in Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC 838 F.3d 1253, 1263-64, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207-08 (Fed. Cir. 2016) , the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution. For at least the above reasons, the system of Claims 1-17 are directed to applying an abstract idea as identified above on a general purpose computer without (i) improving the performance of the computer itself or providing a technical solution to a problem in a technical field according to MPEP 2106.05(a), or (ii) providing meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that these claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) and 2106.05(e). Taking the additional elements individually and in combination, the additional elements do not provide significantly more. Specifically, when viewed individually, the above-identified additional elements in independent Claims 1 and 12 (and their dependent claims) do not add significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment according to MPEP 2106.05(h). When viewed as a combination, these above-identified additional elements simply instruct the practitioner to implement the claimed functions with well-understood, routine and conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment according to MPEP 2106.05(h). When viewed as whole, the above-identified additional elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) and 2106.05(e). Moreover, neither the general computer elements nor any other additional element adds meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because these additional elements represent insignificant extra-solution activity according to MPEP 2106.05(g). As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application as required by MPEP 2106.05. Therefore, for at least the above reasons, none of the Claims 1-17 amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, Claims 1-17 are not patent eligible and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – 07-08-aia AIA (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-12-aia AIA (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-15 AIA Claim (s) 1, 8-13 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Chang (US 2017/0188894 A1) Regarding claim 1, Chang discloses A method for a WBF assessment device used to assess a whole-body fatigue (WBF) of a worker (e.g. abstract ), the method comprising: collecting heart rate data of the worker via a biosensor of the WBF assessment device (e.g. [0085]; Fig 5: S112/S212 ); estimating the WBF of the worker based on the collected heart rate data, using a bioenergetic model (e.g. [0087]-[0091]; [0110]-[0115] Fig 5: S120/S220 ); and in response to the WBF exceeding a threshold WBF, notifying the worker (e.g. [0124]-[0125] injury risk state “In some cases, fatigue may be quantified over a time duration and used as an injury indicator condition. In one example, if an individual continues to run after the onset of fatigue and runs for more than a particular time threshold, an injury warning could be triggered.” ); wherein the bioenergetic model is individually calibrated to the worker based on a plurality of WBF self-assessments performed by the worker via the WBF assessment device at time intervals while the worker is performing physical activity (e.g. Figs 5/6: S220/S230 ). Regarding claim 8, Chang discloses wherein the WBF assessment device is a wearable device worn on a wrist of the worker (e.g. [0031] the activity monitoring device may be a bracelet, watch or smart watch ).. Regarding claim 9, Chang discloses wherein each self-assessment of the plurality of WBF self-assessments performed by the worker includes a rating of fatigue (ROF) based on a pictographic single-item numerical scale that can be performed by the worker via the WBF assessment device in less than 15 seconds during the physical activity (e.g. Fig 11 [0086] Chang discloses wherein the review can be rating the tiredness level from zero to five which would take less than 15 seconds to answer ) Regarding claim 10, Chang discloses further comprising: at each time interval of the time intervals: displaying the ROF to the worker via a screen of the WBF assessment device (e.g. Fig 11; [0086]); receiving an input from the worker via a user control of the WBF assessment device, the input including the self-assessment (e.g. [0086]). Regarding claim 11, Chang discloses wherein notifying the worker further comprises at least one of: displaying an alert on the display screen; playing a sound; and generating a vibration of the wearable WBF assessment device (e.g. [0040]; [0124]-[0125]). Regarding claim 12, Chang discloses A wearable whole body fatigue (WBF) assessment device for determining a WBF of a worker, the wearable WBF assessment device comprising: a biosensor in contact with a skin of the worker (e.g.[0033]); a processor (e.g. [0031]; [0037]); and a memory including instructions that when executed (e.g. [0031]; [0037]; [0129]), cause the processor to: monitor a heart rate of the worker via the biosensor (e.g. [0085]; Fig 5: S112/S212 ); estimate the WBF of the worker based on the measured heart rate, using a bioenergetic model calibrated to the worker; and in response to the WBF exceeding a threshold WBF, notify the worker (e.g. [0124]-[0125] injury risk state “In some cases, fatigue may be quantified over a time duration and used as an injury indicator condition. In one example, if an individual continues to run after the onset of fatigue and runs for more than a particular time threshold, an injury warning could be triggered.” ). Regarding claim 13, Chang discloses wherein the memory includes further instructions that when executed, cause the processor to: notify the worker to perform self-assessments of the WBF of the worker via a display screen of the wearable WBF assessment device at a plurality of time intervals (e.g. Fig 11 [0086] Chang discloses wherein the review can be rating the tiredness level from zero to five which would take less than 15 seconds to answer at the end of activities ); and calibrate the bioenergetic model based on the self-assessments (e.g. Figs 5/6: S220/S230 ). Regarding claim 15, Chang discloses wherein each self-assessment of the plurality of WBF self-assessments performed by the worker includes a rating of fatigue (ROF) based on a pictographic single-item numerical scale that can be performed by the worker via the WBF assessment device in less than 15 seconds during the physical activity (e.g. Fig 11 [0086] Chang discloses wherein the review can be rating the tiredness level from zero to five which would take less than 15 seconds to answer ). Regarding claim 16, Chang discloses wherein the memory includes further instructions that when executed, cause the processor to notify the worker by at least one of: displaying an alert on the display screen; playing a sound; and generating a vibration of the wearable WBF assessment device (e.g. [0040]; [0124]-[0125]). Regarding claim 17, Chang discloses wherein the wearable WBF assessment device is worn on a wrist of the worker (e.g. [0031] the activity monitoring device may be a bracelet, watch or smart watch ) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang (US 2017/0188894 A1) in view of Bonomi (US 2019/0298243 A1) Regarding claim 2, Chang is silent regarding wherein the biosensor is a photoplethysmogram (PPG) sensor worn on a body of the worker. However, Bonomi discloses a system and method for quantifying physical fatigue of a subject wherein the biosensor is a photoplethysmogram (PPG) sensor worn on a body of the worker (e.g. [0066]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of Chang to incorporate the teachings of Bonomi wherein the biosensor is a photoplethysmogram (PPG) sensor worn on a body of the worker for the purpose of utilizing a known type of wrist-worn sensor utilizes on a system such as a watch (e.g. Bonomi [0066]) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang (US 2017/0188894 A1) . Regarding claim 6, Chang is silent regarding wherein the plurality of WBF self-assessments performed by the worker comprises at least six-self-assessments during two 8-hour workdays. However, Chang does disclose being able to trigger the system to request user feedback when the system may sense or indicate fatigue (e.g. [0041]-[0042]; [0086] [0110]; [0119] Figs. 5 and 6: S230 and Fig 11) Furthermore, the instant specification fails to detail any criticality to the number of self-assessments that are required. The instant specification details in [0042] “For example, the minimum number of self-assessments maybe one, two, or four, or six, or a different number of self-assessments . In some embodiments, the minimum number of self-assessments may be greater than one , such that statistical comparisons may be performed between different self-assessment.” Further details in the instant specification in [0050] “For accurate calibration of the personalized WBF model, at least three self-assessments are required during a continuous recording duration, such as an 8-hour workday.” Which, does not necessarily have to be equivalent to six-self-assessments during two 8-hour workdays. Therefore, this appears to be a change in size/proportion or making adjustable and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize any suitable number of self-assessments during two 8-hour workdays per the instant specification [0042]. See MPEP 2144.04 . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang (US 2017/0188894 A1) in view of Acciaroli (US 2023/0140143 A1) Regarding claim 7, Chang is silent regarding wherein the regular time intervals are between two and three hours. However, Acciaroli discloses a biosensor that provides potential behavior modification for the user wherein it utilized receiving user input over multiple time periods throughout the day (e.g. [0165]). Acciaroli is silent regarding wherein the regular time intervals are between two and three hours. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of Chang to incorporate the teachings of Acciaroli of receiving user input over multiple time periods throughout the day for the purpose of being able to get input from the user throughout the day for accurate monitoring. Furthermore, the instant specification fails to detail any criticality to the time between the regular time intervals that are required., the Instant Specification details in [0050] “ In other examples, the time interval may be three hours, or one hour, or a different number of hours or minutes. ” and “ Additionally, sufficient intervals should be maintained between each self-assessment, preferably at least 30 minutes. ” Therefore, this appears to be a change in size/proportion or making adjustable and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize any suitable number of hours between the time intervals per the instant specification [0042]. See MPEP 2144.04 . Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-07 AIA 07-97 12-51-07 Claim s 3-5 and 14 are allowed. The prior art fails to teach whole-body physical fatigue monitoring wherein the expended anaerobic work capacity of the worker is based on an estimated physical intensity and the threshold heart rate reserve, and the whole body fatigue is calculated based on a ratio of the calculated expended anaerobic work capacity of the worker to the total anaerobic work capacity of the worker. Claims 3-5 and 14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and overcome the outstanding rejections detailed above. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSANDRA F HOUGH whose telephone number is (571)270-7902. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7 am - 4 pm. 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, David Hamaoui can be reached at (571)270-5625. 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. Jessandra Hough May 11, 2026 /J.F.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3796 /William J Levicky/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796 Application/Control Number: 18/490,688 Page 2 Art Unit: 3796 Application/Control Number: 18/490,688 Page 3 Art Unit: 3796 Application/Control Number: 18/490,688 Page 4 Art Unit: 3796 Application/Control Number: 18/490,688 Page 5 Art Unit: 3796 Application/Control Number: 18/490,688 Page 6 Art Unit: 3796 Application/Control Number: 18/490,688 Page 7 Art Unit: 3796 Application/Control Number: 18/490,688 Page 8 Art Unit: 3796 Application/Control Number: 18/490,688 Page 9 Art Unit: 3796 Application/Control Number: 18/490,688 Page 10 Art Unit: 3796 Application/Control Number: 18/490,688 Page 11 Art Unit: 3796 Application/Control Number: 18/490,688 Page 12 Art Unit: 3796 Application/Control Number: 18/490,688 Page 13 Art Unit: 3796 Application/Control Number: 18/490,688 Page 14 Art Unit: 3796 Application/Control Number: 18/490,688 Page 15 Art Unit: 3796 Application/Control Number: 18/490,688 Page 16 Art Unit: 3796 Application/Control Number: 18/490,688 Page 17 Art Unit: 3796 Application/Control Number: 18/490,688 Page 18 Art Unit: 3796 Application/Control Number: 18/490,688 Page 19 Art Unit: 3796
Prosecution Insights