CTNF 18/571,038 CTNF 88403 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. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation 07-30-03 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. 07-30-05 The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “using a Raman spectroscopy measurement unit, performing a Raman spectroscopy measurement on the drop of saliva received on the substrate, said performing including interrogating said drop of saliva with a Raman excitation beam having a beam dimension greater than a given beam dimension threshold of about 0.1 mm, thereby simultaneously interrogating molecular content distributed in at least a given area of the drop of saliva, and generating at least a Raman spectrum resulting from said Raman spectroscopy measurement” in claim 1, and “a Raman spectroscopy measurement unit configured for performing a Raman spectroscopy measurement on the drop of saliva received on the substrate, said performing including interrogating said drop of saliva with a Raman excitation beam having a beam dimension greater than a given beam dimension threshold of about 0.1 mm, thereby simultaneously interrogating molecular content distributed in at least a given area of the drop of saliva, and generating at least a Raman spectrum resulting from said Raman spectroscopy measurement” in claim 16. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. 07-34-01 Claims 9, 15, and 17-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claims 9, 15, 17, and 21 recite the broad recitations “threshold is between about 0.1 mm and about 10 mm”, “volume ranging between about 0.5 μL and 100 μL”, “beam dimension threshold is between about 0.1 mm and about 10 mm”, “cross-sectional area smaller than 80 mm2”, respectively, and the claims also recite “preferably between about 0.5 mm and about 5 mm, and most preferably between about 1 mm and about 2 mm”, “preferably between about 1 μL and 50 μL and most preferably between about 1 μL and 10 μL”, “preferably between about 0.5 mm and about 5 mm, and most preferably between about 1 mm and about 2 mm”, “preferably smaller than 15 mm2 and most preferably smaller than 3 mm2, and wherein the well has a depth below about 100 mm, preferably below 50 mm and most preferably below 3 mm”, respectively, which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Claims 18-21 are rejected based upon their dependency on claim 17. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – 07-08-aia AIA (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-12-aia AIA (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1, 2, 6, 9, 12, 13, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Radzol, A. R. M., Khuan Y. Lee, and Wahidah Mansor. "Nonstructural protein 1 characteristic peak from NS1-saliva mixture with surface-enhanced Raman spectroscopy." 2013 35th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBC). IEEE, 2013, hereinafter “Radzol” . Regarding claim 1 , Radzol discloses a method of interrogating saliva (abstract), the method comprising: receiving a drop of saliva on a substrate (page 2397, Sec. V, paragraphs 1, 3); using a Raman spectroscopy measurement unit (pages 2397-98, Sec. V, paragraph 4), performing a Raman spectroscopy measurement on the drop of saliva received on the substrate (paragraph 3), said performing including interrogating said drop of saliva with a Raman excitation beam having a beam dimension greater than a given beam dimension threshold of about 0.1 mm (paragraph 4), thereby simultaneously interrogating molecular content distributed in at least a given area of the drop of saliva, and generating at least a Raman spectrum resulting from said Raman spectroscopy measurement (page 2398, Sec. VI, Figs. 2, 3); and using a computer, accessing said Raman spectrum, comparing said Raman spectrum to reference data (Fig. 2, page 2398, Sec. VI. B, discussing Fig. 3), and generating a signal based on said comparison (Page 2399, Fig. 4, page 2398 Sec. VI. C, discussing Fig. 5 [the examiner notes the figures are not labeled correctly in the original reference]). Regarding claim 2 , Radzol discloses wherein the drop of saliva is a drop of processed saliva (page 2398, Sec. VI C). Regarding claim 6 , Radzol discloses wherein said substrate is a planar substrate, said receiving including depositing a drop of saliva on the planar substrate (page 2398, Sec. VI A, Fig 1(a). Regarding claim 9 , Radzol discloses wherein the beam dimension threshold is between about 0.1 mm and about 10 mm, preferably between about 0.5 mm and about 5 mm, and most preferably between about 1 mm and about 2 mm (page 2398, Sec. V). Regarding claim 12 , Radzol discloses wherein said reference data includes a reference Raman spectrum associated to a medical condition, said comparing including comparing the Raman spectrum to the reference Raman spectrum, and determining whether the medical condition is present in the drop of saliva based on said comparing (page 2396, Sec. I and page 2399, Sec. VII, and Fig. 2). Regarding claim 13 , Radzol discloses wherein said comparing includes comparing Raman emission content present within a given spectral region of the Raman spectrum to reference Raman emission content present within the given spectral region of the reference Raman spectrum (page 2396, Sec. I and page 2399, Sec. VII, and Fig. 2). Regarding claim 15 , Radzol discloses wherein the drop of saliva has a volume ranging between about 0.5 μL and 100 μL, preferably between about 1 μL and 50 μL and most preferably between about 1 μL and 10 μL (page 2397, Sec. V, paragraph 1). Regarding claim 16 , Radzol discloses a Raman spectroscopy system for interrogating saliva, the Raman spectroscopy system (abstract) comprising: a substrate receiving a drop of saliva (page 2397, Sec. V, paragraphs 1, 3); a Raman spectroscopy measurement unit (pages 2397-98, Sec. V, paragraph 4) configured for performing a Raman spectroscopy measurement on the drop of saliva received on the substrate (paragraph 3), said performing including interrogating said drop of saliva with a Raman excitation beam having a beam dimension greater than a given beam dimension threshold of about 0.1 mm (paragraph 4), thereby simultaneously interrogating molecular content distributed in at least a given area of the drop of saliva, and generating at least a Raman spectrum resulting from said Raman spectroscopy measurement (page 2398, Sec. VI, Figs. 2, 3); and a computer communicatively coupled to the Raman spectroscopy measurement unit, the computer having a processor and a memory having stored thereon instructions that when executed by the processor perform the steps of (inherent to create the graphs): accessing said Raman spectrum (Fig. 2, page 2398, Sec. VI. B, discussing Fig. 3); comparing said Raman spectrum to reference data (Fig. 2, page 2398, Sec. VI. B, discussing Fig. 3); and generating a signal based on said comparison (Page 2399, Fig. 4, page 2398 Sec. VI. C, discussing Fig. 5 [the examiner notes the figures are not labeled correctly in the original reference]). Regarding claim 17 , Radzol discloses wherein the beam dimension threshold is between about 0.1 mm and about 10 mm, preferably between about 0.5 mm and about 5 mm, and most preferably between about 1 mm and about 2 mm (page 2398, Sec. V) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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. 07-20-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. 07-22-aia AIA Claim s 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Radzol as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wong et al. (US 2011/0207622 A1), hereinafter “Wong” . Regarding claim 3 , Radzol is silent regarding wherein the substrate has a well, said receiving including receiving the drop of saliva within the well, the well having a floor surface and an internal wall surface protruding from said floor surface, the floor surface and at least a portion of the internal wall surface confining the drop of saliva therewithin, the confined drop of saliva having molecular content being homogeneously distributed across the well. However, Wong teaches Raman analysis of saliva (abstract, paragraphs [0076], [0121]) including wherein the substrate has a well (paragraph [0104]), said receiving including receiving the drop of saliva within the well (paragraph [0108]), the well having a floor surface and an internal wall surface protruding from said floor surface, the floor surface and at least a portion of the internal wall surface confining the drop of saliva therewithin (inherent to a cuvette), the confined drop of saliva having molecular content being homogeneously distributed across the well (paragraph [0110]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Radzol with the teaching of Wong by including wherein the substrate has a well, said receiving including receiving the drop of saliva within the well, the well having a floor surface and an internal wall surface protruding from said floor surface, the floor surface and at least a portion of the internal wall surface confining the drop of saliva therewithin, the confined drop of saliva having molecular content being homogeneously distributed across the well as a homogenous sample will yield a more accurate result, as the constituents are evenly spread and placing the saliva in a cuvette will contain the sample as to not make a mess. Regarding claim 4 , Radzol teaches wherein said performing includes interrogating at least a portion of the homogeneously distributed molecular content of the confined drop of saliva confined within the well (page 2396, Sec. I). Regarding claim 5 , Radzol teaches wherein said receiving includes drying the drop of saliva (page 2397, Sec. V, paragraph 4) . 07-22-aia AIA Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Radzol as applied to claim s 1 and 6 above, and further in view of Lim et al. (US 2017/0150949 A1), hereinafter “Lim” . Regarding claim 7 , Radzol teaches drying the drop of saliva deposited on the planar substrate (page 2397, Sec. V, paragraph 4) but is silent regarding the drop of saliva drying into a circular profile having a center region surrounded by an edge region, with crystalline elements and non-crystalline elements. However, Lim teaches saliva analysis (abstract) including the drop of saliva drying into a profile having a center region surrounded by an edge region, with crystalline elements and non-crystalline elements (paragraphs [0063], [0066], Fig. 7b). Furthermore, it has been held that a change in shape involves only ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Radzol with the teaching of Lim by including the drop of saliva drying into a circular profile having a center region surrounded by an edge region, with crystalline elements and non-crystalline elements as this is how saliva commonly dries, with both crystalline elements and non-crystalline elements in a circle . 07-22-aia AIA Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Radzol and Wong as applied to claim s 1 and 5 above, and further in view of Lim . Regarding claim 8 , Radzol teaches includes simultaneously interrogating the sample on the planar substrate (page 2397-98, Secs. V, VI) but is silent regarding at least some of the crystalline elements and at least some of the non-crystalline elements of the dried drop of saliva received. However, Lim teaches saliva analysis (abstract) including at least some of the crystalline elements and at least some of the non-crystalline elements of the dried drop of saliva received. (paragraphs [0063], [0066], Fig. 7b). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Radzol with the teaching of Lim by including at least some of the crystalline elements and at least some of the non-crystalline elements of the dried drop of saliva received as this is how saliva commonly dries, with both crystalline elements and non-crystalline elements . 07-22-aia AIA Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Radzol as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sodeoka et al (US 2018/0136040 A1), hereinafter “Sodeoka” . Regarding claim 10 , Radzol is silent regarding wherein the Raman excitation beam simultaneously encompasses at least a portion of a center region and at least a portion of an edge region of the drop of saliva. However, Sodeoka teaches Raman analysis (abstract, paragraph [0062]) including wherein the Raman excitation beam simultaneously encompasses at least a portion of a center region and at least a portion of an edge region of the drop of saliva (paragraph [0025]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Radzol with the teaching of Sodeoka by including wherein the Raman excitation beam simultaneously encompasses at least a portion of a center region and at least a portion of an edge region of the drop of saliva in order to analyze the entire sample at one time . 07-22-aia AIA Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Radzol as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Atkins et al (US 2018/0136040 A1), hereinafter “Atkins” . Regarding claim 14 , Radzol is silent regarding wherein said medical condition is COVID-19 positive, the given spectral region extends between about 300 cm −1 and about 3500 cm−1. However, Adkins teaches Raman analysis of saliva (abstract, paragraph [0036]) including wherein said medical condition is COVID-19 positive, the given spectral region extends between about 300 cm −1 and about 3500 cm−1 (paragraphs [0045], Fig. 4). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Radzol with the teaching of Adkins by including wherein said medical condition is COVID-19 positive, the given spectral region extends between about 300 cm −1 and about 3500 cm−1 in order to detect the desired condition using information from a known standard. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the given spectral region extends between about 300 cm −1 and about 3500 cm−1 as it has been held that it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). One would choose the claimed range by viewing where the peaks are located on a standard sample . 07-22-aia AIA Claim s 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Radzol as applied to claim s 16 and 17 above, and further in view of Wong . Regarding claim 18 , Radzol is silent regarding wherein the substrate has a well, the well having a floor surface and an internal wall surface protruding from said floor surface, the floor surface and at least a portion of the internal wall surface confining the drop of saliva therein, the confined drop of saliva having molecular content being homogeneously distributed across the well. However, Wong teaches Raman analysis of saliva (abstract, paragraphs [0076], [0121]) including wherein the substrate has a well, the well having a floor surface and an internal wall surface protruding from said floor surface, the floor surface and at least a portion of the internal wall surface confining the drop of saliva therein, the confined drop of saliva having molecular content being homogeneously distributed across the well (paragraph [0104], [0108], [0110]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system of Radzol with the teaching of Wong by including wherein the substrate has a well, the well having a floor surface and an internal wall surface protruding from said floor surface, the floor surface and at least a portion of the internal wall surface confining the drop of saliva therein, the confined drop of saliva having molecular content being homogeneously distributed across the well as a homogenous sample will yield a more accurate result, as the constituents are evenly spread and placing the saliva in a cuvette will contain the sample as to not make a mess. Regarding claim 19 , Radzol teaches wherein said performing includes interrogating at least a portion of the homogeneously distributed molecular content of the confined drop of saliva confined within the well (page 2398, Sec. VI, Figs. 2, 3)). Regarding claim 20 , Radzol teaches wherein at least the floor surface and the internal wall surface of the well are made of metallic material (page 2397, Sec. V paragraph 3, teaches the substrate is gold. Wong teaches the well, and it would be obvious to have the entire well with gold particles in order to have more Raman active sites). Regarding claim 21 , Radzol is silent regarding wherein the well has a cross-sectional area smaller than 80 mm2, preferably smaller than 15 mm2 and most preferably smaller than 3 mm2, and wherein the well has a depth below about 100 mm, preferably below 50 mm and most preferably below 3 mm. However, it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. One would chose the claimed dimensions in order to have a sample holder that is small enough to give an accurate result while having the beam cover the entire sample . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Xie (US 2021/0372933) teaches a Raman analysis system to determine viral infection and could be combined with other prior art of record to render claims obvious. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOMINIC J BOLOGNA whose telephone number is (571)272-9282. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30am-3:30pm. 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, Uzma Alam can be reached at (571) 272-3995. 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. /DOMINIC J BOLOGNA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877 Application/Control Number: 18/571,038 Page 2 Art Unit: 2877 Application/Control Number: 18/571,038 Page 3 Art Unit: 2877 Application/Control Number: 18/571,038 Page 4 Art Unit: 2877 Application/Control Number: 18/571,038 Page 5 Art Unit: 2877 Application/Control Number: 18/571,038 Page 6 Art Unit: 2877 Application/Control Number: 18/571,038 Page 7 Art Unit: 2877 Application/Control Number: 18/571,038 Page 8 Art Unit: 2877 Application/Control Number: 18/571,038 Page 9 Art Unit: 2877 Application/Control Number: 18/571,038 Page 10 Art Unit: 2877 Application/Control Number: 18/571,038 Page 11 Art Unit: 2877 Application/Control Number: 18/571,038 Page 12 Art Unit: 2877 Application/Control Number: 18/571,038 Page 13 Art Unit: 2877 Application/Control Number: 18/571,038 Page 14 Art Unit: 2877 Application/Control Number: 18/571,038 Page 15 Art Unit: 2877 Application/Control Number: 18/571,038 Page 16 Art Unit: 2877 Application/Control Number: 18/571,038 Page 17 Art Unit: 2877 Application/Control Number: 18/571,038 Page 18 Art Unit: 2877