CTNF 18/695,725 CTNF 66979 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. Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claims 18-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. In claim 18, the upper limit of the range of the limitation “penetration depth…of about 13 inches or less” is unclear (it is unclear how much of a fractional inch or inch(es) greater than exactly 13 inches is encompassed by the limitation. In claim 21, “diameter or at least 6 inches” is non-idiomatic (“diameter of…” is suggested), and “optionally up to 10 inches” is indefinite as to whether such phrase is a positive recitation, and the claim is improperly reciting a narrower range of a diameter of at least 6 inches up to 10 inches within a broader range encompassing any diameter of at least 6 inches. 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, claim 21 recites the broad recitation of a diameter of 6 inches or more, and the claim also recites the narrower range of a diameter of 6 inches or more, up to less than 10 inches, which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim is 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 claim. In claim 25, “the lower end of each of the removable pipe sections” lacks antecedent basis. In claim 28, the term “pressure” or “pressure vessel” is a relative term of undefined scope or metes and bounds, as it is unclear as to what amount of environmental or fluid pressure, the vessel is configured to withstand, without damage or requiring maintenance, during operation. In independent claim 29, the claim is improperly reciting a narrower range of septa extension of at least 5 inches up to no more than 10 inches within a broader range encompassing a septa extension of at least 5 inches up to no more than 13 inches, and a still broader range of any extension of up to no more than 13 inches. 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, independent claim 29 recites the broad recitation of a septa extension of at least 5 inches up to no more than 13 inches, within a still broader range of any septa extension of up to no more than 13 inches, and the claim also recites the narrower range of least 5 inches up to no more than 10 inches, up to less than 10 inches, which is a most narrow or narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim is 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 claim. Also in claim 29, “than than 13 inches” is grammatically confusing, and “the pressure vessel” lacks antecedent basis, being inconsistent with “a vessel”. In each of claims 31 and 32, the respective claims improperly recite a narrower range of septa extension and also a broader range of septa extension, and of narrower range of septa diameter, and also successively broader range of septa diameter respectfully. 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, claim 31 recites a broad recitation of a septa extension of at least 6 inches, and the claim also recites the range of a septa extension of at least 7 inches, which is a narrow statement of the range/limitation. The claim is 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 claim. Additionally, in the present instance, claim 32 recites a broad recitation of a septa diameter of at least about 4 inches, and the claim also recites the narrower range of a septa diameter of at least about 6 inches, which is a narrow statement of the range/limitation, as well as still narrower ranges of septa diameter of between at least about 4 or about 6 inches up to about 10 inches. The claim is 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 claim. Also, in claim 32, the claim is ambiguous as to what are the lower and the upper limits of the recited range of septa diameter (it is unclear as to how small or large, respectfully, the septa diameter may be and fall within a range bounded by “about 4 inches” or “about 6 inches” on a smaller side of the range and “about 10 inches” on a larger side of the range, for instance, would 3.7 inches, 5.7, or 10.5 inches be respectfully encompassed within the recited ranges). In each of claims 33 and 34, respectfully, it is unclear whether “a septum” refers back to one of the “septa” introduced in independent claim 29. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation The terminology “septa” or “septum” as recited in claims 18, 20, 27, 29, and 31-34 is interpreted as meaning strainers or screens extending away from ports and/or connected to or including pipe sections in view of the Specification, as defined and described in paragraphs [0005, 0010, 0015, 0032 and 0046] and as illustrated in figures 7-10. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. 07-23-aia AIA The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. 07-20-02-aia AIA This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 18 and 23-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pratt et al patent 3,291,311 (Pratt) in view of Soriente patent 5,028,322 (Soriente) and/or Hyatt patent 417,037 (Hyatt) . For independent claim 18, Pratt discloses a liquid treatment system (column 1, lines 9-14 re filtering using a filter bed or by ion exchange treatment of liquid) comprising, a vessel (tank 2 or 100) having a bottom (4 or 102), (see fig 1 and 6, column 1, line 70-column 2, line 4 and column 3, lines 50-64; and, a plurality of septa extending upwards into the vessel from the bottom (figs 1, 5 and 6 and column 3, lines 50-64 re strainer assemblies 7 or 106 which project through the vessel bottom into the interior of the tank or vessel) . Claim 18 firstly differs by requiring the system as explicitly configured to treat water. Hyatt discloses a filter bed configured for treating fluid which may be water (column 1, lines 10-20 and 29-42). Soriente also discloses a filter bed configured for treating fluid which may be water (column 1, lines 15-20). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the liquid treatment arts, to have configured or utilized the Pratt system for treatment of specifically water, in view of Hyatt and/or Soriente, since it is well known that filters in the form of filter beds are effective for treating water. Pratt is silent regarding the diameter of the septa and regarding the penetration depth of the septa into the vessel and thus lacks any teaching of the claim 18 limitation of wherein the septa have one or more of a) a diameter of at least 4 inches, and b) a penetration depth measured from the bottom of the vessel of about 13 inches or less. Soriente also teaches a granular media filter bed in a tank or vessel for purifying water (column 1, lines 15-20) and teaches a plurality of strainer or septa assemblies 30 extending upwards into a filter bed 12 from an underdrain bottom surface 13 of the filter bed (figure 2 and column 2, lines 32-52 regarding the filter bed in the tank, and column 3, lines 1-8 regarding the strainer assemblies, with column 3, lines 9-22 specifying the septa as having an outer diameter of about 5.62 inches, thus greater than the claimed at least 4 inches). Soriente teaches septa extending from a lower or bottom underdrain portion of a vessel upwards into a vessel chamber containing a bed of ion exchange media, such septa having a diameter of at least 4 inches (column 3, lines 9-22 specifying the septa as having an outer diameter of about 5.62 inches, thus greater than the claimed at least 4 inches). Soriente teaches that such configuration of septa or strainers facilitates a more effective backwashing cleaning of the filter bed, by providing good liquid and gas distribution of backwash fluid (column 1, line 59-column 2, line 2) It would have been also obvious to have configured the Pratt septa to have such a diameter, in order to enable periodic effective cleaning of the filter bed, by providing good liquid and gas distribution of backwash fluid. Alternatively or optionally, Hyatt teaches strainers or septa c through c5, see extending from a lower or bottom underdrain portion of a vessel upwards into a vessel chamber containing a bed of ion exchange media (see figure 3 and page 1, lines 66-71), and suggests such septa extending, no more than 13 inches, or no more than 10 inches, optionally at least 5 inches as recited in claim 21, upwards from the bottom into the pressure vessel (the septa or strainers being surrounded by several partitions which are about 15 inches in height, are in between the septa, and extend much further into the vessel than do the septum (figure 3) . Hyatt suggests such configuration of septa and partitions as prolonging filter bed useful life by causing a more vertical passage of the fluid being purified in the filter bed, and thus delaying fouling of the filter bed, such that cleansing of the filter bed, with attendant interruption of filtering operation, can be performed much less often (page 1, lines 10-42). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the water treatment art to have modified the Pratt system by designing the septa to extend no more than 10 or no more than 13 inches upwards from the vessel bottom, along with providing relatively more extensive partitions in between the septum, as taught by Hyatt, in order to thus cause a more vertical passage of the fluid being purified in the filter bed, and thus delaying fouling of the filter bed, such that cleansing of the filter bed, with attendant interruption of filtering operation, can be performed much less often. For claim 23, Pratt further discloses an underdrain system disposed below the vessel comprising a plurality of removable pipe sections each having a lower end and an upper end, each pipe section corresponding to one of the septa (column 1, lines 9-14 and column 4, lines 13-21 and 30-48 re an underdrain comprising pipe sections and tees 122, 130, 132, 134 and 136). For claim 24, Pratt further discloses wherein the upper end of each of the removable pipe sections is attached to the bottom of the vessel (figure 6 and column 4, lines 2-22 re pipe sections 122 and 134 being attached to the vessel body with pad 116 and mating flanges 120). For claim 25, Pratt further discloses the system further comprising an external header attached to the lower end of each of the removable pipe sections (figures 1 and 2, column 2, lines 52-65 and column 4, lines 35-40 regarding at least one manifold or “header” 50 and common outlet line or “header” 56 . For claim 26, Pratt further discloses wherein attachments between the removable pipe sections and the vessel and the external header are made by way of horizontal flanges (mating flange attachments 110 and 120 between pipe sections and vessel bottom, see figure 6 and corresponding text at column 3, line 58-column 4, line 7, and flange and bolt attachments 46 between the pipe sections and the header as shown in figure 1 and discussed at column 2, lines 53-58) . For claim 27, Pratt further discloses wherein each septum extends upwards from its corresponding removable pipe section (figures 1 and 6). For claim 28, Pratt further discloses or suggests where the vessel is a pressure vessel, or is built to withstand elevated pressures (column 1, lines 42-43 re the tank or vessel having sufficient rigidity and resistance to damage when filled with liquid and column 3, lines 57-65 and column 4, lines 40-48 re welded construction and connection of components) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 19, 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pratt et al patent 3,291,311 (Pratt) in view of Hyatt patent 417,037 (Hyatt), and optionally further in view of Soriente patent 5,028,322 (Soriente), as optionally applied to independent claim 18 above . Claim 19 further differs by requiring wherein a water treatment vessel has a diameter in the range of 7-12 feet For claim 19, Hyatt further teaches such filter bed-containing tank or vessel dimension at page 1, line 51-53 regarding the vessel to have a diameter in the range of 7-12 feet, so as to be of sufficient size so as to have a great enough filtering surface, so as to provide a long period of filtering operation use (page 1, lines 20-42) . It would have been accordingly further obvious to have configured the vessel of the Pratt system to have such diameter, as taught by Hyatt, in order to enable the vessel to be of sufficient size so as to have a great enough filtering surface, so as to provide a long period of filtering operation use For claims 21 and 22, Pratt is silent regarding the length of upward extension of the septa into the vessel. Claims 21 and 22 thus differ by explicitly reciting the septa or strainers as extending, no more than 13 inches, or no more than 10 inches, optionally at least 5 inches, upwards from the bottom into the pressure vessel. Hyatt teaches strainers or septa c through c5, see extending from a lower or bottom underdrain portion of a vessel upwards into a vessel chamber containing a bed of ion exchange media (see figure 3 and page 1, lines 66-71), and suggests such septa extending, no more than 13 inches, or no more than 10 inches, optionally at least 5 inches as recited in claim 21, upwards from the bottom into the pressure vessel (the septa or strainers being surrounded by several partitions which are about 15 inches in height, are in between the septa, and extend much further into the vessel than do the septum (figure 3) . Hyatt suggests such configuration of septa and partitions as prolonging filter bed useful life by causing a more vertical passage of the fluid being purified in the filter bed, and thus delaying fouling of the filter bed, such that cleansing of the filter bed, with attendant interruption of filtering operation, can be performed much less often (page 1, lines 10-42). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the water treatment art to have modified the Pratt system by designing the septa to extend no more than 10 or no more than 13 inches upwards from the vessel bottom, along with providing relatively more extensive partitions in between the septum, as taught by Hyatt, in order to thus cause a more vertical passage of the fluid being purified in the filter bed, and thus delaying fouling of the filter bed, such that cleansing of the filter bed, with attendant interruption of filtering operation, can be performed much less often. For claim 22, Hyatt further teaches or suggests wherein the penetration depth is at least 5 inches. Hyatt again suggests such degree of septa extending, upwards from the bottom into the pressure vessel (the septa or strainers being surrounded by several partitions which are about 15 inches in height, are in between the septa, and extend about twice as high vertically into the vessel as do the septum (figure 3) . Hyatt again suggests such configuration of septa and partitions as prolonging filter bed useful life by causing a more vertical passage of the fluid being purified in the filter bed, and thus delaying fouling of the filter bed, such that cleansing of the filter bed, with attendant interruption of filtering operation, can be performed much less often (page 1, lines 10-42). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the water treatment art to have modified the Pratt system by designing the septa to extend at least 5 inches, along with providing relatively more extensive partitions in between the septum, as taught by Hyatt, in order to thus cause a more vertical passage of the fluid being purified in the filter bed, and thus delaying fouling of the filter bed, such that cleansing of the filter bed, with attendant interruption of filtering operation, can be performed much less often. It would have been accordingly further obvious to have configured the penetration depth of the septa of the Pratt system to be 10 inches or less, in order to . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 20 and 29-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pratt et al patent 3,291,311 (Pratt) in view of Soriente patent 5,028,322 (Soriente) . For claim 20, Pratt is silent regarding vessel diameter, whereas Soriente further teaches or suggests wherein septa in a water treatment vessel have the claimed diameter of about at least 6 inches, optionally up to about 10 inches. Soriente also teaches a granular media filter bed in a tank or vessel for purifying water (column 1, lines 15-20) and teaches a plurality of strainer or septa assemblies 30 extending upwards into a filter bed 12 from an underdrain bottom surface 13 of the filter bed (figure 2 and column 2, lines 32-52 regarding the filter bed in the tank, and column 3, lines 1-8 regarding the strainer assemblies, with column 3, lines 9-22 specifying the septa as having an outer diameter of about 5.62 inches, thus greater than the claimed 4 inches or “about” 6 inches). Soriente teaches that such configuration of septa or strainers facilitates a more effective backwashing cleaning of the filter bed, by providing good liquid and gas distribution of backwash fluid (column 1, line 59-column 2, line 2) It would have been also obvious to have configured the Pratt septa to have such a diameter, in order to enable periodic effective cleaning of the filter bed, by providing good liquid and gas distribution of backwash fluid. For independent claim 29, Pratt discloses a water treatment method comprising, inserting a plurality of septa into a bottom of a pressure vessel (column 1, lines 9-14 re filtering using a filter bed or by ion exchange treatment of liquid, , such that the plurality of septa extend into the vessel (inserting septa in the form of strainer assemblies 7 or 105, into vessel 2 or 100 having a bottom 4 or 102, which project from outside the bottom of the tank or vessel into the interior of the tank or vessel, see figs 1, 5 and 6, column 1, line 70-column 2, line 4 and column 3, lines 50-64 re description of septa and vessel, and column 1, lines 32-38 and column 3, lines 68-74 re mounting or inserting of the strainers or septa into the tank or vessel and securing them to the tank bottom); filling the vessel with a liquid treatment media (column 1, lines 12-14, 27-31 and 46-49, and column 3, lines 38-40 re containing ion exchange resin or a filter bed or other filter media) , flowing liquid through the vessel such that the liquid contacts the water treatment media before flowing through the plurality of septa (column 3, lines 9-14 and 49-51 re flow of liquid through the tank or vessel and the strainers or septum and ion exchange resin or filter bed therein). Claim 29 and claims dependent therefrom firstly differ by requiring the method as explicitly comprising treatment of water. Hyatt also discloses a filter bed configured for treating fluid, of which the fluid is water (column 1, lines 15-20, 27-32 and 36-40). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the liquid treatment arts, to have configured or utilized the Pratt method for treatment of specifically water, in view of Hyatt, since Hyatt teaches that filters in the form of filter beds or ion exchange resin are effective for treating water. Pratt is silent regarding the length of upward extension of the septa into the vessel. Claim 29 differs by explicitly disclosing the septa or strainers as extending, no more than 13 inches, or no more than 10 inches, optionally at least 5 inches, upwards from the bottom into the pressure vessel. Hyatt teaches strainers or septa c through c5, see extending from a lower or bottom underdrain portion of a vessel upwards into a vessel chamber containing a bed of ion exchange media (see figure 3 and page 1, lines 66-71), and suggests such septa extending, no more than 13 inches, or no more than 10 inches, optionally at least 5 inches, upwards from the bottom into the pressure vessel (the septa or strainers being surrounded by several partitions which are about 15 inches in height, are in between the septa, and extend much further into the vessel than do the septum (figure 3) . Hyatt suggests such configuration of septa and partitions as prolonging filter bed useful life by causing a more vertical passage of the fluid being purified in the filter bed, and thus delaying fouling of the filter bed, such that cleansing of the filter bed, with attendant interruption of filtering operation, can be performed much less often (page 1, lines 10-42). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the water treatment art to have modified the Pratt system by designing the septa to extend no more than 10 or no more than 13 inches upwards from the vessel bottom, along with providing relatively more extensive partitions in between the septum, as taught by Hyatt, in order to thus cause a more vertical passage of the fluid being purified in the filter bed, and thus delaying fouling of the filter bed, such that cleansing of the filter bed, with attendant interruption of filtering operation, can be performed much less often. For claim 30, Pratt further discloses wherein the water treatment media comprises any one or more of, a filtration material, an absorptive material or an ion exchange material (column 1, lines 12-14, 27-31 and 46-49, and column 3, lines 38-40 re containing ion exchange resin or a filter bed or other filter media). Claim 31 further differs by requiring the inserting the plurality of septa into the bottom of the pressure vessel being operable such that the plurality of septa extend at least 6 inches, or at least 7 inches, into the pressure vessel. Hyatt again suggests such degree of septa extending, upwards from the bottom into the pressure vessel (the septa or strainers being surrounded by several partitions which are about 15 inches in height, are in between the septa, and extend about twice as high vertically into the vessel as do the septum (figure 3) . Hyatt again suggests such configuration of septa and partitions as prolonging filter bed useful life by causing a more vertical passage of the fluid being purified in the filter bed, and thus delaying fouling of the filter bed, such that cleansing of the filter bed, with attendant interruption of filtering operation, can be performed much less often (page 1, lines 10-42). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the water treatment art to have modified the Pratt system by designing the septa to extend no more than 10 or no more than 13 inches upwards from the vessel bottom, along with providing relatively more extensive partitions in between the septum, as taught by Hyatt, in order to thus cause a more vertical passage of the fluid being purified in the filter bed, and thus delaying fouling of the filter bed, such that cleansing of the filter bed, with attendant interruption of filtering operation, can be performed much less often . 07-22-aia AIA Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pratt et al patent 3,291,311 (Pratt) in view of Hyatt patent 417,037 (Hyatt) , as applied to claim s 29-31 above, and further in view of Soriente patent 5,028,322 (Soriente) . Claim 32 further differs by requiring wherein each of the septa having a diameter of at least about 4 inches or at least about 6 inches, optionally up to about 10 inches. Soriente also teaches a granular media filter bed in a tank or vessel for purifying water (column 1, lines 15-20) and teaches a plurality of strainer or septa assemblies 30 extending upwards into a filter bed 12 from an underdrain bottom surface 13 of the filter bed (figure 2 and column 2, lines 32-52 regarding the filter bed in the tank, and column 3, lines 1-8 regarding the strainer assemblies, with column 3, lines 9-22 specifying the septa as having an outer diameter of about 5.62 inches, thus greater than the claimed 4 inches or “about” 6 inches). Soriente teaches that such configuration of septa or strainers facilitates a more effective backwashing cleaning of the filter bed, by providing good liquid and gas distribution of backwash fluid (column 1, line 59-column 2, line 2) It would have been also obvious to have configured the Pratt septa to have such a diameter, in order to enable periodic effective cleaning of the filter bed, by providing good liquid and gas distribution of backwash fluid . Allowable Subject Matter 07-43-02 Claims 33 and 34 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claim 33 would distinguish and be non-obvious in view of recitation of removing septum from the vessel, while cleaning the vessel . Pratt further discloses the method comprising removing a septum from the vessel (column 2, lines 67-72 and column 3, lines 46-49 re inserting or removing strainers or septum from the tank or vessel) and Soriente also teaches passing backwash gas and/or water through the filter bed located within the tank or vessel, when it gets clogged (column 2, lines 39-45 and column 4, lines 44-56). However, the prior art lacks a teaching of the method requiring the removing of the septum or strainers from the vessel as being coordinated to occur while the vessel is cleaned, as Soriente teaches that backwashing with the treatment material remaining in place is adequate to remove clogging. Claim 34 would distinguish and be non-obvious in view of its dependence on allowable and non-obvious claim 33. Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Primary Examiner Joseph Drodge at his direct government formal facsimile phone number telephone number of 571-272-1140. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from approximately 8:00 AM to 1:00PM and 2:30 PM to 5:30 PM. If attempts to reach the examiner are unsuccessful, the examiner' s supervisor, Benjamin Lebron, of Technology Center Unit 1773, can reached at 571-272-0475. The telephone number, for official, formal communications, for the examining group where this application is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from the Patent Examiner. Unpublished application information in https:///www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https:///www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/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. JWD 05/15/2026 /JOSEPH W DRODGE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773 Application/Control Number: 18/695,725 Page 2 Art Unit: 1773 Application/Control Number: 18/695,725 Page 3 Art Unit: 1773 Application/Control Number: 18/695,725 Page 4 Art Unit: 1773 Application/Control Number: 18/695,725 Page 5 Art Unit: 1773 Application/Control Number: 18/695,725 Page 6 Art Unit: 1773 Application/Control Number: 18/695,725 Page 7 Art Unit: 1773 Application/Control Number: 18/695,725 Page 8 Art Unit: 1773 Application/Control Number: 18/695,725 Page 9 Art Unit: 1773 Application/Control Number: 18/695,725 Page 10 Art Unit: 1773 Application/Control Number: 18/695,725 Page 11 Art Unit: 1773 Application/Control Number: 18/695,725 Page 12 Art Unit: 1773 Application/Control Number: 18/695,725 Page 13 Art Unit: 1773 Application/Control Number: 18/695,725 Page 14 Art Unit: 1773 Application/Control Number: 18/695,725 Page 15 Art Unit: 1773 Application/Control Number: 18/695,725 Page 16 Art Unit: 1773 Application/Control Number: 18/695,725 Page 17 Art Unit: 1773 Application/Control Number: 18/695,725 Page 18 Art Unit: 1773
Prosecution Insights