PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
DETAILED ACTION
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on April 25, 2024 and June 13, 2024 were filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
The drawing for the abstract is unlabeled and requires a unique figure ID. It appears that the drawing for the abstract is identical to Fig. 1 and, therefore, Applicant might consider just deleting the figure for the abstract.
Regarding the drawing for the abstract and Fig. 1, several reference characters are difficult to read because they are obstructed by other markings in the figure.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the final sentence in the abstract refers to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Each figure ID should be mentioned at least once in the DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF SOME EMBODIMENTS section of the specification.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 5 of claim 7, “a plurality of roots” should be changed to “a plurality of the roots”, assuming that “a plurality of roots” refers to the same “roots”, or a subset thereof, as recited previously in line 5 of claim 7.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 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.
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.
Claims 1 - 10 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.
Regarding claim 2, the limitation “each bionic grass bundle” is confusing because the term “each” indicates a plurality of bionic grass bundles, but claim 1, from which claim 2 depends, recites a single bionic grass bundle. Therefore, it is unclear how many bionic grass bundles Applicant intends to recite in the claim(s).
Regarding claim 3, the phrase “every 5-10 bionic grass blades”, which requires at least 10 bionic grass blades. However, claim 2, from which claim 3 depends, recites “a plurality of bionic grass blades”, which only requires 2 or more blades. Therefore, it is unclear as to how many bionic grass blades are being claimed.
Regarding claim 3, it is unclear whether “one bionic grass bundle” as recited in line 3 refers to one of the bionic grass bundles recited in claim 2, from which claim 3 depends, or if it represents an additional structural limitation.
Regarding claim 4, the use of the term “thin” as recited in line 2 renders the claim vague and indefinite because “thin” is a relative that does not clearly define a specific size.
Regarding claim 8, the use of the term “heavy” as recited in lines 5 and 6 renders the claim vague and indefinite because “heavy” is a relative that does not clearly define a specific weight or range thereof.
Regarding claim 8, the limitation “each balancing weight” as recited in line 5 is confusing because the term “each” indicates a plurality of balancing weights, but line 4 of claim 8 recites a single balancing weight. Therefore, it is unclear how many balancing weights Applicant intends to recite in the claim(s).
Regarding claim 9, the phrase “a specific arrangement form” as recited in line 3 renders the claim(s) vague and indefinite because the aforementioned limitation is not clearly defined in the claim. The phrase “a specific arrangement form” can be interpreted as referring to a specific shape or to a specific condition, character, or mode in which something appears. Lines 4 and 8 of claim 9 contains a similar error.
Regarding claim 9, the meaning of the phrase “is customized according to a size of a common wave current” renders the claim(s) vague and indefinite because it is unclear what the customization of the size entails.
Regarding claim 9, the use of the term “accurately” as recited in line 9 renders the claim vague and indefinite because “accurately” is a subjective term.
Regarding claim 9, the phrase “an intelligent analysis and calculation result” as recited in line 9 renders the claim vague and indefinite because it is unclear what constitutes an intelligent analysis and it is unclear what calculations are being made.
Regarding claim 9, the use of the term “special” renders the claim(s) vague and indefinite because “special direction” can be determined in a variety of ways, including a specific direction or a direction that produces a particular outcome.
Regarding claim 9, the use of the limitation “sharply declined” renders the claim(s) vague and indefinite because “sharply” is a subjective term that does not define a specific angle of declination or range thereof.
Regarding claim 10, the phrase “basic protection parameters” as recited in line 4 renders the claim vague and indefinite because it is unclear as to which parameter (i.e. wave height, depth of the foundation, etc.) the term is referring. Therefore, it is not possible for Examiner to determine the metes and bounds of the claim.
Regarding claim 10, the phrase “specific construction parameter” as recited in line 7 renders the claim vague and indefinite because it is unclear as to which parameter (i.e. wave height, depth of the foundation, etc.) the term is referring. Therefore, it is not possible for Examiner to determine the metes and bounds of the claim. Lines 11 - 12 of claim 10 contain a similar error.
Regarding claim 10, the use of the term “clear”, as recited in line 11 renders the claim vague and indefinite because the aforementioned term can be interpreted differently, such as “easily seen” or “easily understood without ambiguity”. Therefore, it is not possible for Examiner to determine the metes and bounds of the claim.
Regarding claim 10, the limitation “automatic analysis and calculation” as recited in line 14 renders the claim vague and indefinite because it is unclear what the analysis entails and what calculations are being made.
Regarding claim 10, the “calculation rate” as recited in line 21 renders the claim vague and indefinite because the meaning of “calculation rate”. For example, the aforementioned limitation could refer to the rate at which the calculations are performed or to a rate that has been calculated. It is also unclear what is being calculated.
There is insufficient antecedent basis for the following limitations in the claims:
Claim 1, line 3: “the bionic unit”. It is unclear as to which the bionic units recited in line 2 the aforementioned limitation is referring.
Claim 1, line 7: “the connecting ring”. It is unclear as to which of the connecting rings the aforementioned limitation is referring.
Claim 3, line 2: “the elongated fiber material”. It is unclear as to which of the “elongated fiber material” as recited in claim 2, from which claim 3 depends, the aforementioned limitation is referring.
Claim 6, line 2: “the connecting ring”
Claim 7, line 6: “each node”
Claim 8, line 7: “the balancing wires”
Claim 9, line 2: “the bionic units”
Claim 10, lines 8 - 9: “the height”
Claim 10, line 9: “the size”
Claim 10, line 11: “the waves”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
Claims 1 - 3 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (US 4,337,007) in view of Kojima et al. (US 6,656,579) and Rentrop et al. (US 4,657,432).
Regarding claim 1, Smith discloses an intelligent bionic scouring protection structure for a cylindrical foundation; and an uppermost layer of the bionic unit is a bionic grass bundle (fibrillated tape 5), and a bottom portion of the bionic unit is provided with a seabed connecting structure (sinker weights 3) for fixing the whole protection structure (Figs. 1 and 2; col. 1, line 9 - col. 2, line 28). Smith fails to disclose the protection structure is formed by connecting bionic units; and a bottom end of the bionic grass bundle is sleeved inside a bundle tube, the bundle tube is fixedly connected with a fiber mesh layer through a binding wire, connecting rings are fixed at both ends of the fiber mesh layer through the binding wire, two adjacent fiber mesh layers are connected through the connecting ring. Kojima teaches a bottom end of the bionic grass bundle (cluster part 26) is sleeved inside a bundle tube (cylindrical protective member 29), the bundle tube is fixedly connected with a fiber mesh layer through a binding wire (wire material, not shown, laid along the reinforcement 13; col. 6, lines 31 - 35) (Figs. 1 and 13; col. 2, lines 21 - 26; col. 3, lines 40 - 47; col. 5, line 50 - col. 6, line 46) to allow the bionic grass bundle to be held in a fixed position relative to the base and to prevent damage to the lower portion of the bundle. It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the apparatus as disclosed above with the bundle tube connected to a base layer through a binding wire as taught by Kojima to allow the bionic grass bundle to be held in a fixed position relative to the fiber mesh layer and to prevent damage to the lower portion of the bundle. Kojima fails to teach connecting rings are fixed at both ends of the fiber mesh layer through the binding wire, two adjacent fiber mesh layers are connected through the connecting ring. Rentrop teaches connecting rings (rings) are fixed at both ends of the fiber mesh layer (mat comprising steel mesh) through the binding wire, two adjacent fiber mesh layers (adjacent mats) are connected through the connecting ring (Figs. 5 - 12; col. 1, lines 13 - 18; col. 4, lines 49 - 63). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the apparatus as disclosed above with the connecting rings as taught by Rentrop to allow the size and shape of the protection structure to be adjusted.
Regarding claim 2, Smith further discloses ach bionic grass bundle (5) is composed of a plurality of bionic grass blades (filaments of which fibrillated tape 5 is composed); and the bionic grass blades are made of elongated fiber materials (Fig. 2; col. 1, lines 25 - col. 2, line 25).
Regarding claim 3, Smith further discloses the elongated fiber material is made of polypropylene (col. 1, lines 40 - 41). Smith in view of Kojima and Rentrop discloses all of the claim limitation(s) except every 5-10 bionic grass blades form one bionic grass bundle. It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the bundle as disclosed above such that each bundle is composed of 5 - 10 bionic grass blades as a design consideration within the skill of the art based upon the water flow conditions in the body of water in which the structure is to be used.
Regarding claim 9, Smith in view of Kojima and Rentrop discloses all of the claim limitation(s) except the bionic protection belt (connected bionic units as described with respect to claim 1 above) is selected according to a form of the cylindrical foundation to be protected, and a circular arc or a box shape is selected; and a height of the bionic grass bundle at an upper portion of the bionic protection belt is customized according to a size of a common wave current at a position where the cylindrical foundation is located, the arrangement form of the bionic protection belt is accurately adjusted according to an intelligent analysis and calculation result for the wave current in a special direction, and thus enhancing protection and ensuring that both a flow velocity and a wave height of the wave current are sharply declined after the wave current passes through the bionic protection belt. Examiner takes the position that the size and shape of each of the bionic protection belt and the grass bundle lacks criticality in the claims and are design considerations within the skill of the art based upon the shape of the foundation to be protected and to flow conditions in the body of water in which the foundation is located. A change in the shape of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). A change in the size of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Examiner takes the position that it would have been considered obvious to adjust the form of the bionic protection belt based on an intelligent analysis and calculation result for the wave current in a special direction as a design consideration within the skill of the art to optimize the effectiveness of the scouring protection structure.
Claims 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith in view of Kojima et al. and Rentrop et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kong (KR 2009005993).
Regarding claim 4, Smith further discloses a binding wire (wires of which the mesh is formed) is made of an alloy material (steel) (col. 2, lines 38 - 42). Smith fails to disclose the bundle tube (3) adopts a flexible opened thin tube; and the binding wire is made of an anticorrosive material. Kojima teaches a bundle tube (29) adopting a flexible opened thin tube; and the binding wire is a metal material (wire material, not shown, laid along the reinforcement 13; col. 6, lines 31 - 35) (Figs. 1 and 13; col. 2, lines 21 - 26; col. 3, lines 40 - 47; col. 5, line 50 - col. 6, line 46) to allow the bionic grass bundle to be held in a fixed position relative to the base and to prevent damage to the lower portion of the bundle. It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the apparatus as disclosed above with the bundle tube connected to a base layer through a binding wire as taught by Kojima to allow the bionic grass bundle to be held in a fixed position relative to the fiber mesh layer and to prevent damage to the lower portion of the bundle. Kojima fails to teach the binding wire is made of an anticorrosive material. Kong teaches a binding wire (mesh) is made of an anticorrosive material (stainless steel) (abstract). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the steel binding wire as disclosed above with the stainless steel as taught by Kong as a design choice within the skill of the art to improve the durability of the binding wire. The selection of a known material based upon its suitability for the intended use is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding claim 6, Smith in view of Kojima and Rentrop discloses all of the claim limitation(s) except the connecting ring is made of an anticorrosive steel wire rope. Smith teaches a connector comprising steel wire rope (col. 2, lines 38 - 42). Rentrop is silent regarding the material of which the ring is composed. Kong teaches a binding wire (mesh) is made of an anticorrosive material (stainless steel) (abstract). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the connecting ring as disclosed above with the stainless steel as taught by Kong as a design choice within the skill of the art to improve the durability of the binding wire. The selection of a known material based upon its suitability for the intended use is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith in view of Kojima et al. and Rentrop et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Daures et al. (US 2008/0209805). Smith in view of Kojima and Rentrop discloses all of the claim limitation(s) except the fiber mesh layer (5) is formed by interweaving horizontal and vertical fiber ribbons in a three-dimensional grid shape with a certain height. Daures teaches the mesh layer (open-mesh framework) is formed by interweaving horizontal (horizontal wires 6) and vertical ribbons (vertical wires 5) in a three-dimensional grid shape with a certain height (Figs. 1 - 3; paragraph 0028; claims 7 and 15). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the fiber mesh layer as disclosed above with the three-dimensional grid shape as taught by Daures to allow ballast material to be held within the mesh layer.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith in view of Kojima et al. and Rentrop et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Park (KR 2006099187). Smith further discloses a balancing weight (sinker weights 3) (Fig. 2; col. 2, lines 20 - 22). Smith in view of Kojima and Rentrop fails to disclose a bionic root system; and the bionic root system is bound with the mesh layer through the binding wire; and the bionic root system comprises a trunk and roots, a plurality of roots are uniformly distributed at each node of the trunk, and the roots are provided with a plurality of length-grade subdivision structures downwards. Park teaches a root system (plant roots) is bound with the mesh layer (met 11) through the binding wire (wires of which the wire mesh part 13 is composed); and the root system comprises a trunk (narrow section of plants 102 located between the fronds of the plants and the roots) and roots (see Figs. 3 and 4), a plurality of roots are uniformly distributed at each node of the trunk, and the roots are provided with a plurality of length-grade subdivision structures downwards (Figs. 3 and 4; abstract). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the bionic apparatus as disclosed above with the trunk and roots as taught by Park to secure the scouring protection structure in the seabed.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith in view of Kojima et al., Rentrop et al., and Park as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Isoda (JP 06041931). Smith further discloses the balancing weight (3) is bound with the fiber mesh layer (base 1) through the binding wires (Fig. 2; col. 2, lines 20 - 22). Smith fails to disclose the trunk and the roots are both made of fiber materials; and the balancing weight is a cuboid concrete balancing weight, the balancing weight is made of heavy chains extending from inside to outside, each balancing weight is provided with four heavy chains. Park teaches the trunk (narrow section of plants 102 located between the fronds of the plants and the roots) and roots (see Figs. 3 and 4) are both made of fiber materials (Figs. 3 and 4; abstract). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the bionic apparatus as disclosed above with the trunk and roots as taught by Park to secure the scouring protection structure in the seabed. Smith in view of Kojima, Rentrop and Park fails to disclose the balancing weight is a cuboid concrete balancing weight, the balancing weight is made of heavy chains extending from inside to outside, each balancing weight is provided with four heavy chains. Isoda teaches the balancing weight is a rectangular balancing weight (3), the balancing weight is made of heavy chains (4) extending from inside to outside, each balancing weight is provided with four heavy chains (Figs. 1 - 3; abstract). Isoda fails to disclose the balancing weight has a cuboid shape and is made of concrete; and four heavy chains. It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the balancing weight as disclosed above with a cuboid shape as a design consideration within the skill of the art. A change in the shape of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Examiner takes Official notice that it is well known to make a balancing weight of concrete material. The selection of a known material based upon its suitability for the intended use is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the single chain as disclosed above with four chains as a design consideration within the skill of the art to increase the mass of the balancing weight and to provide a more secure connection between the concrete weight and the protection structure. Duplicating the components of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith in view of Kojima et al. and Rentrop et al. as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of McGinn (US 2006/0039761). Smith in view of Kojima and Rentrop discloses all of the claim limitation(s) except the steps of: step 1: obtaining basic protection parameters: obtaining a specific foundation size of the cylindrical foundation to be protected, wave current and geological parameters of a sea area where the cylindrical foundation is located; step 2: calculating specific construction parameters: by an intelligent analysis and calculation system, determining the arrangement form of the bionic protection belt and the height of the bionic grass bundle according to the size of the cylindrical foundation to be protected and a sea condition in the sea area in step 1, determining whether to require to enhance the protection against the waves in a specific direction, and calculating clear construction parameters; step 3: performing connecting preparation for the bionic unit on land: after completing automatic analysis and calculation by the calculation system in step 2, connecting the bionic unit to a bionic protection belt with a certain length on land, and then hoisting to a construction ship, and transporting the bionic protection belt to a construction sea area by the construction ship; step 4: performing seabed pretreatment: digging a buried trench at a position where the bionic protection belt being scheduled to be installed on the seabed; and step 5: installing the bionic protection belt: using a crane to hoist the bionic protection belt to the buried trench at the scheduled installation position according to a calculation rate, adjusting a depth in real time through a positioning device, and backfilling foundation soil to a height of the fiber mesh layer after adjustment until completing laying of the bionic protection belt. Smith further discloses transporting the bionic mat to a construction sea area and using a crane to install the bionic mat (col. 2, lines 51 - 61). McGinn teaches digging a buried trench at a position where the bionic protection belt is scheduled to be installed (paragraph 0076). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the method as disclosed above with the step of digging a buried trench as taught by McGinn to secure the scouring protection structure to the seabed. Given the apparatus as disclosed above, the method of claim 10 would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN D ANDRISH whose telephone number is (571)270-3098. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 6:30 AM - 4:00 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, Amber Anderson can be reached at 571-270-5281. 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.
/SEAN D ANDRISH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3678
SA
9/12/2025