DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Preliminary Amendment
The Preliminary Amendment dated 7/16/2024 has been entered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the outlet plate “operatively connected to a plurality of ribs configured to allow the aeration of the outlet plate, wherein the plurality of ribs is provided in the outlet plate or in the plate frame” of claim 26 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. Examiner notes that the plurality of ribs 73 appear to be illustrated in Fig. 2 as a set of lines on the surface of the outlet plate 7, but it is unclear how this would perform the recited function or how such a feature could be incorporated into the plate frame 5A.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 30, 50, 60, 70, and 80.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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.
Claim Interpretation
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.
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.
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 15-28 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 15:
The claim recites “a dosing plate movable regarding to the tank comprising at least a compartment configured to receive and meter the food” in lines 3-4. This language is confusing, as it is unclear whether the compartment is part of the dosing plate or the tank. For purposes of examination only, the limitation will be interpreted to require a dosing plate with a compartment.
The claim recites “H: height of the nozzle over the food in millimeters” in line 13. It is unclear how this height would be measured “over the food”, since the food would appear to be capable of taking a variety of shapes and/or forms.
The claim defines “h” and “k” as mathematical constants, but it appears that the formula would require each to be a value with assigned units (e.g., “h” in degrees, and “k” in millimeters).
Regarding claim 18:
The claim recites “the inlet plate” in line 2, and “the intermediate plate” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
The claim defines several features using the modifier “radial”, but subsequently appears to refer to some of those features without the term “radial” included, raising the question of double inclusion and thus rendering the scope of the claim indefinite (e.g., “an inner radial inlet hole” in line 2, followed by “the inner radial inlet hole” in line 8, and “the inner inlet hole” in line 18). Applicant is requested to review the claim carefully to ensure clear and consistent references to the recited features.
The claim recites “the inner compartment and the outer compartment” in line 13, followed by “said inner radial compartment and outer radial compartment” in line 14. In addition to the above point regarding the term “radial”, it is unclear if “outer radial compartment” is referring to a previously recited feature, raising the question of double inclusion and thus rendering the scope of the claim indefinite (i.e., the claim should read --said outer radial compartment-- if that is what is intended).
Regarding claim 19, the claim recites “the moisture in the device or in the food” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 20, the claim recites “a watering means” in line 1. It is unclear whether Applicant intends to claim any feature beyond the previously recited nozzle of claim 15, raising the question of double inclusion and thus rendering the scope of the claim indefinite.
Regarding claim 22, the claim recites “the removing means” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 23:
The claim recites “the driving means” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The claim recites “an agitator configured to propel and removes the food received in the tank, being said agitator rotatable around a rotation axis which is operatively connected to the dosing plate or to the driving means” in lines 2-3. This language is confusing and appears to be grammatically incorrect. Additionally, the term “which” is ambiguous, as it is unclear what feature is being further defined by the limitation that follows the term.
The claim recites “at least one of these blades is disposed at a different height from the others regarding the axial direction of the rotation axis” in lines 5-6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim (in particular, with respect to “the others”). It is unclear if Applicant is referring to two distinct subsets of blades. It is further unclear whether the limitation is intended to further define the structure based on a vertical orientation due to the use of the term “height” in the context of the rotation axis.
Regarding claim 24, the claim recites “the inlet plate” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 25, the claim recites “the watering” and “the dosing” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Further, it is unclear whether Applicant intends to describe a heating means capable of heating the food directly or only capable of heating water and subsequently heating the food via the application of heated water (see, for example, the first paragraph of page 14 of the specification).
Regarding claim 26, the claim recites “the plate frame” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 27:
The claim recites “configured to avoid the watering goes beyond the food once dosed” in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the underlined limitation in the claim. Further, this language is confusing and appears to be grammatically incorrect.
The claim recites “the plate frame” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The claim recites “the elongated plate is provided in the tank or in the plate frame or operatively connected to them” in lines 4-5. It is unclear to which feature(s) the elongated plate is operatively connected.
Regarding claim 28, see the indefiniteness described above regarding claim 15.
In light of the indefiniteness issues described above, the claims will be interpreted according to Examiner’s best understanding.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 15-18, 20-22, and 24-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Icart Martori (WO 2019/211409, hereinafter “Icart”), in view of Steinmetz (US 2,944,707).
Regarding claim 15, Icart disclose a dosing device (Page 11, lines 7-13; see the embodiment of Fig. 3) for a food dispenser (Page 3, lines 22-25), the dosing device comprising:
a tank (13) configured to receive and store food (Page 8, lines 10-11);
wherein at least a nozzle (mixing means 6 includes a spraying head; Page 2, lines 30-31) is configured to inject a water spray cone over the food once dosed in a bowl or tray by the dosing device (see Fig. 3),
wherein the nozzle, provided in the dosing device, is configured to be placed over the food according to the following formula H = R / tan(h) - k wherein:
H: height of the nozzle over the food in millimeters
R: radius in millimeters of the bowl or tray where the food is dosed
tan: tangent
h: mathematical constant, in the range of 30 - 90, in the range of 60 - 68, or equal to 64, and
k: mathematical constant, in the range of 0 - 20, in the range of 9 - 12, or equal to 10.6 (according to Examiner’s best understanding, the claimed formula results in an H value that ranges from approximately 0 to approximately 87% of the diameter of the bowl or tray; it is apparent from Figs. 1-3 that mixing means 6, which includes the nozzle, is inherently capable of being placed within this range of heights, thus satisfying the limitation reciting the claimed formula).
Icart discloses a structure for receiving and metering the food from the tank to a bowl or tray (dispenser 14; Page 11, lines 7-13), but is silent regarding the details of its operation, and thus does not explicitly disclose a dosing plate or outlet plate as claimed. However, Steinmetz teaches a dosing device (10) for a food dispenser (10 dispenses powdered material such as coffee from container 12; Col. 1, lines 15-19; Col. 2, lines 14-20; see Fig. 1) that includes:
a dosing plate (24) movable regarding to the tank (Col. 2, lines 42-47) comprising at least a compartment configured to receive and meter the food (metering openings 34); and
an outlet plate (42) comprising at least an outlet hole (46), the outlet plate being configured to block or unblock the compartment (Col. 2, lines 69-71; see non-dispensing position in Fig. 3), and wherein the compartment is configured to establish fluid communication with the outlet hole (when rotated from the position of Fig. 3 such that 34 is aligned with 46).
Steinmetz teaches these features as a means for dispensing a pre-measured volume of material from a container (Col. 2, lines 56-60; Col. 3, lines 4-9).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to provide the dosing device of Icart with a dosing plate and an outlet plate, as taught by Steinmetz, in order to dispense a pre-measured volume of food from the tank. Icart states that the disclosed dosing device (via dispenser 14) should perform this function, but is silent as to the internal components. One having ordinary skill in the art would thus look to the prior art for appropriate dispensing structures, of which Steinmetz provides a suitable example.
Regarding claims 16-17, Icart, modified in view of Steinmetz as described above, renders obvious the dosing device of claim 15, but does not explicitly disclose an inlet plate or an intermediate plate.
However, Steinmetz further teaches:
an inlet plate (14), the inlet plate comprising at least an inlet hole (40); wherein the dosing plate is configured to block or unblock the inlet hole (depending on alignment between 34 and 40), and wherein the inlet hole is configured to establish fluid communication with the compartment (when aligned as in Fig. 3); and
an intermediate plate (70 or 72) adjacent to the inlet plate (located between plates; Col. 3, lines 67-68), the intermediate plate comprising at least an intermediate hole (76) configured to be aligned with the inlet hole and to establish fluid communication with the compartment of the dosing plate (Col. 4, lines 1-4).
Steinmetz teaches these additional features as part of a configuration of plates that acts as a simple valve structure providing means for selectively dispensing a chosen amount of food from a container (Col. 1, lines 20-41). Specifically, the inlet plate provides communication with the tank (Col. 2, lines 65-68) and the intermediate plate acts as a sealing and sliding means between the plates (Col. 3, lines 67-70).
When modifying Icart in view of Steinmetz to arrive at the invention of claim 15, it would have further been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to include an inlet plate having an inlet hole and an intermediate plate having an intermediate hole, as taught by Steinmetz, in order to provide controlled communication between the tank and the compartment, and to facilitate sealing and sliding of the dosing plate.
Regarding claim 18, Icart, modified in view of Steinmetz as described above, renders obvious the dosing device of claim 15. Steinmetz further teaches an inlet plate and an intermediate plate, as described above regarding claims 16-17.
Steinmetz further teaches that the disclosed plates meet the additional limitations of the instant claim. Specifically:
wherein the inlet plate comprises at least an inner radial inlet hole and at least an outer radial inlet hole (there are multiple instances of inlet hole 40, thus at least one is considered to be an inner radial inlet hole and at least one is considered to be an outer radial inlet hole; see Fig. 2),
the dosing plate comprising at least an inner radial compartment and an outer radial compartment (there are multiple instances of compartment 34, thus at least one is considered to be an inner radial compartment and at least one is considered to be an outer radial compartment; see Fig. 4),
the outlet plate comprising at least an inner radial outlet hole and an outer radial outlet hole (there are multiple instances of outlet hole 46, thus at least one is considered to be an inner radial outlet hole and at least one is considered to be an outer radial outlet hole; see Fig. 2), and
the intermediate plate comprising at least an inner radial intermediate hole and at least an outer radial intermediate hole (there are multiple instances of intermediate hole 76, thus at least one is considered to be an inner radial intermediate hole and at least one is considered to be an outer radial intermediate hole; see Fig. 5),
wherein the inner radial inlet hole and the outer radial outlet hole are configured to be blocked or unblocked by the dosing plate (depending on whether 24 is in the non-dispensing position of Fig. 3 or rotated to a dispensing position in which 34 is aligned with 46), and the inner radial compartment and the outer radial compartment are configured to establish fluid communication with the inner inlet hole and with the outer inlet hole (as in Fig. 3);
the inner outlet hole and the outer outlet hole are configured to be respectively at least partially aligned with the inner compartment and the outer compartment establishing fluid communication thereto (in the dispensing position), wherein said inner radial compartment and outer radial compartment are configured to be blocked or unblocked against the outlet plate by the movement of the dosing plate (Col. 3, lines 4-9); and the inner intermediate hole and the outer intermediate hole are configured to be respectively aligned with the inner inlet hole and with the outer inlet hole (Col. 4, lines 1-4).
Steinmetz teaches this configuration of the plates as a means for filling the compartments such that the total volume of the compartments is a particular pre-determined volume to be dispensed (e.g., a “level teaspoon” batch; Col. 2, lines 56-60).
When modifying Icart in view of Steinmetz to arrive at the invention of claim 15, it would have further been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to include an inlet plate and an intermediate plate, as taught by Steinmetz, for the reasons described above regarding claims 16-17, as well as to configure the plates with multiple holes/compartments, as taught by Steinmetz, in order to achieve the stated goal of Icart (to accurately dispense a desired dosage of food) via multiple compartments whose volume adds up to a pre-determined amount.
Regarding claim 20, Icart further discloses a watering means configured to water the food located in the tank or the food once dosed (3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 water the food; Page 7, lines 20-32).
Regarding claim 21, Icart further discloses a removing means (14) configured to propel and remove the food received in the tank (14 dispenses food from tank 13 when actuated; Page 8, lines 10-12).
Regarding claim 22, Icart further discloses a driving means configured to drive the removing means (dispensing timer controls dispenser 14; Page 11, lines 14-16).
Regarding claim 24, Icart, modified in view of Steinmetz as described above, renders obvious the dosing device of claim 15. Steinmetz further teaches that the disclosed plates are contained by a plate frame (14 with 26) engageable to the tank (see Fig. 1), wherein the inlet plate is provided as a part of said plate frame (see Fig. 3), and wherein the dosing plate is engageable to the plate frame (see Fig. 3). Steinmetz teaches these features as part of a stacked arrangement in which the dosing plate rotates around a spindle (Col. 2, lines 29-47).
When modifying Icart in view of Steinmetz to arrive at the invention of claim 15, it would have further been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to include a plate frame that incorporates the inlet plate and engages the dosing plate, as taught by Steinmetz, in order to contain the plates in a stacked arrangement and facilitate rotation of the dosing plate around a spindle.
Regarding claim 25, Icart further discloses a heating means (9) configured to heat the water before the watering take place (Page 7, lines 33-34).
Regarding claim 26, Icart, modified in view of Steinmetz as described above, renders obvious the dosing device of claim 15. Steinmetz further teaches that the outlet plate is operatively connected to a plurality of ribs (43 is a wave washer, which would provide a plurality of contact lines with the outlet plate; Col. 3, lines 1-3; see Fig. 3) configured to allow the aeration of the outlet plate (a wave washer would only contact the outlet plate enough to hold the plate in place without inhibiting airflow by covering a large surface area), wherein the plurality of ribs is provided in the outlet plate or in the plate frame (see Fig. 3). Steinmetz teaches this feature as a means for retaining the plates in a stacked arrangement on a spindle (Col. 3, lines 1-3).
When modifying Icart in view of Steinmetz to arrive at the invention of claim 15, it would have further been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to include a plurality of ribs in the form of a wave washer, as taught by Steinmetz, or similar feature in order to retain the plates on a spindle in a stacked arrangement for proper operation.
Regarding claim 27, Icart, modified in view of Steinmetz as described above, renders obvious the dosing device of claim 20. Steinmetz further teaches at least an elongated plate (walls 52 of cap 50) extending from the outlet plate (see Fig. 3), and wherein the elongated plate is provided in the plate frame or operatively connected to them (50 is connected to the plate frame via the outlet plate). Steinmetz teaches this feature as a means for guiding dispensed material for discharge through a relatively smaller central outlet (Col. 3, lines 18-21).
When modifying Icart in view of Steinmetz to arrive at the invention of claim 20, it would have further been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to include an elongated plate, as taught by Steinmetz, in order to guide the dispensed material through a relatively smaller hole so that it falls into the intended receptacle in a controlled manner. Doing so would result in a feature that protects the outlet plate from splashes or errant streams of water coming from the nozzle, thus arriving at the claimed invention, according to Examiner’s best understanding of the claim.
Regarding claim 28, Icart and Steinmetz in combination disclose all the features of the claimed invention, as described above regarding claim 15. Icart further discloses that the dosing device is deployed in a food dispenser for dispensing food automatically (see, e.g., Page 2, lines 12-18).
Claims 19 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Icart in view of Steinmetz, as applied to claims 15 and 21 above, and further in view of Chen (US 2021/0204511).
Regarding claim 19, Icart and Steinmetz in combination disclose the dosing device of claim 15, but are silent regarding a moisture extraction means configured to reduce or eliminate the moisture in the device or in the food.
Chen teaches a food dispenser (see Figs. 3-4) having a moisture extraction means (desiccant contained in chamber 25 in top cover 20) configured to reduce or eliminate the moisture in the device or in the food (Paragraph 0045). Chen teaches this configuration as a removable/replaceable means for keeping food stored in a tank of the device dry and clean for long-term storage; Paragraphs 0026, 0045).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to provide the tank of the combined invention of Icart and Steinmetz with a moisture extraction means, as taught by Chen, in order to keep the food dry and clean for long-term storage.
Regarding claim 23, Icart and Steinmetz in combination disclose the dosing device of claim 21, but are silent regarding an agitator.
Chen teaches a food dispenser having a removing means that includes an agitator (300; Fig. 9) configured to propel and removes food received in a tank (Paragraph 0041; see Fig. 3), being said agitator rotatable around a rotation axis which is operatively connected to a driving means (“driving mechanism 200 is connected with the rotor 300 and drives it to rotate”; Paragraph 0041), and comprising blades (330 and 311), wherein at least one of these blades (311) is disposed at a different height from the others regarding the axial direction of the rotation axis (see Fig. 9). Chen teaches this configuration as a means for moving the food in the tank to a structure that controls the dosing amount (“the driving mechanism 200 drives the rotor 300 to rotate, the blades 330 push the grain to rotate to the grain-out channel 400. The anti-stuck comb 150 prevents the grain higher than the blades 330 from passing, flattening the grain between the two adjacent blades of the anti-stuck comb 150, thereby controlling the amount of grain released”; Paragraph 0064).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to provide the combined invention of Icart and Steinmetz with an agitator having blades, as taught by Chen, in order to move the food in the tank toward the input plate of the dosing device. Icart discloses a removing means and a driving means, as described above regarding claims 21 and 22, but both Icart and Steinmetz are silent regarding any details of this function. One having ordinary skill in the art would thus look to the prior art for appropriate removing and driving structures, of which Chen provides a suitable example.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 form. In particular, Levy et al. (US 2019/0133076), Dewey et al. (US 2017/0354119), and Morin et al. (US 10,986,809) disclose food dispensers with dosing devices that could be modified in accordance with the independent claims of the instant application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL C PATTERSON whose telephone number is (571)270-5558. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:00 CST.
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, Paul Durand can be reached at 571-272-4459. 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.
/MICHAEL C PATTERSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3754
/PAUL R DURAND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3754 February 12, 2026