DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Election/Restrictions
The status of the claims for this application is as follows.
Claims 1-21 are currently pending.
Claims 17-20 are currently withdrawn.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 09/17/2025 has been entered.
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.
Claim(s) 1-16 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (US 8475654) in view of You et al. (US 6817632), (hereinafter, You).
At the outset the applicant is reminded that:
1. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
2. A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
PNG
media_image1.png
738
727
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Re Clm 1: Smith discloses an extendable drainpipe assembly (see Figs. 1-5 and 11-17B and see the Fig. above, and see Col. 5, ln. 47- Col. 6, ln. 5), comprising:
a pipe body (1028),
a first adapter (1026 and 1030) connected to one end of the pipe body (Col. 5, ln. 47- Col. 6, ln. 5) and
a second adapter (20) connected (connected being defined as linked) to another end of the pipe body;
wherein the first adapter comprises a hollow first adapter seat (1026) and a first pipe connector (1030) connected to the first adapter seat (see above), the first pipe connector (1030) comprises at least a first connecting structure (were 1030 connects to 1028),
the pipe body comprises at least a fold (at least two folds of the corrugation at 1085) corresponding to the first connecting structure (see above), and the first connecting structure is connected to the fold corresponding to the first connecting structure (see above);
wherein the fold has two annular sidewalls set opposite each other (see two of the walls set opposite each other at 1082),
when the extendable drainpipe assembly is in an extended and connected state (see the extended portion in Figs. 1-3, 17A, and 17B and also see Col. 5, ln. 47- Col. 6, ln. 5), the first adapter is capable of being connection to the pipe body via a V-shaped structure expanded by the two sidewalls (see the extended portion in Figs. 1-3, 17A, and 17B and also see Col. 5, ln. 47- Col. 6, ln. 5); and when the extendable drainpipe assembly is in a compressed state (see the extended portion in Figs. 1-3, 17A, and 17B and also see Col. 5, ln. 47- Col. 6, ln. 5), the two sidewalls are folded against each other (see the extended portion in Figs. 1-3, 17A, and 17B and also see Col. 5, ln. 47- Col. 6, ln. 5; folded against each other is being interpreted as in a directional manner which such can be seen in Figs. 1-3, 17A, and 17B, however, Figs 1-3 would appear to illustrate abutment of such structures) and the pipe body is compressed for storage (the pipe body is made to or is capable of being compressed for storage).
The recitation “fold” is a process which can be used to make the product claimed. “Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior art was made by a different process”. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 946, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Smith fails to disclose that the disclosed first connecting structure is mountably and removably connected to the disclosed fold corresponding to the disclosed first connecting structure; and the disclosed first adapter is capable of being installed in a screwed connection to the disclosed pipe body through a thread.
However, You discloses a flexible corrugated tubular member, similar to that of Smith. You also teaches how corrugated tubular members can be connected to one another forming an integral member. Where such would allow for the replacement of smaller components that get damaged or worn-out instead of a larger more complex structure, make instillation or assembly easier, alternatively, for providing a structural configuration which would yield the same predictable result of providing a structure to control the flow of a fluid. Accordingly, You teaches (14 and 12; see Figs. 1-6) that two structures can be mountably and removably connected (see Figs. 1-6) via a screwed connection (thread) (see Figs. 2-4), for the purpose of providing a means to allow for the replacement of smaller components that get damaged or worn-out, make instillation or assembly easier, alternatively, for providing a structural configuration which would yield the same predictable result of providing a structure to control the flow of a fluid.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to have modified the device of Smith, to have had the disclosed first connecting structure being mountably and removably connected to the disclosed fold corresponding to the disclosed first connecting structure; and the disclosed first adapter is capable of being installed in a screwed connection (thread) to the pipe body through a thread, as taught by You, with a reasonable expectation of success, because one type of corrugated structure/fold(s) (with a given shape) is being replaced with another type of corrugated structures/fold(s) (with an alternative given shape), for the purpose of allowing components to made separately and then to be assembled as a unit which allows for the replacement of smaller components that get damaged or worn-out, makes instillation or assembly easier, alternatively, for providing a structural configuration which would yield the same predictable result of providing a structure to control the flow of a fluid through said structure.
Note that since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177,179.
Also note that 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).
Re Clm 2: Smith as modified by You discloses wherein the first adapter seat is provided with at least two first grooves (Smith, 54, 44, and/or 46) and the first groove is located on an outer wall of the first adapter seat (Smith, see Fig. 11).
Re Clm 3: Smith as modified by You discloses wherein the first adapter seat is provided with at least one first leak-proof gasket (Smith, 62 similar to that of applicant’s) and the first leak-proof gasket is arranged around an outer wall of the first adapter seat (Smith, see Fig. 11).
Re Clm 4: Smith as modified by You discloses wherein the first leak-proof gasket is provided at one end of the first adapter seat away from the first pipe connector (Smith, see Fig. 11).
Re Clm 5: Smith as modified by You discloses wherein the first adapter seat is with a locking adapter (Smith, see Figs 11 and 15, the rectangular structure with a hole in it located between 60 and 62), and the locking adapter is located on the outer wall of the first adapter seat (Smith, see Fig. 11).
Re Clm 6: Smith as modified by You discloses wherein the first adapter seat comprises a first rectangular portion (Smith, at 26) and a first horn portion (Smith, at 30) which is interconnected with the first rectangular portion (Smith, see Fig. 11), and the first horn portion is connected (connected being defined as linked) with the first pipe connector (Smith, see Fig. 11).
Re Clm 7: Smith as modified by You discloses wherein the first pipe connector is made of expandable material (Smith, see Figs. 1-3, 17A, and 17B).
Re Clm 8: Smith as modified by You discloses the extendable drainpipe assembly according to claim 1 (see the rejection of claim 1 above), and the pipe body.
Smith as modified by You fails to disclose further comprises a second adapter connected to another end of the pipe body; wherein the second adapter comprises a hollow second adapter seat and a second pipe connector connected to the second adapter seat, the second pipe connector comprises at least a third connecting structure, the pipe body comprises another fold corresponding to the third connecting structure, and the third connecting structure is mountably and removably connected to the fold corresponding to the third connecting structure.
Having duplicate components on and/or connected to another end of a pipe member allows for simplicity or design, reduces cost by using components that have already been designed and produced, and allows for an extension or coupling member to be implements, alternatively, having duplicate components on and/or connected to another end of a pipe member yields the same predictable result of allowing fluid to flow though a predetermined path way.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to have modified the device of Smith, to have included a second adapter (similar to the adapter in claim 1) connected to another end of the pipe body (similar to the pipe body in claim 1); wherein the second adapter comprises a hollow second adapter seat (similar to the seat in claim 1) and a second pipe connector (similar to the connector claim 1) connected to the second adapter seat, the second pipe connector comprises at least a third connecting structure (similar to the connecting structure in claim 1), the pipe body comprises another fold (similar to the fold in claim 1) corresponding to the third connecting structure, and the third connecting structure is mountably and removably connected to the fold corresponding to the third connecting structure (similar to claim 1), with a reasonable expectation of success because known components are being used in a similar fashion, for the purpose of connecting to another end of a disclosed pipe member which allows for simplicity or design, reduces cost by using components that have already been designed and produced, and allows for an extension or coupling member to be implements, alternatively, having duplicate components on and/or connected to another end of a pipe member yields the same predictable result of allowing fluid to flow though a predetermined path way.
Note that it has been held that mere duplication of essential working parts of a device involve only routine skill in the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) and/or In re Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. In addition, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
The recitation “another fold” is a process which can be used to make the product claimed. “Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior art was made by a different process”. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 946, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Note that since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177,179.
Re Clm 9: Smith as modified by You discloses wherein the second adapter seat is provided with at least two second grooves (Smith, similar to 54, 44, and/or 46) and the second groove is located on an outer wall of the second adapter seat (Smith, similar to that which is illustrated in Fig. 11).
Note that it has been held that mere duplication of essential working parts of a device involve only routine skill in the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) and/or In re Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. In addition, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Re Clm 10: Smith as modified by You discloses wherein the second adapter seat is provided with at least one second leak-proof gasket (Smith, similar to 62 being similar to that of applicant’s) and the second leak-proof gasket is arranged around the outer wall of the second adapter seat (Smith, similar to that which is illustrated in Fig. 11).
Note that it has been held that mere duplication of essential working parts of a device involve only routine skill in the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) and/or In re Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. In addition, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Re Clm 11: Smith as modified by You discloses wherein the second adapter seat comprises a second rectangular portion (Smith, similar to 26) and a second horn portion (Smith, similar to 30) which is interconnected with the second rectangular portion (Smith, similar to that which is illustrated in Fig. 11), and the second horn portion is connected with the second pipe connector (Smith, similar to that which is illustrated in Fig. 11).
Note that it has been held that mere duplication of essential working parts of a device involve only routine skill in the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) and/or In re Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. In addition, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Re Clm 12: Smith as modified by You discloses wherein the second pipe connector is made of expandable material (similar to that which is illustrated in Figs. 1-3, 17A, and 17B).
Note that it has been held that mere duplication of essential working parts of a device involve only routine skill in the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) and/or In re Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. In addition, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Re Clm 13: Smith discloses an extendable drainpipe assembly (see Figs. 1-5 and 11-17B and see the Fig. above, and see Col. 5, ln. 47- Col. 6, ln. 5), comprising:
a pipe body (1028) and
a first pipe connector (1026 and 1030) and
a second pipe connector (20),
the first pipe connector comprises a first adapter seat (1026) and a first connecting structure (the corrugation of 1030, see above), the pipe body comprises at least an expandable second structure (the corrugation(s)), and the first connecting structure is connected to the second connecting structure;
wherein the second connecting structure has two annular sidewalls (see two of the walls adjacent an 82) set opposite each other (see Figs. 1-5 and 11-17B,
when the extendable drainpipe assembly is in an extended and connected state, the first adapter is connected to the pipe body through a V-shaped structure expanded by the two sidewalls; and when the extendable drainpipe assembly is in a compressed state (see the extended portion in Figs. 1-3, 17A, and 17B and also see Col. 5, ln. 47- Col. 6, ln. 5), the two sidewalls are folded against each other (see the extended portion in Figs. 1-3, 17A, and 17B and also see Col. 5, ln. 47- Col. 6, ln. 5; folded against each other is being interpreted as in a directional manner which such can be seen in Figs. 1-3, 17A, and 17B, however, Figs 1-3 would appear to illustrate abutment of such structures) and the pipe body is compressed for storage (the pipe body is made to or is capable of being compressed for storage).
The recitation “fold” is a process which can be used to make the product claimed. “Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior art was made by a different process”. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 946, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Smith fails to disclose that the disclosed first pipe connector comprises multiple disclosed first connecting structures the multiple disclosed first connecting structures are arranged in a spiral configuration, the disclosed pipe body comprises at least an expandable disclosed second connecting structure, and the disclosed first connecting structure is mountably and removably connected to the disclosed second connecting structure; when the disclosed extendable drainpipe assembly is in a disclosed extended and connected state, the disclosed first adapter is capable of being installed in a disclosed screwed connection to the disclosed pipe body through a thread.
However, You discloses a flexible corrugated tubular member, similar to that of Smith. You also teaches how corrugated tubular member can be connected to one another forming an integral member. Where such would allow for the replacement of smaller components that get damaged or worn-out, make instillation or assembly easier, alternatively, for providing a structural configuration which would yield the same predictable result of providing a structure to control the flow of a fluid. Accordingly, You teaches (see Figs. 1-6) that two structures (14 and 12; see Figs. 1-6) can be mountably and removably connected (see Figs. 1-6) via a screwed connection (thread) (see Figs. 2-4) for the purpose of providing a means to allow for the replacement of smaller components that get damaged or worn-out, make instillation or assembly easier, alternatively, for providing a structural configuration which would yield the same predictable result of providing a structure to control the flow of a fluid.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to have modified the device of Smith, to have had the disclosed first pipe connector comprises multiple disclosed first connecting structures the multiple disclosed first connecting structures are arranged in a spiral configuration, the disclosed pipe body comprises at least an expandable disclosed second connecting structure, and the disclosed first connecting structure is mountably and removably connected to the disclosed second connecting structure; when the disclosed extendable drainpipe assembly is in a disclosed extended and connected state, the disclosed first adapter is capable of being installed in a disclosed screwed connection to the disclosed pipe body through a thread, as taught by You, with a reasonable expectation of success, because one type of corrugated structure/fold(s) (with a given shape) is being replaced with another type of corrugated structures/fold(s) (with an alternative given shape), for the purpose of allowing components to made separately and then to be assembled as a unit which allows for the replacement of smaller components that get damaged or worn-out, makes instillation or assembly easier, alternatively, for providing a structural configuration which would yield the same predictable result of providing a structure to control the flow of a fluid through said structure.
Note that since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177,179.
Also note that 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).
Re Clm 14: Smith as modified by You discloses wherein the first adapter seat is provided with at least two first grooves (Smith, 54, 44, and/or 46) and the first groove is located on an outer wall of the first adapter seat (Smith, see Fig. 11).
Re Clm 15: Smith as modified by You discloses wherein the first adapter seat is provided with at least one first leak-proof gasket (Smith, 62 similar to that of applicant’s) and the first leak-proof gasket is arranged around an outer wall of the first adapter seat (Smith, see Fig. 11).
Re Clm 16: Smith as modified by You discloses wherein the first adapter seat is provided with a locking adapter (Smith, see Figs 11 and 15, the rectangular structure with a hole in it located between 60 and 62), and the locking adapter is located on the outer wall of the first adapter seat (Smith, see Fig. 11).
Re Clm 21: Smith discloses an extendable drainpipe assembly (see Figs. 1-5 and 11-17B and see the Fig. above, and see Col. 5, ln. 47- Col. 6, ln. 5), selectively connected to drainage (1028, 1026, and 1030), comprising:
a pipe body (1028),
a first adapter (1026 and 1030), and
a second adapter (20),
the first adapter is provided with
a locking adapter (see Figs 11 and 15, the rectangular structure with a hole in it located between 60 and 62, and also 56), and the locking adapter is located on the outer wall of the first adapter (the rectangular structure with a hole in it located between 60 and 62) so that the first adapter is fixed to the drainage (see Fig. 1),
the first adapter comprises at least a first connecting structure (were 1030 connects to 1028), the pipe body comprises at least expandable second connecting structure (the corrugated structure);
wherein the second connecting structure has two annular sidewalls set opposite each other (see two of the walls adjacent an 82),
when the extendable drainpipe assembly is in an extended and connected state, the first adapter is capable of being connection to the pipe body through a V-shaped structure expanded by the two sidewalls (see the extended portion in Figs. 1-3, 17A, and 17B and also see Col. 5, ln. 47- Col. 6, ln. 5); and when the extendable drainpipe assembly is in a compressed state (see the extended portion in Figs. 1-3, 17A, and 17B and also see Col. 5, ln. 47- Col. 6, ln. 5), the two sidewalls are folded against each other (see the extended portion in Figs. 1-3, 17A, and 17B and also see Col. 5, ln. 47- Col. 6, ln. 5; folded against each other is being interpreted as in a directional manner which such can be seen in Figs. 1-3, 17A, and 17B, however, Figs 1-3 would appear to illustrate abutment of such structures) and the pipe body is compressed for storage (the pipe body is made to or is capable of being compressed for storage).
You fails to disclose the disclosed first adapter is capable of being installed in a screwed connection to the disclosed pipe body through a thread.
However, You discloses a flexible corrugated tubular member, similar to that of Smith. You also teaches how corrugated tubular member can be connected to one another forming an integral member. Where such would allow for the replacement of smaller components that get damaged or worn-out, make instillation or assembly easier, alternatively, for providing a structural configuration which would yield the same predictable result of providing a structure to control the flow of a fluid. Accordingly, You teaches (see Figs. 1-6) that two structures (14 and 12; see Figs. 1-6) can be installed together via a screwed connection (thread) (see Figs. 2-6), for the purpose of providing a means to allow for the replacement of smaller components that get damaged or worn-out, make instillation or assembly easier, alternatively, for providing a structural configuration which would yield the same predictable result of providing a structure to control the flow of a fluid.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to have modified the device of Smith, to have had the disclosed first adapter being capable of being installed in a screwed connection to the disclosed pipe body through a thread, as taught by You, with a reasonable expectation of success, because one type of corrugated structure/fold(s) (with a given shape) is being replaced with another type of corrugated structures/fold(s) (with an alternative given shape), for the purpose of allowing components to made separately and then to be assembled as a unit which allows for the replacement of smaller components that get damaged or worn-out, makes instillation or assembly easier, alternatively, for providing a structural configuration which would yield the same predictable result of providing a structure to control the flow of a fluid through said structure.
Note that since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177,179.
Also note that 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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/17/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, on page 8 in line 18 through page 13 line 16, that Smith, alone, does not teach “the first connecting structure is connected to the fold corresponding to the first connecting structure” and “the first connecting structure is mountably and removably connected to the fold corresponding to the first connecting structure” and “the first adapter is capable of being installed in a screwed connection to the pipe body through a V-shaped thread expanded by the two sidewalls; and when the extendable drainpipe assembly is in a compressed state”.
This is not persuasive.
Smith, discloses “the first connecting structure is connected to the fold corresponding to the first connecting structure” as these structures in Smith are monolithically formed together. Note that Smith is not being used to disclose the “mountably and removably connected” concept nor is Smith teaching the “screwed connection” concept.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Note that arguments directed towards Shade or any combination where Shade was used in making the rejection(s) is/are moot in light of the fact that Shade is not currently being used in making the rejection(s).
Any claim not specifically argued will stand or fall from/with the claim from which it depends.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES A LINFORD whose telephone number is (571)270-3066. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday: 8:00 am to 5:00 pm Eastern Time.
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, Matthew Troutman can be reached at (571) 270-3654. 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.
JAMES ALBERT LINFORD
Examiner
Art Unit 3679
10/15/2025
/ZACHARY T DRAGICEVICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3679