CTFR 17/276,690 CTFR 99819 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Priority Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. This application is a 371 National Stage application of PCT/US19/51335 filed 09/16/2019, which claims the benefit of Provisional Application Number 62/733,009 filed 09/18/2018. Based on the filing receipt, the effective filing date of this application is September 18, 2018 which is the filing date of Provisional Application Number 62/733,009 from which the benefit of priority is claimed. 12-151 AIA 26-51 12-51 Status of Claims Claims 6, 10-12, 15-23, 25-33, 37-38, 40, 42-48, 50, 52, 54-57, and 59-60 have been cancelled by the applicant. Claims 39, 41, 49, 51, 53, and 58 have been withdrawn. Claims 1-5, 7-9, 13-14, 24, 34-36, and 61 are examined herein. Withdrawn Rejections The rejection of claim 60 on the grounds of 35 U.S.C. 103 has been withdrawn, necessitated by claim amendments filed 02/23/2026 in which claim 60 is cancelled. Modified Rejections 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-5, 7-9, 13-14, 24, and 34-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over York (US 20170003293 A1, published 2017-01-05, cited in the PTO-892, dated 02/25/2025) as evidenced by the article “Understanding Absorption, Emission, and Excitation in Fluorescence” from Angstrom Technologies, Inc. (https://angtech.com/understanding-absorption-emission-and-excitation-in-fluorescence/#:~:text=Absorption%20and%20excitation%20are%20closely,stage%20that%20fluorescent%20emission%20occurs , cited in PTO-892 dated 06/27/2025) , the product sheet for PFO from Angene Chemical (http://angenechemical.com/productshow/AGN-PC-0O6KGA.html, cited in PTO-892 dated 06/27/2025) , and t he product sheet for BODIPY TM 576/589 from Fisher Scientific (https://www.fishersci.com/shop/products/bodipy-576-589-nhs-ester-succinimidyl-ester/D2225#:~:text=Detailed%20information%20about%20this%20BODIPY,Typical%20Conjugation%20Reaction, cited in PTO-892 dated 06/27/2025). These rejections have been modified due to amendments filed 02/23/2026 . York teaches a nanoparticle comprised of a polymer with an absorbing monomeric unit and an emitting monomeric unit with quantum yield greater than 5%, as in claim 1 (see, e.g., nanoparticle comprised of a polymer – para. [00005]; absorbing monomeric unit and emitting monomeric unit – para. [00081]; quantum yield – para. [000136]). It is understood that the monomeric units of York are capable of absorbing and emitting light, which means they are absorbing monomeric units and emitting monomeric units. York teaches the mass ratio of absorbing monomeric units to emitting monomeric units is in a range of 4:1 and 100:1, as in claims 1, 2, and 4 (see, e.g., para. [000175]). Poly(9,9-dioctyl-9H-fluorene-2,7-diyl) (PFO) is the absorbing monomeric unit due to the fact that it absorbs energy upon irradiation and it has mol% of 93% (see, e.g., York , para. [000175]-[000176]). PFO has a monomer molecular weight equal to 388.6279 g/mol as evidenced by the product sheet for PFO from Angene Chemical (http://angenechemical.com/productshow/AGN-PC-0O6KGA.html). BODIPY TM 576/589 is the emitting monomeric unit due to the fact that it emits a wavelength and it has mol% of 5% (see, e.g., York , para. [000175]-[000176]). BODIPY TM 576/589 with a monomer molecular weight equal to 426.19 g/mol as evidenced by the product sheet for BODIPY TM 576/589 from Fisher Scientific (https://www.fishersci.com/shop/products/bodipy-576-589-nhs-ester-succinimidyl-ester/D2225#:~:text=Detailed%20information%20about%20this%20BODIPY,Typical%20Conjugation%20Reaction). Accounting for the mol% and monomer molecular weight of PFO and BODIPY TM 576/589, the mass ratio of absorbing monomeric units to emitting monomeric units is approximately 17:1. York teaches a nanoparticle comprising a polymer with absorbing monomeric units comprising BODIPY, coumarin, rhodamine, cyanine, and derivatives and combinations thereof, and emitting monomeric units, as in claim 2 (see, e.g., nanoparticle comprised of a polymer – para. [00005]; absorbing monomeric unit and emitting monomeric unit – para. [00081]; absorbing monomeric units (such as) – para. [00007]). It is understood that the monomeric units of York are capable of absorbing and emitting light (see para. [00081]), which means they are absorbing monomeric units and emitting monomeric units. York teaches the polymer comprises one or more monomeric units different from the absorbing monomeric unit and the emitting monomeric unit, as in claim 3 (see, e.g., different monomeric units – para. [00096]). It is understood that the PEG units are monomers different from the absorbing and emitting monomeric units. York teaches a nanoparticle comprised of a polymer with an absorbing monomeric unit, an emitting monomeric unit, and one or more monomeric units different from the absorbing monomeric unit and the emitting monomeric unit, as in claim 4 (see, e.g., nanoparticle comprised of a polymer – para. [00005]; absorbing monomeric unit and emitting monomeric unit – para. [00081]; different monomeric units – para. [00096]). It is understood that the PEG units are monomers different from the absorbing and emitting monomeric units. It is understood that the monomeric units of York are capable of absorbing and emitting light, which means they are absorbing monomeric units and emitting monomeric units. York teaches a nanoparticle comprising a polymer with absorbing monomeric units comprising BODIPY, coumarin, rhodamine, cyanine, and derivatives and combinations thereof, as in claim 5 (see, e.g., nanoparticle comprised of a polymer – para. [00005]; absorbing monomeric unit– para. [00081]; absorbing monomeric units (such as) – para. [00007]). It is understood that the monomeric units of York are capable of absorbing and emitting light, which means they are absorbing monomeric units and emitting monomeric units. York teaches the one or more monomeric units different from the absorbing monomeric unit and the emitting monomeric comprise a general monomeric unit, a functional monomeric unit, an energy transfer monomeric unit, a second absorbing monomeric unit, or any combination thereof, as in claim 7 (see, e.g., general monomeric unit – para. [00096]; energy transfer monomeric unit – para. [00092]). It is understood that the poly(ethylene glycol) (PEG) is a general monomeric unit. It is understood that the “narrow-band energy acceptor unit” is equivalent to an energy transfer unit. York teaches the functional monomeric unit comprises a hydrophilic monomeric unit, as in claim 8 (see, e.g., hydrophilic monomeric unit – para. [00011]). York teaches the polymer comprises an absorbing monomeric unit, an emitting monomeric unit, an energy transfer unit, and an optional functional monomeric unit, as in claim 9 (see, e.g., nanoparticle comprised of a polymer – para. [00005]; absorbing monomeric unit and emitting monomeric unit – para. [00081]; energy transfer monomeric unit – para. [00092]; hydrophilic monomeric unit – para. [00011]). It is understood that the hydrophilic monomeric units are functional monomeric units. York teaches a matrix polymer, as in claim 24 (see, e.g., matrix polymer – para. [00004]). York teaches the nanoparticle is bioconjugated to a biomolecule, such as a protein, as in claim 36 (see, e.g., bioconjugated biomolecules – under “FIG. 14”, Modified Antibody). It is understood that the antibody is a protein. York implies the nanoparticle has an absorbance width of less than 150 nm at 10% of the absorbance maximum, as in claim 1 (see, e.g., para. [00082]: “the fluorescent particle includes a polymer that absorbs light having a wavelength of about 300 nm to about 420 nm. In some embodiments, the polymer absorbs at about 350 nm to about 410 nm”). York discloses a polymer that absorbs “at about 350 nm to about 410 nm”, which means the absorbance width would be about 60 nm (the difference between 350 nm and 410 nm), which meets the limitation of lower than 150 nm. York discloses, “optical properties, such as excitation and emission profiles and/or quantum yield, can be tuned by adjusting the type and ratio of fluorescent to non-fluorescent polymer” (see, e.g., para. [000107]). Generally, the excitation spectra and the absorption spectra of a fluorophore are closely interrelated and will have the same peak wavelength as evidenced by the “Absorption and Excitation” section of the article “Understanding Absorption, Emission, and Excitation in Fluorescence” from Angstrom Technologies, Inc. (https://angtech.com/understanding-absorption-emission-and-excitation-in- fluorescence/#:~:text=Absorption%20and%20excitation%20are%20closely,stage%20that%20fluorescent%20emission%20occurs). York implies the nanoparticle has an absorbance width of less than 150 nm at 15% of the absorbance maximum, as in claims 2 and 4 (see, e.g., para. [00082]: “the fluorescent particle includes a polymer that absorbs light having a wavelength of about 300 nm to about 420 nm. In some embodiments, the polymer absorbs at about 350 nm to about 410 nm”). York discloses a polymer that absorbs “at about 350 nm to about 410 nm”, which means the absorbance width would be about 60 nm (the difference between 350 nm and 410 nm), which meets the limitation of lower than 150 nm. York implies the nanoparticle comprises an absorption peak in a range of about 380 nm to about 1074 nm, as in claim 13 (see, e.g., para. [00082]: “the fluorescent particle includes a polymer that absorbs light having a wavelength of about 300 nm to about 420 nm. In some embodiments, the polymer absorbs at about 350 nm to about 410 nm” and p. 69, under “Table 3”, under “Ex λ max (nm)”). Because York discloses a polymer that absorbs “at about 350 nm to about 410 nm”, the absorbance peak must be between “about 350 nm to about 410 nm”. The excitation peak of the polymers of York is explicitly disclosed in “Table 3” with multiple values between 380 nm and 1074 nm. Generally, the excitation maximum (Ex λ max ) and the absorption maximum will have the same peak wavelength as evidenced by the “Absorption and Excitation” section of the article “Understanding Absorption, Emission, and Excitation in Fluorescence” from Angstrom Technologies, Inc. (https://angtech.com/understanding-absorption-emission-and-excitation-in- fluorescence/#:~:text=Absorption%20and%20excitation%20are%20closely,stage%20that%20fluorescent%20emission%20occurs). York implies the nanoparticle has an absorption spectrum having a FWHM of 80 nm or less, as in claim 14 (see, e.g., para. [00082]: “the fluorescent particle includes a polymer that absorbs light having a wavelength of about 300 nm to about 420 nm. In some embodiments, the polymer absorbs at about 350 nm to about 410 nm”). York discloses a polymer that absorbs “at about 350 nm to about 410 nm”, which means the absorbance width would be about 60 nm (the difference between 350 nm and 410 nm), which meets the limitation of lower than 80 nm. The absorption spectrum disclosed in York would likely have a FWHM even lower than 60 nm. York implies the nanoparticle has an absorbance width from 10 nm to 150 nm at 10% of the absorbance maximum, as in claim 34 (see, e.g., para. [00082]: “the fluorescent particle includes a polymer that absorbs light having a wavelength of about 300 nm to about 420 nm. In some embodiments, the polymer absorbs at about 350 nm to about 410 nm”). York discloses a polymer that absorbs “at about 350 nm to about 410 nm”, which means the absorbance width would be about 60 nm (the difference between 350 nm and 410 nm), which is between 10 nm and 150 nm. Finally, York implies the nanoparticle has a brightness of greater than 1.0 x 10 -13 cm 2 , calculated as the product of quantum yield and absorption cross-section, as in claim 35. York teaches nanoparticles with high quantum yield (QY) and high absorption cross-section (see, e.g., high quantum yield – para. [000176]: “the QY increased from 0.53 ( Sample 25 ) to 0.6 ( Sample 24 ) to 0.66 ( Sample 23 )”; high absorption cross-section – para. [00002]: “Due to their high absorption cross-section, fluorescent nanoparticles can be exceptionally bright”). The product of a high quantum yield and a high absorption cross-section would result in an exceptionally bright nanoparticle, implying brightness greater than 1.0 x 10 -13 cm 2 . York fails to explicitly teach the nanoparticle has an absorbance width of less than 150 nm at 10% of the absorbance maximum, as in claim 1. Also, York fails to explicitly teach the nanoparticle has an absorbance width of less than 150 nm at 15% of the absorbance maximum, as in claims 2 and 4. York fails to explicitly teach the nanoparticle comprises an absorption peak in a range of 380 nm to 1074 nm, as in claim 13. York fails to explicitly teach the nanoparticle has an absorption spectrum having a FWHM of 80 nm or less, as in claim 14. Furthermore, York fails to explicitly teach the nanoparticle has an absorbance width from 10 nm to 150 nm at 10% of the absorbance maximum, as in claim 34. Finally, York fails to explicitly teach the nanoparticle has a brightness of greater than 1.0 x 10 -13 cm 2 , calculated as the product of quantum yield and absorption cross-section, as in claim 35. However, York rectifies this by teaching, “optical properties, such as excitation and emission profiles and/or quantum yield, can be tuned by adjusting the type and ratio of fluorescent to non-fluorescent polymer” (see, e.g., para. [000107]). And York demonstrates that these properties may be adjusted as explained above, where York teaches fluorescent particles include a polymer that absorbs light having a wavelength of about 300 nm to about 420 nm and discloses several embodiments with absorbance at 350 nm to 410 nm which means the absorbance width would be about 60 nm. Further, York discloses, “data shows that [Quantum Yield], which contributes to fluorescent brightness, can be manipulated with changes in weight percent ratio of fluorescent and non-fluorescent hydrophobic polymers in the core of the particle” (see, e.g., para. [000168]). Again, York demonstrates that these properties may be adjusted as explained above, where York teaches “the QY increased from 0.53 ( Sample 25 ) to 0.6 ( Sample 24 ) to 0.66 ( Sample 23 )” (see, e.g., para. [000176]). The teachings recited above clearly demonstrate that it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. It would have been prima facie obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the optical properties of the nanoparticles in York to achieve the brightness and absorption spectra of the instant application. Doing so would have been obvious because York discloses, “bright, fluorescent particles with narrow band absorption and emission profiles are needed that do not contribute to background fluorescence and spillover problems, such as are frequently encountered in multiplex fluorescence applications (e.g., flow cytometry)” (see, e.g., para. [00003]). "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382 ("The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages."). For more recent cases applying this principle, see Merck & Co. Inc. v. Biocraft Lab. Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989); In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 14 USPQ2d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1990); and In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874) (a change in form, proportions, or degree "will not sustain a patent"); In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929) ("It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions”). An artisan would have a reasonable expectation of success based on the given disclosure. New Rejection 07-22-aia AIA Claim 61 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over York (cited above) as evidenced by the article “Understanding Absorption, Emission, and Excitation in Fluorescence” from Angstrom Technologies, Inc. (cited above) , the product sheet for PFO from Angene Chemical (cited above) , and t he product sheet for BODIPY TM 576/589 from Fisher Scientific (cited above) , as applied to claim s 1-5, 7-9, 13-14, 24, and 34-36 above, and further in view of Pu (“Recent advances of semiconducting polymer nanoparticles in in vivo molecular imaging”, published 2016-01-08) . York teaches as set forth above, but fails to teach the nanoparticle does not comprise a matrix polymer that is non-semiconducting, as in claim 61. However, Pu teaches semiconducting polymer nanoparticles, as in claim 61 (see, e.g., p. 312, under “ABSTRACT”). York and Pu are analogous to the field of the claimed invention because they are both in the field of nanoparticles. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application would have found it obvious to use the semiconducting polymers of Pu in the nanoparticles of York . An artisan would have been motivated to do so because Pu discloses that semiconducting polymer nanoparticles have “excellent optical properties including large absorption coefficients, tunable optical proper ties and controllable dimensions, high photostability, and the use of organic and biologically inert components without toxic metals” (see, p. 312, under “ABSTRACT”). The beneficial features of semiconducting polymers would have motivated an artisan to incorporate the polymers of Pu into the nanoparticle of York . An artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success based on the given disclosures . Response to Arguments 07-37 AIA Applicant's arguments filed 02/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. 35 U.S.C. 103 Rejection The applicant begins arguments on p. 7 of the applicant’s remarks filed 02/23/2026 by asserting that York (cited above) does not make an implication that the width of the particle is about 60 nm because a polymer of the particles absorbs with the described range. The applicant continues by asserting, without evidence, that none of the specific polymers described in York absorb only within the described ranges. The applicant continues by asserting that the portion of York that discloses the absorbance of the polymers describes emission in response to excitation and has nothing to do with absorption width. However, the interpretation of “In some embodiments, the polymer absorbs at about 350 nm to about 410 nm” (see, para. [00082] of York ) to mean that the particle absorbance width at 10% of the absorbance maximum is close to less than 150 nm is a reasonable interpretation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to make. Furthermore, York discloses, “optical properties, such as excitation and emission profiles and/or quantum yield, can be tuned by adjusting the type and ratio of fluorescent to non-fluorescent polymer” (see, e.g., para. [000107]). Generally, the excitation spectra and the absorption spectra of a fluorophore are closely interrelated and will have the same peak wavelength as evidenced by the “Absorption and Excitation” section of the article “Understanding Absorption, Emission, and Excitation in Fluorescence” from Angstrom Technologies, Inc. (https://angtech.com/understanding-absorption-emission-and-excitation-in-fluorescence/#:~:text=Absorption%20and%20excitation%20are%20closely,stage%20that%20fluorescent%20emission%20occurs). Finally, York discloses, “bright, fluorescent particles with narrow band absorption and emission profiles are needed that do not contribute to background fluorescence and spillover problems, such as are frequently encountered in multiplex fluorescence applications (e.g., flow cytometry)” (see, e.g., para. [00003]). In summary, York’s disclosure would have been reasonably interpreted to mean the particles have absorbance width at 10% of the absorbance maximum at close to less than 150 nm. Then York provides disclosure that the absorbance width can be optimized and a motivation to create nanoparticles with narrow band absorption. The applicant continues by arguing that one polymer in a particle absorbing within a certain range does not mean the entire particle absorbs only in that range. However, in the context of the entire disclosure of York , it is reasonable to interpret “In some embodiments, the polymer absorbs at about 350 nm to about 410 nm” (see, para. [00082] of York ) to mean that the particle absorbance width at 10% of the absorbance maximum is close to less than 150 nm, especially because York does not discuss absorbance width anywhere else and because York’s disclosure is focused on “bright, fluorescent particles with narrow band absorption and emission profiles” (see, e.g., para. [00003], emphasis added). In the context of the entire disclosure of York , it is understood that York is referring to absorbance width of the particle. The applicant continues arguments on p. 10 of the applicant’s remarks by asserting that York does not describe or suggest varying the mass ratio of absorbing monomeric unit to emitting monomeric unit results in narrow absorption as presently claimed. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the mass ratio of absorbing monomeric unit to emitting monomeric unit resulting in narrow absorption) are not recited in the rejected claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns , 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The applicant then asserts that York’s disclosure that “optical properties, such as excitation and emission profiles and/or quantum yield, can be tuned by adjusting the type and ratio of fluorescent to non-fluorescent polymer” (see, e.g., para. [000107]) is not the claimed ratio between absorbing monomeric units to emitting monomeric units. However, the applicant misrepresents the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection. A different portion of York was cited to show that York teaches the claimed ratio between absorbing monomeric units to emitting monomeric units, specifically para. [000175]-[000176] of York (see 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection above). The applicant continues by asserting that York does not describe the conditions of a claim that can be optimized through routine experimentation to arrive at the narrow absorbing particles. However, the Office Action dated 12/02/2025 includes the following York citation: “optical properties, such as excitation and emission profiles and/or quantum yield, can be tuned by adjusting the type and ratio of fluorescent to non-fluorescent polymer” (see, e.g., para. [000107]). In addition, the applicant acknowledges that York discloses that the ratio of donor to acceptor dye within the particles can vary depending on the desired excitation/emission profiled of the particle (see, para. [000117] of York ). As stated above, excitation spectra and absorption spectra are closely interrelated. Therefore, York has indeed described the conditions to be optimized to arrive at narrow absorbing particles. And again, the relationship between the mass ratio of absorbing monomeric units to emitting monomeric units and the absorption width is not presently claimed. Conclusion No claims are allowed. 07-40 AIA Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL . See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL C SVEIVEN whose telephone number is (703)756-4653. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday - 8AM to 5PM PST. 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, Gregory Emch can be reached at (571) 272-8149. 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 CAMERON SVEIVEN/ Examiner, Art Unit 1678 /GREGORY S EMCH/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1678 Application/Control Number: 17/276,690 Page 2 Art Unit: 1678 Application/Control Number: 17/276,690 Page 3 Art Unit: 1678 Application/Control Number: 17/276,690 Page 4 Art Unit: 1678 Application/Control Number: 17/276,690 Page 5 Art Unit: 1678 Application/Control Number: 17/276,690 Page 6 Art Unit: 1678 Application/Control Number: 17/276,690 Page 7 Art Unit: 1678 Application/Control Number: 17/276,690 Page 8 Art Unit: 1678 Application/Control Number: 17/276,690 Page 9 Art Unit: 1678 Application/Control Number: 17/276,690 Page 10 Art Unit: 1678 Application/Control Number: 17/276,690 Page 11 Art Unit: 1678 Application/Control Number: 17/276,690 Page 12 Art Unit: 1678 Application/Control Number: 17/276,690 Page 13 Art Unit: 1678 Application/Control Number: 17/276,690 Page 14 Art Unit: 1678 Application/Control Number: 17/276,690 Page 15 Art Unit: 1678 Application/Control Number: 17/276,690 Page 16 Art Unit: 1678 Application/Control Number: 17/276,690 Page 17 Art Unit: 1678
Prosecution Insights