CTNF 17/815,331 CTNF 92200 DETAILED ACTION Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 07-42-04 AIA 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 February 26, 2026 has been entered. 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 Receipt is acknowledged of a certified copy of JP 2021-124119 filed July 29, 2021 as required by 37 CFR 1.55. Claim Status This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s Remarks and Claim Amendments filed February 26, 2026. Claims Filing Date February 26, 2026 Amended 1, 8 Cancelled 4, 7 New 9-11 Under Examination 1-3, 5, 6, 8-11 Claim 1 line 7 “α-Fe and has a thin layer-like form” is supported by applicant’s specification at [0022] in which the “α-Fe is formed in a “layer manner””, where “In a thin form such as the “layer”, it is considered that it is less likely to be the starting point of magnetization reversal than α-Fe in a pump form”. Claim 1 lines 10-11 and new claims 9 and 10 lines 1-3 reciting an average thickness of the first layer and the second layer are supported by applicant’s specification at [0055] and [0060]. Claim 1 lines 13-14 “the average of the thickness of the second layer is greater than the average thickness of the first layer” is supported by applicant’s examples, such as in [0179] Fig. 8 and in [0187] Table 2, in which the second layer average thickness is greater than the first layer average thickness. Furthermore, in applicant’s [0055] and [0060], the preferred second layer thickness of 20 to 50 nm has a greater upper endpoint than the preferred first layer thickness of 1 to 21 nm. Claim 8 lines 1-2 “the first layer has a thickness of 1 nm or more and 21 nm or less” is supported by applicant’s specification at [0055]. Claim 8 lines 3-4 “the Sm-Fe-N particles and the coating layer are molded by a mold at a pressure of 500 MPa” and Claim 11 lines 1-3 “the Sm-Fe-N particles and the Zn powder are molded by a mold at a pressure that is 10MPa ore more and 500 MPa or less” are support by applicant’s specification at [0114]. Withdrawn Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following 112(a) rejection is withdrawn due to claim 8 amendment: Claim 8 lines 3-4 “the Sm-Fe-N particles and the coating layer are molded”. The following 112(b) rejection is withdrawn due to claim 1 amendment: Claim 8 lines 1-2 “the thickness”. In light of claim amendment, claim 8 lines 1-2 has antecedent basis to claim 1 line 10 “an average thickness of the first layer”. Response to Remarks filed February 26, 2026 Takagi as evidenced by Rodewald 07-37 AIA Applicant's arguments filed February 26, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues Takagi Fig. 6 shows alpha-Fe by oxidation-reduction on the particle surface and the diffusion depth of Zn relative to oxygen is discussed, but an average thickness for these distinct phases that aligns with the claimed features is not discussed (para. spanning pp. 5-6) because Fig. 6 of Takagi identifies a first and second layer as both being approximately 20 nm, whereas in the claimed invention the second layer is greater than the first layer, such that an unexpected increase in coercivity is achieved (p. 6 para. 2) . 07-37-07 In response to applicant's argument that Takagi Fig. 6 does not discuss an average thickness of the distinct phases, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya , 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). 07-37-08 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., coercivity) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). 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). Claim 1 line 9 recites “a Zn content contained in the second layer is 1 at% or more and 20 at% or less”. These compositional limits for Zn on the y-axis of Takagi Fig. 6 results in a second layer thickness that is greater than a first layer thickness as evidenced by the following annotated Takagi Fig. 6. PNG media_image1.png 524 685 media_image1.png Greyscale Further, Takagi discloses a manufacturing process (Sect. 2, Experiment, Fig. 3) that is substantially similar to that disclosed by applicant (applicant’s specification [0107]-[0127]). Therefore, the average thickness of the second layer being greater than the average thickness of the first layer naturally flows from the disclosure of the prior art. Applicant’s Specification [0107]-[0127] Takagi Section 2. Experiment, Fig. 3 Mix Sm-Fe-N magnet powder and Zn powder with a not particularly limited method Mix Sm-Fe-N powder with Zn powder Mold under a magnetic field, such as 10 to 3000 MPa and 5 to 40 kOe Mold at 1200 MPa with magnetic alignment treatment Sinter at 420 to 600°C for 5 hours or less with a heating rate of 5 to 100°C/min in a N2, Ar, or vacuum atmosphere Sinter at 380 to 430°C for 1 to 50 minutes with a heating rate of 40°C/min in a N2 atmosphere The applicant argues Rodewald does not disclose the average thickness ratio between the alpha-Fe phase and the Sm-Fe-Zn alloy phase (p. 6 para. 3). 07-37-13 AIA 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). Takagi as evidenced by Rodewald discloses the average thickness of the second layer being greater than the average thickness of the first layer (Takagi Fig. 6) with Rodewald providing evidence of the presence of alpha-Fe in Takagi (Rodewald Fig. 2(b); Takagi Fig. 3(b)). For the above cited reasons the claim 1 rejection over Takagi as evidenced by Rodewald is maintained. Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim s 8 and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 8 lines 1-2 “the first layer has the thickness” is written inconsistently with respect to claim 1 line 10 and new claims 9-10 lines 1-2, which recite “average thickness of the first layer”. For consistency, claims should use the same language to refer to the same feature. Claim 11 line 2 “10 MPa ore more”, where “ore” is misspelled. Claim 11 line 2 “10MPa” and “500 MPa” should be written consistently either without a space or with a space. Claim 8 line 4 includes a space, “500 MPa” . Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-01 AIA The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. 07-31-01 Claims 8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 8 lines 3-4 “the Sm-Fe-N particles and Zn powder are molded” fails to comply with the written description requirement. Claim 11 lines 1-2 “the Sm-Fe-N particles and the Zn powder are molded” fails to comply with the written description requirement. In the Remarks filed February 26, 2026, applicant does not point out support for new claim 8. Claims 8 and 11 each depend from claim 1. Antecedent basis for “the Sm-Fe-N particles” refers to claim 1 lines 2-4 “Sm-Fe-N particles each having a surface, a coating layer being provided on at least a portion of the surface or on at least a portion of an interface between at least two of the Sm-Fe-N particles, or being provided on both”. Applicant does not have support for molding the Sm-Fe-N particles having a surface with a coating layer. Applicant’s specification discloses mixing Sm-Fe-N magnet powder and Zn powder ([0110]) then molding the mixed powder ([0114]) and that the coating layer forms during sintering ([0117]). 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claim 11 is 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. Claim 11 line 2 “the Zn powder” renders the claim indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis. 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1, 5, and 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takagi (Takagi and Ozaki. Fabrication of Zn/Sm2Fe17N3 Sintered Magnets by High-Pressure Current Sintering. J. Jpn. Soc. Powder Powder Metallurgy vol. 59, No. 9 (2012) 564-569.) as evidenced by Rodewald (Rodewald et al. Microstructure and magnetic properties of Zn- or Sn- bonded Sm2Fe17Nx magnets. J. Appl. Phys. 73 (10), 15 May 1993. 5899-5901.) . Regarding claim 1 , Takagi discloses a Sm-Fe-N magnet (synopsis) comprising: Sm-Fe-N particles each having a surface, a coating layer being provided on at least a portion of the surface or on at least a portion of an interface between at least two of the Sm-Fe-N particles, or being provided on both, wherein the coating layer includes a first layer and a second layer, the first layer being situated closer to the surface or the interface than is the second layer, the first layer includes alpha-Fe and has a thin layer-like form, the second layer includes a Sm-Fe-Zn alloy, and a Zn content contained in the second layer is 1 at% or more and 20 at% or less (Sect. 3: p. 566 right col., p. 568, Figs. 3(d), 6), wherein an average thickness of the first layer is 1 nm or more and 100 nm or less (Sect. 3: p. 566 right col., p. 568, Figs. 3(d), 6), wherein an average thickness of the second layer is 1 nm or more and 100 nm or less (Sect. 3: p. 566 right col., p. 568, Figs. 3(d), 6), and wherein the average thickness of the second layer is greater than the average thickness of the first layer (Sect. 3: p. 566 right col., p. 568, Figs. 3(d), 6). Below annotated Figs. 3(d) and 6 of Takagi indicate the claim features. PNG media_image2.png 311 976 media_image2.png Greyscale The XRD of the sintered magnet (Zn) indicates the presence of a peak for alpha-Fe (Fig. 3(d) with a peak just before 45 as evidenced by Rodewald Fig. 2(b), which labels the alpha-Fe peak). Further, as evidenced by the below table, the process of Takagi is substantially similar to that disclosed by applicant that makes the claimed Sm-Fe-N magnet, such that the first layer being alpha-Fe and having a thin layer-like form naturally flows from the disclosure of the prior art. Applicant’s Specification [0107]-[0127] Takagi Section 2. Experiment, Fig. 3 Mix Sm-Fe-N magnet powder and Zn powder with a not particularly limited method Mix Sm-Fe-N powder with Zn powder Mold under a magnetic field, such as 10 to 3000 MPa and 5 to 40 kOe Mold at 1200 MPa with magnetic alignment treatment Sinter at 420 to 600°C for 5 hours or less with a heating rate of 5 to 100°C/min in a N2, Ar, or vacuum atmosphere Sinter at 380 to 430°C for 1 to 50 minutes with a heating rate of 40°C/min in a N2 atmosphere Regarding claim 5 , Takagi discloses the Sm-Fe-N magnet includes Zn at 1 wt% or more and 20 wt% or less (5 or 10 wt% Zn) (2. Experiment). Regarding claim 8 , Takagi discloses the first layer has the thickness of 1 nm or more and 21 nm or less. Annotated Fig. 6 of Takagi below shows the first layer thickness is about 20 nm, which either falls within the claimed range or is close to the claimed range. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are close such that one of ordinary skill in the art would expect them to have the same properties. MPEP 2144.05(I). PNG media_image3.png 524 685 media_image3.png Greyscale Takagi discloses the Sm-Fe-N particles and the coating layer are molded by a mold (high-pressure current sintering) at 1200 MPa (Synopsis, 2. Experimental). The claims are directed to a “Sm-Fe-N magnet” product. The limitation of the Sm-Fe-N particles and Zn powder being molded at a pressure of 500 MPa has been considered and determined to recite a product-by-process limitation. “[E]ven 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 product was made by a different process.” MPEP 2113(I). The prior art (Takagi) discloses a Sm-Fe-N magnet that reads on the product of claim 8 (Takagi Synopsis, Sect. 2. Experimental, Sect. 3: p. 566 right col., p. 568, Figs. 3(d), 6), such that the claim 8 product is the same as or obvious from the product of Takagi. Regarding claim 9 , Takagi discloses the average thickness of the first layer is 1 nm or more and 21 nm or less, and the average thickness of the second layer is 20 nm or more and 50 nm or less (Sect. 3: p. 566 right col., p. 568, Figs. 3(d), 6). Annotated Fig. 6 of Takagi below shows the second layer thickness is about 30 nm, which either falls within the claimed range. Annotated Fig. 6 of Takagi below shows the first layer thickness is about 20 nm, which either falls within the claimed range or is close to the claimed range. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are close such that one of ordinary skill in the art would expect them to have the same properties. MPEP 2144.05(I). PNG media_image4.png 524 685 media_image4.png Greyscale Regarding claim 10 , Takagi discloses the average thickness of the first layer is 9 nm or more and 21 nm or less, and the average thickness of the second layer is 34 nm or more and 40 nm or less (Sect. 3: p. 566 right col., p. 568, Figs. 3(d), 6). Annotated Fig. 6 of Takagi below shows the first layer thickness is about 20 nm, which either falls within the claimed range or is close to the claimed range. Annotated Fig. 6 of Takagi below shows the second layer thickness is about 30 nm, which is close to the claimed range. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are close such that one of ordinary skill in the art would expect them to have the same properties. MPEP 2144.05(I). Regarding claim 11 , Takagi discloses the Sm-Fe-N particles and the Zn powder are molded (Section 2. Experiment, Fig. 3). The claims are directed to a “Sm-Fe-N magnet” product. The limitation of the Sm-Fe-N particles and the Zn powder being molded at a pressure that is 10 MPa or more and 500 MPa or less has been considered and determined to recite a product-by-process limitation. “[E]ven 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 product was made by a different process.” MPEP 2113(I). The prior art (Takagi) discloses a Sm-Fe-N magnet that reads on the product of claim 8 (Takagi Synopsis, Sect. 2. Experimental, Sect. 3: p. 566 right col., p. 568, Figs. 3(d), 6), such that the claim 11 product is the same as or obvious from the product of Takagi . 07-22-aia AIA Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takagi as evidenced by Rodewald as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kou (Kou et al. Magnetization reversal process of Zn-bonded anisotropic Sm-Fe-N permanent magnets. Physical Review B. Vol. 51, No. 22. 1 June 1995. 16 025 to 16 032.) . Regarding claim 3 , Takagi discloses Sm-Fe-N particles with a particle size of 2 to 5 um (2. Experimental), and a ratio of the Sm-Fe-N particles having an aspect ratio of 2.0 or more is 10% or less (Fig. 2). Annotated Fig. 2 of Takagi below shows the estimated aspect ratio of 10 Sm2Fe17N3 particles, which all have an aspect ratio of less than 2.0. PNG media_image5.png 592 1263 media_image5.png Greyscale Takagi is silent to an average particle diameter of the Sm-Fe-N particles being less than 2.0 um. Kou discloses a Sm-Fe-N magnet (Abstract), wherein an average particle diameter of the Sm-Fe-N particles is less than 2.0 um (particles from 1.9 to 5 um and mean grain size of 1.5 to 5 um) (II. Experimental Details, III. Experimental Results, Micromagnetic Analysis, and Discussion). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the magnet of Takagi to have an average particle diameter of the Sm-Fe-N particles of 1.5 to 5 um because smaller particles are monograins that provide the highest achievable coercive field (Kou p. 16 028). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I) . 07-22-aia AIA Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takagi as evidenced by Rodewald as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Matsunami (Matsunami et al. Preparation of Sm-Fe-N bulk magnets with high maximum energy products. J. Magn. Soc. Jpn., 44, 64-69 (2020) 64-69.) . Regarding claim 6 , Takagi is silent to the Sm-Fe-N magnet including oxygen at less than 1.0 wt%. Matsunami discloses a Sm-Fe-N magnet (Abstract) including oxygen at less than 1.0 wt% (0.28 wt%) (3. Results and discussion para. 3, 4. Summary). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the magnet of Takagi to form a Sm-Fe-N magnet with a low oxygen content, such as 0.28 wt%, because decreasing the oxygen content improves the coercivity, where oxygen at the surface of Sm-Fe-N powder can decrease the coercivity by mediating the decomposition of the Sm2Fe17N3 phase (Matsunami 1. Introduction p. 64 col. 2). The disclosed low oxygen content of 0.28 wt% (Matsunami 3. Results and discussion para. 3, 4. Summary is within the scope of the claimed less than 1.0 wt%. Further, differences in concentration (of oxygen) will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. “[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.” MPEP 2144.05(II)(A) . Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-07 AIA 07-97 12-51-07 Claim 2 is allowed. 13-03-01 AIA The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record either alone or in combination does not teach or suggest the Sm-Fe-N magnet as recited in claimed 1 including an average thickness of the second layer being greater than an average thickness of the first layer in combination with a Zn content in the second layer of 5 at% to 15 at%. In Takagi Fig. 6 for a second layer with a Zn content of 5 at% to 15 at%, the thickness of the second layer is not greater than the thickness of the first layer. PNG media_image6.png 401 512 media_image6.png Greyscale Prior art, such as Yanagida (JP H09-063820 machine translation), discloses permanent magnet powder ([0001], [0004]) such as Sm-Fe-N ([0006]-[0011]) including an alpha-Fe layer with a thickness of 1 nm to 1 um on its surface ([0005], [0014]-[0015]), where the thickness is controlled by adjusting the temperature and time of heat treatment and nitriding treatment ([0017]). However, Yanagida is silent to the presence of Zn, a second layer that includes Sm-Fe-Zn alloy, and the relative average thickness of the first layer and a second layer. Further, prior art such as Majima (Majima et al. Dimensional Change and Fe-Zn Phase Formation during Preparation of Zn Bonded Sm2Fe17Nx Magnet. Journal of the Japan Society of Powder and Powder Metallurgy, 1994, Vol. 41, No. 11, 1336-1340.), Rodewald (Rodewald et al. Microstructure and magnetic properties of Zn- or Sn- bonded Sm2Fe17Nx magnets. J. Appl. Phys. 73 (10), 15 May 1993. 5899-5901.), and Suzuki (JP H04-435104 machine translation), disclose processing that is similar to that disclosed by applicant (Majima Abstract, Sect. 2 para. 2 written English translation; Rodewald II. Experimental, C. Magnetic properties of Zn-bonded Sm2Fe17Nx magnets; Suzuki [0009]-[0011], [0014]). However, the prior art does not render obvious the claimed Sm-Fe-N magnet comprising the claimed Sm-Fe-N particles each having a surface with a coating layer provided on a surface or interface of at least two Sm-Fe-N particles. Finally, art such as Cai (CN 118522518 machine translation) and Che (CN 113628822 machine translation), disclose a related structure, but were respectively published August 20, 2024 and November 9, 2021, after applicant’s July 29, 2021 priority date. For the above cited reasons, claim 2 is allowable over the prior art. Contact Information Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHANI HILL whose telephone number is (571)272-2523. The examiner can normally be reached Monday, Wednesday-Friday 7am-12pm. 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, KEITH WALKER can be reached on 571-272-3458. 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. /STEPHANI HILL/Examiner, Art Unit 1735 Application/Control Number: 17/815,331 Page 2 Art Unit: 1735 Application/Control Number: 17/815,331 Page 3 Art Unit: 1735 Application/Control Number: 17/815,331 Page 4 Art Unit: 1735 Application/Control Number: 17/815,331 Page 5 Art Unit: 1735 Application/Control Number: 17/815,331 Page 6 Art Unit: 1735 Application/Control Number: 17/815,331 Page 7 Art Unit: 1735 Application/Control Number: 17/815,331 Page 8 Art Unit: 1735 Application/Control Number: 17/815,331 Page 9 Art Unit: 1735 Application/Control Number: 17/815,331 Page 10 Art Unit: 1735 Application/Control Number: 17/815,331 Page 11 Art Unit: 1735 Application/Control Number: 17/815,331 Page 12 Art Unit: 1735 Application/Control Number: 17/815,331 Page 13 Art Unit: 1735 Application/Control Number: 17/815,331 Page 14 Art Unit: 1735 Application/Control Number: 17/815,331 Page 15 Art Unit: 1735 Application/Control Number: 17/815,331 Page 16 Art Unit: 1735 Application/Control Number: 17/815,331 Page 17 Art Unit: 1735
Prosecution Insights