CTFR 17/833,866 CTFR 101627 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. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 3, 6-10, 12, 13-16, 18-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 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 Claims 1, 3, 6-10, 21, 22, & 23 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. Claim 1 recites the limitations "first surface" (ln 21) & “second surface” (ln 21-22). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear whether the applicant is referring to the “inner concave first surface” and “outer convex second surface” or new surfaces. Claims 3, 6-10, 21, 22, & 23 are dependent upon Claim 1 and inherit the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 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, 8, & 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Szymczyk (US Patent 5,255,949 A) in view of Portal (US Patent 6,454,333 B2) . Regarding claim 1, Szymczyk teaches an end effector system, comprising an end effector (74) coupled to a slider assembly (111 + 82 + 116), wherein: the end effector is configured to grasp an object (74; Col. 6 ln 39-43); a first actuator (piston 90, chamber 84, Fig 7) coupled to the shaft (102, Fig 7) and configured to move the shaft (Col. 6 ln 57-67) between an extended position and a retracted position (Col. 6 ln 57-68 to Col. 7 ln 1-4); and a self-alignment assembly, comprising: a self-alignment cone comprising an outer convex first surface (162 + 154, Fig 12-Fig 13) coupled to the end effector and movable with the end effector and the slider (116) relative to the slider housing (111 + 82; Fig 7, Fig 12, Fig 15); and a self-alignment cup comprising an inner concave second surface (160+152, Fig 12-Fig 13) coupled to the first actuator and configured to interface with the first surface, the self-alignment cup being disposed about the shaft (Fig 7, Fig 12, Fig 15), when the end effector is rotated away from the first position, the first actuator is configured to retract the shaft such that the first surface engages the second surface to rotate the end effector and thereby position the end effector at the first position (Fig 16, Fig 13, Fig 11; Col. 8 ln 6-31). Szymczyk teaches an outer convex first surface (162 + 154, Fig 12-Fig 13) and an inner concave second surface (160+152, Fig 12-Fig 13), but does not teach an inner concave first surface or outer convex second surface. However, the rearrangement of parts is held unpatentable where the shifting of the position would not have modified the operation of the device. In this case, the swapping of the concave and outer convex surface does not modify the mating of the two surfaces when the cylinder is retracted. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to improve the end effector system of Szymczyk by swapping the first and second surface placements to shift the weight of the self-alignment assembly to the end effector sub assembly. Szymczyk does not teach a gimbal assembly comprising a gimbal ball and gimbal housing. However, the vacuum end effector system of Portal discloses an end effector coupled (20) to a gimbal assembly (18), and the gimbal assembly is attached to a shaft (14) and comprises a gimbal housing (16) attached to the shaft and a gimbal ball (Annotated Fig 2 below) disposed inside and rotatable relative to the gimbal housing (Fig 2; Col. 2 ln 4-6), wherein the end effector is coupled to the gimbal ball by a gimbal transfer shaft (Annotated Fig 2 below) such that the end effector, the gimbal transfer shaft, and the gimbal ball rotate together relative to the gimbal housing (Fig 2; Col. 2 ln 4-19). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to swap the slider assembly and end effector of Szymczyk with the gimbal assembly and end effector of Portal to provide a global movement of at least 90 degrees to enable the assembly of parts with complex geometries that can vary from one part to another (Col. 1 ln 65 to Col. 2 ln 1-3) and impose less force on the article being moved. PNG media_image1.png 764 616 media_image1.png Greyscale Regarding claim 8, the combination teaches the limitations of claim 1 as described above, Szymczyk further discloses a plurality of support legs (83, 87, Fig 7) coupled to the end effector and the self-alignment cup (Fig 7, Col. 6 ln 49-56). Regarding claim 21, the combination teaches the limitations of claim 1 as described above, Szymczyk further discloses the first actuator is configured to extend the shaft to separate the self-alignment cup from the self-alignment cone (Fig 12; Col. 9 ln 23-36) and permit the end effector and the gimbal ball to rotate relative to the gimbal housing in response to contact between the end effector and the object (Col. 10 ln 32-34; Col. 9 ln 59-67). Regarding claim 22, the combination teaches the limitations of claim 1 as described above, Szymczyk further discloses the end effector and self-alignment cone define a movable sub-portion configured to rotate relative to a fixed sub-portion comprising the self-alignment cup (Fig 19; Col. 10 ln 32-34). Therefore, the combination as described in claim 1 results in the self-alignment cup, the end effector, the gimbal transfer shaft, and the gimbal ball defining a movable sub-portion configured to rotate relative to a fixed sub-portion comprising the gimbal housing and the self-alignment cone. Regarding claim 23, the combination teaches the limitations of claim 1 as described above, Szymczyk further discloses the mating engagement between the self-alignment cup and the self-alignment cone aligns a coordinate system of the gimbal ball with a coordinate system of the end effector system (Fig 16, Fig 13, Fig 11; Col. 8 ln 6-31). When the first actuator is retracted, both the end effecter system and gimbal ball will return back to an origin point . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Szymczyk & Portal in view of Goellner (US Patent 5,590,870) . Regarding claim 3, the combination teaches the limitations of claim 1 as described above, the combination does not teach a gimbal lock assembly. However, the vacuum workpiece holder of Goellner teaches a gimbal lock assembly configured to engage the gimbal ball to prevent the gimbal ball from rotating about at least one axis of the gimbal assembly (Col. 3 ln 15-25). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to improve the end effector of modified Szymczyk with the addition of a gimbal lock assembly to lock the end effector head in place to avoid deformations of grabbed materials during moving by the end effector . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Szymczyk & Portal in view of Tanahashi (PGPub US 2019/0240846 A1) . Regarding claims 6-7, the combination teaches the limitations of claim 1 as described above, the combination does not teach a second actuator coupled to a carriage to move along a track. However, the end effector of Tanahashi discloses a second actuator coupled to a carriage (2), wherein the second actuator is configured to move the end effector system along a track (1, Fig 3-4; [0049] ln 1-6). Tanahashi further discloses the carriage (2) comprises a brake assembly configured to engage the track to prevent the end effector system from moving along the track ([0050] ln 7-13). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to improve the end effector system of modified Szymczyk with a second actuator and braking system for controlled movement of a carriage along a track for the end effector to controllably convey material from one location to another faster and in less space ([0008]) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Szymczyk & Portal in view of Suzuki (JP H10166257 A) . Regarding claim 10, the combination teaches the limitations of claim 1 as described above, the combination does not teach a plurality of channels. However, the vacuum end effector of Suzuki discloses the end effector forms a plurality of channels (26a, 27a, 28a, Fig 1; Abstract) having a plurality of openings on a grasping surface (24a) of the end effector (Fig 4; Abstract); and the plurality of channels are configured to be fluidly coupled to a vacuum source (Abstract), wherein the plurality of channels comprises a first subset (28a) fluidly coupled to a first vacuum port (3) and a second subset (27a) fluidly coupled to a second vacuum port (2, Fig 1), and wherein vacuum applied through the first subset is controllable independently from vacuum applied through the second subset (Abstract ln 7-9). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to improve the end effector of modified Szymczyk with a plurality of independently controlled vacuum channels and vacuum ports to allow for uniform pressing force of the object when gripped (Pg 3 body 9) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 12-16, 18, & 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanahashi in view of Szymczyk & Portal . Regarding claim 12, Tanahashi discloses a material placement system, comprising: a support structure comprising: a plurality of longitudinal stiffeners (1), wherein each respective longitudinal stiffener (1) of the plurality of longitudinal stiffeners comprises a lower circumferential guide track and a rack gear ([0037]); and each respective end effector system further comprises: a circumferential actuation system coupled to the respective end effector, wherein: the circumferential actuation system comprises a circumferential actuator coupled to a pinion gear (2b, Fig 2; [0049]); and the pinion gear is configured to engage the rack gear of the respective longitudinal stiffener to move the respective end effector along the respective longitudinal stiffener ([0049]); and a lower carriage assembly (2) configured to movably attach the radial actuation system and the circumferential actuation system to the lower circumferential guide track of the respective longitudinal stiffener (Fig 2); a radial actuation system coupled to the respective end effector, wherein: the radial actuation system comprises a radial actuator (2c, Fig 2; [0049]) coupled to the shaft (5, Fig 2); and the radial actuator is configured to extend and retract the shaft to move the respective end effector in a direction orthogonal to a respective longitudinal stiffener (Fig 2; [0049]). Tanahashi does not teach a plurality of end effectors or a gimbal assembly. However, the vacuum end effector system of Portal discloses a plurality of end effector systems supported by a support structure (10, Fig 1), wherein each respective end effector system of the plurality of end effector systems comprises a respective end effector (20) configured to grasp a stringer (Col. 1 ln 8-14); a gimbal assembly (18) coupled to the respective end effector, wherein the gimbal assembly is configured to allow the respective end effector (20) to rotate about at least one axis (Abstract; Fig 1), wherein the gimbal assembly comprises a gimbal housing (16) attached to a shaft (14, Fig 2) and a gimbal ball (Annotated Fig 2 above) disposed inside and rotatable relative to the gimbal housing, and wherein the respective end effector (20) is coupled to the gimbal ball (Fig 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to improve the end effector system of Tanahashi by replacing the end effector with the multiple end effectors of Portal to provide a global movement of at least 90 degrees to enable the assembly of parts with complex geometries that can vary from one part to another (Col. 1 ln 65 to Col. 2 ln 1-3) and providing additional end effectors for larger or heavier parts (Col. 3 ln 11-14). The combination does not teach a self-alignment assembly. However, the end effector system of Szymczyk teaches a self-alignment assembly comprising: a self-alignment cone comprising an outer convex first surface (162 + 154, Fig 12-Fig 13) coupled to the respective end effector and movable with the slider (116) relative to the slider housing (111 + 82; Fig 7, Fig 12, Fig 15); and a self-alignment cup comprising an inner concave second surface (160+152, Fig 12-Fig 13) coupled to the radial actuation system and configured to interface with the outer convex first surface, wherein, when the slider (116) is rotated away from a first position, the radial actuator is configured to retract the shaft such that the inner concave first surface engages the outer convex second surface to rotate the slider (116) within the slider housing and thereby align the respective end effector at the first position (Fig 16, Fig 13, Fig 11; Col. 8 ln 6-31). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to improve the end effector system of modified Tanahashi by adding the self-alignment assembly of Szymczyk to move the end effector and item to its desired location and position orientation relative to the axis of the shaft for accurate placement (Col. 10 ln 49-56). Szymczyk teaches an outer convex first surface (162 + 154, Fig 12-Fig 13) and an inner concave second surface (160 + 152, Fig 12-Fig 13), but does not teach an inner concave first surface or outer convex second surface. However, the rearrangement of parts is held unpatentable where the shifting of the position would not have modified the operation of the device. In this case, the swapping of the concave and outer convex surface does not modify the mating of the two surfaces when the cylinder is retracted. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to improve the end effector system of Szymczyk by swapping the first and second surface placements to shift the weight of the self-alignment assembly to the end effector sub assembly. Regarding claim 13, the combination teaches the limitations of claim 12 as described above, Modified Tanahashi does not disclose the respective longitudinal stiffener further comprises an upper circumferential guide track; an upper carriage assembly couples the radial actuation system to the upper circumferential guide track; and the upper carriage assembly is configured to move the radial actuation system along the upper circumferential guide track. However, it has been held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (In re Hazra, 124 USPQ 378). Therefore, it would have been obvious to improve the end effector of Tanahashi with an additional longitudinal stiffener and carriage assembly to increase strength and alignment of the end effector. Regarding claim 14, the combination teaches the limitations of claim 13 as described above, Tanahashi further discloses the upper carriage assembly comprises a plurality of rollers (2b) configured to travel along the upper circumferential guide track (1, Fig 2). Regarding claim 15, the combination teaches the limitations of claim 12 as described above, Tanahashi further discloses a support structure mount plate (3a) configured to mount the support structure to a motion system ([0045]). Regarding claim 16, the combination teaches the limitations of claim 12 as described above, Portal further teaches the shaft (14) is attached to the gimbal housing through a gimbal plate (Annotated Fig 2 above) coupled to an upper surface of the gimbal housing (Fig 2). Regarding claim 18, The end effector system of Tanahashi discloses a method of grasping an object using an end effector comprising: moving an end effector system along a circumferential guide track of a longitudinal stiffener using a first actuator (2b, Fig 2; [0049]), the end effector system comprising: An end effector (6, Fig 1), wherein: the end effector is configured to grasp an object (Fig 5-9; [0040] ln 1-3); and a second actuator (2c) coupled to the shaft (Fig 2; [0049]), wherein the second actuator is configured to move the shaft [0049]. Tanahashi further discloses grasping the object with the end effector (Fig 5-9; [0040] ln 1-3). Tanahashi does not teach a gimbal ball assembly. However, the end effector system of Portal discloses an end effector (20) coupled to a gimbal assembly (18, Fig 2), the gimbal assembly is attached to a shaft and comprises a gimbal housing (16) attached to the shaft (14, Fig 2) and a gimbal ball (Annotated Fig 2 above) disposed inside and rotatable relative to the gimbal housing, wherein the end effector is coupled to the gimbal ball such that the end effector and the gimbal ball rotate together relative to the gimbal housing (Fig 2; Abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to improve the end effector system of Tanahashi by replacing the end effector with the end effector of Portal to provide a global movement of at least 90 degrees to enable the assembly of parts with complex geometries that can vary from one part to another (Col. 1 ln 65 to Col. 2 ln 1-3). The end effector system of modified Tanahashi does not teach a self-alignment assembly. However, the end effector system of Szymczyk teaches a self-alignment assembly, comprising: a self-alignment cup comprising an outer convex first surface (162 + 154, Fig 12-Fig 13) coupled to the end effector and movable with the end effector and the slider (116) relative to the slider housing (111 + 82; Fig 7, Fig 12, Fig 15); and a self-alignment cone comprising an inner concave second surface (160+152, Fig 12-Fig 13) coupled to the second actuator and configured to interface with the first surface (Fig 7, Fig 12, Fig 15); positioning the end effector at a first position by retracting the shaft using the second actuator such that the inner concave first surface engages the outer convex second surface and, when the slider (116) is rotated away from the first position, rotates the slider (116) within the slider housing (Fig 16, Fig 13, Fig 11; Col. 8 ln 6-31); moving the end effector in a direction perpendicular to the longitudinal stiffener such that the end effector contacts the object (Col. 9 ln 23-36) and the contact with the object rotates the end effector and the slider ball relative to the slider housing (Col. 10 ln 32-34; Col. 9 ln 59-67). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to improve the end effector system of modified Tanahashi by adding the self-alignment assembly and actuator of Szymczyk to move the end effector and item to its desired location and position orientation relative to the axis of the shaft for accurate placement (Col. 10 ln 49-56). Szymczyk teaches an outer convex first surface (162 + 154, Fig 12-Fig 13) and an inner concave second surface (160+152, Fig 12-Fig 13), but does not teach an inner concave first surface or outer convex second surface. However, the rearrangement of parts is held unpatentable where the shifting of the position would not have modified the operation of the device. In this case, the swapping of the concave and outer convex surface does not modify the mating of the two surfaces when the cylinder is retracted. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to improve the end effector system of Szymczyk by swapping the first and second surface placements to shift the weight of the self-alignment assembly to the end effector sub assembly. Regarding claim 19, the combination teaches the limitations of claim 18 as described above, Szymczyk further discloses extending the shaft using the second actuator to separate the inner concave first surface from the outer convex second surface before the end effector contacts the object (Col. 9 ln 23-36; Fig 12, Fig 15) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanahashi, Szymczyk, & Portal in view of Goellner . Regarding claim 20, the combination teaches the limitations of claim 18 as described above, the combination does not teach fixing the end of the end effector with a gimbal lock. However, the vacuum workpiece holder of Goellner teaches that after the end effector contacts the object, fixing a position of the end effector by pressing a gimbal lock mechanism (31) against a gimbal ball (44) of the gimbal assembly (Fig 10-15; Col. 6 ln 7-23), wherein the gimbal ball (44) is disposed inside a gimbal housing (41) of the gimbal assembly (Fig 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to improve the end effector of modified Szymczyk with the addition of a gimbal lock assembly to lock the end effector head in place to avoid deformations of grabbed materials during moving by the end effector . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanahashi, Szymczyk & Portal in view of Gidlund (US Patent 4,662,556 A) . Regarding claim 24, the combination teaches the limitations of claim 12 as described above, the combination does not teach the support structure curved to follow an airframe. However, the tool support guide of Banks teaches the support structure (11, 12, Fig 1) is curved to follow a shape of an airframe (Col. 3 ln 16-21), and wherein the lower circumferential guide track and the rack gear are arc-shaped (Fig 1; Col. 3 ln 16-21). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to improve the end effector system of modified Tanahashi by replacing the straight support structure with curved support structure to fix the end effector system relative to the airframe (Col. 1 ln 54-66) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanahashi, Szymczyk & Portal in view of Suzuki . Regarding claim 25, the combination teaches the limitations of claim 18 as described above, the combination does not teach two subsets of channels applying a vacuum that is independently controlled. However, the vacuum end effector of Suzuki discloses grasping the object with the end effector comprises applying a vacuum through a first subset of channels (28a) of the end effector independently from a second subset of channels (27a) of the end effector (Fig 1; Abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to improve the end effector of modified Szymczyk with a plurality of independently controlled vacuum channels and vacuum ports to allow for uniform pressing force of the object when gripped (Pg 3 body 9) . Allowable Subject Matter Claim 9 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Parent claim 112(b) rejections must also be overcome without substantial changes to claimed subject matter. 13-03-01 AIA The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claim 9 includes the limitation that the support legs and position limiters limit the rotation of the gimbal ball and end effector relative to the gimbal housing. Portal discloses position limiters (Annotated Fig 2 above) and Szymczyk discloses a plurality of support legs (83, 87, Fig 7). While prior art discloses support legs and position limiters, these two elements would not be configured to interact together to limit the rotation of the gimbal ball and end effector . Conclusion 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 RALPH D WILKINSON whose telephone number is (571)272-6183. The examiner can normally be reached 8 - 4, M-Fr. 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, Victoria Augustine can be reached at (313) 446-4858. 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. /RALPH D WILKINSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3654 /Victoria P Augustine/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3654 Application/Control Number: 17/833,866 Page 2 Art Unit: 3654 Application/Control Number: 17/833,866 Page 3 Art Unit: 3654 Application/Control Number: 17/833,866 Page 4 Art Unit: 3654 Application/Control Number: 17/833,866 Page 5 Art Unit: 3654 Application/Control Number: 17/833,866 Page 6 Art Unit: 3654 Application/Control Number: 17/833,866 Page 7 Art Unit: 3654 Application/Control Number: 17/833,866 Page 8 Art Unit: 3654 Application/Control Number: 17/833,866 Page 9 Art Unit: 3654 Application/Control Number: 17/833,866 Page 10 Art Unit: 3654 Application/Control Number: 17/833,866 Page 11 Art Unit: 3654 Application/Control Number: 17/833,866 Page 12 Art Unit: 3654 Application/Control Number: 17/833,866 Page 13 Art Unit: 3654 Application/Control Number: 17/833,866 Page 14 Art Unit: 3654
Prosecution Insights