CTFR 17/885,950 CTFR 87538 DETAILED ACTION Claims 1-20 are pending. 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. This final office action is in response to the applicant’s response received on 02/04/2026, for the non-final office action mailed on 11/05/2025. Examiner’s Notes Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers, paragraph numbers, or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 02/04/2026 regarding rejection made under 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant’s amendment only adds information regarding what the configuration data represents, but as a whole the claim limitation is just gathering data. Configuring, by the mirrored operator according to the current operand snapshot, a set of mirrored operands, the configuring resulting in a first configuration of the set of mirrored operands and modifying, by the mirrored operator according to the change request, the first configuration of the set of mirrored operands, the modifying resulting in a second configuration of the set of mirrored operands are mental processes that can be carried out by a developer setting up the configurations for the mirrored operator and also modifying the configurations again to the mirrored operands. Applicant argues a human could not practically perform the claimed operations of “configuring, by the mirrored operator according to the current operand snapshot, a set of mirrored operands… and modifying, by the mirrored operator according to the change request, the first configuration of the set of mirrored operands,” see applicant’s remarks pp. 10. Examiner respectfully disagrees, as stated in the 101 rejection below, “modifying, by the mirrored operator according to the change request, the first configuration of the set of mirrored operands, the modifying resulting in a second configuration of the set of mirrored operands” can be performed by a developer or administrator changing the configuration based on the received request and configuring, by the mirrored operator according to the current operand snapshot, a set of mirrored operands” can be done by a developer looking at the current situation and configuring one machine to match the current operations of another machine. Applicant further argues the claims have not been analyzed as a whole, see applicant’s remarks pp. 11. Examiner respectfully disagrees as the claim limitation have given weight as a whole regarding the claim limitations receiving the current operand snapshot being an abstract idea and receiving a change request being related to gathering data and mere instructions to perform an abstract idea and doesn’t add anything that would be significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim as a whole would not produce a technological improvement because receiving a change request is just gathering data in which an abstract idea can be performed using mere instructions such as a developer using data to set up mirror operands based on a current operand that a developer can access. Applicant further argues Desjardins mentioning a case being rejected under 102/103 should not be rejected under 101 and should be the same for this application, applicant’s remarks pp. 12-13. Examiner respectfully disagrees as the 101 rejection still applies no matter whether there is a 102/103 rejection being made. Examiner will make all applicable rejections. Applicant does not analogize the facts of Desjardins with the instant case. Desjardins was determined to be an improvement to the functioning of the machine learning model itself. This concept has no analog in the instant claims. This argument is not persuasive. Applicant argues a technical solution to a problem arising in computerized data-processing systems and how it integrates any alleged mental process into a practical application, see application’s remarks pp. 16. Examiner respectfully disagrees as the claims are directed to an abstract idea when reciting “configuring, by the mirrored operator according to the current operand snapshot, a set of mirrored operands, the configuring resulting in a first configuration of the set of mirrored operands and modifying, by the mirrored operator according to the change request, the first configuration of the set of mirrored operands, the modifying resulting in a second configuration of the set of mirrored operands” and the rest of the claimed invention does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, thus lack an inventive concept for patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Furthermore, applicant argues the claims are directed to a specific improvement in computer-implemented data-processing systems by automating configuration, see applicant’s remarks pp. 17. Examiner respectfully disagrees as this is the mental process, the mental process itself cannot be the improvement (MPEP § 2106.05(a) “It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements.”). Also, mere automation of otherwise manual processes is not sufficient to integrate into practical application (MPEP § 2106.05(a)(I) “Examples that the courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality: […] “iii. Mere automation of manual processes, such as using a generic computer to process an application for financing a purchase, Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services””). Applicant further argues claim limitations cannot be performed mentally, see applicant’s remarks pp. 18. As stated above examiner respectfully disagrees, as stated in the 101 rejection below, “modifying, by the mirrored operator according to the change request, the first configuration of the set of mirrored operands, the modifying resulting in a second configuration of the set of mirrored operands” can be performed by a developer or administrator changing the configuration based on the received request and configuring, by the mirrored operator according to the current operand snapshot, a set of mirrored operands” can be done by a developer looking at the current situation and configuring one machine to match the current operations of another machine. Applicant's arguments filed 02/04/2026 regarding rejection made under 35 U.S.C. § 102 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of new ground(s) rejection. Applicant argues Kandamuthan does not teach “configuration data defining a configuration of a set of source operands managed by a source operator,” see applicant’s remarks pp. 19-21. Examiner respectfully disagrees as Kandamuthan teaches configurations being included from the source data associated with the backup operation, see Kandamuthan paragraph [0017]. Furthermore, examiner relied on new prior art Lu et al. (US-PGPUB-NO: 2022/0070192 A1) regarding the configuration data being sufficient to enable the mirrored operator to configure a set of mirrored operands corresponding to the set of source operands (see Lu paragraph [0068], “using the packet characteristic checking module to check each piece of the characteristic data segment to determine whether they have a protocol payload matching an element in a predetermined protocol payload set, and generate a first permission command or a mirroring command accordingly, where the predetermined protocol payload set includes ARP payload, ICMP payload, TCP payload with SYN being 1, and UDP payload with a target network address having a port number of 53, and if the check result is true, let the mirroring command be active to enable the mirroring module to generate a mirror packet according to a piece of the network packet corresponding to the check result, and when the check result is false, let the first permission command be active to drive the path control module to transfer a piece of the network packet corresponding to the check result to a target device (step a3)”). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Statutory Category: Claims 1, 10 and 20 are directed to a method, a computer program product and a system, respectively. Therefore, the claims are direct to one of the four statutory categories of inventions. Step 2A – Prong 1: Claim 1, 10 and 20 recites, configuring, by the mirrored operator according to the current operand snapshot, a set of mirrored operands, the configuring resulting in a first configuration of the set of mirrored operands and modifying, by the mirrored operator according to the change request, the first configuration of the set of mirrored operands, the modifying resulting in a second configuration of the set of mirrored operands. These limitations as drafted, is a process that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers an abstract idea such as performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, other than a generic computer (i.e., “processor”), nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed mentally. For example, modifying, by the mirrored operator according to the change request, the first configuration of the set of mirrored operands, the modifying resulting in a second configuration of the set of mirrored operands can be performed by a developer or administrator changing the configuration based on the received request. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within a category of abstract idea such as mental process grouping of an abstract idea. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under step 2A prong 1. Step 2A-Prong 2: The additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The limitations “receiving, from a source operator at a mirrored operator, a current operand snapshot, the current operand snapshot comprising configuration data defining a configuration of a set of source operands managed by the source operator, the configuration data being sufficient to enable the mirrored operator to configure a set of mirrored operands corresponding to the set of source operands, the set of source operands comprising at least one source operand and receiving, from the source operator at the mirrored operator” add insignificant extra solution activity, such as data gathering, see MPEP 2106.05(g). The limitations “a change request, the change request comprising a request to modify the configuration of the set of source operands” recites mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, the additional elements recited in the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Step 2B: As discussed with respect to step 2A prong 2, The additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The limitations “a change request, the change request comprising a request to modify the configuration of the set of source operands” recites mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). The limitations “receiving, from a source operator at a mirrored operator, a current operand snapshot, the current operand snapshot comprising configuration data defining a configuration of a set of source operands managed by the source operator, the configuration data being sufficient to enable the mirrored operator to configure a set of mirrored corresponding to the set of source operands, the set of source operands comprising at least one source operand and receiving, from the source operator at the mirrored operator” add insignificant extra solution activity, such as data gathering, see MPEP 2106.05(g) amount to well-understood, routine conventional activities as seen in the court case storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93. Accordingly, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, thus lack an inventive concept for patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Regarding claims 2-5 and 11-14 the additional elements “registering to receive the current operand snapshot,” “wherein the current operand snapshot is received via a first broadcast,” “registering to receive the change request,” and “wherein the change request is received via a second broadcast” add insignificant extra solution activity, such as data gathering, see MPEP 2106.05(g). Regarding claims 6-9 and 15-19 the additional elements “wherein the source operator executes in a source environment and the mirrored operator executes in a mirrored environment, and wherein the source environment and the mirrored environment are not configured identically,” “wherein the source operator executes in a source environment and the mirrored operator executes in a mirrored environment, and wherein the source environment is inaccessible to a support organization and the mirrored environment is accessible to the support organization,” recites field of use/technological environment, see MPEP 2106.05.(h) “wherein the mirrored operator provides the current operand snapshot to a second mirrored operator executing in a second mirrored environment” and “wherein the mirrored operator provides the change request to a second mirrored operator executing in a second mirrored environment” recites insignificant extra-solution activity of data transmission, see MPEP 2106.05(g). The limitations “registering to receive the current operand snapshot,” “wherein the current operand snapshot is received via a first broadcast,” “registering to receive the change request,” “wherein the change request is received via a second broadcast”, “wherein the mirrored operator provides the current operand snapshot to a second mirrored operator executing in a second mirrored environment” and “wherein the mirrored operator provides the change request to a second mirrored operator executing in a second mirrored environment” add insignificant extra solution activity, such as data gathering, see MPEP 2106.05(g) amount to well-understood, routine conventional activities as seen in the court cases storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93 and receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information). Accordingly, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, thus lack an inventive concept for patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Thus, the limitations do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under prong 2, or amounts to significantly more under Step 2B. 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, 2, 4, 6, 8-11, 13, 15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kandamuthan (US-PGPUB-NO: 2018/0314454 A1), in further view of Lu et al. (US-PGPUB-NO: 2022/0070192 A1) hereinafter Lu . As per claim 1, Kandamuthan teaches a computer-implemented method comprising: receiving, from a source operator at a mirrored operator, a current operand snapshot, the current operand snapshot comprising configuration data defining a configuration of a set of source operands managed by the source operator, the set of source operands comprising at least one source operand (see Kandamuthan paragraph [0020], showing a current snapshot being sent to the backup storage (i.e., mirrored operator) from the source system (i.e., source operator) ; configuring, by the mirrored operator according to the current operand snapshot, a set of mirrored operands, the configuring resulting in a first configuration of the set of mirrored operands (see Kandamuthan paragraph [0017], showing the image-based backups or the snapshots comprising configurations ) ; receiving, from the source operator at the mirrored operator, a change request, the change request comprising a request to modify a configuration of the set of source operands (see Kandamuthan paragraph [0040], showing the source system sending and storing updates of the set of deduplication data for the backup operation ) ; and modifying, by the mirrored operator according to the change request, the first configuration of the set of mirrored operands, the modifying resulting in a second configuration of the set of mirrored operands (see Kandamuthan paragraph [0041], showing the deduplication data being specified and sending to backup storage storing the data block to the specified snapshot ) . Kandamuthan does not explicitly teach the configuration data being sufficient to enable the mirrored operator to configure a set of mirrored operands corresponding to the set of source operands. However, Lu teaches the configuration data being sufficient to enable the mirrored operator to configure a set of mirrored operands corresponding to the set of source operands (see Lu paragraph [0068], “using the packet characteristic checking module to check each piece of the characteristic data segment to determine whether they have a protocol payload matching an element in a predetermined protocol payload set, and generate a first permission command or a mirroring command accordingly, where the predetermined protocol payload set includes ARP payload, ICMP payload, TCP payload with SYN being 1, and UDP payload with a target network address having a port number of 53, and if the check result is true, let the mirroring command be active to enable the mirroring module to generate a mirror packet according to a piece of the network packet corresponding to the check result, and when the check result is false, let the first permission command be active to drive the path control module to transfer a piece of the network packet corresponding to the check result to a target device (step a3)”). Kandamuthan and Lu are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor of software development. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art to modify before the effective filing date of the claimed invention Kandamuthan’s teaching of deduplicating snapshots associated with a backup operation with Lu’s teaching of detecting malicious behaviors on the network without affecting the transfer speed of normal packets to incorporate being able to activate mirroring based on characteristic data in order to prevent network speed slow down. As per claim 2, Kandamuthan modified with Lu teaches further comprising: registering to receive the current operand snapshot (see Kandamuthan paragraph [0020], showing a link within the data block being sent for storage ). As per claim 4, Kandamuthan modified with Lu teaches further comprising: registering to receive the change request (see Kandamuthan [0040], showing a link being part of the data block when an update is made to a set of deduplication data ). As per claim 6, Kandamuthan modified with Lu teaches wherein the source operator executes in a source environment and the mirrored operator executes in a mirrored environment, and wherein the source environment and the mirrored environment are not configured identically (see Kandamuthan FIG.1, showing source system 102 and Backup Storage 108 being separate, see also Kandamuthan paragraph [0041], showing a lighter weight representation of the data block being sent to the backup storage (i.e., not identical) ) . As per claim 8, Kandamuthan modified with Lu teaches wherein the mirrored operator provides the current operand snapshot to a second mirrored operator executing in a second mirrored environment (see Kandamuthan [0020], showing backup media (i.e., second mirrored environment) ) . As per claim 9, Kandamuthan modified with Lu teaches wherein the mirrored operator provides the change request to a second mirrored operator executing in a second mirrored environment (see Kandamuthan [0020], showing the updated data being backed up into backup media (i.e., second mirrored environment) ) . As per claims 10, 11, 13 and 15, these are the computer program product claims to computer-implemented method claims 1, 2, 4 and 6, respectively. Therefore, they are rejected for the same reasons as above. As per claim 20, this is the computer system claim to computer-implemented method claim 1. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reasons as above . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 3, 5, 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kandamuthan (US-PGPUB-NO: 2018/0314454 A1) and Lu (US-PGPUB-NO: 2022/0070192 A1), in further view of Zhang et al. (US-PGPUB-NO: 2018/0189151 A1) hereinafter Zhang . As per claim 3, Kandamuthan modified with Lu do not explicitly teach wherein the current operand snapshot is received via a first broadcast. However, Zhang teaches wherein the current operand snapshot is received via a first broadcast (see Zhang paragraph [0066], showing data packets which includes a snapshot being sent from a source device to a backup device ). Kandamuthan, Lu and Zhang are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor of software development. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art to modify before the effective filing date of the claimed invention Kandamuthan’s teaching of deduplicating snapshots associated with a backup operation and Lu’s teaching of detecting malicious behaviors on the network without affecting the transfer speed of normal packets with Zhang’s teaching of data backup in storage systems to incorporate sending data packets from a source device to a backup device via a protocol in order to transmit data from one device to another. As per claim 5, Kandamuthan modified with Lu do not explicitly teach wherein the change request is received via a second broadcast. However, Zhang teaches wherein the current operand snapshot is received via a first broadcast (see Zhang paragraph [0066], showing data packets which includes a snapshot being sent from a source device to a backup device and further see Zhang paragraph [0088], showing data packet having data change log ). As per claims 12 and 14, these are the computer program product claims to computer-implemented method claims 3 and 5, respectively. Therefore, they are rejected for the same reasons as above . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 7, 16, 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kandamuthan (US-PGPUB-NO: 2018/0314454 A1) and Lu (US-PGPUB-NO: 2022/0070192 A1), in further view of Pradhan et al. (US-PGPUB-NO: 2017/0189151 A1) hereinafter Pradhan . As per claim 7, Kandamuthan modified with Lu do not explicitly teach wherein the source operator executes in a source environment and the mirrored operator executes in a mirrored environment, and wherein the source environment is inaccessible to a support organization and the mirrored environment is accessible to the support organization. However, Pradhan teaches wherein the source operator executes in a source environment and the mirrored operator executes in a mirrored environment, and wherein the source environment is inaccessible to a support organization and the mirrored environment is accessible to the support organization (see Pradhan paragraph [0194], showing an information management policy in which a set of preferences or criteria for performing information management operations are set and also see Pradhan paragraph [0312], showing data stored in a non-distributed manner at the backup system (i.e., inaccessible) and transferring from a non-distributed local storage environment (i.e., source environment) to a distributed storage environment (i.e., mirrored environment) to give third party organizations access ). Kandamuthan, Lu and Pradhan are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor of software development. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art to modify before the effective filing date of the claimed invention Kandamuthan’s teaching of deduplicating snapshots associated with a backup operation and Lu’s teaching of detecting malicious behaviors on the network without affecting the transfer speed of normal packets with Pradhan’s teaching data transfer to a distributed storage environment to incorporate a policy which would include who has access and how to access the data. As per claim 16, this is the computer program product claim to computer-implemented method claim 7. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reasons as above. As per claim 17, Kandamuthan modified with Lu and Pradhan teaches wherein the stored program instructions are stored in the at least one of the one or more storage media of a local data processing system, and wherein the stored program instructions are transferred over a network from a remote data processing system ( see Pradhan paragraph [0312], showing data stored in a non-distributed manner at the backup system (i.e., inaccessible) and transferring from a non-distributed local storage environment (i.e., source environment) to a distributed storage environment (i.e., mirrored environment) to give third party organizations access ). As per claim 19, Kandamuthan modified with Lu and Pradhan teaches wherein the computer program product is provided as a service in a cloud environment (see Pradhan paragraph [0058], showing storage devices being provided in a cloud storage environment ) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kandamuthan (US-PGPUB-NO: 2018/0314454 A1) and Lu (US-PGPUB-NO: 2022/0070192 A1), in further view of Hu et al. (US-PGPUB-NO: 2022/0027311 A1) hereinafter Hu . As per claim 18, Kandamuthan modified with Lu teaches wherein the stored program instructions are stored in the at least one of the one or more storage media of a server data processing system (see Kandamuthan paragraph [0016] , showing backup server backing up data into backup media 110 ). Kandamuthan modified with Lu do not explicitly teach wherein the stored program instructions are downloaded over a network to a remote data processing system for use in a computer readable storage device associated with the remote data processing system. However, Hu teaches wherein the stored program instructions are downloaded over a network to a remote data processing system for use in a computer readable storage device associated with the remote data processing system (see Hu paragraph [0056], showing computer-readable program instructions being downloaded to an external computer or external storage device via a network ). Kandamuthan, Lu and Hu are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor of software development. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art to modify before the effective filing date of the claimed invention Kandamuthan’s teaching of deduplicating snapshots associated with a backup operation and Lu’s teaching of detecting malicious behaviors on the network without affecting the transfer speed of normal packets with Hu’s teaching of a method for copying data to incorporate being able to download data to an external storage device in order to make the data more accessible externally to more organization or clients. Conclusion 07-39 AIA THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 LENIN PAULINO whose telephone number is (571)270-1734. The examiner can normally be reached Week 1: Mon-Thu 7:30am - 5:00pm Week 2: Mon-Thu 7:30am - 5:00pm and Fri 7:30am - 4:00pm EST. 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, Bradley Teets can be reached on (571) 272-3338. 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. /LENIN PAULINO/Examiner, Art Unit 2197 /BRADLEY A TEETS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2197 Application/Control Number: 17/885,950 Page 2 Art Unit: 2197 Application/Control Number: 17/885,950 Page 3 Art Unit: 2197 Application/Control Number: 17/885,950 Page 4 Art Unit: 2197 Application/Control Number: 17/885,950 Page 5 Art Unit: 2197 Application/Control Number: 17/885,950 Page 6 Art Unit: 2197 Application/Control Number: 17/885,950 Page 8 Art Unit: 2197 Application/Control Number: 17/885,950 Page 9 Art Unit: 2197 Application/Control Number: 17/885,950 Page 10 Art Unit: 2197 Application/Control Number: 17/885,950 Page 11 Art Unit: 2197 Application/Control Number: 17/885,950 Page 12 Art Unit: 2197 Application/Control Number: 17/885,950 Page 13 Art Unit: 2197 Application/Control Number: 17/885,950 Page 14 Art Unit: 2197 Application/Control Number: 17/885,950 Page 15 Art Unit: 2197 Application/Control Number: 17/885,950 Page 18 Art Unit: 2197 Application/Control Number: 17/885,950 Page 20 Art Unit: 2197 Application/Control Number: 17/885,950 Page 22 Art Unit: 2197 Application/Control Number: 17/885,950 Page 23 Art Unit: 2197
Prosecution Insights