CTFR 17/906,328 CTFR 92505 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. Response to Amendment The amendment filed on 01/07/2026 has been entered. Claims 1 and 3-20 are currently pending. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the claim objection and 35 USC 112 rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 10/07/2025. 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – 07-08-aia AIA (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-12-aia AIA (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 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. 07-27-aia AIA Claim s 1, 5-6, 8-9, 12-13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1) and (a)(2 ) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Rittenhouse et al. (US 2018/0348825, hereby referred as Ritten) . Regarding claim 1 , Ritten teaches the following: a computing device comprising: a first enclosure (142, figs 14); a second enclosure (144, fig 14); a hinge (146, fig 14) coupled to the first enclosure and the second enclosure, wherein the hinge includes a first hinge flange (154a, figs 14-15), a second hinge flange (154b, figs 14-15), and a connector (152, figs 14-15) disposed between and connected to the first hinge flange and the second hinge flange, wherein a portion of the connector is removed forming a slot (space between elements 154a and 154b including where 150a/b are placed, figs 14-15); and a hinge-based antenna defined by the slot of the hinge (space between elements 154a and 154b including where 150a/b are placed, figs 14-15) and a portion of an air gap (gap between 142 and 144, fig 14) disposed between the first enclosure and the second enclosure, the slot of the hinge being aligned with the portion of the air gap (as shown in fig 14), the hinge-based antenna including an antenna feed element (elements 122, shown in figs 15) disposed within the slot of the hinge and configured to excite the portion of the air gap (“Antenna hinge 146 can function as a slot antenna where a rod area 148 between the two hinge rods along with the space between low profile first housing 142 and low profile second housing 144 can be configured as a slot antenna”, paragraph [0051]). While Ritten does not explicitly teach a portion of the connector is removed forming a slot, there is a slot formed there and the end product is the same of a hinge with a slot antenna (paragraph [0051], “Antenna hinge 146 can function as a slot antenna where a rod area 148 between the two hinge rods along with the space between low profile first housing 142 and low profile second housing 144 can be configured as a slot antenna”). "[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." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). When the reference teaches a product that appears to be the same as, or an obvious variant of, the product set forth in a product-by-process claim although produced by a different process. See In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 799, 218 USPQ 289 (Fed. Cir. 1983) and In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See also MPEP § 2113. Therefore, Ritten is viewed as teaching the claimed limitations. Regarding claim 5 , Ritten as referred in claim 1 teaches the computing device with the exception for the following: wherein the hinge-based antenna includes a flexible member (elements 158, figure 15) that covers the antenna feed element (elements 122, shown in figure 15). Regarding claim 6 , Ritten as referred in claim 1 teaches the following: wherein the hinge is electrically connected to the first enclosure and the second enclosure (“Electronic device 100 can be configured to allow or enable disruptive form factors based on an all metallic chassis design through the use of a micro hinge as an antenna coupling element”, “the space between low profile first housing 142 and low profile second housing 144 can be configured as a slot antenna”, paragraphs [0033], [0034], and [0051]). Regarding claim 8 , Ritten as referred in claim 1 teaches the following: wherein the first enclosure is entirely conductive, and the second enclosure is entirely conductive (“Electronic device 100 can be configured to allow or enable disruptive form factors based on an all metallic chassis design through the use of a micro hinge as an antenna coupling element”, “the space between low profile first housing 142 and low profile second housing 144 can be configured as a slot antenna”, paragraphs [0033], [0034], and [0051]). Regarding claim 9 , Ritten teaches the following: a computing device comprising: a first conductive enclosure (142, figs 13-14, paragraphs [0033], [0034], and [0051]); a second conductive enclosure (144, figs 13-14, paragraphs [0033], [0034], and [0051]); a first hinge (left 146, figs 13-14) coupled to the first conductive enclosure and the second conductive enclosure, wherein the first hinge includes a first hinge flange (154a, figs 14-15), a second hinge flange (154b, figs 14-15), and a connector (152, figs 14-15) disposed between and connected to the first hinge flange and the second hinge flange, wherein a portion of the connector is removed forming a slot (space between elements 154a and 154b including where 150a/b are placed, figs 14-15); a second hinge (right 146, figures 13-14) coupled to the first conductive enclosure and the second conductive enclosure; and a hinge-based antenna defined by the slot of the first hinge (space between elements 154a and 154b including where 150a/b are placed, figs 14-15) and a portion of an air gap (gap between 142 and 144, fig 14) disposed between the first conductive enclosure and the second conductive enclosure, the slot of the first hinge being aligned with the portion of the air gap (as shown in fig 14), the hinge-based antenna including an antenna feed element (elements 122, shown in figs 15) disposed within the slot of the first hinge and configured to excite the portion of the air gap (“Antenna hinge 146 can function as a slot antenna where a rod area 148 between the two hinge rods along with the space between low profile first housing 142 and low profile second housing 144 can be configured as a slot antenna”, paragraph [0051]). While Ritten does not explicitly teach a portion of the connector is removed forming a slot, there is a slot formed there and the end product is the same of a hinge with a slot antenna (paragraph [0051], “Antenna hinge 146 can function as a slot antenna where a rod area 148 between the two hinge rods along with the space between low profile first housing 142 and low profile second housing 144 can be configured as a slot antenna”). "[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." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). When the reference teaches a product that appears to be the same as, or an obvious variant of, the product set forth in a product-by-process claim although produced by a different process. See In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 799, 218 USPQ 289 (Fed. Cir. 1983) and In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See also MPEP § 2113. Therefore, Ritten is viewed as teaching the claimed limitations. Regarding claim 12 , Ritten as referred in claim 9 teaches the following: wherein the slot defines a first longitudinal axis, and the air gap defines a second longitudinal axis, the second longitudinal axis being aligned with the first longitudinal axis (as shown in figure 14, the area of the slot 148 is aligned with an axis of the air gap between elements 142 and 144). Regarding claim 13 , Ritten as referred in claim 9 teaches the following: wherein the hinge-based antenna includes a flexible member (inner surface of 158, figure 15), the flexible member including a first portion coupled to the antenna feed element (elements 122, figure 15), the flexible member including a second portion (outer surface of 158, figure 15) coupled to the hinge. Regarding claim 15 , Ritten as referred in claim 9 teaches the following: wherein the computing device is a laptop computer (paragraph [0033], [0035]) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 3-4, 10, 17-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rittenhouse et al. (US 2018/0348825, hereby referred as Ritten) . Regarding claim 3 , Ritten as referred in claim 1 teaches the computing device with the exception for the following: wherein the hinge-based antenna includes a tuning element disposed within the slot of the hinge. However, Ritten does teach in another embodiment that the hinge-based antenna includes a tuning element (182, figures 9-11) disposed within the slot of the hinge It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the hinge-based antenna of Ritten to include a tuning element disposed within the slot of the hinge as suggested by the teachings of Ritten in order to allow for tuning, such as impedance tuning, at the feed element which may allow for a better power transfer from the feed and improve the performance of the antenna. Regarding claim 4 , Ritten as modified in claim 3 teaches the following: wherein the tuning element includes a capacitor (“Each tuning module 182 may be a resistor/capacitor tuning surface mount technology (SMT) component”, [0046]). Regarding claim 10 , Ritten as referred in claim 9 teaches the computing device with the exception for the following: Wherein the connector is a printed circuit board (PCB) connector. However, Ritten does teach in another embodiment that the connector is a printed circuit board connector (element 178, figs 8-11). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the connector of Ritten to be a printed circuit board (PCB) connector as suggested by the teachings of Ritten in order to allow for tuning, such as impedance tuning, at the feed element which may allow for a better power transfer from the feed and improve the performance of the antenna. Regarding claim 17 , Ritten teaches the following: a computing device comprising: a first enclosure (142, fig 14); a second enclosure (144, fig 14); an air gap (gap between 142 and 144, fig 14) disposed between the first enclosure and the second enclosure, the air gap being defined by an edge of the first enclosure and an edge of the second enclosure (as shown in fig 14); a hinge (146, fig 14) coupled to the first enclosure and the second enclosure, wherein the hinge includes a first hinge flange (154a, figs 14-15), a second hinge flange (154b, figs 14-15), and a connector (152, figs 14-15) disposed between and connected to the first hinge flange and the second hinge flange, wherein a portion of the connector is removed forming a slot (space between elements 154a and 154b including where 150a/b are placed, figs 14-15); and a hinge-based antenna defined by the slot of the hinge (space between elements 154a and 154b including where 150a/b are placed, figs 14-15), the slot being aligned with a portion of the air gap (as shown in fig 14), the hinge-based antenna including an antenna feed element (elements 122, shown in figs 15) disposed within the slot of the hinge at a first location and configured to excite the portion of the air gap such that the portion of the air gap is used as a radiating structure of the hinge-based antenna (“Antenna hinge 146 can function as a slot antenna where a rod area 148 between the two hinge rods along with the space between low profile first housing 142 and low profile second housing 144 can be configured as a slot antenna”, paragraph [0051]). The embodiment of figures 13-15 does not explicitly teach the hinge-based antenna including a tuning element disposed within the slot of the hinge at a second location. However, Ritten does teach in another embodiment that the hinge-based antenna includes a tuning element (182, figures 9-11) disposed within the slot of the hinge at a second location. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the hinge-based antenna of Ritten to include a tuning element disposed within the slot of the hinge at a second location as suggested by the teachings of Ritten in order to allow for tuning, such as impedance tuning, at the feed element which may allow for a better power transfer from the feed and improve the performance of the antenna. While Ritten does not explicitly teach a portion of the connector is removed forming a slot, there is a slot formed there and the end product is the same of a hinge with a slot antenna (paragraph [0051], “Antenna hinge 146 can function as a slot antenna where a rod area 148 between the two hinge rods along with the space between low profile first housing 142 and low profile second housing 144 can be configured as a slot antenna”). "[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." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). When the reference teaches a product that appears to be the same as, or an obvious variant of, the product set forth in a product-by-process claim although produced by a different process. See In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 799, 218 USPQ 289 (Fed. Cir. 1983) and In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See also MPEP § 2113. Therefore, Ritten is viewed as teaching the claimed limitations. Regarding claim 18 , Ritten as modified in claim 17 teaches the following: wherein the first hinge flange having a portion that is included within the first enclosure (as shown in figures 13-14), the second hinge flange having a portion that is included within the second enclosure (as shown in figures 13-14), the connector having a portion that is defined outside of the first enclosure and the second enclosure (as shown in figures 13-14), the slot having a central axis (as shown in figures 13-14), the air gap having a central axis (as shown in figures 13-14), the central axis of the slot being substantially aligned with the central axis of the air gap (as shown in figures 13-14). Regarding claim 20 , Ritten as referred in claim 17 teaches the following: wherein the hinge is electrically connected to the first enclosure and the second enclosure (“Electronic device 100 can be configured to allow or enable disruptive form factors based on an all metallic chassis design through the use of a micro hinge as an antenna coupling element”, “the space between low profile first housing 142 and low profile second housing 144 can be configured as a slot antenna”, paragraphs [0033], [0034], and [0051]) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 7, 14, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rittenhouse et al. (US 2018/0348825, hereby referred as Ritten) in view of Yu et al. (US 2018/0090840, hereby referred as Yu) . Regarding claim 7 , Ritten as referred in claim 1 teaches the computing device with the exception for the following: further comprising: a conductive hinge cover disposed over a portion of the hinge, the conductive hinge cover defining a cavity, the cavity including the antenna feed element. Yu suggests the teachings of a conductive hinge cover (element 1050, figures 11-12) disposed over a portion of the hinge (elements 1110, 1120, and 1210, figures 11-12), the conductive hinge cover defining a cavity (inside of element 1050, figures 11-12), the cavity including the antenna feed element (element 120, figure 11). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the computing device of Ritten to further comprise a conductive hinge cover disposed over a portion of the hinge, the conductive hinge cover defining a cavity, the cavity including the antenna feed element as suggested by the teachings of Yu which can be used to cover portions of the hinge so the components of the hinge and the antenna feed element are protected from external factors such as dust, dirt, or a user of the computing device. Regarding claim 14 , Ritten as referred in claim 9 teaches the following: wherein the hinge is electrically connected to the first conductive enclosure and the second conductive enclosure (as shown in figure 14). Ritten does not teach further comprising a conductive hinge cover disposed over a portion of the hinge, the conductive hinge cover defining a cavity, the cavity including the antenna feed element. Yu suggests the teachings of a conductive hinge cover (element 1050, figures 11-12) disposed over a portion of the hinge (elements 1110, 1120, and 1210, figures 11-12), the conductive hinge cover defining a cavity (inside of element 1050, figures 11-12), the cavity including the antenna feed element (element 120, figure 11). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the computing device of Ritten to further comprise a conductive hinge cover disposed over a portion of the hinge, the conductive hinge cover defining a cavity, the cavity including the antenna feed element as suggested by the teachings of Yu which can be used to cover portions of the hinge so the components of the hinge and the antenna feed element are protected from external factors such as dust, dirt, or a user of the computing device. Regarding claim 19 , Ritten as referred in claim 17 teaches the computing device with the exception for the following: further comprising: a conductive hinge cover disposed over a portion of the hinge. Yu suggests the teachings of a conductive hinge cover (element 1050, figures 11-12) disposed over a portion of the hinge (elements 1110, 1120, and 1210, figures 11-12). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the computing device of Ritten to further comprise a conductive hinge cover disposed over a portion of the hinge as suggested by the teachings of Yu which can be used to cover portions of the hinge so the components of the hinge and the antenna feed element are protected from external factors such as dust, dirt, or a user of the computing device . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rittenhouse et al. (US 2018/0348825, hereby referred as Ritten) in view of Zhu et al. (US 2015/0270619, hereby referred as Zhu) . Regarding claim 11 , Ritten as referred in claim 9 teaches the computing device with the exception for the following: wherein the hinge-based antenna includes a tuning element disposed within the slot of the first hinge, the tuning element including a capacitor, the capacitor having a first terminal connected to a first inner edge of the first hinge and a second terminal connected to a second inner edge of the first hinge. However, Ritten does teach in another embodiment that the hinge-based antenna includes a tuning element (element 182, figs 9-11) disposed within the slot of the hinge, the tuning element including a capacitor (paragraph [0046]). Zhu suggests the teachings of a tuning element (element C, fig 14) disposed within the slot (218, fig 14), the tuning element including a capacitor, the capacitor having a first terminal connected to a first inner edge and a second terminal connected to a second inner edge (paragraph [0066], as shown in fig 14). It is also known in the art that a tuning element, such as a capacitor or inductor can be placed across a slot antenna for tuning purposes. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the antenna of Ritten to further comprise a tuning element disposed within the slot of the first hinge and the tuning element including a capacitor as suggested by the teachings of Ritten in order to allow for tuning, such as impedance tuning, at the feed element which may allow for a better power transfer from the feed and improve the performance of the antenna, and for the capacitor to have a first terminal connected to a first inner edge of the first hinge and a second terminal connected to a second inner edge of the first hinge as suggested by the teachings of Zhu and known in the art which is an alternative way to implement the capacitor of Ritten instead of the surface mount capacitor which may be an easier and cheaper way instead of requiring a printed circuit board Ritten while also allowing for the same tuning . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rittenhouse et al. (US 2018/0348825, hereby referred as Ritten) in view of Thakur et al. (US 2020/0127384, hereby referred as Thakur) . Regarding claim 16 , Ritten as referred in claim 9 teaches the computing device with the exception for the following: wherein the computing device is a foldable display device, the foldable display device including a foldable display coupled to the first conductive enclosure and the second conductive enclosure. Thakur suggests the teachings of wherein the computing device is a foldable display device (figure 8), the foldable display device including a foldable display coupled to the first enclosure (806, figure 8) and the second conductive enclosure (808, figure 8). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the computing device of Ritten to be a foldable display device, the foldable display device including a foldable display coupled to the first conductive enclosure and the second conductive enclosure as suggested by the teachings of Thakur as having a foldable display devices is a known way to increase the display size while also eliminating the need for a keyboard as an alternative to a traditional laptop (figs 1 and 8). Additional Comments 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Yu et al. (US 2018/090840) could also be used as alternative to reject the independent claims, and the dependent claims, as explained in the cited written opinion of the international searching authority. Many of the cited reference also teach hinge slot antennas and may be used alone or in combination to reject the current claims . Response to Arguments 07-37 AIA Applicant's arguments filed 01/07/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding the amended independent claims, the applicant argues that Rittenhouse does not teach ”wherein the hinge includes a first hinge flange, a second hinge flange, and a connector disposed between and connected to the first hinge flange and the second hinge flange, wherein a portion of the connector is removed forming a slot”, specifically since the incidental spaces between the first housing securing means 154a and the second house securing means 154b are not a slot formed by removal of a portion of a connector. The examiner respectfully disagrees. While Ritten does not explicitly teach a portion of the connector is removed forming a slot, there is a slot formed there and the end product is the same of a hinge with a slot antenna (paragraph [0051], “Antenna hinge 146 can function as a slot antenna where a rod area 148 between the two hinge rods along with the space between low profile first housing 142 and low profile second housing 144 can be configured as a slot antenna”). "[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." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). When the reference teaches a product that appears to be the same as, or an obvious variant of, the product set forth in a product-by-process claim although produced by a different process. See In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 799, 218 USPQ 289 (Fed. Cir. 1983) and In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See also MPEP § 2113. Furthermore, the process step of removing is only mentioned once in the specification and does not appear to create a nonobvious difference in the product. Therefore, Ritten is viewed as teaching the claimed limitations as explained above. The dependent claims are also rejected as explained above. 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 AB SALAM ALKASSIM JR whose telephone number is (571)270-0449. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday. 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, Dameon Levi can be reached at (571) 272-2105. 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. /AB SALAM ALKASSIM JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2845 Application/Control Number: 17/906,328 Page 2 Art Unit: 2845 Application/Control Number: 17/906,328 Page 3 Art Unit: 2845 Application/Control Number: 17/906,328 Page 4 Art Unit: 2845 Application/Control Number: 17/906,328 Page 5 Art Unit: 2845 Application/Control Number: 17/906,328 Page 6 Art Unit: 2845 Application/Control Number: 17/906,328 Page 7 Art Unit: 2845 Application/Control Number: 17/906,328 Page 8 Art Unit: 2845 Application/Control Number: 17/906,328 Page 9 Art Unit: 2845 Application/Control Number: 17/906,328 Page 10 Art Unit: 2845 Application/Control Number: 17/906,328 Page 11 Art Unit: 2845 Application/Control Number: 17/906,328 Page 12 Art Unit: 2845 Application/Control Number: 17/906,328 Page 13 Art Unit: 2845 Application/Control Number: 17/906,328 Page 14 Art Unit: 2845 Application/Control Number: 17/906,328 Page 15 Art Unit: 2845 Application/Control Number: 17/906,328 Page 16 Art Unit: 2845 Application/Control Number: 17/906,328 Page 17 Art Unit: 2845
Prosecution Insights