CTNF 17/984,335 CTNF 81255 DETAILED ACTION 1. Claims 1-20 have been presented for examination. Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. PRIORITY 3. Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for priority to provisional application 63/297,900 filed on 01/10/2022. Information Disclosure Statement 4. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/1/22 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the Examiner has considered the IDS as to the merits. 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 5. Claims 1-20 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. i) The term “brittle matrix material” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “brittle matrix material” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. See for example page 20, lines 18-22 of the specification. This renders the claim vague and indefinite. ii) Claim 1 recites “wherein, for each of the plurality of isotropic composite materials, the first reinforcing material has a median particle size and a median particle thickness.” It is unclear what is meant by this phrase? Is this intended to mean that the material has inherent values for median particle size and a median particle thickness? Or rather is this intended to mean that the material is tied to a predetermined median particle size and a median particle thickness. If so what are those predetermined values based on? As such the claim is rendered vague and indefinite. The Examiner will proceed under the assumption that these are inherent values of the materials. iii) The term “glass- like material” in claim 14 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “glass- like material” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. See for example page 20, lines 18-22 of the specification. This renders the claim vague and indefinite. Appropriate correction is required. All claims dependent upon a rejected base claim are rejected by virtue of their dependency. 07-36 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d): (d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph: Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. 07-36-01 AIA 6. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Specifically claim 20 merely recites an intended use statement and as such does not further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends . Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. Appropriate correction is required. All claims dependent upon a rejected base claim are rejected by virtue of their dependency. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. 07-23 AIA The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co. , 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. 07-06 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 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. 07-21-aia AIA 7. Claim (s) 1-5, 14-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 20060057421, hereafter M in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 20050262774, hereafter Eyre . Regarding Claim 1: The reference discloses A method for designing a proposed isotropic composite material with a particular fracture toughness or a proposed orthotropic composite material with a particular delamination toughness, the method comprising: receiving, using a processing device, a measured fracture toughness value for a brittle matrix material; (M. [0029] FIG. 5 shows the step residual stress profile (a) and corresponding apparent fracture toughness (b). The straight line corresponds to the applied stress intensity factor associated to the maximum stress, .sigma..sub.tan (tangent stress).) receiving, using the processing device, a plurality of measured fracture toughness values of a plurality of isotropic composite materials or a plurality of measured delamination toughness values of a plurality of orthotropic composite materials; (M. [0078] Laminate structure is related either to the nature and thickness of the single lamina and to the stacking order of the laminae within the multilayer. According to the theory of composite plies [31], in order to maintain flatness during in-plane loading, as in the case of biaxial residual stresses developed during production, laminate structure has to satisfy some symmetry conditions. If each layer is isotropic, like ceramic laminates with fine and randomly oriented microstructure, the sole condition to be verified is that stacking order of laminae respects the planar symmetry of the whole multilayer. In this case the laminate is orthotropic and its response to loading is similar to that of a homogeneous plate, i.e. no warping during in-plane loading is produced [31].) wherein the plurality of isotropic composite materials each comprise a first reinforcing material dispersed throughout the brittle matrix material; (M. [0078] Laminate structure is related either to the nature and thickness of the single lamina and to the stacking order of the laminae within the multilayer. According to the theory of composite plies [31], in order to maintain flatness during in-plane loading, as in the case of biaxial residual stresses developed during production, laminate structure has to satisfy some symmetry conditions. If each layer is isotropic, like ceramic laminates with fine and randomly oriented microstructure, the sole condition to be verified is that stacking order of laminae respects the planar symmetry of the whole multilayer. In this case the laminate is orthotropic and its response to loading is similar to that of a homogeneous plate, i.e. no warping during in-plane loading is produced [31].) wherein the plurality of orthotropic materials each comprise the first reinforcing material and a second reinforcing material dispersed throughout the brittle matrix material; (M. [0078] Laminate structure is related either to the nature and thickness of the single lamina and to the stacking order of the laminae within the multilayer. According to the theory of composite plies [31], in order to maintain flatness during in-plane loading, as in the case of biaxial residual stresses developed during production, laminate structure has to satisfy some symmetry conditions. If each layer is isotropic, like ceramic laminates with fine and randomly oriented microstructure, the sole condition to be verified is that stacking order of laminae respects the planar symmetry of the whole multilayer. In this case the laminate is orthotropic and its response to loading is similar to that of a homogeneous plate, i.e. no warping during in-plane loading is produced [31].) wherein the first reinforcing material comprises a plurality of particles; (M. [0006] Since plastic deformation mechanisms are strongly inhibited in ceramics, the ways investigated to increase the fracture toughness have been oriented to produce composite microstructures by using the reinforcing effect of a second phase (particles, fibres, whiskers) dispersed in a matrix to promote toughening mechanisms such as crack bridging, bowing or deflection, and the crack-tip and frontal shielding associated to phase-transformation toughening or micro-cracking [1-3].) wherein the second reinforcing material comprises a plurality of fibers; (M. [0006] Since plastic deformation mechanisms are strongly inhibited in ceramics, the ways investigated to increase the fracture toughness have been oriented to produce composite microstructures by using the reinforcing effect of a second phase (particles, fibres, whiskers) dispersed in a matrix to promote toughening mechanisms such as crack bridging, bowing or deflection, and the crack-tip and frontal shielding associated to phase-transformation toughening or micro-cracking [1-3].) wherein, for each of the plurality of isotropic composite materials, the first reinforcing material has a median particle size and a median particle thickness, and each of the isotropic composite materials includes the first reinforcing material at a volume fraction and a number density, and wherein the plurality of isotropic materials each has a different volume fraction, number density, median particle size, median particle thickness, or combination thereof; (M. [0080] In order to visualise the constraining effect it can be useful to analyse what happens in the case of a simple bimaterial trilayer . The choice of a trilayer is related only to the necessity to satisfy the symmetry condition discussed above. FIG. 12 shows a comparison between an asymmetric bilayer and the corresponding symmetric trilayer with the same layer thickness-to-thickness ratio.) wherein, for each of the plurality of orthotropic composite materials, the first reinforcing material has a median particle size and a median particle thickness, and each of the orthotropic composite materials includes the first reinforcing material at a volume fraction and a number density, and the plurality of orthotropic materials each has a different volume fraction, number density, median particle size, median particle thickness, or combination thereof; (M. [0080] In order to visualise the constraining effect it can be useful to analyse what happens in the case of a simple bimaterial trilayer . The choice of a trilayer is related only to the necessity to satisfy the symmetry condition discussed above. FIG. 12 shows a comparison between an asymmetric bilayer and the corresponding symmetric trilayer with the same layer thickness-to-thickness ratio.) optionally storing, using the processing device, the measured fracture toughness value for the brittle material, and the plurality of measured fracture toughness values of the plurality of isotropic composite materials or the plurality of measured delamination toughness values of the plurality of orthotropic composite materials; and (M. [0129] Four-points bending tests were carried out by a universal mechanical testing machine (MTS Systems, mod. 810, USA) using an actuator speed of 5 mm/min, a load cell of 1000 N and nominal inner and outer span of 20 mm and 40 mm, respectively. For each laminate 15-18 samples were considered. A Weibull analysis was performed on bending strength data.) determining, using the processing device, the volume fraction that achieves the particular fracture toughness in the proposed isotropic composite material (M. [0019] Such residual stresses can be either due to differences in the thermal expansion coefficient, in the sintering rates or to diffusionless phase transformations with molar volume change of layer materials. By varying the nature and thickness of the single lamina and the stacking order within the multilayer it is possible to estimate the residual stress profile and the resulting fracture toughness curve and to obtain a "T-curve" fracture behaviour .) or the particular delamination toughness in the proposed orthotropic composite material using a fracture mechanics based model (M. [0110] As previously explained the thickness of the most compressed layer has to be reduced below a minimum value to avoid edge cracking. According to Eq. (21) in the case of intermediate compressive layers placed beyond the most stressed layer, the growing side of T-curve changes only because of the reduction of the compressive stresses according to the decrease of tensile region size. The thickness of these layers can be tailored in an accurate way to obtain exactly the designed bending strength. Usually one intermediate layer is at least required for both side of the profile to avoid delamination. The number of layers is limited only by the minimum thickness that can be obtained. This is related to the used process but a physical limit exists also for the powder grain size. Usually 3-5 .mu.m are considered as the minimum thickness, which can be obtained using micrometric and sub-micrometric powders.) that incorporates the effects of crack-tip shielding due to microcracking induced by the first reinforcing material and local toughness degradation in a fracture process zone. (M. [0006] Since plastic deformation mechanisms are strongly inhibited in ceramics, the ways investigated to increase the fracture toughness have been oriented to produce composite microstructures by using the reinforcing effect of a second phase (particles, fibres, whiskers) dispersed in a matrix to promote toughening mechanisms such as crack bridging, bowing or deflection, and the crack-tip and frontal shielding associated to phase-transformation toughening or micro-cracking [1-3].) M does not explicitly recite determining, using the processing device, the median particle size that achieves the particular fracture toughness in the proposed isotropic composite material. However Eyre discloses determining, using the processing device, the median particle size that achieves the particular fracture toughness in the proposed isotropic composite material. (Eyre. [0024] By forming the substrate using tungsten particles having a larger median size, and in an exemplary embodiment having a median size of about 6-9 .mu.m, applicants have discovered that they can sufficiently increase the strength and fracture toughness of the substrate to overcome a decrease that is caused by a decrease in the cobalt content. Applicants' discovery is confirmed by FIG. 5 which shows a graph of the distribution of the fracture toughness vs. wear number, as determined in accordance with the ASTM B-611 specification, of various Smith International, Inc. grades of tungsten carbide substrates. The grades are three digit grades with the first digit denoting the median particle size of the tungsten carbide in .mu.m and the second two digits denote the percentage of cobalt by weight forming the substrate. For example, a grade 614 tungsten carbide has a median particle size of 6 .mu.m and a cobalt content of about 14% by weight. The median tungsten carbide particle size can be established by well known methods, as for example the ASTM E-112 method. As can be seen from FIG. 5, the fracture toughness and thus the strength of tungsten carbide increases as the median tungsten carbide particle size increases.) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize median particle size as per Eyre for the calculation in M since “the fracture toughness and thus the strength of tungsten carbide increases as the median tungsten carbide particle size increases” as per Eyre above. Regarding Claim 2: The reference discloses The method of claim 1, wherein the method further comprises measuring the fracture toughness of the brittle matrix material. (M. [0019] Such residual stresses can be either due to differences in the thermal expansion coefficient, in the sintering rates or to diffusionless phase transformations with molar volume change of layer materials. By varying the nature and thickness of the single lamina and the stacking order within the multilayer it is possible to estimate the residual stress profile and the resulting fracture toughness curve and to obtain a "T-curve" fracture behaviour .) Regarding Claim 3: The reference discloses The method of claim 1, wherein the method further comprises measuring the fracture toughness of the plurality of isotropic composite materials or measuring the delamination toughness of the plurality of orthotropic composite materials as a function of median particle size and volume fraction. (See rejection of last limitation of claim 1) Regarding Claim 4: The reference discloses The method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of isotropic composite materials includes at least nine different isotropic composite materials or wherein the plurality of orthotropic composite materials includes at least nine different isotropic composite materials. (M. [0090] As discussed above, the degrees of freedom for the design of a generic symmetric laminate profile are (2n-2). This corresponds to the sum of the free variables related to lamina material nature (n) and to the thickness (n), being limited by the boundary condition on the overall thickness and by self-equilibrium of the whole laminate. In such evaluation n represents the numbers of layers produced with different materials, because if different layers are obtained with the same material they have to be computed only once.) Regarding Claim 5: The reference discloses The method of claim 1, wherein the particular fracture toughness of proposed isotropic composite material is the maximum fracture toughness or wherein the particular delamination toughness of the proposed orthotropic composite material is the maximum fracture toughness. (See rejection of last limitation of claim 1) Regarding Claim 14: The reference discloses The method of claim 1, wherein the brittle matrix material comprises a polymer or glass-like material. (M. [0117] The alumina powder dispersion was obtained using a two-step process [24]. In order to enhance the electrostatic interaction between the positive charges on the powder surface and the negative sites on the polymer chains a starting slightly acid water solution (pH=4) was used [36].) Regarding Claim 15: The reference discloses The method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of particles of the first reinforcing material and/or the plurality of fibers of the second reinforcing material independently comprise a metal oxide, a metal carbide, a carbonaceous or graphitic material, silica based materials, or a combination thereof. (M. [0114] Two ceramic multilayers with optimised stress profiles to improve the mechanical behaviour were produced and characterised to demonstrate the validity of the idea proposed in the current patent. To this purpose, composites based on common oxide ceramic materials (alumina, zirconia and mullite) were used.) Regarding Claim 16: M does not explicitly disclose The method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of particles of the first reinforcing material have a flat, plate like 2D structure; wherein the plurality of particles of the first reinforcing material have a median particle size of from 50 nanometers to 50 micrometers; or a combination thereof. However Eyre discloses The method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of particles of the first reinforcing material have a flat, plate like 2D structure; wherein the plurality of particles of the first reinforcing material have a median particle size of from 50 nanometers to 50 micrometers; or a combination thereof. (Eyre [0007]” In another exemplary embodiment, the tungsten carbide substrate has tungsten carbide particles having a median particle size from about 6 .mu.m to about 9 .mu.m.”) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize median particle size as per Eyre for the calculation in M since “the fracture toughness and thus the strength of tungsten carbide increases as the median tungsten carbide particle size increases” as per Eyre above. Regarding Claim 18: The reference discloses A proposed isotropic composite material and/or a proposed orthotropic composite material designed by the method of claim 1. (See rejection for claim 1) Regarding Claim 19: The reference discloses An object or article of manufacture comprising the proposed isotropic composite material and/or the proposed orthotropic composite material of claim 18. (See rejection for claim 1) Regarding Claim 20: The reference discloses A method of use of the proposed isotropic composite material and/or the proposed orthotropic composite material of claim 18, wherein the method comprises using the proposed isotropic composite material and/or the proposed orthotropic composite material in an aerospace, automotive, transportation, sporting good, boating, defense, and/or wind energy application or in a consumer product. (See rejection for claim 1) 07-21-aia AIA 8. Claim (s) 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 20060057421, hereafter M in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 20050262774, hereafter Eyre further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 20120313056, hereafter Baran . Regarding Claim 17: M does not explicitly recite The method of claim 1, wherein the volume fraction of the first reinforcing material is from greater than 0 to 0.010; However Eyre discloses The method of claim 1, wherein the volume fraction of the first reinforcing material is from greater than 0 to 0.010; (Eyre. With respect to volume fraction see Figure 2, x axis whereby the claimed 0 to 0.01 represents 0 to 1% which is read on by the x axis values.) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to volume fraction values as per Eyre for the calculation in M since as per Eyre “[0021] Residual stresses are generated at the interface between the ultra hard material layer and the substrate during sintering. Applicants have discovered that these residual stresses are due to coefficient of thermal expansion ("CTE") mismatch and thus, an elongation mismatch , between the PCD ultra hard material layer and the substrate during cooling from the sintering process when the PCD ultra hard material layer bonds to the substrate. The PCD layer has a lower CTE than the tungsten carbide substrate. A typical PCD layer has a CTE typically in the range of about 1.times.10.sup.-6/.degree. C. to about 5.times.10.sup.-6/.degree. C., whereas conventional tungsten carbide substrates have a CTE of about 5.2.times.10.sup.-6/.degree. C. to about 5.5.times.10.sup.-6/.degree. C., when measured at room temperature. The CTE of a PCD layer is a function of the diamond volume fraction of the layer as for example shown in FIG. 2 where "aUL" denotes the CTE upper limit and "aLL" denotes the CTE lower limit .” M and Eyre do not explicitly recite wherein the number density of the first reinforcing material is from greater than 0 to 1 x 10 9 particles/mm 3 ; or a combination thereof. However Baran discloses wherein the number density of the first reinforcing material is from greater than 0 to 1 x 10 9 particles/mm 3 ; or a combination thereof. ([0010] For example, conductive particles as disclosed herein may be used to provide conductive adhesives with relatively isotropic conductivity properties; or, to provide conductive adhesives with relatively anisotropic conductivity properties (e.g., so-called z-axis conductive adhesives). [0011] In some embodiments, the ratio of the density of the electrically conductive particles to the density of an organic vehicle (e.g., a pressure sensitive adhesive precursor or the adhesive formed therefrom) may be below about 5. For example, the pressure sensitive adhesive resin density may range around from around 0.98 to about 1.1 grams per cubic centimeter, and electrically conductive particles with a low density base particle having a conductive coating may generally have a density below about 5 grams per cubic centimeter (g/cc). In contrast, known electrically conductive metal particles often have a density of at least about 7 g/cc.) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize the density value of Baran for the calculations in M and Eyre since “c onductive adhesives with relatively isotropic conductivity properties ; or, to provide conductive adhesives with relatively anisotropic conductivity properties (e.g., so-called z-axis conductive adhesives). [0011] In some embodiments, the ratio of the density of the electrically conductive particles to the density of an organic vehicle (e.g., a pressure sensitive adhesive precursor or the adhesive formed therefrom) may be below about 5. For example, the pressure sensitive adhesive resin density may range around from around 0.98 to about 1.1 grams per cubic centimeter, and electrically conductive particles with a low density base particle having a conductive coating …” (Baran [0010]-[0011]) Allowable Subject Matter 9. Claims 6-13 are 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 as well as resolving all intervening issues such as the 112 rejections. Claim 6 recites: PNG media_image1.png 254 594 media_image1.png Greyscale PNG media_image2.png 822 520 media_image2.png Greyscale PNG media_image3.png 808 518 media_image3.png Greyscale PNG media_image4.png 510 520 media_image4.png Greyscale The closest prior art of record includes: U.S. Patent Publication No. 20210262051 relates to a steel material and a method for producing the steel material utilizing fracture toughness and particle density. U.S. Patent Publication No. 20040016557 which teaches method for forming coarse carbide substrates for cutting elements and more particularly to a high pressure and high temperature synthesis and calculating fracture toughness and particle size. Tang, Youhong, et al. "Interlaminar fracture toughness and CAI strength of fibre-reinforced composites with nanoparticles–A review." Composites Science and Technology 86 (2013): 26-37. However, the closest prior art of record does not explicitly teach or render obvious the limitations above, particularly in combination with the other limitations within the claims. The dependent claims are allowable for at least the same reasons as their respective independent claims. Conclusion 10. All Claims are rejected. 07-96 AIA 11. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. U.S. Patent Publication No. 20210262051 relates to a steel material and a method for producing the steel material utilizing fracture toughness and particle density. U.S. Patent Publication No. 20040016557 which teaches method for forming coarse carbide substrates for cutting elements and more particularly to a high pressure and high temperature synthesis and calculating fracture toughness and particle size. Tang, Youhong, et al. "Interlaminar fracture toughness and CAI strength of fibre-reinforced composites with nanoparticles–A review." Composites Science and Technology 86 (2013): 26-37. 12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Saif A. Alhija whose telephone number is (571) 272-8635. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 10:00-6:00. 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, Renee Chavez, can be reached at (571) 270-1104. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300. Informal or draft communication, please label PROPOSED or DRAFT, can be additionally sent to the Examiners fax phone number, (571) 273-8635. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). SAA /SAIF A ALHIJA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2186 Application/Control Number: 17/984,335 Page 2 Art Unit: 2186 Application/Control Number: 17/984,335 Page 3 Art Unit: 2186 Application/Control Number: 17/984,335 Page 4 Art Unit: 2186 Application/Control Number: 17/984,335 Page 5 Art Unit: 2186 Application/Control Number: 17/984,335 Page 6 Art Unit: 2186 Application/Control Number: 17/984,335 Page 7 Art Unit: 2186 Application/Control Number: 17/984,335 Page 8 Art Unit: 2186 Application/Control Number: 17/984,335 Page 9 Art Unit: 2186 Application/Control Number: 17/984,335 Page 10 Art Unit: 2186 Application/Control Number: 17/984,335 Page 11 Art Unit: 2186 Application/Control Number: 17/984,335 Page 12 Art Unit: 2186 Application/Control Number: 17/984,335 Page 13 Art Unit: 2186 Application/Control Number: 17/984,335 Page 14 Art Unit: 2186