CTFR 18/049,257 CTFR 75804 FINAL ACTION 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 action is responsive to the Amendment and Response filed 09 February 2026 (as well as the interview of 26 May 2026). Claims 24-25, 31-34, 36, and 40 have been amended and claims 26, 29-30, and 37-39 have been canceled. It is noted that all objections/rejections applied against claims 26, 29-30, and 37-39 are moot in view of the cancelation of those claims. Claims 25 and 36 remain withdrawn, and claims 21-24, 27-28, 31-35, and 40 remain under consideration. Applicant’s amendments and arguments have been thoroughly reviewed, and have overcome the following objections/rejections set forth in the prior Office action: The objection to the specification in view of Applicant’s corrective amendment; The objections to the claims, in view of Applicant’s corrective amendments; The rejections under 35 USC 112(b) in view of Applicant’s clarifying amendments (although it is noted that claim 40 may require further additional clarification dependent upon the manner in which claim 32 is amended; this specifically pertains to the need for proper antecedent basis for the limitation “the individual with or without the high risk”, as claim 32 is unclear at (d) [see rejection below]); The rejections of claims under 35 USC 102 and 35 USC 103, in view of Applicant’s amendment of each of the independent claims to require that “the at least one T cell regulation gene comprises ACVR1C or DNM1P46”; and The rejection of claim 21 and claims dependent therefrom under 35 USC 101, as while the claims are indefinite for the reasons indicated below, claim 21 as amended requires one or more types of “treating” that apply the JE of the claims; and The non-statutory double patenting rejections of claims 22 and 33 as being unpatentable over claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,512,351, in view of the amendment of those claims to require that “the at least one T cell regulation gene comprises ACVR1C and DNM1P46”. Claims 21-24, 27-28, 31-35, and 40 remain rejected for the reasons given below, which include new grounds of rejection necessitated by Applicant’s amendments. Any rejections and/or objections not reiterated in this action have been withdrawn. This action is FINAL. 07-103 AIA The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. Comment Regarding Entry of Non-Compliant Amendment It is noted that Applicant’s amendment filed 09 February 2026 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.121(c)(4) because the claim set includes the text of canceled claims. While the amendment has been entered as a courtesy (as the status of the claims is considered clear by the examiner), future amendments should comply with all requirements of 37 CFR 1.121. Election/Restrictions 08-25-02 Applicant’s election of the species of (a) ACVR1C as the “at least one T cell regulation gene”, and (b) FITM1 as the “at least one additional gene” in the reply filed on 19 September 2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). 08-06 AIA Claim s 25 and 36 remain withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species , there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 19 September 2025. It is noted that these claims will be eligible for rejoinder upon allowance of the independent claims from which they depend; as indicated above, the prior art rejections applied against claims 21 and 32 have been withdrawn . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)/second paragraph THE FOLLOWING INCLUDES NEW GROUNDS OF REJECTION NECESSITATED BY APPLICANT’S AMENDMENTS : 07-34-01 Claims 21-24, 27-28, 31-35, and 40 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. Claims 21-24, 27-28, and 31 are indefinite over the recitation of the limitation “treating the individual identified with the high risk with palliative treatment or optical medical management, and treating an individual not identified with the high risk with interventional treatment, surgical treatment, or a combination thereof”. First, it is noted that the preamble of claim 21 recites “identifying an individual with a high risk…” and that the claim then goes on to recite use of “at least one sample from the individual”, and “identifying the individual with the high risk”; thus, the claim initially appears to be directed to “identifying” this type of individual (as opposed to reciting something more general, e.g., “an individual”). While the claim as amended now does clearly require some type of “treating” (despite the failure to reference “treating” in the preamble) – and is clear with regard to the type of “treating” that occurs in case when a “high risk” individual is identified – it is not clear how the additional language “and treating an individual not identified with the high risk with interventional treatment, surgical treatment, or a combination thereof” limits what is claimed. In particular, this language has multiple reasonable interpretations involving different boundaries, including: a) an additional step of “treating” that is performed with regard to the recited type of individual; b) an alternative treatment that is performed in instances when the “identifying” of (b) does not have a positive outcome; and c) any type of the recited “treating” performed with regard to “an individual not identified with the high risk…” (but without a requirement for the performance of the recited method steps with regard to such an individual). Further clarification is therefore needed to ensure that the boundaries of the claims are clear. Claim 28 is indefinite over the recitation of the limitation “the reference expression”. As claim 21 has been amended to recite “a first reference expression” and “a second reference expression”, clear antecedent basis for “the first reference expression” recited in dependent claim 28 is now lacking. The claim should be amended to clarify what element of claim 21 is being further limited. Claims 32-35 and 40 are indefinite over the addition to claim 32 of the new limitation “(d) generate a treatment regimen for the individual, wherein the individual with the high risk of not recovering from the treatment for organ failure is assigned a treatment regimen of palliative treatment or optimal medical management, and an individual not identified with the high risk is assigned a treatment regimen of interventional treatment, surgical treatment, or a combination thereof”. First , as was the case with independent claim 21, the claim previously refers to “identifying an individual with a high risk” (preamble), and subsequent recites a program including instructions configured to “determine” differential expression “in at least one sample from the individual” and ‘identify the individual with the high risk”); thus, the new language reference “generate a treatment” includes the first reference in the claim to “an individual not identified with the high risk”. It is thus not clear how this individual relates to the rest of the claim and what is required of the “generating a treatment”; more particularly, this language may reasonably be interpreted as requiring such “generating” with regard to multiples types of individuals, or as a recitation of alternative treatment regimens, with the requirements pertaining to the “individual not at identified with the high risk” being unclear (as far as how such “identifying” occurs with respect to that other type of individual). Second , the claim as amended is now directed a system comprising “(a) a digital processing device”, “(b) a computer program”, and “(d) generate a treatment regimen….”; the lack of any element “(c)” creates confusion regarding whether something may be missing from the claim, and the recitation of “(d) generate a treatment regimen” as an element of the recited system is simply confusing (as it appears that this might be, e.g., an additional instruction executable by the computer program rather than an additional system component). Clarification is therefore required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 THE FOLLOWING INCLUDES NEW GROUNDS OF REJECTION NECESSITATED BY APPLICANT’S AMENDMENTS : Claims 32-35 and 40 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Independent claim 32 as amended continues to be directed to a “system” for “identifying an individual with a high risk of not recovering from a treatment for organ failure”, with the system requiring a digital processing device including a computer program configured to “determine” differential expression and “identify the individual”; amended claim 32 now also recites that the system includes “generate a treatment regimen for the individual”, wherein a type of treatment is “assigned” to one or more types of individuals (see (d) of amended claim 32). While these activities are reciting in the context of a “system” comprising a device/computer for performing them, they remain abstract ideas (as the claim recites determination of expression data regarding a sample and “identifying” a risk associated with the individual “when” certain differential expression is present, as well as the new further [as well as unclear] recitation of “generate a treatment regimen” that merely requires that a treatment regimen be “assigned”). As previously noted, the courts do not distinguish between mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer (MPEP 2106.04(a)(III)), and the amended claims - to the extent that they are presently understood - continue to embrace such mental processes/abstract ideas, i.e., a judicial exception. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims are directed to abstract ideas with additional computer elements; the generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract ideas because they amount to simply implementing the abstract ideas on a computer. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims recite and embrace any “digital processing device comprising an operating system configured to perform executable instructions and a memory” and a computer program including the instructions – i.e., well-understood, routine, and conventional computer components and functions (as recognized by the court decisions listed in MPEP 2106.05(d); and see also Topol et al [previously above]). While it is noted that claim 32 has been amended to recite particular genes, the claims mere require comparing information regarding expression of those genes, which is a more particular type of judicial exception (as opposed to something “significantly more” than a JE). With further regard to dependent claims 33-35, these claims again recite a more particular “at least one T cell regulation gene” (claim 33) and more particular types of “at least one additional gene” (claims 34-35); these are simply more specific judicial exceptions (with the “differential” gene expression itself constituting another type of judicial exception, a natural phenomenon/law of nature, and the “determining” of such differential expression an abstract idea). Again (with regard to claims 33-35, as well as amended independent claim 32), an inventive concept cannot be furnished by a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature/natural phenomenon/abstract idea) itself (see MPEP 2106.05(I)); these claims add nothing amounting to either a practical application of a JE or “significantly more” than a JE. Regarding claim 40, the claims does not recite a requirement for any actual treatment; rather, the claim recites performing a comparison to achieve treatment “determination” within the context of a “treatment determination module”, which is not an application/implementation of a JE, or anything “more” than a JE. Thus, none of claims 32-35 and 40 is directed to patent eligible subject matter. The Reply of 09 February 2026 traverses the rejection on the grounds that Applicant’s amendments have overcome the rejection, stating that the steps recited in the claims “are not ones that can be performed entirely in the human mind” (Reply page 10). This argument has been thoroughly considered but is not persuasive because the amended claims continue to be directed to patent ineligible subject matter for the reasons set forth in the revised rejection above. Regarding the issue of whether steps as set forth in claim 32 may be performed entirely in the human mind, it is reiterated that – as is discussed in MPEP 2106.04(a)(III)(C) – a claim that requires a computer may still recite a mental process, particularly in instances when the claim is directed to a mental process/concept performed on a generic computer or in a computer environment, or when a computer is simply a tool to perform the process (all of which appear applicable to the present claims). Thus, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive regarding the present claims. Double Patenting 08-33 AIA The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg , 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman , 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi , 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum , 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington , 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer. THE FOLLOWING INCLUDES NEW GROUNDS OF REJECTION NECESSITATED BY APPLICANT’S AMENDMENTS : 08-34 AIA Claim s 21, 23-24, 27-28, and 31 remain rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,512,351 (cited in IDS) . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the ‘351 claims anticipate at last some embodiments embraced by the instant claims. While it is noted that the ‘447 claims do not read on the read on the ACVR1C gene, the presently rejected claims now recite “ACVR1C or DNM1P46” (it is noted that the rejection of claim 22, which requires ACVR1C and DNM1P46, has been withdrawn). The ‘447 claims recite methods including measuring DNM1P46 expression levels (as well as those of other genes, including other preferred genes recites in the instant dependent claims (e.g., SAP25). Further, treatments as recited in the ‘351 claims are also set forth in the “identifying” of treatment risk(s) (and the newly recited “treating”) in the present claims, such that those elements of the claims are also present in the ‘351 claims. Thus, instant claims 21, 23-24, 27-28, and 31 are not patentably distinct from the ‘351 claims . 08-36 AIA Claim s 32, 34-35, and 40 remain rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,512,351 in view of Topol et al . As discussed in the immediately preceding paragraph, the ‘351 claims anticipate methods comprising detecting/determining, identifying, and treating as set forth in instant claims 21, 23-24, 27-28, and 31 as directed to DNM1P46 (as was the case with claim 22, the rejection of claim 33 has been withdrawn in view of the amendment of that claim to require ACVR1C and DNM1P46, as the ‘351 claims do not recite ACVR1C). Instant claims 32, 34-35 and 40 essentially implement such methods on a generic computer system comprising a digital processing device and a program, as well as an (indefinite) newly added component “generate a treatment regimen” (see (d) of claim 32) that appears to add an additional instructional element (i.e., non-functional descriptive material). While the ’351 claims do not recite such a system, the ‘351 claims in view of Topol et al render such systems obvious, and not patentably distinct, from the ‘351 claims. Topol et al teach compositions, systems and methods in which biomarkers “such as gene expression profiles” are employed in diagnosis of myocardial infarction (MI) risk and provision of information regarding that risk, such as to a patient or healthcare provider; see entire reference, particularly the Abstract. Particularly relevant to the instant claims, Topol et al disclose methods for “diagnosing the likelihood that an individual will respond to a treatment regimen for a cardiovascular disorder” (as well as determining and prescribing an appropriate treatment regimen for a subject having a cardiovascular disorder), the methods comprising detecting gene expression levels, comparing them with a control/standard, and “characterizing the individual as likely to respond to or not likely to respond to a treatment regimen” based on the identified differential expression (or prescribing a treatment based on the identified differential expression) (see, e.g., paragraphs 8-9). Topol et al further teach systems for performing such methods, which systems may include sample analyzers, as well as multiple software modules (for receiving gene expression data and determining risk, etc.), as well as standard computer components such as a computer processing device, electronic memory, executable instructions/a computer program (such as the disclosed software), etc. (see, e.g., paragraph 11). Among the preferred types of systems taught by Topol et al are devices in which information regarding an individual is displayed/outputted to a user interface device – which information may include measured levels of biomarkers, risk scores, etc. – and which devices may be a smart phone, personal digital assistant, laptop computer, etc. (see, e.g., paragraph 203). Topol et al thus teach systems comprising a digital processing device and program as required by the claims, as well as generation of treatment regimens based on likelihood of response. Thus, in view of the teachings of Topol et al, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the methods of the ‘351 claims so as to have implemented those methods via a system as taught by Topol et al, and thereby to have prepared a system meeting the requirements of the claims. An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to have so modified the methods the ‘351 claims for the benefit of facilitating the analysis of patient data and communicating the results of that analysis to either a patient or a medical provider, thereby facilitating the proper treatment of the patient. As such, the instant claims are not patentably distinct from the ‘351 claims . 08-34 AIA Claim s 21-24, 27-28, and 31 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1-11 of U.S. Patent No. 10,704,093 (cited in IDS) . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the ‘093 claims anticipate at last some embodiments embraced by the instant claims . In particular (and addressing the genes now recited in amended independent claim 21), gene expression levels of ACVR1C and DNM1P46 are each recited in the “determining…in the sample” of ‘093 claim 1, and with regard to the newly added “treating” of instant claim 21, the ‘093 claims include “providing a treatment” based on relative expression levels, with the treatment types being embraced by the new language of amended claim 21. Further, it is noted that the reference genes of the ‘093 claims (e.g., see claim 1) include alternatives set forth in the instant dependent claims (e.g., SAP25), and that the “providing a treatment” of ‘093 claims implements treatments in a manner that encompasses the “identifying” of the instant claims (particularly given the indefiniteness of the instant claims). Thus, the ‘093 claims continue to anticipate the instant amended claims, and instant claims 21-24, 27-28, and 31 are thus not patentably distinct from the ‘093 claims . 08-36 AIA Claim s 32-35 and 40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1-11 of U.S. Patent No. 10,704,093 in view of Topol et al . It is reiterated that the original restriction requirement set forth in the application corresponding to the ‘093 patent (US 16/028,369) separated methods of treating (Group I) from a “computer implemented system” (Group II). In contrast, in the instant application methods for “identifying an individual” and a “system for identifying an individual” of the same type have been examined together as a single invention. At the time of restriction of the ‘369 application, the method claims of the ‘369 application were directed to treatments requiring gene expression determination followed by “providing a treatment”, while the “computer-implemented system” comprised components including a sample receiver and a display module (in addition to a digital processing device, a computer program including instructions related to any “at least one” recited gene” and a treatment module). Groups I-II of the ‘369 application were properly restricted from one another; however – in view of the common steps/activities and purpose of the instant claims, and thus lack of serious burden in examination of all claims as directed to the elected species – such a restriction would not properly apply in the instant application. Furthermore, the claims of the instant application are not consonant with the restriction requirement made in the ‘369 application, as the claims have been changed in material respects from the claims at the time the requirement was made. As such, there is no prohibition against a holding of nonstatutory double patenting in the present case. See MPEP 804.01. As discussed in the immediately preceding paragraph, the ‘093 claims anticipate methods as set forth in instant claims 21-24, 27-28, and 31. Instant claims 32-35 and 40 essentially implement such methods on a generic computer system comprising a digital processing device and a program, as well as an (indefinite) newly added component “generate a treatment regimen” (see (d) of claim 32) that appears to add an additional instructional element (i.e., non-functional descriptive material). While the ’093 claims do not recite such a system, the ‘093 claims in view of Topol et al render such systems obvious, and not patentably distinct, from the ‘093 claims. Topol et al teach compositions, systems and methods in which biomarkers “such as gene expression profiles” are employed in diagnosis of myocardial infarction (MI) risk and provision of information regarding that risk, such as to a patient or healthcare provider; see entire reference, particularly the Abstract. Particularly relevant to the instant claims, Topol et al disclose methods for “diagnosing the likelihood that an individual will respond to a treatment regimen for a cardiovascular disorder” (as well as determining and prescribing an appropriate treatment regimen for a subject having a cardiovascular disorder), the methods comprising detecting gene expression levels, comparing them with a control/standard, and “characterizing the individual as likely to respond to or not likely to respond to a treatment regimen” based on the identified differential expression (or prescribing a treatment based on the identified differential expression) (see, e.g., paragraphs 8-9). Topol et al further teach systems for performing such methods, which systems may include sample analyzers, as well as multiple software modules (for receiving gene expression data and determining risk, etc.), as well as standard computer components such as a computer processing device, electronic memory, executable instructions/a computer program (such as the disclosed software), etc. (see, e.g., paragraph 11). Among the preferred types of systems taught by Topol et al are devices in which information regarding an individual is displayed/outputted to a user interface device – which information may include measured levels of biomarkers, risk scores, etc. – and which devices may be a smart phone, personal digital assistant, laptop computer, etc. (see, e.g., paragraph 203). Topol et al thus teach systems comprising a digital processing device and program as required by the claims, as well as generation of treatment regimens based on likelihood of response. Thus, in view of the teachings of Topol et al, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the methods of the ‘093 claims so as to have implemented those methods via a system as taught by Topol et al, and thereby to have prepared a system meeting the requirements of the claims. An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to have so modified the methods the ‘093 claims for the benefit of facilitating the analysis of patient data and communicating the results of that analysis to either a patient or a medical provider, thereby facilitating the proper treatment of the patient. As such, the instant claims are not patentably distinct from the ‘093 claims. It is noted that the Reply of 09 February 2026 states that “Applicants are willing to submit a terminal disclaimer if appropriate” upon indication of allowable claims, but does not traverse the rejections (and terminal disclaimers have not yet been provided). The amended claims remain unpatentable over the cited patents for the reasons indicated 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 DIANA B JOHANNSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-0744. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:30 am-3:30 pm 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, Wu-Cheng Winston Shen can be reached at (571) 272-3157. 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. /DIANA B JOHANNSEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1682 Application/Control Number: 18/049,257 Page 2 Art Unit: 1682 Application/Control Number: 18/049,257 Page 3 Art Unit: 1682 Application/Control Number: 18/049,257 Page 4 Art Unit: 1682 Application/Control Number: 18/049,257 Page 5 Art Unit: 1682 Application/Control Number: 18/049,257 Page 6 Art Unit: 1682 Application/Control Number: 18/049,257 Page 7 Art Unit: 1682 Application/Control Number: 18/049,257 Page 8 Art Unit: 1682 Application/Control Number: 18/049,257 Page 9 Art Unit: 1682 Application/Control Number: 18/049,257 Page 10 Art Unit: 1682 Application/Control Number: 18/049,257 Page 11 Art Unit: 1682 Application/Control Number: 18/049,257 Page 12 Art Unit: 1682 Application/Control Number: 18/049,257 Page 13 Art Unit: 1682 Application/Control Number: 18/049,257 Page 14 Art Unit: 1682 Application/Control Number: 18/049,257 Page 16 Art Unit: 1682 Application/Control Number: 18/049,257 Page 17 Art Unit: 1682 Application/Control Number: 18/049,257 Page 18 Art Unit: 1682 Application/Control Number: 18/049,257 Page 19 Art Unit: 1682
Prosecution Insights