CTNF 18/131,783 CTNF 89707 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 Claims 1-20 filed on 04/26/2023 are pending Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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. 07-07-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. 07-15-03-aia AIA Claim s 1, 8, 10, 11, 17 and 19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ramanathan et al. (“Ramanathan”) [U.S Patent Application Pub. 2022/0366696 A1] Regarding claim 1, Ramanathan meets the claim limitations as follows (emphasis added): At least one non-transitory machine-readable storage medium having instructions stored thereon (i.e. ‘a program of instructions’) [para. 0127] , wherein the instructions, when executed on processing circuitry (i.e. ‘a computer processor’) [para. 0127: ‘a machine-readable storage device for execution by a programmable processor’] , cause the processing circuitry to: receive , via interface circuitry [Figs. 1-2: ‘system 100’, e.g. event detector; para. 0127: ‘electronic circuitry’] , sensor data (e.g. ‘ the camera image 122’ ) [Figs. 1-2; para. 0040, 0043, 0053] captured by a plurality of sensors (e.g. ‘one or more cameras 110 installed’) [para. 0010, 0039-0040, 0043, 0114: ‘the monitoring system may activate additional sensors in response to detecting the motion event’; ‘collects data from various sensors in order to monitor conditions and events’] ; detect , based on performing event detection (e.g. ‘areas of interest for motion detection’) on the sensor data, an inconsistency among the sensors (i.e. ‘obtaining a map of false motion event detections ’) [Figs. 1-2; para. 0004, 0006, 0010, 0014, 0018, 0058, 0062, 0101] ; detect , based on the sensor data, an external environment of the sensors (e.g. ‘a scene within a field of view of a camera’; ‘areas of interest for motion detection’; ‘activation of the motion sensor or other sensor of a doorbell’) [Figs. 1-2; para. 0014, 0043-0044] ; adjust (i.e. ‘AOI adjuster’ 140) [Figs. 1-2; para. 0004, 0010, 0018, 0058, 0062, 0101: ‘adjusting areas of interest for motion detection’; ‘AOI adjustment in response to a repositioning of the camera 110’] , based on the external environment of the sensors, one or more configuration parameters (i.e. ‘AOI’) for event detection [Figs. 1-2; para. 0004, 0010, 0018; 0058, 0062, 0101: ‘movement detected by the camera can trigger the camera, a monitoring system, or both, to perform one or more action’; ‘AOI adjustment in response to a repositioning of the camera 110, or in response to the camera 110 detecting a new object’; ‘The AOI adjuster 140 adjusts the AOI based on the motion events 132’] ; and perform event detection on the sensor data based on the one or more adjusted configuration parameters [Figs. 1-2: ‘Event Detector’ 130 based on ‘Adjusted AOI’ 150] . Regarding claim 8, Ramanathan meets the claim limitations as follows (emphasis added): The storage medium of claim 1, wherein: the one or more configuration parameters (i.e. ‘AOI’) are associated at least in part with one or more event detection models (i.e. ‘an AOI adjuster can use an algorithm to automatically detect objects’) [Figs. 1-2; para. 0004, 0010, 0012, 0018; 0058, 0062, 0101: ‘movement detected by the camera can trigger the camera, a monitoring system, or both, to perform one or more action’; ‘The AOI adjuster 140 adjusts the AOI based on the motion events 132’] , wherein the one or more event detection models are trained to perform event detection (i.e. ‘a pretrained object detector’) [para. 0046, 0059: ‘a pre-trained object detector on camera images’] based on the sensor data captured by one or more of the sensors; and the instructions that cause the processing circuitry to adjust (i.e. ‘AOI adjuster’ 140) [Figs. 1-2; para. 0004, 0010, 0018, 0058, 0062, 0101: ‘adjusting areas of interest for motion detection’; ‘AOI adjustment in response to a repositioning of the camera 110’] , based on the external environment of the sensors, the one or more configuration parameters (i.e. ‘AOI’) for event detection [Figs. 1-2; para. 0004, 0010, 0018; 0058, 0062, 0101: ‘movement detected by the camera can trigger the camera, a monitoring system, or both, to perform one or more action’; ‘AOI adjustment in response to a repositioning of the camera 110, or in response to the camera 110 detecting a new object’; ‘The AOI adjuster 140 adjusts the AOI based on the motion events 132’] further cause the processing circuitry to: reconfigure [Fig. 1, 2: ‘Adjusted AOI 150’] , based on the external environment of the sensors, the one or more event detection models used to perform event detection. Regarding claim 10, Ramanathan meets the claim limitations as follows: The storage medium of claim 1, wherein the plurality of sensors include at least one of a camera [Fig. 1: camera 110] , a microphone [para. 0114: ‘microphone’] , a location sensor, a radio frequency identification (RFID) sensor, a light detection and ranging (LIDAR) sensor, a radio detection and ranging (RADAR) sensor [para. 0042: ‘radio wave images’] , an ultrasonic sensor, a thermal sensor, an infrared sensor [Fig. 0042: ‘infrared images’] , a temperature sensor, a gas sensor, or a magnetic sensor. Regarding claim 11, the corresponding system in the claim is identical in scope and function to the previously rejected “non-transitory machine-readable storage medium” claim 1, and is therefore rejected in the same manner. Regarding claim 17, the corresponding system in the claim is identical in scope and function to the previously rejected “non-transitory machine-readable storage medium” claim 8, and is therefore rejected in the same manner. Regarding claim 19, the corresponding method in the claim is identical in scope and function to the previously rejected “non-transitory machine-readable storage medium” claim 1, and is therefore rejected in the same manner . 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 for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 07-20-aia AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. 07-21-aia AIA Claim 2 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramanathan in view of Sasabuchi et al. (“Sasabuchi”) [US 2014/0368668 A1] Regarding claim 2, Ramanathan meets the claim limitations as follows: The storage medium of claim 1, wherein the instructions that cause the processing circuitry to detect, based on performing event detection on the sensor data, the inconsistency among the sensors (i.e. ‘obtaining a map of false motion event detections ’) [Figs. 1-2; para. 0006, 0014] further cause the processing circuitry to: perform event detection (i.e. ‘Event Detector 130’) on the sensor data captured by the plurality of sensors [Figs. 1-2; para. 0006, 0014, 0060-0104: ‘… the adjusted AOI 150 by refining the initial AOI 102’] ; detect an event (i.e. ‘adjusted AOI 150’ and ‘Event Detector 130’) based on the sensor data captured by a first subset of the sensors (i.e. ‘a first area of interest’ of camera 110) [Figs. 1-3; para. 0006, 0014, 0060-0104, 0119-0120: ‘… using a first area of interest of a scene within a field of view of a camera …’; ‘obtaining a map of true motion event detections using the first area of interest’] ; and fail to detect the event (i.e. ‘obtaining a map of false motion event detections ’) based on the sensor data captured by a second subset of the sensors (i.e. ‘a second area of interest’; ‘ one or more additional sensors , e.g., motion sensors, additional cameras’) [Figs. 1-3; para. 0006, 0014, 0060-0104, 0110-0111, 0119-0120: ‘obtaining a map of false motion event detections ’; ‘determining whether true motion event detections using the second area of interest’] . Ramanathan does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations (emphasis added): fail to detect the event based on the sensor data captured by a second subset of the sensors. However in the same field of endeavor Sasabuchi discloses the deficient claim as follows: fail to detect the event based on the sensor data [Fig. 1: Failure Determination 14 based on object detection 11 by radar 2] captured by a second subset of the sensors (e.g. radar) [Figs. 1-2, 7: S101: detect position by radar; conclusive camera failure count S107] . Ramanathan and Sasabuchi are combinable because they are from the same field of motion failure determination. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Ramanathan and Sasabuchi as motivation to include a radar [Sasabuchi: Fig. 1; para. 0003] as an additional motion sensor [Ramanathan: para. 0043: ‘the camera 110 … triggered by activation of the motion sensor’] for early determination of an abnormality in an image capturing device [para. 0003, 007-0014] . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 3 and 12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramanathan in view of Han et al. (“Han”) [US 2005/0104960 A1] Regarding claim 3, Ramanathan meets the claim limitations as follows: The storage medium of claim 1, wherein the instructions that cause the processing circuitry to detect, based on the sensor data, the external environment of the sensors (e.g. ‘a scene within a field of view of a camera’; ‘areas of interest for motion detection’; ‘activation of the motion sensor or other sensor of a doorbell’) [Figs. 1-2; para. 0014, 0043-0044] further cause the processing circuitry to: detect, based on the sensor data, one or more conditions of the external environment (i.e. ‘areas of interest for motion detection’ or ‘a doorbell’) , wherein the one or more conditions include at least one of lighting [para. 0114: ‘turning on a porch light’] , weather, visibility (i.e. ‘turning on a porch light’) , noise, location, or time of day. Ramanathan does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations (emphasis added): wherein the one or more conditions include at least one of lighting , weather, visibility, noise, location , or time of day. However in the same field of endeavor Han discloses the deficient claim as follows: wherein the one or more conditions [Figs. 1A, 2, 9: ‘The image-based multiple-object tracking system’] include at least one of lighting, weather, visibility, noise, location, or time of day [para. 0003, 0024, 0049, 0137: ‘the system’s assessment as the locations of objects’; ‘to changed lighting conditions’] . Ramanathan and Han are combinable because they are from the same field of motion failure determination. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Ramanathan and Han as motivation to include detecting true motion, lighting or location of the object for a surveillance system. Regarding claim 12, all claim limitations are set forth as claim 3 in the system form and rejected as per discussion for claim 3 . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 4-6, 9, 13-15 and 18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramanathan in view of Merrill et al. (“Merrill”) [US 9,743,013 B1] Regarding claim 4, Ramanathan meets the claim limitations as follows: The storage medium of claim 1, wherein: the one or more configuration parameters include one or more sensor settings (i.e. ‘AOI’) associated with one or more of the sensors [Figs. 1, 2: ‘Adjusted AOI 150’; ; para. 0004, 0010, 0018; 0058, 0062, 0101: ‘AOI adjustment in response to a repositioning of the camera 110, or in response to the camera 110 detecting a new object’; ‘The AOI adjuster 140 adjusts the AOI based on the motion events 132’] ; and the instructions that cause the processing circuitry to adjust, based on the external environment of the sensors, the one or more configuration parameters for event detection further cause the processing circuitry to: adjust, based on the external environment of the sensors, the one or more sensor settings [Figs. 1, 2: ‘Adjusted AOI 150’; ; para. 0004, 0010, 0018; 0058, 0062, 0101: ‘AOI adjustment in response to a repositioning of the camera 110, or in response to the camera 110 detecting a new object’; ‘The AOI adjuster 140 adjusts the AOI based on the motion events 132’] . Ramanathan does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations (emphasis added): wherein: …; and the instructions that cause the processing circuitry to adjust, based on the external environment of the sensors, the one or more configuration parameters for event detection further cause the processing circuitry to: adjust , based on the external environment of the sensors, the one or more sensor settings . However in the same field of endeavor Merrill discloses the deficient claim as follows: wherein: …; and the instructions that cause the processing circuitry to adjust, based on the external environment of the sensors, the one or more configuration parameters for event detection further cause the processing circuitry to: adjust, based on the external environment of the sensors, the one or more sensor settings [col. 9: ‘adjusted for a camera include pan angle(s), pitch angle(s), zoom, focus, sensitivity …’] . Ramanathan and Merill are combinable because they are from the same field of surveillance systems. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Ramanathan and Merill as motivation to include a networks of cameras and/or other sensors that effectively cooperate with one another to use hiding devices to hide or disguise [Merill: col. 1, 2] . Regarding claim 5, Ramanathan meets the claim limitations set forth in claim 4: Ramanathan does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations: The storage medium of claim 4, wherein: the plurality of sensors include a camera; and the one or more sensor settings include: one or more pan, tilt, or zoom settings associated with a field of view of the camera; a resolution of the camera; a frame rate of the camera; or a lighting intensity of the camera. However in the same field of endeavor Merrill discloses the deficient claim as follows: wherein: the plurality of sensors include a camera; and the one or more sensor settings include: one or more pan, tilt, or zoom settings associated with a field of view of the camera; a resolution of the camera; a frame rate of the camera; or a lighting intensity of the camera [col. 9: ‘adjusted for a camera include pan angle(s), pitch angle(s), zoom, focus, sensitivity, aperture setting, frame-rate …’] . Ramanathan and Merill are combinable because they are from the same field of surveillance systems. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Ramanathan and Merill as motivation to include a networks of cameras and/or other sensors that effectively cooperate with one another to use hiding devices to hide or disguise [Merill: col. 1, 2] . Regarding claim 6, Ramanathan meets the claim limitations as follows: The storage medium of claim 4, wherein: the plurality of sensors include a microphone [Ramanathan: para. 0114: ‘microphone’] ; and the one or more sensor settings include: a sensitivity of the microphone; a beam direction of the microphone; or a sampling rate of the microphone. Ramanathan does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations (emphasis added): wherein: the plurality of sensors include a microphone; and the one or more sensor settings include: a sensitivity of the microphone; a beam direction of the microphone; or a sampling rate of the microphone. However in the same field of endeavor Merill discloses the deficient claim as follows: wherein: the plurality of sensors include a microphone; and the one or more sensor settings include: a sensitivity of the microphone; a beam direction of the microphone; or a sampling rate of the microphone [col. 9, ll. 50-55: ‘adjusting the sensitivity of microphones’; ‘adjusting the pointing directions of directional microphones’] . Ramanathan and Merill are combinable because they are from the same field of surveillance systems. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Ramanathan and Merill as motivation to include a networks of cameras and/or other sensors that effectively cooperate with one another to use hiding devices to hide or disguise [Merill: col. 1, 2] . Regarding claim 9, Ramanathan meets the claim limitations as follows: The storage medium of claim 8, wherein the instructions that cause the processing circuitry to reconfigure [Fig. 1, 2: ‘Adjusted AOI 150’] , based on the external environment of the sensors, the one or more event detection models (i.e. ‘an AOI adjuster can use an algorithm to automatically detect objects’) [Figs. 1-2; para. 0004, 0010, 0012, 0018; 0058, 0062, 0101: ‘movement detected by the camera can trigger the camera, a monitoring system, or both, to perform one or more action’; ‘The AOI adjuster 140 adjusts the AOI based on the motion events 132’] used to perform event detection further cause the processing circuitry to: adjust, based on the external environment of the sensors, one or more performance characteristics (i.e. ‘AOI’) of the one or more event detection models [Figs. 1-2; para. 0004, 0010, 0018; 0058, 0062, 0101: ‘movement detected by the camera can trigger the camera, a monitoring system, or both, to perform one or more action’; ‘AOI adjustment in response to a repositioning of the camera 110, or in response to the camera 110 detecting a new object’; ‘The AOI adjuster 140 adjusts the AOI based on the motion events 132’] ; or replace [Fig. 1, 2: ‘Adjusted AOI 150’] , based on the external environment of the sensors, the one or more event detection models with one or more alternative event detection models, wherein the one or more alternative event detection models have different performance characteristics than the one or more event detection models. Ramanathan does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations (emphasis added): adjust, based on the external environment of the sensors, one or more performance characteristics of the one or more event detection models; or replace, based on the external environment of the sensors, the one or more event detection models with one or more alternative event detection models, wherein the one or more alternative event detection models have different performance characteristics than the one or more event detection models. However in the same field of endeavor Merrill discloses the deficient claim as follows: adjust, based on the external environment of the sensors, one or more performance characteristics of the one or more event detection models [col. 9: ‘adjusted for a camera include pan angle(s), pitch angle(s), zoom, focus, sensitivity …’; ‘adjusting the sensitivity of microphones’; ‘adjusting the pointing directions of directional microphones’] ; or replace (i.e. ‘adjusted’) , based on the external environment of the sensors, the one or more event detection models with one or more alternative event detection models, wherein the one or more alternative event detection models have different performance characteristics than the one or more event detection models [col. 9: ‘adjusted for a camera include pan angle(s), pitch angle(s), zoom, focus, sensitivity …’; ‘adjusting the sensitivity of microphones’; ‘adjusting the pointing directions of directional microphones’] . Ramanathan and Merill are combinable because they are from the same field of surveillance systems. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Ramanathan and Merill as motivation to include a networks of cameras and/or other sensors that effectively cooperate with one another to use hiding devices to hide or disguise [Merill: col. 1, 2] . Regarding claim 13, all claim limitations are set forth as claim 4 in the system form and rejected as per discussion for claim 4. Regarding claim 14, all claim limitations are set forth as claim 5 in the system form and rejected as per discussion for claim 5. Regarding claim 15, all claim limitations are set forth as claim 6 in the system form and rejected as per discussion for claim 6. Regarding claim 18, all claim limitations are set forth as claim 9 in the system form and rejected as per discussion for claim 9 . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 7, 16 and 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramanathan in view of Zhou et al. (“Zhou”) [US 2016/0273921 A1] Regarding claim 7, Ramanathan meets the claim limitations set forth in claim 1. Ramanathan does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations: The storage medium of claim 1, wherein: the one or more configuration parameters include one or more sensor fusion weights, wherein the one or more sensor fusion weights indicate a level of influence of one or more of the sensors for performing event detection; and the instructions that cause the processing circuitry to adjust, based on the external environment of the sensors, the one or more configuration parameters for event detection further cause the processing circuitry to: adjust, based on the external environment of the sensors, the one or more sensor fusion weights. However in the same field of endeavor Zhou discloses the deficient claim as follows: wherein: the one or more configuration parameters include one or more sensor fusion weights [para. 0211: ‘one or more weight values can be determined …;] , wherein the one or more sensor fusion weights indicate a level of influence (i.e. ‘indicative of the accuracy of a machine vision algorithm’) of one or more of the sensors for performing event detection [para. 0211: ‘such that the weight value is based on a parameter indicative of the accuracy of a machine vision algorithm used to analyze vision sensing data’] ; and the instructions that cause the processing circuitry [Fig. 4, 6: camera 602, 604; IMU 606, GPS 608] to adjust , based on the external environment of the sensors (e.g.; one or more of sensor signal strength or magnitude, …, or a state of the movable object’) [Fig. 6] , the one or more configuration parameters (i.e. ‘The weight value can be determined’) [para. 0211: ‘The weight value can be determined …. based on any suitable parameter, such as one or more of sensor signal strength or magnitude, …, or a state of the movable object’] for event detection further cause the processing circuitry to: adjust, based on the external environment of the sensors, the one or more sensor fusion weights (i.e. ‘The weight value can be determined’) [para. 0211: ‘The weight value can be determined by the sensor fusion module 520 based on any suitable parameter, such as one or more of sensor signal strength or magnitude, number of sensing signals received by a sensing system, sensor type, or a state of the movable object’] . Ramanathan and Zhou are combinable because they are from the same field of sensor fusion. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Ramanathan and Zhou as motivation to include sensor fusion as an improved system for collecting positional information for movable objects such as unmanned vehicles [para. 0003] . Regarding claim 16, all claim limitations are set forth as claim 7 in the system form and rejected as per discussion for claim 7. Regarding claim 20, all claim limitations are set forth as claim 7 in the method form and rejected as per discussion for claim 7 . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See form 892 . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER D LE whose telephone number is (571)270-5382. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Alternate Friday: 10AM-6:30PM. 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, SATH PERUNGAVOOR can be reached on 571-272-7455. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. 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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /PETER D LE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2488 Application/Control Number: 18/131,783 Page 2 Art Unit: 2488 Application/Control Number: 18/131,783 Page 3 Art Unit: 2488 Application/Control Number: 18/131,783 Page 4 Art Unit: 2488 Application/Control Number: 18/131,783 Page 5 Art Unit: 2488 Application/Control Number: 18/131,783 Page 6 Art Unit: 2488 Application/Control Number: 18/131,783 Page 7 Art Unit: 2488 Application/Control Number: 18/131,783 Page 8 Art Unit: 2488 Application/Control Number: 18/131,783 Page 9 Art Unit: 2488 Application/Control Number: 18/131,783 Page 10 Art Unit: 2488 Application/Control Number: 18/131,783 Page 11 Art Unit: 2488 Application/Control Number: 18/131,783 Page 12 Art Unit: 2488 Application/Control Number: 18/131,783 Page 13 Art Unit: 2488 Application/Control Number: 18/131,783 Page 14 Art Unit: 2488 Application/Control Number: 18/131,783 Page 15 Art Unit: 2488 Application/Control Number: 18/131,783 Page 16 Art Unit: 2488 Application/Control Number: 18/131,783 Page 17 Art Unit: 2488 Application/Control Number: 18/131,783 Page 18 Art Unit: 2488 Application/Control Number: 18/131,783 Page 19 Art Unit: 2488 Application/Control Number: 18/131,783 Page 20 Art Unit: 2488
Prosecution Insights