CTNF 18/292,226 CTNF 96404 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statements (IDS) was submitted on 1/25/2024. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner. Specification Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details. 06-13 AIA The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is 177 words in length . Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b). Appropriate correction is required. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation 07-30-03 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. 07-30-05 The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the spec ification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as "configured to" or "so that"; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. 07-30-06 This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “an assignment unit” and “an estimation unit” in claims 1 and 7 which are interpreted as described in Figs. 2, 3 and its related descriptions (paragraphs 0022-0023 and 0049-0068 related to descriptions related to CPU 11). Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. The current 35 USC 101 analysis is based on the current guidance (Federal Register vol. 79, No. 241. pp. 74618-74633). The analysis follows several steps. Step 1 determines whether the claim belongs to a valid statutory class. Step 2A prong 1 identifies whether an abstract idea is claimed. Step 2A prong 2 determines whether any abstract idea is integrated into a practical application. If the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application the claim is patent eligible under 35 USC 101. Last, step 2B determines whether the claims contain something significantly more than the abstract idea. In most cases the existence of a practical application predicates the existence of an additional element that is significantly more. The 35 USC 101 analysis between each element of claims and its combination is presented in the table below Claim number and elements Judicial exception (Step 2A Prong one) Practical application (Step 2A Prong two)/ Significantly more (Step 2B) Claim 1 Step2A Prong one: Yes Step 2A Prong two: No / Step 2B: No A three-dimensional point group identification device comprising: an assignment unit that assigns a label indicating an object or a type of the object corresponding to some three-dimensional points included in a three-dimensional point group to the three-dimensional points based on data indicating a geographical position of the object by a polygon formed by connecting a plurality of coordinate points, a line formed by connecting a plurality of coordinate points, or one coordinate point itself; and Step 1: Yes, statutory class abstract idea math “an assignment unit” is a high level of generality. “assigns a label indicating an object or a type of the object corresponding to some three-dimensional points …” is a math process. an estimation unit that estimates a label of three- dimensional points to which the label has not been assigned by propagating the label of the three-dimensional points to which the label has been assigned to the three-dimensional points to which the label has not been assigned based on similarity between the three-dimensional points to which the label has been assigned and the three-dimensional points to which the label has not been assigned. abstract idea math “an estimation unit” is a high level of generality. “estimates a label of three- dimensional points to which the label has not been assigned by propagating the label of the three-dimensional points …” is a math process. 1. Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claims 1-8 are directed to an abstract idea. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as addressed below and presented in the above table. Step 2A: Prong One Regarding Claim 1, the limitations recited in Claim 1, as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mathematical calculations and/or the mind, as presented in the above table. Nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind and/or the mathematical calculations. For example, “… assigns a label indicating an object or a type of the object corresponding to some three-dimensional points included in a three-dimensional point group to the three-dimensional points based on data indicating a geographical position of the object by a polygon formed by connecting a plurality of coordinate points, a line formed by connecting a plurality of coordinate points, or one coordinate point itself” in the context of this claim may encompass a mathematical calculation/process in which a mathematical value (an object’s geographical position coordinate point/spatial data such as a three-dimensional coordination value/point) is assigned to the label, where the assigned position/spatial data of the object are used for manually mathematical calculation or inferring process to estimate position data of the label. Similarly, “… estimates a label of three- dimensional points to which the label has not been assigned by propagating the label of the three-dimensional points to which the label has been assigned to the three-dimensional points to which the label has not been assigned based on similarity between the three-dimensional points to which the label has been assigned and the three-dimensional points to which the label has not been assigned” in the context of this claim may encompass manually calculating or inferring the label of three-dimensional points based on similarity between the three-dimensional points, where the similarity are indicative of mathematical values/factors/characteristics indicating a geographical/spatial distance between the three-dimensional points, which may be performed by a mathematical algorithm/arithmetic computer program. (See at least paragraph 0020 of the instant application). Step 2A: Prong Two This judicial exception is abstract ideal itself and not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the specification details use of a computer to perform the mathematical calculations using a mathematical algorithm and/or an arithmetic computer program to perform “… assigns a label indicating an object or a type of the object corresponding to some three-dimensional points included in a three-dimensional point group to the three-dimensional points based on data indicating a geographical position of the object by a polygon formed by connecting a plurality of coordinate points, a line formed by connecting a plurality of coordinate points, or one coordinate point itself” and “… estimates a label of three- dimensional points to which the label has not been assigned by propagating the label of the three-dimensional points to which the label has been assigned to the three-dimensional points to which the label has not been assigned based on similarity between the three-dimensional points to which the label has been assigned and the three-dimensional points to which the label has not been assigned”. The assignment unit and the estimation unit are recited at a high-level of generality to perform a mathematical calculation/process using a mathematical algorithm/arithmetic computer program which may be executed by a generic computer function of a generic computer component such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. There is no showing of integration into a practical application such as an improvement to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, or use of a particular machine. Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The assignment unit and the estimation unit are recited at a high-level of generality to perform a mathematical calculation/process using a mathematical algorithm/arithmetic computer program which may be executed by a generic computer function of a generic computer component. As discussed above, with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, using the computer to perform the processes of “… assigns a label indicating an object or a type of the object corresponding to some three-dimensional points included in a three-dimensional point group to the three-dimensional points based on data indicating a geographical position of the object by a polygon formed by connecting a plurality of coordinate points, a line formed by connecting a plurality of coordinate points, or one coordinate point itself” and “… estimates a label of three- dimensional points to which the label has not been assigned by propagating the label of the three-dimensional points to which the label has been assigned to the three-dimensional points to which the label has not been assigned based on similarity between the three-dimensional points to which the label has been assigned and the three-dimensional points to which the label has not been assigned” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept cannot provide statutory eligibility. Claim 1 is not patent eligible. Regarding Claims 2-6 and 8, the limitations are further directed to an abstract idea, as described in claim 1. The limitations of “assigns a label indicating an object or a type of the object corresponding to a first polygon, a second polygon, or a third polygon including a three-dimensional point to the three-dimensional point included in the first polygon formed by connecting the plurality of coordinate points, the second polygon based on the line, or the third polygon based on the coordinate point itself” in claim 2, “wherein the assignment unit, in a case where the coordinate point is of two-dimensional coordinates, when a two-dimensional point obtained by projecting coordinates of the three-dimensional point onto two-dimensional coordinates is included in the first polygon, the second polygon, or the third polygon, assigns the label to the three-dimensional point corresponding to the two-dimensional point” in claim 3, “assigns the label to a three-dimensional point extracted by filtering according to a feature of a corresponding object from three-dimensional points included in the first polygon, the second polygon, or the third polygon” in claim 4, “wherein the assignment unit sets, the three-dimensional point extracted by the filtering, as a three-dimensional point whose altitude or attribute value is included in a range with a standard deviation as a margin around an average of altitudes or attribute values of the three-dimensional points included in the first polygon, the second polygon, or the third polygon” in claim 5, and “wherein the assignment unit determines, the second polygon, as a polygon connecting four points separated by a first distance in a direction orthogonal to the line from each of a start point and an end point of the line, determines, the third polygon, as a polygon connecting a predetermined number of points separated from the coordinate point itself by a second distance in different directions, and sets the first distance and the second distance to 1/2 or less of a size predetermined as a size of the object” in claim 6 may encompass mathematical processes related to the assigning and/or estimating process presented in claim 1, all of which are performed by a generic computer function of a generic computer component using a mathematical algorithm/arithmetic computer program, where the extracting process and the filtering process are indicative of mathematical calculations/process. (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). For the reasons described above with respect to Claim 1, the judicial exceptions are not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Regarding Claim 7, it is a method type claim having similar limitations as of claim 1 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale as of claim 1 above. 2. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention of “three-dimensional point group identification program” recited in claim 8 is directed to nonstatutory subject matter. The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claim invention is directed to a software per se which is not directed to any of the statutory categories. (MPEP 2106.03. I). Non-limiting examples of claims that are not directed to any of the statutory categories include: • Products that do not have a physical or tangible form, such as information (often referred to as "data per se") or a computer program per se (often referred to as "software per se") when claimed as a product without any structural recitations; (MPEP 2106.03. I) 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. 07-21-aia AIA 1. Claim s 1-3 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YOSHIMI (US 20220139094 A1, hereinafter referred to as “YOSHIMI” cited in IDS dated 1/25/2024), in view of JP 6236118 B2 (hereinafter referred to as “JP6236118”) . Regarding Claim 1, YOSHIMI teaches a three-dimensional point group identification device comprising: an assignment unit (Fig. 1, 2) that assigns a label indicating an object or a type of the object corresponding to some three-dimensional points included in a three-dimensional point group to the three-dimensional points based on data indicating a geographical position of the object by a polygon (plane, the two-dimensional label data (rectangle) in para 0100) formed by connecting a plurality of coordinate points, a line formed by connecting a plurality of coordinate points, or one coordinate point itself (At least paragraphs 0036-0044, in particular paragraphs 0037-0039 and 0044 teach assigning a three-dimensional box label to data and assigning to the three-dimensional point cloud, which is used for object identification and detection using three-dimensional point cloud data; at least paragraphs 0040 and 0100 teaches a plane formed by point clouds and the two-dimensional label data ( rectangle ) used for the problem of object detection that estimates an object; para 0040 “labelled three-dimensional point clouds are projected onto a two-dimensional image plane, and a process of filling up the gaps between point clouds on the plane that are assigned the same label or the like is applied, which can generate segmentation label data on image data. As described above, the label data is shared by the two-dimensional image and the three-dimensional point cloud, thereby allowing mutual conversion and interpolation of label data”) ; and an estimation unit (Fig. 2, central processing device 11) that estimates a label of three- dimensional points to which the label has not been assigned by propagating the label of the three-dimensional points to which the label has been assigned to the three-dimensional points to which the label has not been assigned based on similarity between the three-dimensional points to which the label has been assigned and the three-dimensional points to which the label has not been assigned (At least paragraphs 0095 and 0100 teach estimating the point cloud corresponding to the object only from the three-dimensional point cloud “the three-dimensional point cloud label can be used as an evaluation dataset for performance evaluation for a three-dimensional object detection task for estimating the point cloud corresponding to the object only from the three-dimensional point cloud”). YOSHIMI fails to explicitly disclose, but JP6236118 teaches estimates … based on similarity between the three-dimensional points to which the label has been assigned and the three-dimensional points to which the label has not been assigned (Fig. 6 Steps 106-108; “The similarity determination unit 103 determines the similarity of the surfaces constituting the two three-dimensional models obtained from different viewpoints. That is, the degree of similarity between the specific surface of the first three-dimensional model and the specific surface of the second three-dimensional model is determined” and “evaluating the similarity of the correlation data group between the surfaces at the two viewpoints …. can be found with high accuracy” in pages 7 and 22 of English machine translation). YOSHIMI and JP6236118 are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of generating label data used for an object recognition technology using three-dimensional point cloud data and a technique for generating a three-dimensional shape from three-dimensional point cloud position data. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified YOSHIMI to incorporate the teachings of JP6236118 by providing operation for estimating the label of three- dimensional points based on similarity of the correlation data, as taught by JP6236118 at least at pages 7 and 22 of English machine translation. Regarding Claim 2, YOSHIMI teaches wherein the assignment unit assigns a label indicating an object or a type of the object corresponding to a first polygon, a second polygon, or a third polygon (plane, the two-dimensional label data (rectangle) in para 0100) including a three-dimensional point to the three-dimensional point included in the first polygon formed by connecting the plurality of coordinate points, the second polygon based on the line, or the third polygon based on the coordinate point itself (At least paragraphs 0036-0044, in particular paragraphs 0037-0039 and 0044 teach assigning a three-dimensional box label to data and assigning to the three-dimensional point cloud, which is used for object identification and detection using three-dimensional point cloud data; at least paragraphs 0040 and 0100 teaches a plane formed by point clouds and the two-dimensional label data ( rectangle ) used for the problem of object detection that estimates an object; para 0040 “labelled three-dimensional point clouds are projected onto a two-dimensional image plane, and a process of filling up the gaps between point clouds on the plane that are assigned the same label or the like is applied, which can generate segmentation label data on image data. As described above, the label data is shared by the two-dimensional image and the three-dimensional point cloud, thereby allowing mutual conversion and interpolation of label data”). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the first to third polygons are indicative of a plane or the two- dimensional label data (rectangle) among a plurality of planes or rectangles which are taught by at least of paragraphs 0040 and 0100 of YOSHIMI. Regarding Claim 3, YOSHIMI teaches wherein the assignment unit, in a case where the coordinate point is of two-dimensional coordinates, when a two-dimensional point obtained by projecting coordinates of the three-dimensional point onto two-dimensional coordinates is included in the first polygon, the second polygon, or the third polygon, assigns the label to the three-dimensional point corresponding to the two-dimensional point (Para 0040 “labelled three-dimensional point clouds are projected onto a two-dimensional image plane, and a process of filling up the gaps between point clouds on the plane that are assigned the same label or the like is applied, which can generate segmentation label data on image data. As described above, the label data is shared by the two-dimensional image and the three-dimensional point cloud, thereby allowing mutual conversion and interpolation of label data”). Regarding Claim 7, it is a method type claim and has similar limitations as of a part of claim 1 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale as of claim 1 above. Regarding Claim 8, it is dependent on any one of claims 1 to 6 and has similar limitations as of claims 1 to 4 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale as of claims 1 to 4 above . 07-21-aia AIA 2. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YOSHIMI in view of JP6236118 and further in view of OZAKI et al. (JP 2009053059 A, hereinafter referred to as “OZAKI” in IDS dated 1/25/2024) . Regarding Claim 4, YOSHIMI in view of JP6236118 fails to explicitly disclose, but OZAKI teaches the feature related to 3D point extracted by filtering in wherein the assignment unit assigns the label to a three-dimensional point extracted by filtering according to a feature of a corresponding object from three-dimensional points included in the first polygon, the second polygon, or the third polygon (“Labeled projected point cloud extracting section 151 (first target projection point cloud extracting section) extracts the projected image projected point cloud A .sub.ip signs imaging range A .sub.a using CPU. Moreover, labeled projected point cloud extracting section 151 (second target projection point cloud extracting section) extracts an image projected point cloud B .sub.ip projected on labeled imaging range B .sub.a with CPU” and “by the Kalman filter process, and corrects the result of dead reckoning using the estimation error to determine the three-dimensional coordinates” in pages 5 and 10 of English machine translation). OZAKI is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of an object specifying program for measuring the position of a road sign using, for example, a three-dimensional point cloud model. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified YOSHIMI in view of JP6236118 to incorporate the teachings of OZAKI by providing operation for extracting 3D points using a filtering process, as taught by OZAKI at least at pages 7 and 22 of English machine translation. Citation of Pertinent Art 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. NISHI et al. (US 20240005564 A1) teaches A three-dimensional data encoding method according to one aspect of the present disclosure includes: determining a first three-dimensional point that is encoded and has a position represented by a first polar coordinate system having a first position as a reference; and determining (i) a distance between the first position and a second position, (ii) a first angle formed by a first line connecting the first position and the second position and a second line connecting the first position and the first three-dimensional point, and (iii) a first distance from the first position to the first three-dimensional point in the first polar coordinate system, to calculate a prediction value of a second distance from the second position to a second three-dimensional point that is not yet encoded and has a position represented by a second polar coordinate system having the second position as a reference . Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BYUNG RO LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-3707. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:30am-4:00pm. 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, Lee Rodak can be reached on (571) 270-5628. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-2555. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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. /BYUNG RO LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 2858 /LEE E RODAK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/292,226 Page 2 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/292,226 Page 3 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/292,226 Page 4 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/292,226 Page 5 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/292,226 Page 6 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/292,226 Page 7 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/292,226 Page 8 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/292,226 Page 9 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/292,226 Page 10 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/292,226 Page 11 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/292,226 Page 12 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/292,226 Page 13 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/292,226 Page 14 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/292,226 Page 15 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/292,226 Page 16 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/292,226 Page 17 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/292,226 Page 18 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/292,226 Page 19 Art Unit: 2858
Prosecution Insights