CTNF 18/301,368 CTNF 96916 DETAILED ACTION Introduction This office action is in response to Applicant’s submission filed on April 17, 2023. Claims 1-20 are pending in the application. As such, claims 1-20 have been examined. 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. Drawings The drawings were received on April 17, 2023. These drawings have been accepted and considered by the Examiner. Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 7 , line 3, reads “by a computing device”. Examiner believes this to be a clerical error and it is intended to read “by the computing device” . Appropriate correction is required. 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. Claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 1, 8 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite: A computer-implemented method for voice-based augmented reality locomotion, the method comprising: receiving, by a computing device, a first linguistic input; determining, by the computing device, a label and a duration associated with the linguistic input based on an analysis of the first linguistic input; converting, by the computing device, the label into a heading and the duration into a magnitude in a virtual environment; and merging, by the computing device, the heading and magnitude in a vector in the virtual environment. The claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind. For example, “receiving, by a computing device, a first linguistic input” in the context of this claim encompasses a person hearing a command, “determining, by the computing device, a label and a duration associated with the linguistic input based on an analysis of the first linguistic input” in the context of this claim encompasses a person calculating a direction and distance associated with the command, “converting, by the computing device, the label into a heading and the duration into a magnitude in a virtual environment” in the context of this claim encompasses a person converting the information, “merging, by the computing device, the heading and magnitude in a vector in the virtual environment” in the context of this claim encompasses a person creating a vector for the information. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “ Mental Processes ” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea . This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application . In particular, the claim recites these additional elements. These additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea. a computing device. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea . The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea that do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. The dependent claims do not add limitations that would either integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application or could help the Claim as a whole to amount to significantly more than the Abstract idea identified for the Independent Claim. Claims 2, 9 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite: wherein the vector is a parameter to an interaction command in the virtual environment. The additional limitations of the claim do not preclude the method from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “wherein the vector is a parameter to an interaction command in the virtual environment” in the context of this claim encompasses a person ensuring the vector corresponds to an action. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “ Mental Processes ” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea . This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application . In particular, the claim recites no additional elements. Accordingly, these no additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea . The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the no additional elements do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. Claims 3, 10 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite: wherein the vector is associated with a vector direction representing movement of a user within the virtual environment. The additional limitations of the claim do not preclude the method from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “wherein the vector is associated with a vector direction representing movement of a user within the virtual environment” in the context of this claim encompasses a person ensuring the vector corresponds to an action of movement. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “ Mental Processes ” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea . This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application . In particular, the claim recites no additional elements. Accordingly, these no additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea . The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the no additional elements do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. Claims 5 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite: wherein the virtual environment comprises a plot of non-spatial dimensional data and the vector represents a coordinate visualizing the non-spatial dimensional data within the virtual environment. The additional limitations of the claim do not preclude the method from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “wherein the virtual environment comprises a plot of non-spatial dimensional data and the vector represents a coordinate visualizing the non-spatial dimensional data within the virtual environment” in the context of this claim encompasses a person ensuring some other information besides geospatial coordinates is included in the vector such as a color or texture. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “ Mental Processes ” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea . This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application . In particular, the claim recites no additional elements. Accordingly, these no additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea . The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the no additional elements do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. Claims 6, 12 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite: wherein converting the label into a heading and the duration into a magnitude comprises: searching, by the computing device, a data store for a predetermined reference heading associated with the label. The additional limitations of the claim do not preclude the method from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “searching, by the computing device, a data store for a predetermined reference heading associated with the label” in the context of this claim encompasses a person looking up a heading in a database for the label. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “ Mental Processes ” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea . This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application . In particular, the claim recites these additional elements. These additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea . a computing device. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea . The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea that do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. Claims 7, 13 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite: wherein merging the heading and magnitude in a vector comprises: receiving, by a computing device, a second linguistic input; extracting, by the computing device, an adjustment interaction command and an adjustment duration based on an analysis of the second linguistic input; and applying, by the computing device, the adjustment interaction command to modify an angle of the predetermined reference heading by an amount proportional to the adjustment duration. The additional limitations of the claim do not preclude the method from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “receiving, by a computing device, a second linguistic input” in the context of this claim encompasses a person hearing a second command, “extracting, by the computing device, an adjustment interaction command and an adjustment duration based on an analysis of the second linguistic input” in the context of this claim encompasses a person identifying what adjustment needs to be made to the first command, “applying, by the computing device, the adjustment interaction command to modify an angle of the predetermined reference heading by an amount proportional to the adjustment duration” in the context of this claim encompasses a person going ahead and updating the vector accordingly. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “ Mental Processes ” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea . This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application . In particular, the claim recites these additional elements. These additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea . a computing device. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea . The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea that do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 07-20-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 Claim s 1-4, 8-11 and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wiedmeyer et al. (US Patent Pub. No. 20190251622 A1), hereinafter Wiedmeyer, in view of Soon-Shiong (US Patent Pub. No. 20200294350 A1), in view of Samarasekera et al. (US Patent Pub. No. 20170024904 A1), hereinafter Samarasekera . Regarding claims 1, 8 and 14 , Wiedmeyer teaches a computer-implemented method, a computer program product, and a computer system for voice-based augmented reality locomotion (Wiedmeyer in [0006] teaches a platform is configured to immerse the user of the VR device within the simulation to provide an environment in which the user can, solely or in cooperation with other users, assemble computer-simulated representations of retail store layouts and the products therein, and in [0095] teaches the VR platform may simulate user movement in the environment), [claim 8 only] the computer program product comprising one or more computer readable storage media and program instructions collectively stored on the one or more computer readable storage media, the stored program instructions (Wiedmeyer in [0060] teaches using non-transitory computer-readable storage media, program instructions in memory executed by the processor) [claim 14 only] one or more processors; one or more computer-readable memories; program instructions stored on at least one of the one or more computer-readable memories for execution by at least one of the one or more processors, the program instructions (Wiedmeyer in [0060] teaches using non-transitory computer-readable storage media, program instructions in memory executed by the processor, and memory which generally includes RAM, ROM, flash memory, solid state memory) the method comprising: [claims 8 and 14 only] program instructions to receiving, by a computing device, a first linguistic input (Wiedmeyer in [0053] teaches using a computing device, and in [0095] teaches the user may provide inputs, such as gestures, button presses, voice commands, and the like, to “move” throughout the simulated environment); Wiedmeyer does not teach, however Soon-Shiong teaches [claims 8 and 14 only] program instructions to determining, by the computing device, a label and a duration associated with the linguistic input [based on an analysis of the first linguistic input] (Soon-Shiong in [0118] teaches using an avatar orientation vector AO (Avatar Orientation) made up of (X,Y,Z) representing the up direction or the facing direction of the avatar, and a second vector that could be used is AIL (Avatar initial Location) this would give the initial location of the avatar made up X,Y,Z for pure virtual environment or for an AR geo location environment, and one vector can be sent to the device for the avatar representing the direction of motion and the distance the avatar is moving AM (Avatar Movement) made up of X,Y,Z giving the direction of the motion from the initial location); [claims 8 and 14 only] program instructions to [converting, by the computing device], the label into a heading and the duration into a magnitude in a virtual environment (Soon-Shiong in [0118] teaches using an avatar orientation vector AO (Avatar Orientation) made up of (X,Y,Z) representing the up direction or the facing direction of the avatar, and a second vector that could be used is AIL (Avatar initial Location) this would give the initial location of the avatar made up X,Y,Z for pure virtual environment or for an AR geo location environment, and one vector can be sent to the device for the avatar representing the direction of motion and the distance the avatar is moving AM (Avatar Movement) made up of X,Y,Z giving the direction of the motion from the initial location); and [claims 8 and 14 only] program instructions to merging, by the computing device, the heading and magnitude in a vector in the virtual environment (Soon-Shiong in [0118] teaches using an avatar orientation vector AO (Avatar Orientation) made up of (X,Y,Z) representing the up direction or the facing direction of the avatar, and a second vector that could be used is AIL (Avatar initial Location) this would give the initial location of the avatar made up X,Y,Z for pure virtual environment or for an AR geo location environment, and one vector can be sent to the device for the avatar representing the direction of motion and the distance the avatar is moving AM (Avatar Movement) made up of X,Y,Z giving the direction of the motion from the initial location). Soon-Shiong is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of virtual environments. 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 Wiedmeyer further in view of Soon-Shiong to allow for generating a vector for direction and distance. Motivation to do so would allow for data from the real-world event to be generated in a more sophisticated manner, and to allow the client to render an appropriate animation in the virtual environment (Soon-Shiong [0075]). Wiedmeyer, as modified above, does not teach, however Samarasekera teaches determining, by the computing device, [a label and a duration associated with the linguistic input] based on an analysis of the first linguistic input (Samarasekera in [0063] teaches users can give an input command, such as a speech command, and in [0058] teaches determining location of objects with many types of data such as distance, motion estimation, or the like); converting, by the computing device, [the label into a heading and the duration into a magnitude in a virtual environment] (Samarasekera in [0067] teaches using the location which has been determined, and the distance to the objects which has been determined, so that the locations and distances of the other objects can also be accurately determined). Samarasekera is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of virtual environments. 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 Wiedmeyer, as modified above, further in view of Samarasekera to allow for determining location of objects with data such as distance, and motion estimation. Motivation to do so would allow for the user to view augmented content overlaid on a scene (Samarasekera [0033]). Regarding claims 2, 9 and 15 , Wiedmeyer, as modified above, teaches the computer-implemented method, computer program product, and computer system of claims 1, 8 and 14. Wiedmeyer, as modified above, teaches using a vector for movement in a virtual environment. Wiedmeyer further teaches wherein the [vector] is a parameter to an interaction command in the virtual environment (Wiedmeyer in [0095] teaches the user may provide inputs, such as gestures, button presses, voice commands, and the like, to “move” throughout the simulated environment). Regarding claims 3, 10 and 16 , Wiedmeyer, as modified above, teaches the computer-implemented method, computer program product, and computer system of claims 1, 8 and 14. Wiedmeyer, as modified above, teaches using a vector for movement in a virtual environment. Wiedmeyer further teaches wherein the [vector] is associated with a [vector] direction representing movement of a user within the virtual environment (Wiedmeyer in [0095] teaches the user may provide inputs, such as gestures, button presses, voice commands, and the like, to “move” throughout the simulated environment). Regarding claims 4, 11 and 17 , Wiedmeyer, as modified above, teaches the computer-implemented method, computer program product, and computer system of claims 2, 9 and 15. Wiedmeyer, as modified above, teaches using a vector for movement in a virtual environment. Wiedmeyer further teaches wherein the [vector] represents a direction and distance of motion and the interaction command is configured to move an avatar within the virtual environment in accordance with the vector (Wiedmeyer in [0095] teaches the user may provide inputs, such as gestures, button presses, voice commands, and the like, to “move” throughout the simulated environment) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 5 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wiedmeyer, in view of Soon-Shiong, in view of Samarasekera, in view of Hirai (US Patent Pub. No. 20040259616 A1) . Regarding claims 5 and 18 , Wiedmeyer, as modified above, teaches the computer-implemented method, and computer system of claims 1 and 14. Wiedmeyer, as modified above, does not teach, however Hirai teaches wherein the virtual environment comprises a plot of non-spatial dimensional data (Hirai in [0138] teaches using present velocity Vn (which is a vector value including a magnitude and a direction), an ability speed, which is one of ability parameters, and object data storing model data and texture data for the display of the athlete) and the vector represents a coordinate visualizing the non-spatial dimensional data within the virtual environment (Hirai in [0138] teaches using present velocity Vn (which is a vector value including a magnitude and a direction), an ability speed, which is one of ability parameters, and object data storing model data and texture data for the display of the athlete ). Hirai is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of virtual environments. 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 Wiedmeyer, as modified above, further in view of Hirai to allow for using texture data for the display of the athlete. Motivation to do so would allow for bringing the movements of the non-player characters closer to those of actual soccer athletes for heightening the reality of a soccer game (Hirai [0013]) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 6, 12 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wiedmeyer, in view of Soon-Shiong, in view of Samarasekera, in view of Sugaya (US Patent Pub. No. 20170032574 A1) . Regarding claims 6, 12 and 19 , Wiedmeyer, as modified above, teaches the computer-implemented method, computer program product, and computer system of claims 1, 8 and 14. Wiedmeyer, as modified above, teaches converting the label into a heading and the duration into a magnitude. Wiedmeyer, as modified above, does not teach, however Sugaya teaches [claims 12 and 19 only] program instructions to wherein converting the label into a heading and the duration into a magnitude comprises: [claims 12 and 19 only] program instructions to searching, by the computing device, a data store for a predetermined reference heading associated with the label (Sugaya in [0050] teaches an augmented reality server that includes a location matching database , in which the terminal detects and transmits location information and a direction to the augmented reality server, and outputs direction data on the location and the direction that are calculated by the augmented reality server under the instruction to the terminal). Sugaya is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of virtual environments. 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 Wiedmeyer, as modified above, further in view of Sugaya to allow for using a location matching database. Motivation to do so would allow for the display to be switched to two-dimensional data such as a floor plan corresponding to the three-dimensional data to allow the user to specify the location and the angle which enables the user to clearly and easily specify the viewpoint (Sugaya [0092]) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 7 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wiedmeyer, in view of Soon-Shiong, in view of Samarasekera, in view of Sugaya, in view of Zavesky (US Patent Pub. No. 20210405736 A1) . Regarding claims 7 and 13 , Wiedmeyer, as modified above, teaches the computer-implemented method and computer program product of claims 6 and 12. Wiedmeyer, as modified above, teaches merging the heading and magnitude in a vector. Wiedmeyer, as modified above, does not teach, however Zavesky teaches [claims 13 and 20 only] program instructions to wherein merging the heading and magnitude in a vector comprises: [claims 13 and 20 only] program instructions to receiving, by a computing device, a second linguistic input (Zavesky in [0042] teaches additional adjustments may be made by the user without interruption of the immersion through gestures, voice commands , or additional controls (buttons, switches, etc.) that are native to the XR system); [claims 13 and 20 only] program instructions to extracting, by the computing device, an adjustment interaction command and an adjustment duration based on an analysis of the second linguistic input (Zavesky in [0042] teaches additional adjustments may be made by the user without interruption of the immersion through gestures, voice commands, or additional controls (buttons, switches, etc.) that are native to the XR system); and [claims 13 and 20 only] program instructions to applying, by the computing device, the adjustment interaction command to modify an angle of the predetermined reference heading by an amount proportional to the adjustment duration (Zavesky in [0042] teaches additional adjustments may be made by the user without interruption of the immersion through gestures, voice commands, or additional controls (buttons, switches, etc.) that are native to the XR system). Zavesky is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of virtual environments. 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 Wiedmeyer, as modified above, further in view of Zavesky to allow for making adjustments by the user without interruption of the immersion. Motivation to do so would allow for the XR engine to monitor the state of the user and adjust the immersion according to the state of the user (Zavesky [0059]) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wiedmeyer, in view of Soon-Shiong, in view of Samarasekera, in view of Zavesky . Regarding claim 20 , Wiedmeyer, as modified above, teaches the computer system of claim 14. Wiedmeyer, as modified above, teaches merging the heading and magnitude in a vector. Wiedmeyer, as modified above, does not teach, however Zavesky teaches wherein program instructions to merge the heading and magnitude in a vector comprises: program instructions to receiving a second linguistic input (Zavesky in [0042] teaches additional adjustments may be made by the user without interruption of the immersion through gestures, voice commands , or additional controls (buttons, switches, etc.) that are native to the XR system); program instructions to extract an adjustment interaction command and an adjustment duration based on an analysis of the second linguistic input (Zavesky in [0042] teaches additional adjustments may be made by the user without interruption of the immersion through gestures, voice commands, or additional controls (buttons, switches, etc.) that are native to the XR system); and program instructions to apply the adjustment interaction command to modify an angle of the predetermined reference heading by an amount proportional to the adjustment duration (Zavesky in [0042] teaches additional adjustments may be made by the user without interruption of the immersion through gestures, voice commands, or additional controls (buttons, switches, etc.) that are native to the XR system). Zavesky is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of virtual environments. 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 Wiedmeyer, as modified above, further in view of Zavesky to allow for making adjustments by the user without interruption of the immersion. Motivation to do so would allow for the XR engine to monitor the state of the user and adjust the immersion according to the state of the user (Zavesky [0059]). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL J. MUELLER whose telephone number is (571)272-1875. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00am-5:00pm (Eastern). 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, Daniel C. Washburn can be reached at 571-272-5551. 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. PAUL MUELLER Examiner Art Unit 2657 /PAUL J. MUELLER/Examiner, Art Unit 2657 Application/Control Number: 18/301,368 Page 2 Art Unit: 2657 Application/Control Number: 18/301,368 Page 3 Art Unit: 2657 Application/Control Number: 18/301,368 Page 4 Art Unit: 2657 Application/Control Number: 18/301,368 Page 5 Art Unit: 2657 Application/Control Number: 18/301,368 Page 6 Art Unit: 2657 Application/Control Number: 18/301,368 Page 7 Art Unit: 2657 Application/Control Number: 18/301,368 Page 8 Art Unit: 2657 Application/Control Number: 18/301,368 Page 9 Art Unit: 2657 Application/Control Number: 18/301,368 Page 10 Art Unit: 2657 Application/Control Number: 18/301,368 Page 11 Art Unit: 2657 Application/Control Number: 18/301,368 Page 12 Art Unit: 2657 Application/Control Number: 18/301,368 Page 13 Art Unit: 2657 Application/Control Number: 18/301,368 Page 14 Art Unit: 2657 Application/Control Number: 18/301,368 Page 15 Art Unit: 2657 Application/Control Number: 18/301,368 Page 16 Art Unit: 2657 Application/Control Number: 18/301,368 Page 17 Art Unit: 2657 Application/Control Number: 18/301,368 Page 18 Art Unit: 2657 Application/Control Number: 18/301,368 Page 19 Art Unit: 2657 Application/Control Number: 18/301,368 Page 20 Art Unit: 2657
Prosecution Insights