CTNF 18/311,951 CTNF 86746 Detailed Action This action is in response to application filed on 05/04/2023 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 are pending. Claims 1-20 are rejected. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure Statement (IDS) submitted on 05/04/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS statements are being considered by the examiner. Drawings 06-22 The drawings submitted on 05/04/2023 are objected to because figures 2, 4-5 include text that is blurry and/or not legible. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. 07-34-01 Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. 07-34-03 Firstly, the term “similarities” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “similarities” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Secondly, the limitation “ determining , by the one or more processors, overlapping data among the homogenous applications based on the topic modeling, the latent semantic analysis, and term frequency- inverse document frequency of terms in the overlapping data ” is logically circular and/or has circular dependency (e.g. determine x based on x) which renders the claim limitation indefinite. Appropriate amendments/remarks required. Independent claims 15, and 20 are system and medium claims corresponding to method claim 1 and are of substantially same scope. Accordingly, claims 15, and 20 are rejected under the same rational as set forth for claim 1. At least due to dependency, claim 2-14, 16-19 are rejected under the same rational as set forth for claims 1, 15, and 20. Additionally: Claims 3, and 17 recites the limitation “the re-engineer disposition integer programming”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. 07-34-03 AIA The term “ similar expressions ” in claim 7 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “ similar expressions ” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. 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 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to abstract idea without significantly more. Representative claim 1 is directed to a computer-implemented method of determining resource dispositions for applications in a distributed computing environment, the method comprising: ingesting , by one or more processors, data from one or more computing environments, wherein the data is related to the applications ; identifying , by the one or more processors, based on utilizing topic modeling and latent semantic analysis of the data, homogenous applications among the applications, wherein the identifying comprises: analyzing , by the one or more processors, subdata handled by each application and functionalities of each application, and wherein the homogenous applications comprise similarities in the subdata and in the functionalities; determining , by the one or more processors, overlapping data among the homogenous applications based on the topic modeling, the latent semantic analysis, and term frequency- inverse document frequency of terms in the overlapping data; selecting, by the one or more processors, from the overlapping data of the homogenous applications, training data; utilizing , by the one or more processors, the training data, to calculate weights for disposition metrics; and predicting , by the one or more processors, based on the disposition metrics, the resource dispositions for the applications. Per prong 1, Step 2A , the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, Mental processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper (see, October 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance Update, 84 Fed. Reg. 55,942, hereinafter “PEG”). Mathematical Concepts including mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations and/or mathematical calculations For instance, humans can mentally and/or using mathematical concepts to perform a method of determining resource dispositions for applications in a distributed computing environment, the method comprising: ingesting /reading/observing/parsing, data from one or more computing environments, wherein the data is related to the applications; mentally identifying , based on utilizing topic modeling and latent semantic analysis of the data/mathematical concepts, homogenous applications among the applications, wherein the identifying comprises : mentally analyzing , subdata handled by each application and functionalities of each application, and wherein the homogenous applications comprise similarities in the subdata and in the functionalities; mentally determining , overlapping data among the homogenous applications based on the topic modeling/mathematical concepts, the latent semantic analysis/mathematical concepts , and term frequency- inverse document frequency of terms in the overlapping data; mentally selecting from the overlapping data of the homogenous applications, training data; mentally or via mathematical concept, utilizing , the training data, to calculate/make judgements weights for disposition metrics ; and mentally predicting based on the disposition metrics, the resource dispositions for the applications. . Per prong 2, Step 2A , the additional non-emphasized elements as noted above, are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception/mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. For instance, “ computer-implemented… by the one or more processors” are merely adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f). Additionally, the recited claim limitations do not improve the functionality of the electronic device or achieve improved technical results and does not sufficiently tie any limitations or combination of limitation to any improvement (if any) to the functionality of the electronic device or achieving improved technical results. Per Step 2B, the additional non-emphasized elements as noted above, are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception/mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use - see MPEP 2106.05(d, f, g, h). . For instance, “ computer-implemented… by the one or more processors” are merely adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f). Additionally, the recited claim limitations do not improve the functionality of the electronic device or achieve improved technical results. Accordingly, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Independent claims 15, and 20 are system and medium claims corresponding to method claim 1 and are of substantially same scope. Accordingly, claims 15, and 20 are rejected under the same rational as set forth for claim 1. Dependent claims 2-14, and 16-19 when considered individually or in combination per steps as noted above are rejected under the same rational as set forth above for claims 1, 15, and 20, and the recited claim limitations do not improve the functionality of the electronic device or achieve improved technical results. In particular, As per claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 further incorporated, further recites wherein the resource dispositions are selected from the group consisting of: retire, retain, and re-engineer. Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, Mental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper. Per prong 2, Step 2A and 2B, the additional elements (e.g. non-emphasized elements) are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(d, f, g, h). As per claim 3, the rejection of claim 2 further incorporated, further recites further comprising: determining, by the one or more processors , additional dispositions for a subset of applications predicted for the re-engineer disposition integer programming. Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, Mental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper. Per prong 2, Step 2A and 2B, the additional elements (e.g. non-emphasized elements) are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(d, f, g, h). As per claim 4, the rejection of claim 1 further incorporated, further recites wherein the resource dispositions comprise cloud dispositions. Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, Mental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper. Per prong 2, Step 2A and 2B, the additional elements (e.g. non-emphasized elements) are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(d, f, g, h). As per claim 5, the rejection of claim 1 further incorporated, further recites wherein the data for each application comprises a functional requirements document and non-functional requirements. Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, Mental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper. Per prong 2, Step 2A and 2B, the additional elements (e.g. non-emphasized elements) are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(d, f, g, h). As per claim 6, the rejection of claim 1 further incorporated, further recites wherein the ingesting comprises: generating, by the one or more processors , a table, wherein the table, for each application of the applications, stores parameters, wherein the parameters are one or more of application identifier, client, domain, functional document name, non-functional requirement document name, and data attribute. Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, Mental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper. Per prong 2, Step 2A and 2B, the additional elements (e.g. non-emphasized elements) are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(d, f, g, h). As per claim 7, the rejection of claim 6 further incorporated, further recites wherein the topic modeling comprises: applying, by the one or more processors, an unsupervised machine learning algorithm to convert unstructured content in the data into structured formats based on detecting word and phrase patterns within the unstructured content; and clustering, by the one or more processors , word groups and similar expressions in the structured formats, where in the word groups and the similar expressions characterize documents of the homogenous applications. Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, Mental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper as well as Mathematical Concepts including mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and/or mathematical calculations. Per prong 2, Step 2A and 2B, the additional elements (e.g. non-emphasized elements) are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(d, f, g, h). As per claim 8, the rejection of claim 1 further incorporated, further recites wherein the latent semantic analysis comprises: identifying , by the one or more processors , different topics in the data to determine the functionalities of the applications; determining , by the one or more processors , an extent of overlap between the functionalities of the applications based on overlaps between the different topics in the data; and identifying , by the one or more processors , the homogenous applications as being most similar applications based on the extent of the overlap. . Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, Mental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper as well as Mathematical Concepts including mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and/or mathematical calculations. Per prong 2, Step 2A and 2B, the additional elements (e.g. non-emphasized elements) are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(d, f, g, h). As per claim 9, the rejection of claim 8 further incorporated, further recites wherein identifying the different topics comprises utilizing a natural language processing to identify the different topics . Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, Mental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper. Per prong 2, Step 2A and 2B, the additional elements (e.g. non-emphasized elements) are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(d, f, g, h). As per claim 10, the rejection of claim 9 further incorporated, further recites wherein utilizing the natural language processing comprises applying a bag-of-words model . Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, Mental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper as well as Mathematical Concepts including mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and/or mathematical calculations. Per prong 2, Step 2A and 2B, the additional elements (e.g. non-emphasized elements) are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(d, f, g, h). As per claim 11, the rejection of claim 1 further incorporated, further recites wherein analyzing the subdata handled by each application and the functionalities of each application further comprises: utilizing , by the one or more processors, machine learning to determined term frequency- inverse document frequency of strings in the subdata to quantify importance of the strings of the subdata, wherein the strings of the subdata comprise the terms. Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, Mental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper as well as Mathematical Concepts including mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and/or mathematical calculations. Per prong 2, Step 2A and 2B, the additional elements (e.g. non-emphasized elements) are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(d, f, g, h). As per claim 12, the rejection of claim 1 further incorporated, further recites wherein utilizing the training data to calculate the weights for the disposition metrics comprises: calculating, by the one or more processors , an intermediate function to determine a target variable for each disposition of the dispositions. Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, Mental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper as well as Mathematical Concepts including mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and/or mathematical calculations. Per prong 2, Step 2A and 2B, the additional elements (e.g. non-emphasized elements) are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(d, f, g, h). As per claim 13, the rejection of claim 12 further incorporated, further recites wherein the target variable comprises a cognitive vector. Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, Mental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper as well as Mathematical Concepts including mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and/or mathematical calculations. Per prong 2, Step 2A and 2B, the additional elements (e.g. non-emphasized elements) are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(d, f, g, h). As per claim 14, the rejection of claim 1 further incorporated, further recites wherein the disposition metrics comprise one or more of: code scalability, change adaptability, testable adaptability, deployment adaptability, and general architecture scalability . Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, Mental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper as well as Mathematical Concepts including mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and/or mathematical calculations. Per prong 2, Step 2A and 2B, the additional elements (e.g. non-emphasized elements) are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(d, f, g, h). As per claims 16-19: Claims 16-19 system claims corresponding to method claims 2-5 and are of substantially same scope. Accordingly, claims 16-19 are rejected under the same rational as set forth for claims 2-5. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-20 would allowable if above noted rejections are overcome via amendments and/or arguments. Reasons for allowance will be held in abeyance until all matters in the prosecution are closed. Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. INTELLIGENT SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR MANAGING APPLICATION PORTFOLIOS DOCUMENT ID US 20240070588 A1 DATE PUBLISHED 2024-02-29 Abstract Aspects of the present disclosure provide systems, methods, and computer-readable storage media that support application portfolio management. Input data may be received that is associated with a set of applications. The input data may indicate, for each application of the set of applications, a name of the application and a description of the application. For an application of the set of applications, a functional score, a cost, and a technical score may be determined based on the name of the application, the description of the application, or a combination thereof. A disposition recommendation for the application may be determined based on the functional score, the cost, and the technical score. In some implementation, an indication of the disposition recommendation of the application may be output via a graphical user interface. Online Diagnosing Of Computer Hardware And Software DOCUMENT ID US 20040236843 A1 DATE PUBLISHED 2004-11-25 Abstract A method and apparatus for online diagnosis and repair of computer hardware and software are provided. A client application and executable program scripts are downloaded to a computer (108) to be diagnosed. The client application executes the scripts and returns information obtained as a result of executing those scripts to a server (104). The server (104) then applies a rule based analysis to the returned information and provides a disposition to the computer (108) to be diagnosed. The disposition may include information regarding a potential remedy for the detected problems, or may include provisions to automatically effect a repair. In one embodiment, the client computer (108) is directed to the exact universal resource location at which information or a file needed to effect a repair can be found. DEVELOPING OBJECT ONTOLOGIES AND DATA USAGE MODELS USING MACHINE LEARNING DOCUMENT ID US 20230359660 A1 DATE PUBLISHED 2023-11-09 Abstract An enterprise ontology, an application data usage model, and/or cross-application data dependencies may be developed using artificial intelligence. Using pattern recognition and/or information extraction techniques, the artificial intelligence may analyze application source code to identify common DDL or SQL statements to formulate an ontology and/or a usage model for the application. A plurality of application ontologies and/or data usage models may be used to build a semantic hub. The semantic hub may be analyzed to identify data redundancies, data use frequency, potential data quality challenges, and/or data dependencies between applications to produce a data abstraction model that allows legacy applications to communicate with one or more data stores. DUPLICATIVE DATA DETECTION DOCUMENT ID US 20190138628 A1 DATE PUBLISHED 2019-05-09 Abstract In some implementations, a computer-implemented method includes analyzing first data from a first data source to determine a first schema of the first data source, and analyzing second data from a second data source to determine a second schema of the second data source. The method can further include generating a first two-dimensional aggregation of a first time data series having a time dimension and a dimension corresponding to aggregated values of a first metric, and generating a second two-dimensional aggregation of a second time data series having a time dimension and a dimension corresponding to aggregated values of a second metric. The method can also include computing a correlation value between the first two-dimensional aggregation and the second two-dimensional aggregation, and providing an indication of duplicated data between the first data source and the second data source if the correlation value meets a threshold. See form 892. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUSTAFA A AMIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3181. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kevin Young, can be reached on 571-270-3180. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). 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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form. /MUSTAFA A AMIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2194 Application/Control Number: 18/311,951 Page 2 Art Unit: 2194 Application/Control Number: 18/311,951 Page 3 Art Unit: 2194 Application/Control Number: 18/311,951 Page 4 Art Unit: 2194 Application/Control Number: 18/311,951 Page 5 Art Unit: 2194 Application/Control Number: 18/311,951 Page 6 Art Unit: 2194 Application/Control Number: 18/311,951 Page 7 Art Unit: 2194 Application/Control Number: 18/311,951 Page 8 Art Unit: 2194 Application/Control Number: 18/311,951 Page 9 Art Unit: 2194 Application/Control Number: 18/311,951 Page 10 Art Unit: 2194 Application/Control Number: 18/311,951 Page 11 Art Unit: 2194 Application/Control Number: 18/311,951 Page 12 Art Unit: 2194 Application/Control Number: 18/311,951 Page 13 Art Unit: 2194 Application/Control Number: 18/311,951 Page 14 Art Unit: 2194 Application/Control Number: 18/311,951 Page 15 Art Unit: 2194 Application/Control Number: 18/311,951 Page 16 Art Unit: 2194 Application/Control Number: 18/311,951 Page 17 Art Unit: 2194 Application/Control Number: 18/311,951 Page 18 Art Unit: 2194 Application/Control Number: 18/311,951 Page 19 Art Unit: 2194 Application/Control Number: 18/311,951 Page 20 Art Unit: 2194
Prosecution Insights