CTNF 18/358,326 CTNF 82476 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. 12-151 AIA 26-51 12-51 Status of Claims Claims 1-14 are pending. Election/Restrictions 08-25-01 AIA Applicant’s election without traverse of species I encompassing claims 1-14 in the reply filed on 03/09/2026 is acknowledged. Information Disclosure Statement The Information Disclosure Statement filed on 07/25/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and have been considered. An initialed copy of the Form 1449 is enclosed herewith. Specification The title of the invention is not descriptive. Examiner suggests that title maybe changed to provide more description regarding the instant invention. Therefore, a new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. Claim Objections Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the data correction and the expansion unit” in the claim. Appropriate correction is required and also look for similar antecedent issue for all the claims. 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 specification 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”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited 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. 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: “interference removal module”, “reconstruction unit”, “data correction unit”, and “data correction and an expansion unit” in claims 8 and 13-14. 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. A review of the specification, according to PG-Pub, shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre- AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: interference removal module - processor 218 further comprises an interference removal module 208 which determines an interference removal parameter, paragraph 43. reconstruction unit - processor 218 further comprises reconstruction unit 210, paragraphs 43, 47. data correction unit - processor 218 comprising interference removal module 208, paragraph 43. data correction and an expansion unit - interference removal module 208 may be configured to the data acquisition unit 204 and an expansion unit 212, paragraph 44. If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action. 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 § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – 07-08-aia AIA (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1 and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Lazarus et al., US 2020/0058106 . Regarding claim 1, Lazarus discloses an imaging system ( MRI system as shown in fig. 5, paragraph 21 ) comprising: a plurality of coils configured to generate one or more data sets (accessing MR data obtained using at least one radio-frequency (RF) coil of an MRI system; and (2) generating an MR image from input MR data at least in part by using a neural network model, paragraph 41 ); a processor ( controller 506, fig. 5 ) connected to the plurality of coils ( paragraph 157 ), wherein the processor is configured to: receive the one or more data sets from the plurality of coils ( data 102 may be collected by one or multiple RF coils of an MRI system, paragraph 63 ); determine an interference removal parameter from the one or more data sets received from the plurality of coils ( a first portion of the neural network model is applied to suppress (external and/or internal) RF interference in the data provided as input to stage 106 and as shown in FIG. 1A, noise removal stage 108 follows RF interference removal stage 106, paragraphs 60, 65, 81 ); and remove a radio frequency interference, by the interference removal parameter, from the one or more data sets ( see fig. 1A, wherein, data collected from coils it is suppressed to remove RF interference in the data provided as input to stage 106 and as shown in FIG. 1A, noise removal stage 108 follows RF interference removal stage 106, paragraphs 60, 65, 81 ). Regarding claim 11, Lazarus further discloses wherein the one or more data sets comprise a field of view data acquired during a scanning process to estimate the interference removal parameter (Lazarus, MR scanner performs scanning on body parts wherein, RF interference may manifest itself as one or more bright, zipper-like scratches in the image along the phase encoding direction because the interference captured in the spatial frequency domain the frequency components of interference are usually consistent through scanning, paragraphs 30, 107, 174 ), and wherein the field of view data is acquired from an imaging data (Lazarus, accessing MR data obtained using at least one radio-frequency (RF) coil of an MRI system; and (2) generating an MR image from input MR data, paragraphs 41, 149 ). Regarding claim 12, Lazarus further discloses wherein the interference removal matrix (Lazarus, as described with equation that RF interference removal involves weighting matrix, paragraph 93 ) is a linear combination of the noise signal extracted ( see fig. 1A, wherein, data collected from coils it is suppressed to remove RF interference in the data provided as input to stage 106 and as shown in FIG. 1A, noise removal stage 108 follows RF interference removal stage 106, paragraphs 60, 65, 81 and 87, note that noise is removed in three stages (i.e., stages 106, 108 and 112 as shown in fig. 1A) as a linear combination to fully remove interference and noise removal after reconstruction of image clearly shown in fig. 1A ) from a portion of the scanned image without a projection of an anatomy of a subject (Lazarus, RF interference may manifest itself as one or more bright, zipper-like scratches in the image along the phase encoding direction because the interference captured in the spatial frequency domain the frequency components of interference are usually consistent through scanning as the noise is not localized as in the image domain and thus more regions are affected, the corruption is not as destructive because the noise frequency components with small amplitude are superimposed onto the signal data with much larger amplitude paragraphs 107-109 ). Regarding claim 13, Lazarus further discloses wherein the interference removal matrix is configured to a data correction and an expansion unit (Lazarus, RF interreference removal parameter is provided in stages (i.e., stages 106, 108) perform interference and noise removal as shown in fig. 1A, wherein, noise removal stage 108 follows the RF interference removal stage 106, paragraphs 60-65, 81 ), wherein the data correction and the expansion unit enables the implementation of radio frequency interference removal matrix to extract the noise and the radio frequency interference from the one or more data sets ( data collected and generated by plurality of coils, paragraph 41 is further suppressed to remove RF interference parameter in the data provided as input to stage 106, wherein, noise removal stage 108 follows RF interference removal stage 106 to further extract/remove the noise from the generated data set, paragraphs 60-65, 81 ). Regarding claim 14, Lazarus further discloses wherein an output from the data correction and the expansion unit is transferred to a reconstruction unit to produce a noise free image data ( output from stages 106-108 is transferred to reconstruction stage 110 followed by another noise removal 112 to produce totally noise free data, fig. 1A, paragraphs 85-87 ); and the reconstructed image ( MR image 114, fig. 1A ) is stored in an image memory of the magnetic resonance imaging system ( paragraphs 88, 120, resultant MR image 114 is output (e.g., saved for subsequent access) ) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 07-20-aia AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, 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 2-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lazarus et al., US 2020/0058106 in view of Rearick et al., US 2016/0069970 . Regarding claim 3, Lazarus further discloses wherein the plurality of coils are exposed to a field system ( any suitable type of magnet that can generate a main magnetic field and may include one or more B.sub.0 coils, correction coils, etc. Shim coils 524 may be used to contribute magnetic field(s) to improve the homogeneity of the B.sub.0 field generated by magnet 522. Gradient coils 528 may be arranged to provide gradient fields, paragraph 149 ) and generate one or more data sets ( accessing MR data obtained using at least one radio-frequency (RF) coil of an MRI system; and (2) generating an MR image from input MR data, paragraph 41 ), Lazarus fails to further disclose wherein field system is a near-field system or a far-field system. However, Rearick teaches wherein field system is a near-field system or a far-field system ( near field sources in the sensor field system, paragraph 96 ). Lazarus and Rearick are combinable because they both are in the same field of endeavor dealing with suppressing artifacts/noise in MRI images. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lazarus to incorporate the teachings of Rearick for the benefit of subsequently reducing the noise present in MR signals detected by a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) system during operation, either by suppressing the environmental noise, configuring the MRI system to operate in a frequency band or bin having less noise, or both as taught by Rearick at paragraph 6. Regarding claim 2, Combination of Lazarus with Rearick further teaches wherein the plurality of coils are multi-channel radio frequency (RF) coils, and wherein the multi-channel RF coils are primary RF coils (Lazarus, as described in paragraphs 92, 96, and Rearick , paragraphs 36, 44, process the RF signal received by the primary receive coil(s) in order to compensate for the noise produced by multiple sources. For example, in some embodiments, a multichannel transfer function may be estimated from calibration measurements obtained using multiple auxiliary sensors and the primary RF coil(s), as described in more detail below. The multichannel transfer function may represent the relationships among the noise signals captured by the primary RF coil(s) ). Lazarus and Rearick are combinable because they both are in the same field of endeavor dealing with suppressing artifacts/noise in MRI images. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lazarus to incorporate the teachings of Rearick for the benefit of subsequently reducing the noise present in MR signals detected by a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) system during operation, either by suppressing the environmental noise, configuring the MRI system to operate in a frequency band or bin having less noise, or both as taught by Rearick at paragraph 6. Regarding claim 4, Combination of Lazarus with Rearick further teaches wherein the one or more data sets comprises an imaging data (Lazarus, accessing MR data obtained using at least one radio-frequency (RF) coil of an MRI system; and (2) generating an MR image from input MR data, paragraph 41 ) and a non-imaging data (Rearick, low-field MRI has been explored in limited contexts for non-imaging research purposes and narrow and specific contrast-enhanced imaging applications, but is conventionally regarded as being unsuitable for producing clinically useful images, paragraph 22 ), and wherein a calibrated data set is captured from the imaging data (Rearick, the multichannel transfer function may be estimated from multiple (e.g., at least ten, at least 100, at least 1000, etc.) calibration measurements. The multiple calibration measurements allow for estimating the multichannel transfer function with high accuracy, paragraphs 38, 80-82 ) and the pre-calibrated data is captured from the non-imaging data (Rearick, data is not calibrated for non-imaging as is unsuitable for clinical purposes, paragraph 22 ). Lazarus and Rearick are combinable because they both are in the same field of endeavor dealing with suppressing artifacts/noise in MRI images. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lazarus to incorporate the teachings of Rearick for the benefit of subsequently reducing the noise present in MR signals detected by a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) system during operation, either by suppressing the environmental noise, configuring the MRI system to operate in a frequency band or bin having less noise, or both as taught by Rearick at paragraph 6. Regarding claim 5, Combination of Lazarus with Rearick further teaches wherein a noise data is extracted from the pre-calibrated data set and the calibrated data set to estimate the interference removal parameter, wherein the noise data is generated from the noise generating source (Lazarus, see fig. 1A, wherein, data collected from coils is subject to noise removal stage 108 follows RF (i.e., radio frequency) interference removal stage 106, paragraphs 56, 81, 83 and Rearick, characterize noise in the environment to suppress or remove the characterized noise from the detected MR signals which have been calibrated, paragraphs 38, 59 ). Lazarus and Rearick are combinable because they both are in the same field of endeavor dealing with suppressing artifacts/noise in MRI images. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lazarus to incorporate the teachings of Rearick for the benefit of subsequently reducing the noise present in MR signals detected by a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) system during operation, either by suppressing the environmental noise, configuring the MRI system to operate in a frequency band or bin having less noise, or both as taught by Rearick at paragraph 6. Regarding claim 6, Combination of Lazarus with Rearick further teaches wherein the interference removal parameter is an interference removal matrix (Lazarus, as described with equation that RF interference removal involves weighting matrix, paragraph 93 and Rearick, paragraph 90 ). Lazarus and Rearick are combinable because they both are in the same field of endeavor dealing with suppressing artifacts/noise in MRI images. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lazarus to incorporate the teachings of Rearick for the benefit of subsequently reducing the noise present in MR signals detected by a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) system during operation, either by suppressing the environmental noise, configuring the MRI system to operate in a frequency band or bin having less noise, or both as taught by Rearick at paragraph 6. Regarding claim 7, Combination of Lazarus with Rearick further teaches wherein the interference removal matrix is a linear combination of the noise data extracted from the pre-calibrated data and the calibrated data (Rearick, as described in paragraphs 80 and 90 , multiple measurements may be used to average out the uncorrelated noise. Given M calibration measurements, a least squares estimator for the PA transfer function may be obtained by considering the following matrix equation for each frequency component ) Lazarus and Rearick are combinable because they both are in the same field of endeavor dealing with suppressing artifacts/noise in MRI images. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lazarus to incorporate the teachings of Rearick for the benefit of subsequently reducing the noise present in MR signals detected by a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) system during operation, either by suppressing the environmental noise, configuring the MRI system to operate in a frequency band or bin having less noise, or both as taught by Rearick at paragraph 6. Regarding claim 8, Combination of Lazarus with Rearick further teaches wherein the interference removal parameter is provided in an interference removal module (Lazarus, RF interreference removal parameter is provided as separate modules as shown in fig. 1A as element 106 or 108, paragraphs 65, 81 ) , wherein the interference removal module is configured to send data set to a reconstruction unit and a data correction unit (Lazarus, data from RF removal modules is then sent to reconstruction module 110 and further data/noise correction module 112 as shown in fig. 1A ). Lazarus and Rearick are combinable because they both are in the same field of endeavor dealing with suppressing artifacts/noise in MRI images. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lazarus to incorporate the teachings of Rearick for the benefit of subsequently reducing the noise present in MR signals detected by a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) system during operation, either by suppressing the environmental noise, configuring the MRI system to operate in a frequency band or bin having less noise, or both as taught by Rearick at paragraph 6. Regarding claim 9, Combination of Lazarus with Rearick further teaches, wherein the linear combination of the noise signal for the near-field (Rearick, near field sources in the sensor field system, paragraph 96 ) comprises computation of weights for each frequency independently indicative of each of the plurality of coils (Rearick, SNR of low-field MRI, pulse sequences have been utilized that repeat MR data acquisitions using the same spatial encoding (e.g., by repeating a pulse sequence with the same operating parameters to drive the gradient coils in the same manner). The MR signals obtained over multiple acquisitions are averaged to increase the SNR. For example, a balanced steady-state free precession pulse sequence may be used to rapidly obtain MR data over multiple acquisitions, which acquisitions are then averaged together to increase the SNR. The term “average” is used herein to describe any type of scheme for combining the signals, including absolute average (e.g., mean), weighted average, or any other technique that can be used to increase the SNR by combining MR data from multiple acquisitions, paragraph 67 ). Lazarus and Rearick are combinable because they both are in the same field of endeavor dealing with suppressing artifacts/noise in MRI images. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lazarus to incorporate the teachings of Rearick for the benefit of subsequently reducing the noise present in MR signals detected by a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) system during operation, either by suppressing the environmental noise, configuring the MRI system to operate in a frequency band or bin having less noise, or both as taught by Rearick at paragraph 6. Regarding claim 10, Combination of Lazarus with Rearick further teaches, wherein the linear combination of the noise signal for the far-field comprises computation of one set of equal weights for all the frequency indicative of the plurality of coils (Rearick, SNR of low-field MRI, pulse sequences have been utilized that repeat MR data acquisitions using the same spatial encoding (e.g., by repeating a pulse sequence with the same operating parameters to drive the gradient coils in the same manner). The MR signals obtained over multiple acquisitions are averaged to increase the SNR. For example, a balanced steady-state free precession pulse sequence may be used to rapidly obtain MR data over multiple acquisitions, which acquisitions are then averaged together to increase the SNR. The term “average” is used herein to describe any type of scheme for combining the signals, including absolute average (e.g., mean), weighted average, or any other technique that can be used to increase the SNR by combining MR data from multiple acquisitions, paragraph 67 ). Lazarus and Rearick are combinable because they both are in the same field of endeavor dealing with suppressing artifacts/noise in MRI images. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lazarus to incorporate the teachings of Rearick for the benefit of subsequently reducing the noise present in MR signals detected by a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) system during operation, either by suppressing the environmental noise, configuring the MRI system to operate in a frequency band or bin having less noise, or both as taught by Rearick at paragraph 6 . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Sacolick et al., US 2022/0244334 Corum et al., US 10,537,265 Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAWANDEEP DHINGRA whose telephone number is (571) 270-1231. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-5:00. 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, Abderrahim Merouan can be reached at (571) 270-5254. 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. /PAWAN DHINGRA/Examiner, Art Unit 2683 /ABDERRAHIM MEROUAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2683 Application/Control Number: 18/358,326 Page 2 Art Unit: 2683 Application/Control Number: 18/358,326 Page 3 Art Unit: 2683 Application/Control Number: 18/358,326 Page 4 Art Unit: 2683 Application/Control Number: 18/358,326 Page 5 Art Unit: 2683 Application/Control Number: 18/358,326 Page 6 Art Unit: 2683 Application/Control Number: 18/358,326 Page 8 Art Unit: 2683 Application/Control Number: 18/358,326 Page 9 Art Unit: 2683 Application/Control Number: 18/358,326 Page 10 Art Unit: 2683 Application/Control Number: 18/358,326 Page 11 Art Unit: 2683 Application/Control Number: 18/358,326 Page 12 Art Unit: 2683 Application/Control Number: 18/358,326 Page 13 Art Unit: 2683 Application/Control Number: 18/358,326 Page 14 Art Unit: 2683 Application/Control Number: 18/358,326 Page 15 Art Unit: 2683 Application/Control Number: 18/358,326 Page 16 Art Unit: 2683 Application/Control Number: 18/358,326 Page 17 Art Unit: 2683 Application/Control Number: 18/358,326 Page 18 Art Unit: 2683 Application/Control Number: 18/358,326 Page 19 Art Unit: 2683
Prosecution Insights