CTNF 18/485,388 CTNF 90246 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. Claim Status Claims 1-17 were filed on 10/12/2023 and are pending. Priority The instant application was filed on 10/12/2023 are claims the benefit of priority to: PNG media_image1.png 180 1078 media_image1.png Greyscale . See filing receipt dated 11/9/2023. Drawings 06-22 AIA The drawings are objected to because they are blurry and contain grey scale, which makes them difficult to read, especially Figures 4A, 4B, and 5 . 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 Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim s 1 and 6 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 1 and 6 are objected to because they contain the phrasing “selected from the group comprising A, B, or C”. This limitation should be recited as “selected from the group consisting of A, B, and C” or “comprising A, B, or C”. Claim 1 is also objected to because the limitation “4-hydroxybenzoic acid” is misspelled as “4-hydrooxybenzoic acid” in lines 2-3 . Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)-Scope of Enablement 07-30-01 AIA The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. 07-31-03 AIA Claim s 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for the use of the methyl ester (-COOMe) of 4-hydroxybenzoic acid (H), of vanillic acid (G), and/or of syringic acid (S) as a reactant , does not reasonably provide enablement for the free acid (-COOH) of 4-hydroxybenzoic acid (H), of vanillic acid (G), and/or of syringic acid (S) as reactant in the claimed process . The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to practice the invention commensurate in scope with these claims. In In re Wands (8 USPQ2d 1400 (CAFC 1988)) the CAFC considered the issue of enablement in molecular biology. The CAFC summarized eight factors to be considered in a determination of "undue experimentation." These factors include: (a) the breadth of the claims; (b) the nature of the invention; (c) the state of the prior art; (d) the relative skill of those in the art; (e) the predictability of the art; (f) the amount of direction or guidance presented; (g) the presence or absence of working examples; and (h) the quantity of experimentation necessary. Also see MPEP 2164. In considering the factors for the instant claims: a) The claims are broad in that they recite that the free acids of H, G, and S can be treated with sulfonyl chloride followed by catalytic reduction to form a homo-coupled (H-H, etc) or cross-coupled (H-G) product. b) The nature of the invention, organic synthesis and catalysis, is complex. c) The prior art does not show the aromatic compounds bearing unprotected protic acidic -COOH groups, including 4-hydroxybenzoic acid (H), vanillic acid (G), and syringic acid (S) PNG media_image2.png 300 414 media_image2.png Greyscale (instant Fig. 1), can undergo the conditions as claimed to produce coupled products as evidenced by: Su (“Nickel-Catalyzed Cross-Electrophile Coupling: Methodology Development and Mechanistic Insights”, Introduction and Chapters 1-2, Doctoral Dissertation University of Wisconsin-Madison, 2024); Ehehalt (“Cross-Electrophile Coupling: Principles, Methods, and Applications in Synthesis” Chemical Reviews, 2024, p. 13397); Franke (“Recent Advances in Electrochemical, Ni-Catalyzed C-C Bond Formation” Israel Journal of Chemistry, 2024, e202300089); Semmelhack (“Synthesis with Zerovalent Nickel. Coupling of Aryl Halides with Bis(1,5-cyclooctadiene)nickel(0)” JACS, 1971, p. 5908); and Xiong (“Dual Nickel-/Palladium-Catalyzed Reductive Cross-Coupling Reactions between Two Phenol Derivatives” Org. Lett. 2020, p. 6334, of record in the IDS filed on 2/9/2024). Ehehalt, Franke, and Chapter 1 of Su are all directed toward recent (2024) review of cross-electrophile couplings (XEC). Ehehalt discusses biaryl couplings in section 3 to end 3.2 on p. 13404-13416, and discusses the XEC of aryl halides (section 3.2.1), the XEC of aryl halides and aryl pseudohalides (including sulfonates) with aryl pseudohalides (including sulfonates) (3.2.2); the XEC of aryl halides with other coupling partners (3.2.3); and the XEC of aryl carboxylic acid esters, aryl ethers, and anilines (3.2.4). Each section also includes a discussion of the scope of each of the types of XEC reactions with respect to the catalysts used, wherein catalysts include Ni, Pd, Co, Rh, Cr, and multimetallic systems (Ni/Pd catalyst with a Zn reductant). None of the reactions in the biaryl formation section 3.2, under any form of catalysis, teach that a free carboxylic acid group (- COOH) can be tolerated in the reductive coupling reactions. In section 3.2.2 (corresponding to the claimed process wherein two aryl sulfonates are coupled to form a biaryl compound), in col. 1 on p. 13414 with respect to Scheme 30 and reference 114, Ehehalt teaches “Notably, protic substrates were tolerated such as benzyl and aliphatic alcohols, that can be problematic in other nickel and palladium multimetallic systems.”. Therefore, protic substrates are a known problem with at least nickel and palladium multi-metallic systems. Reference 114 of Ehehalt corresponds to Xiong . Xiong teaches the following reaction, which corresponds to a reductive cross-coupling between a tosylate (OTs) and a triflate (OTf) (ie two sulfonates): PNG media_image3.png 148 646 media_image3.png Greyscale . See abstract and Fig. 2 on p. 6336. Though Xiong teaches that the reaction can tolerate alcohol (-OH), amide (-NH(C=O)-), and carbamate (-NH(C=O)O-) groups comprising protic acidic hydrogen atoms, Xiong does not teach any examples comprising a free (unprotected) carboxylic acid. All examples comprising a carboxyl (-COO-) group are in the form of the methyl ester (-COOMe). Franke is a review directed toward recent advances in electrochemical, Ni-catalyzed C-C bond formation. See abstract and the following Fig. 1: PNG media_image4.png 436 800 media_image4.png Greyscale . Aryl-Aryl bond formation is discussed in section 2.1 (sacrificial anode) and section 3.1 (sacrificial reductant). As in Ehehalt, none of the aryl-aryl C-C formation reactions discussed in Franke, and summarized in Figure 1, are known to tolerate -COOH groups. Su corresponds to the dissertation of one of the co-inventors of the instant application. Chapter 1 of Su corresponds to a prior art review of Nickel-mediated reductive coupling reactions and Chapter 2 of Su corresponds to the authors experimental results with respect to Ni-and Ni/Pd-catalyzed reductive coupling of lignin-derived aromatics to access biobased plasticizers (corresponding to the inventive examples in the specification as filed). None of the reactions disclosed in Chapters 1-2 of Su are known to tolerate -COOH groups. Further, in the first paragraph of section 1.2 on p. 3, Su teaches that “acidic functional groups (hydroxyl, carboxylic acid) failed to couple under these conditions”, wherein said conditions correspond to Nickel-mediated reductive coupling and reference 13. Reference 13 of Su corresponds to Semmelhack . Semmelhack teaches “acidic functional groups (hydroxyl, carboxylic acid) bring about reduction of the carbon-halogen bond at the expense of the coupling reaction. The reaction of 6-bromopiperonyl alcohol under the usual conditions affords piperonyl alcohol in 31% yield accompanied by 51% of unreacted aryl halide and none of the corresponding biaryl. This side pathway is a limitation of the aryl coupling reaction, but is under investigation as a mild and selective method of reducing aromatic carbon-halogen bonds. Removal of the proton source by forming the sodium salt (e.g., entries 21 and 22 in Table I) appears to strongly deactivate the aryl halide toward coupling.” See paragraph bridging p. 5909-5910. d) The skill of those in the art of organic synthesis and catalysis is high. e) The predictability of carrying out the claimed reaction, wherein the aromatic compounds are in the form of their free acids, is unknown in the prior art. f and g) The description and working examples are only directed toward the reductive coupling of methyl esters of H, G, and S in the presence of Ni or Ni/Pd catalysts. See examples and Figures. The description and examples do not provide detailed guidance or working examples of the reductive coupling of H, G, and S under any conditions. Nor does the specification appear to consider the term “acid” to include methyl esters. h) In order to use the claimed invention one of skill in the art must try to optimize the entire catalytic system to overcome a known deficit with the disclosed Ni or Ni/Pd catalyzed reactions to obtain biaryl coupled compounds, namely the competing mechanism of reducing aromatic carbon-halogen bonds with the protic reactants. For the reasons discussed below, there would be an unpredictable amount of experimentation required to practice the claimed invention. The skilled practitioner would first turn to the instant description for guidance in using the claimed invention. However, the description lacks clear evidence that the reaction as claimed can be carried out using any of conditions set forth in the specification as filed. As such, the skilled practitioner would turn to the prior art for such guidance, however the prior art does not discuss that the claimed reaction can be carried out with a reasonable expectation of success under the preferred catalytic conditions. Finally, said practitioner would turn to trial-and-error experimentation to determine a relationship between the claimed free carboxylic acid reactants and the known unfavorable catalytic system. Such amounts to undue experimentation. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)-Written Description 07-30-01 AIA The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. 07-31-01 Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. To satisfy the written description requirement, a patent specification must describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. See MPEP 2163. Based on the information provided in the specification as filed and the knowledge available to those of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed application, it is not clear that the Applicant is in possession of the process as claimed. As discussed in the preceding rejection, the Applicant only provides detailed experimental data for the reductive coupling of the methyl esters of H, G, and S in the presence of Ni or Ni/Pd catalysts to provide the corresponding biaryl products, as summarized by the following Fig. 2: PNG media_image5.png 402 820 media_image5.png Greyscale . See examples and Figures. The Applicant does not provide any experimental details for carrying out the same reactions on the free acids of H, G, and S. Nor does the Applicant discuss that such a reaction is already known and possible in the prior art and/or that the term “acid” includes methyl esters of said acids. As evidenced by Su , Ehehalt , Franke, Semmelhack and Xiong (full citations in the preceding rejection), whose teachings were addressed in the preceding rejection and incorporated by reference herein, the art up to 2024 (later than the effective filing date of the instant invention) does not teach or suggest that the claimed reaction is possible. None of the art cites reactions wherein aryl compounds bearing free -COOH groups can be successfully subjected to reductive coupling conditions until the disclosed conditions. Su, which corresponds to the 2024 dissertation of one of the co-inventors, also fails to teach that the claimed reaction conditions can be applied to -COOH compounds and appears to teach the opposite. Therefore, while the Applicant is in possession if a process for reductively coupling the methyl esters of H, G and S, the Applicant does not appear to be in possession of a process as claimed wherein the free acids of H, G, and S are subjected to reductive coupling to obtain the corresponding biaryls. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b) 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 Claims 2, 3, and 12 are 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. Claim 2 recites “wherein the coupled product is a plasticizer”. It is not clear if this limitation requires extra process steps or is an inherent property of the products produced directly from the reaction. Paragraph [0027] and Fig. 5 of the specification as filed appear to require that the coupled product be further trans-esterified with 2-ethylhexanol to actually obtain a plasticizer. The specification does not indicate that the methyl esters as obtained directly from the reaction can be used as plasticizers and nor does the specification teach that the 2-ethylhexanol esters can be used in the coupling reaction. Therefore, it appears that further steps are required to actually meet the limitations of claims 2 and 3 . Claim 3 is additionally rejected for being indefinite because the scope of the limitation “is capable of lowering a glass transition temperature of a phthalate compound” is not clear. As shown by Fig. 5 and [0027], the claimed inventive “DEH-BPDA” esters are taught to lower the glass transition temperature of PVC, a polymer. The only phthalate discussed is di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (DEHP), which is shown as an alternative plasticizer to the inventive esters. Therefore, the claimed compounds do not appear to affect the transition glass temperature of the DEHP, instead lowering the transition glass temperature of the PVC as compared to DEHP under identical conditions. Claim 12 recites “wherein the step of reacting the sulfonate intermediates is performed in the presence of a NiCl 2 catalyst and Zn powder and a chemical reductant”. This limitation is indefinite because Zn powder is a chemical reductant and it is not clear if the word “and” is a typo for “as” or if another chemical reductant is required. According to the specification as filed, Zn powder is the only chemical reductant required and discussed. For example, see [0009, 0014, and 0023-0026]. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 In the interests of compact prosecution, the process has been searched with respect to the methyl esters of H, G, and S, as is consistent with the specification as filed. 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. 07-12-aia AIA (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-15-aia AIA Claim(s) 1 and 4-8 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Percec (“Aryl Mesylates in Metal-Catalyzed Homocoupling and Cross-Coupling Reactions. 1. Functional Symmetrical Biaryls from Phenols via Nickel-Catalyzed Homocoupling of their Mesylates” JOC, 1995, p, 176, of record in the IDS filed 2/9/2024) as evidenced by Luo (“Oxidative Catalytic Fractionation of Lignocellulosic Biomass under Non-alkaline Conditions” JACS, 9/9/2021, p. 15462, of record in the IDS filed 2/9/2024) . On p. 179, Percec teaches the following examples: PNG media_image6.png 870 1040 media_image6.png Greyscale Percec teaches that the methanesulfonate (mesylate) of 4-hydroxybenzoic acid methyl ester (CH 3 CO 2 - p -C 6 H 4 -Oms, [Ar-OMs]), wherein the hydroxy group (-OH) has been transformed to a methanesulfonate/mesyl group (-OSO 3 CH 3 ), is homo-coupled to form H-H ([Ar-Ar], methyl-4-((methylsulfonyl)oxy)benzoate, claim 7 ). Percec teaches that the 4-methanesulfonate benzoic acid methyl ester (corresponding to the claimed sulfonate intermediate) is prepared by reacting methanesulfonyl chloride (a sulfonyl chloride of formula CH 2 SO 2 Cl, claim 6 ) with the methyl ester of 4-hydroxybenzoic acid (HO- p -C 6 H 4 CO 2 CH 3 ). See p. 184: PNG media_image7.png 180 484 media_image7.png Greyscale . Percec teaches that the homo-coupling proceeds through a catalytic reduction of the mesylates in the presence of a NiCl 2 (PPh 3 ) 2 catalyst and a Zn reductant ( claim 8 ). Further regarding claims 4 and 5 , as evidenced by Luo in Fig. 1 on p. 15463, 4-hydroxybenzoic acid is derived from lignin biomass. The limitations in claims 4-5 do not appear to be actively required process steps because they are present in a “wherein” clause and are written using passive (are derived from) vs. active (further comprising obtaining) language. Therefore, the limitations of these claims are interpreted to be met. Also see MPEP 2131 . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 In the interests of compact prosecution, the process has been searched with respect to the methyl esters of H, G, and S, as is consistent with the specification as filed. 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. 07-23-aia AIA The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. 07-20-02-aia AIA This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1 and 4-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jutand (“Nickel- and Palladium-Catalyzed Homocoupling of Aryl Triflates. Scope, Limitations, and Mechanistic Aspects” J. Org. Chem. 1997, p. 261, of record in the IDS filed on 2/9/2024) as evidenced by Luo (“Oxidative Catalytic Fractionation of Lignocellulosic Biomass under Non-alkaline Conditions” JACS, 9/9/2021, p. 15462, of record in the IDS filed 2/9/2024) . Applicant claims a method comprising: providing one or more aromatic compounds selected from the group comprising (the methyl esters of) 4-hydrooxybenzoic acid (H), vanillic acid (G), syringic acid (S) or a combination thereof; reacting the aromatic compounds with a sulfonyl chloride thereby generating one or more sulfonate intermediates; reacting the one or more sulfonate intermediates via catalytic reduction thereby generating a coupled product. Jutand teaches nickel- or palladium-catalyzed homocoupling reactions between aryl triflates to form biaryls. See abstract. In Table 8 on p. 270, Jutand teaches the following series of reactions which are catalyzed by PdCl 2 (PPh 3 ) or NiCl 2 (dppe) in the presence of a Zn powder reductant: PNG media_image8.png 494 1012 media_image8.png Greyscale Entries 5 and 6 in the Table corresponds to a homo-coupling between the ethyl esters of 4-hydroxybenzoic acid (H) to produce the diethyl ester product (H-H, 4,4’- p -CO 2 Et(C 6 H 4 ) 2 - p -CO 2 Et, claim 7 ). The reaction involves reductive coupling of two equivalents of the trifluoromethanesulfonate/triflate (-OSO 3 CF 3 ) of the ethyl ester of H ( p -CO 2 Et-C 6 H 4 -OTf), a sulfonate intermediate, in the presence of PdCl 2 (PPh 3 ) 2 or NiCl 2 (dppe) ( claim 8 ) and a Zn reductant. Further regarding claims 4 and 5 , as evidenced by Luo in Fig. 1 on p. 15463, 4-hydroxybenzoic acid is derived from lignin biomass. The limitations in claims 4-5 do not appear to be actively required process steps because they are present in a “wherein” clause and are written using passive (are derived from) vs. active (further comprising obtaining) language. Therefore, the limitations of these claims are interpreted to be met. Jutand teaches that the ( p -CO 2 Et-C 6 H 4 -OTf) is prepared by reacting p-CO 2 Et-C 6 H 4 -OH with triflic anhydride (CF 3 SO 2 ) 2 O. See col. 1 “Experimental Section” to the first paragraph at the top of col. 2 on p. 272. Jutand further teaches that the triflate sulfonate group (-OTf) can be substituted for a tosylate sulfonate group (-OTs) or a para-fluorobenzene sulfonate (-OSO 2 PhF) in an analogous reaction using 1-napthol derivatives.: PNG media_image9.png 412 1000 media_image9.png Greyscale . See Table 7 and discussion thereof on p. 269. Jutand teaches that the tosylate and para-fluorobenzenesulfonates can be prepared by reacting a phenol with toluenesulfonyl chloride (H 3 CPhSO 2 Cl- claim 6 ) or p-fluorobenzenesulfonyl chloride. See col. 2 on p. 272, paragraphs 2 to 4. Jutand does not explicitly teach an example wherein an ester of 4-hydroxybenzoic acid (H) is reacted with a sulfonyl chloride to produce the sulfonate intermediate. It would have been prima facie obvious to arrive at the instantly claimed process with a reasonable expectation of success before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to prepare a sulfonate of the ethyl ester of (H) using a sulfonyl chloride because Jutand teaches that sulfonyl chlorides are known and predictable substitutes for sulfonyl anhydrides. Replacing one known sulfonating agent with another is prima facie obvious. Also see MPEP 2143(I)(B). It would also have been prima facie obvious to employ an ethyl or methyl ester of H as the reactant because they are one-carbon homologs of one another and presumed to possess substantially the same properties. Also see MPEP 2144.09. Regarding claims 9 and 10 , Jutand carried out a series of electrochemical reactions that were analogous to “chemical” reactions in Table 8: PNG media_image10.png 366 506 media_image10.png Greyscale . See p. 270 and discussion of Table 9 on p. 269-270. Jutand teaches that the process is carried out in the presence of a Mg sacrificial anode. See “general procedure for preparative electrolyses” on p. 273-274. Therefore, there is a reasonable expectation of success that the H-H coupled product could also be carried out electrochemically under similar conditions . 07-22-aia AIA Claim (s) 2, 3, and 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jutand (“Nickel- and Palladium-Catalyzed Homocoupling of Aryl Triflates. Scope, Limitations, and Mechanistic Aspects” J. Org. Chem. 1997, p. 261, of record in the IDS filed on 2/9/2024) as evidenced by Luo (“Oxidative Catalytic Fractionation of Lignocellulosic Biomass under Non-alkaline Conditions” JACS, 9/9/2021, p. 15462, of record in the IDS filed 2/9/2024) , as applied to claim s 1 and 4-10 above and further in view of Llevot (“From Lignin-derived Aromatic Compounds to Novel Biobased Polymers” Macromol. Rapid Commun. 2016, p. 9); and Mazoyer ( US 2020/0361845 , published on 11/19/2020) . The Applicant claims a method of claim 1, wherein the coupled product is modified to be a plasticizer capable of lowering a glass transition (Tg) temperature of a phthalate compound. Applicant also claims a method of homo-coupling (S-S) the methyl ester of syringic acid (S) in the presence of NiCl 2 , Zn powder as a reductant, and a nitrogen or phosphorus ligand. Jutand does not explicitly teach that the disclosed compounds can be used as plasticizers. Nor does Jutand contemplate the use of the methyl ester of syringic acid in a coupling reaction to form (S-S). However, as discussed above, Jutand teaches analogous homo-coupling reactions, including H [Wingdings font/0xE0] H-H, which are carried out in the presence of PdCl 2 (PPh 3 ) 2 or NiCl 2 (dppe) and a Zn reductant ( claim 12 ), wherein dppe is a phosphine-based ligand ( claim 13 ). See entries 5 and 6 in Table 8 on p. 270 and Table 4 on p. 266 and discussion thereof. Jutand additionally teaches in Table 8 on p. 270, that -OMe substituents, such as those on (S), can be tolerated in the reaction. See entry 17. Jutland also teaches that ortho-substituents, with respect to the sulfonate group on the aryl compound, can be tolerated (entry 15). Llevot is a review directed toward novel based polymers obtained from lignin-derived aromatic compounds, including vanillin, syringaldehyde, or 4-hydroxybenzoic acid. See abstract. Llevot teaches that “most of the polymers produced from lignin derivatives deal with vanillin, ferulic acid, or guaiacol. Examples of benzaldehyde and syringaldehyde polymerizations are often described to show the influence of the o- methoxy group on the polymer properties.” See final paragraph of introduction section on p. 10. Scheme 3 on p. 12; Scheme 10 (P15) on p. 17; Scheme 14 on p. 20; Scheme 15 on p. 21; Scheme 18 on p. 22; Scheme 21 on p. 24; Scheme 22 on p. 24; and Scheme 27 on p. 26 all show polymers comprising biphenyl groups derived from lignin aromatics, including vanillic, syringic, and 4-hydroxybenzoic acid or derivatives thereof. Llevot further teaches several bio-polymers with tunable glass transition temperatures (based in part on the substituents on the lignin-obtained aromatic rings). For example, see paragraph bridging p. 18-19; second paragraph on p. 20; second paragraph on p. 22; and first paragraph on p. 24. Mazoyer teaches the preparation and use of biphenyldicarboxylic acids, including 4,4’-biphenyldicarboxylic acids (BPDAs). See abstract and [0003]. Unsubstituted BPDA corresponds to a homo-coupled product of H-H possessing two -CO 2 H groups, see [0029]. Mazoyer teaches that BPDAs can be useful intermediates in the production of polymers and as use as plasticizers for PVC and other polymer compositions. Mazoyer teaches that long chain alcohol esters of BPDA are well-known plasticizers, which are used to lower the glass transition temperature of polymers. See [0003]. It would have been prima facie obvious to combine the teachings of Jutand, Llevot, and Mazoyer to arrive at the instantly claimed process with a reasonable expectation of success before the effective filing date of the instant invention. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to prepare a homo-coupled product of the methyl ester of syringic acid (S-S) using the process of Jutand because Mayozer teaches that the scaffold of the analogous BPDA (H-H) can be used as a plasticizer and Llevot teaches a variety of bio-based polymers which are derived from lignin aromatics, including H, G, and S. Llevot further teaches several examples which comprise a biphenyl core derived from H, G, and/or S or an aldehyde or alcohol thereof. Further, Jutand teaches analogous successful coupling examples of aryl sulonates bearing -OMe and ortho- substituents (both present in S). Therefore, the skilled artisan would be motivated to obtain the (S-S) homo-coupled product in order to predictably obtain another bio-based compound which can be used as a plasticizer and/or monomer of a bio-based polymer with a reasonable expectation of success. Also see MPEP 2144.09. A person of ordinary skill would have found it further obvious to use the claimed compounds as plasticizers, once trans-esterified with long chain alcohols, to lower the transition glass temperature for PVC and other polymers because Mayozer teaches that the scaffold of the analogous BPDA (H-H) can be used as a plasticizer and Llevot teaches that the transition glass temperature is tunable based in part of the substituents on the aromatic ring. Therefore, long chain alcohols of analogs of BPDA would also be expected to function as plasticizers to predictably lower the transition glass temperature of PVC and other polymers because of the significant structural similarity between H, G, and S. Also see MPEP 2144.09 . 07-22-aia AIA Claim (s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jutand (“Nickel- and Palladium-Catalyzed Homocoupling of Aryl Triflates. Scope, Limitations, and Mechanistic Aspects” J. Org. Chem. 1997, p. 261, of record in the IDS filed on 2/9/2024) as evidenced by Luo (“Oxidative Catalytic Fractionation of Lignocellulosic Biomass under Non-alkaline Conditions” JACS, 9/9/2021, p. 15462, of record in the IDS filed 2/9/2024), in view of Llevot (“From Lignin-derived Aromatic Compounds to Novel Biobased Polymers” Macromol. Rapid Commun. 2016, p. 9); and Mazoyer ( US 2020/0361845 , published on 11/19/2020 , as applied to claim s 1-13 above, and further in view of Birkholz (“Bite angle effects of diphosphines in C-C and C-X bond forming cross-coupling reactions” Chem. Soc. Rev, 2009, p. 1099) . Applicant claims a method for producing S-S in the presence of a NiCl 2 catalyst, Zn powder as a reductant, and the ligand DPEPhos. Jutand teaches that the best performing ligand when the reaction was catalyzed with NiCl 2 and Zn reductant was dppf (1,1’-bis(diphenylphosphino)ferrocene) as compared to PPh 3 and dppe. Jutand teaches: “whereas nickel complexes ligated by bidentate ligands were reported to be inefficient for the dimerization of aryl halides,12b we discovered that they were very efficient for the dimerization of aryl triflates, and an almost quantitative yield (93%, Table 7, entry 8) was obtained with NiCl 2 (dppf) as catalyst.” Jutand also discusses the criticality of the bite-angle of diphosphine ligands with respect to the Pd catalyzed reactions. See Table 4 and discussion thereof on p. 266-267. Birkholz is a review regarding bite angle effects of diphosphines in C-C and C-X bond forming cross coupling reactions. Birkholz teaches that bite angles can be used to modify steric bulk or catalytic intermediates in order to affect the outcome of a reaction, including those catalyzed by Pd and Ni. See introduction section on p. 1099-1100 and hydrocyanation studies on p. 1101. In Scheme 2 on p. 1103, Birkholz teaches the following common diphosphines and their bite angles: PNG media_image11.png 352 908 media_image11.png Greyscale . The preferred ligand of Jutand, dppf, is shown to have a bite angle of 99°. The diphosphine with the next widest angle is DPEphos at 104°C (the claimed ligand). Dppe, another ligand examined by Jutand in the Ni catalyzed coupling, has a bite angle of 86°C. It would have been prima facie obvious to combine the teachings Jutand, Llevot, Mazoyer, and Birkholz to arrive at the instantly claimed process with a reasonable expectation of success before the effective filing date of the instant invention. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to substitute different diphosphine ligands in the combined process of Jutand, Llevot, and Mazoyer , such as the commonly known ligands discussed in Birkholz , because Jutand teaches that different diphosphines, including those with different bite angles, can affect both the nickel and palladium catalyzed reactions. A person of ordinary skill would have been further motivated to select the claimed ligand, DPEphos, because Birkholz teaches that DPEphos is a commonly known ligand and because it has the next closest wider bite angle to the best ligand used in Jutand , dppf. Choosing a ligand that is similar in size to the exemplary dppf will result in a predictable reductive coupling to arrive at the instantly claimed process. Also see MPEP 2143(I)(B) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1-8, 11-13, and 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang (“Sulfonate Versus Sulfonate: Nickel and Palladium Multimetallic Cross-Electrophile Coupling of Aryl Triflates with Aryl Tosylates” JACS, 2020, p. 10634, of record in the IDS filed on 2/9/2024, including supporting information (SI) p. S1-S14 ) in view of Llevot (“From Lignin-derived Aromatic Compounds to Novel Biobased Polymers” Macromol. Rapid Commun. 2016, p. 9); and Mazoyer ( US 2020/0361845 , published on 11/19/2020) . Kang teaches a multi-metallic cross-coupling reaction between two different sulfonate esters: PNG media_image12.png 292 598 media_image12.png Greyscale . See abstract and Scheme 1 on p. 10634. Kang establishes the scope of the reaction using the following conditions: PNG media_image13.png 146 1212 media_image13.png Greyscale , which is used to produce a variety of cross-coupled biaryls which are analogous to the claimed coupling products, including: PNG media_image14.png 170 162 media_image14.png Greyscale PNG media_image15.png 168 190 media_image15.png Greyscale PNG media_image16.png 158 156 media_image16.png Greyscale PNG media_image17.png 154 516 media_image17.png Greyscale PNG media_image18.png 152 216 media_image18.png Greyscale PNG media_image19.png 112 452 media_image19.png Greyscale See Scheme 2 on p. 10636. Therefore, Kang teaches that the reaction can tolerate sterically hindered compounds bearing ester (COOMe) and/or methoxy (OMe) groups. In compound 3f, the coupling partner p -CO 2 Me-Ph-OTs corresponds to a tosylate (sulfonate) intermediate of the methyl ester of H and in compound 3af, the couping partner p -CO 2 Me, o -MeO-Ph-OTs corresponds to a tosylate (sulfonate) intermediate of the methyl ester of G. The aryl tosylates (Ar-OTs) are reductively coupled with the aryl triflates/trifluoromethansulfonate (Ar-OTf) in the presence of a Ni/Pd ( claims 8, 12, and 16 ) catalyst comprising about 1.0 mol% of NiCl 2 (dme) and 1.0 mol% of PdCl 2 , Zn powder as a chemical reductant ( claim 12 ), and a nitrogen-based (L1 in Scheme 2) or phosphine-based (dppb in Scheme 2) ligand ( claim 13 ). Kang teaches that “mechanistic studies show that Pd strongly prefers the aryl triflate, the Ni catalyst has a small preference for the aryl tosylate, aryl transfer between catalysts is mediated by Zn, and Pd improves yields by consuming arylzinc intermediates”. See abstract and Scheme 3 and discussion thereof on p. 10637. On p. S9-S14, Kang teaches that the aryl triflates are prepared by reacting triflic anhydride with a phenol and that the aryl tosylates are prepared by reacting a phenol with 4-toluenesulfonyl chloride (4-CH 3 SO 2 Cl, claim 6 ). Kang does not teach any anticipatory examples wherein the methyl ester of H, G, or S is homo-coupled or cross-coupled to each other. Llevot is a review directed toward novel based polymers obtained from lignin (biomass)-derived aromatic compounds ( claims 4 and 5 ), including vanillin, syringaldehyde, or 4-hydroxybenzoic acid. See abstract. Llevot teaches that “most of the polymers produced from lignin derivatives deal with vanillin, ferulic acid, or guaiacol. Examples of benzaldehyde and syringaldehyde polymerizations are often described to show the influence of the o- methoxy group on the polymer properties.” See final paragraph of introduction section on p. 10. Scheme 3 on p. 12; Scheme 10 (P15) on p. 17; Scheme 14 on p. 20; Scheme 15 on p. 21; Scheme 18 on p. 22; Scheme 21 on p. 24; Scheme 22 on p. 24; and Scheme 27 on p. 26 all show polymers comprising biphenyl groups derived from lignin aromatics, including vanillic, syringic, and 4-hydroxybenzoic acid. Llevot further teaches several bio-polymers with tunable glass transition temperatures (based in part on the substituents on the aromatic rings). For example, see paragraph bridging p. 18-19; second paragraph on p. 20; second paragraph on p. 22; and first paragraph on p. 24. Mazoyer teaches the preparation and use of biphenyldicarboxylic acids, including 4,4’-biphenyldicarboxylic acids (BPDAs). See abstract and [0003]. Unsubstituted BPDA corresponds to a homo-coupled product of H-H, see [0029]. Mazoyer teaches that BPDAs can be useful intermediates in the production of polymers and as use as plasticizers for PVC and other polymer compositions. Mazoyer teaches that long chain alcohol esters of BPDA are well-known plasticizers, which are used to lower the glass transition temperature of polymers. See [0003]. It would have been prima facie obvious to combine the teachings of Kang, Llevot, and Mazoyer to arrive at the instantly claimed process with a reasonable expectation of success before the effective filing date of the instant invention. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to prepare a homo-coupled product of (H-H), (G-G), (S,S) or cross-coupled product (H-G, G-S, H-S) of the methyl esters of H, G, and S using the process of Kang because Mayozer teaches that the scaffold of the analogous BPDA (H-H) can be used as a plasticizer and Llevot teaches a variety of bio-based polymers which are derived from lignin aromatics, including H, G, and S. Llevot further teaches several examples which comprise a biphenyl core derived from H, G, and/or S or an aldehyde or alcohol thereof. Therefore, the skilled artisan would be motivated to obtain the claimed homo- and cross-coupled products in order to predictably obtain more bio-based compounds which can be used as plasticizers and/or monomers of a bio-based polymer ( claims 7, 11, and 15 ). Also see MPEP 2144.09. A person of ordinary skill would have found it further obvious to use the claimed compounds as plasticizers, once trans-esterified with long chain alcohols, to lower the transition glass temperature for PVC and other polymers because Mayozer teaches that the scaffold of the analogous BPDA (H-H) can be used as a plasticizer and Llevot teaches that the transition glass temperature is tunable based in part of the substituents on the aromatic ring. Therefore, long chain alcohols of analogs of BPDA would also be expected to function as plasticizers to predictably lower the transition glass temperature of PVC and other polymers because of the significant structural similarity between H, G, and S ( claims 2-3 ). Also see MPEP 2144.09. Further regarding claim 17 , Kang teaches the use of a Ni/Pd catalyst comprising about 1.0 mol% of NiCl 2 (dme) and 1.0 mol% of PdCl 2 . Kang further teaches that “mechanistic studies show that Pd strongly prefers the aryl triflate, the Ni catalyst has a small preference for the aryl tosylate, aryl transfer between catalysts is mediated by Zn, and Pd improves yields by consuming arylzinc intermediates”. See abstract and Scheme 3 and discussion thereof on p. 10637. Though Kang does not explicitly teach the NiCl 2 is used in about 10 mol% and the PdCl 2 is used in about 3 mol%, Kang provides guidance to the skilled artisan on how to optimize the reaction for other desired couplings. Further, it is prima facie obvious to the skilled artisan that increasing the catalyst loading will lead to increased reaction times and the activation of less active coupling electrophiles. Also see MPEP 2144.05. Double Patenting 08-33 AIA The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg , 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman , 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi , 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum , 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington , 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer. Claims 1-11 and 15-17 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15, 19-22, and 32 of co-pending Application No. 18/572146 (‘146 , reference application) in view of Jutand (“Nickel- and Palladium-Catalyzed Homocoupling of Aryl Triflates. Scope, Limitations, and Mechanistic Aspects” J. Org. Chem. 1997, p. 261, of record in the IDS filed on 2/9/2024). The claims of ‘146 are directed to the embodiment of the claimed process which is carried out electrochemically. The aryl sulfonate reactants are derived from one or more phenols by converting the phenolic -OH to a sulfonate (claims 8-11), and the phenols are preferably derived from the oxidation of lignin, which produces H, G, and S (claims 12-22), as evidenced by Fig. 1 of ‘143. Therefore, the products of the claims of ‘146 will be homo-coupled productss of (H-H), (G-G), (S,S) or cross-coupled product (H-G, G-S, H-S) of the methyl esters of H, G, and S and can be used as plasticizers to lower glass transition temperatures of polymers. Preferably, the sulfonates are mesylate (methyl sulfonate), triflate (trifluoromethanesulfonate), or tosylate (toluenesulfonate) (claims 14 and 21). The process is catalyzed by Ni or Ni and Pd catalysts (claims 3, 6-7). The claims of ‘146 do not recite how the phenolic -OH is converted to the sulfonate ( claim 1 ); the use of a sacrificial anode comprising Mg ( claims 9-10 ); and wherein the Ni/Pd catalyst system comprises NiCl 2 provided in about 10 mol% and PdCl 2 provided in about 3 mol% ( claim 17 ). The teachings of Jutand were discussed in a prior rejection and are incorporated herein. It would have been prima facie obvious to arrive at the claimed process based on the combination of the claims of ‘146 and Jutand with a reasonable expectation of success before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to use a sulfonyl chloride to produce the sulfonate from the phenol because such is known and taught by Jutand. Using a well-known and predictable process to obtain an intermediate is obvious. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to use a Mg sacrificial anode in the claims of ‘143 because Jutand exemplifies such an electrochemical system for the reductive coupling of analogous aryl sulfonates. Using a known anode for a predictable reaction is obvious. Also see MPEP 2143(I)(A). A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to use NiCl 2 and PdCl 2 as the catalyst because they are both taught by Jutand for analogous reactions. Using predictable nickel and palladium catalysts from analogous reactions is obvious. Also see MPEP 21473(I)(A). Regarding the catalyst loading, it is prima facie obvious to the skilled artisan that increasing the catalyst loading will lead to increased reaction times and the activation of less active coupling electrophiles. Also see MPEP 2144.05. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMY C BONAPARTE whose telephone number is (571)272-7307. The examiner can normally be reached 11-7. 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, Scarlett Goon can be reached at 571-270-5241. 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. /AMY C BONAPARTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1692 Application/Control Number: 18/485,388 Page 2 Art Unit: 1692 Application/Control Number: 18/485,388 Page 3 Art Unit: 1692 Application/Control Number: 18/485,388 Page 4 Art Unit: 1692 Application/Control Number: 18/485,388 Page 5 Art Unit: 1692 Application/Control Number: 18/485,388 Page 6 Art Unit: 1692 Application/Control Number: 18/485,388 Page 7 Art Unit: 1692 Application/Control Number: 18/485,388 Page 8 Art Unit: 1692 Application/Control Number: 18/485,388 Page 9 Art Unit: 1692 Application/Control Number: 18/485,388 Page 10 Art Unit: 1692 Application/Control Number: 18/485,388 Page 11 Art Unit: 1692 Application/Control Number: 18/485,388 Page 12 Art Unit: 1692 Application/Control Number: 18/485,388 Page 13 Art Unit: 1692 Application/Control Number: 18/485,388 Page 14 Art Unit: 1692 Application/Control Number: 18/485,388 Page 15 Art Unit: 1692 Application/Control Number: 18/485,388 Page 16 Art Unit: 1692 Application/Control Number: 18/485,388 Page 17 Art Unit: 1692 Application/Control Number: 18/485,388 Page 18 Art Unit: 1692 Application/Control Number: 18/485,388 Page 19 Art Unit: 1692 Application/Control Number: 18/485,388 Page 20 Art Unit: 1692 Application/Control Number: 18/485,388 Page 21 Art Unit: 1692 Application/Control Number: 18/485,388 Page 22 Art Unit: 1692 Application/Control Number: 18/485,388 Page 23 Art Unit: 1692 Application/Control Number: 18/485,388 Page 24 Art Unit: 1692 Application/Control Number: 18/485,388 Page 25 Art Unit: 1692 Application/Control Number: 18/485,388 Page 26 Art Unit: 1692 Application/Control Number: 18/485,388 Page 27 Art Unit: 1692 Application/Control Number: 18/485,388 Page 28 Art Unit: 1692 Application/Control Number: 18/485,388 Page 29 Art Unit: 1692 Application/Control Number: 18/485,388 Page 30 Art Unit: 1692 Application/Control Number: 18/485,388 Page 31 Art Unit: 1692
Prosecution Insights