CTNF 18/516,015 CTNF 101857 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. Priority 02-27 AIA Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. KR10-2023-0013839 , filed on February 1, 2023 . 02-26 AIA Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Drawings 06-22 AIA The drawings are objected to because Figs. 1 and 5 are inconsistent with wording in reference to the specification. In Fig. 1, step S60 states "mix second solution with ZnMgO" but paragraph [0062] states that "third solution is mixed with ZnMgO (S60)". In Fig. 5, step S40 states "Obtain ZnMgO" but paragraph [0076] from specfication states "Thereafter, ZnO thus formed is obtained (S40)". Further, step S60 states "mix second solution with ZnMgO" but paragraph [0079] states "this third solution is mixed with the previously prepared ZnO (S60)" . 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 13 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. Claim 13 is indefinite when stating “a size deviation of the prepared ZnMgO nanoparticle is within 13 based on a median size value”. The phrase “within 13” is unclear in what 13 means or is. For instance, 13 could be a percentage or 13 could be any size parameter at any scale (eg, microns, meters). Paragraphs [0016] and [0021] state that size deviation of prepared ZnMgO nanoparticle may be within 15%. In light of the specification and claim 8, the claim will be examined as “a size deviation of the prepared ZnMgO nanoparticle is within 15% based on a median size of the prepared ZnMgO nanoparticle”. 07-34-05 AIA Claim 16 recites the limitation " the light emitting diode nanoparticles " in line 22 of the page or line 2 of claim . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. 07-36 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d): (d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph: Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. Claims 9 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 9 , which depends on claim 4 , and claim 14 , which depends on claim 10 , state that "a size of the ZnMgO nanoparticle increases through the adding of the amine to the synthesized ZnMgO". Both claims 4 and 10 require synthesis of the ZnO or ZnMgO particles at a temperature below 10°C and addition of an amine to the obtained ZnMgO particle which inherently adds to the size of the particle . Therefore, it is not clear how claims 9 and 14 further limit the scope of the claims on which they depend . Applicant may cancel the claims, amend the claim(s) to place the claims in proper dependent form, rewrite the claims in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claims complies with the statutory requirements. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1, 3, 15, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al (WO2022143961). Evidence hereinafter from Wu et al will be referenced from the corresponding US PGPub No. 20240083764 . Regarding claim 1 , Wu et al teaches synthesis of doped zinc oxide (ZnMO) nanoparticle s that are surface modified with amino ligands containing 8-18 carbon atoms . The dopant (M), according to paragraphs [0209] and [0210], are selected from Mg 2+ and Mn 2+ or from Al 3+ , Y 3+ , Li 3+ , Zr 3+ , Gd 3+ , and Ce 3+ . In paragraph [0245], Wu discloses list of amines to choose from such as octylamine (8 carbon or C ), lauryl amine (12 C ), or oleylamine (18 C ). In paragraphs [0209] and [0210], Wu provides rationale as to selecting Mg due to similar valence with Zn allowing for adjustment of conduction band energy in an electron transport layer (ETL) or selecting Al, Y, Li, or Zr since the difference in valence compared to Zn allows for adjustment of electron mobility in the ETL. Additionally, regarding amine selection, paragraph [0247] teaches when carbon chain length is 13-18, electron mobility of sample is decreased after ligand exchange and can reduce solubility in polar solvent. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to select any of the dopants and the amine ligands to synthesize a metal oxide nanoparticle as claimed with desired oxygen vacancies/electron mobility. Therefore, Wu teaches the claimed “ A metal oxide nanoparticle, comprising: a compound represented by Chemical Formula 1 and an alkyl amine ligand having 8 to 18 carbon atoms on a surface of the compound: Chemical Formula 1 ZnMO wherein, in Chemical Formula 1, M is one selected from among Ca, Zr, Al, Li, Mg, Ni, Y, W, Co, and Ga.”. Regarding claim 3 , Wu teaches the metal oxide nanoparticle of claim 1 and discloses use of Mg, Li, or Al as the dopant (ZnMgO, ZnLiO, or ZnAlO) . Therefore, Wu teaches the claimed “ The metal oxide nanoparticle of claim 1, wherein the metal oxide nanoparticle is composed of one selected from among ZnMgO, ZnLiO, ZnAlO, and ZnGaO ”. Regarding claim 15 , as described in the claim 1 rejection, Wu discloses a “ metal oxide nanoparticle comprises a compound represented by Chemical Formula 1 and an alkyl amine ligand having 8 to 18 carbon atoms on a surface of the compound: Chemical Formula 1 ZnMO, and wherein, in Chemical Formula 1, M is one selected from among Ca, Zr, Al, Li, Mg, Ni, Y, W, Co, or Ga ”. Furthermore, Wu teaches the use of this nanoparticle as an electron transport layer in a quantum dot light emitting diode (QLED, ergo a light emitting device) . Fig. 4 represents a generic structure of cathode 60 (first electrode) below electron transport layer 50 containing oxide nanoparticles which is below a quantum dot luminescent layer 40 (emission layer) which is below a hole transport layer 20 which is below an anode 10 (second electrode) . The orientation can be flipped as well (10 below 40 below 50 below 60) in Fig. 5. Therefore, Wu teaches the claimed “ A light emitting device, comprising: a first electrode; an emission layer on the electron transport layer; a hole transport layer on the emission layer; and a second electrode on the hole transport layer, wherein the electron transport layer comprises a metal oxide nanoparticle, the metal oxide nanoparticle comprises a compound represented by Chemical Formula 1 and an alkyl amine ligand having 8 to 18 carbon atoms on a surface of the compound: Chemical Formula 1 ZnMO, and wherein, in Chemical Formula 1, M is one selected from among Ca, Zr, Al, Li, Mg, Ni, Y, W, Co, or Ga ”. Regarding claim 17 , Wu teaches the light emitting device of claim 15 and discloses use of Mg, Li, or Al as the dopant (ZnMgO, ZnLiO, or ZnAlO) . Therefore, Wu teaches the claimed “ The light emitting device of claim 15, wherein the metal oxide nanoparticle is composed of one selected from among ZnMgO, ZnLiO, ZnAlO, and ZnGaO ”. Regarding claim 18 , Wu teaches the light emitting device of claim 15 but does not disclose sizing of the nanoparticles. However, Wu teaches that several parameters of the synthesis process will control nanoparticle size and uniformity of growth between particles. In paragraph [0307], Wu states that reaction time (30min – 4hrs) and temperature (0-70°C) controls particle size growth . Times longer than 4 hours leads to excessively large and uneven particles . Additionally, in paragraph [0308], Wu discloses that reacting under stirring conditions promotes uniformity of the obtained zinc oxide nanoparticles. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to experimentally control reaction times, temperatures, and stirring to promote uniform sizing of nanoparticles, thus falling within the claimed deviation range, where uniform sizing allows for more consistency and predictability in response to variables such as light when eventually implemented in a device . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 2, 4-9, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al (WO2022143961/US PGPub No. 20240083764) in view of Yang et al (US PGPub No. 20200321490) . Regarding claim 2 , Wu teaches the metal oxide nanoparticle of claim 1 but does not disclose the size of the nanoparticles . Wu states the film that the nanoparticles eventually reside in are 10 to 30 nm, thus the particles would also be 10 to 30 nm or smaller which would overlap with the claimed range. Further, as stated above, Wu teaches that controlling reaction time and temperature will affect particle size growth. By experimentally adjusting reaction times and temperatures of Wu’s disclosed method, one of ordinary skill in the art would likely synthesize nanoparticles that fall within the overlapped range. Yang also teaches synthesis of ZnMgO and Mg-treated ZnMgO nanoparticles but does not modify them with an amine ligand. Yang displays TEM images of the synthesized ZnMgO particles in Fig. 4 which shows them as being within 3-20 nm in size. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to synthesize ZnMgO treated with an amine ligand as disclosed by Wu and tailor their size as shown by Yang for adjusting conduction band minima. Regarding claim 4 , Wu teaches sol-gel synthesis of amine-modified ZnO at room temperature and discloses that dopant such as Mg can be added to make it ZnMgO modified with amine but does so at room temperature. Wu does disclose in paragraph [0306] an acceptable temperature range of 0-70°C for synthesis. Wu states that when reaction temperature is below 0°C, the nanoparticle synthesis is decelerated and special equipment would be required. When above 70°C, the reaction activity is too high and nanoparticles are too agglomerated (particles are thus too large). The quality of obtained oxides are best when generated at temperature ranging from 0-30°C . Yang teaches synthesis of ZnMgO nanoparticles at 4°C in the comparative example but uses a solution-precipitation method (not specifically sol-gel) and does not modify the ZnMgO with an amine . Through routine experimentation and synthesis, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to start synthesis at various temperatures below 30°C, following the sol-gel synthesis and amine-surface treatment of Wu, and eventually approaching a temperature below 10°C as taught by Yang. One of ordinary skill in the art would work in a lower temperature range to slow down the reaction speed and dynamics to more finely control the growth size and speed of the nanoparticles. Therefore, Wu and Yang together teach the claimed “ A preparing method of a ZnMgO nanoparticle, the preparing method comprising: synthesizing ZnMgO utilizing a Sol-Gel at a temperature of at most 10 °C; and adding an amine to the synthesized ZnMgO ”. Regarding claim 5 , Wu and Yang teach the preparation of claim 4 . Furthermore, Wu discloses in paragraph [0245] a list of amines to choose from such as octylamine (8 C), lauryl amine (12 C), or oleylamine (18 C) and teaches the effect of C chain length on electron mobility in paragraph [0247]. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to choose from any of the provided 8-18 carbon containing amines provided by Wu. Therefore, Wu and Yang teach the claimed “ The preparing method of claim 4, wherein the prepared ZnMgO nanoparticle comprises an alkyl amine ligand having 8 to 18 carbon atoms on a surface of the prepared ZnMgO nanoparticle ”. Regarding claim 6 , Wu and Yang teach the method of claim 4 . Furthermore, Yang describes surface modifying the synthesized ZnMgO with Mg in the experimental example (paragraph [0075]) . It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to surface modify the particles synthesized by Wu with additional Mg to improve electron mobility as taught by Yang (paragraph [0030]). Therefore, Wu and Yang teach the claimed “ The preparing method of claim 4, further comprising performing surface treatment by adding Mg to the synthesized ZnMgO ”. Regarding claim 7, Wu and Yang teach the method of claim 4 . Furthermore, as described in the rejection of claim 2 , Yang depicts TEM image of ZnMgO nanoparticles in Fig. 4 which fall within size range of 3-20nm . Therefore, Wu and Yang teach the claimed “ The preparing method of claim 4, wherein a size of the prepared ZnMgO nanoparticle is at least 3 nm and at most 20 nm ”. Regarding claim 8 , Wu and Yang teach the method of claim 4 ; however, neither disclose the sizing deviations of their nanoparticles . As described above for the rejection of claim 18 , Wu does teach several reaction parameters that influence uniformity of particle size . In the case of lowering reaction temperatures, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to subsequently adjust the reaction time and/or stirring conditions to finely restrict particle sizing within an acceptable range of one another. Therefore, Wu and Yang teach the claimed “ The preparing method of claim 4, wherein a size deviation of the prepared ZnMgO nanoparticle is within 15 % based on a median size value of the prepared ZnMgO nanoparticle ”. Regarding claim 9 , Wu and Yang teach the method of claim 4 , but Wu does not specify that a size of the nanoparticles increases during the amine addition . However, when experimentally optimizing reaction conditions, one of ordinary skill in the art would have eventually approached a synthesis temperature below 10°C as described in the rejection of claim 4 . Therefore, the addition of an amine would inherently increase a size of the ZnMgO nanoparticle . Wu and Yang thus teach the claimed “ The preparing method of claim 4, wherein a size of the ZnMgO nanoparticle increases through the adding of the amine to the synthesized ZnMgO ”. Regarding claim 16 , Wu teaches the device of claim 15 but does not disclose an exact sizing of the oxide nanoparticles . As described in the rejection of claims 2 and 7, Wu states the film that the nanoparticles eventually reside in are 10 to 30 nm, thus the particles would also be 10 to 30 nm or smaller which would overlap with the claimed range. Yang displays TEM image in Fig. 4 of the synthesized ZnMgO nanoparticles (no amine treatment) which fall within the claimed 3-20nm. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to synthesize ZnMgO treated with an amine ligand as disclosed by Wu and tailor their size as shown by Yang for adjusting conduction band minima. Therefore, Wu and Yang teach the claimed “ The light emitting device of claim 15, wherein a size of the light emitting diode nanoparticles is at least 3 nm and at most 20 nm ” . 07-22-aia AIA Claim s 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu and Yang as applied to claim s 2, 4-9, and 16 above, and further in view of Moon Dae Gyu et al (KR No. 20220068744) . Regarding claim 10 , together, the teachings of Wu and Yang disclose an amine-modified ZnMgO nanoparticle synthesized at a temperature below 10°C. Yang does not disclose a ZnO synthesis , but Wu teaches that ZnMgO can be synthesized in one step (Zn, Mg, and amine precursors together) or sequentially (first ZnO and amine, then doping with Mg to make ZnMgO). Wu does not teach sequentially adding Mg and then the amine to obtained ZnMgO. Moon Dae Gyu teaches a sequential sol-gel synthesis procedure starting with making ZnO under sol-gel method and then making ZnMgO by using the previously synthesized ZnO in another round of sol-gel . It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to perform sequential rounds of synthesis to allow for larger nanoparticle sizes as disclosed by Moon Dae Gyu (first three paragraphs under description), enabling a more sensitive adjustment of physical properties such as energy bands of the synthesized oxide nanoparticles. Therefore, the combined teachings meet the claimed “ A preparing method of a ZnMgO nanoparticle, the preparing method comprising: synthesizing ZnO utilizing a Sol-Gel at a temperature of at most 10 °C; obtaining ZnMgO by adding Mg to the synthesized ZnO; and adding an amine to the obtained ZnMgO ”. Regarding claim 11 , Wu, Yang, and Moon Dae Gyu teach the preparing method of claim 10. Furthermore, as described in the rejections of claims 1 and 5 , Wu teaches preparation of an alkyl amine ligand having 8-18 carbon atoms on a surface of the metal oxide. Therefore, Wu, Yang, and Moon Dae Gyu meet the claimed “ The preparing method of claim 10, wherein the prepared ZnMgO nanoparticle comprises an alkyl amine ligand having 8 to 18 carbon atoms on a surface of the prepared ZnMgO nanoparticle ”. Regarding claim 12 , Wu, Yang, and Moon Dae Gyu teach the preparing method of claim 10. Furthermore, Moon Dae Gyu teaches a size of nanoparticles between 5-20nm which falls within the claimed “ The preparing method of claim 10, wherein a size of the prepared ZnMgO nanoparticle is at least 3 nm and at most 20 nm ”. Regarding claim 13, Wu, Yang, and Moon Dae Gyu teach the preparing method of claim 10. None of Wu, Yang, and Moon Dae Gyu disclose the uniformity of sizes for their nanoparticles. But, as described in rejections of claims 8 and 18 , Wu teaches how to control reaction parameters for controlling uniform particle size. Therefore, the combined teachings meet the claimed “ The preparing method of claim 10, wherein a size deviation of the prepared ZnMgO nanoparticle is within 13 based on a median size value of the prepared ZnMgO nanoparticle ”. Regarding claim 14 , Wu, Yang, and Moon Dae Gyu teach the preparing method of claim 10. As described in the rejection for claim 9, Wu does not specify that a size of the nanoparticles increases during the amine addition . However, when experimentally optimizing reaction conditions, one of ordinary skill in the art would have eventually approached a synthesis temperature below 10°C as described in the rejection of claim 4 . Therefore, the addition of an amine would inherently increase a size of the ZnMgO nanoparticle . Wu, Yang, and Moon Dae Gyu thus teach the claimed “ The preparing method of claim 10, wherein a size of the ZnMgO nanoparticle increases through the adding of the amine to the synthesized ZnMgO ” . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al (WO2022143961/US PGPub No. 20240083764) as applied to claim 15, further in view of Yun Hyuk Ko et al (US Pat No 11456439) . Regarding claim 19 , Wu teaches the light emitting device of claim 15 but does not disclose specifics of the implemented electrodes . Yun Hyuk Ko describe electrode layers where first and second electrode may each include at least one reflective component and each may further include one transparent layer with the reflective layer in Col 25 lines 34-45. Further Col 26 lines 1-8 describe use of an electrode having ITO/Ag/ITO structure which is a transflective electrode. Yun Hyuk Ko teaches that by having each electrode contain a reflective componen t, the light emitted from both ends may be further progressed in a direction in which an image is displayed (Col 25 lines 54-61). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to implement the light emitting device taught by Wu and use a pairing of reflective and transflective electrodes as taught by Yun Hyuk Ko so that light emitted from both ends may be further progressed in a direction in which an image is displayed. Therefore, Wu and Yun Hyuk Ko teach the claimed “ The light emitting device of claim 15, wherein the first electrode is a reflecting electrode, and the second electrode is a transflective electrode ”. Regarding claim 20 , as described in the rejection for claim 19, Wu teaches the light emitting device of claim 15 but does not disclose specifics of the implemented electrodes . Yun Hyuk Ko describe electrode layers where first and second electrode may each include at least one reflective component and each may further include one transparent layer with the reflective layer in Col 25 lines 34-45, thus either the first or second electrode can be either type of component (reflective or transparent) or mixed component (transflective). Further Col 26 lines 1-8 describe use of an electrode having ITO/Ag/ITO structure which is a transflective electrode. Yun Hyuk Ko teaches that by having each electrode contain a reflective componen t, the light emitted from both ends may be further progressed in a direction in which an image is displayed (Col 25 lines 54-61). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to implement the light emitting device taught by Wu and use a pairing of reflective and transflective electrodes as taught by Yun Hyuk Ko so that light emitted from both ends may be further progressed in a direction in which an image is displayed. Therefore, Wu and Yun Hyuk Ko teach the claimed “ The light emitting device of claim 15, wherein the first electrode is a transflective electrode, and the second electrode is a reflective electrode ”. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Noa W. F. Grooms whose telephone number is (571)272-9981. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-3:30PM EST. 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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at (571) 272-1234. 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. /NWFG/Examiner, Art Unit 1759 /MELVIN C. MAYES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1759 Application/Control Number: 18/516,015 Page 2 Art Unit: 1759 Application/Control Number: 18/516,015 Page 3 Art Unit: 1759 Application/Control Number: 18/516,015 Page 4 Art Unit: 1759 Application/Control Number: 18/516,015 Page 5 Art Unit: 1759 Application/Control Number: 18/516,015 Page 6 Art Unit: 1759 Application/Control Number: 18/516,015 Page 7 Art Unit: 1759 Application/Control Number: 18/516,015 Page 8 Art Unit: 1759 Application/Control Number: 18/516,015 Page 9 Art Unit: 1759 Application/Control Number: 18/516,015 Page 10 Art Unit: 1759 Application/Control Number: 18/516,015 Page 11 Art Unit: 1759 Application/Control Number: 18/516,015 Page 12 Art Unit: 1759 Application/Control Number: 18/516,015 Page 13 Art Unit: 1759 Application/Control Number: 18/516,015 Page 14 Art Unit: 1759 Application/Control Number: 18/516,015 Page 15 Art Unit: 1759
Prosecution Insights