CTNF 18/529,958 CTNF 100943 DETAILED ACTION This correspondence is in response to the communications received 04/02/2026. Claims 19-23 have been withdrawn. Claims 1-23 are pending. 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. Election/Restrictions 08-25-01 AIA Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-18 in the reply filed on 04/02/2026 is acknowledged. 08-06 AIA Claim s 19-23 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention , there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 04/02/2026 . Priority 02-26 AIA Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 12/05/2023 and 07/16/2024 have been considered by the examiner and made of record in the application file. Specification 06-31 AIA The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification. 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 Claims 7 and 16 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 7 recites the limitation "the at least a portion of the first inorganic layer" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if “the at least a portion of the first inorganic layer” is intended to refer to “at least a portion of a surface of the first inorganic layer” or a different portion of the first inorganic layer. For the purposes of examination, “the at least a portion of the first inorganic layer” will be interpretated as “the at least a portion of a surface of the first inorganic layer”. Claim 16 recites the limitation "the at least a portion of the first inorganic layer" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if “the at least a portion of the first inorganic layer” is intended to refer to “at least a portion of a surface of the first inorganic layer” or a different portion of the first inorganic layer. For the purposes of examination, “the at least a portion of the first inorganic layer” will be interpretated as “the at least a portion of a surface of the first inorganic layer”. Applicant’s Claim to Figure Comparison It is noted that this comparison is merely for the benefit of reviewers of this office action during prosecution, to allow for an understanding of the examiner’s interpretation of the Applicant’s independent claims as compared to disclosed embodiments in Applicant’s Figures. No response or comments are necessary from Applicant. PNG media_image1.png 567 985 media_image1.png Greyscale Regarding claim 1, display panel (DP) comprising: a base layer (BS) comprising an active region (AA), and a peripheral region (NAA) adjacent to the active region (see Fig. 4); a light-emitting element layer (EDL) above the base layer (see Fig. 4); and an encapsulation layer (TFE) above the light-emitting element layer (see Fig. 4), and comprising a first inorganic layer (INL1), a second inorganic layer (INL2) above the first inorganic layer (see Fig. 4), an organic layer (OL) above the second inorganic layer (see Fig. 4), and a third inorganic layer (INL3) above the organic layer (see Fig. 4), wherein the second inorganic layer comprises a non-metal oxide (see [00104]) and wherein the second inorganic layer and the organic layer overlap the active region (see Fig. 4). 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, 2, 3, 10, 11, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 10,916,603 B2, published 02/09/2021) in view of Shin (US 10,038,044 B2, published 07/31/2018) . PNG media_image2.png 518 961 media_image2.png Greyscale PNG media_image3.png 438 337 media_image3.png Greyscale Regarding claim 1, Figs. 1-5 of Park disclose a display panel (“display panel 110”, col. 3, line 16) comprising: a base layer (“substrate SUB”, col. 5, line 47, as seen in Fig. 4, SUB is the base of “display device 100”, col. 3, lines 15-16) comprising an active region (“display region DA”, col. 3, lines 32-33, Park does not specify that DA is an active region, therefore a secondary reference will be utilized to teach this limitation below), and a peripheral region (“non-display region NDA”, col. 3, line 33, Park does not specify that NDA is a peripheral region, however a secondary reference will be utilized to teach this limitation below) adjacent to the active region (as seen in Fig. 4, NDA is adjacent to DA); a light-emitting element layer (“light emitting layer OEL”, col. 6, lines 44-45) above the base layer (as seen in Fig. 4, OEL is above SUB); and an encapsulation layer (“thin encapsulation layer TFE”, col. 7, lines 21-22) above the light-emitting element layer, and comprising a first inorganic layer (“first encapsulation layer EN1”, col. 7, lines 23-24, further “Each of the first, second, and fourth encapsulation layers EN1, EN2, and EN4 is formed of or includes an inorganic insulating material, and the third encapsulation layer EN3 is formed of or includes an organic insulating material”, col. 7, lines 29-33), a second inorganic layer (“second encapsulation layer EN2”, col. 7, lines 25-26, as discussed above, EN2 is formed of an inorganic insulating material) above the first inorganic layer (as seen in Fig. 4, EN2 is above EN1), an organic layer (“third encapsulation layer EN3”, col. 7, lines 26-27, as discussed above, EN3 is formed of an organic insulating material) above the second inorganic layer (as seen in Fig. 4, EN3 is above EN2), and a third inorganic layer (“fourth encapsulation layer EN4”, col. 7, line 28, as discussed above, EN4 is formed of an inorganic insulating material) above the organic layer (as seen in Fig. 4, EN4 is above EN3), wherein the second inorganic layer comprises a non-metal oxide (“the second encapsulation layer EN2 includes a second inorganic material … The second inorganic material is silicon oxynitride (SiON) or silicon oxide (SiOx)”, col. 8, lines 66-67, and col 9, lines 1- 6) and wherein the second inorganic layer and the organic layer overlap the active region (as seen in Fig. 4, EN2 and EN3 overlap DA). Park does not specify “an active region, and a peripheral region”. However, in a similar field of endeavor, Figs. 1-6 of Shin teaches an active region (“an active area (or display area)”, col. 4, lines 48-49, thus DA of Park can also be considered an active region), and a peripheral region (“peripheral area (e.g., a non-display area)”, col. 4, line 50, thus NDA of Park can also be considered a peripheral region). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to implement “an active region, and a peripheral region” as taught by Yoon in the system of Park for the purpose of identifying alternative descriptions of the display region and the non-display region. Regarding claim 2, Figs. 1-5 of Park in combination with Figs. 1-6 of Shin discloses the display panel of claim 1, Figs. 1-5 of Park further disclose wherein a portion of the first inorganic layer overlapping the peripheral region contacts the third inorganic layer (as seen in Fig. 4, a portion of EN1 overlapping NDA contacts EN4). Regarding claim 3, Figs. 1-5 of Park in combination with Figs. 1-6 of Shin discloses the display panel of claim 1, Figs. 1-5 of Park further disclose wherein an area of the second inorganic layer and an area of the organic layer are smaller than an area of the first inorganic layer in plan view (as seen in Fig. 5, EN1 extends further into NDA than EN2 and EN3, with “non-display region NDA surrounding the display region DA”, col. 3, line 33-34, thus as would be seen in plan view, an area of EN2 and an area of EN3 will be smaller than an area of EN1). Regarding claim 10, Figs. 1-5 of Park in combination with Figs. 1-6 of Shin discloses the display panel of claim 1, Figs. 1-5 of Park further disclose wherein the peripheral region surrounds the active region in plan view (“display panel 110 includes a display region DA and a non-display region NDA surrounding the display region DA”, col. 3, lines 32-34, thus as would be seen in plan view, NDA surrounds DA). Regarding claim 11, Figs. 1-5 of Park disclose a display panel (“display panel 110”, col. 3, line 16) comprising: a base layer (“substrate SUB”, col. 5, line 47, as seen in Fig. 4, SUB is the base of “display device 100”, col. 3, lines 15-16) comprising an active region (“display region DA”, col. 3, lines 32-33, Park does not specify that DA is an active region, therefore a secondary reference will be utilized to teach this limitation below), and a peripheral region (“non-display region NDA”, col. 3, line 33, Park does not specify that NDA is a peripheral region, however a secondary reference will be utilized to teach this limitation below) adjacent to the active region (as seen in Fig. 4, NDA is adjacent to DA); a light-emitting element (“light emitting layer OEL”, col. 6, lines 44-45) in the active region (as seen in Fig. 4, OEL is in DA); a dam pattern (“dam members DM1 and DM2”, col. 3, line 18) in the peripheral region (as seen in Fig. 4, DM1 and DM2 are in NDA); a first inorganic layer (“first encapsulation layer EN1”, col. 7, lines 23-24, further “Each of the first, second, and fourth encapsulation layers EN1, EN2, and EN4 is formed of or includes an inorganic insulating material, and the third encapsulation layer EN3 is formed of or includes an organic insulating material”, col. 7, lines 29-33) covering the light-emitting element (as seen in Fig. 4, EN1 covers OEL); a second inorganic layer (“second encapsulation layer EN2”, col. 7, lines 25-26, as discussed above, EN2 is formed of an inorganic insulating material) above the first inorganic layer (as seen in Fig. 4, EN2 is above EN1) and comprising a non-metal oxide (“the second encapsulation layer EN2 includes a second inorganic material … The second inorganic material is silicon oxynitride (SiON) or silicon oxide (SiOx)”, col. 8, lines 66-67, and col 9, lines 1- 6); an organic layer (“third encapsulation layer EN3”, col. 7, lines 26-27, as discussed above, EN3 is formed of an organic insulating material) above the second inorganic layer (as seen in Fig. 4, EN3 is above EN2); and a third inorganic layer (“fourth encapsulation layer EN4”, col. 7, line 28, as discussed above, EN4 is formed of an inorganic insulating material) above the organic layer (as seen in Fig. 4, EN4 is above EN3), wherein the second inorganic layer and the organic layer are inside of the dam pattern in plan view (as seen in Fig. 4 and as would be seen in plan view as “the dam members DM1 and DM2 … surround the display region DA”, col. 4, lies 31-33,EN2 and EN3 are inside DMA and DM2), and wherein an edge of the first inorganic layer and an edge of the third inorganic layer are outside of the dam pattern in plan view (as seen in Fig. 4 and as would be seen in plan view, an edge of EN1 and an edge of EN4 are outside of DM1 and DM2). Park does not specify “an active region, and a peripheral region”. However, in a similar field of endeavor, Figs. 1-6 of Shin teaches an active region (“an active area (or display area)”, col. 4, lines 48-49, thus DA of Park can also be considered an active region), and a peripheral region (“peripheral area (e.g., a non-display area)”, col. 4, line 50, thus NDA of Park can also be considered a peripheral region). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to implement “an active region, and a peripheral region” as taught by Yoon in the system of Park for the purpose of identifying alternative descriptions of the display region and the non-display region. Regarding claim 12, Figs. 1-5 of Park in combination with Figs. 1-6 of Shin discloses the display panel of claim 11, Figs. 1-5 of Park further disclose wherein the peripheral region surrounds the active region in plan view (“display panel 110 includes a display region DA and a non-display region NDA surrounding the display region DA”, col. 3, lines 32-34, thus as would be seen in plan view, NDA surrounds DA), and wherein the dam pattern surrounds the active region in plan view (as discussed above DM1 and DM2 surround DA in the plan view). Regarding claim 13, Figs. 1-5 of Park in combination with Figs. 1-6 of Shin discloses the display panel of claim 11, Figs. 1-5 of Park further disclose wherein an edge of the second inorganic layer and an edge of the organic layer are substantially aligned (as seen in Fig. 4, an edge of EN2 and an edge of EN3 are substantially aligned as the two layers are in direct contact, thus the edges of each must be aligned); and wherein the edge of the first inorganic layer and the edge of the third inorganic layer are substantially aligned (as seen in Fig. 4, an edge of EN1 and an edge of EN4 are substantially aligned as the two layers are in direct contact, thus the edges of each must be aligned) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 10,916,603 B2, published 02/09/2021) in view of Shin (US 10,038,044 B2, published 07/31/2018) in view of Paek et al. (US 10,734,606 B2, published 08/04/2020) . Regarding claim 6, Figs. 1-5 of Park in combination with Figs. 1-6 of Shin discloses the display panel of claim 1. Park in combination with Shin does not specify “wherein the second inorganic layer is hydrophilic”. However, in a similar field of endeavor, Fig. 5 of Paek teaches wherein the second inorganic layer is hydrophilic (“the first partition portion 410 having the hydrophilic properties may be formed of an inorganic insulating material, such as silicon oxide”, col. 11, lines 62-64, thus EN2 of Park which can also be made of silicon oxide is hydrophilic). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to implement “wherein the second inorganic layer is hydrophilic” as taught by Paek in the system of Park in combination with Shin for the purpose of identifying material characteristics of encapsulation layers. Regarding claim 15, Figs. 1-5 of Park in combination with Figs. 1-6 of Shin discloses the display panel of claim 11. Park in combination with Shin does not specify “wherein the second inorganic layer is hydrophilic”. However, in a similar field of endeavor, Fig. 5 of Paek teaches wherein the second inorganic layer is hydrophilic (“the first partition portion 410 having the hydrophilic properties may be formed of an inorganic insulating material, such as silicon oxide”, col. 11, lines 62-64, thus EN2 of Park which can also be made of silicon oxide is hydrophilic). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to implement “wherein the second inorganic layer is hydrophilic” as taught by Paek in the system of Park in combination with Shin for the purpose of identifying material characteristics of encapsulation layers . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 10,916,603 B2, published 02/09/2021) in view of Shin (US 10,038,044 B2, published 07/31/2018) in view of Kim et al. (US 9,305,983 B2, published 04/05/2016) . Regarding claim 7, Figs. 1-5 of Park in combination with Figs. 1-6 of Shin discloses the display panel of claim 1. Park in combination with Shin fails to disclose “wherein at least a portion of a surface of the first inorganic layer adjacent to the third inorganic layer is hydrophobic”. However, in a similar field of endeavor, Fig. 4 of Kim teaches wherein at least a portion of a surface of the first inorganic layer adjacent to the third inorganic layer is hydrophobic (“the planarization layer 214 may be formed of, for example, at least one of silicon oxynitride (SiON), silicon nitride (SiNx), silicon oxide (SiOx), and aluminum oxide (AlOx) as a hydrogen containing inorganic film with a hydrophobic characteristic, considering a mechanical strength, a water vapor resistance, an ease film formation, productivity and the like”, col. 6, lines 57-63, thus EN1 can be doped with hydrogen to be hydrophobic and thus at least a portion of a surface of EN1 adjacent to EN4 will be hydrophobic as the entirety of EN1 is hydrophobic). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to implement “wherein at least a portion of a surface of the first inorganic layer adjacent to the third inorganic layer is hydrophobic” as taught by Kim in the system of Park in combination with Shin for improving the moisture resistance of the encapsulation layers. Figs. 1-5 of Park further disclose wherein the at least a portion of the first inorganic layer comprises a region overlapping the peripheral region in plan view (as the entirety of EN1 is hydrophobic after combination with Kim, then the at least a portion of the surface of EN1 comprises a region overlapping NDA in plan view as Fig. 4 shows a portion of EN1 in NDA thus when viewed in plan view, EN1 is overlapping NDA). Regarding claim 16, Figs. 1-5 of Park in combination with Figs. 1-6 of Shin discloses the display panel of claim 11. Park in combination with Shin fails to disclose “wherein at least a portion of a surface of the first inorganic layer adjacent to the third inorganic layer is hydrophobic”. However, in a similar field of endeavor, Fig. 4 of Kim teaches wherein at least a portion of a surface of the first inorganic layer adjacent to the third inorganic layer is hydrophobic (“the planarization layer 214 may be formed of, for example, at least one of silicon oxynitride (SiON), silicon nitride (SiNx), silicon oxide (SiOx), and aluminum oxide (AlOx) as a hydrogen containing inorganic film with a hydrophobic characteristic, considering a mechanical strength, a water vapor resistance, an ease film formation, productivity and the like”, col. 6, lines 57-63, thus EN1 can be doped with hydrogen to be hydrophobic and thus at least a portion of a surface of EN1 adjacent to EN4 will be hydrophobic as the entirety of EN1 is hydrophobic). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to implement “wherein at least a portion of a surface of the first inorganic layer adjacent to the third inorganic layer is hydrophobic” as taught by Kim in the system of Park in combination with Shin for improving the moisture resistance of the encapsulation layers. Figs. 1-5 of Park further disclose wherein the at least a portion of the first inorganic layer comprises a region overlapping the peripheral region in plan view (as the entirety of EN1 is hydrophobic after combination with Kim, then the at least a portion of the surface of EN1 comprises a region overlapping NDA in plan view as Fig. 4 shows a portion of EN1 in NDA thus when viewed in plan view, EN1 is overlapping NDA) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 10,916,603 B2, published 02/09/2021) in view of Shin (US 10,038,044 B2, published 07/31/2018) in view of Wang et al. (US 11,404,507 B2, published 08/02/2022) . Regarding claim 9, Figs. 1-5 of Park in combination with Figs. 1-6 of Shin discloses the display panel of claim 1. Park in combination with Shin fails to disclose “wherein the base layer comprises a glass substrate”. However, in a similar field of endeavor, Fig. 2 of Wang teaches wherein the base layer comprises a glass substrate (“the base substrate 210 may be a flexible base substrate, such as a polyimide film, or a rigid base substrate, such as a quartz substrate or a glass substrate”, col. 4, lines 41-43, thus SUB of Park which “may be formed of or include polyimide (PI)”, col. 5, lines 49-50, can instead be formed of glass). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to implement “wherein the base layer comprises a glass substrate” as taught by Wang in the system of Park in combination with Shin for the purpose of increasing the rigidity of the display device substrate. Regarding claim 18, Figs. 1-5 of Park in combination with Figs. 1-6 of Shin discloses the display panel of claim 11. Park in combination with Shin fails to disclose “wherein the base layer comprises a glass substrate”. However, in a similar field of endeavor, Fig. 2 of Wang teaches wherein the base layer comprises a glass substrate (“the base substrate 210 may be a flexible base substrate, such as a polyimide film, or a rigid base substrate, such as a quartz substrate or a glass substrate”, col. 4, lines 41-43, thus SUB of Park which “may be formed of or include polyimide (PI)”, col. 5, lines 49-50, can instead be formed of glass). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to implement “wherein the base layer comprises a glass substrate” as taught by Wang in the system of Park in combination with Shin for the purpose of increasing the rigidity of the display device substrate. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 4, 5, 8, 14, and 17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record does not teach or fairly suggest the display panel as recited in the claims of the instant application. Regarding claim 4, the prior art of Park et al. (US 10,916,603 B2) in combination with Shin (US 10,038,044 B2) discloses a similar display device but fails to disclose the specific claims of the instant application regarding the composition of the first and second inorganic layers e.g. “wherein the first inorganic layer comprises silicon oxynitride, wherein the second inorganic layer comprises silicon oxide or silicon oxynitride, and wherein a content of oxygen atoms in the second inorganic layer is greater than a content of oxygen atoms in the first inorganic layer”. While Kim et al. (US 20160322598 A1) discloses a second inorganic film that includes an oxygen-rich nonmetallic oxide, Kim does not describe the relative oxygen content in the first and second inorganic layers. Claim 5 is allowable by virtue of its dependence on claim 4. Regarding claim 8, the prior art of Park et al. (US 10,916,603 B2) in combination with Shin (US 10,038,044 B2) discloses a similar display device but fails to disclose the specific claims of the instant application regarding roughness of the surface of the organic layer e.g. “wherein a roughness of a surface of the organic layer adjacent to the third inorganic layer is about 10 nm or less”. Regarding claim 14, the prior art of Park et al. (US 10,916,603 B2) in combination with Shin (US 10,038,044 B2) discloses a similar display device but fails to disclose the specific claims of the instant application regarding the composition of the first and second inorganic layers e.g. “wherein the first inorganic layer comprises silicon oxynitride, wherein the second inorganic layer comprises silicon oxide or silicon oxynitride, and wherein a content of oxygen atoms in the second inorganic layer is greater than a content of oxygen atoms in the first inorganic layer”. While Kim et al. (US 20160322598 A1) discloses a second inorganic film that includes an oxygen-rich nonmetallic oxide, Kim does not describe the relative oxygen content in the first and second inorganic layers. Regarding claim 17, the prior art of Park et al. (US 10,916,603 B2) in combination with Shin (US 10,038,044 B2) discloses a similar display device but fails to disclose the specific claims of the instant application regarding roughness of the surface of the organic layer e.g. “wherein a roughness of a surface of the organic layer adjacent to the third inorganic layer is about 10 nm or less”. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN M KUPP whose telephone number is (571)272-5608. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:00 am - 4:00 pm PT. 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, Yara Green can be reached at (571) 270-3035. 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. /BENJAMIN MICHAEL KUPP/Examiner, Art Unit 2893 /YARA B GREEN/Supervisor Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2893 Application/Control Number: 18/529,958 Page 2 Art Unit: 2893 Application/Control Number: 18/529,958 Page 3 Art Unit: 2893 Application/Control Number: 18/529,958 Page 4 Art Unit: 2893 Application/Control Number: 18/529,958 Page 6 Art Unit: 2893 Application/Control Number: 18/529,958 Page 7 Art Unit: 2893 Application/Control Number: 18/529,958 Page 8 Art Unit: 2893 Application/Control Number: 18/529,958 Page 9 Art Unit: 2893 Application/Control Number: 18/529,958 Page 17 Art Unit: 2893 Application/Control Number: 18/529,958 Page 18 Art Unit: 2893
Prosecution Insights