CTNF 18/532,889 CTNF 91679 DETAILED ACTION This Office Action is in response to the RCE filed on January 26, 2026. Claims 1-35 are pending and are examined. 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. Response to Amendment The amendments made to original claims 1, 16, 34-35, the specification, and the drawings have been fully considered. 12-261 AIA Response to Argument Applicant's arguments and amendments received January 26, 2026 have been fully considered. With regard to 35 U.S.C. § 103, Applicant argues that Li fails to disclose determining between a smaller process grid size and a larger process grid size for a block of video data, wherein determining between the smaller process grid size and the larger proc3ess grid size for the block of video data comprises: determining whether a block of video data has at least one sample that has a different motion vector than at least one other sample in the block and in response to determining that the block of video data has at least one sample that has the different motion vector than at least one other sample in the block, performing motion compensation for the samples of the block of video data using a first process grid size, wherein the first process grid size is the smaller process grid size. This language corresponds to the newly amended language of claims 1, 16, and 34-35. As such, these have been considered but they are directed to newly amended language, which is addressed below. See the rejection below for how newly added references read on the newly amended language as well as the examiner's interpretation of the cited art in view of the presented claim set. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation 07-30-03 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. 07-30-05 The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. 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, 3-16, and 18-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2022/0264094 (“Solovyev”) in view of the level of skill in the art . With respect to claim 16, Solovyev discloses the invention substantially as claimed, including: A device for decoding video data ( see Figs. 1A, 1B, 3, and 4, items 30, 400 ) , the device comprising: one or more memory units configured to store video data ( see ¶¶4, 42-43, 87-92, 182-185, 263, 270-272, 355-358, describing that the decoder may be implemented using processors executing software stored in memory ) ; one or more processors implemented in circuitry, coupled to the one or more memory units ( see citations and arguments with respect to claim element above ) and configured to: determine between a smaller process grid size and a larger process grid size for a block of video data ( see Fig. 12, items 1211-1232, ¶¶8-14, describing that the system determines between a pixel-based motion compensation and a sub-block based motion compensation, i.e., between a smaller (pixel) process grid size and a larger (subblock) process grid size for a block of video data ) , wherein to determine between a smaller process grid size and a larger process grid size for a block of video data, the one or more processors are configured to: determine whether the block of video data has at least one sample that has a different motion vector than at least one other sample in the block ( see Figs. 6A-6B, 7, ¶¶21-22, 192-196, 231-233, describing that the system determines the motion vector differences of the affine control points (CPMVs) of the block of video data, i.e., determines whether the block of video data has at least one sample that has a different motion vector than at least one other sample in the block ) ; in response to determining that the block of video data has at least one sample that has the different motion vector than at least one other sample in the block, perform motion compensation for samples of the block of video data using a first process grid size, wherein the first process grid size is the smaller process grid size ( see citations with respect to element above and Fig. 12, items 1210, 1230-1231, ¶¶251-257, describing that based on the differences between the CPMVs, it is established whether a pixel based motion vector field is applied for performing motion compensation using the pixel-based motion vector field, i.e., motion compensation for samples of the block of video data using a first process grid size is performed, wherein the first process grid size is the smaller process grid size; Figs. 6A-6B and ¶¶192-196 show that the CPMVs are motion vectors of samples, thus determining differences between CPMVs is determining that the block of video data has at least one sample that has the different motion vector than at least one other sample in the block ) ; determine a second process grid size for a subsequent inter-prediction-related video coding process for the samples of the block of video data, wherein the second process grid size is larger than the first process grid size ( see citations and arguments with respect to elements above and Fig. 12, items 1211, 1232, ¶¶253, 258, describing determining a 4x4 block(subblock)-based refinement (block is bigger than a sample), i.e., a second process grid size for a subsequent inter-prediction-related video coding process for the samples of the block of video data, wherein the second process grid size (4x4) is larger than the first process grid size ) ; perform the subsequent inter-prediction-related video coding process for the samples of the block of video data using the second process grid size ( see citations and arguments with respect to elements above, describing that the sub-block based affine transform prediction is performed based on the sub-block size, i.e., the subsequent inter-prediction-related video coding process is performed on the samples of the block using the second process grid size ) ; and output a decoded version of the block of video data ( see Fig. 3, item 332, ¶¶171-172, describing outputting a decoded version of the block of video data ). Solovyev does not use the term “process grid size”, however applicant defines this term to “refer[] to the shape and number of samples that are processed together” ( s ee Applicant’s specification ¶6 ). As detailed above, Solovyev describes that the prediction may be pixel-based or subblock-based, i.e., it describes that the shape and number of samples that are processed together may be a single pixel or may be pixels grouped into a subblock. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of skill in the art at the time of filing to have termed this “grid size” in the Application of Solovyev. With respect to claim 18, Solovyev discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As detailed above, Solovyev in view of the level of skill in the art discloses each and every element of independent claim 16. Solovyev additionally discloses: wherein the subsequent inter-prediction-related video coding process comprises an out-of-boundary check ( see citations and arguments with respect to claim 16 above and Figs. 8-9 ¶137, describing that the inter-prediction process may include an out-of-boundary check ). The reasons for combining the cited prior art with respect to claim 16 also apply to claim 18. With respect to claim 19, Solovyev discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As detailed above, Solovyev in view of the level of skill in the art discloses each and every element of independent claim 16. Solovyev additionally discloses: wherein the first process grid size is 1x1 ( see citations and arguments with respect to claim 16 above, describing that the first process grid size is a pixel, i.e., is 1x1 ). The reasons for combining the cited prior art with respect to claim 16 also apply to claim 19. With respect to claim 20, Solovyev discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As detailed above, Solovyev in view of the level of skill in the art discloses each and every element of independent claim 16. Solovyev additionally discloses: wherein the second process grid size is greater than or equal to 4x4 ( see citations and arguments with respect to claim 16 above and ¶¶8, 12, 14, 29, 37, describing that the second process grid size may be a 4x4, 4x8, 8x4, or 8x8 sub-block, i.e., is greater than or equal to 4x4 ). The reasons for combining the cited prior art with respect to claim 16 also apply to claim 20. With respect to claim 21, Solovyev discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As detailed above, Solovyev in view of the level of skill in the art discloses each and every element of independent claim 16. Solovyev additionally discloses: wherein to perform motion compensation for the block of video data using the first process grid size, the one or more processors are further configured to perform affine motion compensation for the block of video data ( see ¶¶10-11, 36, 45, 256-257, describing that the motion compensation for pixel-based may be affine motion compensation ). The reasons for combining the cited prior art with respect to claim 16 also apply to claim 21. With respect to claim 22, Solovyev discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As detailed above, Solovyev in view of the level of skill in the art discloses each and every element of independent claim 16. Solovyev additionally discloses: wherein the block of video data comprises a coding block of a coding unit ( see citations and arguments with respect to claim 16 above and ¶134, describing that the block of video data may be a CU/coding block of a coding unit ). The reasons for combining the cited prior art with respect to claim 16 also apply to claim 22. With respect to claim 23, Solovyev discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As detailed above, Solovyev in view of the level of skill in the art discloses each and every element of independent claim 16. Solovyev additionally discloses: wherein to determine the second process grid size, the one or more processors are further configured to determine the second process grid size to be equal to a size of a subblock ( see citations and arguments with respect to claim 16 above, describing that the second process size may be determined as a size of a subblock ). The reasons for combining the cited prior art with respect to claim 16 also apply to claim 23. With respect to claim 24, Solovyev discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As detailed above, Solovyev in view of the level of skill in the art discloses each and every element of independent claim 16. Solovyev additionally discloses: wherein to determine the second process grid size for the subsequent inter-prediction-related video coding process, the one or more processors are further configured to receive one or more syntax elements in a bitstream of the video data, wherein the one or more syntax elements indicate the second process grid size ( see citations and arguments with respect to claim 16 above and ¶35, describing that the sub-block size, i.e., second process grid size may be parsed from a bitstream of the video, i.e., may be indicated in syntax ). The reasons for combining the cited prior art with respect to claim 16 also apply to claim 24. With respect to claim 25, Solovyev discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As detailed above, Solovyev in view of the level of skill in the art discloses each and every element of independent claim 16. Solovyev additionally discloses: wherein to determine the second process grid size for the subsequent inter-prediction-related video coding process, the one or more processors are further configured to determine the second process grid size for the subsequent inter-prediction-related video coding process based on a size of the block ( see citations and arguments with respect to claim 16 above and Fig. 12, item 1211, ¶¶12, 22, 231-233, describing that the second process grid size (sub-block size) may be determined based on a width/height of the affine block, i.e., size of the block ). The reasons for combining the cited prior art with respect to claim 16 also apply to claim 25. With respect to claim 26, Solovyev discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As detailed above, Solovyev in view of the level of skill in the art discloses each and every element of independent claim 16. Solovyev additionally discloses: wherein to determine the second process grid size for the subsequent inter-prediction-related video coding process, the one or more processors are further configured to determine the second process grid size for the subsequent inter-prediction-related video coding process based on the subsequent inter-prediction-related video coding process ( see citations and arguments with respect to claim 16 above and ¶¶22-23, 231-233, describing that the second process grid size for subsequent inter-prediction-related video coding process is the sub-block size which may be determined based on the motion vector differences of the CPMVs, the motion vector precision/accuracy, and/or affine model parameters, i.e., based on the subsequent inter-prediction-related video coding process ). The reasons for combining the cited prior art with respect to claim 16 also apply to claim 26. With respect to claim 27, Solovyev discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As detailed above, Solovyev in view of the level of skill in the art discloses each and every element of independent claim 16. Solovyev additionally discloses: wherein: the block of video data comprises a plurality of subblocks with a plurality of different motion vectors; to perform the motion compensation for the block of video data using the first process grid size, the one or more processors are further configured to predict each of the plurality of subblocks with a corresponding motion vector of the plurality of different motion vectors; and to perform the subsequent inter-prediction-related video coding process for the block of video data using the second process grid size, the one or more processors are further configured to derive a motion vector based on the plurality of different motion vectors and use the derived motion vector for the subsequent inter-prediction-related video coding process ( see citations and arguments with respect to claim 16 above and Fig. 7, ¶¶36, 45, 181, 192-201, 265, 266, describing that the block of video data includes sub-blocks with different MVs, that to perform the pixel-based motion compensation, i.e., using the first process grid size, the processors predict the sub-blocks with the different MVs, and that the sub-block-based prediction process, i.e., second grid size, may include deriving a motion vector for each sub-block using the second process grid size includes deriving mvs for each sub-block using affine models based on the plurality of different motion vectors ). The reasons for combining the cited prior art with respect to claim 16 also apply to claim 27. With respect to claim 28, Solovyev discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As detailed above, Solovyev in view of the level of skill in the art discloses each and every element of independent claim 16. Solovyev additionally discloses: wherein to derive the motion vector based on the plurality of different motion vectors, the one or more processors are further configured to select one of the plurality of different motion vectors as the derived motion vector ( see citations and arguments with respect to claims 16 and 27 above, including 201, describing that the center sample of each sub-block may be used as the derived motion vector, i.e., selecting one of the plurality of motion vectors ). The reasons for combining the cited prior art with respect to claim 16 also apply to claim 28. With respect to claim 29, Solovyev discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As detailed above, Solovyev in view of the level of skill in the art discloses each and every element of independent claim 16. Solovyev additionally discloses: wherein to derive the motion vector based on the plurality of different motion vectors, the one or more processors are further configured to determine an average of two or more of the plurality of different motion vectors ( see citations and arguments with respect to claims 16 and 27 above, including 192-198, describing that deriving the motion vector based on the plurality of different motion vectors may including determining it based on combinations which appear to be a form of averaging, of two or more motion vectors ). The reasons for combining the cited prior art with respect to claim 16 also apply to claim 29. With respect to claim 30, Solovyev discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As detailed above, Solovyev in view of the level of skill in the art discloses each and every element of independent claim 16. Solovyev additionally discloses: wherein the device comprises a video decoder ( see citations and arguments with respect to claim 16 above, describing that the device may be a video decoder ). The reasons for combining the cited prior art with respect to claim 16 also apply to claim 30. With respect to claim 31, Solovyev discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As detailed above, Solovyev in view of the level of skill in the art discloses each and every element of independent claim 16. Solovyev additionally discloses: further comprising a display configured to display decoded video data ( see Figs. 1A, 1B, items 34, 45, showing that the device may include a display device for displaying decoded video data ). The reasons for combining the cited prior art with respect to claim 16 also apply to claim 31. With respect to claim 32, Solovyev discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As detailed above, Solovyev in view of the level of skill in the art discloses each and every element of independent claim 16. Solovyev additionally discloses: wherein the device comprises one or more of a camera, a computer, a mobile device, a broadcast receiver device, or a set-top box ( see citations and arguments with respect to claim 16 above and ¶¶71-73, 88-90, 275, describing that the device may include a camera, computer, mobile phone, broadcast receiver device, or set-top box ). The reasons for combining the cited prior art with respect to claim 16 also apply to claim 32. With respect to claim 33, Solovyev discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As detailed above, Solovyev in view of the level of skill in the art discloses each and every element of independent claim 16. Solovyev additionally discloses: wherein the device comprises a video encoder ( see citations and arguments with respect to claim 16 above and Fig. 2, ¶¶5, 9, 38, 42, 44-45, describing that process may be implemented at a video encoder ). The reasons for combining the cited prior art with respect to claim 16 also apply to claim 33. With respect to claim 34, claim 34 recites the elements of claim 16 in computer-readable medium form rather than device form. Solovyev discloses that its device may be embodied by a computer-readable storage medium storing instructions executed by a processor ( see citations and arguments with respect to claim 16 above ). Accordingly, the disclosure cited with respect to claim 16 also applies to claim 34. With respect to claim 35, claim 35 recites the elements of claim 16 in means-plus-function form rather than device form. Solovyev discloses that its device may be embodied by means for performing the decoding steps described in claims 1/16 ( see citations and arguments with respect to claims 16 and 34 above ). Accordingly, the disclosure cited with respect to claim 16 also applies to claim 35. With respect to claim 1, claim 1 recites the elements of claim 16 in method form rather than device form. Accordingly, the disclosure cited with respect to claim 16 also applies to claim 1. With respect to claim 3, claim 3 recites the elements of claim 18 in method form rather than device form. Accordingly, the disclosure cited with respect to claim 18 also applies to claim 3. With respect to claim 4, claim 4 recites the elements of claim 19 in method form rather than device form. Accordingly, the disclosure cited with respect to claim 19 also applies to claim 4. With respect to claim 5, claim 5 recites the elements of claim 20 in method form rather than device form. Accordingly, the disclosure cited with respect to claim 20 also applies to claim 5. With respect to claim 6, claim 6 recites the elements of claim 21 in method form rather than device form. Accordingly, the disclosure cited with respect to claim 21 also applies to claim 6. With respect to claim 7, claim 7 recites the elements of claim 22 in method form rather than device form. Accordingly, the disclosure cited with respect to claim 22 also applies to claim 7. With respect to claim 8, claim 8 recites the elements of claim 23 in method form rather than device form. Accordingly, the disclosure cited with respect to claim 23 also applies to claim 8. With respect to claim 9, claim 9 recites the elements of claim 24 in method form rather than device form. Accordingly, the disclosure cited with respect to claim 24 also applies to claim 9. With respect to claim 10, claim 10 recites the elements of claim 25 in method form rather than device form. Accordingly, the disclosure cited with respect to claim 25 also applies to claim 10. With respect to claim 11, claim 11 recites the elements of claim 26 in method form rather than device form. Accordingly, the disclosure cited with respect to claim 26 also applies to claim 11. With respect to claim 12, claim 12 recites the elements of claim 27 in method form rather than device form. Accordingly, the disclosure cited with respect to claim 27 also applies to claim 12. With respect to claim 13, claim 13 recites the elements of claim 28 in method form rather than device form. Accordingly, the disclosure cited with respect to claim 28 also applies to claim 13. With respect to claim 14, claim 14 recites the elements of claim 29 in method form rather than device form. Accordingly, the disclosure cited with respect to claim 29 also applies to claim 14. With respect to claim 15, Lai additionally teaches: wherein the method of decoding is performed as part of a video encoding process ( see Fig. 2, items 210-215, describing that the video encoder may implement the decoding process to reconstruct the block ). The reasons for combining the cited prior art with respect to claim 16 also apply to claim 15 . 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 2 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Solovyev in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2022/0070448 (“Kim”) . With respect to claim 17, Solovyev discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As described above, Solovyev in view of the level of skill in the art discloses all the elements of independent claim 16. Solovyev does not explicitly disclose wherein the subsequent inter-prediction-related video coding process comprises local illumination compensation. However, in the same field of endeavor, Kim discloses that it was known for these types of inter prediction to include LIC: wherein the subsequent inter-prediction-related video coding process comprises local illumination compensation ( see Fig. 4, item 420 and ¶¶107, describing that brightness/illumination compensation, i.e., local illumination compensation, may be applied as an alternative to other forms of motion compensation ). At the time of filing, one of ordinary skill would have been familiar with various motion compensation methods and the alternatives for each and have understood that, as evidenced by Kim, local illumination compensation may serve as an alternative to other motion compensation methods. Accordingly, to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, using LIC motion compensation in the sub-block based motion compensation of Solovyev would have represented nothing more than the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include local illumination compensation as an alternative to the sub-block motion compensation of Solovyev as taught by Kim. With respect to claim 2, claim 2 recites the elements of claim 17 in method form rather than device form. Accordingly, the disclosure cited with respect to claim 17 also applies to claim 2. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINDSAY JANE KILE UHL whose telephone number is (571)270-0337. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM-5:00 PM. 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, William Vaughn can be reached on (571)272-3922. 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. LINDSAY J UHL Primary Examiner Art Unit 2481 /LINDSAY J UHL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2481 Application/Control Number: 18/532,889 Page 2 Art Unit: 2481 Application/Control Number: 18/532,889 Page 3 Art Unit: 2481 Application/Control Number: 18/532,889 Page 4 Art Unit: 2481 Application/Control Number: 18/532,889 Page 5 Art Unit: 2481 Application/Control Number: 18/532,889 Page 6 Art Unit: 2481 Application/Control Number: 18/532,889 Page 7 Art Unit: 2481 Application/Control Number: 18/532,889 Page 8 Art Unit: 2481 Application/Control Number: 18/532,889 Page 9 Art Unit: 2481 Application/Control Number: 18/532,889 Page 10 Art Unit: 2481 Application/Control Number: 18/532,889 Page 11 Art Unit: 2481 Application/Control Number: 18/532,889 Page 12 Art Unit: 2481 Application/Control Number: 18/532,889 Page 13 Art Unit: 2481 Application/Control Number: 18/532,889 Page 14 Art Unit: 2481 Application/Control Number: 18/532,889 Page 15 Art Unit: 2481 Application/Control Number: 18/532,889 Page 16 Art Unit: 2481 Application/Control Number: 18/532,889 Page 17 Art Unit: 2481
Prosecution Insights