CTNF 18/556,693 CTNF 100653 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. Drawings 06-22 AIA The drawings are objected to because Figure 2 lacks units on the y-axis . 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 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: “wherein the ratio protein:vegetable fat” should read “wherein the ratio of protein:vegetable fat” . Appropriate correction is required. 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 1-16 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. With respect to Claim 1, The recitations of “wherein the second legume protein isolate constitutes in the range of 20 to 70%” in line 6 and “at least 2% proteins” in line 9 lack context for the percentage value, thereby rendering the claim indefinite. For the purposes of examination, the percentage will be interpreted as wt%, as recited in later claims. Due to their dependency on claim 1, claims 2-4 are also rejected. With respect to Claim 5, The recitations of “at least 2% proteins” in line 10 and “wherein the oil-in-water emulsion contains less than 5% polysaccharides” in line 13 lack context for the percentage value, thereby rendering the claim indefinite. For the purposes of examination, the percentage will be interpreted as wt%, as recited earlier in the claim and in later claims. Due to their dependency on claim 5, claims 6-16 are also rejected. With respect to Claim 6, The recitations of “comprising at least 70% protein” in lines 3 and 4 lack context for the percentage value, thereby rendering the claim indefinite. For the purposes of examination, the percentage will be interpreted as wt%, as recited in other claims. With respect to Claim 7, The recitation of “at least 0.2% proteins” in line 3 lacks context for the percentage value, thereby rendering the claim indefinite. For the purposes of examination, the percentage will be interpreted as wt%, as recited in other claims. With respect to Claim 11, The recitation of “constitute at least 70% protein” in lines 3 lacks context for the percentage value, thereby rendering the claim indefinite. For the purposes of examination, the percentage will be interpreted as wt%, as recited in other claims. With respect to Claim 14, The recitation of “wherein the ratio protein:vegetable fat is between 10:1 and 1:500” in line 2 lacks context for the value of the ratio. For the purposes of examination, the ratio will be understood to be expressing the relationship between the weights of the compositions. 07-34-03 AIA The term “ essentially all ” in claim 15 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “ essentially all ” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For the purposes of examination, essentially will be interpreted as greater than 50% . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (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 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sontag-Strohm (WO 2014/174149 A1) in view of Fernandez-Quintela et al. (Composition and functional growth properties of protein isolates obtained from commercial legumes grown in northern Spain, Plant Foods for Human Nutrition) . With respect to Claim 1, Sontag-Strohm et al. teaches a method for the production of a plant-based protein alternative for producing milk, yogurt, tofu, and cheese, [Pg. 2, Ln. 34-37] wherein the food composition comprises protein derived from legumes, such as fava bean or pea, [Pg. 5, Ln. 30-35] a vegetable fat, such as rapeseed, [Pg. 14, Ln. 24-25] and water. [Pg. 6, Ln. 28] Sontag-Strohm et al. teaches that the protein comprised in the composition may have its solubility adjusted to a desired amount, such as 40-100%. [Pg. 9, Ln. 10-12]. Additionally, Sontag-Strohm et al. teaches that the protein composition may be combined together or may be used in a greater composition. [Pg. 12, Ln. 26-32] In a specific embodiment, Sontag-Strohm et al. teaches that milk produced from fava bean protein and rapeseed oil can be fermented into a yogurt using a lactic acid bacteria, such as Bifidobacterium , wherein the protein concentration is approximately 5%. [Pg. 15, Ln. 25-31] Sontag-Strohm et al. reads on a fermented food product comprising a mixture of legume proteins, wherein one legume protein has a solubility of at least 25%, a vegetable fat, and water, wherein the product has at least 2% protein. Sontag-Strohm et al. is silent to the use of a second legume protein wherein the solubility is less than 20%. Fernandez-Quintela et al. teaches select physical and chemical properties of pea, fava, and soybean, such as protein content of isolates, solubility, and gelling properties. [Abstract] Fernandez-Quintela et al. teaches that the solubility of the protein isolate can be adjusted using the pH of the suspension, [Pg. 336, Par. 2] Specifically, Fernandez-Quintela et al. teaches that the pH of pea protein isolate and fava bean protein isolate can have solubility below 20% in the ranges from pH 3-5, and pH 6 for pea protein. [Figure 1] Fernandez-Quintela et al. teaches that legume protein precipitation, carried out at the isoelectric point corresponds to a pH between 4 and 5.3, resulting in a more efficient and higher yield of proteins. [Pg. 337, Par. 2] Fernandez-Quintela et al. concludes, teaching that isoelectric point precipitation yielded products with reduced levels in some antinutritional factors. [Pg. 339, Par. 4] Additionally, Fernandez-Quintela et al. teaches that the legume protein isolates are preferable alternatives for application in the food industry due to their functional properties. [Pg. 339, Par. 4] Legume proteins isolated at the isoelectric point, as taught by Fernandez-Quintela et al., would have a solubility less than 20% and possess greater nutritional value and be isolated with greater efficiency. Sontag-Strohm et al. and Fernandez-Quintela et al. exist within the same field of endeavor in that they teach the properties and functions of legume protein isolates. Where Sontag-Strohm et al. teaches a method of producing a food composition comprising legume protein isolates, Fernandez-Quintela et al. teaches the chemical and functional properties of fava, pea, and soy protein isolates. One would be motivated to combine the teaching of Fernandez-Quintela et al. with Sontag-Strohm et al. due to the disclosure of the beneficial effects of the legume protein isolates taught. The recitation in claim 1 of “wherein the solubility is the percentage of protein in solution after incubation of 15wt% of the dry protein isolate in water for 90 min. at 50 °C in the absence of pH adjustment” is a recitation of a property inherent in the legume protein isolates of the invention. The legume protein isolates recited are taught by the prior art. According to MPEP 2112 III, “Where applicant claims a composition in terms of a function, property, or characteristic and the composition of the prior art is the same as that of the claim but the function is not explicitly disclosed by the reference, the examiner may make a rejection under both 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103”. Therefore, the combination of Sontag-Strohm et al. in view of Fernandez-Quintela et al. reads on the recitation of “wherein the solubility is the percentage of protein in solution after incubation of 15wt% of the dry protein isolate in water for 90 min. at 50 °C in the absence of pH adjustment” Additionally, the recitation of “wherein the second legume protein isolate constitutes in the range of 20 to 70% of the total first and second legume protein isolates” is simply a recitation of routine optimization of the two protein isolates. Sontag-Strohm et al. teaches a combination of more than one embodiment of the invention, as described above. In the interest of producing the most desirable product, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to experiment with the amount of the legume protein isolates in order to determine the optimal amount of each. Therefore, it would have been obvious to produce a composition with two legume protein isolates, wherein the second protein isolate comprises between 20-70% of the total protein. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to have used the combination of Sontag-Strohm et al. in view of Fernandez-Quintela et al. in order to produce a fermented food composition comprising water, vegetable fat, and two legume protein isolates, wherein the first protein isolate has a solubility of at least 25% and the second protein has less than 20% and the second legume protein isolate comprises between 20-70% of the total of the first and second legume protein, wherein the product has a total protein composition of at least 2%, thereby rendering claim 1 obvious. With respect to Claim 2, Sontag-Strohm et al. in view of Fernandez-Quintela et al. teaches the food composition recited in claim 1, as described above. Additionally, Sontag-Strohm et al. teaches the use of Bifidobacterium . [Pg. 15, Ln. 25-31] Therefore, Sontag-Strohm et al. reads on the invention recited in claim 2. With respect to Claims 3 and 4, Sontag-Strohm et al. in view of Fernandez-Quintela et al. teaches the food composition recited in claim 1, as described above. Additionally, Sontag-Strohm et al. teaches the composition may be emulsion gels. [Pg. 5, Ln. 22-23] The limitations recited in claims 3 and 4 amount to characteristics of a composition that is taught by the teaching of Sontag-Strohm et al. in view of Fernandez-Quintela et al. According to MPEP 2112 III, “Where applicant claims a composition in terms of a function, property, or characteristic and the composition of the prior art is the same as that of the claim but the function is not explicitly disclosed by the reference, the examiner may make a rejection under both 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103”. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to combine the teachings of Sontag-Strohm et al. in view of Fernandez-Quintela et al. in order to produce a composition with peak load between 100-500g and a gel elasticity below 25%, thereby rendering obvious claims 3 and 4. With respect to Claim 5, Sontag-Strohm et al. teaches a method for the production of a plant-based protein alternative for producing milk, yogurt, tofu, and cheese, [Pg. 2, Ln. 34-37] wherein the food composition comprises protein derived from legumes, such as fava bean or pea, [Pg. 5, Ln. 30-35] a lipid, such as rapeseed, [Pg. 14, Ln. 24-25] and water. [Pg. 6, Ln. 28] Sontag-Strohm et al. teaches that the protein comprised in the composition may have its solubility adjusted to a desired amount, such as 40-100%. [Pg. 9, Ln. 10-12]. Additionally, Sontag-Strohm et al. teaches that the protein composition may be combined together or may be used in a greater composition. [Pg. 12, Ln. 26-32] In a specific embodiment, Sontag-Strohm et al. teaches a milk produced from fava bean protein, rapeseed oil, and water, wherein the composition is approximately 5% fava bean protein, 1-30% rapeseed oil, [Pg. 14, Ln. 23-26] and the remainder is water. [Pg. 14, Ln 34-36] Sontag-Strohm et al. reads on an oil-in-water emulsion comprising a mixture of legume proteins, wherein one legume protein has a solubility of at least 25%, a vegetable fat, and water, wherein the product has at least 2% protein with less than 5% polysaccharides. Sontag-Strohm et al. is silent to the use of a second legume protein wherein the solubility is less than 20%. Fernandez-Quintela et al. teaches select physical and chemical properties of pea, fava, and soybean, such as protein content of isolates, solubility, and gelling properties. [Abstract] Fernandez-Quintela et al. teaches that the solubility of the protein isolate can be adjusted using the pH of the suspension, [Pg. 336, Par. 2] Specifically, Fernandez-Quintela et al. teaches that the pH of pea protein isolate and fava bean protein isolate can have solubility below 20% in the ranges from pH 3-5, and pH 6 for pea protein. [Figure 1] Fernandez-Quintela et al. teaches that legume protein precipitation, carried out at the isoelectric point corresponds to a pH between 4 and 5.3, resulting in a more efficient and higher yield of proteins. [Pg. 337, Par. 2] Fernandez-Quintela et al. concludes, teaching that isoelectric point precipitation yielded products with reduced levels in some antinutritional factors. [Pg. 339, Par. 4] Additionally, Fernandez-Quintela et al. teaches that the legume protein isolates are preferable alternatives for application in the food industry due to their functional properties. [Pg. 339, Par. 4] Legume proteins isolated at the isoelectric point, as taught by Fernandez-Quintela et al., would have a solubility less than 20% and possess greater nutritional value and be isolated with greater efficiency. Sontag-Strohm et al. and Fernandez-Quintela et al. exist within the same field of endeavor in that they teach the properties and functions of legume protein isolates. Where Sontag-Strohm et al. teaches a method of producing a food composition comprising legume protein isolates, Fernandez-Quintela et al. teaches the chemical and functional properties of fava, pea, and soy protein isolates. One would be motivated to combine the teaching of Fernandez-Quintela et al. with Sontag-Strohm et al. due to the disclosure of the beneficial effects of the legume protein isolates taught. The recitation in claim 1 of “wherein the solubility is the percentage of protein in solution after incubation of 15wt% of the dry protein isolate in water for 90 min. at 50 °C in the absence of pH adjustment” is a recitation of a property inherent in the legume protein isolates of the invention. The legume protein isolates recited are taught by the prior art. According to MPEP 2112 III, “Where applicant claims a composition in terms of a function, property, or characteristic and the composition of the prior art is the same as that of the claim but the function is not explicitly disclosed by the reference, the examiner may make a rejection under both 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103”. Therefore, the combination of Sontag-Strohm et al. in view of Fernandez-Quintela et al. reads on the recitation of “wherein the solubility is the percentage of protein in solution after incubation of 15wt% of the dry protein isolate in water for 90 min. at 50 °C in the absence of pH adjustment” Additionally, the recitation of “wherein the second legume protein isolate constitutes in the range of 20 to 70% of the total first and second legume protein isolates” is simply a recitation of routine optimization of the two protein isolates. Sontag-Strohm et al. teaches a combination of more than one embodiment of the invention, as described above. In the interest of producing the most desirable product, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to experiment with the amount of the legume protein isolates in order to determine the optimal amount of each. Therefore, it would have been obvious to produce a composition with two legume protein isolates, wherein the second protein isolate comprises between 20-70% of the total protein. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to have used the combination of Sontag-Strohm et al. in view of Fernandez-Quintela et al. in order to produce an oil-in-water emulsion comprising water, vegetable fat, and two legume protein isolates, wherein the first protein isolate has a solubility of at least 25% and the second protein has less than 20% and the second legume protein isolate comprises between 20-70% of the total of the first and second legume protein, wherein the product has a total protein composition of at least 2% and a polysaccharide content of less than 5%, thereby rendering claim 5 obvious. With respect to Claim 6, Sontag-Strohm et al. in view of Fernandez-Quintela et al. teaches the food composition recited in claim 5, as described above. Additionally, Fernandez-Quintela et al. teaches that the protein content of the protein isolates are above 80%. [Abstract] Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to have used the protein isolates with a protein content of at least 80% taught in Fernandez-Quintela et al. in the composition taught by Sontag-Strohm et al., thereby rendering claim 6 obvious. With respect to Claim 7, Sontag-Strohm et al. in view of Fernandez-Quintela et al. teaches the food composition recited in claim 5, as described above. Additionally, Sontag-Strohm et al. teaches the oil-in-water composition comprising at least 5% protein. [Pg. 14, Ln. 23-26] Therefore, Sontag-Strohm et al. in view of Fernandez-Quintela et al. reads on the invention recited in claim 7. With respect to Claim 8, Sontag-Strohm et al. in view of Fernandez-Quintela et al. teaches the food composition recited in claim 5, as described above. Additionally, the recitation of “wherein the second legume protein isolate constitutes in the range of 20 to 60% of the total first and second legume protein isolates” is simply a recitation of routine optimization of the two protein isolates. Sontag-Strohm et al. teaches a combination of more than one embodiment of the invention, [Pg. 12, Ln. 26-32] and Fernandez-Quintela et al. teaches that legume proteins isolated at their isoelectric point are isolated more efficiently [Pg. 337, Par. 2] and with greater nutritional value. [Pg. 339, Par. 4] In the interest of producing the most desirable product, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to experiment with the amount of the legume protein isolates in order to determine the optimal amount of each. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to use the teaching of Sontag-Strohm et al. in view of Fernandez-Quintela et al. to produce a composition with two legume protein isolates, wherein the second protein isolate comprises between 20-60% of the total protein, thereby rendering claim 8 obvious. With respect to Claims 9 and 10, Sontag-Strohm et al. in view of Fernandez-Quintela et al. teaches the food composition recited in claim 5, as described above. Additionally, Sontag-Strohm et al. teaches that the food composition comprises protein derived from legumes, such as fava bean or pea, [Pg. 5, Ln. 30-35] Additionally, Sontag-Strohm et al. teaches a combination of more than one embodiment of the invention. [Pg. 12, Ln. 26-32] Therefore, Sontag-Strohm et al. in view of Fernandez-Quintela et al. reads on the invention recited in claims 9 and 10. With respect to Claims 11 and 15-16, Sontag-Strohm et al. in view of Fernandez-Quintela et al. teaches the food composition recited in claim 5, as described above. Additionally, Sontag-Strohm et al. teaches that the food composition comprises protein derived from legumes, such as fava bean or pea, [Pg. 5, Ln. 30-35] Additionally, Sontag-Strohm et al. teaches a combination of more than one embodiment of the invention. [Pg. 12, Ln. 26-32] In a specific embodiment, Sontag-Strohm et al. teaches a milk produced from fava bean protein, rapeseed oil, and water, wherein the composition is approximately 5% fava bean protein, 1-30% rapeseed oil, [Pg. 14, Ln. 23-26] and the remainder is water. [Pg. 14, Ln 34-36] One can easily envisage an invention taught by Sontag-Strohm et al. comprising more than one legume protein, specifically pea and fava bean. According to the specific embodiment above, the composition would only possess legume proteins. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to have used the teaching of Sontag-Strohm et al. in view of Fernandez-Quintela et al. in order to produce a composition comprising greater than 70% pea and fava bean proteins and free from animal ingredients, thereby rendering claims 11 and 15-16 obvious. With respect to Claims 12-14, Sontag-Strohm et al. in view of Fernandez-Quintela et al. teaches the food composition recited in claim 5, as described above. Additionally, Sontag-Strohm et al. teaches a milk produced from fava bean protein, rapeseed oil, and water, wherein the composition is approximately 5% fava bean protein, 1-30% rapeseed oil, [Pg. 14, Ln. 23-26] and the remainder is water. [Pg. 14, Ln 34-36] The ratio of protein to oil of the specific composition would be between 5:1 and 1:6. The rapeseed oil and protein:oil ratio both overlap with the ranges recited in claims 12 and 14. According to MPEP 2144.01 I, “In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed in the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists”. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to have used the teachings of Sontag-Strohm et al. in view of Fernandez-Quintela et al. to produce a composition according to the limitations of claim 5, wherein the vegetable oil is rapeseed, between 10-50%, and the protein:oil ratio is between 10:1 and 1:500, thereby rendering claims 12-14 obvious. With respect to Claim 17, Sontag-Strohm et al. in view of Fernandez-Quintela et al. teaches the food composition recited in claim 5, as described above. Additionally, Sontag-Strohm et al. teaches that milk produced from fava bean protein and rapeseed oil can be fermented into a yogurt using a lactic acid bacteria, such as Bifidobacterium , wherein the protein concentration is approximately 5%. [Pg. 15, Ln. 25-31] Therefore, Sontag-Strohm et al. in view of Fernandez-Quintela et al. reads on the invention recited in claim 17. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH CULLEN MERCHLINSKY whose telephone number is (571)272-2260. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00am - 5:00pm. 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, Nikki Dees can be reached at 571-270-3435. 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. /J.C.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1791 /Nikki H. Dees/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1791 Application/Control Number: 18/556,693 Page 2 Art Unit: 1791 Application/Control Number: 18/556,693 Page 3 Art Unit: 1791 Application/Control Number: 18/556,693 Page 4 Art Unit: 1791 Application/Control Number: 18/556,693 Page 5 Art Unit: 1791 Application/Control Number: 18/556,693 Page 6 Art Unit: 1791 Application/Control Number: 18/556,693 Page 7 Art Unit: 1791 Application/Control Number: 18/556,693 Page 8 Art Unit: 1791 Application/Control Number: 18/556,693 Page 9 Art Unit: 1791 Application/Control Number: 18/556,693 Page 10 Art Unit: 1791 Application/Control Number: 18/556,693 Page 11 Art Unit: 1791 Application/Control Number: 18/556,693 Page 12 Art Unit: 1791 Application/Control Number: 18/556,693 Page 13 Art Unit: 1791 Application/Control Number: 18/556,693 Page 14 Art Unit: 1791 Application/Control Number: 18/556,693 Page 15 Art Unit: 1791