CTFR 18/568,984 CTFR 84139 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. Examiner’s Note The Examiner acknowledges the amendments of claim 1 – 3 & 5, amendments of the specification, amendments of the drawings, and the cancellation of claim 4. Claims 8 – 15 & 17 are withdrawn from consideration. Claims 1 – 3, 5 – 7, & 16 are examined herein. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-103 AIA The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1 – 3, 5 – 7, & 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (*WO 2022/102872), in view of McKnight et al. (US 7,678,440 B1) and Joo et al. (US 2016/0104850 A1) . *US2024/0015904 A1 is cited herein as the English language equivalent of WO 2022/102872 With regard to claim 1 , Choi et al. teach a display device comprising a stress control layer (SRL) (Figs. 4B – 4C), an elastomer layer (ESL), and a support layer (SPL) disposed beneath the SRL (Fig. 4E). The SRL is an auxetic structure and has a negative Poisson’s ratio that is capable of being stretched in a biaxial direction (paragraphs [0021] & [0074]). The auxetic structure may include a line pattern (i.e., “islands” (LP2) and “connection portions” (LP1) of Fig. 4C below defining a plurality of unit cells (i.e., “plurality of space regions”) (paragraph [0010]). The line pattern may include high-density polyethylene (HDPE) (i.e., “plastic”) (paragraphs [0015] & [0078]). The elastomer layer (ESL) may include a thermoplastic olefin (i.e., “a plastic”) (paragraph [0085]). PNG media_image1.png 322 358 media_image1.png Greyscale PNG media_image2.png 336 306 media_image2.png Greyscale PNG media_image3.png 222 292 media_image3.png Greyscale Applicant’s specification discusses “plastic” as one or more selected from the group consisting synthetic resin, synthetic rubber, natural resin, and natural rubber, which is any one of thermosetting, thermoplastic, photo polymerizing, and room temperature vulcanizing (specification, pg. 4, lines 15 – 18). Therefore, the flexible-strain permitting material taught by Choi et al. meets Applicant’s recited “plastic” material. Choi et al. do not teach the auxetic structure and the elastomer layer (i.e., “the film”) are formed integrally. Claim 1 defines the product by how the product was made. Thus, claim 1 is a product-by-process claim. For purposes of examination, product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulation of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. See MPEP 2113. In the present case, the recited steps imply a structure comprising components formed of the same material and joined without mechanical or adhesive fastener. Choi et al. the auxetic structure of the stress control layer may further include an elastomer layer. The auxetic structure may be embedded in the elastomer layer (paragraphs [0008] & [0018]). High-density polyethylene is a thermoplastic polyolefin. The auxetic structure formed of high-density polyethylene and the elastomer layer formed of thermoplastic olefin may be formed of the same material, which would be structurally the same as forming the auxetic structure integrally with the elastomer layer. Examiner refers applicant to MPEP § 2113 [R - 1] regarding product-by-process claims. “The patentability of a product does not depend on its method or production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product or the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe , 777, F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citation omitted) Once the examiner provides a rationale tending to show that the claimed product appears to be same or similar to that of the prior art, although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to the applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi , 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218, USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983) Choi et al. do not teach the plastic is fiber-reinforced. McKnight et al. teach deformable cellular structures wherein auxetic material is formed of cell walls composed of variable-stiffness outer materials (702) and constant thickness inner materials (700). The constant thickness material includes polymer matrix carbon fiber composites or polymer matrix glass fiber composites or polymer matrix polymer fiber composites, such as KEVLAR® fiber (aramid fiber). The constant thickness material provides structural stiffness to the cellular structure. By locating constant thickness members (fiber reinforced polymer) in the core of the cell wall, bending strains are small (Col. 11, Line 66 – Col. 12, Line 22). Therefore, based on the teachings of McKnight et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate carbon fibers, glass fibers, or KEVLAR® (aramid) fibers into a polymer material of the auxetic (cellular) structure and elastomer layers taught by Choi et al. for achieving the desired structural stiffness and bending strains of these layers. Choi et al. do not teach an elastic auxiliary member inside the plurality of openings. As such, Choi et al. do not teach the elastic modulus of the fiber-reinforced plastic material is at least 500 times of the elastic modulus of the elastic auxiliary member 20. Joo et al. teach Stretchable film 100 has an auxeticity and includes a silicone-based resin material (paragraph [0034]), which comprises a boundary pattern 230 (Applicant’s “plastic material” of the islands and connection portion) has an elastic modulus greater than the elastic modulus of stretchable patterns 235 (Applicant’s “elastic auxiliary member” in “the space region”) (paragraph [0055]). The stretchable patterns may be expanded or stretched and the boundary patterns have relatively high rigidity or modulus so that the stretchable patterns may be prevented from being excessively transformed or lose intrinsic elasticity (paragraphs [0057], [0091], & [0096]). PNG media_image4.png 390 396 media_image4.png Greyscale Therefore, based on the teachings of Joo et al., it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to choose the proper materials of the boundary patterns (plastic materials of the islands/connecting portions) and stretchable patterns (materials of the elastic member inside the openings formed by the islands and connecting portion) through routine experimentation for achieving a ratio of elastic modulus needed for preventing excessive transformation and loss of intrinsic elasticity. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch , 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). With regard to claim 2 , as discussed above for claim 1, McKnight et al. teach the composition of the fiber is at least one selected from the group consisting of glass, carbon, and KEVLAR® (i.e., “aramid”). With regard to claim 3 , thermoplastic polyolefin, such as high-density polyethylene, is classified as a thermoplastic and a synthetic resin. With regard to claim 5 , Choi et al. do not teach an elastic auxiliary member inside the plurality of openings, such that the elastic auxiliary member 20 is one or more selected from the group consisting of synthetic resin, synthetic rubber, natural resin, and natural rubber; which is any one of thermosetting, thermoplastic, photo polymerizing, and room temperature vulcanizing. Joo et al. teach a stretchable film 100 that has an auxeticity and includes a silicone-based resin material (paragraph [0034), which comprises a boundary pattern 230 (Applicant’s “plastic material” of the islands and connection portion) and stretchable patterns 235 (Applicant’s “elastic auxiliary member” in “the space region”). In some embodiments, the stretchable patterns 215, 225, 231, 233, 235 , and 237 (Applicant’s “elastic auxiliary member”) may include PDMS (polydimethylsiloxane, commonly known as “silicone”) and/or PPS (photo-patternable silicone) (i.e., “synthetic rubber,” as described in Applicant’s specification, pg. 19), and the boundary patterns 210, 220, and 230 may include PU (polyurethane) (Applicant’s “plastic”) (paragraph [0056]). The presence of a stretchable pattern prevents drastic transformation of the stretchable film (paragraph [0065]). PNG media_image4.png 390 396 media_image4.png Greyscale Therefore, based on the teachings of Joo et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to incorporate an elastic auxiliary member composed of synthetic rubber, such as polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS), into the spacing of the patterns taught by Choi et al. in order to optimize stretchability and prevent drastic transformation of the auxetic structure (i.e., “stretchable film”). With regard to claim 6 , Choi et al. teach the auxetic structure has a negative Poisson’s ratio (paragraphs [0100] – [0102]), but do not teach the fiber-composite film (auxetic structure and elastomer layer comprising fibers) have a negative Poisson’s ratio value. With regard to claim 7 , Choi et al. do not teach the fiber-composite film having a Poisson’s ratio value which is lower than any of its component materials. Applicant’s specification, pg. 19, teaches the synthetic resin may be polyethylene. As discussed above, Choi et al. teach the plastic material is high density polyethylene. As discussed above for claim 2, McKnight et al. teach the same type of reinforcing fibers in the fiber-reinforced plastic material. As discussed above for claim 5, Joo et al. teach the same type of material for the filling the cavities as recited by Applicant. Therefore, although not recited in claim 1, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect similar materials to have a negative Poisson ratio value. Therefore, with regard to claims 6 – 7, considering the fiber composite film taught by the cited prior art discussed above is composed of a film and an auxetic structure of similar structure and composed of the same materials as taught in Applicant’s specification, the fiber-reinforced composite taught by the combination of the cited references above would inherently have a negative Poisson’s ratio value that is lower than any of its component materials. MPEP 2112 [R-3] states: The express, implicit, and inherent disclosures of a prior art reference may be relied upon in the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103. “The inherent teaching of a prior art reference, a question of fact, arises both in the context of anticipation and obviousness.” In re Napier , 55 F.3d 610, 613, 34 USPQ2d 1782, 1784 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (affirmed a 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection based in part on inherent disclosure in one of the references). See also In re Grasselli , 713 F.2d 731, 739, 218 USPQ 769, 775 (Fed. Cir. 1983). It has been held that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or are produced by identical or a substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness will be considered to have been established over functional limitations that stem from the claimed structure. In re Best , 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), In re Spada, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed products. In re Best , 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). With regard to claim 16 , Choi et al. teach a foldable display device that contains a foldable area comprising the stress control layer of the film discussed above for claim 1 (paragraphs [0054] – [0056]). When the device is folded, the auxetic structure allows for structural expansion (stretching) with respect to uniaxial stress (paragraph [0102]) . Response to Arguments In light of Applicant’s amendment of claim 1 and submitted replacement drawings, the previous objections of the drawings are withdrawn. Applicant argues, “In response to the Examiner’s objections regarding claim informalities, Applicant has amended Claims 1 – 2, 4 and 5 to remove reference characters in the claims. Applicant has also corrected the typographical informality in Claim 2 by changing ‘The’ to ‘the’ for proper grammatical consistency. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that all noted informalities have been resolved and requests withdrawal of the claim objections” (Remarks, Pg. 8). EXAMINER’S RESPONSE: In light of Applicant’s amendment of claims 1 – 2 & 5, the previous objections of the claims are withdrawn. Applicant argues, “Claims 1 – 7 & 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)…as being indefinite…Applicant has amended Claim 1 to remove the ambiguity identified by the Examiner. Specifically, in line with the Examiner’s construction, Claim 1 now expressly recites ‘a single fiber-reinforced plastic having an auxetic structure formed integrally therein,’ making clear that the auxetic structure is formed within and is part of the same single film. “Applicant has also corrected the antecedent basis issue by explicitly reciting the ‘elastic auxiliary member’ and then consistently referring to that same elastic auxiliary member in the subsequent modulus-ratio limitation” (Remarks, Pg. 8). EXAMINER’S RESPONSE: In light of Applicant’s amendments of claim 1, the rejection of claims 1 – 7 & 16 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) has been withdrawn. Applicant argues, “As amended, Claim 1 requires a ‘fiber-reinforced plastic film’ with an auxetic structure formed integrally within that single film, wherein the ‘island’ and ‘connection portion’ are portions of that same single film and consist of plastic materials reinforced with fibers, and wherein the plurality of space regions are filled with an elastic auxiliary member and satisfy a critical modulus ratio of at least 500. In contrast, Toronjo describes a laminate panel construction in which a bonding/auxetic layer (120) is used to couple an inner/base layer (122) and an outer layer (142), i.e., a multi-layer laminate rather than a monolithic single fiber-reinforced plastic film. Toronjo expressly describes the bonding layer as being sandwiched between inner and outer layers and serving as an adhesive framework to bond those layers” (Remarks, Pg. 9). EXAMINER’S RESPONSE: Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Contrary to Applicant’s assertion, claim 1 does not recite a monolithic single fiber-reinforced plastic film. The term “integrally” does not require the recited film to be a single layer. Applicant argues, “It is also respectfully submitted that Toronjo also does not disclose the claimed ‘plurality of space regions … filed with an elastic auxiliary member.’ Toronjo’s interior recesses are described as voids between the base and outer layers in some embodiments, and in other embodiments are filled by material from the base layer or outer layer due to penetration – again fundamentally different from Applicant’s claimed structure, which fills openings/space regions with a selected elastic auxiliary member that cooperates with the rigid fiber-reinforced portions” (Remarks, Pg. 9). EXAMINER’S RESPONSE: In light of Applicant’s amendments of claim 1, the rejection of claims 1 – 7 & 16 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) over Toronjo has been withdrawn. Applicant argues, “Finally, Toronjo contains no teachings of the claimed requirement that the elastic modulus of the fiber-reinforced plastic material is at least 500 times the elastic modulus of the elastic auxiliary member. Because Toronjo fails to disclose at least these limitations are now recited, Toronjo cannot anticipate amended Claim 1, and therefore cannot anticipate claims 3, 6, or 16, which depend from or incorporate Claim 1’s structural requirements” (Remarks, Pgs. 9 – 10). EXAMINER’S RESPONSE: In light of Applicant’s amendments of claim 1, the rejection of claims 1 – 7 & 16 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) over Toronjo has been withdrawn. Applicant argues, “McKnight describes deformable cellular structures with cell walls having different stiffness regions and identifies various possible ‘constant stiffness’ materials, including glass fiber reinforced polymer, carbon fiber reinforced polymer, and polymer fiber reinforced polymer, but McKnight’s discussion is directed to cell-wall constructions in a morphing cellular structure and does not teach or suggest Applicant’s claimed fiber-reinforcing plastic film in which islands and connection portions are portions of the film itself and are defined by patterned space regions that are then filled with an elastic auxiliary member. McKnight further discusses filling cell cavities with a volume-changeable plastic material, such as elastic foam, to assist strain/shape recovery, but does not teach selecting the cavity-fill material and the surrounding structural material so as to satisfy a specific modulus ratio threshold, much less a threshold shown to be critical to achieving stable auxetic rotation behavior in a patterned film” (Remarks, Pg. 11). EXAMINER’S RESPONSE: Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. First, the cited secondary reference McKnight was discussed in the office action for the sole reason that McKnight teaches a motivation to incorporate fibers into the plastic structure taught by Choi et al. McKnight was not cited for the recited islands and connection portions or the recited filling material. The recited islands and connection portions of the film itself and are defined by patterned space regions are taught by the cited primary reference of Choi et al. The recited filling of the spaced regions with an elastic auxiliary member is taught by the cited tertiary reference of Joo et al. 07-37-13 AIA In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller , 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Second, Applicant’s claimed specific modulus ratio threshold of the cavity-fill material vs. the surrounding structural was rejected based on the teachings of Joo et al. Applicant argues, “Applicant further submits that the Examiner’s characterization of the modulus-ratio limitation as a matter of routine optimization is not supported by the record because the art of record does not identify the claimed modulus ratio as a recognized result-effective variable governing whether the filled auxetic structure will, in fact, exhibit negative Poisson’s ratio behavior across elongation ranges” (Remarks, Pg. 11). EXAMINER’S RESPONSE: Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Choi et al. teach the SRL (islands and connections) is an auxetic structure and has a negative Poisson’s ratio that is capable of being stretched in a biaxial direction (paragraphs [0021] & [0074]). Based on the teachings of Joo et al., it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to choose the proper materials of the boundary patterns (plastic materials of the islands/connecting portions) and stretchable patterns (materials of the elastic member inside the openings formed by the islands and connecting portion) through routine experimentation for achieving a ratio of elastic modulus needed for preventing excessive transformation and loss of intrinsic elasticity. Therefore, the prior art teaches different materials of the islands/connection portion and the filler materials (variable) such that the relative elastic modulus of each of these prevents excess transformation and loss of intrinsic elasticity (effected result). Applicant argues the result-effective variable must govern whether the filled auxetic structure will, in fact exhibit negative Poisson’s ratio behavior across elongation ranges. However, this is not persuasive for the following reasons: (1) Applicant’s claim does not recite any elongation ranges. (2) Applicant’s claim 1 does not recite a negative Poisson’s ratio. (3) As discussed for claim 1, Choi et al. teach the island and connecting portions have a negative Poisson’s ratio. McKnight teach the same type of reinforcing fiber as disclosed by Applicant. As discussed for above for claim 5, Joo et al. teach the same type of material for the filling the cavities as recited by Applicant. Therefore, as discussed in claims 6 – 7, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the overall structure taught by the combined referenced cited above to inherently have a negative Poisson ratio. (4) It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the same result effective variable advantage as discussed in Applicant’s specification. The reason or motivation to modify the reference may often suggest what the inventor has done, but for a different purpose or to solve a different problem. It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant. See, e.g., In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (motivation question arises in the context of the general problem confronting the inventor rather than the specific problem solved by the invention); Cross Med. Prods., Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 424 F.3d 1293, 1323, 76 USPQ2d 1662, 1685 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ("One of ordinary skill in the art need not see the identical problem addressed in a prior art reference to be motivated to apply its teachings."); In re Lintner, 458 F.2d 1013, 173 USPQ 560 (CCPA 1972) (discussed below); In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 904 (1991) (discussed below). See MPEP 2144.IV. Applicant argues, “The instant specification demonstrates criticality and a qualitative change in behavior at insufficient modulus ratios: when the modulus difference is only about 33 (Comparative Example 2), the film exhibits a positive Poisson’s ratio and poor omnidirectional stretchability showing that negative Poisson behavior is not obtained simply by ‘filling’ spaces with an elastomer absent the claimed modulus disparity. “The instant specification further shows that even when a large modulus exists, negative Poisson’s ratio behavior is not guaranteed if the rigid portions are not fiber reinforced: Comparative Example 3 uses a non-fiber-reinforced CPI film with a large modulus difference relative to Ecoflex filler, yet the Poisson’s ratio becomes positive at higher elongation rates due to structural deformation of the islands, evidencing that fiber reinforcement of the rigid portions is an additional necessary condition to maintain omnidirectional stretchability across elongation ranges. These experimental results rebut any inherency assertion and confirm that the claimed modulus threshold and fiber-reinforced monolithic structure are not arbitrary choices but are required to achieve the claimed auxetic rotation mechanism and performance. “The instant specification also expressly ties negative Poisson’s ratio behavior to the island-rotation mechanism driven by shear stress and explains that fiber-reinforced plastic is required to provide the tensile strength and stiffness that allow the island rotation to occur rather than structural deformation. Accordingly, the functional Poisson-ratio limitations in claims 6 and 7 are not inherent results that necessarily flow from the cited structural teachings, but instead depend on the particular claimed architecture and modulus relationship now expressly required by amended claim 1” (Remarks, Pgs. 11 – 12). EXAMINER’S RESPONSE: Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. First, Applicant’s comparative example 2 does not contain fiber reinforcement and there is no teaching of the elastic modulus of the islands/connections formed by PDMS in this example. Furthermore, the primary reference of Choi et al. explicitly teach the auxetic structure has a negative Poisson’s ratio (paragraphs [0100] – [0102]), without the presence of fiber reinforcement. Therefore, contrary to Applicant’s assertion, comparative example 2 fails to demonstrate the structure taught by the combined teachings of the cited prior art does not inherently have a negative Poisson ratio. Second, as discussed above, the primary reference teaches negative Poisson ratio in the instance of no fiber reinforcement. Therefore, Applicant’s Comparative Example 3 fail to demonstrate lack of inherency of the recited negative Poisson ratio in the islands and connecting portions taught by the prior art, as discussed for claims 6 – 7. Conclusion 07-40 AIA Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL . See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICOLE T GUGLIOTTA whose telephone number is (571)270-1552. The examiner can normally be reached M - F (9 a.m. to 10 p.m.). 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, Frank Vineis can be reached at 571-270-1547. 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. /NICOLE T GUGLIOTTA/Examiner, Art Unit 1781 /FRANK J VINEIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1781 Application/Control Number: 18/568,984 Page 2 Art Unit: 1781 Application/Control Number: 18/568,984 Page 3 Art Unit: 1781 Application/Control Number: 18/568,984 Page 4 Art Unit: 1781 Application/Control Number: 18/568,984 Page 5 Art Unit: 1781 Application/Control Number: 18/568,984 Page 6 Art Unit: 1781 Application/Control Number: 18/568,984 Page 7 Art Unit: 1781 Application/Control Number: 18/568,984 Page 8 Art Unit: 1781 Application/Control Number: 18/568,984 Page 9 Art Unit: 1781 Application/Control Number: 18/568,984 Page 10 Art Unit: 1781 Application/Control Number: 18/568,984 Page 11 Art Unit: 1781 Application/Control Number: 18/568,984 Page 12 Art Unit: 1781 Application/Control Number: 18/568,984 Page 13 Art Unit: 1781 Application/Control Number: 18/568,984 Page 14 Art Unit: 1781 Application/Control Number: 18/568,984 Page 15 Art Unit: 1781 Application/Control Number: 18/568,984 Page 16 Art Unit: 1781 Application/Control Number: 18/568,984 Page 17 Art Unit: 1781 Application/Control Number: 18/568,984 Page 18 Art Unit: 1781 Application/Control Number: 18/568,984 Page 19 Art Unit: 1781 Application/Control Number: 18/568,984 Page 20 Art Unit: 1781
Prosecution Insights