CTNF 18/613,782 CTNF 89187 DETAILED ACTION 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. This Action is non-final and is in response to the claims filed March 22, 2024. Claims 1-4 are currently pending, of which claims 1-4 are currently rejected. Double Patenting 08-33 AIA The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg , 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman , 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi , 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum , 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington , 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer. Double Patenting Rejection I – Application No. 18/613,657 Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/613,657 (hereinafter, “the ‘657 application”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each. Claim 1 of the present application is taught by at least claim 1 of the ‘657 application. The molded article storage unit has the same functionality as the production process storage unit of the present application. Claims 2 and 3 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4 of the ‘657 application in view of Nwoke et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2024/0119579; hereinafter “Nwoke”). Claim 2 of the present invention is not taught by the ‘657 application. Specifically, while the ‘657 application teaches the molding management system according to claim 1, the ‘657 application does not teach the various processes that are claimed. However, Nwoke teaches wherein the production processes include a molding process and any one of a drying process, a press process, a conveying process, and a cleaning process (See Nwoke paras. [0025-27] and [0030-31]: injection molded articles, including pressing processes). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine, with a reasonable expectation of success, the defect classification and manufactured products of the ‘657 application with the molded articles of Nwoke. One would have been motivated to combine these references because both references disclose identifying features in a manufacturing process. Nwoke further enhances the management system of the ‘657 application by expanding upon the applicability of the classifications, further enhancing the flexibility of the system by increasing the types of defects that can be monitored and classified, allowing for expanded user control and analysis. Claim 3 of the present application is taught by at least claims 1-3 of the ‘657 application. Specifically, multiple storage units are claimed that store information in association with one another, including information about the defect classification. However, the ‘657 application does not teach outsourcing. Nwoke teaches that the information selected in the ‘657 application is related to an outsourcing company where the production process is performed when producing the molded article , as well as the outsourcing company generally (See Nwoke para. [0143]: third party or other system integrator, like subcontractors and other manufacturers, can be part of the production process). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the ‘657 application with the teachings of Nwoke for at least the same reasons as discussed above in claim 2. Claim 4 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4 of the ‘657 application in view of Boos (U.S. Publication No. 2012/0124945). Claim 4 of the present application is taught by at least claims 1-3 of the ‘657 application. Specifically, multiple storage units are claimed that store information in association with one another, including information about the defect classification. However, the ‘657 application does not teach the packaging process Boos teaches the selections of the ‘657 application can be one of finished inventory process information that is information for determining whether the production process is a process performed after the packaging process , as well as the inventory process information (See Boos paras. [0016-17] and [0043-45]: groups of molded articles tracked and packaged after they have been completed. This would apply to the management system of the ‘657 application, allowing a user/operator to easily identify this information at this particular step in the process). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine, with a reasonable expectation of success, the management system and molded products of the ‘657 application with the packaging processes of Boos. One would have been motivated to combine these references because both references disclose identifying defects in injection molding processes. Boos further enhances the management system of the ‘657 application by expanding upon the applicability of the classifications, further enhancing the flexibility of the system by increasing the variety of items that can be monitored and classified. Moreover, by identifying defective packages, this can avoid recalling entire batches of molded parts, saving time and money, while improving overall efficiency of the defect identifications (See Boos para. [0011]). Double Patenting Rejection II – Application No. 18/613,619 Claims 1 and 2 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 2 of copending Application No. 18/613,619 (hereinafter, “the ‘619 application”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each. Claim 1 of the present application is taught by at least claim 1 of the ‘619 application. The molded article storage unit has the same functionality as the device storage unit of the present application. Claim 2 of the present application is taught by at least claim 2 of the ‘619 application. Claim 3 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4 of the ‘619 application in view of Nwoke et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2024/0119579; hereinafter “Nwoke”). Claim 3 of the present application is taught by at least claims 1 and 3 of the ‘619 application. Specifically, multiple storage units are claimed that store information in association with one another, including information about the defect classification. However, the ‘619 application does not teach outsourcing. Nwoke teaches that the information selected in the ‘619 application is related to an outsourcing company where the production process is performed when producing the molded article , as well as the outsourcing company generally (See Nwoke para. [0143]: third party or other system integrator, like subcontractors and other manufacturers, can be part of the production process). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine, with a reasonable expectation of success, the defect classification and manufactured products of the ‘619 application with the molded articles of Nwoke. One would have been motivated to combine these references because both references disclose identifying features in a manufacturing process. Nwoke further enhances the management system of the ‘619 application by expanding upon the applicability of the classifications, further enhancing the flexibility of the system by increasing the types of defects that can be monitored and classified, allowing for expanded user control and analysis. Claim 4 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 3 of the ‘619 application in view of Boos (U.S. Publication No. 2012/0124945). Claim 4 of the present application is taught by at least claims 1 and 3 of the ‘619 application. Specifically, multiple storage units are claimed that store information in association with one another, including information about the defect classification. However, the ‘619 application does not teach the packaging process Boos teaches the selections of the ‘619 application can be one of finished inventory process information that is information for determining whether the production process is a process performed after the packaging process , as well as the inventory process information (See Boos paras. [0016-17] and [0043-45]: groups of molded articles tracked and packaged after they have been completed. This would apply to the management system of the ‘619 application, allowing a user/operator to easily identify this information at this particular step in the process). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine, with a reasonable expectation of success, the management system and molded products of the ‘619 application with the packaging processes of Boos. One would have been motivated to combine these references because both references disclose identifying defects in injection molding processes. Boos further enhances the management system of the ‘619 application by expanding upon the applicability of the classifications, further enhancing the flexibility of the system by increasing the variety of items that can be monitored and classified. Moreover, by identifying defective packages, this can avoid recalling entire batches of molded parts, saving time and money, while improving overall efficiency of the defect identifications (See Boos para. [0011]). These are provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejections because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Specification 06-11 AIA The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. 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. 07-30-06 This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “production process storage unit”, “defect classification storage unit”, “first receiving unit”, “second receiving unit”, “process defect storage unit”, “third receiving unit”, “fourth receiving unit”, and “fifth receiving unit” in claims 1-4 . Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. 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 1-4 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 limitations “production process storage unit”, “defect classification storage unit”, “first receiving unit”, “second receiving unit”, “process defect storage unit”, “third receiving unit”, “fourth receiving unit”, and “fifth receiving unit” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Specifically, these various “units” are all broad units included in a cloud server (See Specification Figs. 1 and 8). It is unclear whether these are meant to be hardware, software, and/or a combination of both hardware and software. Applicant is thus attempting to claim all possibilities. Therefore, claims 1-4 are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. 07-34-23 Applicant may: (a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph; (b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or (c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)). If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either: (a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or (b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181. Examiner’s Note The prior art rejections below cite particular paragraphs, columns, and/or line numbers in the references for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art. 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. 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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taheri et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2019/0206049; hereinafter, “Taheri”) and further in view of Nwoke et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2024/0119579; hereinafter “Nwoke”) . As per claim 1 , Taheri teaches a molding management system comprising : a production process storage unit configured to store a plurality of pieces of production process information that are identification information of production processes of a [molded] article (See Taheri Figs. 1-3 and paras. [0029-30]: product identifier and other information associated with item, including the part involved; para. [0023]: “during an inspection of a manufacturing line/process for a consumer object, an engineer may detect a faulty component/process. The engineer may gather data about the faulty component/process (e.g., location of fault, type of fault, materials involved, description of fault, photo/video of fault, etc.). The gathered data may be entered into one or more databases after the inspection”); a defect classification storage unit configured to store master data including a plurality of pieces of defect classification information that are information related to classification of a defect of the [ molded ] article (See Taheri Figs. 1-3 and paras. [0029-30]: product identifier and other information associated with item, including the part involved); a first receiving unit configured to receive selection of the production process information stored in the production process storage unit (See Taheri Figs. 1, 2, and paras. [0043-44]: user can select information about parts/products to be displayed in the dashboard interface); a second receiving unit configured to receive selection of the defect classification information provided in the master data (See Taheri Figs. 1, 2, and paras. [0043-44]: user can select information about defect items to be displayed in the dashboard interface); a process defect storage unit configured to store the production process information received by the first receiving unit and the defect classification information received by the second receiving unit in association with each other (See Taheri Figs. 1-3 and paras. [0050-51]: creating new filters or applying saved filters to the list of defect items. This is included on the dashboard to show the associated data; paras. [0023-24]: databases to store and receive information about the articles, defects, etc.); and a third receiving unit configured to receive, when the defect occurs in the [ molded ] article in any one production process of the production processes, selection of the defect classification information stored in the process defect storage unit in association with the production process information of the production process in which the defect occurs (See Taheri Figs. 1-3 and paras. [0050-51]: creating new filters or applying saved filters to the list of defect items. This is included on the dashboard to show). However, while Taheri teaches defect identifiers and classification in a manufacturing environment, Taheri does not explicitly teach injection molding, and thus molded articles. Nwoke teaches molded articles (See Nwoke paras. [0025-27]: injection molded articles). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine, with a reasonable expectation of success, the defect classification and manufactured products of Taheri with the molded articles of Nwoke. One would have been motivated to combine these references because both references disclose identifying features in a manufacturing process. Nwoke further enhances the management system of Taheri by expanding upon the applicability of the classifications, further enhancing the flexibility of the system by increasing the variety of items that can be monitored and classified. As per claim 2 , Taheri/Nwoke teaches the molding management system according to claim 1. However, while Taheri teaches manufacturing products, Taheri does not explicitly teach a molding process. Nwoke teaches wherein the production processes include a molding process and any one of a drying process, a press process, a conveying process, and a cleaning process (See Nwoke paras. [0025-27] and [0030-31]: injection molded articles, including pressing processes). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine Taheri with the teachings of Nwoke for at least the same reasons as discussed above in claim 1. As per claim 3 , Taheri/Nwoke further teaches t he molding management system according to claim 1 . Taheri further teaches a fourth receiving unit configured to receive selection of information [related to an outsourcing company where the production process is performed when producing the molded article] , wherein the process defect storage unit stores the production process information received by the first receiving unit and the information related to [the outsourcing company] received by the fourth receiving unit in association with each other (See Taheri Figs. 1-3 and paras. [0023] and [0040-43]: selection of related item, including damage type, part, material, etc.; paras. [0067] and [0070]: various information related to the article and the defect can be retrieved; paras. [0023-24]: databases to store and receive information about the articles, defects, etc.). However, while Taheri teaches the information selection and retrieval, including manufacturer information (See Taheri para. [0029]), Taheri does not explicitly teach an outsourcing company. Nwoke teaches that the information selected in Taheri is related to an outsourcing company where the production process is performed when producing the molded article , as well as the outsourcing company generally (See Nwoke para. [0143]: third party or other system integrator, like subcontractors and other manufacturers, can be part of the production process). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine Taheri with the teachings of Nwoke for at least the same reasons as discussed above in claim 1 . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taheri/Nwoke as applied above, and further in view of Boos (U.S. Publication No. 2012/0124945) . As per claim 4 , Taheri/Nwoke further teaches the molding management system according to claim 1. Taheri further teaches wherein the molding management system includes a fifth receiving unit configured to receive selection of [finished inventory process information that is information for determining whether the production process is a process performed after the packaging process], and the process defect storage unit stores the production process information received by the first receiving unit and the finished [inventory process] information received by the fifth receiving unit in association with each other (See Taheri Figs. 1-3 and paras. [0023] and [0040-43]: selection of related item, including damage type, part, material, etc.; paras. [0067] and [0070]: various information related to the article and the defect can be retrieved; paras. [0023-24]: databases to store and receive information about the articles, defects, etc.). However, while Taheri teaches defect identifiers and classification in a manufacturing environment, Taheri does not explicitly teach injection molding, and thus molding process. Nwoke teaches the molding process (See Nwoke paras. [0025-27]: injection molding). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine Taheri with the teachings of Nwoke for at least the same reasons as discussed above in claim 1. Furthermore, while Taheri/Nwoke teaches the molding process and the management interface, Taheri/Nwoke does not teach a packaging process. Boos teaches the selections of Taheri/Bwoke can be one of finished inventory process information that is information for determining whether the production process is a process performed after the packaging process , as well as the inventory process information (See Boos paras. [0016-17] and [0043-45]: groups of molded articles tracked and packaged after they have been completed. This would apply to the management interface of Taheri/Bwoke, allowing a user/operator to easily identify this information at this particular step in the process). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine, with a reasonable expectation of success, the management interface and molded products of Taheri/Nwoke with the packaging processes of Boos. One would have been motivated to combine these references because both references disclose identifying defects in injection molding processes. Boos further enhances the management system of Taheri/Nwoke by expanding upon the applicability of the classifications, further enhancing the flexibility of the system by increasing the variety of items that can be monitored and classified. Moreover, by identifying defective packages, this can avoid recalling entire batches of molded parts, saving time and money, while improving overall efficiency of the defect identifications (See Boos para. [0011]) . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nicholas Klicos whose telephone number is (571)270-5889. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00 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, Scott Baderman can be reached at (571) 272-3644. 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. /NICHOLAS KLICOS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2118 Application/Control Number: 18/613,782 Page 2 Art Unit: 2118 Application/Control Number: 18/613,782 Page 3 Art Unit: 2118 Application/Control Number: 18/613,782 Page 4 Art Unit: 2118 Application/Control Number: 18/613,782 Page 5 Art Unit: 2118 Application/Control Number: 18/613,782 Page 6 Art Unit: 2118 Application/Control Number: 18/613,782 Page 7 Art Unit: 2118 Application/Control Number: 18/613,782 Page 8 Art Unit: 2118 Application/Control Number: 18/613,782 Page 9 Art Unit: 2118 Application/Control Number: 18/613,782 Page 10 Art Unit: 2118 Application/Control Number: 18/613,782 Page 11 Art Unit: 2118 Application/Control Number: 18/613,782 Page 12 Art Unit: 2118 Application/Control Number: 18/613,782 Page 13 Art Unit: 2118 Application/Control Number: 18/613,782 Page 15 Art Unit: 2118 Application/Control Number: 18/613,782 Page 16 Art Unit: 2118 Application/Control Number: 18/613,782 Page 17 Art Unit: 2118 Application/Control Number: 18/613,782 Page 18 Art Unit: 2118 Application/Control Number: 18/613,782 Page 19 Art Unit: 2118 Application/Control Number: 18/613,782 Page 20 Art Unit: 2118
Prosecution Insights