CTNF 18/615,200 CTNF 96364 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. Priority 02-26 AIA Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Double Patenting 08-30 AIA A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co. , 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert , 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957). A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101. 08-32 Claims 1, 4, 9-10, 13, and 16 are provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claims 1-2, 5-6, and 9-10 of copending Application No. 18/451,495 (reference application). This is a provisional statutory double patenting rejection since the claims directed to the same invention have not in fact been patented. 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. Claims 2-3, 5-8, 11-12, 14-15, and 17-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 3-4, 7-8, and 11-16 of copending Application No. 18/451,495 (reference application) (hereinafter “the ‘495 application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the aforementioned claims of both applications fall with within the same scope of each another. For instance, the silicone oil is recited as being 0.5% by mass or more and 7% by mass or less ( claim 6 ) or 0.5% by mass or more and 6% by mass or less ( claim 7 ) or 1% by mass or more and 3% by mass or less ( claim 8 ) in the instant application, whereas the silicone oil is recited as being 1% by mass or more and 7% by mass or less ( claim 3 ) or 3% by mass or more and 5% by mass or less ( claim 4 ) in the ‘495 application. The silicone oil is recited as containing at least one selected from the group consisting of a polyether-modified alkyl silicone oil and an aralkyl-modified silicone oil as the organic group-substituted dimethylpolysiloxane ( claim 2 and claim 3 ), or the silicone oil contains a polyether-modified silicone oil ( claim 4 ) and the resin is recited as containing an imide-based resin ( claim 11 ) in the instant application, whereas the silicone oil is recited as containing a polyether-modified alkyl silicone oil as the organic group-substituted dimethylpolysiloxane ( claim 2 ) and the resin is recited as containing an imide-based resin ( claim 7 ) in the ‘495 application. In both applications, the imide-based resin contains a polyimide resin ( claim 12 of the instant application and claim 8 of the ‘495 application). The image forming apparatus of both applications include the same components (see claim 13 , claim 16 , claim 17 , claim 18 , claim 19 , and claim 20 of the instant application and claim 11, claim 12, claim 13, claim 14, claim 15, and claim 16 of the ‘495 application). The claims of the ‘495 application do not appear to recite that the silicone oil contains an aralkyl-modified silicone oil as the organic group-substituted dimethylpolysiloxane as recited in claim 5 of the instant application. However, the use of such silicone oils was known in prior art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. For instance, Imai teaches an intermediate transfer belt for use in electrophotographic equipment comprising at least one resin from the group consisting of polycarbonate resin, polyamide-imide resin, and polyethersulfone resin, carbon black, and a condensed aromatic compound containing a nitrogen atom and an oxygen atom ([0007]). In the examples, an aralkyl-modified silicone oil known as “KF-410” (Shin-Etsu Chemical Co., Ltd.) was used in the base layer of the intermediate transfer belt ([0037], [0057]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used an aralkyl-modified silicone oil as a silicone oil in the intermediate transfer member of the ‘495 claims. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. 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 1-4, 6-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugiura et al. (US Pat. No. 10,831,133 B1), in view of Kojima (US PGP 2015/0370199 A1) . Sugiura teaches a transfer device including an intermediate transfer body, a first transfer unit that transfers a toner image formed on the surface of an image holding member onto the surface of the intermediate transfer body, and a second transfer unit that transfers the toner image transferred on the surface of the intermediate transfer body onto the surface of a recording medium (Col. 16, lines 15-44). The first transfer unit is taught to include a conductive roller having a metal supporting member (Col. 16, lines 52-55, Col. 17, lines 59-64) (which reads on the corresponding limitation recited in instant claim 1 ). An image forming apparatus comprising the components recited in instant claim 13, claim 14, claim 15, claim 16, claim 18, claim 19, and claim 20 is also discussed (Col. 21-Col. 25). The intermediate transfer body is taught to include an endless belt containing a first resin and first conductive particles. In a spatial distribution of the first conductive particles present in an evaluation region of an outer peripheral surface of the endless belt, the evaluation region having a size of 6.3 µm x 4.2 µm, an integral of a statistic L(r) represented by formula (1) from 0.05 µm to 0.30 µm with respect to an interparticle distance r is 0 or more and 0.1 or less (Col. 2, lines 3-45) (which reads on the corresponding limitation recited in instant claim 1 ). The first resin is taught to include a resin selected from the group consisting of a polyimide resin, a polyamide-imide resin, an aromatic polyether ether ketone resin, a polyphenylene sulfide resin, and a polyetherimide resin (Col. 5, lines 34-51, claim 2) (which reads on the corresponding limitation recited in instant claim 1, claim 9, claim 10, claim 11, and claim 12 ). The conductive particles are taught to contain conductive carbon particles like carbon black (Col. 7, lines 56-67) (which reads on the corresponding limitation recited in instant claim 1 ). Sugiura appears to be silent to teach or suggest that the endless belt contains a silicone oil. However, this feature was known in prior art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. For instance, Kojima teaches an electrophotographic mono-layer belt comprising a thermoplastic resin and a silicone oil (Abstract). The silicone oil is taught to be a dimethyl silicone oil and/or a polyether-modified silicone oil ([0045]). In the examples, commercially available dimethyl silicone oils and polyether-modified silicone oil (manufactured by Shin-Etsu Co., Ltd.) were used as the silicone oil (which reads on the corresponding limitations recited in instant claim 1, claim 2, claim 3, claim 4, and claim 11 ). The addition of the silicone oil to the electrophotographic belt is taught to improve its lubricity ([0046]). The content of the silicone oil is taught to be 0.5% by mass or more and 5.0% by mass or less with respect to the resin composition in view of reducing the surface energy and suppressing excessive bleedout of the silicone oil to the surface of the belt ([0048]) (which reads on the corresponding limitations recited in instant claim 6, claim 7, and claim 8 ). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a silicone oil, such as a polyether-modified alkyl silicone oil, into the endless belt of Sugiura within the amount taught by Kojima, in view of improving its lubricity, reducing its surface energy, and suppressing excessive bleedout thereby preventing contamination of other members . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 5 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugiura et al. (US Pat. No. 10,831,133 B1), in view of Kojima (US PGP 2015/0370199 A1), and further in view of Sawai (JP 2001183928 A) (references herein made with respect to English machine translation attached) . The teachings of Sugiura and Kojima are discussed above and incorporated herein. In addition to polyether-modified silicone oil, Kojima teaches that other silicone oils, such as alkyl-modified silicone oil, may also be suitably used ([0045]). However, Kojima appears to be silent to explicitly teach aralkyl-modified silicone oil as a suitable example. Sawai teaches an electrophotographic intermediate transfer belt containing a modified silicone oil. The modified silicone oil is taught to contain an organic group including methylstyrene (an aralkyl group) and polyether ([0043]). Sawai teaches that any of the listed organic groups including methylstyrene and polyether can be suitably used as they would be expected to exhibit similar effects ([0107]). According to MPEP § 2144.06, it is prima facie obvious to substitute equivalents known for the same purpose. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a silicone oil, such as a methylstyrene-modified silicone oil (i.e., an aralkyl-modified silicone oil), into the endless belt of Sugiura within the amount taught by Kojima, in view of improving its lubricity, reducing its surface energy, and suppressing excessive bleedout thereby preventing contamination of other members. The skilled artisan would have been just as motivated to have selected a methylstyrene-modified silicone oil as a polyether-modified silicone oil as Sawai teaches that they would be expected to exhibit similar effects . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-4, 6-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seko et al. (US Pat. No. 10,935,908 B1), in view of Kojima (US PGP 2015/0370199 A1) . Seko teaches a transfer device including an intermediate transfer body, a first transfer unit that transfers a toner image formed on the surface of an image holding member onto the surface of the intermediate transfer body, and a second transfer unit that transfers the toner image transferred on the surface of the intermediate transfer body onto the surface of a recording medium (Col. 20, lines 65-67, Col. 21, lines 1-9). The first transfer unit is taught to include a conductive roller supporting member (Col. 21, lines 39-50) (which reads on the corresponding limitation recited in instant claim 1 ). An image forming apparatus comprising the components recited in instant claim 13, claim 14, claim 15, claim 16, claim 18, claim 19, and claim 20 is also discussed (Col. 20-Col. 24). The intermediate transfer body is taught to include an endless belt containing a resin and conductive carbon particles. In a spatial distribution of the conductive carbon particles present in an evaluation region of an outer peripheral surface of the endless belt, the evaluation region having a size of 6.3 µm x 4.2 µm, an integral of a statistic L(r) represented by formula (1) from 0.05 µm to 0.30 µm with respect to an interparticle distance r is 0 or more and 0.1 or less (Col. 2, lines 3-53) (which reads on the corresponding limitation recited in instant claim 1 ). The resin is taught to include a resin selected from the group consisting of a polyimide resin, a polyamide-imide resin, an aromatic polyether ether ketone resin, a polyphenylene sulfide resin, and a polyetherimide resin (Col. 6, lines 40-56, claim 2) (which reads on the corresponding limitation recited in instant claim 1, claim 2, claim 3, claim 4, and claim 11 ). The conductive particles are taught to contain conductive carbon particles like carbon black (Col. 9, lines 1-9) (which reads on the corresponding limitation recited in instant claim 1 ). Seko appears to be silent to teach or suggest that the endless belt contains a silicone oil. However, this feature was known in prior art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. For instance, Kojima teaches an electrophotographic mono-layer belt comprising a thermoplastic resin and a silicone oil (Abstract). The silicone oil is taught to be a dimethyl silicone oil and/or a polyether-modified silicone oil ([0045]). In the examples, commercially available dimethyl silicone oils and polyether-modified silicone oil (manufactured by Shin-Etsu Co., Ltd.) were used as the silicone oil (which reads on the corresponding limitations recited in instant claim 1, claim 2, and claim 7 ). The addition of the silicone oil to the electrophotographic belt is taught to improve its lubricity ([0046]). The content of the silicone oil is taught to be 0.5% by mass or more and 5.0% by mass or less with respect to the resin composition in view of reducing the surface energy and suppressing excessive bleedout of the silicone oil to the surface of the belt ([0048]) (which reads on the corresponding limitations recited in instant claim 6, claim 7, and claim 8 ). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a silicone oil, such as a polyether-modified alkyl silicone oil, into the endless belt of Seko within the amount taught by Kojima, in view of improving its lubricity, reducing its surface energy, and suppressing excessive bleedout thereby preventing contamination of other members . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 5 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seko et al. (US Pat. No. 10,935,908 B1), in view of Kojima (US PGP 2015/0370199 A1), and further in view of Sawai (JP 2001183928 A) (references herein made with respect to English machine translation attached) . The teachings of Seko and Kojima are discussed above and incorporated herein. In addition to polyether-modified silicone oil, Kojima teaches that other silicone oils, such as alkyl-modified silicone oil, may also be suitably used ([0045]). However, Kojima appears to be silent to explicitly teach aralkyl-modified silicone oil as a suitable example. Sawai teaches an electrophotographic intermediate transfer belt containing a modified silicone oil. The modified silicone oil is taught to contain an organic group including methylstyrene (an aralkyl group) and polyether ([0043]). Sawai teaches that any of the listed organic groups including methylstyrene and polyether can be suitably used as they would be expected to exhibit similar effects ([0107]). According to MPEP § 2144.06, it is prima facie obvious to substitute equivalents known for the same purpose. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a silicone oil, such as a methylstyrene-modified silicone oil (i.e., an aralkyl-modified silicone oil), into the endless belt of Seko within the amount taught by Kojima, in view of improving its lubricity, reducing its surface energy, and suppressing excessive bleedout thereby preventing contamination of other members. The skilled artisan would have been just as motivated to have selected a methylstyrene-modified silicone oil as a polyether-modified silicone oil as Sawai teaches that they would be expected to exhibit similar effects . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-4, 6-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furukawa et al. (US Pat. No. 10,976,690 B1), in view of Kojima (US PGP 2015/0370199 A1) . Furukawa teaches a transfer device including an intermediate transfer body, a first transfer unit that transfers a toner image formed on the surface of an image holding member onto the surface of the intermediate transfer body, and a second transfer unit that transfers the toner image transferred on the surface of the intermediate transfer body onto the surface of a recording medium (Col. 3, lines 64-67, Col. 4, lines 1-21). The first transfer unit is taught to include a conductive roller supporting member (Col. 22, lines 36-47) (which reads on the corresponding limitation recited in instant claim 1 ). An image forming apparatus comprising the components recited in instant claim 13, claim 14, claim 15, claim 16, claim 18, claim 19, and claim 20 is also discussed (Col. 22-Col. 25). The intermediate transfer body is taught to include an endless belt containing a resin and conductive carbon particles. In a spatial distribution of the conductive carbon particles present in an evaluation region of an outer peripheral surface of the endless belt, the evaluation region having a size of 6.3 µm x 4.2 µm, an integral of a statistic L(r) represented by formula (1) from 0.05 µm to 0.30 µm with respect to an interparticle distance r is 0 or more and 0.1 or less (Col. 2, lines 1-63) (which reads on the corresponding limitation recited in instant claim 1 ). The resin is taught to include a resin selected from the group consisting of a polyimide resin, a polyamide-imide resin, an aromatic polyether ether ketone resin, a polyphenylene sulfide resin, and a polyetherimide resin (Col. 7, lines 10-27, claim 13) (which reads on the corresponding limitation recited in instant claim 1, claim 2, claim 3, claim 4, and claim 11 ). The conductive particles are taught to contain conductive carbon particles like carbon black (Col. 9, lines 41-59) (which reads on the corresponding limitation recited in instant claim 1 ). Furukawa appears to be silent to teach or suggest that the endless belt contains a silicone oil. However, this feature was known in prior art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. For instance, Kojima teaches an electrophotographic mono-layer belt comprising a thermoplastic resin and a silicone oil (Abstract). The silicone oil is taught to be a dimethyl silicone oil and/or a polyether-modified silicone oil ([0045]). In the examples, commercially available dimethyl silicone oils and polyether-modified silicone oil (manufactured by Shin-Etsu Co., Ltd.) were used as the silicone oil (which reads on the corresponding limitations recited in instant claim 1, claim 2, and claim 7 ). The addition of the silicone oil to the electrophotographic belt is taught to improve its lubricity ([0046]). The content of the silicone oil is taught to be 0.5% by mass or more and 5.0% by mass or less with respect to the resin composition in view of reducing the surface energy and suppressing excessive bleedout of the silicone oil to the surface of the belt ([0048]) (which reads on the corresponding limitations recited in instant claim 6, claim 7, and claim 8 ). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a silicone oil, such as a polyether-modified alkyl silicone oil, into the endless belt of Furukawa within the amount taught by Kojima, in view of improving its lubricity, reducing its surface energy, and suppressing excessive bleedout thereby preventing contamination of other members . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 5 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furukawa et al. (US Pat. No. 10,976,690 B1), in view of Kojima (US PGP 2015/0370199 A1), and further in view of Sawai (JP 2001183928 A) (references herein made with respect to English machine translation attached) . The teachings of Furukawa and Kojima are discussed above and incorporated herein. In addition to polyether-modified silicone oil, Kojima teaches that other silicone oils, such as alkyl-modified silicone oil, may also be suitably used ([0045]). However, Kojima appears to be silent to explicitly teach aralkyl-modified silicone oil as a suitable example. Sawai teaches an electrophotographic intermediate transfer belt containing a modified silicone oil. The modified silicone oil is taught to contain an organic group including methylstyrene (an aralkyl group) and polyether ([0043]). Sawai teaches that any of the listed organic groups including methylstyrene and polyether can be suitably used as they would be expected to exhibit similar effects ([0107]). According to MPEP § 2144.06, it is prima facie obvious to substitute equivalents known for the same purpose. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a silicone oil, such as a methylstyrene-modified silicone oil (i.e., an aralkyl-modified silicone oil), into the endless belt of Furukawa within the amount taught by Kojima, in view of improving its lubricity, reducing its surface energy, and suppressing excessive bleedout thereby preventing contamination of other members. The skilled artisan would have been just as motivated to have selected a methylstyrene-modified silicone oil as a polyether-modified silicone oil as Sawai teaches that they would be expected to exhibit similar effects. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Boone A Evans whose telephone number is (571)272-1420. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9:00 AM - 6:00 PM EST. 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, Mark Huff can be reached on (571) 272-1385. 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. /BOONE ALEXANDER EVANS/Examiner, Art Unit 1737 04/16/2026 Application/Control Number: 18/615,200 Page 2 Art Unit: 1737 Application/Control Number: 18/615,200 Page 3 Art Unit: 1737 Application/Control Number: 18/615,200 Page 4 Art Unit: 1737 Application/Control Number: 18/615,200 Page 5 Art Unit: 1737 Application/Control Number: 18/615,200 Page 6 Art Unit: 1737 Application/Control Number: 18/615,200 Page 7 Art Unit: 1737 Application/Control Number: 18/615,200 Page 9 Art Unit: 1737 Application/Control Number: 18/615,200 Page 10 Art Unit: 1737 Application/Control Number: 18/615,200 Page 11 Art Unit: 1737 Application/Control Number: 18/615,200 Page 12 Art Unit: 1737 Application/Control Number: 18/615,200 Page 13 Art Unit: 1737 Application/Control Number: 18/615,200 Page 14 Art Unit: 1737 Application/Control Number: 18/615,200 Page 15 Art Unit: 1737 Application/Control Number: 18/615,200 Page 16 Art Unit: 1737 Application/Control Number: 18/615,200 Page 17 Art Unit: 1737 Application/Control Number: 18/615,200 Page 18 Art Unit: 1737
Prosecution Insights