CTNF 18/662,748 CTNF 89897 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. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statements filed 12 September 2024 and 23 September 2025 are acknowledged and the information referred to therein has been considered. 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 Claim 6 is 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 6 recites the limitation "the flow rate threshold" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, claim 6 will be interpreted as if depending from claim 2. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – 07-08-aia AIA (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1, 7, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by US 7,905,251 to Flanders . Flanders discloses a method (see fig. 2) of detecting failures in a fluid circuit (see the fluid circuit of fig. 1) of a processing system for use in semiconductor processing (this language is not considered limiting nor of any significance to claim construction as the body of the claim describes a complete invention and the language recited solely in the preamble does not provide any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention's limitations; see MPEP § 2111.02), comprising closing (at S70) a first valve (valve 13) to stop a first flow of a first fluid from a first conduit (upstream/downstream of valve 63) into a common conduit (between valves 13, 14 and leading to valve 42) (col. 6, ll. 12-16); closing (at S70) a second valve (valve 14) to stop a second flow of a second fluid from a second conduit (upstream/downstream of valve 64) into the common conduit (col. 6, ll. 12-16); after a first delay period subsequent to closing the first valve and the second valve (when the pressure sealing of valves 13, 14 is checked at S80), closing (at S110) a port valve (valve 42) of the common conduit, downstream of the first conduit and the second conduit (see fig. 1) (col. 6, ll. 21-22); after a second delay period subsequent to closing the port valve (when the pressure sealing of valve 42 is checked at S110), monitoring, for a third period (until the end of the test period), a pressure in the common conduit (col. 6, ll. 22-31); and taking one or more actions if the pressure in the common conduit is outside of a first pressure threshold (e.g., an alarm is issued if the pressure, or a rate of increase thereof, in the monitored conduit section exceeds a threshold level, which indicates a valve 13, 14 failure according to col. 6, ll. 38-49; an alarm is also issued if pressure keeps decreasing after valve 42 is commanded to close, which indicates a failure of that valve according to col. 6, ll. 22-25). PNG media_image1.png 622 962 media_image1.png Greyscale With regards to claim 7 , Flanders discloses the method of claim 1. Flanders further discloses the taking one or more actions including one or more of creating an error signal and stopping a flow within a fluid circuit (an alarm is issued if the pressure, or a rate of increase thereof, in the monitored conduit section exceeds a threshold level, which indicates a valve 13, 14 failure according to col. 6, ll. 38-49; an alarm is also issued if pressure keeps decreasing after valve 42 is commanded to close, which indicates a failure of that valve according to col. 6, ll. 22-25). With regards to claim 9 , Flanders discloses the method of claim 1. Flanders further discloses the port valve being upstream of a processing chamber (reservoir 70; fig. 1). With regards to claim 10 , Flanders discloses the method of claim 1. In the system of Flanders, the first flow and the second flow further occur at different times. This happens when valves 11, 12 are opened to prepare for the valve testing as per col. 6, ll. 5-6. The second flow occurs after the first flow because the second flow is further downstream than the first flow and fluid must take a longer path to reach valve 14 . 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 5, 8, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Flanders . With regards to claim 5 , Flanders discloses the method of claim 1. Flanders does not expressly teach the first delay period and the second delay period being from about 2 seconds to about 5 seconds. Still, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Flanders' method such that the first delay period and the second delay period are from about 2 seconds to about 5 seconds, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller , 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955). One of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to alter the testing periods in order to match the capabilities of the system, and to ensure that testing is performed without needless down time. With regards to claim 8 , Flanders discloses the method of claim 1. Flanders does not expressly teach that the first pressure threshold being about 745 Torr to about 770 Torr. Still, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Flanders' method such that the first pressure threshold is about 745 Torr to about 770 Torr, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller , 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955). One of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to alter first pressure threshold in order to match an acceptable level of pressure ranges in the common conduit. This threshold depends not only on the source upstream pressure, but valve characteristics and the length of time pressure is bled in the common conduit at S100 of Flanders. One of ordinary skill in the art would choose the threshold in consideration of these factors. With regards to claim 11 , Flanders discloses the method of claim 1. Flanders does not expressly teach: measuring the pressure in the common conduit during and after the first delay period; taking the one or more actions if the pressure in the common conduit does not change during the first delay period; and maintaining a run state if the pressure in the common conduit is within a second pressure threshold after the first delay period. However, Flanders does state that there is a check to determine whether valves 13, 14 have fully closed. See col. 16, ll. 12-14. Given that there is high pressure upstream of valves 13, 14, and there is a pressure sensor 55 detecting a pressure in the common conduit, one obvious way to determine whether valves 13, 14 are closed is to check whether the pressure downstream of these valves is stable or continues to rise due to upstream pressure. The latter would indicate incomplete closure of the valves. Flanders also teaches, with respect to valve 42, that a certain degree of leakage may be acceptable for a valve being tested. See col. 6, ll. 38-42. A certain degree of leakage may also be acceptable for valves 13, 14 and in such case it would be obvious to similarly check the pressure in the common conduit against a second threshold to determine whether a detected amount of leakage for these valves is acceptable. In view hereof, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to measure the pressure in the common conduit during and after the first delay period (to check whether valves 13, 14 have closed), take the one or more actions if the pressure in the common conduit does not change during the first delay period (issue the alarm of S90 if the state of closure is unacceptable), and maintain a run state if the pressure in the common conduit is within a second pressure threshold after the first delay period (continue with the rest of the valve test if the performance of valves 13, 14 is meets an acceptable threshold level). One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so in order to check the performance of the tested valves using the pressure sensing equipment (55) already in the system, and be able to continue using the system if degradation in the performance of the first and second valves (13, 14) is still at an acceptable level . 07-22-aia AIA Claim s 2, 3, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Flanders as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 10,048,160 to Gnoss et al. (hereinafter referred to as Gnoss) . With regards to claim 2 , Flanders discloses the method of claim 1. However, Flanders does not teach: measuring, with a mass flow monitor, a flow rate within the common conduit; and taking the one or more actions if the flow rate within the common conduit is outside of a flow rate threshold within the third period. Gnoss teaches the feature of providing a mass flow monitor (1) in a flow channel between inlet (2) and outlet valves (3) in a valve assembly (see fig. 1, noting the mass flow sensor may be located as per col. 5, ll. 12-14), and detecting valve leakage by monitoring mass flow when the valves are opened and closed (see the descriptions of fig. 2-4, fig. 6-8, and fig. 9-10, which give describe different circumstances under which a leaking valve can be detected using a mass flow monitor) by comparing a quantity indicating mass flow to predefined thresholds (col. 12, ll. 3-27). It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to similarly employ a mass flow monitor in the method of Flanders, the mass flow monitor being located within the common conduit, to measure a flow rate within the common conduit when the valves are operated, and take the one or more actions if the flow rate within the common conduit is outside of a flow rate threshold within the third period (issue an alarm, etc.). One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so in order to provide a double-check, or redundancy, to the valve status determinations for increased reliability. Moreover, in this combination nothing about the operation of the base system in Flanders, or the operation of the pressure or mass flow monitors would change. The result of this combination would thus be predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art, and this combination would further amount to no more than the predictable use of prior-art elements according to their established functions. With regards to claim 3 , the combination of Flanders and Gnoss teaches the method of claim 2. This combination does not expressly teach the first pressure threshold having a +/−2% variation. Still, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Flanders' method such that the first pressure threshold has a +/−2% variation, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller , 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955). One of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to choose the first pressure threshold in such a manner in order to ensure only a small deviation from an acceptable value is permitted. With regards to claim 6 , the combination of Flanders and Gnoss teaches the method of claim 2. This combination does not expressly teach the flow rate threshold is about 0 gram/second to about 1 gram/second. Still, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Flanders' method such that the flow rate threshold is about 0 gram/second to about 1 gram/second, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller , 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955). One of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to choose the first pressure threshold in such a manner in order to ensure only a small amount of leakage is permitted . 07-22-aia AIA Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Flanders as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 7,101,252 to Kitajima et al. (hereinafter referred to as Kitajima) . With regards to claim 4 , Flanders discloses the method of claim 1. Flanders does not teach the first fluid being a slurry and the second fluid including water. Kitajima teaches a fluid circuit of a processing system for use in semiconductor processing (see fig. 7), comprising: a first valve (a valve V directly above a slurry source 71, of which there may be only one as per col. 12, ll. 3-6) for stopping a first flow of a first fluid (slurry) from a first conduit (between slurry source 71 and this valve) into a common conduit (between this valve, the valve above water source 72, and the valve connecting to supply arm 61; note that the depicted apparatus may have only a single polishing pad and associated parts as per col. 11, ll. 34-40); and a second valve (the valve V directly above water source 72 in fig. 7) to for stopping a second flow of a second fluid (water) from a second conduit (between water source 72 and this valve) into the common conduit (between this valve, the valve above a slurry source 71, and the valve connecting to supply arm 61), a port valve in the common conduit, downstream of the first conduit and the second conduit (at the outlet of valve V directly before supply arm 61). PNG media_image2.png 507 884 media_image2.png Greyscale In this system, the first fluid is a slurry and the second fluid includes water. The method of detecting failures in a fluid circuit taught by Flanders is not limited to only one type of fluid circuit, and could be applied to any circuit where pressurized fluid located upstream of first and second valves travels into a common conduit between said valves, and exits the common conduit at an outlet valve. The method simply measures the pressures in the circuit at different times when the valves are operated to detect leakage/failures. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the valves in Kitajima could be tested using upstream pressures in a similar way, because other than the source of pressure being different, the fluid circuit is essentially the same, as explained above. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to similarly apply the method of detecting failures in a fluid circuit taught by Flanders to the fluid circuit in Kitajima, in order to achieve the predictable result of enabling testing the three named valves for leakage. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so in order to ensure the valves are operating correctly. When this is done, the first fluid would be a slurry and the second fluid would include water . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitajima in view of Flanders . With regards to claim 12 , Kitajima teaches a processing circuit for use in semiconductor processing (see fig. 7), comprising: a process chamber configured for semiconductor manufacturing (the chamber in which polishing pad 31 is housed; see fig. 5); a common conduit (between a valve V directly above a slurry source 71, of which there may be only one as per col. 12, ll. 3-6, the valve above water source 72, and the valve connecting to supply arm 61; note that the depicted apparatus may have only a single polishing pad and associated parts as per col. 11, ll. 34-40) comprising: a port (at the outlet of valve V directly before supply arm 61) having a port valve (valve V directly before supply arm 61); a first conduit (between slurry source 71 and the valve V directly above the slurry source 71) coupled to the common conduit by a first valve (the valve V directly above a slurry source 71) upstream of the port valve (see fig. 7); a second conduit coupled (between water source 72 and the valve V directly above water source 72) to the common conduit by a second valve (the valve V directly above water source 72) upstream of the port valve (see fig. 7); and a controller (controller 40) comprising memory, the memory comprising instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause a plurality of operations to be conducted (col. 12, ll. 13-23). Kitajima does not teach: the common conduit comprising a pressure sensor; or the plurality of operations comprising: closing (at S70 in fig. 2) the first valve to stop a first flow of a first fluid from the first conduit into the common conduit (col. 6, ll. 12-16); closing (at S70 in fig. 2) the second valve to stop a second flow of a second fluid from the second conduit into the common conduit (col. 6, ll. 12-16); after a first delay period subsequent to closing the second valve (when the pressure sealing of valves 13, 14 is checked at S80), closing (at S100 in fig. 2) the port valve of the common conduit (col. 6, ll. 21-22); after a second delay period subsequent to closing the port valve (when the pressure sealing of valve 42 is checked at S110), monitoring, for a third period (until the end of the test period), a pressure in the common conduit using the pressure sensor (col. 6, ll. 22-31); and taking one or more actions if the pressure in the common conduit is outside of a first pressure threshold (e.g., an alarm is issued if the pressure, or a rate of increase thereof, in the monitored conduit section exceeds a threshold level, which indicates a valve 13, 14 failure according to col. 6, ll. 38-49; an alarm is also issued if pressure keeps decreasing after valve 42 is commanded to close, which indicates a failure of that valve according to col. 6, ll. 22-25). Flanders teaches a circuit (see fig. 1) comprising: a common conduit (between valves 13, 14 and leading to valve 42) comprising: a pressure sensor (pressure sensor 55); and a port (the end of the conduit leading to valve 42) having a port valve (valve 42); a first conduit (upstream/downstream of valve 63) coupled to the common conduit by a first valve (valve 13) upstream of the port valve (see fig. 1); a second conduit coupled (upstream/downstream of valve 64) to the common conduit by a second valve (valve 14) upstream of the port valve (see fig. 1); and a controller (safely logic solver 31) comprising memory, the memory comprising instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause a plurality of operations to be conducted (col. 5, ll. 47-54), the plurality of operations comprising: closing (at S70 in fig. 2) the first valve to stop a first flow of a first fluid from the first conduit into the common conduit (col. 6, ll. 12-16); closing (at S70 in fig. 2) the second valve to stop a second flow of a second fluid from the second conduit into the common conduit (col. 6, ll. 12-16); after a first delay period subsequent to closing the second valve (when the pressure sealing of valves 13, 14 is checked at S80), closing (at S100 in fig. 2) the port valve of the common conduit (col. 6, ll. 21-22); after a second delay period subsequent to closing the port valve (when the pressure sealing of valve 42 is checked at S110), monitoring, for a third period (until the end of the test period), a pressure in the common conduit using the pressure sensor (col. 6, ll. 22-31); and taking one or more actions if the pressure in the common conduit is outside of a first pressure threshold (e.g., an alarm is issued if the pressure, or a rate of increase thereof, in the monitored conduit section exceeds a threshold level, which indicates a valve 13, 14 failure according to col. 6, ll. 38-49; an alarm is also issued if pressure keeps decreasing after valve 42 is commanded to close, which indicates a failure of that valve according to col. 6, ll. 22-25). The method of detecting failures in the fluid circuit taught by Flanders is not limited to only one type of fluid circuit, and could be applied to any circuit where pressurized fluid located upstream of first and second valves travels into a common conduit between said valves, and exits the common conduit at an outlet valve. The method simply measures the pressures in the circuit at different times when the valves are operated to detect leakage/failures. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the valves in Kitajima could be tested using upstream pressures in a similar way, because other than the source of pressure being different, the fluid circuit is essentially the same, as explained above. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to similarly provide a pressure sensor to the circuit of Kitajima between the valves and apply the method of detecting failures in a fluid circuit taught by Flanders (executed by the controller) thereto, in order to achieve the predictable result of enabling testing the three named valves for leakage. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so in order to ensure the valves are operating correctly. With regards to claim 13 , the combination of Kitajima and Flanders teaches the processing circuit of claim 12. Kitajima further teaches flowing the first fluid from the first conduit into the common conduit while the second valve is closed; and flowing the second fluid from the second conduit into the common conduit while the first valve is closed (slurry and water are supplied at different times during; see col. 14, ll. 49-56). With regards to claim 14 , the combination of Kitajima and Flanders teaches the processing circuit of claim 12. Flanders further teaches the feature of continuously monitoring the pressure in the common conduit (see S140 in fig. 2) . 07-22-aia AIA Claim s 15-16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitajima and Flanders as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Gnoss . With regards to claim 15 , the combination of Kitajima and Flanders teaches the processing circuit of claim 12. However, this combination does not teach a mass flow monitor disposed downstream of the first valve and the second valve, and disposed upstream of the port valve. Gnoss teaches the feature of providing a mass flow monitor (1) in a flow channel between inlet (2) and outlet valves (3) in a valve assembly (see fig. 1, noting the mass flow sensor may be located as per col. 5, ll. 12-14), and detecting valve leakage by monitoring mass flow when the valves are opened and closed (see the descriptions of fig. 2-4, fig. 6-8, and fig. 9-10, which give describe different circumstances under which a leaking valve can be detected using a mass flow monitor) by comparing a quantity indicating mass flow to predefined thresholds (col. 12, ll. 3-27). It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to similarly employ a mass flow monitor in the method of Flanders, the mass flow monitor being located within the common conduit downstream of the first valve and the second valve and upstream of the port valve, to measure a flow rate within the common conduit when the valves are operated, and take the one or more actions if the flow rate within the common conduit is outside of a flow rate threshold within the third period (issue an alarm, etc.). One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so in order to provide a double-check, or redundancy, to the valve status determinations for increased reliability. Moreover, in this combination nothing about the operation of the base system in Kitajima as modified by Flanders, or the operation of the pressure or mass flow monitors would change. The result of this combination would thus be predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art, and this combination would further amount to no more than the predictable use of prior-art elements according to their established functions. With regards to claim 16 , the combination of Kitajima, Flanders, and Gnoss teaches the processing circuit of claim 15. In this combination, as explained above under claim 15, the plurality of operations would comprise monitoring a flow rate through the common conduit with the mass flow monitor in order to provide a double-check, or redundancy, to the valve status determinations for increased reliability . Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-07 AIA 07-97 12-51-07 Claim s 17-20 are allowed. 13-03-01 The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter. With regards to claim 17, the prior art considered to be most pertinent was not found to teach, alone or in combination: one or more supply circuits, each supply circuit of the one or more supply circuits comprising: a common conduit comprising: a pressure sensor; and a port valve coupled to one or more outlets of the one or more supply circuits, each outlet of the one or more outlets comprising a mass flow monitor; a first conduit coupled to the common conduit by a first valve upstream of the port valve; a second conduit coupled to the common conduit by a second valve upstream of the port valve; a first supply manifold coupled to the first conduit of each of the one or more supply circuits; a second supply manifold coupled to the second conduit of each of the one or more supply circuits; a master flow meter disposed upstream of the second supply manifold; and …. comparing a pressure in the common conduit of each of the one or more supply circuits with a pressure threshold; comparing the second mass flow rate with the combined mass flow rate; and taking one or more actions if: the pressure in the common conduit in at least one of the one or more supply circuits is outside of the pressure threshold during a period when the first valve, the second valve, and the port valve corresponding to the respective common conduit are closed; or the combined mass flow rate is outside of a flow threshold of the second mass flow rate in combination with all other elements in claim 17. Claims 18-20 depend from claim 17 and are allowable for the same reason. Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 12,472,601 and US 11,898,940, both to Ebara Corp., disclose related circuits and methods for detecting leakage of fluids from fluid lines in polishing apparatuses. US 7,574,896 to Cooper discloses a related technique for detecting leakage in a pipe system wherein flow is monitored when valves are shut off to detect the leakage. US 2012/0296580 to Barkay discloses a related technique for detecting leakage by identifying differences between a liquid flow rate measured at an inlet point of a fluid circuit and the combined flow rate measured at outlet points of the fluid circuit. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to James Split whose telephone number is (571)270-1524. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 9:00 to 3:30. 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, Judy Nguyen can be reached at (571)272-2258. 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. /JS/Examiner, Art Unit 2858 /JENNIFER BAHLS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853 Application/Control Number: 18/662,748 Page 2 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/662,748 Page 3 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/662,748 Page 4 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/662,748 Page 5 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/662,748 Page 6 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/662,748 Page 7 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/662,748 Page 8 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/662,748 Page 9 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/662,748 Page 10 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/662,748 Page 11 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/662,748 Page 12 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/662,748 Page 13 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/662,748 Page 14 Art Unit: 2858
Prosecution Insights