CTNF 18/698,664 CTNF 98173 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. 12-151 AIA 26-51 12-51 Status of Claims The amendments to the claims filed April 4, 2024 are acknowledged and entered. Claims 1, 4, 8, 19, 30, 32-33, 37, 39-40, 43, 48-51, 54 and 70-73 are pending. Priority This application is a 371 of PCT/US22/77501, filed October 4, 2022, which claims the benefit of 63/252,394, filed October 5, 2021. Information Disclosure Statement Acknowledgement is made of the Information Disclosure Statement filed on July 7, 2025 All references have been considered except where marked with a strikethrough. Specification 07-29 AIA The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Page 133 of the specification, paragraph [0290] teaches the following compound (product of step S3) for which the complete structure is missing. PNG media_image1.png 262 248 media_image1.png Greyscale Page 138 of the specification, paragraph [0299] teaches the following compounds (products of steps S1 and S4) for which the complete structures are missing. PNG media_image2.png 269 268 media_image2.png Greyscale PNG media_image3.png 249 250 media_image3.png Greyscale Applicant should respond to the above objections by amending the specification to include clears structures of these compounds. No new matter is permitted . Appropriate correction is required. 06-31 AIA The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any of the errors of which applicant may become aware of in the specification. Claim Objections and Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim s 33, 48-51 and 54 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. 13-03-01 AIA The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest reference to the instant claims is Taylor et al. (WO2022/174031 A1) which is discussed in the rejections herein. Taylor is silent regarding ring A, R 2 and R 4 that are required by the instant claims. There is no teaching which would have motivated one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to selectively modify Taylor into the claimed compounds with any reasonable expectation of success . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112a 07-30-01 AIA The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. 07-31-03 AIA Claim 71 and 72 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for a method of treating acute myelocytic leukemia, bladder cancer, brain cancer, breast cancer, cervical cancer, colon cancer, rectal cancer, endometrial cancer, esophageal cancer, stomach adenocarcinoma, renal cell carcinoma, hepatocellular cancer, lung cancer, non-small cell lung cancer, small cell lung cancer, neuroblastoma, ovarian cancer, serous ovarian cancer, prostate cancer, melanoma, thyroid cancer, or uterine carcinosarcoma does not reasonably provide enablement for A method of treating a CDK2-mediated disorder generally; or A method of treating cancer generally; The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims. Applicant teaches that a compound of Formula (I) is an inhibitor of CDK2 (see, e.g., Table O; Enzymatic and Cellular assays for CDK2 ) with anticancer activity against ovarian and colon cancer cell lines (see paragraphs [0355]-[0358]). However, inhibition of CDK2 is not known to be correlated with the treatment of the entire scope of conditions embraced by the claims, least of all the full scope of conditions embraced by the generic term “cancer”. Nor is ovarian or colon cancer representative of, or an art-recognized model system for, all forms of disease embraced by the claims. Applicant’s disclosure is only enabling for the treatment of conditions which Applicant has demonstrated may be treated by the instant compound, and of conditions which the prior art is already aware may be treated by a compound with the disclosed activity (i.e. CDK2 inhibitors) and for which Applicant has written support. Case law is clear on this point. In an unpredictable art, such as drug therapy to treat disease, models may be used for enablement only if there is a reasonable correlation between the activity in question and the asserted utility. Given the guidance provided by Applicant, one skilled in the art would not be able to practice the full scope of the invention without undue experimentation. In evaluating the enablement question, several factors are to be considered. Note In re Wands , 8 USPQ2d 1400 and Ex parte Forman , 230 USPQ 546. The factors include: 1) The nature of the invention, 2) the state of the prior art, 3) the predictability or lack thereof in the art, 4) the amount of direction or guidance present, 5) the presence or absence of working examples, 6) the breadth of the claims, and 7) the quantity of experimentation needed. The determination that “undue experimentation” would have been needed to make and use the claimed invention is not a single, simple factual determination. Rather, it is a conclusion reached by weighing all the above noted factual considerations. The nature of the invention & breadth of claims : Claim 1 is drawn to a compound of Formula (I). The specification teaches Formula (I) is an inhibitor of CDK2 (see, e.g., Table O; Enzymatic and Cellular assays for CDK2) Claim 71 depends from claim 1 and recites a method of treating a CDK2-mediated disorder in a subject in need thereof, the method comprising administering to the subject a therapeutically effective amount of a compound of claim 1. Claim 72 depends from claim 71 and recites wherein the disorder is cancer. The specification teaches CDK2-mediated disorders include cancer (see paragraph [0213]-[0214]); however, a complete definition of disorders mediated by CDK2 is not provided. The specification teaches exemplary cancers include, but are not limited to, leukemia (e.g., acute myelocytic leukemia), bladder cancer, brain cancer, breast cancer (e.g., hormone receptor positive breast cancer, triple negative breast cancer, HER2+ breast cancer), cervical cancer, colorectal cancer (e.g., including colon cancer and/or rectal cancer), endometrial cancer, esophageal cancer, gastric cancer (e.g. stomach adenocarcinoma), kidney cancer (e.g., renal cell carcinoma), liver cancer (e.g., hepatocellular cancer), lung cancer (e.g., non-small cell lung cancer, small cell lung cancer), neuroblastoma, ovarian cancer (e.g., serous ovarian cancer), prostate cancer, skin cancer (e.g., melanoma), thyroid cancer, and uterine cancer ( e.g., uterine carcinosarcoma) (see paragraph [0214]); however, a complete definition of cancers embraced by the claims is not provided. The specification defines “subject” as including mammals, e.g. humans (see [0034]). The nature of the invention is a method of treating a CDK2-mediated disorder, including cancer, in a subject, including humans, comprising administration of an inhibitor of CDK2 (Formula (I)). Because no complete definition of diseases included in the scope of the claim is provided, the scope of the claims is very broad including at least a general method of treating all cancers known in the art. The state of the prior art The state of the prior art is aware that acute myelocytic leukemia, bladder cancer, brain cancer, breast cancer, cervical cancer, colon cancer, rectal cancer, endometrial cancer, esophageal cancer, stomach adenocarcinoma, renal cell carcinoma, hepatocellular cancer, lung cancer, non-small cell lung cancer, small cell lung cancer, neuroblastoma, ovarian cancer, serous ovarian cancer, prostate cancer, melanoma, thyroid cancer, or uterine carcinosarcoma may potentially be treated by inhibition of CDK2. For instance, Lukasik et al. ( Int J Mol Sci 2021, 22, 2395) teaches CDK2 is associated with some cancers including breast, colon, ovary, lung, hepatocellular and prostate cancers (page 11-12, 6.2 CDK2). The state of the prior art, however, is not aware of any single agent or single method which treats all CDK2-mediated disorders as is presently claimed. As per the broad treatment of cancer, no compound has ever been found to treat cancers of all types generally. Since this assertion is contrary to what is known in medicine, proof must be provided that this revolutionary assertion has merits. The existence of such a “silver bullet” is contrary to our present understanding of oncology. The state of the art is not indicative any pharmaceutical agents that are useful in the treatment of cancer generally. Cecil Textbook of Medicine states that “each specific type has unique biologic and clinical features that must be appreciated for proper diagnosis, treatment and study” (see the enclosed article, page 1004). Different types of cancers affect different organs and have different methods of growth and harm to the body. Also see In re Buting , 163 USPQ 689 (CCPA 1969), wherein 'evidence involving a single compound and two types of cancer, was held insufficient to establish the utility of the claims directed to disparate types of cancers'. Thus, it is beyond the skill of oncologists today to get an agent to be effective against cancers generally. A similar statement appears at In re Application of Hozumi et al. , 226 USPQ 353: “In spite of the vast expenditure of human and capital resources in recent years, no one drug has been found which is effective in treating all types of cancer. Cancer is not a simple disease, nor is it even a single disease, but a complex of a multitude of different entities, each behaving in a different way”. There are compounds that treat a modest range of cancers, but no one has ever been able to figure out how to get a compound to be effective against cancer generally, or even a majority of cancers. The attempts to find compounds to treat the various cancers arguably constitute the single most massive enterprise in all of pharmacology. This has not resulted in finding any treatment for tumors generally. Indeed, the existence of such a "silver bullet" is contrary to our present understanding in oncology. This is because it is now understood that there is no “master switch” for cancers generally; cancers arise from a bewildering variety of differing mechanisms. Even the most broadly effective antitumor agents are only effective against a small fraction of the vast number of different cancers known. This is true in part because cancers arise from a wide variety of sources, primarily a wide variety of failures of the body's cell growth regulatory mechanisms, but also such external factors such as viruses (an estimated at least 20% are of viral origin e.g. Human papillomavirus, EBV, Hepatitis B and C, HHV-8, HTLV-1 and other retroviruses, and quite possibly Merkel cell polyomavirus, and there is some evidence that CMV is a causative agent in glioblastoma), exposure to chemicals such as tobacco tars, excess alcohol consumption (which causes hepatic cirrhosis, an important cause of HCC), ionizing radiation, and unknown environment factors. Similarly, In re Novak , 134 USPQ 335, 337-338, says “unless one with ordinary skill in the art would accept those allegations as obviously valid and correct, it is proper for the examiner to ask for evidence which substantiates them.” There is no such evidence in this case for a compound that treats all types of cancer. Likewise, In re Cortright , 49 USPQ2d 1464, states: “Moreover, we have not been shown that one of ordinary skill would necessarily conclude from the information expressly disclosed by the written description that the active ingredient” does what the specification surmises that it does. That is exactly the case here. Moreover, even if applicants’ assertion that cancer in general could be treated with these compounds were plausible --- which it is not ---, that “plausible” would not suffice, as was stated in Rasmusson v. SmithKline Beecham Corp. , 75 USPQ2d 1297, 1301: “If mere plausibility were the test for enablement under section 112, applicants could obtain patent rights to “inventions” consisting of little more than respectable guesses as to the likelihood of their success.” Recently, Wu ( Journal of Hematology & Oncology 2022 (15) 143) discloses that between 1991 and 2021 there have been 228 new cancer drugs approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration of which 120 of these are drawn to the treatment of solid tumors alone (Abstract). Wu teaches that there are 21 different approved drugs for treating lung cancers, some of which have different cellular targets (Table 1, page 5). Similarly, breast cancer (see Table 2, page 10) has 22 different drugs that have varied cellular targets and are indicated for different types of breast cancer. More still, Table 4 (page 17) indicates that there are 17 different drugs available to treat different forms of gastrointestinal cancers. See also Table 6 (page 25), drugs approved for urologic cancers, Table 7 (page 28), drugs approved for skin cancers, and Table 8 (page 33), drugs approved for thyroid cancer. Wu further provides an illustration summarizing the protein structure of some cellular targets and the binding site of their respective drugs (Fig 12, page 38). Taken as a whole, Wu teaches that no single therapeutic has ever been identified as a treatment for all forms of cancer; and closer examination of Fig 12 provides a logical explanation: As highlighted in Fig 12, molecular protein targets implicated in different cancers (e.g. EGFR for lung cancer (see Table 1), VEGFR2 for gastric cancer (see Table 4)) have different three-dimensional protein structures, different active sites, and therefore require different drugs with the right shape and chemical groups in order to bind the target active site and have an effect in treating the cancer. In other words, there is no one size fits all approach to treating cancer simply for the reason that no single molecule will have the shape and chemical functional groups necessary to bind and modulate all molecular targets of cancer, all of which all have varied shapes. It is commonly known in the pharmaceutical arts that shape dictates function wherein drugs which have a shape complimentary to the protein target will bind and have an effect (this is often referred to simplistically as a “Lock and Key” model). Given the varied shape of protein targets in cancer (e.g. EGFR and VEGFR2), it is pure fantasy to speculate that a single drug with a single three dimensional shape will bind all protein targets implicated in cancer therapy and have an effect in treating all forms of the disease. As such, the state of the prior art and current state of the art are not aware of any “silver bullet” drug therapy to treat all forms of cancer as is claimed presently, at least for the reason that persons skilled in the art recognize that different forms of cancer have different treatment requirements and therefore require different drug therapies. The Level of One of Ordinary Skill The level of skill in the art is high. The artisan using the claimed invention would be a person with medical training such as a medical doctor or physician with an MD degree or the equivalent. Predictability in the art It is noted that the pharmaceutical art is unpredictable, requiring each embodiment to be individually assessed for physiological activity. In re Fisher, 427 F. 2d 833, 166 USPQ 18 (CCPA 1970) indicates that the more unpredictable an area is, the more specific enablement is necessary in order to satisfy the statute. Pharmacological activity in general is a very unpredictable area. Note that in cases involving physiological activity such as the instant case, “the scope of enablement obviously varies inversely with the degree of unpredictability of the factors involved”. See In re Fisher , 427 F.2d 833, 839, 166 USPQ 18, 24 (CCPA 1970). In terms of the law, MPEP 2107.03 states “evidence of pharmacological or other biological activity of a compound will be relevant to an asserted therapeutic use if there is a reasonable correlation between the activity in question and the asserted utility. Cross v. Iizuka, 753 F.2d 1040, 224 USPQ 739 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Jolles, 628 F.2d 1322, 206 USPQ 885 (CCPA 1980); Nelson v. Bowler, 626 F.2d 853, 206 USPQ 881 (CCPA 1980).” If correlation is lacking, it cannot be relied upon, Ex parte Powers, 220 USPQ 924; Rey-Bellet and Spiegelberg v. Engelhardt v. Schindler, 181 USPQ 453; Knapp v. Anderson, 177 USPQ 688. Indeed, the correlation must have been established “at the time the tests were performed”, Hoffman v. Klaus, 9 USPQ2d 1657. Amount of guidance/working examples Applicant teaches that a compound of Formula (I) is an inhibitor CDK2 (see Tables O-S at pages 174-212 of the specification; Enzymatic and Cellular assays for CDK2 ) with anticancer activity against ovarian and colon cancer cell lines (see paragraphs [0355]-[0358]). The specification teaches Formula (I) has use in treating disease mediated by CDK2, including “cancer” (see page 86, “Methods”). However, no experimental or other data is provided to show the instant compounds treating the full scope of conditions (which includes all of forms of cancer) embraced by the claims. The specification does not provide any guidance to one of ordinary skill in the art to extrapolate the in vitro and in vivo data provided by Applicant to the treatment of all types of diseases claimed, and least of all to the many different forms of cancer included in the scope of the method. The quantity of experimentation needed: MPEP 2164.01(a) states, "A conclusion of lack of enablement means that, based on theevidence regarding each of the above factors, the specification, at the time the application was filed, would not have taught one skilled in the art how to make and/or use the full scope of the claimed invention without undue experimentation. In re Wright, 999 F.2d 1557, 1562, 27 USPQ2d 1510, 1513 (Fed. Cir. 1993)." That conclusion is clearly justified here and one skilled in the art could not practice the full scope of the claimed invention without undue experimentation. This rejection could be overcome by amending the claims to incorporate the cancers recited in claim 73 . 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 – 07-12-aia AIA (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-15-03-aia AIA Claim(s) 1, 4, 8, 19, 30, 37, 39-40, 43 and 70-73 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Taylor et al. (WO2022/174031 A1) (hereinafter “Taylor”) . Taylor teaches (1R,3S)-3-(3-(pyrimidin-2-ylamino)-1H-pyrazol-5-yl)cyclopentyl isopropylcarbamate (see page 504 and 507, Example 37, product of step 5; see also page 81; pictured below for convenience) which corresponds to instant Formula (I) wherein A is a 6-membered heteroaryl having two N ring atoms; n and m are each 0; R 2 is C 3 alkyl; and R 3 is H. PNG media_image4.png 211 677 media_image4.png Greyscale Taylor teaches compound 310 (see page 112; pictured below for convenience) which corresponds to instant Formula (I) wherein A is a 6-membered heteroaryl having one N ring atom; n is 1; R 1 is 5-membered heteroaryl having two N heteroatoms substituted by 1 R 1d wherein R 1d is C 1 alkyl; m is 0; R 2 is C 3 alkyl; and R 3 is H. PNG media_image5.png 110 437 media_image5.png Greyscale Taylor teaches compound 563 (page 157, pictured below for convenience) which corresponds to instant Formula (I) wherein A is a 6-membered heteroaryl having two N ring atoms; n is 1; R 1 is C 2 alkoxy; m is 0; R 2 is C 3 alkyl; and R 3 is H. Regarding R 1 , Examiner notes that the instant specification teaches the alkoxy groups can be further substituted with a variety of substituents described within (see paragraph [0015]). In view of this teaching and that hydroxy is a substituent described in the specification (e.g. see paragraph [0005]), compound 563 of Taylor is regarded as being included with the scope of the claims. PNG media_image6.png 170 364 media_image6.png Greyscale Taylor further teaches a pharmaceutical composition comprising the compound (see claim 20) and a method of using the compound to treat a CDK-mediated disorder wherein the CDK2-mediated disorder is breast cancer (claims 22-23) Examiner notes that the abovementioned compounds, composition and method are disclosed at least in the specification of priority document 63/166,638 of Taylor filed March 26, 2021 at pages 48, 80 and 94-96 and priority document 63/250,473 of Taylor filed September 30, 2021 at page 155, both of which were filed prior to the effective filing date of the instant application, October 5, 2021. Taylor therefore anticipates the instant claims . 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. 07-23-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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1 and 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taylor et al. (WO2022/174031 A1) (hereinafter “Taylor”) . Taylor teaches a generic group of compounds which embraces applicants’ claimed compounds for use as pharmaceuticals and compositions for the treatment of CDK2-mediated disorders including cancer (see page 2, Formula I-A, paragraph [0005], [0011] and [0012]). The claims differ from the reference by reciting specific species and a more limited genus than the reference. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to select any of the species of the genus taught by the reference, including those instantly claimed, because the skilled chemist would have the reasonable expectation that any of the species of the genus would have similar properties and, thus, the same use as taught for the genus as a whole. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select the claimed compounds from the genus in the reference since such compounds would have been suggested by the reference as a whole. It has been held that a prior art disclosed genus of useful compounds is sufficient to render prima facie obvious a species falling within a genus. In re Susi , 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423, 425 (CCPA 1971), followed by the Federal Circuit in Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Laboratories , 847 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ 2d 1843, 1846 (Fed. Cir. 1989).” In particular, Taylor teaches (1R,3S)-3-(3-(pyrimidin-2-ylamino)-1H-pyrazol-5-yl)cyclopentyl isopropylcarbamate (see page 504 and 507, Example 37, product of step 5; see also page 81; pictured below for convenience) which corresponds to instant Formula (I) wherein A is a 6-membered heteroaryl having two N ring atoms; n and m are each 0; R 2 is C 3 alkyl; and R 3 is H. Taylor does not disclose a compound wherein the position corresponding to ring A of the instant claims is substituted with an R 1 as required by claim 32. However, Taylor further teaches a genus of Formula (V) which provides that the group corresponding to ring A of the claims can be substituted with a Me, -CN, -OCH 3 or -CF 3 group which corresponds to R 1 of instant Formula (I) (see [0017], Formula V; [0123] definitions of Cy C ; [0113] in some embodiments R C is -OCH 3 ; in some embodiments R C is CN; [0117] in some embodiments R C is -CH 3 , in some embodiments R C is CF 3 ; Formula V and Cy C pictured below for convenience). PNG media_image7.png 162 524 media_image7.png Greyscale The difference between the prior art and the instant claims is that the instant claims require that the A ring is substituted by Me, -CN, -OCH 3 or -CF 3 . However, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant claims to modify (1R,3S)-3-(3-(pyrimidin-2-ylamino)-1H-pyrazol-5-yl)cyclopentyl isopropylcarbamate of Taylor with an R 1 as is required by the instant claims, because Taylor disclosed that the position corresponding to ring A of the claims could be substituted with an R 1 group as required by the claimed invention. One would have been motivated as a matter of making additional compounds to treat cancer. One would have been especially motivated to make modifications that the reference explicitly taught, which in the present case includes wherein the position corresponding to R 1 can be Me, -CN, -OCH 3 or -CF 3 . One would have had a reasonable expectation of success because Taylor had already disclosed the claimed modifications. Therefore there would have been an expectation that such a modification would result in a compound useful for treating cancer. Conclusion No claim is allowed. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN MARTIN whose telephone number is (571)270-0917. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 am - 5 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, Jeffrey Murray can be reached on (571) 272-9023. 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. April 23, 2026 /KEVIN S MARTIN/Examiner, Art Unit 1624 Application/Control Number: 18/698,664 Page 2 Art Unit: 1624 Application/Control Number: 18/698,664 Page 3 Art Unit: 1624 Application/Control Number: 18/698,664 Page 4 Art Unit: 1624 Application/Control Number: 18/698,664 Page 5 Art Unit: 1624 Application/Control Number: 18/698,664 Page 6 Art Unit: 1624 Application/Control Number: 18/698,664 Page 7 Art Unit: 1624 Application/Control Number: 18/698,664 Page 8 Art Unit: 1624 Application/Control Number: 18/698,664 Page 9 Art Unit: 1624 Application/Control Number: 18/698,664 Page 10 Art Unit: 1624 Application/Control Number: 18/698,664 Page 11 Art Unit: 1624 Application/Control Number: 18/698,664 Page 12 Art Unit: 1624 Application/Control Number: 18/698,664 Page 13 Art Unit: 1624 Application/Control Number: 18/698,664 Page 14 Art Unit: 1624 Application/Control Number: 18/698,664 Page 15 Art Unit: 1624
Prosecution Insights