CTFR 18/701,702 CTFR 100899 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. Response to Amendment The amendments filed February 24 th 2026 have been entered. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejections previously set forth in the non-final office action mailed November 23 rd 2025 and said rejections are accordingly withdrawn. Applicant’s amendments to the claims no longer invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). Applicant’s amendment to the title has overcome the objection to the specification previously set forth in the non-final office action, and it is accordingly withdrawn. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have not overcome the previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102/103. Examiner’s response to Applicant’s arguments with respect to these rejections can be found below. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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. 07-07-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. 07-12-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-aia AIA Claim(s) 1-4, 6, 10, 12, 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Fukomoto (JP 2015230388 A) . Regarding claim 1, Fukomoto teaches an information processing apparatus comprising: a central processing unit (CPU) configured to predict a transition of an environment outside a vehicle, wherein the prediction of the transition of the environment indicates prediction of the environment that transitions during view of content (paragraph [0013] 4 of pg. 2) ; and determine a drawing condition of the content (paragraph [0024] 9 of pg. 3) for each time of a plurality of times (paragraphs [0042]-[0044]) , wherein the drawing condition of the content is determined based on the predicted transition of the environment outside the vehicle (paragraph [0013] 4 of pg. 2) ; determine a drawing method of the content (paragraph [0024] 9 of pg. 3) based on a statistical result of the drawing condition for the each time of the plurality of times (paragraph [0044]) ; and control a display device to draw the content based on the determined drawing method (paragraph [0024]) . Method claim 18 is drawn to the method of using the corresponding apparatus claimed in claim 1. Therefore, the method claim 18 corresponds to the apparatus claim 1, and is rejected for the same reasons of anticipation as used above. CRM claim 19 is drawn to the method of using the corresponding apparatus claimed in claim 1. Therefore, the CRM claim 19 corresponds to the apparatus claim 1, and is rejected for the same reasons of anticipation as used above. Regarding claim 2, Fukomoto teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein: the CPU is further configured to generate environment information, and the environment information indicates a prediction result of the prediction of the transition outside of the environment outside the vehicle for the each time of the plurality of times (paragraph [0013]/4 of pg. 2 "in real time", paragraphs [0036], [0038] / 3 & 5 of pg. 5, paragraph [0043]/ 1 of pg. 6) ; Regarding claim 3, Fukomoto teaches The information processing apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the environment information includes information on at least one of a traveling position (paragraph 2 of pg. 4) , weather at the traveling position (paragraph 12 of pg. 12, paragraphs 7 & 8 of pg. 7) , a traveling direction (paragraph 5 of pg. 4) , or a peripheral map outside the vehicle (paragraphs 7 & 8 of pg. 7) . Regarding claim 4, Fukomoto teaches The information processing apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the drawing condition includes at least one of a drawing position and a drawing color (paragraphs 5, 7 & 8 of pg. 9) . Regarding claim 6, Fukomoto teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 4, wherein the CPU is further configured to: detect, as a background of the content: a landscape outside the vehicle, wherein the landscape is seen through a transparent that serves as the drawing target of the content (paragraphs 2 & 4 of pg. 2) ; and determine the drawing color based on a color of the background (paragraph 8 of pg. 7) . Regarding claim 10, Fukomoto teaches The information processing apparatus according to claim 6, wherein the optimization processing unit is configured to detect, based on a traveling position (paragraph 12 of pg. 12, paragraphs 7 & 8 of pg. 7) , a traveling direction (paragraph 5 of pg. 4) , and a peripheral map outside the vehicle (paragraphs 7 & 8 of pg. 7) , the landscape outside the vehicle, wherein the landscape serves as the background of the content (paragraph 2 & 4 of pg. 2) . Regarding claim 12, Fukomoto teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 6, wherein the CPU is further configured to: determine (paragraph 4 of pg. 4) , a state that indicates that a field of view of a passenger through the transparent screen is free from sunlight, wherein the state is determined based on the environment information (paragraph 2 of pg. 5, paragraph 5 of pg. 6, paragraph 8 of pg. 7) ; and determine the transparent screen as the drawing position of the content based on the determined state (paragraph 2 of pg. 2) . 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 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukomoto . Regarding claim 20, claim 20 recites similar subject matter to claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons of claim 1, and Fukomoto further teaches the additional limitations of control a video display device to draw the content based on the determined drawing method; and the video display device configured to draw the content based on the control of the video display device (pg. 1 and pg. 2) while Fukomoto may not explicitly teach a “video display device” it does describe a display device which displays changing images in real time which can be considered a live video display device and therefore teaches the limitation of a “video display device” . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukomoto in view of Mundhenk (US 9,036,910 B1) and Kopysov (US 20180189932 A1) . Regarding claim 5. Fukomoto teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 4, wherein the CPU is further configured to: determine, an optimum drawing position determine, an optimum drawing color and determine, as the drawing method of the content, optimum drawing conditions, wherein the optimum drawing conditions include the optimum drawing position and the optimum color. (paragraph 5 of pg. 9) , Fukomoto fails to teach aggregate a plurality of drawing positions, wherein each of the plurality of drawing positions is calculated for the each time of the plurality of times, and calculate an expression frequency of the each of the plurality of drawing positions; a specific drawing position of the plurality of drawing positions, wherein the expression frequency of the specific drawing position is highest among expression frequencies of the plurality of drawing positions; extract at least one time of the plurality of times at which the drawing position is the optimum drawing position; aggregate a plurality of drawing colors at the extracted at least one time, wherein the plurality of drawing colors includes the drawing color; calculate an expression frequency of each of the plurality of drawing colors; determine as an optimum drawing color, a specific drawing color of the plurality of drawing colors, wherein the expression frequency of the specific drawing color is highest among expression frequencies of the plurality of drawing colors; However, Mundhenk teaches aggregate a plurality of the positions, wherein each of the plurality of positions is calculated for each time of the plurality of times, and calculate an expression frequency of the each of the plurality of positions; a specific position of the plurality of drawing positions wherein the expression frequency of the specific drawing position is highest among expression frequencies of the plurality of drawing positions (Col. 15 lines 19-46) ; extract at least onetime of the plurality of times at which the position is the optimum position (Col. 15 lines 53-60) ; aggregate a plurality of colors at the extracted at the extracted least one time (Col. 15 lines 19-35) and determine, the content having the optimum position and the optimum color as optimum conditions (Col. 15 lines 60-67 & Col 16 lines 1-3) . Mundhenk describes methodology to identify matching segments. This methodology involves calculating average pixel information including color and position for each segment. The segments are then analyzed to determine if they are matching previously identified segments based on the frequency of certain position characteristics. The calculating of mean pixel information, which includes color and position, is analogous to the aggregation of color and position. The matching based on frequency of position characteristics is analogous to calculating the expression frequency of the position. The identification of a matching segment based on these frequent characteristics is analogous to identifying the position with the highest expression frequency. Mundhenk is considered analogous to the claimed invention as it is in the same field of computer graphics and image processing. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Mundhenk with the teachings of Fukomoto to analyze pixel information of drawing conditions by aggregating information and taking frequency of said information into consideration in order to improve optimization and the user experience. Mundhenk in view of Fukomoto fails to teach calculate an expression frequency of each of the plurality of drawing colors; and determine a specific drawing color of the plurality of drawing colors, wherein the expression frequency of the specific drawing color is highest among expression frequencies of the plurality of drawing colors; However Kopysov teaches calculate an expression frequency of each of the plurality of drawing colors; and determine a specific drawing color of the plurality of drawing colors, wherein the expression frequency of the specific drawing color is highest among expression frequencies of the plurality of drawing colors (paragraph [0024]) ; Kopysov describes a method of calculating the frequency of colors and if the colors’ frequency are not high enough, they are not included in the image. Kopysov is considered analogous to the claimed invention as it is in the same field of computer graphics and coloring. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Kopysov with Fukomoto in view of Mundhenk in order improve image appearance . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 7, 8, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukomoto in view of Yildiz (US 2021/0035298 A1) . Regarding claim 7, Fukomoto teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 6, wherein the CPU is further configured to: determine a state that indicates a content drawing position of the screen is free from sunlight , wherein the state is determined based on the environment information (paragraph 5 of pg. 6, paragraph 8 of pg. 7) ; and determine a first color as the color of the background based on the determined state, wherein a luminance of the first color is lower than a luminance of a second color of a material of the screen at the content drawing position (paragraphs [0055]-[0059]/ 4-8 of pg. 7) . Fukomoto fails to teach a non-transparent screen. However, Yildiz teaches a non-transparent screen (paragraph [0033]). Yildiz describes an opaque display which is analogous to a non-transparent screen. Yildiz is considered analogous to the claimed invention as it is in the same field of image processing and image analysis. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to substitute the transparent windshield screen of Fukomoto with the non-transparent screen of Yildiz to improve the user experience (paragraph [0004] of Yildiz). Regarding claim 8, Fukomoto teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 6, wherein the CPU is further configured to: determine (paragraph 4 of pg. 4) , a state that indicates that daylight directly reaches a content drawing position of the screen, wherein the state is determined based on the environment information (paragraph 5 of pg. 6, paragraph 8 of pg. 7) , Fukomoto fails to teach a non-transparent screen, and a first color as the color of the background based on the determined state, wherein a luminance of the first color is higher than luminance of a second color of a material of the non-transparent screen at the content drawing position. However, Yildiz teaches a non-transparent screen (paragraph [0033]) , a color having luminance higher than luminance of a color of a material of the non-transparent screen at the content drawing position as the color of the background (paragraphs [0037], [0039], [0040], [0044]) . The motivation to combine Yildiz and Fukomoto would have been the same as that of claim 7. Regarding claim 13, Fukomoto teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 6, wherein the CPU is further configured to: determine (paragraph 4 of pg. 4) , a state that indicates that sunlight enters a field of view of a passenger through the transparent screen, wherein the state is determined based on the environment information (paragraph 2 of pg. 5, paragraph 5 of pg. 6, paragraph 8 of pg. 7) ; and determine a specific position on the transparent screen as the drawing position of at least a part of the content, wherein the specific position on the transparent screen is determined based on the determined state, (paragraph 3-5 of pg. 9) and the specific position does not overlap with the sunlight (paragraph 5 of pg. 6, paragraph 8 of pg. 7, paragraph 3-5 of pg. 9 – optimizes position for visibility and takes sunlight into account, ensuring it is visible) Fukomoto fails to teach , the non-transparent screen However, Yildiz teaches the non-transparent screen (paragraph [0036]) . The motivation to combine Yildiz and Fukomoto would have been the same as that of claim 7 . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukomoto in view of Webb (US 2019/0096029 A1) . Regarding claim 9, Fukomoto teaches The information processing apparatus according to claim 6, wherein the CPU is further configured to determine (paragraph 4 of pg. 4) , sunlight directly reaches a content drawing position (background art section, paragraph 4 of pg. 5). Fukomoto fails to teach determine a state that indicates that that sunlight of one of rising sun or setting sun directly reaches a content drawing position of the non-transparent screen, wherein the state is determined based on the environment information; and determine an orange color as the color of the background based on the determined state. However, Webb teaches determine a state that indicates that that sunlight of one of rising sun or setting sun directly reaches a content drawing position of the non-transparent screen, wherein the state is determined based on the environment information; and determine an orange color as the color of the background based on the determined state (paragraphs [0030], [0046],[0047]) . Webb describes changing the color of the graphical content based on a detected sunset, those colors being based on the detected sunset, such as orange. Webb is considered analogous to the claimed invention as it is in the same field of image processing incorporating environmental information. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of Webb with Fukomoto the improve the user’s experience (paragraph [0005]) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukomoto in view of Babaguchi (EP 2775339 A1) . Regarding claim 11, Fukomoto teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 6. Fukomoto fails to teach wherein the CPU is further configured to: determine, as the drawing color, a complementary color of the color of the background. However Babaguchi teaches wherein the CPU is configured to determine, as the drawing color, a complementary color of the color of the background (paragraph [0003]) . Babaguchi is considered analogous to the claimed invention as it is in the same field of invention of image processing for vehicle display systems which take into account environment information. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Babaguchi with the teaching of Fukomoto to improve the user experience and make the drawing color stand out from the background color . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukomoto in view of Geisner (US 20130044130 A1) and Fleck (AU 2011320628 B2) . Regarding claim 14, Fukumoto teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 6, wherein the CPU is further configured to: determine the transparent screen as the drawing position of at least a part of the content (paragraph [0002]/ 2 of pg. 2, [0011]/ 3 of pg. 2) Fukomoto fails to teach determine a state that indicates that a crowd outside the vehicle enters the field of view of a passenger through a specific transparent screen; and the transparent screen is different from at least one of the specific transparent screen or the non-transparent screen However, Geisner teaches determining a state that indicates that a crowd outside the vehicle enters a field of view of a passenger (paragraph [0002]) through a specific transparent screen (fig. 5 paragraph [0002]). Geisner describes detecting one or more people in the user’s field of view fitting a specific criteria, a crowd is a broader version of that which is described in Geisner. Geisner is considered analogous to the claimed invention as it is in the same field of image processing and display methods. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Geisner with the teachings of Fukomoto to detect a crowd in the user’s field of view and improve the user experience. Fukomoto in view of Geisner fails to teach the transparent screen is different from at least one of the specific transparent screen or the non-transparent screen. However, Fleck teaches the transparent screen is different from the non-transparent screen (paragraphs [0011], [0027], [0033]). Fleck describes a device with two display screens which can switch between transparent and non-transparent modes. However, only the front panel can be both transparent and non-transparent, and the back panel can only be transparent. Therefore the transparent screen is different from the non-transparent screen. Fleck is considered analogous to the claimed invention as it is in the same field of transparent display device configuration. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Fleck with Fukomoto in view of Geisner in order to improve the use of transparent display surfaces for an improved user experience . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukomoto in view of Fleck and in further view of Hadano (US 11,052,922 B2) and Ying (CN 110219543 A) . Regarding claim 15, Fukomoto teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 6, wherein the CPU is further configured to change the drawing position (paragraph [0005], [0022], [0072]) Fukomoto fails to teach change the drawing position of at least a part of the content from the transparent screen to the non-transparent screen, and the drawing position is changed based on one of an opening amount or a closing amount of a window and the window includes the transparent screen. However Fleck teaches change the drawing position of at least a part of the content from the transparent screen to the non-transparent screen (fig. 4, paragraphs [0003], [0005C], [0030]-[0035]) . Fleck describes a display device with a front and back display surface, both surfaces having the ability to switch between a transparent and non-transparent mode. Fleck goes on to describe changing the displayed content based on the orientation, position or whether the device is opened or closed. For example, when transparent display mode is initiated and the device is open, the content will be displayed on both display panels. When the display device is in non-transparent mode, the one of the display panels will be inactive and only a non-transparent display will be activated, which is analogous to changing drawing position of at least a part of the content from the transparent screen to the non-transparent screen. Fleck is considered analogous to the claimed invention as it is in the same field of image processing and transparent display configurations. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Fleck and Fukomoto in order to improve the use of transparent display surfaces. Fukomoto in view of Fleck fails to teach the drawing position is changed based on one of an opening amount or a closing amount of a window and the window includes the transparent screen. However, Hadano teaches the window includes the transparent screen (Col. 4 lines 18-25). Hadano suggests the use of a window as a window display. Hadano is considered analogous to the claimed invention as it is in the same field of image processing in relation to vehicle display systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Hadano with Fukomoto in view of Fleck in order to utilize a window as a display in order to improve the user experience. Fukomoto in view of Fleck and Hadano fails to teach the drawing position is changed based on one of an opening amount or a closing amount of a window . However Ying teaches displaying information according to an opening amount of a window (paragraph 5 of pg. 2). Ying describes obtaining an opening amount of a window and utilizing this information to display information. Ying is considered analogous to the claimed invention as it is in the same field of image processing of vehicle data. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Ying with Fukomoto in view of Fleck and Hadano and replace the display of information according to an opening amount of a window with the change in position and change in screen transparency present in Fleck, in order to specify the implementation of using a window as a transparent screen. Additionally the opening and closing amount of a window affect the visibility of content and tracking the amount of this opening, and further using it, can allow for safer driving and improve the user experience (Ying, background) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukomoto in view of Kentaro (KR 20100005028 A) . Regarding claim 16, Fukomoto teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the CPU is further configured to set a prediction period associated with the prediction of the transition of the environment outside the vehicle (paragraphs [0066], [0067] / paragraphs 5 & 6 of pg. 8). Fukomoto fails to explicitly teach a prediction period defined for each piece of a plurality of piece of the content. However Kentaro teaches a prediction period defined for each piece of a plurality of piece of the content. (paragraph 4 of pg. 6 "prediction time is set for each of the work contents (type of display information) to be assumed, and is previously held in this prediction time management table."). Kentaro is considered analogous to the claimed invention as it is in the same field of digital data processing and computing. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Kentaro and Fukomoto and specify that a prediction period is defined for each of the contents . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukomoto in view of Kentaro and in further view of Lin (CN 110458352 A) . Regarding claim 17, Fukomoto in view of Kentaro teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 16. Fukomoto in view of Kentaro fails to teach wherein the CPU is further configured to set the prediction period based on a standard time at which the content is gazed. However Lin teaches wherein the CPU is further configured to set the prediction period based on a standard time at which the content is gazed (paragraph 11 of pg. 3 "filtering the combined sequence from each of the observation period corresponding to the determined second data point corresponding to the prediction time, and based on each of the respective observation period of the second data point and the regression parameter corresponding to said each type of said asset to obtain a second data point of the fitting at the predicted time") . Lin describes a prediction period which is aligned with the observation period (analogous to time at which the content is gazed. Lin is considered analogous to the claimed invention as it is in the same field of computation and prediction. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of Lin and align the observation and prediction times of Fukomoto in view of Kentaro in order to improve the accuracy of prediction results (last paragraph of pg. 12) . Response to Arguments 07-37 AIA Applicant's arguments filed 02/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues on pages 18-20 that the spline approximation present in Fukomoto is not a statistical method. Examiner does not find this argument persuasive. Fukomoto describes determining a characteristic line of obtained images. This characteristic line is further used to represent time change of hue, and constitutes the forward scene estimation model. In this manner, the correlating of data into a line and use of the line as estimation model can be considered a statistical method. While this is a rather simple statistical method, under broadest reasonable interpretation spline approximation can be considered a statistical method . Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 15 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Applicant specifically argues the references do not teach the limitation “change the drawing position of at least a part of the content from the transparent screen to the non-transparent screen based on an opening amount or a closing amount of a window” and there is not a proper motivation to combine the applied references. A new grounds of rejection, in light of Fleck, has been entered as necessitated by amendment and clarity as to the motivation to combine the applied references has been provided. Conclusion 07-40 AIA Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL . See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Aidan W McCoy whose telephone number is (571)272-5935. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 AM-5:00 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, Tammy Goddard can be reached at (571)272-7773. 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. /AIDAN W MCCOY/Examiner, Art Unit 2611 /TAMMY PAIGE GODDARD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2611 Application/Control Number: 18/701,702 Page 2 Art Unit: 2611 Application/Control Number: 18/701,702 Page 4 Art Unit: 2611 Application/Control Number: 18/701,702 Page 5 Art Unit: 2611 Application/Control Number: 18/701,702 Page 6 Art Unit: 2611 Application/Control Number: 18/701,702 Page 7 Art Unit: 2611 Application/Control Number: 18/701,702 Page 8 Art Unit: 2611 Application/Control Number: 18/701,702 Page 9 Art Unit: 2611 Application/Control Number: 18/701,702 Page 10 Art Unit: 2611 Application/Control Number: 18/701,702 Page 11 Art Unit: 2611 Application/Control Number: 18/701,702 Page 12 Art Unit: 2611 Application/Control Number: 18/701,702 Page 13 Art Unit: 2611 Application/Control Number: 18/701,702 Page 14 Art Unit: 2611 Application/Control Number: 18/701,702 Page 15 Art Unit: 2611 Application/Control Number: 18/701,702 Page 16 Art Unit: 2611 Application/Control Number: 18/701,702 Page 17 Art Unit: 2611 Application/Control Number: 18/701,702 Page 18 Art Unit: 2611
Prosecution Insights