CTNF 18/706,146 CTNF 98474 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-fti AIA The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions. Specification 06-11 AIA The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 07-20-aia AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-2, 4, and 12-13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun et.al. (US-2016/0358982-A1, hereinafter Sun) Regarding Claim 1 . Sun teaches A display panel comprising a display region, wherein the display panel comprises: a light-emitting unit including a plurality of light-emitting devices, the plurality of light-emitting devices including a plurality of red light-emitting devices, a plurality of green light-emitting devices and a plurality of blue light-emitting devices (Fig.2-4); wherein a ratio of a sum of light exit areas of the plurality of blue light-emitting devices to an area of the display region of the display panel is greater than or equal to 4% and less than or equal to 25%. (Fig.2 [0020-0030] and Eqs (1)-(8). Pixel side length = 130.5um. pixel area =(130.5^2)= 17,030.25um^2. Total opening area S_RGB = 6.417.98 um^2. Opening-area ratio Ar_B:Ar_R:Ar_G = 1: 0.47: 0.47. Ar_B = 6417.98 * (1/1.94) = 3308 um^2. Ar_B/pixel area = 19.4% , which is between 4% and 25%. Sun also discloses the conventional baseline 1:1:1 ratio in Fig.1 where the blue opening area ~= 12.4% of the pixel area) To the extent Sun does not explicitly disclose a base substrate or a non-display region, it would have been obvious to provide such conventional OLED display-panel structures in implementing Sun’s OLED display panel, because a substrate supports the OLED pixel array and a non-display/peripheral region is conventionally provided outside the display pixel array for routing, driving, sealing, and panel margins. Regarding Claim 2 . Sun teaches The display panel according to claim 1, The narrower range of 5%-18% reads directly on Sun’s baseline Fig.1 layout (~12.4%). Even applying the Fig.2 embodiment as a starting point, optimization of the blue opening to fall within 5-18% would constitute routine optimization of a result-effective variable. Therefore Sun also disclose wherein the ratio of the sum of the light exit areas of the plurality of blue light-emitting devices to the area of the display region of the display panel is greater than or equal to 5% and less than or equal to 18%. Regarding Claim 4 . Sun teaches The display panel according to claim 1, Sun does not explicitly disclose wherein a ratio of a sum of light exit areas of the plurality of green light-emitting devices to a sum of light exit areas of the plurality of red light-emitting devices is greater than 1 and less than or equal to 4; or the ration of the sum of light exit areas of the plurality of green light-emitting devices to the sum of light exit areas of the plurality of red light-emitting devices is greater than 1 and less than or equal to 3. However, Sun teaches in Fig.2 S_G/S_R = 0.47/0.47 =1. These limitations would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention because it is a matter of determining optimum process conditions by routine experimentation with a limited number of species of result effective variables. These claims are prima facie obvious without showing that the claimed ranges achieve unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Huang, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (claimed ranges or a result effective variable, which do not overlap the prior art ranges, are unpatentable unless they produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill or art), and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1995) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious). In the present case, the selection of the claimed ratio would have been obvious, for its benefit of optimizing the performance of the device. Regarding Claim 12 . Sun teaches The display panel according to claim 1, Sun also teaches in Fig. 1 wherein a ratio of the sum of the light exit areas of the plurality of blue light-emitting devices to a sum of light exit areas of the plurality of green light-emitting devices and light exit areas of the plurality of red light-emitting devices is greater than or equal to 0.4 and less than or equal to 0.8. (Fig.1 S_B/(S_G + S_R) = 0.5.) Regarding Claim 13 . Sun teaches The display panel according to claim 1, Sun also teaches in Fig.1 wherein the display region includes light-emitting regions of the plurality of light-emitting devices and a non-light-emitting region except for the light-emitting regions of the plurality of light-emitting devices; wherein a ratio of the sum of the light exit areas of the plurality of blue light-emitting devices to an area of the non-light-emitting region is greater than or equal to 4% and less than or equal to 75%.(ArBlue = (37.1451 /3 ) %, ratio of ArBlue/Non-display ~= 13/63 ~= 20%) 07-21-aia AIA Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun et.al. (US-2016/0358982-A1, hereinafter Sun), and in view of Yoon et.al. (WO-2010/093176-A2, hereinafter Yoon) Regarding Claim 7 . Sun teaches The display panel according to claim 1, Sun does not explicitly disclose wherein a blue light-emitting device includes at least one blue light-emitting layer, and a light-emitting material of the blue light-emitting layer includes a metal complex; and the metal complex includes at least one of metal ligand elements of platinum, palladium, iridium, gold, nickel, silver, copper or cerium. Yoon teaches wherein a blue light-emitting device includes at least one blue light-emitting layer, and a light-emitting material of the blue light-emitting layer includes a metal complex; and the metal complex includes at least one of metal ligand elements of platinum, palladium, iridium, gold, nickel, silver, copper or cerium. (Yoon Abstract The iridium complex compound provides luminescent materials with superior blue light-emitting property in OLED light-emitting layer ) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sun’s device with the teachings of Yoon , as identified above, in order to obtain blue emission with improved quantum yield/brightness . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun et.al. (US-2016/0358982-A1, hereinafter Sun), and in view of Cui et.al. (US-2019/0371873-A1, hereinafter Cui) Regarding Claim 8 . Sun teaches The display panel according to claim 1, Cui further teaches in Fig.1-2 further comprising: a pixel definition layer (#2) located on the base substrate (#1) and provided with a plurality of light-emitting openings (#7) therein; wherein the plurality of light-emitting openings include a plurality of first light-emitting openings, a plurality of second light-emitting openings and a plurality of third light-emitting openings, a red light-emitting device covers a first light-emitting opening, a green light-emitting device covers a second light-emitting opening, and a blue light-emitting device covers a third light-emitting opening; ([0038]) wherein a ratio of a sum of areas of the plurality of first light-emitting openings to a sum of areas of the plurality of second light-emitting openings is substantially same as a ratio of a sum of light exit areas of the plurality of red light-emitting devices to a sum of light exit areas of the plurality of green light-emitting devices; and/or a ratio of the sum of the areas of the plurality of first light-emitting openings to a sum of areas of the plurality of third light-emitting openings is substantially same as a ratio of the sum of the light exit areas of the plurality of red light-emitting devices to the sum of the light exit areas of the plurality of blue light-emitting devices; and/or a ratio of the sum of the areas of the plurality of second light-emitting openings to the sum of the areas of the plurality of third light-emitting openings is substantially same as a ratio of the sum of the light exit areas of the plurality of green light-emitting devices to the sum of the light exit areas of the plurality of blue light-emitting devices. ([0037-0041]) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sun’s device with the teachings of Cui , as identified above, because this would have been a predictable use of a known OLED pixel-defining structure to implement Sun’s RGB light-emitting device openings and maintain the intended aperture-area relationships . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun et.al. (US-2016/0358982-A1, hereinafter Sun), and in view of Yamazaki et.al. (US-2022/0140273-A1, hereinafter Yamazaki) Regarding Claim 9 . Sun teaches The display panel according to claim 1, Sun teaches in Fig.2 the ratio of the sum of the light exit areas of the plurality of blue light-emitting devices to the area of the display region of the display panel is greater than the ratio of the sum of the light exit areas of the plurality of red light-emitting devices to the area of the display region of the display panel. Yamazaki further teaches in Fig. 22 wherein a ratio of a sum of light exit areas of the plurality of green light-emitting devices to the area of the display region of the display panel is greater than a ratio of a sum of light exit areas of the plurality of red light-emitting devices to the area of the display region of the display panel; It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sun’s device with the teachings of Yamazaki , as identified above, in order to allocate larger emitting area to a color channel that otherwise needs higher current density. This improves the green reliability, while retaining the known enlarged blue area to address blue lifetime. Regarding Claim 11 . Sun teaches The display panel according to claim 1, Yamazaki further teaches in Fig. 22B wherein a ratio of a sum of light exit areas of the plurality of green light-emitting devices to the sum of the light exit areas of the plurality of blue light-emitting devices is greater than or equal to 0.8 and less than or equal to 1.5. (Fig.22B G=B >R, the ratio of green to blue equal to 1) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sun’s device with the teachings of Yamazaki , as identified above, in order to allocate larger emitting area to a color channel that otherwise needs higher current density. This improves the green reliability, while retaining the known enlarged blue area to address blue lifetime . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun et.al. (US-2016/0358982-A1, hereinafter Sun), and in view of Peng et.al. (US-2015/0364526-A1, hereinafter Peng) Regarding Claim 10 . Sun teaches The display panel according to claim 1, Peng further teaches in Fig.8-9 wherein a ratio of a sum of light exit areas of the plurality of red light-emitting devices to the sum of the light exit areas of the plurality of blue light-emitting devices is greater than or equal to 0.4 and less than or equal to 0.8. ([0078-0085] the opening area of the blue sub pixel is about twice as that of the red sub pixel or green sub pixel.) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sun’s device with the teachings of Peng , as identified above, in order to allocate larger emitting area to a color channel that otherwise needs higher current density . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 14-16, 18 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun et.al. (US-2016/0358982-A1, hereinafter Sun), and in view of Youn et.al. (US-2021/0210584-A1, hereinafter Youn) Regarding Claim 14 . Sun teaches The display panel according to claim 13, Sun further teaches further comprising: wherein a ratio of a sum of areas of the plurality of light-emitting openings to the area of the non-light-emitting region is greater than or equal to 0.2 and less than or equal to 2.0; ((6326.25 / ((130.5)^2 -6326.25)) = 59% ) and/or a ratio of the sum of the areas of the plurality of light-emitting openings to the area of the display region of the display panel is greater than or equal to 0.15 and less than or equal to 0.65. (6326.25 / (130.5)^2 = 37% ) Youn further teaches in Fig.10A a pixel definition layer (#119) located on the base substrate (#100) and provided with a plurality of light-emitting openings therein; It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sun’s device with the teachings of Youn , as identified above, because this would have been a predictable use of a known OLED pixel-defining structure to implement Sun’s RGB light-emitting device openings and maintain the intended aperture-area relationships. Regarding Claim 15 . Sun teaches The display panel according to claim 1, Youn further teaches in Fig.2 further comprising: an anti-reflection layer (#30 including an anti-reflection layer [0067]) located on a side of the light-emitting unit away from the base substrate and configured to deflect light emitted by the light-emitting devices towards a direction perpendicular to the base substrate. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sun’s device with the teachings of Youn , as identified above, in order to reduce external reflection, improve display contrast, and improve front-direction light extraction. Regarding Claim 16 . Sun modified by Youn teaches The display panel according to claim 15, Young further teaches in Fig.2 further comprising: an optical functional layer (#30 including phase retarder and a polarizer) located between the light-emitting unit and the anti-reflection layer and configured to refract the light emitted by the light-emitting devices to enable the light to be converted into polarized light. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Sun and Youn with the teachings of Youn , as identified above, in order to reduce external reflection and control the polarization state of light in the OLED display. Regarding Claim 18 . Sun teaches A display panel comprising a display region and a non-display region, wherein the display panel comprises: a light-emitting unit including a plurality of light-emitting devices, wherein the plurality of light-emitting devices include a plurality of first color light-emitting devices, a plurality of second color light-emitting devices and a plurality of third color light-emitting devices, a first color light-emitting device covers a first light-emitting opening, a second color light-emitting device covers a second light-emitting opening, and a third color light-emitting device covers a third light-emitting opening; wherein a ratio of a sum of areas of the plurality of third light-emitting openings to an area of the display region of the display panel is greater than or equal to 4% and less than or equal to 25%; (Fig.2 and Eqs (1)-(8). Pixel side length = 130.5um. pixel area = 17,030.25um^2. Total opening area S_RGB = 6.417.98 um^2. Opening-area ratio Ar_B:Ar_R:Ar_G = 1: 0.47: 0.47. Ar_B = 6417.98 * (1/1.94) = 3308 um^2. Ar_B/pixel area = 19.4% , which is between 4% and 25%. Sun also disclose the conventional baseline 1:1:1 ratio in Fig.1 where the blue opening area ~= 12.4% of the pixel area) and/or the ratio of the sum of the areas of the plurality of third light-emitting openings to the area of the display region of the display panel satisfies a following formula 1: 0.15LJB[50-ROB(JB-50)] f≤SB; in the formula 1, SB represents the ratio of the sum of the areas of the plurality of third light-emitting openings to the area of the display region of the display panel; L represents a maximum operating luminance of the third color light-emitting devices under a first operating condition; J B represents a current density of the third color light-emitting devices under the first operating condition; RO B represents a ratio of decrease in a current efficiency of the third color light-emitting devices in a case where the current density of the third color light-emitting devices is increased from 5 mA/cm 2 to 10 mA/cm 2 ; f represents a maximum value of an external quantum efficiency of the third color light-emitting devices that is defined as a maximum value of a ratio of a number of photons radiated by the third color light-emitting devices to a number of hole-electron pairs recombined in the third color light-emitting devices; wherein the first operating condition is an operating condition in which, for chromaticity coordinates of white light emitted by the display panel, an abscissa value is greater than or equal to 0.30 and less than or equal to 0.33 and an ordinate value is greater than or equal to 0.31 and less than or equal to 0.34, and a service life of the third color light-emitting devices is greater than or equal to 300 h. Youn teaches in Fig. 10 a base substrate (#100); a pixel definition layer (#119) located on the base substrate and provided with a plurality of first light-emitting openings, a plurality of second light-emitting openings and a plurality of third light-emitting openings therein; It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Sun with the teachings of Youn , as identified above, because this would have been a predictable use of a known OLED pixel-defining structure to implement Sun’s RGB light-emitting device openings and maintain the intended aperture-area relationships. Regarding Claim 20 . Sun teaches A display apparatus, comprising: the display panel according to claim 1, Youn further teaches in Fig.3 A display apparatus, comprising: a circuit board; wherein the display panel is located on a side of the circuit board, and the display panel is coupled to the circuit board. ([0079]) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sun with the teachings of Youn , as identified above, because the modification is merely the predictable use of a known display-device circuit-board connection for its known purpose. Regarding Claim 21 . Sun modified by Youn teaches A display apparatus, comprising: the display panel according to claim 18, Youn further teaches in Fig.3 A display apparatus, comprising: a circuit board; wherein the display panel is located on a side of the circuit board, and the display panel is coupled to the circuit board. ([0079]) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Sun and Youn with the teachings of Youn , as identified above, because the modification is merely the predictable use of a known display-device circuit-board connection for its known purpose . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun et.al. (US-2016/0358982-A1, hereinafter Sun), and in view of Youn et.al. (US-2021/0210584-A1, hereinafter Youn), and further in view of SHEN et.al. (US-2023/0225177-A1, hereinafter Shen) Regarding Claim 17 . Sun modified by Youn teaches The display panel according to claim 16, Shen further teaches further comprising: a light gain layer located between the light-emitting unit and the optical functional layer and including at least one of a red light gain layer, a green light gain layer and a blue light gain layer that are sequentially stacked in the direction perpendicular to the base substrate. ([0088-0102]) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Sun and Youn with the teachings of Shen , as identified above, in order to recover light otherwise lost by the circular polarizer, improve front brightness, and reduce reflection .. Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim s 3, 6 and 19 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: Claim 3 contains allowable subject matter, because the prior art, either singly or in combination, fails to anticipate or render obvious, the device, wherein the ratio of the sum of the light exit areas of the plurality of blue light-emitting devices to the area of the display region of the display panel satisfies a following formula 1: 0.15LJB[50-ROB(JB-50)] f≤SB; in the formula 1, SB represents the ratio of the sum of the light exit areas of the plurality of blue light-emitting devices to the area of the display region of the display panel; L represents a maximum operating luminance of the blue light-emitting devices under a first operating condition; J B represents a current density of the blue light-emitting devices under the first operating condition; RO B represents a ratio of decrease in a current efficiency of the blue light-emitting devices in a case where the current density of the blue light-emitting devices is increased from 5 mA/cm 2 to 10 mA/cm 2 ; f represents a maximum value of an external quantum efficiency of the blue light-emitting devices that is defined as a maximum value of a ratio of a number of photons radiated by the blue light-emitting devices to a number of hole-electron pairs recombined in the blue light-emitting devices; wherein the first operating condition is an operating condition in which, for chromaticity coordinates of white light emitted by the display panel, an abscissa value is greater than or equal to 0.30 and less than or equal to 0.33 and an ordinate value is greater than or equal to 0.31 and less than or equal to 0.34, and a service life of the blue light-emitting devices is greater than or equal to 300 h. These features in combination with the other elements of the claim are neither disclosed nor suggested by the prior art of record. Claim 6 contains allowable subject matter, because the prior art, either singly or in combination, fails to anticipate or render obvious, the device, wherein the ratio of the sum of the light exit areas of the plurality of blue light-emitting devices to the area of the display region of the display panel satisfies a following formula 1: 0.15LJB[50-ROB(JB-50)] f≤SB; in the formula 1, SB represents the ratio of the sum of the light exit areas of the plurality of blue light-emitting devices to the area of the display region of the display panel; L represents a maximum operating luminance of the blue light-emitting devices under a first operating condition; J B represents a current density of the blue light-emitting devices under the first operating condition; RO B represents a ratio of decrease in a current efficiency of the blue light-emitting devices in a case where the current density of the blue light-emitting devices is increased from 5 mA/cm 2 to 10 mA/cm 2 ; f represents a maximum value of an external quantum efficiency of the blue light-emitting devices that is defined as a maximum value of a ratio of a number of photons radiated by the blue light-emitting devices to a number of hole-electron pairs recombined in the blue light-emitting devices; wherein the first operating condition is an operating condition in which, for chromaticity coordinates of white light emitted by the display panel, an abscissa value is greater than or equal to 0.30 and less than or equal to 0.33 and an ordinate value is greater than or equal to 0.31 and less than or equal to 0.34, and a service life of the blue light-emitting devices is greater than or equal to 300 h. These features in combination with the other elements of the claim are neither disclosed nor suggested by the prior art of record. Claim 19 contains allowable subject matter, because the prior art, either singly or in combination, fails to anticipate or render obvious, the device, wherein a ratio of a sum of areas of the plurality of second light-emitting openings to a sum of areas of the plurality of first light-emitting openings satisfies a following formula 2: 2.833ER(1-ROR)EG(1-ROG)≤SGSR≤3.043ER(1-ROR)EG(1-ROG) klim; in the formula 2, SG represents a ratio of the sum of the areas of the plurality of second light-emitting openings to the area of the display region of the display panel; SR represents a ratio of the sum of the areas of the plurality of first light-emitting openings to the area of the display region of the display panel; E G represents a current efficiency of the second color light-emitting devices in a case where a current density of the second color light-emitting devices is 10 mA/cm 2 ; E R represents a current efficiency of the first color light-emitting devices in a case where a current density of the first color light-emitting devices is 10 mA/cm 2 ; RO G represents a ratio of decrease in the current efficiency of the second color light-emitting devices in a case where the current density of the second color light-emitting devices is increased from 10 mA/cm 2 to 20 mA/cm 2 ; RO R represents a ratio of decrease in the current efficiency of the first color light-emitting devices in a case where the current density of the first color light-emitting devices is increased from 10 mA/cm 2 to 20 mA/cm 2 ; k lim represents a maximum value of a ratio of an operating current of the second color light-emitting devices to an operating current of the first color light-emitting devices under a second operating condition; wherein the second operating condition is an operating condition in which an operating luminance of the display panel is greater than or equal to 100 nit and less than or equal to 800 nit, and for the chromaticity coordinates of white light emitted by the display panel, the abscissa value is greater than or equal to 0.30 and less than or equal to 0.33, and the ordinate value is greater than or equal to 0.31 and less than or equal to 0.34. These features in combination with the other elements of the claim are neither disclosed nor suggested by the prior art of record . Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SOPHIA W KAO whose telephone number is (703)756-4797. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm Pacific Time. 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, Eliseo Ramos-Feliciano can be reached at (571) 272-7925. 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. /SOPHIA W KAO/Examiner, Art Unit 2817 /RATISHA MEHTA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2817 Application/Control Number: 18/706,146 Page 2 Art Unit: 2817 Application/Control Number: 18/706,146 Page 3 Art Unit: 2817 Application/Control Number: 18/706,146 Page 4 Art Unit: 2817 Application/Control Number: 18/706,146 Page 5 Art Unit: 2817 Application/Control Number: 18/706,146 Page 6 Art Unit: 2817 Application/Control Number: 18/706,146 Page 7 Art Unit: 2817 Application/Control Number: 18/706,146 Page 8 Art Unit: 2817 Application/Control Number: 18/706,146 Page 9 Art Unit: 2817 Application/Control Number: 18/706,146 Page 10 Art Unit: 2817 Application/Control Number: 18/706,146 Page 11 Art Unit: 2817 Application/Control Number: 18/706,146 Page 12 Art Unit: 2817 Application/Control Number: 18/706,146 Page 13 Art Unit: 2817 Application/Control Number: 18/706,146 Page 14 Art Unit: 2817 Application/Control Number: 18/706,146 Page 15 Art Unit: 2817 Application/Control Number: 18/706,146 Page 16 Art Unit: 2817 Application/Control Number: 18/706,146 Page 17 Art Unit: 2817 Application/Control Number: 18/706,146 Page 18 Art Unit: 2817 Application/Control Number: 18/706,146 Page 19 Art Unit: 2817 Application/Control Number: 18/706,146 Page 20 Art Unit: 2817
Prosecution Insights