CTNF 18/759,226 CTNF 94273 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 06/28/2024 and 02/20/2025 were considered by the examiner. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation 07-30-03 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. 07-30-05 The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. No limitations were interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. 07-34-01 Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 1 recites “an average step time of a left step” in lines 12-13 and “an average step time of a right step” in lines 13-14. It is unclear how one determines an average step time of a single step. One of ordinary skill would understand that an average step time requires multiple step times based on multiple steps. However, claim 1 only recites “a left step” and “a right step”. The Examiner suggests respectively replacing the above recitations with “an average step time of [[a]] left step s ” in lines 12-13 and “an average step time of [[a]] right step s ” in lines 13-14. The recitations of “the left step” in claims 1 and 2 will be interpreted to be “the left steps”, and the recitations of “the right step” in claims 1 and 2 will be interpreted to be “the right steps”. Claim 6 recites similar limitations, so claim 6 is rejected on similar grounds. Claim 1 recites “determine a gait index indicating a walking state of the user, based on the sensor data” in lines 6-7 and “determine a gait symmetry index for gait motion of the user based on” in lines 15-16. It is unclear how the gait symmetry index and the gait index are related. Are they the same as or different from each other? The specification suggests that they are the same index. However, the difference in terminology suggests that they are different. For the purposes of examination, the recitation of “determine a gait symmetry index for gait motion of the user based on” in lines 15-16 will be interpreted to be “wherein the gait index is further based on”. Claims 2-5 are rejected by virtue of their dependence from claim 1. Claims 7-10 are rejected by virtue of their dependence from claim 6. Claim 6 recites “the estimated gait index” in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Although claim 6 recites “determining a gait index” in line 5, the claim does not present an “estimated gait index”. For the purposes of examination, the recitation will be interpreted to be “the estimated gait index”. Claim 6 recites “determining the gait index comprises:” in line 8 and “determining a gait symmetry index” in line 12. It is unclear how the gait symmetry index and the gait index are related. Are they the same as or different from each other? The specification suggests that they are the same index. However, the difference in terminology suggests that they are different. For the purposes of examination, the recitation in line 12 will be interpreted to be “determining the gait index”. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claims 1-10 do not include additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception or that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons provided below which are in line with the 2014 Interim Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility (Federal Register, Vol. 79, No. 241, p 74618, December 16, 2014), the July 2015 Update on Subject Matter Eligibility (Federal Register, Vol. 80, No. 146, p. 45429, July 30, 2015), the May 2016 Subject Matter Eligibility Update (Federal Register, Vol. 81, No. 88, p. 27381, May 6, 2016), the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (Federal Register, Vol. 84, No. 4, p. 50, January 7, 2019), and the 2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility (Federal Register, Vol. 89, No. 137 p. 58128, July 17, 2024). The analysis of claim 1 is as follows: Step 1: Claim 1 is directed to a machine, which is a statutory category. Step 2A - Prong 1: Claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea in the form of a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. In particular, claim 1 recites the following limitations: [A1]: determine a gait index indicating a walking state of the user, based on the sensor data; [B1]:determine, based on the sensor data, an average step time of a left step of the user and an average step time of a right step time of the right step; [C1]: determine a gait symmetry index for gait motion of the user based on a difference between the average step time of the left step and the average step time of the right step; [D1]:wherein the average step time of the left step corresponds to an average time spent for the user to take one step of the left step; [E1]: wherein the average step time of the right step corresponds to an average time spent for the user to take one step of the right step. These elements [A1]-[E1] of claim 1 are directed to an abstract idea because they are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, are mere steps that are capable of being mentally performed with the aid of pen and paper. For example, a skilled artisan is capable of reading sensor data, mentally determining left and right step durations, calculating averages of the left and right step durations, and calculating a symmetry index by comparing the averages of the left and right step durations. Step 2A - Prong Two: Claim 1 does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Claim 1 recites the following additional elements: [A2]: a communication module, comprising communication circuitry, configured to receive, from a wearable device, sensor data comprising motion information of a user wearing the wearable device; [B2]: at least one processor, comprising processing circuitry, individually and/or collectively configured to determine a gait index indicating a walking state of the user, based on the sensor data; [C2]: a display module, comprising a display, configured to output the determined gait index; and [D2]: the at least one processor is individually and/or collectively configured to… The elements [A2]-[D2] do not integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. The elements [A2], [B2], and [D2] do not integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception because the elements amount to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - See MPEP 2106.04(d) and MPEP 2106.05(f). Additionally or alternatively, the elements [A2] and [C2] do not integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception because the elements amount to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception ( e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea) - See MPEP 2106.04(d) and MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, each of the additional elements do not integrate the abstract into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea. Step 2B: Claim 1 does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Claim 1 recites the following additional elements: [A2]: a communication module, comprising communication circuitry, configured to receive, from a wearable device, sensor data comprising motion information of a user wearing the wearable device; [B2]: at least one processor, comprising processing circuitry, individually and/or collectively configured to determine a gait index indicating a walking state of the user, based on the sensor data; [C2]: a display module, comprising a display, configured to output the determined gait index; and [D2]: the at least one processor is individually and/or collectively configured to… The elements [A2]-[D2] do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Simply reciting the elements [A2], [B2], and [D2] do not qualify as significantly more because these elements are simply appending well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known in the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known in the industry (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II); Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)) and/or a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than being stored on a computer readable medium which is a well-understood, routine and conventional activity previously known in the industry (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II); Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93). Additionally, the element [A2] is well-understood, routine, and conventional as evidenced by US 5,919,149 A (Allum) which discloses that signals provided by sensors worn by a subject may be provided, via conventional wireless transmission techniques to a remote system processor (Col. 6, lines 17-22). Additionally or alternatively, the elements [A2] and [C2] do not qualify as significantly more because the elements amount to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception ( e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea) - See MPEP 2106.05(f). The element [A2] is well-understood, routine, and conventional as evidenced by US 5,919,149 A (Allum) which discloses that signals provided by sensors worn by a subject may be provided, via conventional wireless transmission techniques to a remote system processor (Col. 6, lines 17-22). The element [C2] is well-understood, routine, and conventional as evidenced by US 2007/0021269 A1 (Shum) which discloses using conventional electronic display devices that are known and commercially available (e.g., cellular telephones, PDAs, pagers, beepers, MP3 or other audio players, radios, portable televisions, portable DVD players, other video playing devices, watches, etc.) for displaying athletic performance data (¶ [0004] and Abstract). In view of the above, the additional elements individually do not amount to significantly more than the above-judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination (that is, as a whole) adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taking individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer, for example, or improves any other technology. There is no indication that the combination of elements permits automation of specific tasks that previously could not be automated. There is no indication that the combination of elements includes a particular solution to a computer-based problem or a particular way to achieve a desired computer-based outcome. Rather, the collective functions of the claimed invention merely provide conventional computer implementation, i.e., the computer is simply a tool to perform the process. Independent claim 6 recites mirrored method limitations and are not patent eligible for substantially similar reasons. Claims 2-5 depend from claim 1, and they recite the same abstract idea as claim 1. Claims 7-10 depend from claim 6, and they recite the same abstract idea as claim 6. Furthermore, these claims only contain recitations that further limit the abstract idea (that is, the claims only recite limitations that further limit the mental process) and/or append abstract ideas (that is, the claims only recite limitations that add further mental processes) except for the following limitations. Claim 2 recites “the sensor data comprises angle information about a hip joint angle of the user wearing the wearable device”. However the above element does not integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception or qualify as significantly more because the element amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering at a higher level of generality in conjunction with the abstract idea that uses conventional, routine, and well known elements - see MPEP 2106.04(d); MPEP 2106.05(g). Additionally, the element is well-understood, routine, and conventional, as is evidenced by US 2015/0366738 A1 (Endo) which discloses that in a conventional step assist device, assistance torque is generating using a period of the hip joint angle of an assisted walker, which indicates that the hip joint angles are sensed. Claim 9 recites a similar element that does not integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception or qualify as significantly more for similar reasons. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 07-20-aia AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. 07-23-aia AIA The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. 07-20-02-aia AIA This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-3 and 5-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2019/0083002 A1 (Jang) in view of US 2016/0030804 A1 (Mizuochi) . With regards to claims 1 and 6, Jang teaches an electronic device (Fig. 6 and ¶ [0114] depict a gait policy updating apparatus 600) and an operation method of an electronic device (Fig. 7 and ¶¶ [0122]-[0123] depict a flowchart that may be performed by the gait policy updating apparatus 600 of Fig. 6) comprising: a communication module, comprising a communication circuitry, configured to receive, from a wearable device, sensor data comprising motion information of a user wearing the wearable device (Fig. 6 and ¶¶ [0115]-[0116] depict a communicator 610 comprising circuitry for receiving data from an external device; ¶ [0125] discloses that the communicator 610 may receive measurement values (e.g., measured joint angle) from at least one sensor of the walking assistance device 100 depicted in Figs. 1 and 2) ; at least one processor, comprising processing circuitry, individually and/or collectively configured to determine a gait index indicating a walking state of the user, based on the sensor data (Fig. 6 and ¶ [0117] depict a processor 620; ¶ [0134] discloses the processor 620 evaluates a reward value of state information associated with the motion of the walking assistance device; ¶¶ [0135]-[0136] disclose a gait symmetry between the left leg and the right leg may be calculated as the reward value) ; wherein the at least one processor is individually and/or collectively configured to: determine, based on the sensor data, a step time of a left step of the user and a step time of a right step of the user (¶¶ [0127], [0135]-[0136] disclose the processor 620 generates a step duration of the left and right steps) , and determine a gait symmetry index for gait motion of the user based on a difference between the step time of the left step and the step time of the right step ( ¶¶ [0135]-[0136] disclose a gait symmetry between the left leg and the right leg being calculated according to a difference between the step durations) Jang is silent regarding a display module, comprising a display, configured to output the determined gait index. In the same field of endeavor of monitoring gait parameters, Mizuochi teaches a display module, comprising a display, configured to output a determined gait index (¶ [0347] discloses displaying, on a screen of a display unit 170, output information regarding running) . It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified device of Jang to incorporate a display module, comprising a display, configured to output the determined gait index as taught by Mizuochi. The motivation would have been to communicate the index to the user, thereby allowing the user to improve their gait. The above combination is silent regarding determining, based on the sensor data, an average step time of a left step of the user and an average step time of a right step of the user, and determining a gait symmetry index based on the average step times, wherein the average step time of the left step corresponds to an average time spent for the user to take one step of the left step, and wherein the average step time of the right step corresponds to an average time spent for the user to take one step of the right step. In the same field of endeavor of monitoring gait parameters, Mizuochi teaches determining, based on the sensor data, an average step time of a left step of the user and an average step time of a right step of the user (¶¶ [0301], [0317], [0344] disclose calculating a ground contact time; ¶ [0344] discloses a left-right difference ratio which includes an average value of the respective numerical values, which includes the ground contact time) , and determining a gait symmetry index based on the average step times (¶ [0344] discloses determining an left-right difference ratio based on an average of a ground contact time for each side of the body) , wherein the average step time of the left step corresponds to an average time spent for the user to take one step of the left step, and wherein the average step time of the right step corresponds to an average time spent for the user to take one step of the right step (¶ [0344] discloses determining an average value of the ground contact time; ¶ [0354] discloses an average value of a ground contact time corresponding to several steps) . It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the determination of gait symmetry index of Jang to incorporate that it uses an average step time as taught by Mizuochi. Because both an average step time and a step time are capable of being used for determining a gait symmetry index, it would have been the simple substitution of one known equivalent element for another to obtain predictable results. Additionally or alternatively, the motivation would have been to provide an estimation of gait symmetry that accounts for step-to-step variations. With regards to claims 2 and 7, the above combination teaches or suggests the gait symmetry index is a value indicating how symmetrical a gait corresponding to the right step of the user and a gait corresponding to the left step of the user are (¶¶ [0135]-[0136] of Jang indicates the gait symmetry is a value indicating how symmetrical the left and right steps are) . With regards to claims 3 and 8, the above combination teaches or suggests the at least one processor is further configured to detect a start of a step and an end of the step, based on the sensor data , and estimate a step time during one step of the user, based on the start of the step and the end of the step (Fig. 7 and ¶¶ [0130]-[0133] of Jang depict, in operation 720, detecting a desired event during the current gait cycle, Fig. 9 and ¶¶ [0155]-[0156], [0162] of Jang depict detecting starts and stops of first and second steps (e.g., 830, 832) and a step time (e.g., 940)) . With regards to claims 5 and 9, the above combination teaches or suggests the sensor data comprises angle information about a hip joint angle of the user wearing the wearable device (¶¶ [0124]-[0125] of Jang disclose receiving state information from the walking assistance device 100, which includes information about a hip joint angle). With regards to claim 10, the above combination teaches or suggests a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause a processor to perform the method of claim 6 (¶¶ [0119]-[0120] discloses a non-volatile memory including an instruction set for operating the gait policy updating apparatus 600) . 07-22-aia AIA Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2019/0083002 A1 (Jang) in view of US 2016/0030804 A1 (Mizuochi) , as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2023/0157606 A1 (Kusano) With regards to claim 4, the above combination teaches or suggests the display module is further configured to provide the gait index comprising the gait symmetry index (See the above combination of Jang in view of Mizuochi; ¶ [0347] of Mizuochi discloses displaying, on a screen of a display unit 170, output information) The above combination is silent regarding whether the display module is configured to provide a number of steps per minute of the user, an average value of the walking speed of the user and a step length of one step of the user. In the same field of endeavor of monitoring gait parameters, Kusano teaches a display module is configured to provide a number of steps per minute of the user, an average value of the walking speed of the user , and a step length of one step of the user (¶ [0053] discloses acquiring data of the walking time, the walking distance, the walking speed, the heart rate, the number of steps, and the step length, and displaying the data on a screen). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the display module of the above combination to incorporate that it is configured to provide a number of steps per minute of the user, an average value of the walking speed of the user , and a step length of one step of the user as taught by Kusano. The motivation would have been to provide a more complete diagnostic picture to the patient . Double Patenting 08-33 AIA The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg , 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman , 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi , 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum , 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington , 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer. 08-36 AIA Claim s 1, 2, 6, and 7 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 6 and 25 of U.S. Patent No. 10,576,619 B2 (hereinafter referred to as “the ‘619 patent”) in view of US 2016/0030804 A1 (Mizuochi) . Claims 6 and 25 of the ‘619 patent include all the elements of claims 1, 2, 6, and 7 of the instant application except a display module a display module, comprising a display, configured to output the determined gait index; and determining, based on the sensor data, an average step time of a left step of the user and an average step time of a right step of the user, and determining a gait symmetry index based on a difference between the average step time of the left step and the average step time of the right step, wherein the average step time of the left step corresponds to an average time spent for the user to take one step of the left step, and wherein the average step time of the right step corresponds to an average time spent for the user to take one step of the right step. In the same field of endeavor of monitoring gait parameters, Mizuochi teaches a display module, comprising a display, configured to output a determined gait index (¶ [0347] discloses displaying, on a screen of a display unit 170, output information regarding running) . It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified claims 3 and 25 of the ‘619 patent to include a display module, comprising a display, configured to output the determined gait index as taught by Mizuochi. The motivation would have been to communicate the index to the user, thereby allowing the user to improve their gait. The above combination is silent regarding determining, based on the sensor data, an average step time of a left step of the user and an average step time of a right step of the user, and determining a gait symmetry index based on a difference between the average step time of the left step and the average step time of the right step, wherein the average step time of the left step corresponds to an average time spent for the user to take one step of the left step, and wherein the average step time of the right step corresponds to an average time spent for the user to take one step of the right step. In the same field of endeavor of monitoring gait parameters, Mizuochi teaches determining, based on the sensor data, an average step time of a left step of the user and an average step time of a right step of the user (¶¶ [0301], [0317], [0344] disclose calculating a ground contact time; ¶ [0344] discloses a left-right difference ratio which includes an average value of the respective numerical values, which includes the ground contact time) , and determining a gait symmetry index based on a difference between the average step time of the left step and the average step time of the right step (¶ [0344] discloses determining an left-right difference ratio based on an average of a ground contact time for each side of the body) , wherein the average step time of the left step corresponds to an average time spent for the user to take one step of the left step, and wherein the average step time of the right step corresponds to an average time spent for the user to take one step of the right step (¶ [0344] discloses determining an average value of the ground contact time; ¶ [0354] discloses an average value of a ground contact time corresponding to several steps) . It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the determination of gait symmetry index of claims 3 and 25 of the ‘619 patent to include using an average step time as taught by Mizuochi. The motivation would have been to provide an estimation of gait symmetry that accounts for step-to-step variations . 08-36 AIA Claim s 3, 5, 8, 9, and 10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 6 and 25 of U.S. Patent No. 10,576,619 B2 (hereinafter referred to as “the ‘619 patent”) in view of US 2016/0030804 A1 (Mizuochi), as applied to claims 1 and 6 above, and further in view of US 2019/0083002 A1 (Jang) With regards to claims 3 and 8, claims 6 and 25 of the ‘619 patent in view of Mizuochi do not include at least one processor is further configured to detect a start of a step and an end of the step, based on the sensor data , and estimate a step time during one step of the user, based on the start of the step and the end of the step. In the same field of endeavor of monitoring gait parameters, Jang teaches at least one processor is further configured to detect a start of a step and an end of the step, based on the sensor data , and estimate a step time during one step of the user, based on the start of the step and the end of the step. (Fig. 7 and ¶¶ [0130]-[0133] of Jang depict, in operation 720, detecting a desired event during the current gait cycle, Fig. 9 and ¶¶ [0155]-[0156], [0162] of Jang depict detecting starts and stops of first and second steps (e.g., 830, 832) and a step time (e.g., 940)) . It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified claims 6 and 25 of the ‘619 patent in view of Mizuochi, as applied to claim 1 above, to include at least one processor is further configured to detect a start of a step and an end of the step, based on the sensor data , and estimate a step time during one step of the user, based on the start of the step and the end of the step as taught by Jang. The motivation would have been to provide a more accurate basis for determining the step duration. With regards to claims 5 and 9, claims 6 and 25 of the ‘619 patent in view of Mizuochi do not include the sensor data comprises angle information about a hip joint angle of the user wearing the wearable device In the same field of endeavor of monitoring gait parameters, Jang teaches the sensor data comprises angle information about a hip joint angle of the user wearing the wearable device (¶¶ [0124]-[0125] of Jang disclose receiving state information from the walking assistance device 100, which includes information about a hip joint angle). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified claims 6 and 25 of the ‘619 patent in view of Mizuochi, as applied to claim 1 above, to include that the sensor data comprises angle information about a hip joint angle of the user wearing the wearable device as taught by Jang. It would have been the simple substitution of one known equivalent element for determining gait parameters with another to obtain predictable results. With regards to claim 10, claims 6 and 25 of the ‘619 patent in view of Mizuochi do not include a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause a processor to perform the method of claim 6 . In the same field of endeavor of monitoring gait parameters, Jang teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause a processor to perform a method (¶¶ [0119]-[0120] discloses a non-volatile memory including an instruction set for operating the gait policy updating apparatus 600) . It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified claims 6 and 25 of the ‘619 patent in view of Mizuochi, as applied to claim 6 above, to include a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause a processor to perform a method as taught by Jang. The motivation would have been to provide the system with sufficient hardware for controlling the system . 08-36 AIA Claim 4 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 6 and 25 of U.S. Patent No. 10,576,619 B2 (hereinafter referred to as “the ‘619 patent”) in view of US 2016/0030804 A1 (Mizuochi), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2023/0157606 A1 (Kusano) With regards to claim 4, claims 6 and 25 of the ‘619 patent in view of Mizuochi, as applied to claim 1 above, includes display module is further configured to provide the gait index comprising the gait symmetry index (See the above combination of in view of Mizuochi; ¶ [0347] of Mizuochi discloses displaying, on a screen of a display unit 170, output information) Claims 6 and 25 of the ‘619 patent in view of Mizuochi, as applied to claim 1 above, does not include that the display module is configured to provide a number of steps per minute of the user, an average value of the walking speed of the user and a step length of one step of the user. In the same field of endeavor of monitoring gait parameters, Kusano teaches a display module is configured to provide a number of steps per minute of the user, an average value of the walking speed of the user , and a step length of one step of the user (¶ [0053] discloses acquiring data of the walking time, the walking distance, the walking speed, the heart rate, the number of steps, and the step length, and displaying the data on a screen). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified claims 6 and 25 of the ‘619 patent in view of Mizuochi, as applied to claim 1 above, to include that the display module is configured to provide a number of steps per minute of the user, an average value of the walking speed of the user , and a step length of one step of the user as taught by Kusano. The motivation would have been to provide a more complete diagnostic picture to the patient . 08-36 AIA Claim s 1, 2, 6, and 7 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 3 and 11 of U.S. Patent No. 11,666,248 B2 (hereinafter referred to as “the ‘248 patent”) in view of US 2016/0030804 A1 (Mizuochi) . Claims 3 and 11 of the ‘248 patent include all the elements of claims 1, 2, 6, and 7 of the instant application except a display module a display module, comprising a display, configured to output the determined gait index; and determining, based on the sensor data, an average step time of a left step of the user and an average step time of a right step of the user, and determining a gait symmetry index based on a difference between the average step time of the left step and the average step time of the right step, wherein the average step time of the left step corresponds to an average time spent for the user to take one step of the left step, and wherein the average step time of the right step corresponds to an average time spent for the user to take one step of the right step. In the same field of endeavor of monitoring gait parameters, Mizuochi teaches a display module, comprising a display, configured to output a determined gait index (¶ [0347] discloses displaying, on a screen of a display unit 170, output information regarding running) . It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified claims 3 and 11 of the ‘248 patent to include a display module, comprising a display, configured to output the determined gait index as taught by Mizuochi. The motivation would have been to communicate the index to the user, thereby allowing the user to improve their gait. The above combination is silent regarding determining, based on the sensor data, an average step time of a left step of the user and an average step time of a right step of the user, and determining a gait symmetry index based on a difference between the average step time of the left step and the average step time of the right step, wherein the average step time of the left step corresponds to an average time spent for the user to take one step of the left step, and wherein the average step time of the right step corresponds to an average time spent for the user to take one step of the right step. In the same field of endeavor of monitoring gait parameters, Mizuochi teaches determining, based on the sensor data, an average step time of a left step of the user and an average step time of a right step of the user (¶¶ [0301], [0317], [0344] disclose calculating a ground contact time; ¶ [0344] discloses a left-right difference ratio which includes an average value of the respective numerical values, which includes the ground contact time) , and determining a gait symmetry index based on a difference between the average step time of the left step and the average step time of the right step (¶ [0344] discloses determining an left-right difference ratio based on an average of a ground contact time for each side of the body) , wherein the average step time of the left step corresponds to an average time spent for the user to take one step of the left step, and wherein the average step time of the right step corresponds to an average time spent for the user to take one step of the right step (¶ [0344] discloses determining an average value of the ground contact time; ¶ [0354] discloses an average value of a ground contact time corresponding to several steps) . It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the determination of gait symmetry index of claims 3 and 11 of the ‘248 patent to include using an average step time as taught by Mizuochi. The motivation would have been to provide an estimation of gait symmetry that accounts for step-to-step variations. Claims 3, 5, 8, 9, and 10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 3 and 11 of the ‘248 patent in view of US 2016/0030804 A1 (Mizuochi), as applied to claims 1 and 6 above, and further in view of US 2019/0083002 A1 (Jang) With regards to claims 3 and 8, claims 3 and 11 of the ‘248 patent in view of Mizuochi do not include at least one processor is further configured to detect a start of a step and an end of the step, based on the sensor data , and estimate a step time during one step of the user, based on the start of the step and the end of the step. In the same field of endeavor of monitoring gait parameters, Jang teaches at least one processor is further configured to detect a start of a step and an end of the step, based on the sensor data , and estimate a step time during one step of the user, based on the start of the step and the end of the step. (Fig. 7 and ¶¶ [0130]-[0133] of Jang depict, in operation 720, detecting a desired event during the current gait cycle, Fig. 9 and ¶¶ [0155]-[0156], [0162] of Jang depict detecting starts and stops of first and second steps (e.g., 830, 832) and a step time (e.g., 940)) . It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified claims 3 and 11 of the ‘248 patent in view of Mizuochi, as applied to claim 1 above, to include at least one processor is further configured to detect a start of a step and an end of the step, based on the sensor data , and estimate a step time during one step of the user, based on the start of the step and the end of the step as taught by Jang. The motivation would have been to provide a more accurate basis for determining the step duration. With regards to claims 5 and 9, claims 3 and 11 of the ‘248 patent in view of Mizuochi do not include the sensor data comprises angle information about a hip joint angle of the user wearing the wearable device In the same field of endeavor of monitoring gait parameters, Jang teaches the sensor data comprises angle information about a hip joint angle of the user wearing the wearable device (¶¶ [0124]-[0125] of Jang disclose receiving state information from the walking assistance device 100, which includes information about a hip joint angle). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified claims 3 and 11 of the ‘248 patent in view of Mizuochi, as applied to claim 1 above, to include that the sensor data comprises angle information about a hip joint angle of the user wearing the wearable device as taught by Jang. It would have been the simple substitution of one known equivalent element for determining gait parameters with another to obtain predictable results. With regards to claim 10, claims 3 and 11 of the ‘248 patent in view of Mizuochi do not include a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause a processor to perform the method of claim 6 . In the same field of endeavor of monitoring gait parameters, Jang teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause a processor to perform a method (¶¶ [0119]-[0120] discloses a non-volatile memory including an instruction set for operating the gait policy updating apparatus 600) . It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified claims 3 and 11 of the ‘248 patent in view of Mizuochi, as applied to claim 6 above, to include a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause a processor to perform a method as taught by Jang. The motivation would have been to provide the system with sufficient hardware for controlling the system. Claim 4 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 3 and 11 of the ‘248 patent in view of US 2016/0030804 A1 (Mizuochi), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2023/0157606 A1 (Kusano) With regards to claim 4, claims 3 and 11 of the ‘248 patent in view of Mizuochi, as applied to claim 1 above, includes display module is further configured to provide the gait index comprising the gait symmetry index (See the above combination of in view of Mizuochi; ¶ [0347] of Mizuochi discloses displaying, on a screen of a display unit 170, output information) Claims 3 and 11 of the ‘248 patent in view of Mizuochi, as applied to claim 1 above, does not include that the display module is configured to provide a number of steps per minute of the user, an average value of the walking speed of the user and a step length of one step of the user. In the same field of endeavor of monitoring gait parameters, Kusano teaches a display module is configured to provide a number of steps per minute of the user, an average value of the walking speed of the user , and a step length of one step of the user (¶ [0053] discloses acquiring data of the walking time, the walking distance, the walking speed, the heart rate, the number of steps, and the step length, and displaying the data on a screen). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified claims 3 and 11 of the ‘248 patent in view of Mizuochi, as applied to claim 1 above, to include that the display module is configured to provide a number of steps per minute of the user, an average value of the walking speed of the user , and a step length of one step of the user as taught by Kusano. The motivation would have been to provide a more complete diagnostic picture to the patient . 08-36 AIA Claim s 1, 2, 6, and 7 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 3 and 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,245,853 B2 (hereinafter referred to as “the ‘853 patent”) in view of US 2016/0030804 A1 (Mizuochi) . Claims 3 and 10 of the ‘853 patent include all the elements of claims 1, 2, 6, and 7 of the instant application except a display module a display module, comprising a display, configured to output the determined gait index; and determining, based on the sensor data, an average step time of a left step of the user and an average step time of a right step of the user, and determining a gait symmetry index based on a difference between the average step time of the left step and the average step time of the right step, wherein the average step time of the left step corresponds to an average time spent for the user to take one step of the left step, and wherein the average step time of the right step corresponds to an average time spent for the user to take one step of the right step. In the same field of endeavor of monitoring gait parameters, Mizuochi teaches a display module, comprising a display, configured to output a determined gait index (¶ [0347] discloses displaying, on a screen of a display unit 170, output information regarding running) . It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified claims 3 and 10 of the ‘853 patent to include a display module, comprising a display, configured to output the determined gait index as taught by Mizuochi. The motivation would have been to communicate the index to the user, thereby allowing the user to improve their gait. The above combination is silent regarding determining, based on the sensor data, an average step time of a left step of the user and an average step time of a right step of the user, and determining a gait symmetry index based on a difference between the average step time of the left step and the average step time of the right step, wherein the average step time of the left step corresponds to an average time spent for the user to take one step of the left step, and wherein the average step time of the right step corresponds to an average time spent for the user to take one step of the right step. In the same field of endeavor of monitoring gait parameters, Mizuochi teaches determining, based on the sensor data, an average step time of a left step of the user and an average step time of a right step of the user (¶¶ [0301], [0317], [0344] disclose calculating a ground contact time; ¶ [0344] discloses a left-right difference ratio which includes an average value of the respective numerical values, which includes the ground contact time) , and determining a gait symmetry index based on a difference between the average step time of the left step and the average step time of the right step (¶ [0344] discloses determining an left-right difference ratio based on an average of a ground contact time for each side of the body) , wherein the average step time of the left step corresponds to an average time spent for the user to take one step of the left step, and wherein the average step time of the right step corresponds to an average time spent for the user to take one step of the right step (¶ [0344] discloses determining an average value of the ground contact time; ¶ [0354] discloses an average value of a ground contact time corresponding to several steps) . It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the determination of gait symmetry index of claims 3 and 10 of the ‘853 patent to include using an average step time as taught by Mizuochi. The motivation would have been to provide an estimation of gait symmetry that accounts for step-to-step variations. Claims 3, 5, 8, 9, and 10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 3 and 10 of the ‘853 patent in view of US 2016/0030804 A1 (Mizuochi), as applied to claims 1 and 6 above, and further in view of US 2019/0083002 A1 (Jang) With regards to claims 3 and 8, claims 3 and 10 of the ‘853 patent in view of Mizuochi do not include at least one processor is further configured to detect a start of a step and an end of the step, based on the sensor data , and estimate a step time during one step of the user, based on the start of the step and the end of the step. In the same field of endeavor of monitoring gait parameters, Jang teaches at least one processor is further configured to detect a start of a step and an end of the step, based on the sensor data , and estimate a step time during one step of the user, based on the start of the step and the end of the step. (Fig. 7 and ¶¶ [0130]-[0133] of Jang depict, in operation 720, detecting a desired event during the current gait cycle, Fig. 9 and ¶¶ [0155]-[0156], [0162] of Jang depict detecting starts and stops of first and second steps (e.g., 830, 832) and a step time (e.g., 940)) . It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified claims 3 and 10 of the ‘853 patent in view of Mizuochi, as applied to claim 1 above, to include at least one processor is further configured to detect a start of a step and an end of the step, based on the sensor data , and estimate a step time during one step of the user, based on the start of the step and the end of the step as taught by Jang. The motivation would have been to provide a more accurate basis for determining the step duration. With regards to claims 5 and 9, claims 3 and 10 of the ‘853 patent in view of Mizuochi do not include the sensor data comprises angle information about a hip joint angle of the user wearing the wearable device In the same field of endeavor of monitoring gait parameters, Jang teaches the sensor data comprises angle information about a hip joint angle of the user wearing the wearable device (¶¶ [0124]-[0125] of Jang disclose receiving state information from the walking assistance device 100, which includes information about a hip joint angle). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified claims 3 and 10 of the ‘853 patent in view of Mizuochi, as applied to claim 1 above, to include that the sensor data comprises angle information about a hip joint angle of the user wearing the wearable device as taught by Jang. It would have been the simple substitution of one known equivalent element for determining gait parameters with another to obtain predictable results. With regards to claim 10, claims 3 and 10 of the ‘853 patent in view of Mizuochi do not include a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause a processor to perform the method of claim 6 . In the same field of endeavor of monitoring gait parameters, Jang teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause a processor to perform a method (¶¶ [0119]-[0120] discloses a non-volatile memory including an instruction set for operating the gait policy updating apparatus 600) . It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified claims 3 and 10 of the ‘853 patent in view of Mizuochi, as applied to claim 6 above, to include a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause a processor to perform a method as taught by Jang. The motivation would have been to provide the system with sufficient hardware for controlling the system. Claim 4 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 3 and 10 of the ‘853 patent in view of US 2016/0030804 A1 (Mizuochi), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2023/0157606 A1 (Kusano) With regards to claim 4, claims 3 and 10 of the ‘853 patent in view of Mizuochi, as applied to claim 1 above, includes display module is further configured to provide the gait index comprising the gait symmetry index (See the above combination of in view of Mizuochi; ¶ [0347] of Mizuochi discloses displaying, on a screen of a display unit 170, output information) Claims 3 and 10 of the ‘853 patent in view of Mizuochi, as applied to claim 1 above, does not include that the display module is configured to provide a number of steps per minute of the user, an average value of the walking speed of the user and a step length of one step of the user. In the same field of endeavor of monitoring gait parameters, Kusano teaches a display module is configured to provide a number of steps per minute of the user, an average value of the walking speed of the user , and a step length of one step of the user (¶ [0053] discloses acquiring data of the walking time, the walking distance, the walking speed, the heart rate, the number of steps, and the step length, and displaying the data on a screen). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified claims 3 and 10 of the ‘853 patent in view of Mizuochi, as applied to claim 1 above, to include that the display module is configured to provide a number of steps per minute of the user, an average value of the walking speed of the user , and a step length of one step of the user as taught by Kusano. The motivation would have been to provide a more complete diagnostic picture to the patient. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMUEL C KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-8637. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 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, Jacqueline Cheng can be reached at (571) 272-5596. 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. /S.C.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3791 /JACQUELINE CHENG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791 Application/Control Number: 18/759,226 Page 2 Art Unit: 3791 Application/Control Number: 18/759,226 Page 3 Art Unit: 3791 Application/Control Number: 18/759,226 Page 4 Art Unit: 3791 Application/Control Number: 18/759,226 Page 5 Art Unit: 3791 Application/Control Number: 18/759,226 Page 6 Art Unit: 3791 Application/Control Number: 18/759,226 Page 7 Art Unit: 3791 Application/Control Number: 18/759,226 Page 8 Art Unit: 3791 Application/Control Number: 18/759,226 Page 9 Art Unit: 3791 Application/Control Number: 18/759,226 Page 10 Art Unit: 3791 Application/Control Number: 18/759,226 Page 11 Art Unit: 3791 Application/Control Number: 18/759,226 Page 12 Art Unit: 3791 Application/Control Number: 18/759,226 Page 13 Art Unit: 3791 Application/Control Number: 18/759,226 Page 14 Art Unit: 3791 Application/Control Number: 18/759,226 Page 15 Art Unit: 3791 Application/Control Number: 18/759,226 Page 16 Art Unit: 3791 Application/Control Number: 18/759,226 Page 17 Art Unit: 3791 Application/Control Number: 18/759,226 Page 18 Art Unit: 3791 Application/Control Number: 18/759,226 Page 19 Art Unit: 3791 Application/Control Number: 18/759,226 Page 20 Art Unit: 3791 Application/Control Number: 18/759,226 Page 21 Art Unit: 3791 Application/Control Number: 18/759,226 Page 22 Art Unit: 3791 Application/Control Number: 18/759,226 Page 23 Art Unit: 3791 Application/Control Number: 18/759,226 Page 24 Art Unit: 3791 Application/Control Number: 18/759,226 Page 25 Art Unit: 3791 Application/Control Number: 18/759,226 Page 26 Art Unit: 3791 Application/Control Number: 18/759,226 Page 27 Art Unit: 3791 Application/Control Number: 18/759,226 Page 28 Art Unit: 3791 Application/Control Number: 18/759,226 Page 29 Art Unit: 3791 Application/Control Number: 18/759,226 Page 30 Art Unit: 3791 Application/Control Number: 18/759,226 Page 31 Art Unit: 3791 Application/Control Number: 18/759,226 Page 32 Art Unit: 3791 Application/Control Number: 18/759,226 Page 33 Art Unit: 3791 Application/Control Number: 18/759,226 Page 34 Art Unit: 3791 Application/Control Number: 18/759,226 Page 35 Art Unit: 3791 Application/Control Number: 18/759,226 Page 36 Art Unit: 3791 Application/Control Number: 18/759,226 Page 37 Art Unit: 3791 Application/Control Number: 18/759,226 Page 38 Art Unit: 3791 Application/Control Number: 18/759,226 Page 39 Art Unit: 3791
Prosecution Insights