CTNF 18/784,134 CTNF 91293 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. Claims 1-31 are currently pending in U.S. Patent Application No. 18/784,134 and an Office action on the merits follows. Priority 02-09 AIA Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) (PRO 62/885,154) as follows: The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent/provisional application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc. , 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994). The disclosure of the prior-filed provisional Application 62/885,154, fails to provide adequate support or enablement (meeting written description requirement) in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application. More specifically, the provisional does not appear to disclose at least (c)-(i) of independent claim 1. Additionally, while supported in 17/633,133, provisional 62/885,154 fails to provide sufficient written description of (c)-(f), (g), (h) and/or (i) of claim 21. Accordingly, claims 1-31 are understood to benefit from an Effective Filing Date no earlier than August 10, 2020 (National Stage Entry). 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. Claims 1-13 and 16-19 are rejected on the grounds of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable and/or obvious over one or more claims of: 1) U.S. Patent No. 12,073,541 to parent Application No. 17/633,133 Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims of reference anticipate and/or render obvious one or more claim(s) of the instant application with limitations in common being as illustrated in the table(s) below. The conflicting claims are also not patentably distinct from each other for the following reasons: • Instant claims and claims of reference recite common subject matter, and recite the open ended transitional phrase “comprising” which does not preclude any additional elements recited by claims of reference; • Language/terminology of instant claim(s) constituting minor/slight variations from the claims of reference, if/where present, (i.e. to correct vs. for correcting, FT vs. transform, high pass filter vs. filter) require interpretations under Broadest Reasonable Interpretation and/or plain meaning definitions (MPEP 2173 and 2111) equivalent to/met by language of the reference claims in view of that corresponding/ shared Specification. While the disclosure of reference may not be used as prior art (Double Patenting concerns the claims of reference), portions of the specification which provide support for reference claims may also be examined and considered when addressing the scope of claim(s) of reference and the issue of whether an instant claim defines an obvious variation or falls within the scope of an invention claimed in the claim(s) of reference. See MPEP 804 with reference to In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970) . • Whereby element(s) of instant claim(s) otherwise not present explicitly in corresponding reference claim(s) (see underline and * in the table below – “wherein the plurality of optical conditions…” ), correspond(s) to disclosure as identified in prior art of record to include e.g. Wang et al. (US 2021/0310910 A1) disclosing optical conditions common to beam-shift cryo-EM data acquisition (e.g. [0099] “A total of 2670 micrographs were collected using beam-image shift on an EM microscope operated … Defocus varied from 0.8 um to 2.5 um.” ), Sinclair et al. (US 2008/0097080 A1) at [0140], [0158] “Sample imaging is also conducted using standard protocols. Images are collected at a series of defocus steps and also employing the tilt-stage of the microscope to image the lattice through a range of angles” , etc.. See also claim 10 of reference. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify claims of reference such that the beam-shift acquisition recited is further characterized by those recited optical condition alternatives as taught/suggested by e.g. Wang, the motivation being as evident to a person of ordinary skill in the art and/or suggested in references of record generally that such conditions/variations serve as routinely varied if not “Obvious to Try” parameter variations (see MPEP 2143 Rationale(s) (B) and (E)) in/for the acquisition of desired/ representative tomographic datasets enabling reconstruction and further characterized by a reasonable expectation of success. Instant Claims 18/784,134 Claims of Reference US 12,073,541 B2 Claim 1 A method for correcting one or more image aberrations in an electron microscopy image, the method comprising: Claim 1 A method to correct one or more image aberrations in an electron microscopy image, the method comprising: (a) obtaining a plurality of electron microscope (EM) images of an internal reference grid sample having one or more known properties, the plurality of electron microscope images obtained for a plurality of optical conditions and for a plurality of coordinated beam-image shifts, wherein the plurality of optical conditions is selected from a plurality of defocuses, a plurality of z-heights, a plurality of beam tilts, a plurality of beam parallelizations, and any combination thereof; obtaining a plurality of electron microscope (EM) images of an internal reference grid sample, the plurality of EM images captured using an electron microscope in connection with a plurality of optical conditions including a plurality of coordinated beam-image shifts; *in view of ODP bullet 3 identified above and e.g. Wang et al. (US 2021/0310910 A1) [0099-0101]; Sinclair et al. (US 2008/0097080 A1) [0140], [0158], etc., see also claim 10 of reference (b) correcting the plurality of EM images for sample drift by aligning and motion correcting the plurality of EM images to produce an EM micrograph; generating an EM micrograph by correcting the plurality of EM images for sample drift; (c) calculating the Fourier transform (FT) of the micrograph to produce an FT image; ‘a transformed image’ from the limitation below/ corresponding to (d) *in view of bullet 2 above (d) deconvolving the FT image using one or more predetermined deconvolution coefficients selected from a range of deconvolution coefficients values to produce a deconvolved FT image; generating a deconvolved image by deconvolving a transformed image using one or more deconvolution coefficients, the transformed image generated by applying a transform to the EM micrograph; (e) applying a high-pass filter to the deconvolved FT image to produce a filtered deconvolved FT image; generating a filtered deconvolved image by applying a filter to the deconvolved image; (f) calculating an inverse FT of the filtered deconvolved FT image to produce an aberration-corrected EM micrograph; generating an aberration-corrected EM micrograph by calculating an inverse transform of the filtered deconvolved image; (g) determining an intensity distribution for the aberration-corrected EM micrograph; determining an intensity distribution for the aberration-corrected EM micrograph; (h) calculating a moment for the intensity distribution; and calculating a moment for the intensity distribution; and (i) repeating (c)-(h) using one or more predetermined deconvolution coefficients selected from the range of deconvolution coefficients values that is different than the previous iteration until an optimal one or more deconvolution coefficients is determined based on maximization of the moment in (i). performing an iterative optimization process using one or more deconvolution coefficients until an optimal one or more of the one or more deconvolution coefficients is determined based on maximization of the moment. Dependent claims 2-13 and 16-19 of the instant application correspond to reference claims as illustrated in the table below, in further view of ODP bullet 3 above. Examiner additionally understands claims 4-9 to recite characteristics of internal reference grid samples, and claims 12-13 as directed to aberration embodiments, commonly encountered in the art and reasonably rejected under Obviousness type Double Patenting grounds accordingly. Instant application Claims of Reference Claim 2 Claim 2 Claim 3 Claim 4 Claim 4 Claim 12 Claim 16 Claim 13 Claim 17 Claim 14 Claim 18 Claim 15 Claim 19 Claim 10 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. Claim(s) 1-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception, in particular an Abstract Idea falling under the (a) mathematical concepts category/grouping (mathematical relationships, formulas or equations, and/or calculations (even if a series of calculations)), not ‘integrated into a practical application’ at Prong Two of Step 2A and without ‘significantly more’ at Step 2B. Step 1: The claim(s) in question are directed to a computer implemented method for calculating one or more deconvolution coefficients useable in generating an aberration-corrected EM micrograph (claim 1) and/or calculating a metric tensor based on a deformation matrix (claim 21). (Step 1: Yes) . Step 2A, Prong One: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim. Representative claim 1 explicitly recites, e.g.: (c) “calculating the Fourier Transform (FT) of the micrograph…” ; (d) “deconvolving the FT image using one or more predetermined deconvolution coefficients…” ; (e) “applying a high-pass filter …” ; (f) “calculating an inverse FT …” ; (g) “determining an intensity distribution …” ; (h) “calculating a moment for the intensity distribution …” ; (i) “repeating (c)-(h) … until an optimal one or more deconvolution coefficients is determined based on maximization of the moment in (i)” . Representative claim 21 explicitly recites, e.g.: (c) “calculating the Fourier Transform (FT) of the micrograph…” ; (d) “identifying diffraction peaks …” ; (e) “performing dual space filtering …” ; (f) “calculating an inverse FT …” ; (g) “calculating … a FT sub-image … indexing diffraction maxima … and determining unit cell parameters” (h) “determine, using a deformation matrix, whether the … parameters determined in (g) are consistent [with known dimensions]” ; (i) “calculate a metric tensor based on the deformation matrix” Each of the abovementioned limitations, when considered individually and collectively as a series of calculations, may be drawn under the mathematical concepts grouping in view of MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(C): A mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number, e.g., performing an arithmetic operation such as exponentiation. There is no particular word or set of words that indicates a claim recites a mathematical calculation. That is, a claim does not have to recite the word "calculating" in order to be considered a mathematical calculation. For example, a step of "determining" a variable or number using mathematical methods or "performing" a mathematical operation may also be considered mathematical calculations when the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification encompasses a mathematical calculation. Applicant may also consider Examples 47-49 of the 2024 Patent Eligibility Guidance (PEG): https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2024-AI-SMEUpdateExamples47-49.pdf The July 17, 2024 PEG identifies various process steps as drawn to the mathematical concepts Abstract Idea grouping – e.g. Example 47 claim 2 step(s) (b) (at page 7 describing the recited ‘discretizing’ as encompassing a mathematical concept e.g. rounding data values (that may also be performed mentally)) and (c) (interpreted so as to include mathematical calculations such as performing backpropagation and gradient descent algorithm(s)), in addition to Example 48 claim(s) 1 and 2 steps (b) (a ‘converting’ involving a mathematical operation using an STFT), (c) (determining (‘using’ a DNN) an ‘embedding’ on the basis of an explicitly recited formula), and (e) (‘applying binary masks’), and Example 48 claim 3 step(s) (c) (clustering using a k-means clustering algorithm) and (d) (binary masking clusters). Steps (c)-(i) for each of representative claims 1 and 21 in the instant application, follow/warrant a similar Prong One analysis/finding accordingly. Dependent claims are similarly analyzed at least at Prong One since they inherit this/these same limitations identified for the case of independent claim(s) 1/21. ( Step 2A, Prong One: Yes). Step 2A, Prong Two: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception, distinct from the exception itself. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any ‘additional elements’ recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those ‘additional elements’ individually and in combination (weighed against the exception) to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d). Examiner notes for consideration at Prong Two of 2A that MPEP 2106.05(a), (b), (c), and (e) generally concern elements that may be indicative of integration, whereas 2106.05(f), (g), and (h) generally concern elements that are not likely indicative of integration. As an additional note, ‘additional elements’ are generally limitations excluded from interpretation under the Abstract Idea groupings, and may comprise portions of limitations otherwise identified as falling under those enumerated Abstract Idea groupings of the January 07, 2019 Guidance. Claims 1/21 feature ‘additional elements’ that are the acquisition steps of (a)-(b), common to cryo-EM as evidenced by references of record, and failing to serve for integration at Prong Two of 2A in view of MPEP 2106.05(g) as it relates to pre-solution/ necessary data collection, and/or 2106.05(h) as ‘generally linking’ the recited exception to a field of use. Examiner also pre-emptively notes with respect to 2106.05(a), that ‘functioning of a computer’ (see fact pattern of Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1336, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1689 (Fed. Cir. 2016)) does not constitute operations that a general purpose computer may be programmed/configured to perform, since functioning of a computer instead concerns functions integral to the way computers operate (e.g. memory read-write for Enfish and virus scanning for Finjan). Regarding the claim(s) ‘as a whole’, the requirement for considering the claim as a whole stems from the fact that the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement, and any ‘additional elements’ are not evaluated in a vacuum separate from the weight of those directed to the exception (in further view of the Alice/Mayo’s roots in pre-emption). Consideration must be given to the degree/extent to which the apparent/ disclosed improvement, as it is realized in recited claim language, is to the exception itself or otherwise distinct from it and captured by those limitations clearly serving as ‘additional elements’ after analysis at Prong One, in addition to how the ‘additional elements’ weigh in comparison to those limitations directed to the exception. Stated differently, a novel series of calculations, or an improvement to a calculation otherwise routinely/commonly performed (e.g. CTF as commonly applied to obtained cryo-EM micrographs), likely constitutes an improvement to the exception itself and is ineligible subject matter accordingly. In view of the manner in which the recited mathematical operations appear integral to Applicant’s claimed invention, for any argument of integration pointing to 2106.05(a), Examiner requests Applicant’s assistance in explicitly identifying which specifically recited limitations realize Applicant’s improvement and how those limitations are precluded from being drawn to, and outweigh, any/those drawn under the exception. Applicant may also consider the 08/04/2025 memo affirming analysis set forth in the 2024 PEG (https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/memo-101-20250804.pdf) and consistent with guidance to date. The most recent SME Memo(s) are available at: https://www.uspto.gov/patents/laws/examination-policy/subject-matter-eligibility and more specifically: https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/memo-desjardins.pdf For the case of Desjardins, the claim(s) explicitly recited a limitation not drawn under/subsumed by the identified exception at Prong One, and realizing an improvement to the technical field of machine learning (serving for integration accordingly in view of 2106.05(a) – reciting an improvement to the way machine learning models are trained). The ARP’s decision in Desjardins did not disturb the Board’s Prong One finding, and Desjardins is analogous at least in that the mathematical concepts Abstract Idea grouping implicated. For the instant claims, no additional elements outside of limitations directed to the exception itself, appear to explicitly/ specifically capture/recite any disclosed improvement in any technology and/or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)). With reference to MPEP 2106.05(a): It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements. See the discussion of Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 187 and 191-92, 209 USPQ 1, 10 (1981)) Even when viewed in combination, the ‘additional elements’ present do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: No; Revised Step 2A: Yes [Wingdings font/0xE0] Step 2B) . Step 2B: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole amounts to ‘significantly more’ than the recited exception, i.e., whether any ‘additional element’, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. The considerations of Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B overlap, but differ in that 2B also requires considering whether the claims feature any “specific limitation(s) other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field” (WURC) (MPEP 2106.05(d)). Such a limitation if specifically recited however, must still be excluded from interpretation under any of the Abstract Idea groupings. Step 2B further requires a re-evaluation of any additional elements drawn to extra-solution activity in Step 2A (e.g. gathering tomographic data) – however no limitations appear directed to any novel collection per se. Applicant may consider the Federal Circuit’s findings with respect to the ‘optimization claims’ in Constellation Designs LLC, v. LG Electronics, Appeal No. 2024-1822, (Fed. Cir. April 28, 2026) (precedential) at page 17 with reference to O’Reilly v. Morse (1853), https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/24-1822.OPINION.4-28-2026_2683894.pdf While it is the MPEP that governs examination/eligibility analysis and not necessarily case law (2019 marking a shift away from analysis attempting to identify analogous case law from a large and growing body of possibly pertinent case law examples), this and others e.g. Longitude Licensing Ltd. v. Google LLC, No. 24-1202, (Fed. Cir. April 30, 2025) (available at https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/24-1202.OPINION.4-30-2025_2506816.pdf) serve to illustrate the manner in which claims that generically recite an effect of the judicial exception or claim every mode of accomplishing that effect without reciting how any purported inventive concept/ improvement is actually achieved (via additional elements not subsumed within the exception), are not likely to be determined eligible/enforceable (consistent with MPEP 2106.05(f) sub-section (3)). Reference may also be made to the 2024 PEG describing that an improvement/ inventive concept (for ‘significantly more’ determination(s)) cannot be to the judicial exception itself. (Step 2B: No) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. 07-34-01 Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 10 recites the Markush/closed group including atomicity and unit cell dimensions of “the support”. Claim 10 depends directly on claim 1, and while it may be argued that the internal reference grid established in (a) requires/inherently includes “a support” (i.e. if such a support is an inherent feature of all internal reference grids in the context of cryo-EM, much like every circle has a circumference, where establishing basis for a circle inherently establishes basis for said circle’s circumference), this is a feature that is technically established in the language of claim 4, which is not an intervening claim given the dependency of claim 10, and accordingly there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the support” (both instances) in the claim. Claims with no Prior Art based Rejection(s) Claims 1-31 comprise combinations of limitations that do not appear fairly disclosed, or taught/suggested by any obvious combination of references of record. References of record instead suggest the obvious nature of utilizing Fourier Transform broadly in association with determining/estimating a Contrast Transfer Function (CTF) as is typically required prior to and for particle selection/extraction (and ultimately reconstruction) in a cryo-EM context. References of record additionally serve to disclose use of a calibration check grid in cryo-EM (and characteristics thereof), and e.g. acquisition steps (a)-(b), even if failing to serve in any reasonable combination teaching/suggesting (c)-(i) for each of claim(s) 1/21. These findings are consistent with that for parent Application 17/633,133 in view of the Ex Parte Quayle Action mailed 04/08/2024. Accordingly, Claims 1-31 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, 35 U.S.C. 112(b) where applied, and Double Patenting rejections (see above re. Terminal Disclaimer), set forth in this Office action. Additional References 07-96 Prior art made of record and not relied upon that is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Additionally cited references (see attached PTO-892) otherwise not relied upon above have been made of record in view of the manner in which they evidence the general state of the art. Inquiry Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IAN L LEMIEUX whose telephone number is (571)270-5796. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:00 - 6:00 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, Chan Park can be reached on 571-272-7409. 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. /IAN L LEMIEUX/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2669 Application/Control Number: 18/784,134 Page 2 Art Unit: 2669 Application/Control Number: 18/784,134 Page 3 Art Unit: 2669 Application/Control Number: 18/784,134 Page 4 Art Unit: 2669 Application/Control Number: 18/784,134 Page 5 Art Unit: 2669 Application/Control Number: 18/784,134 Page 6 Art Unit: 2669 Application/Control Number: 18/784,134 Page 7 Art Unit: 2669 Application/Control Number: 18/784,134 Page 8 Art Unit: 2669 Application/Control Number: 18/784,134 Page 9 Art Unit: 2669 Application/Control Number: 18/784,134 Page 10 Art Unit: 2669 Application/Control Number: 18/784,134 Page 11 Art Unit: 2669 Application/Control Number: 18/784,134 Page 12 Art Unit: 2669 Application/Control Number: 18/784,134 Page 13 Art Unit: 2669 Application/Control Number: 18/784,134 Page 14 Art Unit: 2669 Application/Control Number: 18/784,134 Page 15 Art Unit: 2669 Application/Control Number: 18/784,134 Page 16 Art Unit: 2669 Application/Control Number: 18/784,134 Page 17 Art Unit: 2669 Application/Control Number: 18/784,134 Page 18 Art Unit: 2669
Prosecution Insights