CTNF 18/787,491 CTNF 89058 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. Drawings 06-22 AIA The drawings are objected to because the unlabeled rectangular boxes shown in Figs. 2-5 should be provided with descriptive text labels [e.g., see: MPEP 608.02(b)] . Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Specification 06-31 AIA The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-01 AIA The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. 07-31-01 Claims 12-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 12 recites “ the controller is further programmed to: determine the steering wheel angle of the vehicle using the one or more vehicle sensors; determine a longitudinal component of a velocity of the vehicle using the one or more vehicle sensors ”; however, in a case where “one or more vehicle sensors” is directed to a single vehicle sensor in the alternative to a plurality of vehicle sensors, it is unclear exactly where and exactly how Applicant’s originally-filed specification sufficiently discloses determining both of “a steering wheel angle of the vehicle” and “a longitudinal component of a velocity of the vehicle” using a single vehicle sensor. For example, ¶ 0045 discloses a steering wheel angle sensor 26 that is used to measure a position (i.e., an angle) of a steering wheel of the vehicle 12; however, there is no disclosure of the steering wheel angle sensor 26 being used to determine “a longitudinal component of a velocity of the vehicle,” and it is unclear how a steering wheel angle sensor 26 could possibly be used to determine “a longitudinal component of a velocity of the vehicle.” Also, for example, ¶ 0056 discloses a motor speed sensor (or a wheel speed sensor) to determine a longitudinal component of a velocity of the vehicle 12; however, there is no disclosure of the motor speed sensor (or the wheel speed sensor) being used to determine “a steering wheel angle of the vehicle,” and it is unclear how a motor speed sensor (or a wheel speed sensor) could possibly be used to determine “a steering wheel angle of the vehicle.” Therefore, claim 12 contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention, such that claim 12 fails to comply with the written description requirement. Claims 13-17 depend from claim 12, such that claims 13-17 also include the unsupported subject matter of claim 12 and are rejected for at least the same reasons that claim 12 is rejected. Claim 13 recites “ the controller is further programmed to: determine a front downforce and a rear downforce of the vehicle using the one or more vehicle sensors ”; however, claim 13 is dependent from claim 11 via claim 12, and in a case where “one or more vehicle sensors” is directed to a single vehicle sensor in the alternative to a plurality of vehicle sensors, it is unclear exactly where and exactly how Applicant’s originally-filed specification sufficiently discloses determining all of “a steering wheel angle of the vehicle,” “a longitudinal component of a velocity of the vehicle,” and “a front downforce and a rear downforce of the vehicle” using a single vehicle sensor. Therefore, claim 13 contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention, such that claim 13 fails to comply with the written description requirement. Claims 14-17 depend from claim 132, such that claims 14-17 also include the unsupported subject matter of claim 13 and are rejected for at least the same reasons that claim 13 is rejected. Claim 18 recites “ determining a steering wheel angle of the vehicle using the one or more vehicle sensors; determining a longitudinal component of a velocity of the vehicle using the one or more vehicle sensors ”; however, in a case where “one or more vehicle sensors” is directed to a single vehicle sensor in the alternative to a plurality of vehicle sensors, it is unclear exactly where and exactly how Applicant’s originally-filed specification sufficiently discloses determining both of “a steering wheel angle of the vehicle” and “a longitudinal component of a velocity of the vehicle” using a single vehicle sensor. Therefore, claim 18 contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention, such that claim 18 fails to comply with the written description requirement. Claims 19 and 20 depend from claim 18, such that claims 19 and 20 also include the unsupported subject matter of claim 18 and are rejected for at least the same reasons that claim 18 is rejected. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – 07-08-aia AIA (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1-3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0105572 to Asadi et al. (hereinafter: “Asadi”) . With respect to claim 1 , Asadi teaches a method for determining a desired lateral acceleration for a vehicle (102) , the method comprising: determining a first raw lateral acceleration request based at least in part on a steering wheel angle of the vehicle [for example, as depicted by at least Fig. 1 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0011, 0023, 0035, 0051-0052, 0062-0063, 0072, 0074 & 0100, an ideal lateral acceleration (e.g., “first raw lateral acceleration request”) is calculated based on a road wheel angle of front wheels (e.g., “steering wheel angle”) of the vehicle 102 corresponding to a driver steering input of the vehicle 102, the driver steering input including a steering wheel angle (SWA) via a driver input device 116 including a steering wheel 118] ; determining a maximum allowed lateral acceleration based at least in part on a tire slip model [for example, as depicted by at least Fig. 1 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0011, 0023, 0035, 0049-0050, 0052, 0064-0071 & 0100, a maximum lateral acceleration (e.g., “maximum allowed lateral acceleration”) is calculated based on a tire model (e.g., “tire slip model”)] ; determining the desired lateral acceleration based at least in part on the first raw lateral acceleration request and the maximum allowed lateral acceleration [for example, in a first interpretation, as depicted by at least Figs. 1 & 2 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0011-0012, 0023-0024, 0035-0036, 0050, 0053-0055, 0076-0079, 0088, 0096 &0100-0101, a desired lateral acceleration is determined based on the ideal lateral acceleration and the maximum lateral acceleration; alternatively, for example, in a second interpretation, as depicted by at least Figs. 1 & 2 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0004, 0011-0012, 0016, 0023-0024, 0028, 0035-0036, 0050, 0053-0055, 0076-0079, 0088, 0096, 0100-0101 & 0103, an adjusted desired lateral acceleration (e.g., “desired lateral acceleration”) is determined based on the ideal lateral acceleration and the maximum lateral acceleration] ; and adjusting an operation of the vehicle based at least in part on the desired lateral acceleration [for example, in the first interpretation, as depicted by at least Figs. 1 & 2 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0004, 0016, 0028, 0050, 0052, 0055, 0057, 0061 & 0103, a control action (e.g., “operation”) of an actuator of the vehicle 102 is adjusted during vehicle operations based on the desired lateral acceleration; alternatively, for example, in the second interpretation, as depicted by at least Figs. 1 & 2 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0004, 0016, 0028, 0050, 0052, 0055, 0057, 0061 & 0103, a control action (e.g., “operation”) of an actuator of the vehicle 102 is adjusted during vehicle operations based on the adjusted desired lateral acceleration] . With respect to claim 2 , Asadi teaches the method of claim 1, wherein determining the first raw lateral acceleration request further comprises: determining the steering wheel angle of the vehicle (as depicted by at least Fig. 1 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0051-0052 & 0063) ; determining a longitudinal component of a velocity of the vehicle (as depicted by at least Fig. 1 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0063 & 0074) ; determining a wheelbase of the vehicle (as depicted by at least Fig. 1 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0062-0063) ; and determining the first raw lateral acceleration request based at least in part on the steering wheel angle, the longitudinal component of the velocity, and the wheelbase (as depicted by at least Fig. 1 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0011, 0023, 0035, 0051-0052, 0062-0063, 0072, 0074 & 0100) . With respect to claim 3 , Asadi teaches the method of claim 2, wherein determining the first raw lateral acceleration request further comprises: determining an understeer coefficient of the vehicle based at least in part on the longitudinal component of the velocity (as discussed by at least ¶ 0063, 0072 & 0074) ; and determining the first raw lateral acceleration request based at least in part on the steering wheel angle, the longitudinal component of the velocity, the wheelbase, and the understeer coefficient (as depicted by at least Fig. 1 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0011, 0023, 0035, 0051-0052, 0062-0063, 0072, 0074 & 0100) . With respect to claim 6 , Asadi teaches the method of claim 1, wherein determining the desired lateral acceleration based at least in part on the first raw lateral acceleration request and the maximum allowed lateral acceleration further comprises: determining a second raw lateral acceleration request based at least in part on the first raw lateral acceleration request and the maximum allowed lateral acceleration [for example, as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 1 with respect to the second interpretation, the desired lateral acceleration (e.g., “second raw lateral acceleration request”) is calculated based on the ideal lateral acceleration and the maximum lateral acceleration] ; and determining the desired lateral acceleration based at least in part on the second raw lateral acceleration request (as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 1 with respect to the second interpretation) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. 07-23-aia AIA The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. 07-20-02-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 4, 5, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asadi in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0161874 to Nahidi et al. (hereinafter: “Nahidi”) . With respect to claim 4 , Asadi teaches the method of claim 1, wherein determining the maximum allowed lateral acceleration further comprises: determining a downforce of the vehicle (as discussed by at least 0068) ; determining a maximum allowed lateral force based at least in part on the downforce using the tire slip model (as discussed by at least 0064-0070) ; and determining the maximum allowed lateral acceleration based at least in part on the maximum allowed lateral force (as discussed by at least 0071) ; however, Asadi appears to lack a clear teaching as to whether determining the maximum allowed lateral acceleration further comprises: determining a front downforce and a rear downforce of the vehicle; and determining the maximum allowed lateral force based at least in part on the front downforce and the rear downforce using the tire slip model. Nahidi teaches adjusting a front downforce of a vehicle via controlling an actuator coupled with an aerodynamic deflector of the vehicle, adjusting a rear downforce of the vehicle via controlling the actuator, and determining a downforce of the vehicle by determining the front downforce and the rear downforce of the vehicle, where an optimum allocation of front downforce and the rear downforce maximizes a lateral grip of the vehicle (as discussed by at least ¶ 0001-0007, 0037-0038 & 0066-0081) . It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the method of Asadi with the teachings of Nahidi, if even necessary, to further include determining a front downforce and a rear downforce of the vehicle as the downforce of the vehicle because Nahidi demonstrates that such determinations, together with adjusting control of an actuator coupled with an aerodynamic deflector of the vehicle, beneficially enables an optimum allocation of front downforce and the rear downforce to be provided for the vehicle to thereby maximize a lateral grip of the vehicle. Also, in such a modification, if even necessary, the maximum allowed lateral force would be determined based at least in part on the front downforce and the rear downforce using the tire slip mode by virtue of the maximum allowed lateral force being determined based at least in part on the downforce (which is based on the front downforce and the rear downforce) using the tire slip mode. With respect to claim 5 , Asadi teaches the method of claim 4, wherein determining the front downforce and the rear downforce further comprises: determining a baseline front downforce and a baseline rear downforce based at least in part on a weight of the vehicle (as discussed by at least ¶ 0066-0081 of Nahidi) ; determining an aerodynamic front downforce and an aerodynamic rear downforce provided by an active downforce component of the vehicle (as discussed by at least ¶ 0066-0081 of Nahidi) ; and determining the front downforce based at least in part on the baseline front downforce and the aerodynamic front downforce (as discussed by at least ¶ 0066-0081 of Nahidi) ; and determining the rear downforce based at least in part on the baseline rear downforce and the aerodynamic rear downforce (as discussed by at least ¶ 0066-0081 of Nahidi) . With respect to claim 11 , Asadi teaches a system (apparent from at least Figs. 1 & 2) for determining a desired lateral acceleration for a vehicle (102) , the system comprising: one or more vehicle sensors (e.g., 28, or 40a-40n) (apparent from at least Figs. 1 & 2 in view of at least ¶ 0056-0057 & 0059) ; one or more actuators (e.g., 30, or 42a-42n) (apparent from at least Figs. 1 & 2 in view of at least ¶ 0055-0057 & 0061) ; and a controller (e.g., 34) in electrical communication with the one or more vehicle sensors and the one or more aerodynamic actuators (as depicted by at least Figs. 1 & 2 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0055-0061) , wherein the controller is programmed to: determine a first raw lateral acceleration request based at least in part on a steering wheel angle of the vehicle determined using the one or more vehicle sensors; determine a maximum allowed lateral acceleration based at least in part on a tire slip model; determine the desired lateral acceleration based at least in part on the first raw lateral acceleration request and the maximum allowed lateral acceleration; and adjust an operation of the one or more aerodynamic actuators based at least in part on the desired lateral acceleration (as discussed in detail above with respect to at least claim 1, and as depicted by at least Figs. 1 & 2 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0055-0061) . Asadi appears to lack a clear teaching as to whether the system further includes one or more aerodynamic actuators , or whether the one or more actuators of the system includes one or more aerodynamic actuators , such that Asadi further appears to lack a clear teaching as to whether the controller is programmed to adjust an operation of the one or more aerodynamic actuators based at least in part on the desired lateral acceleration, such as when the controller adjusts the operation of the one or more actuators based at least in part on the desired lateral acceleration. Nahidi teaches the analogous system including the aerodynamic actuator (as discussed in detail above with respect to claims 4 and 5) , and adjusting an operation of the aerodynamic actuator based at least in part on a desired lateral acceleration (as discussed in detail above with respect to claims 4 and 5, and as discussed by at least ¶ 0006-0007) . It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the system of Asadi with the teachings of Nahidi such that the one or more actuators further include one or more aerodynamic actuators , and such that the controller is further programmed to adjust an operation of the one or more aerodynamic actuators based at least in part on the desired lateral acceleration at least at times when the controller adjusts the operation of the one or more actuators based at least in part on the desired lateral acceleration, because Nahidi demonstrates that such determinations, together with adjusting control of an actuator coupled with an aerodynamic deflector of the vehicle, beneficially enables an optimum allocation of front downforce and the rear downforce to be provided for the vehicle to thereby maximize a lateral grip of the vehicle and to thereby achieve the desired lateral acceleration of the vehicle . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asadi in view of Nahidi, and in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0222731 to Ghoneim (hereinafter: “Ghoneim”) . With respect to claim 12 , Asadi modified supra teaches the system of claim 11, wherein to determine the first raw lateral acceleration request, the controller is further programmed to: determine the steering wheel angle of the vehicle; determine a longitudinal component of a velocity of the vehicle; determine a wheelbase of the vehicle; determine an understeer coefficient of the vehicle based at least in part on the longitudinal component of the velocity; and determine the first raw lateral acceleration request based at least in part on the steering wheel angle, the longitudinal component of the velocity, the wheelbase, and the understeer coefficient using a formula: PNG media_image1.png 202 492 media_image1.png Greyscale (as discussed in detail above with respect to at least claims 1-3 and 11, and as discussed by at least ¶ 0072 & 0074 of Asadi) ; however, Asadi appears to lack a clear teaching as to whether the controller is further programmed to each of: determine the steering wheel angle of the vehicle using the one or more vehicle sensors ; determine the longitudinal component of the velocity of the vehicle using the one or more vehicle sensors . Ghoneim teaches an analogous controller programmed to each of: determine a steering wheel angle of a vehicle using one or more vehicle sensors ; determine a longitudinal component of a velocity of the vehicle using the one or more vehicle sensors (apparent from at least Fig. 3 in view of at least ¶ 0024) . It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the system of Asadi with the teachings of Ghoneim, if even necessary, such that the controller is further programmed to each of: determine the steering wheel angle of the vehicle using the one or more vehicle sensors , and determine a longitudinal component of a velocity of the vehicle using the one or more vehicle sensors , to provide a more particular technique for actually determining each of the steering wheel angle of the vehicle and the longitudinal component of the velocity of the vehicle when determining the first raw lateral acceleration request, via the controller, based on each of the steering wheel angle of the vehicle and the longitudinal component of the velocity of the vehicle, and nothing about using the one or more vehicle sensors to determine either of the steering wheel angle of the vehicle and the longitudinal component of the velocity of the vehicle would be reasonably expected by one having ordinary skill in the art to destroy functionality of the controller of Asadi, including when determining the first raw lateral acceleration request, via the controller, based on each of the steering wheel angle of the vehicle and the longitudinal component of the velocity of the vehicle. Therefore, such modifications, if even necessary, would amount to nothing more than simple combinations of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (e.g., see: MPEP 2143_I_A). With respect to claim 13 , Asadi modified supra teaches the system of claim 12, wherein to determine the maximum allowed lateral acceleration, the controller is further programmed to: determine a front downforce and a rear downforce of the vehicle using the one or more vehicle sensors; determine a maximum allowed lateral force based at least in part on the front downforce and the rear downforce using the tire slip model; and determine the maximum allowed lateral acceleration based at least in part on the maximum allowed lateral force (as discussed in detail above with respect to at least claims 4 and 12) . Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim s 7-10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claim 18 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) set forth in this Office action. Claims 14-17, 19, and 20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for indication of allowable subject matter: claim 7, which depends from independent claim 1 via claim 6 includes “ determining a desired lateral acceleration change state based at least in part on the second raw lateral acceleration request and one or more historical second raw lateral acceleration requests; and determining the desired lateral acceleration based at least in part on the second raw lateral acceleration request, the occupant effort index, and the desired lateral acceleration change state ,” which is neither taught, nor rendered obvious, by the prior art of record (including Asadi, Nahidi, and Ghoneim, as discussed in detail above), alone or in combination, together with the remaining limitations of the claim. Claims 8-10 depend from claim 7; claim 14, which depends from claim 11 via claims 12 and 13, at least substantially equivalently includes the subject matter of claim 7 together with the subject matter of claim 13 (which at least substantially equivalently includes the subject matter of claims 1 and 6, as well as includes the subject matter of claims 11-13 by virtue of dependence therefrom); claims 15-17 depend from claim 14; independent claim 18 at least substantially equivalently includes the subject matter of claims 1-3, 6, 7 , and 11 together with the subject matter of claim 13; and claims 19 and 20 depend from claim 18. Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and is provided on the attached PTO-892 Notice of References Cited form . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN ZALESKAS whose telephone number is (571)272-5958. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM - 4:00 PM. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Logan Kraft can be reached at 571-270-5065. 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. /JOHN M ZALESKAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747 Application/Control Number: 18/787,491 Page 2 Art Unit: 3747 Application/Control Number: 18/787,491 Page 3 Art Unit: 3747 Application/Control Number: 18/787,491 Page 4 Art Unit: 3747 Application/Control Number: 18/787,491 Page 5 Art Unit: 3747 Application/Control Number: 18/787,491 Page 7 Art Unit: 3747 Application/Control Number: 18/787,491 Page 8 Art Unit: 3747 Application/Control Number: 18/787,491 Page 9 Art Unit: 3747 Application/Control Number: 18/787,491 Page 10 Art Unit: 3747 Application/Control Number: 18/787,491 Page 12 Art Unit: 3747 Application/Control Number: 18/787,491 Page 13 Art Unit: 3747 Application/Control Number: 18/787,491 Page 14 Art Unit: 3747 Application/Control Number: 18/787,491 Page 16 Art Unit: 3747 Application/Control Number: 18/787,491 Page 17 Art Unit: 3747
Prosecution Insights