CTNF 18/808,965 CTNF 91564 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. 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 1-10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 9342502. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because simply omitting an element such as storing the correlation “without values for the required second slot values of the second action” would be within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art. It is well settled that the omission of an element, e.g. “values for the required second slot”, and its function is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same function as before. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (CCPA 1963). Also note Ex parte Rainu, 168 USPQ 375 (Bd. App. 1969). Omission of a reference element or step whose function is not needed would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Application No. 18808965 U.S. Patent No. 12067984 1. A system comprising: one or more processors; and memory configured to store instructions that, when executed by one or more of the processors, cause one or more of the processors to: receive a spoken utterance at an automated assistant interface of an automated assistant application of a computing device; process the spoken utterance to determine that the spoken utterance includes a trigger, a first command phrase, a second command phrase, and a request to associate the trigger with the first command phrase and the second command phrase; in response to determining that the spoken utterance include the request to associate the first command phrase and the second command phrase: process the first command phrase to determine a first action that corresponds to the first command phrase and to determine whether the first command phrase specifies one or more required first values for one or more required first slots of the first action; and process the second command phrase to determine a second action that corresponds to the second command phrase and to determine whether the second command phrase specifies one or more required second values for one or more required second slots of the second action; determine whether the spoken utterance includes specified values for the one or more required first slots and the one or more required second slots; in response to determining that the first command phrase specifies the one or more required first values for the one or more required first slots of the first action and that the second command phrase specifies the one or more required second values for the one or more required second slots of the second action: generate a storage entry that provides a correlation of the trigger to the first action and the one or more required first values, and to the second action and the one or more required second values; and in response to determining that the second command phrase fails to specify the one or more required second values for the one or more required second slots of the second action: generate a storage entry that provides a correlation of the trigger to the first action and the one or more required first values , and to the second action without values for the required second slot values of the second action. 13. A system, comprising: one or more processors; and memory configured to store instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform steps that include: receiving a single spoken utterance at an automated assistant interface of an automated assistant application of a computing device; processing the single spoken utterance to determine that the single spoken utterance explicitly includes a shortcut command phrase (trigger), a first command phrase, a second command phrase, and a request to associate the shortcut command phrase with the first command phrase and the second command phrase; in response to determining that the single spoken utterance includes the request to associate the first command phrase and the second command phrase: processing the first command phrase to determine a first action that corresponds to the first command phrase and to determine whether the first command phrase specifies one or more required first values for one or more required first slots of the first action; processing the second command phrase to determine a second action that corresponds to the second command phrase and to determine whether the second command phrase specifies one or more required second values for one or more required second slots of the second action; determining whether the single spoken utterance includes specified values for the one or more required first slots and the one or more required second slots; in response to determining that the first command phrase specifies the one or more required first values for the one or more required first slots of the first action and that the second command phrase specifies the one or more required second values for the one or more required second slots of the second action: generating a storage entry that provides a correlation of the shortcut command phrase to the first action and the one or more required first values, and to the second action and the one or more required second values; and in response to determining that the second command phrase fails to specify the one or more required second values for the one or more required second slots of the second action: causing a prompt to be provided, from the automated assistant application, that requests specifying of slot values for the one or more required second slots of the second action; receiving, in response to the prompt being provided from the automated assistant application, user input that identifies slot values for the required second slots of the second action; and generating a storage entry that provides a correlation of the shortcut command phrase to the first action and the one or more required first values, and to the second action and the slot values identified in the user input, responsive to receiving the user input that identifies the slot values. 2. The system of claim 1, wherein one or more of the processors are further to: subsequent to generating the storage entry: detect, at the computing device, an occurrence of the trigger; in response to detecting the occurrence of the trigger, and based on the trigger being stored in association with the first action and the second action: cause a prompt to be provided, from the automated assistant application, that requests specifying of slot values for the one or more required second slots of the second action; and receive, in response to the prompt being provided from the automated assistant application, user input that identifies slot values for the required second slots of the second action; cause the first action to be performed, by the automated assistant application, with the required first slot values; and cause the second action to be performed, by the automated assistant, with the slot values identified in the user input. 18. The system of claim 13, wherein the steps further include: subsequent to generating the storage entry: receiving, at the assistant interface or an additional assistant interface, input that corresponds to the shortcut command phrase; in response to receiving the input that corresponds to the command phrase, and based on the command phrase being stored in association with the first action and the second action: causing the first action to be performed, by the automated assistant application, with the required first slot values; and causing the second action to be performed, by the automated assistant, with the required second slot values. 3. The system of claim 1, wherein one of the first action and/or the second action includes invoking a third party agent application, that is hosted at a separate computing device, through transmission of an invocation request to the third party agent application. 11. The method of claim 9, wherein one of the first action and/or the second action includes invoking a third party agent application, that is hosted at a separate computing device, through transmission of an invocation request to the third party agent application. 5. The system of claim 1, wherein in determining that the spoken utterance includes the first command phrase and the second command phrase, one or more of the processors are to compare the spoken utterance to command phrase entries accessible to the automated assistant application to determine whether a portion of the spoken utterance is identified in the command phrase entries. 12. The method of claim 9, wherein identifying the first command phrase and the second command phrase includes comparing the single spoken utterance to command phrase entries accessible to the automated assistant application to determine whether a portion of the single spoken utterance is identified in the command phrase entries. 8. The system of claim 1, wherein the first command phrase causes a state of an Internet of Things IOT device to be altered based on one or more of the required first slot values, wherein the IOT device is in addition to the computing device. 16. The system of claim 13, wherein the first command phrase causes a state of an Internet of Things (IOT) device to be altered based on one or more of the required first slot values, wherein the IOT device is in addition to the computing device. 9. The system of claim 1, wherein the IOT device is a smart lightbulb, and wherein performing the first action causes a state of the smart lightbulb to be altered. 17. The system of claim 13, wherein the IOT device is a smart lightbulb, and wherein performing the first action causes a state of the smart lightbulb to be altered. 10. The system of claim 1, wherein one of the required first slot values is a particular time of a plurality of candidate times that can be specified for the first action. 19. The system of claim 13, wherein one of the required first slot values is a particular time of a plurality of candidate times that can be specified for the first action. 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 9 and 18 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. 07-34-05 AIA Claim 9 recites the limitation " the IOT device " in line 1 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. 07-34-05 AIA Claim 18 recites the limitation " the IOT device " in line 1 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. 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 1-20 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. The Supreme Court has long held that “[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable.” Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014) (quoting Assoc. for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 133 S. Ct. 2107, 2116 (2013) (internal quotation marks omitted)). The “abstract ideas” category embodies the longstanding rule that an idea, by itself, is not patentable. Alice Corp., 134S. Ct. at 2355 (quoting Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972). In Alice, the Supreme Court sets forth an analytical “framework for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas [or mental processes ] from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts.” Id. at 2355 (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1296–97 (2012)). The first step in the analysis is to “determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one of those patent-ineligible concepts.” Id. If the claims are directed to a patent-ineligible concept, the second step in the analysis is to consider the elements of the claims “individually and ‘as an ordered combination’” to determine whether there are additional elements that “‘transform the nature of the claim’ into a patent-eligible application.” Id. (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1298, 1297). In other words, the second step is to “search for an ‘inventive concept’—i.e., an element or combination of elements that is ‘sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the [ineligible concept] itself’”. Id. (brackets in original) (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294). The prohibition against patenting an abstract idea “‘cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological environment’ or adding ‘insignificant post-solution activity.’” Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 610–11 (2010) (citation omitted). Step 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category. See MPEP 2106.03. Independent Claim 1 recites the system of receiving user spoken utterance comprising a first and second command phrases and associating a trigger, first and second actions and related slot values. A system or apparatus is a statutory category of invention. Independent Claim 11 recites the system of receiving user spoken utterance comprising a first and second command phrases and associating a trigger, first and second actions and related slot values. A system or apparatus is a statutory category of invention. A system or apparatus is a Statutory category of invention. Dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20 are dependent on claims 1 and 11, respectively, and therefore recite their respective statutory classes. 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. In applying the framework set out in Alice, examiner found Applicant’s claims 1 and 11 are directed to a patent-ineligible abstract concept of associating voice triggers with command phrases input by the user to respective actions and associated slot values. The steps of Applicant’s claims 1-20 are an abstract concept that would fall under the judicial exception of mental processes. Specifically, the claim 1 recites the step of “receive a spoken utterance at an automated assistant interface of an automated assistant application...”. The broadest reasonable interpretation of receiving a spoken utterance may simply involve a human speaking to another human. Although the claims recite receiving the spoken utterance “at an automated assistant interface of an automated assistance application” the language simply relates to a generic environment that may be characterized by a human with pen and paper. Therefore, this step is directed to a mental process. Furthermore, the step of “process the spoken utterance to determine that the spoken utterance includes a trigger, a first command phrase, a second command phrase, and a request to associate the trigger with the first command phrase and the second command phrase” recites steps that are directed to mental processes. The recited language fails to limit how the spoken utterance is processed, thus, the processing may represent a human understanding another human’s spoken utterance to determine the recited elements included in the spoken utterance. Therefore, the above steps are also directed to mental processes. Further, the claim recites “in response to determining that the spoken utterance include the request to associate the first command phrase and the second command phrase: process the first command phrase to determine a first action that corresponds to the first command phrase and to determine whether the first command phrase specifies one or more required first values for one or more required first slots of the first action; and process the second command phrase to determine a second action that corresponds to the second command phrase and to determine whether the second command phrase specifies one or more required second values for one or more required second slots of the second action.” The recited elements fail to place any limits on how the command phrases are processed such that the elements simply describe a process that can be performed by a human, by further analyzing the spoken utterance in the mind. Therefore the above steps are directed to a mental process. Further, the claim recites “determine whether the spoken utterance includes specified values for the one or more required first slots and the one or more required second slots”. Similarly, the recited element represents a step that can be performed in the human mind by further analyzing and identifying the above recited elements contained in the spoken utterance. Furthermore, the claim recites “in response to determining that the first command phrase specifies the one or more required first values for the one or more required first slots of the first action and that the second command phrase specifies the one or more required second values for the one or more required second slots of the second action: generate a storage entry that provides a correlation of the trigger to the first action and the one or more required first values, and to the second action and the one or more required second values.” The recited language does not place any limits on how the storage entry is generated such that the recited element may be characterized, for example, by a human creating a table with pen and paper that correlates the recited elements by writing them down in their own respective column, so that the correlated elements are written side-by-side in the same column. The above example is non-exhaustive and other methods may be used by a human with pen and paper, such as those widely known methods to create databases. Finally, the step of “and in response to determining that the second command phrase fails to specify the one or more required second values for the one or more required second slots of the second action: generate a storage entry that provides a correlation of the trigger to the first action and the one or more required first values, and to the second action without values for the required second slot values of the second action” falls under the mental processes grouping because, similar to the previous limitation, the recited language recites a method that can be performed by a human with pen and paper using any known method of creating databases with correlated data. The claims recite limitations that taken in combination, recite at least a series of mental processes. Furthermore, independent claim 11 recites the step of “receive a spoken utterance at an automated assistant interface of an automated assistant application of a computing device.” Similar to claim 1, the steps recites a mental process of receiving/listening to spoken information. Further, the step of “process the spoken utterance to determine that the spoken utterance includes a trigger, a first command phrase, a second command phrase, and a request to associate the trigger with the first command phrase and the second command phrase,” which is similar to claim 1 and thus is analyzed similarly as a mental process. Further, the claim recites the steps of “determine that the first command phrase corresponds to a first action; determine that the second command phrase corresponds to a second action; determine that the spoken utterance fails to specify any value for a first slot, of the second action, that is used in performing the second action and fail to specify any value for a second slot, of the second action, that is used in performing the second action.” The recited elements fail to place any limits on how the command phrases are processed such that the elements simply describe a process that can be performed by a human, by further analyzing the spoken utterance in the mind. Therefore the above steps are directed to a mental process. Further, the steps of “in response to determining that the spoken utterance: (i) includes the request to associate the trigger with the first command phrase and the second command phrase, and (ii) fails to specify any value for the first slot of the second action and fail to specify any value of the second slot of the second action: cause a prompt to be provided, from the automated assistant application, that requests specifying of the first slot and the second slot of the second action” are directed to a mental process because, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the language includes simply the further analyzing and identifying of information that can be performed by a human, where the prompt may simply be characterized by a human operator requesting further information that is identified to be missing from the spoken utterance. Further, the step of “receive, in response to the prompt being provided from the automated assistant application, a user input that identifies a first slot value for the first slot of the second action, but request future inquiring for the second slot of the second action” simply involves receiving information in the form of a response to the prompt, and thus is also a mental process. Further, the step of “generate a storage entry that provides a correlation of the trigger to the first action and to the second action, wherein the correlation to the second action includes a correlation to the first slot value, for the first slot of the second action, responsive to receiving the user input that identifies the first slot value”, also recites a mental process because, similar to claim 1, the generating a storage entry may simply be characterized by a human operator performing any well known process of database generation and manipulation using pen and paper. Further, the step of “subsequent to generating the storage entry: detect an occurrence of the trigger at the computing device” involves a mental process of receiving spoken information. Finally, the steps of “in response to detecting the occurrence of the trigger, and based on the correlation of the storage entry: cause, by the automated assistant application, performance of the first action and the second action, wherein the second action is performed using the first slot value, for the first slot of the second action, and a second slot value, for the second slot of the second action, that is generated based on further user input received responsive to a further prompt that is provided by the automated assistant application in response to detecting the occurrence of the trigger” are recited. The recited elements are directed to a mental process because the language can be characterized by a human operator accessing the database to correlate the trigger with existing data in the database and provide the request for the necessary missing data. Under broadest reasonable interpretation, the steps of claim 11 are directed to mental processes that can be performed in the human mind or by a human with pen and paper. 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. 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 to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d). Furthermore, independent Claims 1 and 11 further recite “one or more processors; and memory configured to store instructions that, when executed by one or more of the processors, cause one or more of the processors to” as additional elements beyond the judicial exception. However, these additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements constitute a generic computer environment. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2357. The Claims need meaningful limitations that go beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, the steps are all abstract and the Claim as a whole is abstract. “[S]imply appending generic computer functionality to lend speed or efficiency to the performance of an otherwise abstract concept does not meaningfully limit claim scope for purposes of patent eligibility.” CLS Bank, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 9493, at *29 (citing Bancorp, 687 F.3d at 1278, and Dealertrack, Inc. v. Huber, 674 F.3d 1315, 1333-34 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (finding that the claimed computer-aided clearinghouse process is a patent-ineligible abstract idea)); SiRF Tech., Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 601 F.3d 1319, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (“In order for the addition of a machine to impose a meaningful limit on the scope of a claim, it must play a significant part in permitting the claimed method to be performed, rather than function solely as an obvious mechanism for permitting a solution to be achieved more quickly, i.e., through the utilization of a computer for performing calculations.”). Additionally, dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20 do not provide any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claims simply describe a third party agent application hosted in a separated computing device. The recited element recites a generic computing device, as distributed computing is well known in the art and, as claimed, does not place any meaningful limit on the claimed invention. Further the dependent claims recite accessing application data, which does not constitute a practical application because accessing application data represents a mental process that can be performed by a human. Further, the claims recite comparing the spoken utterance to command phrase entries, which is also a mental process without significantly more. Further, the recited trigger being an audio input is simply a characterization of receiving human information as speech, which is also a mental process. Further the claims recite the use of an IoT device. The recited IoT device constitutes an additional element that does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claim does not place any limit on how the state of the IoT device is altered such that the recited constitutes a generic computing environment performing in a conventional way. Further the claim recites that the required first slot values is a particular time of a plurality of candidate times. The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation provides that the data such as a particular time only constitutes information that can be received, stored and manipulated by a human in the mind or with pen and paper. 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. See MPEP 2106.05. At step 2A, prong two, the additional elements of the “one or more processors” and “memory…” were found to be a generic computer environment. At Step 2B, the re-evaluation of the insignificant extra-solution activity consideration takes into account whether or not the extra-solution activity is well understood, routine, and conventional in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Here, the step of outputting the post-mask speech signal is mere data transferring that is recited at a high level of generality. Therefore, this limitation remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration and does not amount to significantly more. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, and therefore do not provide an inventive concept. Additionally, dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20 do not add an inventive concept. In conclusion, Examiner notes that none of recited steps in Applicant's claims 1-20 refer to a specific machine by reciting structural limitations of any apparatus or to any specific operations that would cause a machine to be the mechanism to perform these steps. Although the claims may be processed by a computing system having a processor, the computing system is merely a general purpose computing system. Therefore, all of the claims 1-20 are abstract. Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art made of record and not relied upon includes: Heide (US PG Pub 20160118048) A method for determining a voice command shortcut includes receiving a first voice command providing instructions for performing a particular task and a second voice command providing additional instructions for performing the same task. The voice command shortcut may be used in place of the first and second voice commands, which are typically submitted in response to system prompts. The availability of a voice command shortcut is determined based on the first and second voice commands. If a voice command shortcut is available, an audible and/or visual notification may be provided to inform the user of the available voice command shortcut (Heide; Abstract) . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Rodrigo A Chavez whose telephone number is (571)270-0139. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-6 ET. 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, Richemond Dorvil can be reached on 5712727602. 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. /RODRIGO A CHAVEZ/Examiner, Art Unit 2658 /RICHEMOND DORVIL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2658 Application/Control Number: 18/808,965 Page 2 Art Unit: 2658 Application/Control Number: 18/808,965 Page 3 Art Unit: 2658 Application/Control Number: 18/808,965 Page 4 Art Unit: 2658 Application/Control Number: 18/808,965 Page 5 Art Unit: 2658 Application/Control Number: 18/808,965 Page 6 Art Unit: 2658 Application/Control Number: 18/808,965 Page 7 Art Unit: 2658 Application/Control Number: 18/808,965 Page 8 Art Unit: 2658 Application/Control Number: 18/808,965 Page 9 Art Unit: 2658 Application/Control Number: 18/808,965 Page 10 Art Unit: 2658 Application/Control Number: 18/808,965 Page 11 Art Unit: 2658 Application/Control Number: 18/808,965 Page 12 Art Unit: 2658 Application/Control Number: 18/808,965 Page 13 Art Unit: 2658 Application/Control Number: 18/808,965 Page 14 Art Unit: 2658 Application/Control Number: 18/808,965 Page 15 Art Unit: 2658 Application/Control Number: 18/808,965 Page 16 Art Unit: 2658 Application/Control Number: 18/808,965 Page 17 Art Unit: 2658 Application/Control Number: 18/808,965 Page 18 Art Unit: 2658 Application/Control Number: 18/808,965 Page 19 Art Unit: 2658 Application/Control Number: 18/808,965 Page 20 Art Unit: 2658 Application/Control Number: 18/808,965 Page 21 Art Unit: 2658 Application/Control Number: 18/808,965 Page 22 Art Unit: 2658
Prosecution Insights