CTNF 18/822,414 CTNF 84717 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. Response to Arguments Applicant’s remarks filed 15 March 2026 have been fully considered. Applicant argues that transforming a query or a file into a vector is not practically performable in the human mind. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant argues that “[t]ransforming text into high-dimensional vector embeddings using Artificial Intelligence (AI) models involves complex mathematical operations that cannot be practically performed in the human mind.” The independent claims do not recite AI models performing these transformations. The invention as claimed does not require any mathematical basis for determining a vector embedding, but instead covers every basis for determining vector embeddings, including arbitrary embedding assignments. With respect to claim 4’s recitation of a generic model performing the transformation, this would be mere instruction to apply the exception of transforming the text absent specific implementation of transforming. MPEP §§ 2106.05(f), 2161.01. Second, the results-oriented “similarity search,” without details of how it is performed, lacks sufficient detail to integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application for the same reasons. Third, so too the “image analyzer” of claim 8. Fourth, replacing text as a generic function is practically performable, e.g., using pen and paper by crossing it out and writing the new text. That there are no specific recited details of how the claimed invention replaces text that distinguishes it from its pen and paper performance other than that it is done on a computer. This does not patentably distinguish the limitation from reciting an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(C). Fifth, arguing that retrieving image data is not responsive to the grounds of rejection. The fundamental issue is that there are no technical aspects of the claimed invention that distinguishes the claimed invention from typesetting because no specific technical details are recited; rather, all is recited is desired outcomes without specifying how they are accomplished. This does not integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application. MPEP §§ 2106.05(f), 2106.05(h). The invention fails to improve the LLM because the LLM, as recited, is not actually modified in any way from a conventional LLM. No details of how the LLM produces a response that distinguish it from a conventional LLM are recited. Absent such details, the claims cannot improve the LLM. See Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp. , 134 F.4th 1205, 1211 (Fed. Cir. 2025). Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections under section 103 are persuasive. 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 an abstract idea without significantly more. As per claim 1: The claim(s) recites an abstract idea. The limitation, “transform a query into a query vector,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “transforming” encompasses a person forming a judgment that, e.g., as to the value of the vector on any basis. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The limitation, “perform a similarity search of a vector database using the query vector to identify one or more reference files or portions thereof stored in a data storage device, wherein the one or more reference files or portions thereof include at least one image path string indicating a removed image,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “performing a similarity search” encompasses a person forming a judgment that, e.g., the value of the query vector is similar to a vector in the vector database on any basis. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The limitation, “identify, in the response, an image path string indicating the removed image from the one or more reference files or portions thereof used by the LLM in generating the response,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “identifying” encompasses a person forming a judgment that, e.g., IMAGE_LOC=</mychatbot/pciebrd_ts/image1, is an image path string. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Accordingly, the claim(s) recites abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a). These abstract ideas can be considered together as a single abstract idea, namely performing copyediting. MPEP § 2106.04(II)(B). This falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The abstract idea of performing copyediting is not integrated into a practical application. The additional element, “provide, to a Large Language Model (LLM), the query and the one or more reference files or portions thereof,” is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering. MPEP § 2106.05(g). The additional element, “receive a response to the query from the LLM,” is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering. MPEP § 2106.05(g). The additional element, “retrieve image data from the at least one memory using the identified image path string for displaying the received response with an image replacing the identified image path string using the retrieved image data,” is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering. MPEP § 2106.05(g). As an ordered combination, the invention is mere automation of the existing mental process of an author embedding an image in content generally linked to the technological environment of LLMs. MPEP §§ 2106.05(a), 2106.05(h). Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claim(s) as a whole, and therefore the claim is directed to an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(d). As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the conclusions for the additional elements being generic computer components and mere instructions to apply on a computer, insignificant extra-solution activity, and/or mere field of use limitations are carried over and these additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05(II). In re-evaluating the limitations that are insignificant extra-solution activity, the following limitations represent elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity within the field of computer functions: The additional element, “provide, to a Large Language Model (LLM), the query and the one or more reference files or portions thereof,” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because it is receiving and transmitting data in a manner that is recited at a high level of generality similar to the activity of receiving or transmitting data over a network. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc. , 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015). The additional element, “receive a response to the query from the LLM,” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because it is receiving and transmitting data in a manner that is recited at a high level of generality similar to the activity of receiving or transmitting data over a network. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc. , 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015). The additional element, “retrieve image data from the at least one memory using the identified image path string for displaying the received response with an image replacing the identified image path string using the retrieved image data,” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because it is storing and retrieving information in a manner that is recited at a high level of generality similar to the activity of storing and retrieving information in memory. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc. , 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015). As an ordered combination, the claim simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the abstract idea of the mental process taken by an author embedding an image in content because the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement the abstract idea. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see BASCOM Global Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility LLC , 827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Accordingly, the claim(s) does not recite additional elements, either individually or in combination, that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106. As per claim 8: The claim(s) recites an abstract idea. The limitation, “identifying data corresponding to images in the plurality of reference files,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “identifying” encompasses a person forming a judgment as to what content in a reference file is an image. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The limitation, “removing the identified data from the plurality of reference files,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “removing” encompasses a person forming a judgment on how to copyedit the file. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The limitation, “replacing each instance of the removed data in the plurality of reference files with an image path string indicating a storage location in the at least one memory of image data corresponding to the removed data,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “replacing” encompasses a person forming a judgment on how to copyedit the file. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The limitation, “transforming each reference file into one or more corresponding vector embeddings for storage in a vector database,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “transforming” encompasses a person forming a judgment that, e.g., as to the value of the vector on any basis. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Accordingly, the claim(s) recites abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a). These abstract ideas can be considered together as a single abstract idea, namely performing copyediting. MPEP § 2106.04(II)(B). This falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The abstract idea of performing copyediting is not integrated into a practical application. The additional element, that data corresponding to images is identified “using an image analyzer,” is mere instruction to apply the exception of identifying images in data because the outcome of identifying image data is recited without specifying details of how the image analyzer identifies the image data. MPEP § 2106.05(f). The additional element, “receiving a plurality of reference files,” is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering. MPEP § 2106.05(g). The additional element, “storing image data for the removed images in at least one memory,” is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering. MPEP § 2106.05(g). The additional element, “storing, in a data storage device, the plurality of reference files including image path strings for the removed images as a knowledge base for the LLM in responding to queries,” is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering. MPEP § 2106.05(g). As an ordered combination, the invention is mere automation of the existing mental process of an author embedding an image in content generally linked to the technological environment of LLMs. MPEP §§ 2106.05(a), 2106.05(h). Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claim(s) as a whole, and therefore the claim is directed to an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(d). As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the conclusions for the additional elements being generic computer components and mere instructions to apply on a computer, insignificant extra-solution activity, and/or mere field of use limitations are carried over and these additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05(II). In re-evaluating the limitations that are insignificant extra-solution activity, the following limitations represent elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity within the field of computer functions: The additional element, “receiving a plurality of reference files for storage in a knowledge base used by the LLM, wherein each reference file of the plurality of reference files includes a related set of data,” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because it is receiving and transmitting data in a manner that is recited at a high level of generality similar to the activity of receiving or transmitting data over a network. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc. , 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015). The additional element, “storing image data for the removed data in at least one memory,” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because it is storing and retrieving information in a manner that is recited at a high level of generality similar to the activity of storing and retrieving information in memory. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc. , 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015). The additional element, “storing the plurality of reference files including image path strings for the removed data in a data storage device as at least part of the knowledge base for the LLM in responding to queries,” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because it is storing and retrieving information in a manner that is recited at a high level of generality similar to the activity of storing and retrieving information in memory. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc. , 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015). As an ordered combination, the claim simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the abstract idea of the mental process taken by an author embedding an image in content because the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement the abstract idea. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see BASCOM Global Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility LLC , 827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Accordingly, the claim(s) does not recite additional elements, either individually or in combination, that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106. As per claim 16: The claim(s) recites an abstract idea. The limitation, “identifying data corresponding to images in the plurality of reference files,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “identifying” encompasses a person forming a judgment as to what content in a reference file is an image. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The limitation, “removing the identified data from the plurality of reference files,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “removing” encompasses a person forming a judgment on how to copyedit the file. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The limitation, “replacing each instance of the removed data in the plurality of reference files with an image path string indicating a storage location in the at least one memory of image data corresponding to the removed data,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “replacing” encompasses a person forming a judgment on how to copyedit the file. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The limitation, “transforming each reference file into one or more corresponding vector embeddings for storage in a vector database,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “transforming” encompasses a person forming a judgment that, e.g., as to the value of the vector on any basis. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The limitation, “transform a query into a query vector,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “transforming” encompasses a person forming a judgment that, e.g., as to the value of the vector on any basis. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The limitation, “perform a similarity search of a vector database using the query vector to identify one or more reference files or portions thereof stored in a data storage device, wherein the one or more reference files or portions thereof include at least one image path string indicating a removed image,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “performing a similarity search” encompasses a person forming a judgment that, e.g., the value of the query vector is similar to a vector in the vector database on any basis. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The limitation, “identify, in the response, an image path string indicating the removed image from the one or more reference files or portions thereof used by the LLM in generating the response,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “identifying” encompasses a person forming a judgment that, e.g., IMAGE_LOC=</mychatbot/pciebrd_ts/image1, is an image path string. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Accordingly, the claim(s) recites abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a). These abstract ideas can be considered together as a single abstract idea, namely performing copyediting. MPEP § 2106.04(II)(B). This falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The abstract idea of performing copyediting is not integrated into a practical application. The additional element, “receiving a plurality of reference files for storage in a knowledge base used by a Large Language Model (LLM), wherein each reference file of the plurality of reference files includes a related set of data,” is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering. MPEP § 2106.05(g). The additional element, that data corresponding to images is identified “using an image analyzer,” is mere instruction to apply the exception of identifying images in data because the outcome of identifying image data is recited without specifying details of how the image analyzer identifies the image data. MPEP § 2106.05(f). The additional element, “storing, in the at least one memory, image data for the removed data,” is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering. MPEP § 2106.05(g). The additional element, “storing, in a data storage device, the plurality of reference files including image path strings for the removed data as at least part of the knowledge base for the LLM in responding to queries,” is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering. MPEP § 2106.05(g). The additional element, “providing, to the LLM, the query and the one or more reference files or portions thereof,” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because it is receiving and transmitting data in a manner that is recited at a high level of generality similar to the activity of receiving or transmitting data over a network. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc. , 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015). The additional element, “receive a response to the query from the LLM,” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because it is receiving and transmitting data in a manner that is recited at a high level of generality similar to the activity of receiving or transmitting data over a network. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc. , 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015). The additional element, “retrieve image data from the at least one memory using the identified image path string for displaying the received response with an image replacing the identified image path string using the retrieved image data,” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because it is storing and retrieving information in a manner that is recited at a high level of generality similar to the activity of storing and retrieving information in memory. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc. , 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015). As an ordered combination, the claim simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the abstract idea of the mental process taken by an author embedding an image in content because the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement the abstract idea. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see BASCOM Global Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility LLC , 827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Accordingly, the claim(s) does not recite additional elements, either individually or in combination, that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106. As per claims 2 and 17: The claim(s) recites an abstract idea. The limitation, “determine, based on a format of the identified image path string, whether to include the identified image path string as text in the response or to replace the identified image path string with image data in the response,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “determining” encompasses a person forming a judgment that whether to replace the string with an image. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Accordingly, the claim(s) recites an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(a). As the claim(s) recites no additional elements, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application, the claim is directed to the abstract idea, and the claim(s) does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.07. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106. As per claims 3 and 18: The claim(s) recites an abstract idea. The limitation, “prompt the LLM to include image path strings of a particular format from reference files as part of responses to queries as if the image path strings are images,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “prompting” encompasses a person forming a judgment as to what input to provide to an LLM. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Accordingly, the claim(s) recites an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(a). As the claim(s) recites no additional elements, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application, the claim is directed to the abstract idea, and the claim(s) does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.07. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106. As per claim 4: The claim(s) recites an abstract idea. The limitation, “providing instructions regarding placement of the image path strings within the responses,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “providing” encompasses a person forming a judgment as to the content of the instructions and the placement of the strings within the responses. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Accordingly, the claim(s) recites an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(a). As the claim(s) recites no additional elements, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application, the claim is directed to the abstract idea, and the claim(s) does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.07. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106. As per claims 5 and 19: The claim(s) recites an abstract idea. The limitation, “identify images in the plurality of reference files,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “identifying” encompasses a person forming a judgment as to what content in a reference file is an image. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The limitation, “remove the identified images from the plurality of reference files,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “removing” encompasses a person forming a judgment on how to copyedit the file. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The limitation, “replace the removed images in the plurality of reference files with image path strings indicating storage locations in the at least one memory of image data corresponding to the removed images,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “replacing” encompasses a person forming a judgment on how to copyedit the file. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Accordingly, the claim(s) recites abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a). These abstract ideas can be considered together as a single abstract idea, namely performing copyediting. MPEP § 2106.04(II)(B). This falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The abstract idea of performing copyediting is not integrated into a practical application. The additional element, “receive a plurality of reference files,” is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering. MPEP § 2106.05(g). The additional element, “store image data for the removed images in the at least one memory,” is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering. MPEP § 2106.05(g). The additional element, “store the plurality of reference files including the image path strings for the removed images in a data storage device as a knowledge base for the LLM in responding to queries,” is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering. MPEP § 2106.05(g). As an ordered combination, the invention is mere automation of the existing mental process of an author embedding an image in content generally linked to the technological environment of LLMs. MPEP §§ 2106.05(a), 2106.05(h). Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claim(s) as a whole, and therefore the claim is directed to an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(d). As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the conclusions for the additional elements being generic computer components and mere instructions to apply on a computer, insignificant extra-solution activity, and/or mere field of use limitations are carried over and these additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05(II). In re-evaluating the limitations that are insignificant extra-solution activity, the following limitations represent elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity within the field of computer functions: The additional element, “receive a plurality of reference files,” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because it is receiving and transmitting data in a manner that is recited at a high level of generality similar to the activity of receiving or transmitting data over a network. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc. , 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015). The additional element, “store image data for the removed images in the at least one memory,” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because it is storing and retrieving information in a manner that is recited at a high level of generality similar to the activity of storing and retrieving information in memory. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc. , 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015). The additional element, “store the plurality of reference files including the image path strings for the removed images in a data storage device as a knowledge base for the LLM in responding to queries,” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because it is storing and retrieving information in a manner that is recited at a high level of generality similar to the activity of storing and retrieving information in memory. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc. , 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015). As an ordered combination, the claim simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the abstract idea of the mental process taken by an author embedding an image in content because the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement the abstract idea. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see BASCOM Global Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility LLC , 827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Accordingly, the claim(s) does not recite additional elements, either individually or in combination, that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106. As per claim 6: The claim(s) recites an abstract idea. The limitation, “transform each of the plurality of reference files into one or more corresponding vector embeddings for storage in a vector database,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “transforming” encompasses a person forming a judgment as to a (possibly arbitrary, as no basis of transformation is claimed) set of numbers to represent the query. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Accordingly, the claim(s) recites an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(a). As the claim(s) recites no additional elements, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application, the claim is directed to the abstract idea, and the claim(s) does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.07. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106. As per claims 7 and 20: The claim(s) recites an abstract idea. The limitation, “compare the identified image path string from the response to a closest image path string stored in a data structure,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “comparing” encompasses a person observing the strings. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The limitation, “determine whether the identified image path string matches the closest image path string,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “determining” encompasses a person forming a judgment as to whether the strings match. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The limitation, “in response to determining that the identified image path string does not match the closest image path string, use the closest image path string to retrieve the image data for displaying the image,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “using” encompasses a person forming a judgment as to which image to display. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Accordingly, the claim(s) recites abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a). These abstract ideas can be considered together as a single abstract idea, namely determining which image is specified by a given path string. MPEP § 2106.04(II)(B). This falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). As the claim(s) recites no additional elements, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application, the claim is directed to the abstract idea, and the claim(s) does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.07. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106. As per claim 9: The claim(s) recites an abstract idea. The limitation, “prompting the LLM to include image path strings of a particular format from reference files as part of responses to queries as if the image path strings are images,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “prompting” encompasses a person forming a judgment as to what input to provide to an LLM. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Accordingly, the claim(s) recites an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(a). As the claim(s) recites no additional elements, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application, the claim is directed to the abstract idea, and the claim(s) does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.07. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106. As per claim 10: The claim(s) recites an abstract idea. The limitation, “wherein the image path strings follow a particular format in responses from the LLM indicating that the image path strings correspond to images,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “replacing” encompasses a person forming a judgment on how to copyedit the file according to the particular format. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Accordingly, the claim(s) recites an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(a). As the claim(s) recites no additional elements, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application, the claim is directed to the abstract idea, and the claim(s) does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.07. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106. As per claim 11: The abstract idea of performing copyediting is not integrated into a practical application. The additional element, “each reference file is transformed into the one or more corresponding vector embeddings using an Artificial Intelligence (AI) model that is also used to transform queries into query vectors for performing similarity searches of the vector database,” is mere instruction to apply the exception of identifying images in data because the outcome of identifying image data is recited without specifying details of how the image analyzer identifies the image data. MPEP § 2106.05(f). As an ordered combination, the claims merely link the recited abstract idea to the technological environment of AI. MPEP § 2106.05(h). Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claim(s) as a whole, and therefore the claim is directed to an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(d). As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the conclusions for the additional elements being generic computer components and mere instructions to apply on a computer, insignificant extra-solution activity, and/or mere field of use limitations are carried over and these additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05(II). Accordingly, the claim(s) does not recite additional elements, either individually or in combination, that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106. As per claim 12: The claim(s) recites an abstract idea. The limitation, “transforming the query into a query vector,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “transforming” encompasses a person forming a judgment as to a (possibly arbitrary, as no basis of transformation is claimed) set of numbers to represent the query. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The limitation, “performing a similarity search of the vector database using the query vector to identify one or more reference files of the plurality of reference files or portions thereof, wherein the one or more reference files or portions thereof include at least one image path string indicating a removed data corresponding to an image,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “performing” encompasses a person forming a judgment (possibly arbitrarily, as no basis of similarity is claimed) as to what set of numbers is most similar to the query vector. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Accordingly, the claim(s) recites abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a). These abstract ideas can be considered together as a single abstract idea, namely determining a reference file relevant to a query. MPEP § 2106.04(II)(B). This falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The abstract idea of determining a reference file relevant to a query is not integrated into a practical application. The additional element, “receiving a query for the LLM,” is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering. MPEP § 2106.05(g). The additional element, “providing the query and the one or more reference files or portions thereof to the LLM for responding to the query,” is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering. MPEP § 2106.05(g). As an ordered combination, the invention is mere automation of the existing mental process of an author embedding an image in content generally linked to the technological environment of LLMs. MPEP §§ 2106.05(a), 2106.05(h). Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claim(s) as a whole, and therefore the claim is directed to an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(d). As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the conclusions for the additional elements being generic computer components and mere instructions to apply on a computer, insignificant extra-solution activity, and/or mere field of use limitations are carried over and these additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05(II). In re-evaluating the limitations that are insignificant extra-solution activity, the following limitations represent elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity within the field of computer functions: The additional element, “receiving a query for the LLM,” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because it is receiving and transmitting data in a manner that is recited at a high level of generality similar to the activity of receiving or transmitting data over a network. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc. , 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015). The additional element, “providing the query and the one or more reference files or portions thereof to the LLM for responding to the query,” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because it is receiving and transmitting data in a manner that is recited at a high level of generality similar to the activity of receiving or transmitting data over a network. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc. , 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015). As an ordered combination, the claim simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the abstract idea of determining a reference file relevant to a query because the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement the abstract idea. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see BASCOM Global Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility LLC , 827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Accordingly, the claim(s) does not recite additional elements, either individually or in combination, that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106. As per claim 13: The claim(s) recites an abstract idea. The limitation, “identifying an image path string in the response,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “identifying” encompasses a person forming a judgment that, e.g., IMAGE_LOC=</mychatbot/pciebrd_ts/image1, is an image path string. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Accordingly, the claim(s) recites an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(a). The abstract idea of identifying an image path in a response is not integrated into a practical application. The additional element, “receiving a response to the query from the LLM,” is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering. MPEP § 2106.05(g). The additional element, “retrieving image data from the at least one memory using the identified image path string,” is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering. MPEP § 2106.05(g). The additional element, “replacing the identified image path string in the received response with the retrieved image data for display of an image corresponding to the retrieved image data as part of the response,” is the generic computer function of autoembedding content, mere automation of the mental process of writing HTML code to display content, and mere instruction to apply the mental process of writing HTML code to display content on a computer. MPEP §§ 2106.05(a), 2106.05(f). As an ordered combination, the invention is mere automation of the existing mental process of an author embedding an image in content generally linked to the technological environment of LLMs. MPEP §§ 2106.05(a), 2106.05(h). Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claim(s) as a whole, and therefore the claim is directed to an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(d). As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the conclusions for the additional elements being generic computer components and mere instructions to apply on a computer, insignificant extra-solution activity, and/or mere field of use limitations are carried over and these additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05(II). In re-evaluating the limitations that are insignificant extra-solution activity or mere instruction to apply an exception, the following limitations represent elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity within the field of computer functions: The additional element, “receiving a response to the query from the LLM,” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because it is receiving and transmitting data in a manner that is recited at a high level of generality similar to the activity of receiving or transmitting data over a network. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc. , 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015). The additional element, “retrieving image data from the at least one memory using the identified image path string,” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because it is storing and retrieving information in a manner that is recited at a high level of generality similar to the activity of storing and retrieving information in memory. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc. , 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015). The additional element, “replacing the identified image path string in the received response with the retrieved image data for display of an image corresponding to the retrieved image data as part of the response,” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because autoembedding is widely prevalent or in common use in the field, and is described as a commercially available product. MPEP § 2106.07(a)(III)(C); Glover, WordPress oEmbed: Embed (Almost) Everything . As an ordered combination, the claim simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the abstract idea of the mental process taken by an author embedding an image in content because the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement the abstract idea. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see BASCOM Global Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility LLC , 827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Accordingly, the claim(s) does not recite additional elements, either individually or in combination, that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106. As per claim 14: The claim(s) recites an abstract idea. The limitation, “determining, based on a format of the image path string, whether to include the identified image path string as text in the response or to replace the identified image path string with image data,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “determining” encompasses a person forming a judgment that whether to replace the string with an image. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Accordingly, the claim(s) recites an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(a). As the claim(s) recites no additional elements, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application, the claim is directed to the abstract idea, and the claim(s) does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.07. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106. As per claim 15: The claim(s) recites an abstract idea. The limitation, “comparing the identified image path string from the response to a closest image path string stored in a data structure,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “comparing” encompasses a person observing the strings. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The limitation, “determining whether the identified image path string matches the closest image path string,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “determining” encompasses a person forming a judgment as to whether the strings match. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The limitation, “in response to determining that the identified image path string does not match the closest image path string, using the closest image path string to retrieve the image data for displaying the image,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “using” encompasses a person forming a judgment as to which image to display. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Accordingly, the claim(s) recites abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a). These abstract ideas can be considered together as a single abstract idea, namely determining which image is specified by a given path string. MPEP § 2106.04(II)(B). This falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). As the claim(s) recites no additional elements, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application, the claim is directed to the abstract idea, and the claim(s) does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.07. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106. Prior Art Using reference files or portions thereof include at least one image path string indicating a removed image for a LLM in responding to queries is novel, and only obvious in hindsight. In particular, the claimed remove-and-replace technique differs from the nearest prior art technique of chunking as described in Maxson, Images in RAGs . This is a non-obvious modification of Suwannapoom, Unlocking Visual Insights: Building an Image Question Answering System with RAG and LLM , in particular not by using infographics generically, but specifically by using infographics that are themselves part of a larger document. That being said, applying novel prompts to a conventional LLM, Specification ¶¶ [0026]-[0035], does not improve an LLM, and the use of a conventional LLM to generate a response according to a prompt is mere instruction to apply the mental process of generating a response according to the prompt using the conventional LLM such that in all, the invention is nothing more than the idea of the outcome of embedding content without detail of how “replacing the identified image path string using the retrieved image data” is to be accomplished. Of course, this is because the disclosed means of doing so is nothing more than using well-understood, routine, and conventional functionality that underlies rendering HTML img tags in web browsers, Specification ¶ [0035], making it all the more clear that Applicant has not improved technology. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM SPIELER whose telephone number is (571)270-3883. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 11-3. 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, Ann Lo can be reached at 571-272-9767. 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. WILLIAM SPIELER Primary Examiner Art Unit 2159 /WILLIAM SPIELER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2159 Application/Control Number: 18/822,414 Page 2 Art Unit: 2159 Application/Control Number: 18/822,414 Page 3 Art Unit: 2159 Application/Control Number: 18/822,414 Page 4 Art Unit: 2159 Application/Control Number: 18/822,414 Page 5 Art Unit: 2159 Application/Control Number: 18/822,414 Page 6 Art Unit: 2159 Application/Control Number: 18/822,414 Page 7 Art Unit: 2159 Application/Control Number: 18/822,414 Page 8 Art Unit: 2159 Application/Control Number: 18/822,414 Page 9 Art Unit: 2159 Application/Control Number: 18/822,414 Page 10 Art Unit: 2159 Application/Control Number: 18/822,414 Page 11 Art Unit: 2159 Application/Control Number: 18/822,414 Page 12 Art Unit: 2159 Application/Control Number: 18/822,414 Page 13 Art Unit: 2159 Application/Control Number: 18/822,414 Page 14 Art Unit: 2159 Application/Control Number: 18/822,414 Page 15 Art Unit: 2159 Application/Control Number: 18/822,414 Page 16 Art Unit: 2159 Application/Control Number: 18/822,414 Page 17 Art Unit: 2159 Application/Control Number: 18/822,414 Page 18 Art Unit: 2159 Application/Control Number: 18/822,414 Page 19 Art Unit: 2159 Application/Control Number: 18/822,414 Page 20 Art Unit: 2159 Application/Control Number: 18/822,414 Page 21 Art Unit: 2159 Application/Control Number: 18/822,414 Page 22 Art Unit: 2159 Application/Control Number: 18/822,414 Page 23 Art Unit: 2159 Application/Control Number: 18/822,414 Page 24 Art Unit: 2159 Application/Control Number: 18/822,414 Page 25 Art Unit: 2159 Application/Control Number: 18/822,414 Page 26 Art Unit: 2159 Application/Control Number: 18/822,414 Page 27 Art Unit: 2159 Application/Control Number: 18/822,414 Page 28 Art Unit: 2159 Application/Control Number: 18/822,414 Page 29 Art Unit: 2159 Application/Control Number: 18/822,414 Page 30 Art Unit: 2159 Application/Control Number: 18/822,414 Page 31 Art Unit: 2159
Prosecution Insights