CTNF 18/832,985 CTNF 99358 The DETAILED ACTION This action is in response to the application filed on July 25, 2024 . Claims 1-14 are pending and have been examined. Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on August 02, 2024 is being considered by the examiner. Priority Receipt is acknowledged that application is a National Stage application of PCT/JP2022/008354 with a priority date of February 28, 2022 is acknowledged under 35 USC 119(e) and 37 CFR 1.78. Double Patenting 08-33 AIA The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg , 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman , 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi , 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum , 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington , 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto- processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer. 08-35 AIA Claim 1-14 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1-14 of copending Application No. 18/835,404 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because (see Claim-Comparison Table below for independent claim 1 of the instant application against Claim 1 of Application No. 18/835,404) . This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Claim Application# 18/832,985 Claim Application# 18/835,404 1 1. An effect determination system comprising: a memory configured to store instructions; and one or more processors configured to execute the instructions to: 1 1. An impact determination system comprising: a memory configured to store instructions; and one or more processors configured to execute the instructions to: 1 acquire a predicted displacement of a structure after an event, the predicted displacement being a displacement of the structure on a ground surface and having been predicted based on a pre-event displacement acquired before the event related to a ground of the structure; 1 acquire a predicted surface layer state of a structure after an event, the predicted surface layer state being sensor information related to a surface of the structure on a ground surface and having been predicted based on pre-event sensor information measured before the event related to a ground of the structure; The surface layer state of Application 18/832985 encompasses the scope of the displacement of the instant claim. 1 acquire a post-event displacement of the structure based on an observation result of the ground surface observed after the event; 1 acquire post-event sensor information measured after the event; determine a post-event surface layer state of the structure based on the post-event sensor information; and Post-event sensor information measured after the event is considered to be post-event displacement observed after the event. The post-event surface layer is considered to be the ground surface. 1 determine an effect of the event on the structure based on the predicted displacement and the post-event displacement. 1 determine an impact of the event on the structure based on the predicted surface layer state and the post-event surface layer state. Claims 2-14 of the instant application is equivalent in scope with Claims 2-14 respectively of Application No. 18/835,404. Claim 2 of the instant application is equivalent in scope with Claim 2 of Application No. 18/835,404. Claim 3 of the instant application is equivalent in scope with Claim 3 of Application No. 18/835,404. Claim 4 of the instant application is equivalent in scope with Claim 4 of Application No. 18/835,404. Claim 5 of the instant application is equivalent in scope with Claim 5 of Application No. 18/835,404. Claim 6 of the instant application is equivalent in scope with Claim 6 of Application No. 18/835,404. Claim 7 of the instant application is equivalent in scope with Claim 7 of Application No. 18/835,404. Claim 8 of the instant application is equivalent in scope with Claim 8 of Application No. 18/835,404. Claim 9 of the instant application is equivalent in scope with Claim 9 of Application No. 18/835,404. Claim 10 of the instant application is equivalent in scope with Claim 12 of Application No. 18/835,404. Claim 11 of the instant application is equivalent in scope with Claim 10 of Application No. 18/835,404. Claim 12 of the instant application is equivalent in scope with Claim 11 of Application No. 18/835,404. Claim 13 of the instant application is equivalent in scope with Claim 13 of Application No. 18/835,404. Claim 14 of the instant application is equivalent in scope with Claim 14 of Application No. 18/835,404. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – 07-08-aia AIA (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-12-aia AIA (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-15-aia AIA Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 8-9, 11, and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (1) as being anticipated by Prieto et al, US 20150019267 . Regarding claim 1 , Prieto teaches An effect determination system comprising (see Prieto, Paragraph [0012], “The impact assessment engine can further leverage the damage profile to produce an impact report for the building site where the impact report can provide one or more estimates relating to the damage”) : a memory configured to store instructions (see Prieto, Paragraph [0019], “stored on a tangible, non-transitory computer readable storage medium (e.g., hard drive, solid state drive, RAM, flash, ROM, etc.)”) ; and one or more processors configured to execute the instructions to (see Prieto, Paragraph [0019], “One should appreciate the computing devices comprise a processor configured to execute software instructions”) : acquire a predicted displacement of a structure after an event, the predicted displacement being a displacement of the structure on a ground surface and having been predicted based on a pre-event displacement acquired before the event related to a ground of the structure (see Prieto, Paragraph [0033], “the impact assessment engine 105 of some embodiments is programmed to instruct the sensor platform 120 to obtain sensor data of a building site 160 before, during, and/or after an event (e.g., a disaster)” and Paragraph [0043], “the impact assessment manager 130 analyzes and evaluates damages sustained by the building based on a comparison between the post-event 3D model and a pre-event 3D model. The pre-event 3D model can be derived by the 3D model generation module 135 using sensor data collected by the sensor platform 120 before the disaster”) ; acquire a post-event displacement of the structure based on an observation result of the ground surface observed after the event (see Prieto, Paragraph [0039], “the impact assessment engine 105 is programmed to instruct the sensor platform 120 to obtain sensor data of the building site 160 after an event (e.g., a disaster such as an earthquake, a rainstorm, a hurricane, an explosion, etc.)”) ; determine an effect of the event on the structure based on the predicted displacement and the post-event displacement (see Prieto, Paragraph [0044], “The differences between the pre-event 3D model and the post-event 3D model will be used to assess the damages to the building”) . Regarding claim 2 , Prieto further teaches the effect determination system according to claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the instructions to: acquire the predicted displacement based on the pre-event displacement (see Prieto, Paragraph [0053], “the impact assessment engine 105 uses the simulation module 150 to simulate a hypothetical disaster (e.g., a typical 100-year flood, a 7.0 earthquake, etc.) on the pre-event 3D model. In some of these embodiments, the simulation module 150 simulates a hypothetical disaster on the pre-event 3D model to generate a simulated post-event 3D model of the building site 160. The impact assessment engine 105 can then generate a risk profile based on differences between the pre-event 3D model and the simulated post-event 3D model using the method described above”) . Regarding claim 4 , Prieto further teaches the effect determination system according to claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the instructions to: acquire the pre-event displacement and the post-event displacement at each of a plurality of positions (see Prieto, Paragraph [0033], “the impact assessment engine 105 of some embodiments is programmed to instruct the sensor platform 120 to obtain sensor data of a building site 160 before, during, and/or after an event (e.g., a disaster),” Paragraph [0043], “the impact assessment manager 130 analyzes and evaluates damages sustained by the building based on a comparison between the post-event 3D model and a pre-event 3D model. The pre-event 3D model can be derived by the 3D model generation module 135 using sensor data collected by the sensor platform 120 before the disaster” and Paragraph [0037], “the sensor platform was instructed by the impact assessment engine 105 to capture sensor data related to the building site 160 from different perspective (e.g., different points of view, different angles, etc.)”) ; acquire the predicted displacement at each of the plurality of positions based on the pre-event displacement at each of the plurality of positions (see Prieto, Paragraph [0037], “the sensor platform was instructed by the impact assessment engine 105 to capture sensor data related to the building site 160 from different perspective (e.g., different points of view, different angles, etc.)”) ; determine the effect of the event based on the predicted displacement and the post-event displacement at each of the plurality of positions (see Prieto, Paragraph [0044], “The differences between the pre-event 3D model and the post-event 3D model will be used to assess the damages to the building”) . Regarding claim 8 , Prieto further teaches the effect determination system according to claim 1, wherein the event is at least one of an underground construction of the structure, a construction around the structure, a ground construction, an accident, and a disaster. (Prieto, Paragraph [0009], “a disaster assessment system can generate one or more impact reports detailing the nature of how a disaster has impacted a building site based on sensor data associated with the building site that is collected after the disaster”) . Regarding claim 9 , Prieto further teaches the impact determination system according to claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the instructions to: acquire the predicted displacement further based on at least one of a geological layer of the ground of the structure, a range in which the event has occurred, a topography around the structure, a geology, soil, weather, a construction type, and a construction method (see Prieto, Paragraph [0006], “impact according to different levels of the site (e.g., below ground, ground level, above ground, etc.)”) . Regarding claim 11 , Prieto further teaches the effect determination system according to claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the instructions to: acquire the post-event sensor information from a sensor information measurement device mounted on a moving object (see Prieto, Paragraph [0035], “one or more of these sensors from the sensor platform 120 can be attached to a vehicle (e.g., an unmanned aerial vehicle, an unmanned ground vehicle) and/or a satellite so that they can be deployed to capture sensor data of the building site 160 when instructed to do so”) . As per claim 13 , Claim 13 claims a method comprising the same limitations as Claim 1. Therefore, the rejection and rationale are analogous to that made in Claim 1. As per claim 14 , Claim 14 claims a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium having recorded thereon a program causing a computer to execute: the same limitations as Claim 1. Therefore, the rejection and rationale are analogous to that made in Claim 1. Prieto further teaches a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium having recorded thereon a program causing a computer to execute (see Prieto, Paragraph [0019], “non-transitory computer readable storage medium (e.g., hard drive, solid state drive, RAM, flash, ROM, etc.)”) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prieto et al, US 20150019267 in view of Hayman et al, US 20220171068 . Regarding claim 3 , Prieto further teaches the effect determination system according to claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the instructions to: acquire the predicted displacement at each of a plurality of time points after the event (see Prieto, Paragraph [0033], “the impact assessment engine 105 of some embodiments is programmed to instruct the sensor platform 120 to obtain sensor data of a building site 160 before, during, and/or after an event (e.g., a disaster)” and Paragraph [0043], “the impact assessment manager 130 analyzes and evaluates damages sustained by the building based on a comparison between the post-event 3D model and a pre-event 3D model. The pre-event 3D model can be derived by the 3D model generation module 135 using sensor data collected by the sensor platform 120 before the disaster”) ; acquire the post-event displacement at each of the plurality of time points after the event (see Prieto, Paragraph [0030], “The impact assessment engine then leverages either the post-event 3D model alone, or in combination with the pre-event 3D model of the building site to generate one or more damage profiles for the building site. … The damage profile can include a below-surface profile (e.g., faults, geology, basements, etc.), surface profile (e.g., flooding, mud slides, debris, etc.), above-surface profile (e.g., debris cloud, dust, containments, etc.), or even internal structural profiles”) ; determine the effect of the event based on the predicted displacement and the post-event displacement at each of the plurality of time points after the event (see Prieto, Paragraph [0044], “The differences between the pre-event 3D model and the post-event 3D model will be used to assess the damages to the building”) . Prieto does not expressively teach at each of a plurality of time points after the event However, Hayman in a similar invention in the same field of endeavor teaches at each of a plurality of time points after the event (see Hayman, Paragraph [0041], “the drones may capture and upload multiple sets of sensor data for the premises (e.g., step 415 may be repeated) at various times (e.g., different times of day) and/or in various conditions (e.g., various weather conditions)”) ; The combination of Prieto and Hayman are analogous art because they are both in the same field of endeavor of assessing damage. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to capture and upload multiple sets of sensor data for the premises at various times as taught in the system of Hayman in the system of Prieto to average out temporary fluctuations in data in order to generate a more accurate map (Hayman, Paragraph [0041]) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prieto et al, US 20150019267 in view of Scharf et al, US 20240096090 . Regarding claim 5 , Prieto further teaches the effect determination system according to claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the instructions to: and use the pre-event displacement to which the post-event displacement has been added in acquisition of a next predicted displacement. (see Prieto, Paragraph [0033], “the impact assessment engine 105 of some embodiments is programmed to instruct the sensor platform 120 to obtain sensor data of a building site 160 before, during, and/or after an event (e.g., a disaster),” Paragraph [0043], “the impact assessment manager 130 analyzes and evaluates damages sustained by the building based on a comparison between the post-event 3D model and a pre-event 3D model. The pre-event 3D model can be derived by the 3D model generation module 135 using sensor data collected by the sensor platform 120 before the disaster” and Paragraph [0037], “the sensor platform was instructed by the impact assessment engine 105 to capture sensor data related to the building site 160 from different perspective (e.g., different points of view, different angles, etc.)”) . Prieto does not expressively teach add the acquired post-event displacement to the pre-event displacement to be stored; However, Scharf in a similar invention in the same field of endeavor teaches add the acquired post-event displacement to the pre-event displacement to be stored (Scharf et al, Paragraph [0075], “integrate pre- and post-disaster imagery into a unified model for more accurate evaluation of damage”) ; The combination of Prieto and Scharf are analogous art because they are both in the same field of endeavor of assessing damage. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate pre- and post-disaster imagery into a unified model as taught in the method of Scharf in the system of Prieto for more accurate evolution of damage (Scharf, Paragraph [0075]) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prieto et al, US 20150019267 in view of Bouhrara et al, US 20210172880 . Regarding claim 6 , Prieto further teaches the effect determination system according to claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the instructions to: acquire post-event sensor information measured after the event (see Prieto, Paragraph [0045], “the impact assessment manager 130 can compare the absolute locations of the building 300 or any structural elements (e.g., front door, building frame, roof, etc.) of the building 300 to determine whether there is a shift of foundation based on the absolute locations of the building within the two models. The impact assessment manager 130 can also compare the relative locations of any structural elements of the building 300 to determine if there is a shift of a portion of the foundation based on any difference between the relative locations of any structural elements of the building 300 of the two models”) ; determine the effect of the event on the structure based on the predicted surface layer state and the post-event surface layer state (see Prieto, Paragraph [0044], “evaluates the damages to the building 300 by comparing the pre-event 3D model and the post-event 3D model. The differences between the pre-event 3D model and the post-event 3D model will be used to assess the damages to the building,” and Paragraph [0045], “determine if there is a shift of a portion of the foundation based on any difference between the relative locations of any structural elements of the building 300 of the two models,” comparing the difference between relative locations of any structural elements in pre and post event images is considered to be determine the impact of the event on the structure based on the predicted displacement and the post-event displacement ) . Prieto does not expressively teach acquire a predicted surface layer state of the structure after the event, the predicted surface layer state being sensor information related to a surface of the structure and having been predicted based on pre-event sensor information measured before the event; However, Bouhrara in a similar invention in the same field of endeavor teaches acquire a predicted surface layer state of the structure after the event, the predicted surface layer state being sensor information related to a surface of the structure and having been predicted based on pre-event sensor information measured before the event (see Bouhrara, Paragraph [0090], “the damage value determination module 90 may identify an entry in the historical damage database 130 that predicts an expected displacement value of the one or more nanoparticles 38 based on, for example, prior damage value measurements, normal wear and tear, expected impact forces, and/or any other events that may cause the one or more nanoparticles 38”) ; The combination of Prieto and Bouhrara are analogous art because they are both in the same field of endeavor of assessing damage. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to predict an expected displacement value based on prior damage value measurements as taught in the system of Bouhrara in the system of Prieto for detecting various damage types of the composite components of the vehicle (Bouhrara, Paragraph [0004]). Regarding claim 7 , Prieto further teaches the effect determination system according to claim 6, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the instructions to: acquire the predicted surface layer state based on the pre-event sensor information (see Bouhrara, Paragraph [0090], “the damage value determination module 90 may identify an entry in the historical damage database 130 that predicts an expected displacement value of the one or more nanoparticles 38 based on, for example, prior damage value measurements, normal wear and tear, expected impact forces, and/or any other events that may cause the one or more nanoparticles 38”) . The rationale of claim 6 has been applied herein . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prieto et al, US 20150019267 in view of Bouhrara et al, US 20210172880 in view of Mase et al, US 20180252694 . Regarding claim 10 , Prieto in view of Bouhrara does not expressively teach the effect determination system according to claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the instructions to: acquire the post-event displacement based on an observation result of a ground surface observation system including a synthetic aperture radar that observes a ground surface including the structure. However, Mase in a similar invention in the same field of endeavor teaches acquire the post-event displacement based on an observation result of a ground surface observation system including a synthetic aperture radar that observes a ground surface including the structure (Mase, Paragraph [0033], “a ground surface observation device that is mountable on a satellite or an aircraft such as a synthetic aperture radar (SAR)”) . The combination of Prieto, Bouhrara, and Mase are analogous art because they are all in the same field of endeavor of assessing damage. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have a ground surface observation device such as a synthetic aperture radar (SAR) as taught in the system of Mase in the system of Prieto to provide a disaster prediction system (Mase, Paragraph [0017]) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prieto et al, US 20150019267 in view of Saxena et al, US 20230091837 . Regarding claim 12 , Prieto further teaches the effect determination system according to claim 12, wherein the moving object is a vehicle, the sensor information measurement device is a dashboard camera , and the sensor information is an image of the surface of the structure (see Prieto, Paragraph [0035], “one or more of these sensors from the sensor platform 120 can be attached to a vehicle (e.g., an unmanned aerial vehicle, an unmanned ground vehicle) … to capture sensor data of the building site 160 when instructed to do so”) . Prieto does not expressively teach wherein the moving object is a vehicle, the sensor information measurement device is a dashboard camera However, Saxena in a similar invention in the same field of endeavor teaches wherein the moving object is a vehicle, the sensor information measurement device is a dashboard camera (see Saxena, Paragraph [0019], “Reference images can be obtained from any of various sources. Examples include, but are not limited to, cameras of other vehicles (dashcams, etc.) that previously passed through the area … The images could include various images of each of the objects in the environment … Objects can include any physical objects, such as buildings, signs, poles, road features (turns, elevation changes, construction equipment, potholes, etc.)”) , The combination of Prieto and Saxena are analogous art because they are both in the same field of endeavor of using a vehicle camera to monitor a surface. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, camera of the vehicle to include dashcams to include objects in the environment including buildings, construction, equipment, potholes, etc. as taught in the computer system of Saxena in the system of Prieto for detecting various damage types of the composite components of the vehicle (Saxena, Paragraph [0001], “to see features of the road and surrounding environment”). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOMINIQUE JAMES whose telephone number is (703)756-1655. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 6:00 pm EST. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Emily Terrell can be reached at (571)270-3717. 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. /DOMINIQUE JAMES/Examiner, Art Unit 2666 /MING Y HON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2666 Application/Control Number: 18/832,985 Page 2 Art Unit: 2666 Application/Control Number: 18/832,985 Page 3 Art Unit: 2666 Application/Control Number: 18/832,985 Page 4 Art Unit: 2666 Application/Control Number: 18/832,985 Page 5 Art Unit: 2666 Application/Control Number: 18/832,985 Page 6 Art Unit: 2666 Application/Control Number: 18/832,985 Page 7 Art Unit: 2666 Application/Control Number: 18/832,985 Page 8 Art Unit: 2666 Application/Control Number: 18/832,985 Page 9 Art Unit: 2666 Application/Control Number: 18/832,985 Page 10 Art Unit: 2666 Application/Control Number: 18/832,985 Page 11 Art Unit: 2666 Application/Control Number: 18/832,985 Page 12 Art Unit: 2666 Application/Control Number: 18/832,985 Page 13 Art Unit: 2666 Application/Control Number: 18/832,985 Page 14 Art Unit: 2666 Application/Control Number: 18/832,985 Page 15 Art Unit: 2666 Application/Control Number: 18/832,985 Page 16 Art Unit: 2666 Application/Control Number: 18/832,985 Page 17 Art Unit: 2666 Application/Control Number: 18/832,985 Page 18 Art Unit: 2666
Prosecution Insights