CTNF 18/834,131 CTNF 101391 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. Priority Receipt is acknowledged that application is a National Stage application of PCT PCT/EP2023/052215. Priority to PCT/CN2022/077061 with a priority date of 2/21/2022 is acknowledged under 35 USC 119(e) and 37 CFR 1.78. Information Disclosure Statement The IDS dated 7/29/2024 has been considered and placed in the application file. 1 st Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 07-20-aia AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. 07-23-aia AIA The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. 07-20-02-aia AIA This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claims 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 16, 17, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over US Patent Publication 2012 0138796 A1 , (Sasajima et al.) Claim 1 [AltContent: textbox (Figure 3 shows the plane of pattern candidates.)] PNG media_image1.png 252 386 media_image1.png Greyscale Regarding claim 1 , Sasajima et al. teach a method for selecting one or more subsets of fields of view of a pattern layout, the method comprising: determining, by a hardware computer system, a set of candidate fields of view based on pattern groups of the pattern layout; ("In the case of a pattern exemplified in Part (a) of FIG. 3, unlike a line pattern candidates for FOV's for accumulation exist in both the X direction and the Y direction," par. 56) and selecting the one or more subsets of the fields of view from the set of candidate fields of view according to prescribed criteria ("if candidates equal to or more than the set value are present, desired candidates for accumulation are selected," par. 177) and based on the pattern groups, wherein the prescribed criteria is for combinations of fields of view included in the one or more subsets for scanning electron microscope (SEM) measurement ("the optics conditions of the scanning electron microscope (for example, the size of the FOV (FOV size), the number of frames to be acquired (Num of Frames), the number of tolerable frames at one pattern position (Frame/Position), the beam current (Beam Current), the landing energy of the beam on the sample (Landing Energy), and the like) are set," par. 180). It is recognized that the citations and evidence provided above are derived from potentially different embodiments of a single reference. Nevertheless, it 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 to employ combinations and sub-combinations of these complementary embodiments, because Sasajima et al. explicitly motivates doing so at least in paragraph [0172] including “While in the present embodiment the control unit 1604 is a signal processing unit which performs accumulation of images or the like, it is not limited thereto and, for example, the frame memory and the arithmetic unit for accumulation of images or the like may be provided in the data management device 1601 to make it to serve as the signal processing unit” and otherwise motivating experimentation and optimization. Claim 2 Regarding claim 2 , Sasajima et al. teach the method of claim 1, further comprising grouping patterns of the pattern layout into the pattern groups, the grouping comprising pattern matching to produce the pattern groups ("In case identical or similar patterns exist around this pattern, the size of a FOV is increased (by lowering the magnification of SEM) to make the neighboring patterns to be included in the FOV," par. 59). Claim 3 [AltContent: textbox (Figure 18 shows the use of a FOV list.)] PNG media_image2.png 422 418 media_image2.png Greyscale Regarding claim 3 , Sasajima et al. teach the method of claim 1, wherein each of the one or more subsets corresponds to a field of view list ("The GUI exemplified in FIG. 18 is for setting a plurality of FOV positions subject to the accumulation on layout data of design data of a semiconductor device," par.173) . Claim 5 [AltContent: textbox (Figure 12 b and c show the elimination of overlaps of FOVs.)] PNG media_image3.png 483 227 media_image3.png Greyscale Regarding claim 5 , Sasajima et al. teach the method of claim 1, wherein selecting the one or more subsets comprises assigning fields of view including specific patterns to respective fields of view lists by applying a graph based overlapping elimination algorithm ("when another FOV for accumulation is set around such a reference FOV as exemplified in Part (a) of FIG. 12, the interval between the two is set preferably to at least the FOV or a value equal or greater. For example, by setting the interval between the reference FOV and another FOV for accumulation to about 1.5 times the FOV and performing the positioning in the range of 1/2 of the FOV in the neighborhood, overlapping of FOV's can be prevented," par. 62). Claim 8 Regarding claim 8 , Sasajima et al. teach the method of claim 1, wherein determining the set of candidate fields of view is further based on a constraint on a characteristic of a given field of view, wherein the characteristic of a given field of view comprises a distance from the given field of view to another field of view and/or a size of the given field of view ("the interval can be calculated by acquiring it from design data or by acquiring an image while lowering the magnification. FIG. 10 exemplifies a method for determining a distance (interval) between respective FOV's," par. 59). Claim 9 Regarding claim 9 , Sasajima et al. teach the method of claim 1, wherein determining the set of candidate fields of view is further based on a generation method comprising matched instance pattern replacement for the set of candidate fields of view ("the interval between the two is set preferably to at least the FOV or a value equal or greater. For example, by setting the interval between the reference FOV and another FOV for accumulation to about 1.5 times the FOV and performing the positioning in the range of 1/2 of the FOV in the neighborhood, overlapping of FOV's can be prevented," par. 62). Claim 10 Regarding claim 10 , Sasajima et al. teach the method of claim 9, wherein the matched instance pattern replacement comprises pattern matching of patterns in the pattern layout to produce pattern groups, and selecting an alternate pattern from the same pattern group to replace a pattern in the pattern group ("In the case of a pattern in which the identical or similar patterns are arranged at an equal interval as exemplified in FIG. 12, when a FOV nearest to the reference FOV is selected as a FOV for accumulation, there is a possibility of the two FOV's overlapping with each other and, therefore, along with the position of the FOV for accumulation being set by skipping one pattern, the interval of 1.5 times or more and 2.0 times or less may preferably be set as a FOV moving range by considering that the pattern search is carried out within the range of 1/2 of a FOV," par. 63). Claim 11 Regarding claim 11 , Sasajima et al. teach the method of claim 1, wherein determining the set of candidate fields of view is based on a generation method comprising field of view merging and/or shifting, wherein field of view merging and/or shifting comprises combining patterns from different pattern groups into a single candidate field of view ("In case identical or similar patterns exist around this pattern, the size of a FOV is increased (by lowering the magnification of SEM) to make the neighboring patterns to be included in the FOV," par. 59). Claim 12 Regarding claim 12 , Sasajima et al. teach the method of claim 11, wherein field of view merging and/or shifting is based on a proximity of patterns from different pattern groups to each other ("In case identical or similar patterns exist around this pattern, the size of a FOV is increased (by lowering the magnification of SEM) to make the neighboring patterns to be included in the FOV," par. 59). Claim 14 Regarding claim 14 , Sasajima et al. teach the method of claim 1, wherein determining the set of candidate fields of view based on pattern groups of the pattern layout comprises determining the set of candidate fields of view based on a list of pattern locations and matching information for the pattern groups ("Arrangement of the plurality of candidates for FOV's is supposed to be carried out in accordance with a predetermined rule and, for example, it is conceivable that a single pattern is selected and patterns having the same shape as that of the pattern are extracted by the number of frames being set as described previously. Since the pattern shape information is registered in the design data, the aforementioned setting may be conducted based on that information," par. 181). Claim 16 Regarding claim 16 , Sasajima et al. teach a non-transitory computer readable medium having instructions thereon or therein, the instructions, when executed by a computer system, configured to cause the computer system to at least: ("a memory medium for memorizing the computer programs," par. 159) determine a set of candidate fields of view based on pattern groups of a pattern layout; ("In the case of a pattern exemplified in Part (a) of FIG. 3, unlike a line pattern candidates for FOV's for accumulation exist in both the X direction and the Y direction," par. 56) and selecting one or more subsets of fields of view of the pattern layout from the set of candidate fields of view according to prescribed criteria ("if candidates equal to or more than the set value are present, desired candidates for accumulation are selected," par. 177) and based on the pattern groups, wherein the prescribed criteria is for combinations of fields of view included in the one or more subsets for scanning electron microscope (SEM) measurement ("the optics conditions of the scanning electron microscope (for example, the size of the FOV (FOV size), the number of frames to be acquired (Num of Frames), the number of tolerable frames at one pattern position (Frame/Position), the beam current (Beam Current), the landing energy of the beam on the sample (Landing Energy), and the like) are set," par. 180). Claim 17 Regarding claim 17 , Sasajima et al. teach the medium of claim 16, wherein the instructions are further configured to cause the computer system to group patterns of the pattern layout into the pattern groups, the grouping comprising pattern matching to produce the pattern groups ("In case identical or similar patterns exist around this pattern, the size of a FOV is increased (by lowering the magnification of SEM) to make the neighboring patterns to be included in the FOV," par. 59). Claim 18 Regarding claim 18 , Sasajima et al. teach the medium of claim 16, wherein each of the one or more subsets corresponds to a field of view list ("The GUI exemplified in FIG. 18 is for setting a plurality of FOV positions subject to the accumulation on layout data of design data of a semiconductor device," par.173). Claim 19 Regarding claim 19 , Sasajima et al. teach the medium of claim 16, wherein selection of the one or more subsets comprises assignment of fields of view including specific patterns to respective fields of view lists by application of a graph based overlapping elimination algorithm or by application of an integer linear programming algorithm to determine an optimally diverse group of patterns in a predetermined number of lists of fields of view ("when another FOV for accumulation is set around such a reference FOV as exemplified in Part (a) of FIG. 12, the interval between the two is set preferably to at least the FOV or a value equal or greater. For example, by setting the interval between the reference FOV and another FOV for accumulation to about 1.5 times the FOV and performing the positioning in the range of 1/2 of the FOV in the neighborhood, overlapping of FOV's can be prevented," par. 62). 2 nd Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over US Patent Publication 2012 0138796 A1 , (Sasajima et al.) in view of US Patent Publication 2018 0300434 A1 , (Hu et al.). Claim 4 Regarding claim 4 , Sasajima et al. teach the method of claim 1 as noted above. Sasajima et al. do not explicitly teach all of wherein a subset of fields of view comprises a list of fields of view selected from the set of candidate fields of view. However, Hu et al. teach wherein a subset of fields of view comprises a list of fields of view selected ("a list of the resulting FOVs is exported to an inspection and/or imaging tool," par. 148) from the set of candidate fields of view ("optimized Fields of View," par. 144). Therefore, taking the teachings of Sasajima et al. and Hu et al. as a whole, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention of the instant application to modify image-averaging for low-dose charged particle microscopy as taught by Sasajima et al. to use a list view of FOVs as taught by Hu et al. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been that, “At 604, the most critical patterns are selected (from those received at 602) based on the various types of rankings … At 612, a list of the resulting FOVs is exported” as noted by the Hu et al. disclosure in paragraph [0146 and 0148], which also motivates combination because the combination would predictably have a higher efficiency as there is a reasonable expectation that there is a reasonable expectation that automatically filtering and exporting critical patterns into a list view would significantly reduce operator fatigue, eliminate manual selection steps, and streamline the field of view (FOV) targeting process and/or because doing so merely combines prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. 3 rd Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 Claims 6 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over US Patent Publication 2012 0138796 A1 , (Sasajima et al.) in view of US Patent Publication 2023 0023153 A1 , (Tel et al.). Claim 6 Regarding claim 6 , Sasajima et al. teach the method of claim 5 as noted above. [AltContent: textbox (Figure 27B shows the use of colors to identify FOVs.)] PNG media_image4.png 386 363 media_image4.png Greyscale Sasajima et al. do not explicitly teach all of wherein the graph based overlapping elimination algorithm comprises a graph coloring algorithm, and wherein each field of view list corresponds to a color. However, Tel et al. teach wherein the graph based overlapping elimination algorithm comprises a graph coloring algorithm, and wherein each field of view list corresponds to a color ("FIG. 27 b depicts a known method of obtaining metrology data associated with the region," par. 276). Therefore, taking the teachings of Sasajima et al. and Tel et al. as a whole, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention of the instant application to modify image-averaging for low-dose charged particle microscopy as taught by Sasajima et al. to use graph coloring method as taught by Tel et al. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been that, “The areas 2706, shown in black, comprise features having an EPE criticality of 14 nm. These are the most critical features identified by the EPE criticality map. The rest of the region 2700 only comprises features having an EPE criticality exceeding 25 nm. For example, the EPE criticality may be 30 nm or more. These are the least critical features identified by the EPE criticality map” as noted by the Tel et al. disclosure in paragraph [0274-0275], which also motivates combination because the combination would predictably have an additional utility as there is a reasonable expectation that the optimization and categorization of features based on their EPE criticality map would successfully target and isolate the most critical features for averaging; and/or because doing so merely combines prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Claim 13 Regarding claim 13 , Sasajima et al. teach the method of claim 1 as noted above. Sasajima et al. do not explicitly teach all of wherein the prescribed criteria comprises a pattern group diversity metric or a pattern group criticality metric, wherein the pattern group criticality metric comprises a weight of a pattern group. However, Tel et al. teach wherein the prescribed criteria comprises a pattern group diversity metric or a pattern group criticality metric, wherein the pattern group criticality metric comprises a weight of a pattern group ("the EPE criticality may define the minimum allowable spacing between features in the same and/or different layers, and/or the minimum allowable overlap of features in different layers," par. 264). Sasajima et al. and Tel et al. are combined as per claim 6. 4 th Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over US Patent Publication 2012 0138796 A1 , (Sasajima et al.) in view of WIPO Patent Publication 2019 115426 A1 , (La Fontaine et al.). Claim 15 Regarding claim 15 , Sasajima et al. teach the method of claim 1 as noted above. Sasajima et al. do not explicitly teach all of wherein the prescribed criteria causes inclusion of an optimally diverse group of patterns in a predetermined number of subsets of fields of view. [AltContent: textbox (Figure 14A shows the FOVs as optimal diversity of criticality.)] PNG media_image5.png 248 224 media_image5.png Greyscale However, La Fontaine et al. teach wherein the prescribed criteria causes inclusion of an optimally diverse group of patterns in a predetermined number of subsets of fields of view ("pattern instances are represented by the + signs and the associated circles represent the probability of the pattern instances being defective with the larger the circle, the greater the probability," par. 116). Therefore, taking the teachings of Sasajima et al. and La Fontaine et al. as a whole, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention of the instant application to modify image-averaging for low-dose charged particle microscopy as taught by Sasajima et al. to use the inclusion of optimally diverse groups of patterns as taught by La Fontaine et al. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been that, “The pattern instances are represented by the + signs and the associated circles represent the probability of the pattern instances being defective with the larger the circle, the greater the probability. Because moving the FOV is relatively slow, inspecting the pattern instances using more than three FOVs would reduce the inspection throughput” as noted by the La Fontaine et al. disclosure in paragraph [0116], which also motivates combination because the combination would predictably have a greater efficiency as there is a reasonable expectation that incorporating optimally diverse patterns will effectively pinpoint defective pattern instances without requiring a prohibitive number of fields of view (FOVs), thereby maintaining high inspection throughput while preserving the low-dose advantages of charged particle microscopy and/or because doing so merely combines prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. 5 th Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over US Patent Publication 2012 0138796 A1 , (Sasajima et al.) in view of US Patent Publication 2023 0023153 A1 , (Tel et al.) and in further view of WIPO Patent Publication 2019 115426 A1 , (La Fontaine et al.). Claim 20 Regarding claim 20 , Sasajima et al. teach a non-transitory computer readable medium having instructions thereon or therein, the instructions, when executed by a computer system, configured to cause the computer system to at least: ("a memory medium for memorizing the computer programs," par. 159) determine a set of candidate fields of view based on pattern groups of a pattern layout and a constraint on a characteristic of a given field of view, ("In the case of a pattern exemplified in Part (a) of FIG. 3, unlike a line pattern candidates for FOV's for accumulation exist in both the X direction and the Y direction," par. 56) wherein the characteristic of a given field of view comprise a distance from the given field of view to another field of view and/or a size of the given field of view; ("the interval can be calculated by acquiring it from design data or by acquiring an image while lowering the magnification. FIG. 10 exemplifies a method for determining a distance (interval) between respective FOV's," par. 59) and select one or more lists of fields of view for the pattern layout from the set of candidate fields of view according to prescribed criteria ("if candidates equal to or more than the set value are present, desired candidates for accumulation are selected," par. 177) for combinations of fields of view included in the one or more lists for scanning electron microscope measurement, wherein the selection of the one or more lists comprises: ("the optics conditions of the scanning electron microscope (for example, the size of the FOV (FOV size), the number of frames to be acquired (Num of Frames), the number of tolerable frames at one pattern position (Frame/Position), the beam current (Beam Current), the landing energy of the beam on the sample (Landing Energy), and the like) are set," par. 180) assignment of fields of view including specific patterns to respective lists by application of a graph based elimination and graph coloring algorithm ("when another FOV for accumulation is set around such a reference FOV as exemplified in Part (a) of FIG. 12, the interval between the two is set preferably to at least the FOV or a value equal or greater. For example, by setting the interval between the reference FOV and another FOV for accumulation to about 1.5 times the FOV and performing the positioning in the range of 1/2 of the FOV in the neighborhood, overlapping of FOV's can be prevented," par. 62) . Sasajima et al. do not explicitly teach all of wherein each list corresponds to a color; or assignment of fields of view including specific patterns to respective lists by application of an integer linear programming algorithm and graph coloring algorithm, wherein each field of view corresponds to a color, wherein the prescribed criteria comprises inclusion of an optimally diverse group of patterns in a predetermined number of lists of fields of view. However, Tel et al. teach wherein each list corresponds to a color; or assignment of fields of view including specific patterns to respective lists by application of an integer linear programming algorithm and graph coloring algorithm, wherein each field of view corresponds to a color ("FIG. 27 b depicts a known method of obtaining metrology data associated with the region," par. 276). Therefore, taking the teachings of Sasajima et al. and Tel et al. as a whole, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention of the instant application to modify image-averaging for low-dose charged particle microscopy as taught by Sasajima et al. to use graph coloring method as taught by Tel et al. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been that, “The areas 2706, shown in black, comprise features having an EPE criticality of 14 nm. These are the most critical features identified by the EPE criticality map. The rest of the region 2700 only comprises features having an EPE criticality exceeding 25 nm. For example, the EPE criticality may be 30 nm or more. These are the least critical features identified by the EPE criticality map” as noted by the Tel et al. disclosure in paragraph [0274-0275], which also motivates combination because the combination would predictably have an additional utility as there is a reasonable expectation that the optimization and categorization of features based on their EPE criticality map would successfully target and isolate the most critical features for averaging; and/or because doing so merely combines prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Additionally, La Fontaine et al. teach wherein the prescribed criteria comprises inclusion of an optimally diverse group of patterns in a predetermined number of lists of fields of view ("pattern instances are represented by the + signs and the associated circles represent the probability of the pattern instances being defective with the larger the circle, the greater the probability," par. 116). Therefore, taking the teachings of Sasajima et al., Tel et al., and La Fontaine et al. as a whole, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention of the instant application to modify image-averaging for low-dose charged particle microscopy as taught by Sasajima et al. and graph coloring method as taught by Tel et al. to use the inclusion of optimally diverse groups of patterns as taught by La Fontaine et al. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been that, “The pattern instances are represented by the + signs and the associated circles represent the probability of the pattern instances being defective with the larger the circle, the greater the probability. Because moving the FOV is relatively slow, inspecting the pattern instances using more than three FOVs would reduce the inspection throughput” as noted by the La Fontaine et al. disclosure in paragraph [0116], which also motivates combination because the combination would predictably have a greater efficiency as there is a reasonable expectation that incorporating optimally diverse patterns will effectively pinpoint defective pattern instances without requiring a prohibitive number of fields of view (FOVs), thereby maintaining high inspection throughput while preserving the low-dose advantages of charged particle microscopy and/or because doing so merely combines prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim 7 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Reference Cited 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. US Patent Publication 2012 0053892 A1 to Matsuoka et al. discloses a pattern measurement apparatus that evaluates double patterning processes by simulating exposures based on charged-particle beam data, overlaying the simulated contour lines against design coordinates, and setting precise measurement conditions to analyze pattern deviations . Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KARSTEN F LANTZ whose telephone number is (571) 272-4564. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-4:00. 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, Ms. Jennifer Mehmood can be reached on 571-272-2976. 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. /Karsten F. Lantz/Examiner, Art Unit 2664 Date: 5/21/2026 /JENNIFER MEHMOOD/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2664 Application/Control Number: 18/834,131 Page 2 Art Unit: 2664 Application/Control Number: 18/834,131 Page 3 Art Unit: 2664 Application/Control Number: 18/834,131 Page 4 Art Unit: 2664 Application/Control Number: 18/834,131 Page 5 Art Unit: 2664 Application/Control Number: 18/834,131 Page 6 Art Unit: 2664 Application/Control Number: 18/834,131 Page 7 Art Unit: 2664 Application/Control Number: 18/834,131 Page 8 Art Unit: 2664 Application/Control Number: 18/834,131 Page 9 Art Unit: 2664 Application/Control Number: 18/834,131 Page 10 Art Unit: 2664 Application/Control Number: 18/834,131 Page 11 Art Unit: 2664 Application/Control Number: 18/834,131 Page 12 Art Unit: 2664 Application/Control Number: 18/834,131 Page 13 Art Unit: 2664 Application/Control Number: 18/834,131 Page 14 Art Unit: 2664 Application/Control Number: 18/834,131 Page 15 Art Unit: 2664 Application/Control Number: 18/834,131 Page 16 Art Unit: 2664 Application/Control Number: 18/834,131 Page 17 Art Unit: 2664 Application/Control Number: 18/834,131 Page 18 Art Unit: 2664 Application/Control Number: 18/834,131 Page 19 Art Unit: 2664
Prosecution Insights