CTNF 18/835,028 CTNF 96350 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. 12-151 AIA 26-51 12-51 Status of Claims Claims 1-20 pending. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation 07-30-03 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. 07-30-05 The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. 07-34-01 Claims 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Regarding claim 1, the phrase “an incident RF signal and a reflected signal of an RF transmission on the RF antenna” renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear what is meant by “on the RF antenna,” e.g., it is unclear whether this describes both the incident RF signal and the reflected RF signal, or only the reflected RF signal. It is further unclear whether the reflection of the reflected RF signal occurs “on” the antenna, or whether the reception of a reflected signal merely occurs at the antenna. Claim 17 recites a similar limitation and is indefinite for similar reasons. Dependent claims rejected due to nature of dependency upon claims 1 or 17. 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1-10, 12-14, 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20210055385 A1 to Rimini in view of US 20200169967 A1 to Yu . Regarding claim 1, US 20210055385 A1 to Rimini teaches: A device comprising a processor configured to: receive characteristic information about a radio frequency (RF) antenna, wherein the characteristic information represents an incident RF signal and a reflected RF signal of an RF transmission on the RF antenna; (Fig. 2-3; [0049-52] – “Using at least one of the antenna elements 212, the wireless transceiver 120 can transmit the proximity detection signal 208-1 while receiving the reflected proximity detection signal 208-2 using at least another one of the antenna elements 212. In other words, the wireless transceiver 120 can receive the reflected proximity detection signal 208-2 via a first antenna element 212-1 during a portion of time that the proximity detection signal 208-1 is transmitted via a second antenna element 212-2… radar-based proximity detector… the transmission from the transmit antenna 210-1 may include I and Q components. And further, after the reflected signal is received from the receive antenna 210-2, I and Q components of the reflected signal may be separated from one another for processing.”) analyze the characteristic information with a machine-learning-based classifier (Fig. 3; [0052, 61] – “machine learning (ML) algorithm to categorize target objects detected utilizing a radar-based proximity detector”) to determine, based on the characteristic information, a proximity characterization ([0061] – “The M extracted features may then be provided to classification circuitry 328. In some examples, the classification circuitry 328 may be a support vector machine (SVM) that utilizes machine learning (ML) to classify target objects. As described further below, SVM classification circuitry 328 may determine distances of the extracted features with respect to a boundary in a defined feature space. Based on the distances from, and/or the location relative to such a boundary in the defined feature space, the SVM classification circuitry 328 may then provide a determination of a categorization of the target object 314, e.g., as human or non-human”) that indicates whether an object is within a threshold proximity ([0044] – “the SVM classification circuitry 132 may apply the extracted features to a classification model, wherein the SVM classification circuitry 132 determines a location of the target object, within a feature space, relative to a boundary that separates objects within the feature space into categories.”) to the RF antenna; lined and control, based on the proximity characterization, a power back-off level of the RF transmission. ([0061] – “based on the categorization of the target object 314, the processor/DSP circuitry 128 can generate a transmission parameter that controls one or more transmission attributes for wireless communication. By specifying the transmission parameter, the processor/DSP circuitry 128 can, for example, cause the transceiver 120 to decrease a transmit power if a target object 314 that is near the electronic device 102 is a human,”) Yu teaches: proximity characterization that indicates whether an object is within a threshold proximity to the RF antenna; ([0043-44] – “In operation S20, an operation for estimating distances between the first antenna modules 210 and an external target may be performed… the controller 255 may control transmissions through the first antenna modules 210 based on distances estimated in operation S20. For example, the controller 255 may reduce transmission power through a first antenna module, which is estimated to be close to the external object, from among the first antenna modules 210. The controller 255 may increase transmission power through a first antenna module, which is estimated to be far from the external object, from among the first antenna modules 210.”) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied Yu’s known technique to Rimini’s known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Such a finding is proper because (1) Rimini teaches a base method of transmission parameter adjustment based on features / classifications of received signals ; (2) Yu teaches a specific technique of transmission parameter adjustment based on a threshold proximity of object to antenna ; (3) one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system; and (4) no additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries are necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness (See MPEP 2143). Regarding claim 2, Rimini in view of Yu teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above. Yu further teaches: The device of claim 1, wherein the proximity characterization comprises a separation distance between the object and the RF antenna. ([0043-44] – “In operation S20, an operation for estimating distances between the first antenna modules 210 and an external target may be performed… the controller 255 may control transmissions through the first antenna modules 210 based on distances estimated in operation S20. For example, the controller 255 may reduce transmission power through a first antenna module, which is estimated to be close to the external object, from among the first antenna modules 210. The controller 255 may increase transmission power through a first antenna module, which is estimated to be far from the external object, from among the first antenna modules 210.”) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied Yu’s known technique to Rimini’s known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Such a finding is proper because (1) Rimini teaches a base method of transmission parameter adjustment based on features / classifications of received signals ; (2) Yu teaches a specific technique of transmission parameter adjustment based on a threshold proximity of object to antenna ; (3) one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system; and (4) no additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries are necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness (See MPEP 2143). Regarding claim 3, Rimini in view of Yu teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above. Rimini further teaches: The device of claim 2, wherein the processor is further configured to determine the power back-off level ([0029] – “By actively measuring the range to one or more objects, an electronic device can continually monitor its surrounding environment, and can incrementally adjust one or more transmission parameters to account for the object's movement (e.g., adjustments can increase or decrease transmission power generally or in particular directions via beamformed mmWaves or RF waves). [0061] – “By specifying the transmission parameter, the processor/DSP circuitry 128 can, for example, cause the transceiver 120 to decrease a transmit power if a target object 314 that is near the electronic device 102 is a human, or increase the transmit power if the target object 314 is farther away from the electronic device 102 and/or is not a human. For example, the power amplifier 302 may be dynamically controlled based on the target object classification.”) as a function of the separation distance. A modification of Rimini in view of Yu to determine power back-off level as a function of the separation distance would have been obvious to try as one of a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success. Such a finding is proper because (1) at the time of the invention, there had been a recognized problem or need in the art, in this case a need to choose an amount by which to adjust the transmit power; (2) there are a finite number of identified, predictable potential solutions to the recognized need or problem, the relationship between power and distance is known; (3) one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success; and (4) no additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries are necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness (See MPEP 2143). Regarding claim 4, Rimini in view of Yu teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above. Rimini further teaches: The device of claim 1, wherein the proximity characterization comprises a classification of the object. ([0061] – “The M extracted features may then be provided to classification circuitry 328. In some examples, the classification circuitry 328 may be a support vector machine (SVM) that utilizes machine learning (ML) to classify target objects. As described further below, SVM classification circuitry 328 may determine distances of the extracted features with respect to a boundary in a defined feature space. Based on the distances from, and/or the location relative to such a boundary in the defined feature space, the SVM classification circuitry 328 may then provide a determination of a categorization of the target object 314, e.g., as human or non-human”) Regarding claim 5, Rimini in view of Yu teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above. Rimkini further teaches: The device of claim 4, wherein the processor is further configured to determine the power back-off level as a function of the classification. ([0061] – “based on the categorization of the target object 314, the processor/DSP circuitry 128 can generate a transmission parameter that controls one or more transmission attributes for wireless communication. By specifying the transmission parameter, the processor/DSP circuitry 128 can, for example, cause the transceiver 120 to decrease a transmit power if a target object 314 that is near the electronic device 102 is a human,”) Regarding claim 6, Rimini in view of Yu teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above. Rimini further teaches: The device of claim 4, wherein the classification comprises a type of object that is within the threshold proximity to the RF antenna. ([0060] – “The extracted features may be utilized for classifying the target object as human or non-human, for example, as described further below. That is, features indicative of micromovements characteristic of human target objects may be utilized for categorization of the target object as such.”) Regarding claim 7, Rimini in view of Yu teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above. Rimini further teaches: The device of claim 6, wherein the type of object comprises at least one of a head, a torso, a cheek, a palm, a wrist, a foot, an ankle, an abdomen, or a non-human object. ([0060] – “The extracted features may be utilized for classifying the target object as human or non-human, for example, as described further below. That is, features indicative of micromovements characteristic of human target objects may be utilized for categorization of the target object as such.”) Regarding claim 8, Rimini in view of Yu teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above. Rimini further teaches: The device of claim 1, wherein the characteristic information that comprises the incident RF signal comprises an in-phase component of the incident RF signal and a quadrature component of the incident RF signal. (Fig. 1-3; [0049-52] – radar-based proximity detector… the transmission from the transmit antenna 210-1 may include I and Q components. And further, after the reflected signal is received from the receive antenna 210-2, I and Q components of the reflected signal may be separated from one another for processing.”) Regarding claim 9, Rimini in view of Yu teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above. Rimini further teaches: The device of claim 1, wherein the characteristic information that comprises the reflected RF signal comprises an in-phase component of the reflected RF signal and a quadrature component of the reflected RF signal. (Fig. 1-3; [0049-52] – radar-based proximity detector… the transmission from the transmit antenna 210-1 may include I and Q components. And further, after the reflected signal is received from the receive antenna 210-2, I and Q components of the reflected signal may be separated from one another for processing.”) Regarding claim 10, Rimini in view of Yu teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above. Rimini further teaches: The device of claim 1, wherein the characteristic information further comprises an RF channel of the RF transmission. (Fig. 1-3; [0049-52] – radar-based proximity detector… the transmission from the transmit antenna 210-1 may include I and Q components. And further, after the reflected signal is received from the receive antenna 210-2, I and Q components of the reflected signal may be separated from one another for processing.”) Regarding claim 12, Rimini in view of Yu teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above. Rimini further teaches: The device of claim 1, wherein the characteristic information further comprises a frequency band of the RF transmission. (Fig. 3; [0060] – “After cancelling the MC, discrete Fourier transform (DFT) circuitry 324 may convert the received beat signal to the frequency domain and provide samples of the beat signal in this domain”) Regarding claim 13, Rimini in view of Yu teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above. Rimini further teaches: The deviceof claim 1, the device further comprising a memory configured to store the machine-learning-based classifier. (Fig. 1, 3; [0035] – “the CRM 110 may include memory for storing data configured to enable the processor/DSP 128 to process object-sensing information against stored data, thereby enabling classification of target objects into different object-type classes.” [0052] – “processor/DSP circuitry 128 for a machine learning (ML) algorithm to categorize target objects detected utilizing a radar-based proximity detector according to some aspects of this disclosure.”) Regarding claim 14, Rimini in view of Yu teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above. Rimini further teaches: The device of claim 1, wherein the processor configured to control the power back-off level of the RF transmission comprises the processor configured to send an instruction to a transceiver that is coupled to the RF antenna, wherein the instruction indicates the power back-off level. ([0061] – “based on the categorization of the target object 314, the processor/DSP circuitry 128 can generate a transmission parameter that controls one or more transmission attributes for wireless communication. By specifying the transmission parameter, the processor/DSP circuitry 128 can, for example, cause the transceiver 120 to decrease a transmit power if a target object 314 that is near the electronic device 102 is a human,”) Regarding claim 16, Rimini in view of Yu teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above. Rimini further teaches: The device of claim 1, wherein the characteristic information comprises an average of measured samples of the incident RF signal and the reflected RF signal. ([0068] – “average power of the reflected signal… average of the DFT of the power of the reflected signal. And in the second chart 504, the horizontal axis represents the mean, over 30 sequential radar reflections, of the change (Δ) in phase between sample n and sample n−1; and the vertical axis represents the variance of the change (Δ) in phase between sample n and sample n−1.” [0100] – “In a further example, the mean value of the I/Q samples may be removed (mean removal). For example, the calculated average or mean across a set of samples may be subtracted from the value of each sample.”) Regarding claim(s) 17, 19 Claim(s) 17, 19 is/are claims corresponding to claim(s) 1, respectively. Accordingly, the Examiner’s remarks and application of the prior art with respect to claim(s) 17, 19 are substantially the same as those made above with respect to claim(s) 1. Regarding claim 18, Rimini in view of Yu teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above. Rimini further teaches: The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 17, wherein the characteristic information that represents the incident RF signal comprises an in-phase component of the incident RF signal and a quadrature component of the incident RF signal and also comprises an in-phase component of the reflected RF signal and a quadrature component of the reflected RF signal. (Fig. 1-3; [0049-52] – radar-based proximity detector… the transmission from the transmit antenna 210-1 may include I and Q components. And further, after the reflected signal is received from the receive antenna 210-2, I and Q components of the reflected signal may be separated from one another for processing.”) Regarding claim 20, Rimini in view of Yu teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above. Rimini further teaches: The apparatus of claim 19, wherein the characteristic information comprises an RF channel of the RF transmission. (Fig. 1-3; [0049-52] – radar-based proximity detector… the transmission from the transmit antenna 210-1 may include I and Q components. And further, after the reflected signal is received from the receive antenna 210-2, I and Q components of the reflected signal may be separated from one another for processing.”) 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20210055385 A1 to Rimini in view of US 20200169967 A1 to Yu and further in view of US 20090303103 A1 to Winstead . Regarding claim 11, Rimini in view of Yu teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above. Rimini in view of Yu does not explicitly teach the additional elements of the claim. Winstead teaches: The device of claim 1, wherein the characteristic information further comprises an operating temperature at the RF antenna. ([0050] – “processor 304 may detect radar system 104 is operating within a given range(s) (e.g., a temperature range and/or a transmit-signal power range) and select the default reduction leakage component or the determined reduction leakage component based on the given range(s).”) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied Winstead’s known technique to Rimini’s known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Such a finding is proper because (1) Rimini teaches a base RF transmission / reception method ; (2) Winstead teaches a specific radar technique of accounting for temperature ; (3) one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in a system with improved temperature adaptability; and (4) no additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries are necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness (See MPEP 2143) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20210055385 A1 to Rimini in view of US 20200169967 A1 to Yu and further in view of US 20200309923 A1 to Bhaskaran . Regarding claim 15, Rimini in view of Yu teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above. Rimini in view of Yu does not explicitly teach the additional elements of the claim. Bhaskaran teaches: The device of claim 1, wherein the processor configured to analyze the characteristic information comprises the processor configured to analyze the characteristic information with a plurality of machine-learning-based classifiers, each associated with a corresponding one of a plurality of proximity classifications, wherein the machine-learning-based classifier comprises one of the plurality of machine-learning- based classifiers and the proximity classification comprises one of the plurality of proximity classifications. (Fig. 8, element 813 – determine a final output based at least in part on the output of one or more ML models; [0029] – “The techniques may additionally or alternatively comprise training multiple ML models as binary classifiers, where each ML model is trained to classify sensor data as either particulate matter or a classification different from the other ML models. For example, the techniques may comprise training a first ML model to classify sensor data as particulate matter or a vehicle, a second ML model to classify sensor data as particulate matter or a pedestrian, and so on. In some examples, one or more of the multiple ML models may determine a confidence score associated with the classification and the output may be based at least in part on determining a maximum confidence score across the outputs of the different ML models.”) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied Bhaskaran’s known technique to Rimini’s known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Such a finding is proper because (1) Rimini teaches a base method of transmission parameter adjustment based on ML classifications of received signals ; (2) Bhaskaran teaches a specific technique using a plurality of ML classifiers ; (3) one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in a more robust system; and (4) no additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries are necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness (See MPEP 2143) . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20160037361 A1 to Maguire teaches RF proximity sensing and determining, based on received signal characteristics, whether an object is approaching . Contact Information Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JULIANA CROSS whose telephone number is (571)272-8721. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9am-5pm Pacific time. 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, William Kelleher can be reached on (571) 272-7753. 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. /JULIANA CROSS/Examiner, Art Unit 3648 /William Kelleher/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648 Application/Control Number: 18/835,028 Page 2 Art Unit: 3648 Application/Control Number: 18/835,028 Page 3 Art Unit: 3648 Application/Control Number: 18/835,028 Page 4 Art Unit: 3648 Application/Control Number: 18/835,028 Page 5 Art Unit: 3648 Application/Control Number: 18/835,028 Page 6 Art Unit: 3648 Application/Control Number: 18/835,028 Page 7 Art Unit: 3648 Application/Control Number: 18/835,028 Page 8 Art Unit: 3648 Application/Control Number: 18/835,028 Page 9 Art Unit: 3648 Application/Control Number: 18/835,028 Page 10 Art Unit: 3648 Application/Control Number: 18/835,028 Page 11 Art Unit: 3648 Application/Control Number: 18/835,028 Page 12 Art Unit: 3648 Application/Control Number: 18/835,028 Page 13 Art Unit: 3648 Application/Control Number: 18/835,028 Page 14 Art Unit: 3648 Application/Control Number: 18/835,028 Page 15 Art Unit: 3648 Application/Control Number: 18/835,028 Page 16 Art Unit: 3648 Application/Control Number: 18/835,028 Page 17 Art Unit: 3648 Application/Control Number: 18/835,028 Page 18 Art Unit: 3648 Application/Control Number: 18/835,028 Page 19 Art Unit: 3648 Application/Control Number: 18/835,028 Page 20 Art Unit: 3648
Prosecution Insights