CTFR 18/851,492 CTFR 82854 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Response to Amendment Claims 1-2, 5, 8-12, 15-16, 19-20, 22-23, 25, 29, and 31-32 are pending in the application. Claims 1-2, 8-12, 15-16, 20, 22-23, and 25 are currently amended. Claims 3-4, 6-7, 13-14, 17-18, 21, 24, 26-28, and 30 have been canceled. No new claims are currently added. Applicant’s amendment to the specification dated April 13, 2026 has been fully considered and is entered. Response to Arguments With regard to Applicant’s remarks dated April 13, 2026: Regarding the rejection of claims 1-2, 5-6, 8-12, 15-16, 19-20, 22-23, 25, 29, and 31-32 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), Applicant’s amendment and arguments have been fully considered. Some issues were resolved by the amendment and the rejection pertaining to those issues has been withdrawn. However, other issues remain. Applicant’s amendment also introduces new issues. Therefore, the rejection is maintained. Applicants argue at page 12 of the Remarks, as filed, in connection with claim 23 that “The UPU procedure is a common technical means in the field. Those skilled in the art can implement the UPU procedure based on existing technology. Claim 23 is intended to limit the receiving PIN information in the existing procedure, thereby saving signaling overhead.” Examiner disagrees and requests Applicants to provide a technical material from before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to support their admission that the UPU procedure was a common technical means in the field at the time of filing. Regarding the rejection of claims 1-2, 5-6, 8-12, 15-16, 19-20, 22-23, 25, 29, and 31-32 under 35 U.S.C. 101, Applicant’s amendment and arguments have been fully considered. Applicants argue at pages 12-13 of the Remarks, as filed, that “these limitations explicitly require that the core network element, the AF, and the Redcap terminal interact with each other, and these limitations explicitly require the complex data processing amount and the fast data processing speed, which cannot be achieved by the human brain. Thus, there is no reasonable interpretation of amended claim 1 in which the recited method can be performed solely in the human mind or with pen and paper. Amended claim 1 is therefore not directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea, specifically a mental process), under Step 2A of the test for subject matter eligibility (see M.P.E.P. 2106.04).” Examiner disagrees. Applicants failed to establish that the core network element, AF and Redcap terminals are special purpose-built hardware that performs sending and receiving of data in an unconventional way that cannot be replicated by a human mind without undue effort. Applicants also failed to show how updating subscription data that comprises an identifier of the Redcap terminal (as per claim 2), is anything more that writing a new entry in a spreadsheet with a pen adding the terminal to the list of terminals grouped together under the same name forming a PIN network. There is nothing in the claim that requires a technical solution that outside of the scope of what is reasonable to perform by a human with pen and paper. Applicants further argue at page 13 of the Remarks, as filed, that “even if the Office Action could persist in contending that amended claim 1 could somehow be interpreted as being directed to an abstract idea, amended claim 1 recites significantly more than an abstract idea and is integrated into a practical application (see M.P.E.P. 2106.04(d)). Specifically, amended claim 1 recites "creating the PIN" and "wherein creating the PIN comprises: updating subscription data of a reduced capability (Redcap) terminal". That is, in amended claim 1, the PIN is created by updating the subscription data of the Redcap terminal, finally. Therefore, amended claim 1 recites "significantly more" than an abstract idea, and is integrated into a practical application, under Step 2B of the test for subject matter eligibility (see M.P.E.P. 2106.04(d)).” Examiner disagrees. Updating subscription data, which is what Applicants define as “creating a PIN” is not an integration of an abstract idea into a practical application, rather, it is mere description of what the abstract idea entails. Practical application would be showing of how the created PIN is utilized to accomplish a particular function, which was not done. Therefore, the rejection is maintained. Regarding the rejection of claims 1-2, 6, 8-10, 15-16, 22-23, 29, and 31-32 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and claims 5, 11-12, 19, 20, and 25 under 35 U.S.C. 103, Applicant’s amendment and arguments have been fully considered. Applicants argue at page 15 of the Remarks, as filed, that “it can be seen that although 3GPP discloses that the 5G access router sends the on-demand PIN creation authentication and authorization request to the operator M, the 5G access router in 3GPP is a terminal access device, not an application function AF (the AF belongs to the application layer), and the operator M in 3GPP is not a core network element. Therefore, the "on-demand PIN creation authentication and authorization request" disclosed in 3GPP is different from "the request information for requesting to create the PIN" in amended claim 1 of the present application. In addition, 3GPP does not involve the Redcap terminal, and therefore does not involve the interaction between the core network element, the AF, and the Redcap terminal.” Examiner disagrees because Applicants rely on a special definition of a “core network element”, “AF”, and “Redcap terminal” that is not claimed. Therefore, the mapped elements of 3GPP read on the claimed “core network element”, “AF”, and “Redcap terminal” under the BRI and the rejection is maintained. As to any arguments not specifically addressed, they are the same as those discussed above. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 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. Claims 1-2, 5, 8-12, 15-16, 19-20, 22-23, 25, 29, and 31-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. As to claims 1, 15, and 22, it is unclear what constitutes a “reduced capability (Redcap) terminal such as meets and bounds of the claim can be established. In particular, while “Redcap terminal” is mentioned once in the whole specification at par. [0054], as published, the specification fails to establish what type of capability is reduced in the terminal such as to have any effect on the creation of the PIN. For the purposes of examination, Redcap terminal is interpreted as a regular terminal of a type recited in the same par. [0054] of the specification, as published until this “reduction of capability” can be clarified by Applicant. Dependent claims are rejected for the same reasons. As to claims 10 and 23, the PIN information comprises at least one of the information comprised in the request information (as per claim 8). Claim 2 further specifies that the request information can be as simple as a mere identifier of a terminal. Therefore, it is unclear how the PIN information being an identifier of Redcap terminal can indicate that the Redcap terminal is capable of anything. Applicants are requested to identify what specifically in the PIN information serves as an indication that the Redcap terminal is capable of being configured as at least one of a PIN element (PINE), a PIN element with management capability (PEMC), or a PIN element with gateway capability (PEGC) and how a mere identifier of the Redcap terminal can provide such an indication. As to claim 15, the claim is directed to a method for requesting to create a personal IoT network (PIN), performed by an application function (AF). However, AF does not create the PIN because the PIN is created by the core network element (as per claim 1) that is not part of the claim 15 directed to AF. None of the dependent claims are actually creating the PIN. To this extent, it is unclear how the newly added subject matter further limits the step of sending request information and appears to be directed to subject matter that is outside of the claimed scope. The newly added “wherein” clause cannot be accorded full patentable weight. See MPEP 2111.04. Applicants failed to explain how the subject matter of the “wherein” clause is utilized in any of the claimed steps such as to provide a meaningful integration, nor is it possible simply because the AF is not the element performing the claimed function of creating the PIN. AF simply sends a request to another element in the network. As to claim 22, the claim is directed to a method for receiving information, performed by a Redcap terminal. However, the Redcap terminal does not create the PIN because the PIN is created by the core network element (as per claim 1) that is not part of the claim 22 directed to a terminal. None of the dependent claims are actually creating the PIN. To this extent, it is unclear how the newly added subject matter further limits the step of receiving PIN information and appears to be directed to subject matter that is outside of the claimed scope. The newly added “wherein” clause cannot be accorded full patentable weight. See MPEP 2111.04. Applicants failed to explain how the subject matter of the “wherein” clause is utilized in any of the claimed steps such as to provide a meaningful integration, nor is it possible simply because the terminal is not the element performing the claimed function of creating the PIN. Terminal simply receives information and is not utilizing it for any purpose whatsoever, rendering the received information a non-functional descriptive material. As to claim 23, additionally to comments made above in connection with claim 10, it is also unclear how “a user parameter update (UPU) procedure” affects the receiving step and what this UPU procedure actually is. While specification mentions UPU procedure, as a term, it does not explain what it is and how it functions in the context of the claim, rendering the scope of the claim indefinite. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. Claims 1-2, 5, 8-12, 15-16, 19-20, 22-23, 25, 29, and 31-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. As to claims 1, 15, 22, 29, and 31-32, these claims recite a process, machine, manufacture, and composition of matter, thus falling within the defined statutory categories of invention (step 1 of the 101 analysis is YES). The claims describe a concept of sending and receiving information. These operations are deemed to be mental processes and processes performed by a human, which, while being claimed as implemented by a generic processor executing instructions stored in memory, do not require a special purpose computer to perform the claimed steps and are capable to be performed in the human mind including a perception (hearing or vision), evaluation, judgement, and opinion (step 2A prong one is YES). In particular, as to claim 1, step of receiving request information can be performed in the human mind visually in the form of a predefined sequence of blinking lights or audibly and the step of updating subscription data of a terminal can be performed mentally or with pen and paper adding an ID of a terminal to a spreadsheet. As to claim 15, step of sending request information can be performed in the human mind audibly by making an oral request. As to claim 22, step of receiving PIN information can be performed in the human mind visually in the form of a predefined sequence of blinking lights or audibly. There is nothing in the claims that would require a special computer processing to accomplish these tasks that would be unreasonable to perform in a human mind in a reasonable amount of time. Therefore, Examiner determined that each of the claimed steps can be reasonably handled by a human without undue effort. The claims do not recite additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (step 2A prong two is NO). In particular, the only additional element beyond the abstract idea is the generic recitation of a processor. However, this element is described at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than using a generic computer to perform the abstract steps. The claim does not recite any specific, non-conventional arrangement of hardware, any particular algorithm or data structure for making the detection and decision to instruct a task, nor any concrete improvement to the functioning of the equipment or the network (for example, an improvement tied to particular operations). Sending and receiving information has been notoriously old and well known as process. Because the claim merely instructs implementation of the abstract idea using conventional computer components, the additional recited elements does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and therefore does not confer patent eligibility. It is also noted that having the information sent by an application function in claim 1 (and by a core network element in claim 22) does not limit the receiving step, especially considering that the application function and core network element are undefined and reads on entity that is sending the request in all possible ways. Analogously, sending the request from an undefined entity called “application function” to another undefined entity called “core network element” is recited at a very high level of generality that can be accomplished in any known way that does not even include relying on a computer or computer network. The claims do not recite additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (step 2B is NO). Therefore, the claims are not eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. As discussed above, reciting a generic “processor” and “memory” and performing routine steps of detecting an instructing amount to no more than applying the abstract idea on a generic computing device. Mere invocation of generic computer components to automate an abstract process cannot supply an inventive concept. Accordingly, claims 1, 15, 22, 29, and 31-32 are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Dependent claims further define existing steps (via “wherein” clauses) and recite additional steps that can still be reasonably performed by the human mind without requiring a computer to perform the tasks. None of the dependent claims provide significantly more than the judicial exception and do not recite any additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, the dependent claims are rejected for the same reasons. 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. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1-2, 8-10, 15-16, 22-23, 29, and 31-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by 3GPP “3rd Generation Partnership Project; Technical Specification Group Services and System Aspects; Study on Personal Internet of Things (PloT) networks” cited in the IDS dated 09/26/2024 Cite #2, hereinafter 3GPP . As to claim 1, 3GPP teaches a method for creating a personal loT network (PIN), performed by a core network element [PLMN, operator M], the method comprising: receiving request information sent by an application function (AF) [5G access router has PIN function and sends on-demand PIN creation authentication and authorization request to Operator M for creating a PIN] (section 5.11.3); wherein the request information is configured to request to create the PIN (section 5.11.3); wherein the method further comprises: creating the PIN; wherein creating the PIN comprises: updating subscription data of a reduced capability (Redcap) terminal, and wherein updated subscription data comprises at least one of data of PIN information comprised in the request information or data of PIN parameters generated by the core network element [operator M creates the PIN and reconfigures the home access router remotely to start using it to broadcast its own PIN network ID] (section 5.11.3). As to claim 2, 3GPP teaches that the request information comprises at least one of: a Redcap terminal identifier; attribute information of the PIN to be created; or information of one or more PIN elements comprised in the PIN to be created: wherein the attribute information comprises at least one of: a PIN name; information of one or more PIN services; or PIN validity time; and wherein the information of the one or more PIN elements comprises at least one of: PIN element identifiers; PIN element types; information of one or more PIN services; or PIN element names [limit of how many devices are allowed and currently active, time limit, PIN network ID] (section 5.11.3). As to claim 8, 3GPP teaches that after the PIN is created, the method further comprises sending PIN information to the Redcap terminal, wherein the PIN information comprises at least one of the information comprised in the request information or information of the PIN parameters generated by the core network element [5G access router broadcasts its own PIN network ID to PIN element devices (terminals) which is assigned by Operator M] (section 5.11.3 par. 3). As to claim 9, 3GPP teaches that sending the PIN information to the Redcap terminal comprises: sending the PIN information to the Redcap terminal through a user parameter update (UPU) procedure or a user equipment (UE) configuration update (UCU) procedure [PIN network ID is broadcast where the terminal automatically discovers and connect to this PIN] (section 5.11.3 par. 4). As to claim 10, 3GPP teaches that the PIN information indicates that the Redcap terminal is capable of being configured as at least one of a PIN element (PINE), a PIN element with management capability (PEMC), or a PIN element with gateway capability (PEGC) [non-functional descriptive material since this information is not utilized for any purpose in the claim] (section 5.12.3). As to claim 15, 3GPP teaches a method for requesting to create a personal IoT network (PIN), performed by an application function (AF) [5G home access router] (section 5.11.3), the method comprising: sending request information to a core network element; wherein the request information is configured to request to create the PIN [5G access router has PIN function and sends on-demand PIN creation authentication and authorization request to Operator M for creating a PIN] (section 5.11.3). It is noted that claim language “such that the core network element creates the PIN by updating subscription data of a reduced capability (Redcap) terminal; and wherein updated subscription data comprises at least one of data of information comprised in the request information or data of PIN parameters generated by the core network element” is directed to functionality performed by the core network element that is outside of the scope of the claim directed to an application function (AF) and does not further limit the step of sending request information. As to claim 16, 3GPP teaches all the elements, as discussed per claim 2 above. As to claim 22, 3GPP teaches a method for receiving information, performed by a reduced capability (Redcap) terminal [user equipment UE] (section 5.11.1), the method comprising: receiving personal IoT network (PIN) information sent by a core network element [PLMN, operator M], wherein the PIN information comprises at least one of information comprised in request information or information of PIN parameters generated by the core network element [5G access router broadcasts its own PIN network ID which is assigned by Operator M] (section 5.11.3 par. 3). It is noted that claim language “wherein the request information is information for requesting to create the PIN that is received by the core network element and sent by an application function (AF); and the PIN is created by the core network element through updating subscription data of the Redcap terminal; and wherein updated subscription data comprises at least one of data of the information comprised in the request information or data of the PIN parameters generated by the core network element.” is directed to functionality performed by the core network element and the application function AF that are outside of the scope of the claim directed to a Redcap terminal and does not further limit the step of receiving PIN information. As to claim 23, 3GPP teaches that receiving the PIN information sent by the core network element comprises: receiving the PIN information sent by the core network element through a user parameter update (UPU) procedure; and wherein the PIN information indicates that the Redcap terminal is capable of being configured as at least one of a PIN element (PINE), a PIN element with management capability (PEMC), or a PIN element with gateway capability (PEGC) [PIN network ID is broadcast where the terminal automatically discovers and connect to this PIN] (section 5.11.3 par. 4). As to claim 29, 3GPP teaches a communication device [PLMN, operator M] (section 5.11.3) comprising: a memory; and one or more processors, connected to the memory, and configured to execute computer executable instructions stored on the memory to perform the method according to claim 1. As to claim 31, 3GPP teaches a communication device [5G home access router] (section 5.11.3) comprising: a memory; and one or more processors, connected to the memory, and configured to execute computer executable instructions stored on the memory to perform the method according to claim 15. As to claim 32, 3GPP teaches a communication device [user equipment UE] (section 5.11.1) comprising: a memory; and one or more processors, connected to the memory, and configured to execute computer executable instructions stored on the memory to perform the method according to claim 22 . 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 5, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 3GPP in view of Xing et al. (US 2023/0023571 A1) . As to claim 5, 3GPP teaches all the elements except that receiving the request information sent by the AF comprises: receiving the request information sent by the AF via a network exposure function (NEF). Xing is directed to service management on a data packet transmitted by a remote user equipment (UE) (abstract). In particular, Xing teaches that receiving the request information sent by the AF comprises: receiving the request information sent by the AF via a network exposure function (NEF) (steps S1001-a to S1001c in Fig. 10a, par. [0194]-[0196]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method and system of 3GPP by having receiving the request information sent by the AF comprise: receiving the request information sent by the AF via a network exposure function (NEF) in order to control access to services of the 5G core network by asking as a secure gateway placed between AF and core network elements such as UDM/UDR and PCF, which is part of the 5G communication standard. As to claim 19, 3GPP teaches all the elements except that sending the request information to the core network element comprises: sending the request information to the core network element via a network exposure function (NEF). Xing is directed to service management on a data packet transmitted by a remote user equipment (UE) (abstract). In particular, Xing teaches that sending the request information to the core network element comprises: sending the request information to the core network element via a network exposure function (NEF) (steps S1001-a to S1001c in Fig. 10a, par. [0194]-[0196]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method and system of 3GPP by having sending the request information to the core network element comprise: sending the request information to the core network element via a network exposure function (NEF)in order to control access to services of the 5G core network by asking as a secure gateway placed between AF and core network elements such as UDM/UDR and PCF, which is part of the 5G communication standard. As to claim 20, 3GPP teaches receiving a response message, wherein the response message indicates whether the PIN is successfully created, wherein the response message comprises at least one of a response message accepting the request information or a response message rejecting the request information [operator M creates the PIN and reconfigures the home access router remotely to start using it to broadcast its own PIN network ID] (section 5.11.3). 3GPP fails to expressly teach that receiving the response message comprises: receiving the response message via a network exposure function (NEF). Xing is directed to service management on a data packet transmitted by a remote user equipment (UE) (abstract). In particular, Xing teaches that receiving the response message comprises: receiving the response message via a network exposure function (NEF) (par. [0208]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method and system of 3GPP by having receiving the response message comprise: receiving the response message via a network exposure function (NEF) in order to control access to services of the 5G core network by asking as a secure gateway placed between AF and core network elements such as UDM/UDR and PCF, which is part of the 5G communication standard . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 11-12 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 3GPP in view of Velev et al. (US 2025/0071670 A1) . As to claim 11, 3GPP teaches all the elements except receiving a feedback message sent by the Redcap terminal. Velev is directed to steering a device to network supporting specific network slices in 5G communication (abstract). In particular, Velev teaches a core network element [UDM/UDR 407] receiving a feedback message sent by the Redcap terminal [UE 205] (par. [0138]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method and system of 3GPP by receiving a feedback message sent by the Redcap terminal in order to indicate to the core network element whether the new parameters are successfully verified and stored in the UE as part of the session/network establishment (par. [0138]-[0139] in Velev). As to claim 12, 3GPP teaches sending a response message to the AF, wherein the response message indicates that the PIN was successfully created; wherein sending the response message to the AF comprises at least one of: determining that the PIN is successfully created, and sending a response message accepting the request information to the AF [operator M authenticates the 5G home access router and reconfigures the router with the policy of the operator (section 5.11.3); determining that the received feedback message indicates that the PIN information is received, and sending a response message accepting the request information to the AF; or sending the response message to create the PIN to the AF via a network exposure function (NEF). As to claim 25, 3GPP teaches all the elements except sending a feedback message to the core network element, wherein the feedback message is configured to indicate that the PIN information is received. Velev is directed to steering a device to network supporting specific network slices in 5G communication (abstract). In particular, Velev teaches the terminal [UE 205] sending a feedback message to the core network element [UDM/UDR 407], wherein the feedback message is configured to indicate that the PIN information is received (par. [0138]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method and system of 3GPP by sending a feedback message to the core network element, wherein the feedback message is configured to indicate that the PIN information is received in order to indicate to the core network element whether the new parameters are successfully verified and stored in the UE as part of the session/network establishment (par. [0138]-[0139] in Velev). Related Prior Art Ly et al. (US 2024/0340784 A1) is directed to authorization, creation, and management of personal networks (abstract). In particular, Ly teaches a user equipment (UE), application function (AF) 188 and a core network element (UDM) 197 that interact to create a personal network in a 5G system (Figs. 1 and 2). Therefore, teachings of Ly are pertinent to the claimed invention and can be used in the rejection of pending claims. Conclusion 07-39 AIA THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLEG SURVILLO whose telephone number is (571)272-9691. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am - 5:00pm. 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, Ario Etienne can be reached at 571-272-4001. 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. /OLEG SURVILLO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2457 Application/Control Number: 18/851,492 Page 2 Art Unit: 2457 Application/Control Number: 18/851,492 Page 3 Art Unit: 2457 Application/Control Number: 18/851,492 Page 4 Art Unit: 2457 Application/Control Number: 18/851,492 Page 5 Art Unit: 2457 Application/Control Number: 18/851,492 Page 6 Art Unit: 2457 Application/Control Number: 18/851,492 Page 7 Art Unit: 2457 Application/Control Number: 18/851,492 Page 8 Art Unit: 2457 Application/Control Number: 18/851,492 Page 9 Art Unit: 2457 Application/Control Number: 18/851,492 Page 10 Art Unit: 2457 Application/Control Number: 18/851,492 Page 11 Art Unit: 2457 Application/Control Number: 18/851,492 Page 12 Art Unit: 2457 Application/Control Number: 18/851,492 Page 13 Art Unit: 2457 Application/Control Number: 18/851,492 Page 14 Art Unit: 2457 Application/Control Number: 18/851,492 Page 15 Art Unit: 2457 Application/Control Number: 18/851,492 Page 16 Art Unit: 2457 Application/Control Number: 18/851,492 Page 17 Art Unit: 2457 Application/Control Number: 18/851,492 Page 18 Art Unit: 2457 Application/Control Number: 18/851,492 Page 19 Art Unit: 2457 Application/Control Number: 18/851,492 Page 20 Art Unit: 2457 Application/Control Number: 18/851,492 Page 21 Art Unit: 2457 Application/Control Number: 18/851,492 Page 22 Art Unit: 2457
Prosecution Insights