CTNF 18/853,923 CTNF 100743 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 Acknowledgement is made of Applicant’s claim of this application being a National Stage application of the PCT Application No. PCT/EP2023/056270, filed on March 13, 2023. As well as acknowledgement of priority to EP22180883.5 with filing date of June 24, 2023 and EP22166616.7 with filing date of April 5, 2022. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (“IDS”) filed on 10/09/2024 has been reviewed and the listed references have been considered. 12-151 AIA 26-51 12-51 Status of Claims Claims 16-30 are pending. Claims 1-15 are cancelled. Drawings The 6-page drawings have been considered and placed on record in the file. Specification 06-11 AIA The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. The specification is objected to because of the following informalities: In paragraph 28, "The scattered radiation 8 as detected by the detector 4 is collected by an objective lens system 8…" should be "The scattered radiation 10 as detected by the detector 4 is collected by an objective lens system 8…". According to 37 CFR 1.71, MPEP §§ 608.01, 2161, and 2162, the specification must be in such particularity as to enable any person skilled in the pertinent art or science to make and use the invention without involving extensive experimentation and must clearly convey enough information about the invention to show that applicant invented the subject matter that is claimed. An applicant is ordinarily permitted to use his or her own terminology, as long as it can be understood. Necessary grammatical corrections, are required. Reference characters must be properly applied, no single reference character being used for two different parts or for a given part and a modification of such part. See 37 CFR 1.84(p). Every feature specified in the claims must be illustrated, but there should be no superfluous illustrations. 06-28 AIA A substitute specification in proper idiomatic English and in compliance with 37 CFR 1.52(a) and (b) is required. The substitute specification filed must be accompanied by a statement that it contains no new matter. Claim Objections Claims 16-20 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 16 recites: "to capture the image" should be "to capture an image" "obtaining at least approximated imaging effect-free object information" should be "obtaining an approximated imaging effect-free object information" Claims 17 recites "at least approximated imaging effect-free object information" should be "approximated imaging effect-free object information" Claim 18-20 recites "at least approximated imaging effect-free object information" should be "the approximated imaging effect-free object information" Appropriate corrections are required. 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 16-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, based on abstract idea. The claims recites an imaging signal that contains imaging effects and a method of approximating an effect free object information. With respect to independent method claim 16: STEP 1 : Do the claims fall within one of the statutory categories ? YES . Claim 16 is directed to a method. STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea ? YES , the claims are directed toward a mental process (i.e., abstract idea). The limitation “obtaining a set of primary deconvolution kernels or a set of impulse responses […] wherein each primary deconvolution kernel of the set of primary deconvolution kernels relates to a respective object point of an object, and each impulse response of the set of impulse responses relates to a respective image point of an image signal”, and “performing a low-rank approximation on the set of primary deconvolution kernels or impulse responses to determine respectively a set of deconvolution modes or a set of impulse response modes, wherein each deconvolution mode respectively comprises a modal secondary deconvolution kernel and a modal weight function and each impulse response mode comprises a modal impulse response and a modal inverse weight function; and obtaining at least approximated imaging effect-free object information related to the object by applying the modal secondary deconvolution kernels and modal weight functions or the modal impulse responses and modal inverse weight functions to the image signal” as drafted, recite an abstract idea, such as a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the of mathematical concepts, such as mathematical formulas or equations/relations as shown in the specification pages 14-21. Thus, the claims recites an abstract idea. STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application ? NO , the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The only additional elements “obtaining the image signal relating to the object, wherein the image signal is subject to one or more imaging effects, the imaging effects including at least one or more non-isoplanatic imaging effects” as recited as mere data gathering, which may not be considered as an element which integrates the above-listed identified abstract into a practical application per MPEP 2106.05(g). STEP 2B : Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? NO , The claims herein do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, because as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into practical application, the additional step/element/limitation amounts to no more than an abstract idea performed on a computer. The additional elements are simply appending well-understood routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception (WURC) per MPEP 2106.05(d) and 2106.07(a)(III). Therefore, claim 16 is not patent eligible. In addition, the elements of claims 30 are analyzed in the same manner as claim 16. The additional element recited in claims 30, i.e., “processing arrangement comprising a processor and a non-transient computer program carrier comprising program instructions operable to perform the method”, are recited at a high level of generality and merely equate to “apply it” or otherwise merely uses a generic computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea which are not indicative of integration into a practical application as per MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore independent claim 30 is not patent eligible, either. Similar analysis is made for the dependent claims 16-29, under their broadest reasonable interpretation are identified as: being either directed towards mere data gathering or an abstract idea, mental process and mathematical calculation, and not reciting additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and not reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For all of the above reasons, claims 16-30 are: (a) directed toward an abstract idea, (b) do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and (c) do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, claims 16-30 are not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C 101. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation Under MPEP 2143.03, "All words in a claim must be considered in judging the patentability of that claim against the prior art." In re Wilson, 424 F.2d 1382, 1385, 165 USPQ 494, 496 (CCPA 1970). As a general matter, the grammar and ordinary meaning of terms as understood by one having ordinary skill in the art used in a claim will dictate whether, and to what extent, the language limits the claim scope. Language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation. In addition, when a claim requires selection of an element from a list of alternatives, the prior art teaches the element if one of the alternatives is taught by the prior art. See, e.g., Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Int’l, Inc., 582 F.3d 1288, 1298, 92 USPQ2d 1163, 1171 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Claim 16 recites "obtaining a set of primary deconvolution kernels" or "a set of impulse responses". As the claims are recited two alternatives are provided separated by or, which is disjunctive, any one of the elements found in the prior art is sufficient to reject the claim. Similarly claims 18, 21, 22, 23, 26 and 29-30 are also recite alternative items separated with or, which is disjunctive, any one of the elements found in the prior art is sufficient to reject the claim. 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. Claim 19 and 20 recite the limitation "the spatially weighted versions of the image signal". For example the scope of claim 19 is unclear as claim 19 is dependent on claim 16, claim 16 does not contain any reference to “spatially weighted versions of the image signal” which it is unclear what “spatially weighted versions of the image signal” is referring to rendering claim 19 as indefinite. Claim 19 also recites “the convolution…" the scope of claim 19 is unclear as claim 19 is dependent on claim 16, claim 16 does not contain any reference to “the convolution…" which it is unclear what “the convolution…” is referring to rendering claim 19 as indefinite. Claim 20 recites "the spatially weighted versions of the image signal" and is similarly rejected to for being indefinite as claim 19. 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. 07-23-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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 16-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over embodiments of Denis et al. (Fast Approximation of Shift-Variant Blur - 2014 From IDS) Denis et al. (Fast Approximation of Shift-Variant Blur - 2014 From IDS) . Regarding claim 16 , Denis teaches “An imaging method (Denis page 1 right hand column paragraph 1 "Image deconvolution is widely used to enhance the resolution, signal-to-noise ratio and contrast of blurred images") comprising: obtaining a set of primary deconvolution kernels (Denis page 3 left hand column paragraph 5 - page 3 right hand column paragraph 1 and equations 4, 12, and 13 "this evaluation is highly simplified if a separable linear approximation of the kernel is used) or a set of impulse responses relating to an optical system used to capture the image, wherein each primary deconvolution kernel of the set of primary deconvolution kernels relates to a respective object point of an object (Denis page 2 left hand column paragraph 3 "Blur variations across an image can be due to several causes: relative motion between the camera and the scene; moving objects with respect to the background" and Denis page 3 left hand column paragraph 4 "More generally, the PSF may vary smoothly with the input location s. In order to distinguish true PSF variations from simple shifts of the PSF; h (r. s) due to changes in the input locations") , and each impulse response of the set of impulse responses relates to a respective image point of an image signal; obtaining the image signal relating to the object, wherein the image signal is subject to one or more imaging effects (Denis page 3 paragraph 3 "Distortions caused by atmosphere turbulence, object/camera relative motion, or the instrument (limited aperture, optical aberrations) transform the original (crisp) image f into a blurry one, g") , the imaging effects including at least one or more non-isoplanatic imaging effects (Denis page 3 left hand column paragraph 1 "Equation (.5) approximates the shift-variant operator as a sum of convolutions of weighted versions of the input image f") ; performing a low-rank approximation on the set of primary deconvolution kernels (Denis page 6 right hand column paragraph 5 "It is often adequate to consider that PSF variations are well captured by a few number of modes; or in an equivalent way, that K, being a concatenation of PSFs, has low-rank. A rank-P approximation of matrix K can be expanded as a sum of P rank-one matrices") or impulse responses to determine respectively a set of deconvolution modes or a set of impulse response modes, wherein each deconvolution mode respectively comprises a modal secondary deconvolution kernel and a modal weight function ( Denis page 4 left hand column paragraph 3 "decompositions of the shift-variant blurring operator as a sum of convolutions with prior weightings where conv(mp) denotes the discrete convolution matrix with kernel m P, diag( w P) is a diagonal matrix whose diagonal is given by vector w p") and each impulse response mode comprises a modal impulse response and a modal inverse weight function; and obtaining at least approximated imaging effect-free object information related to the object by applying the modal secondary deconvolution kernels and modal weight functions (Denis page 4 left hand column paragraph 3 and equation 14 "provides decompositions of the shift-variant blurring operator as a sum of convolutions with prior weightings") or the modal impulse responses and modal inverse weight functions to the image signal (Denis page 3 left hand column paragraph 3 "Distortions caused by atmosphere turbulence, object/camera relative motion, or the instrument (limited aperture, optical aberrations) transform the original (crisp) image f into a blurry one, g") . It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention of the instant application to combine embodiments /examples of approximating imaging effect free object information as taught by Denis. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been “We address the problem of defining fast and accurate models for space variant blur. In a discrete setting, we show that this problem can be recast as a matrix decomposition and approximation problem, thereby providing a unified framework for the description of existing models. We bridge the gap between approaches based on PSF interpolation and decomposition onto PSF modes by defining an optimal local PSF approximation. Both theoretical and practical performance of each model are compared" as noted by the Denis disclosure on page 2 left hand column paragraph 2. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the embodiment/examples of the Denis disclosure to obtain the invention as specified in claim 16 as there is a reasonable expectation of success and/or because doing so merely combines prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Regarding claim 17 , the combination of embodiment/examples of Denis teaches “The method of claim 16, wherein the step of obtaining at least approximated imaging effect-free object information is performed non-iteratively (Denis page 4 left hand column paragraph 3 and equation 14 "provides decompositions of the shift-variant blurring operator as a sum of convolutions with prior weightings") .” Regarding claim 18 , the combination of embodiment/examples of Denis teaches “A method of claim 16, wherein the obtaining at least approximated imaging effect- free object information comprises: weighting the image signal using each the modal weight function or modal inverse weight function to obtain spatially weighted versions of the image signal (Denis page 3 right hand column paragraph 1 and equation 4 "where m P are components of the PSF model and w P are weights depending on the locations") ; approximating or obtaining imaging effect-free object information related to the object from a plurality of convolutions of either: each spatially weighted version of the image signal and its respective modal secondary deconvolution kernel ( Denis page 4 left hand column paragraph 3 "decompositions of the shift-variant blurring operator as a sum of convolutions with prior weightings where conv(mp) denotes the discrete convolution matrix with kernel m P, diag( w P) is a diagonal matrix whose diagonal is given by vector w p") ; or each spatially weighted version of the image signal and its respective modal impulse response; and summing the convolutions (Denis page 4 left hand column paragraph 4 and equation 14 "provides decompositions of the shift-variant blurring operator as a sum of convolutions with prior weightings") .” Regarding claim 19 , the combination of embodiment/examples of Denis teaches “The method of claim 16, wherein the obtaining at least approximated imaging effect-free object information comprises an initial Fourier transformation step to transform the spatially weighted versions of the image signal, the convolutions being performed in the Fourier domain on the transformed spatially weighted versions of the image signal (Denis page 4 left hand column paragraph 4 "Using separable linear approximations (see Eq. (4)) provides decompositions of the shift-variant blurring operator as a sum of convolutions with prior weightings") .” Regarding claim 20 , the combination of embodiment/examples of Denis teaches “The method of claim 16, wherein the obtaining at least approximated imaging effect-free object information comprises a matrix multiplication of the spatially weighted versions of the image signal and the modal secondary deconvolution kernels or modal impulse responses (Denis page 3 right hand column paragraph 1 and equation 4 "where mp are components of the PSF model and wp are weights depending on the locations" and page 4 left hand column paragraph 3 and equation 12 "we introduce a matrix K that collects all un-shifted PS_Fs, 1 similarly to the un-shifted kernel k introduced in the continuous case") .” Regarding claim 21 , the combination of embodiment/examples of Denis teaches “The method of claim 16, wherein the set of primary deconvolution kernels or a set of impulse responses comprises a four dimensional set of primary deconvolution kernels or four dimensional set of impulse responses, the dimensions comprising two image dimensions of the image and two object dimensions of the object (Denis page 4 left hand column paragraph 3 and equation 12 "In order to separate changes that modify the PSF from shifts due to the displacement of the point source, we introduce a matrix K that collects all un-shifted PSFs") .” Regarding claim 22 , the combination of embodiment/examples of Denis teaches “The method of claim 16, wherein the performing a low-rank approximation comprises an initial step of aligning each of the primary deconvolution kernels or impulse responses onto a common point (Denis page 3 left hand column paragraph 4 "the PSF may vary smoothly with the input location s. In order to distinguish true PSF variations from simple shifts of the PSF; h(r,s) due to changes in the input location s, it will prove useful in the following to consider un-shifted PSf; defined by: k(r,s) = h(r+s,s)") .” Regarding claim 23 , the combination of embodiment/examples of Denis teaches “A method of claim 16, further comprising: determining the set of primary deconvolution kernels or set of impulse responses from a set of point spread functions, wherein each point spread functions relates to a respective object point of the object (Denis page 3 left hand column paragraph 2 "H ε R N x M the blurring operator, and • the matrix product. The matrix defining the discrete operator is obtained by sampling the continuous operator h at locations") ; or determining the set of impulse responses by determining an inverse of a set of point spread functions, wherein each point spread function relates to a respective object point of the object.” Regarding claim 24 , the combination of embodiment/examples of Denis teaches “The method of claim 23, comprising determining the set of point spread functions from known, measured, or simulated imaging effects of the optical system (Denis page 3 left hand column paragraph 3 "h denotes the PSF. The PSF h may be considered as the conditional density p(r Is) describing the probability that a photon entering the system at location s leaves it at location r") .” Regarding claim 25 , the combination of embodiment/examples of Denis teaches “The method of claim 16, wherein the low-rank approximation comprises a singular value decomposition (Denis page 7 left hand column paragraph 2 and right hand column paragraph 1 "By Eckart-Young theorem, the closest rank-P approximation (with minimum error) can be obtained from the singular value decomposition (SVD) of matrix K") .” Regarding claim 26 , the combination of embodiment/examples of Denis teaches “The method of claim 16, wherein the deconvolution modes in the set of deconvolution modes or the impulse response modes in the set of impulse response modes numbers between 1 and 1000 (Denis page 8 left hand column paragraph 2 "Since weights oP, vP are not localized, P full-field convolutions must be computed in this approximation, potentially a large computational load when P » 1") .” Regarding claim 27 , the combination of embodiment/examples of Denis teaches “The method of claim 16, comprising tuning or selecting the number of deconvolution modes to achieve a desired accuracy (Denis page 7 left hand column paragraph 2 and right hand column paragraph 1 "By Eckart-Young theorem, the closest rank-P approximation (with minimum error) can be obtained from the singular value decomposition (SVD) of matrix K" and page 8 left hand column paragraph 4 "The corresponding weights are however not localized, increasing the computational cost in proportion with the number of added PSF modes") .” Regarding claim 28 , the combination of embodiment/examples of Denis teaches “The method of claim 16, wherein the image signal comprises a metrology image signal obtained using a metrology tool (Denis page 2 left hand column paragraph 4 "Several applications with practical interest indeed suffer from smooth blur variations, i.e., occlusion-free phenomena. They include 3D microscopy, as described in Preza and Cmichello (2004), astronomy with adaptive-optics correction (Cresci ct aL 2005), or wide-field imaging, to name a few") , and, optionally, the metrology image comprises an image of a structure on a substrate formed using a lithographic process.” 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Denis, in view of Koolen et al. (EP4184426A1) . Regarding claim 29 , Denis the method of claim 16. However, Denis is not relied on to teach wherein the image signal comprises an image wave signal in a coherent imaging regime or the image signal comprises an image power signal in an incoherent imaging regime.” Koolen teaches “The method of claim 16, wherein the image signal comprises an image wave signal in a coherent imaging regime (Koolen paragraph [0057] "non-isoplanatic aberration correction may be realized by a sequence of steps as illustrated in the flowchart of Figure 6, at least in the coherent regime (e.g., using a holography tool in the digital holographic microscope (DHM))") or the image signal comprises an image power signal in an incoherent imaging regime (Koolen paragraph [0074] "non-isoplanatic aberrations in the incoherent imaging regime may also be corrected using the methods disclosed herein") .” It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention of the instant application to combine a method for approximating imaging effect free object information as taught by Denis to include coherent or incoherent imaging regime as taught by Koolen. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been “Metrology tools may have lens systems which comprise aberrations which should be corrected. This is particularly the case if the lens systems are simplified, e.g., to reduce their cost and/or complexity. Some of these aberrations can be isoplanatic, others can be non-isoplanatic. It would be desirable to correct at least some of these aberrations, even where the aberrations are non-isoplanatic" as noted by the Koolen disclosure on paragraph 7. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the disclosure of Denis with the Koolen disclosure to obtain the invention as specified in claim 29 as there is a reasonable expectation of success and/or because doing so merely combines prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Claim 30 recites a element with device corresponding to the method with steps recited in claim 16. Therefore, the recited elements of this claim are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding steps of method claim 16. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine the Denis and Koolen references, presented in rejection of claim 29 apply to this claim. Therefore, the combination of Denis and Koolen teaches “A metrology device (Denis page 2 left hand column paragraph 4 "Several applications with practical interest indeed suffer from smooth blur variations, i.e., occlusion-free phenomena. They include 3D microscopy, as described in Preza and Cmichello (2004), astronomy with adaptive-optics correction (Cresci ct aL 2005), or wide-field imaging, to name a few") , comprising: a processing arrangement comprising a processor (Koolen paragraph [0085] "Computer system 800 includes a bus 802 or other communication mechanism for communicating information, and a processor 804 (or multiple processors 804 and 805) coupled with bus 802 for processing information") and a non-transient computer program carrier comprising program instructions (Koolen paragraph [0089] "processor 804 retrieves and executes the instructions. The instructions received by main memory 806 may optionally be stored on storage device 810 either before or after execution by processor 804") ”. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASPREET KAUR whose telephone number is (571)272-5534. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 am - 4:00 PST. 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, Amandeep Saini can be reached at (571)272-3382. 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. /JASPREET KAUR/Examiner, Art Unit 2662 /AMANDEEP SAINI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2662 Application/Control Number: 18/853,923 Page 2 Art Unit: 2662 Application/Control Number: 18/853,923 Page 3 Art Unit: 2662 Application/Control Number: 18/853,923 Page 4 Art Unit: 2662 Application/Control Number: 18/853,923 Page 6 Art Unit: 2662 Application/Control Number: 18/853,923 Page 7 Art Unit: 2662 Application/Control Number: 18/853,923 Page 8 Art Unit: 2662 Application/Control Number: 18/853,923 Page 9 Art Unit: 2662 Application/Control Number: 18/853,923 Page 10 Art Unit: 2662 Application/Control Number: 18/853,923 Page 11 Art Unit: 2662 Application/Control Number: 18/853,923 Page 12 Art Unit: 2662 Application/Control Number: 18/853,923 Page 13 Art Unit: 2662 Application/Control Number: 18/853,923 Page 14 Art Unit: 2662 Application/Control Number: 18/853,923 Page 15 Art Unit: 2662 Application/Control Number: 18/853,923 Page 16 Art Unit: 2662 Application/Control Number: 18/853,923 Page 17 Art Unit: 2662 Application/Control Number: 18/853,923 Page 19 Art Unit: 2662 Application/Control Number: 18/853,923 Page 20 Art Unit: 2662 Application/Control Number: 18/853,923 Page 21 Art Unit: 2662
Prosecution Insights