CTNF 18/855,451 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/JP2023/010814, filed on March 20, 2023. As well as acknowledgement of priority to JP2022-076822 with filing date of May 9, 2022, acknowledged under 35 USC 119(a)-(d) or (f). Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (“IDS”) filed on 10/09/2024 has been reviewed and the listed references have been considered. Drawings The 13-page drawings have been considered and placed on record in the file. 12-151 AIA 26-51 12-51 Status of Claims Claims 1-15 are 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. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpretated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Because the claim limitations use a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are, “sensor unit…” “target detection unit …” “target reliability determination unit…”, “individual abnormal image region determination unit…”, “common normal region calculation unit …”, and “an individual abnormal region determination unit…” in claims 1-15. Because of these claim limitations being interpretated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. 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- 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, based on abstract idea. The claims recite a device for determining abnormality in images. With respect to independent device claim 1: STEP 1 : Do the claims fall within one of the statutory categories ? YES . Claim 1 is directed to a device i.e., a system or a machine. 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 “detects a target based on sensor information of the sensor unit”, “determines reliability of the target based on a detection result in a common imaging region in which the plurality of cameras share a visual field”, “determines an abnormal image region in a monocular region using a tracking result of the target in the monocular region formed only by a visual field of a single camera in the plurality of cameras wherein the individual abnormal image region determination unit changes an abnormality score of an abnormality score map assigned to the abnormal image region according to the reliability of the target” as drafted, recite an abstract idea, such as a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind of a person, i.e., concepts performed in the human mind (including observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion). As such, a person could observe data from a sensor, such as an image, and assign labels to the observed target that is within an overlapping imaging area, as well as track the target to a different to region and identify an abnormal region in the data with a degree of error or lack thereof either mentally or using a pen and paper. The mere nominal recitation that the various steps are being executed by a processor (e.g., processing unit) does not take the limitations out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claims recite a mental process. 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 additional element of “a sensor unit in which a plurality of cameras are arranged so as to overlap in a visual field” as recited in the claim equate to mere data gathering which is not indicated of integration into practical application per MPEP 2106.05(g). The only additional “target detection unit” “target reliability determination unit” and “individual abnormal image region determination unit” 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 which are not indicative of integration into a practical application as per MPEP 2106.05(f). 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 1 is not patent eligible. In addition, the elements of claims 10 are analyzed in the same manner as claim 1. Therefore independent claims 1 and 10 are not patent eligible, either. Similar analysis is made for the dependent claims 2-15, 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 1-15 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 1-15 are not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C 101. 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 1-6, 8-13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marumatsu et al. (US 2021/0019877 A1) in view of Endo et al. (JP2022064388A - translation from espacenet) . Regarding claim 1 , Marumatsu teaches “An abnormality diagnosis device comprising: a sensor unit in which a plurality of cameras are arranged so as to overlap in a visual field (Muramatsu paragraph [0024] "the in-vehicle stereo camera has a pair of imaging units (imaging means) 101, 102 and a control unit. The pair of imaging units 101, 102 images forward of the vehicle so that both contain an overlapping region") ; a target detection unit which detects a target based on sensor information of the sensor unit (Muramatsu paragraph [0025] "The control unit has a first object recognition unit 103 that performs object recognition by stereoscopic vision at a normal time, and a second object recognition unit 104 that performs object recognition by monocular vision at a time of abnormality") ; a target reliability determination unit which determines reliability of the target based on a detection result in a common imaging region in which the plurality of cameras share a visual field (Muramatsu paragraph [0027] "In the control unit, first, a captured image acquisition process (S201) of acquiring a pair of captured images captured by the pair of imaging units so that both contain an overlapping region is performed. Then, an abnormality detection process (S202) of detecting whether or not at least one of the pair of captured images has an abnormality is performed. In the abnormality detection process of S202, it determined whether or not an abnormal region exists in at least one of the pair of captured images, and if the abnormal region exists, a degree-of-impact diagnosis process is performed to diagnose the degree of impact exerted by the abnormal region on an object recognition process of the object recognition unit") ; and an individual abnormal image region determination unit which determines an abnormal image region in a monocular region using a tracking result of the target in the monocular region formed only by a visual field of a single camera in the plurality of cameras (Muramatsu paragraph [0035] "Then, if the degree of impact is diagnosed to be equal to or higher than the threshold value (NO in S402), the process proceeds to step S404, and object recognition process by monocular vision using only the other of the captured images is performed. For example, when the transparency (3) illustrated in FIG. 3 is set as a threshold value, the transparency (1) and the transparency (2) are smaller than the threshold value, and therefore the object recognition process by stereoscopic vision of the left image 301 and the right image 302 is performed. Since the transparencies (3) to (5) are greater than or equal to the threshold value, the object recognition process by monocular vision of the left image 301 is performed" ), wherein the individual abnormal image region determination unit changes an abnormality score of an abnormality score map assigned to the abnormal image region (Muramatsu paragraph [0048-0049] "FIG. 9 is a diagram describing an example of a table when an abnormal region exists. For example, when it is determined in step S701 that there is no abnormal region and the object recognition by stereoscopic vision is performed in step S703, the table illustrated in FIG. 8 is created. The table illustrated in FIG.8 illustrates information of objects recognized by stereoscopic vision, and object IDs (1) to (5), three-dimensional coordinate positions of the respective objects, and sizes of the respective objects are detected. Further, when the abnormal region exists only in one captured image, the object IDs (3), (4) are undetected only by the object recognition by stereoscopic vision, and the table is as illustrated in FIG. 9(a). In this example, the abnormal region is subjected to the matching and object recognition by monocular vision and is complemented. As for the complemented object IDs (3), (4), their positions Xa3, Ya3, Za3, Xa4, Ya4, Za4 and sizes") according to the reliability of the target (Muramatsu paragraph [0025] "The control unit has a first object recognition unit 103 that performs object recognition by stereoscopic vision at a normal time, and a second object recognition unit 104 that performs object recognition by monocular vision at a time of abnormality") .” However, Marumatsu is not relied on to teach “an abnormality score”. Endo teaches “an abnormality score of an abnormality score map (Endo paragraph [0029] "In the vehicle control content determination process (P402), the system determines what kind of vehicle control to implement on the vehicle based on the identification score Total_Score from the vehicle type determination process (P107)") ”. 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 device for determining abnormality in an image as by Marumatsu to use a scoring system to record information as taught by Endo. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been that there is a need in the field of autonomous vehicles to accurately identify objects and , " There are high expectations for three-dimensional object recognition technology in a wide angle sensing range to realize autonomous driving and prevent traffic accidents" as noted by the Endo disclosure in paragraph 2. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the disclosure of Marumatsu with the Endo disclosure to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1 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 10 recites a device with elements corresponding to the device elements recited in claim 1. Therefore, the recited elements of this claim are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding elements of device claim 1. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine the Marumatsu and Endo references, presented in rejection of claim 1 apply to this claim. Regarding claim 2 , the combination of Marumatsu and Endo teaches “The abnormality diagnosis device according to claim 1, further comprising a common normal region calculation unit which determines a state of the common imaging region based on a detection result in the common imaging region (Muramatsu paragraph [0027] "In the control unit, first, a captured image acquisition process (S201) of acquiring a pair of captured images captured by the pair of imaging units so that both contain an overlapping region") , wherein the target reliability determination unit determines reliability of the target based on a state of the common imaging region (Muramatsu paragraph [0027] " Then, an abnormality detection process (S202) of detecting whether or not at least one of the pair of captured images has an abnormality is performed. In the abnormality detection process of S202, it determined whether or not an abnormal region exists in at least one of the pair of captured images, and if the abnormal region exists, a degree-of-impact diagnosis process is performed to diagnose the degree of impact exerted by the abnormal region on an object recognition process of the object recognition unit") .“ Regarding claim 3 , the combination of Marumatsu and Endo teaches “The abnormality diagnosis device according to claim 2, wherein the common normal region calculation unit calculates, as a common normal region, an identical pixel matched between cameras sharing a visual field (Muramatsu paragraph [0027] "In the control unit, first, a captured image acquisition process (S201) of acquiring a pair of captured images captured by the pair of imaging units so that both contain an overlapping region") .“ Regarding claim 4 (similarly claim 11 ), the combination of Marumatsu and Endo teaches “the abnormality diagnosis device according to claim 3, wherein the target reliability determination unit assigns a first reliability to a target detected in the common normal region, and assigns a second reliability different from the first reliability to a target detected outside the common normal region (Muramatsu paragraph [0027] "In the abnormality detection process of S202, it determined whether or not an abnormal region exists in at least one of the pair of captured images, and if the abnormal region exists, a degree-of-impact diagnosis process is performed to diagnose the degree of impact exerted by the abnormal region on an object recognition process of the object recognition unit") .“ Regarding claim 5 (similarly claim 12 ), the combination of Marumatsu and Endo teaches “The abnormality diagnosis device according to claim 4, wherein the target reliability determination unit sets the first reliability to a value higher than the second reliability (Muramatsu paragraph [0031] "when the degree of transparency of a stain is high as in a case of transparency (1), there is less false detection or non-detection of an object in the object recognition process, and thus it is diagnosed that the degree of impact is small. Further, when transparency of a stain is low as in transparency (5), the possibility of false detection or non-detection of an object in the object recognition process increases. That is, the risk of false detection or non-detection is high, and the degree of impact is diagnosed to be large") .“ Regarding claim 6 (similarly claim 13 ), the combination of Marumatsu and Endo teaches “The abnormality diagnosis device according to claim 1, wherein the individual abnormal image region determination unit lowers an abnormality score (Endo paragraph [0029] "In the vehicle control content determination process (P402), the system determines what kind of vehicle control to implement on the vehicle based on the identification score Total_Score from the vehicle type determination process (P107)") of an abnormality score map of a detection portion in a case where the target is detected in the monocular region (Muramatsu paragraph [0048-0049] "FIG. 9 is a diagram describing an example of a table when an abnormal region exists. For example, when it is determined in step S701 that there is no abnormal region and the object recognition by stereoscopic vision is performed in step S703, the table illustrated in FIG. 8 is created. The table illustrated in FIG.8 illustrates information of objects recognized by stereoscopic vision, and object IDs (1) to (5), three-dimensional coordinate positions of the respective objects, and sizes of the respective objects are detected. Further, when the abnormal region exists only in one captured image, the object IDs (3), (4) are undetected only by the object recognition by stereoscopic vision, and the table is as illustrated in FIG. 9(a). In this example, the abnormal region is subjected to the matching and object recognition by monocular vision and is complemented. As for the complemented object IDs (3), (4), their positions Xa3, Ya3, Za3, Xa4, Ya4, Za4 and sizes") .“ The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining Johnston, Hui, and Rahman references presented in the rejection of claim 19, applies to claim 6. Finally the method recited in claim 6 is met by Johnston, Hui, and Rahman. Regarding claim 8 (similarly claim 15 ), the combination of Marumatsu and Endo teaches “The abnormality diagnosis device according to claim 1, wherein the individual abnormal image region determination unit determines a region in which a value of the abnormality score map (Endo paragraph [0029] "In the vehicle control content determination process (P402), the system determines what kind of vehicle control to implement on the vehicle based on the identification score Total_Score from the vehicle type determination process (P107)") exceeds a predetermined threshold as an abnormal region, or determines a region in which a value of the abnormality score map falls below a predetermined threshold as a normal region (Muramatsu paragraph [0035] "Then, if the degree of impact is diagnosed to be equal to or higher than the threshold value (NO in S402), the process proceeds to step S404, and object recognition process by monocular vision using only the other of the captured images is performed. For example, when the transparency (3) illustrated in FIG. 3 is set as a threshold value, the transparency (1) and the transparency (2) are smaller than the threshold value, and therefore the object recognition process by stereoscopic vision of the left image 301 and the right image 302 is performed. Since the transparencies (3) to (5) are greater than or equal to the threshold value, the object recognition process by monocular vision of the left image 301 is performed") .“ Regarding claim 9 , the combination of Marumatsu and Endo teaches “The abnormality diagnosis device according to claim 1, wherein the individual abnormal image region determination unit updates an abnormality score (Endo paragraph [0029] "In the vehicle control content determination process (P402), the system determines what kind of vehicle control to implement on the vehicle based on the identification score Total_Score from the vehicle type determination process (P107)") of an abnormality score map (Muramatsu paragraph [0048-0049] "FIG. 9 is a diagram describing an example of a table when an abnormal region exists. For example, when it is determined in step S701 that there is no abnormal region and the object recognition by stereoscopic vision is performed in step S703, the table illustrated in FIG. 8 is created. The table illustrated in FIG.8 illustrates information of objects recognized by stereoscopic vision, and object IDs (1) to (5), three-dimensional coordinate positions of the respective objects, and sizes of the respective objects are detected. Further, when the abnormal region exists only in one captured image, the object IDs (3), (4) are undetected only by the object recognition by stereoscopic vision, and the table is as illustrated in FIG. 9(a). In this example, the abnormal region is subjected to the matching and object recognition by monocular vision and is complemented. As for the complemented object IDs (3), (4), their positions Xa3, Ya3, Za3, Xa4, Ya4, Za4 and sizes") to be larger as the reliability of the target is higher (Muramatsu paragraph [0035] "Then, if the degree of impact is diagnosed to be equal to or higher than the threshold value (NO in S402), the process proceeds to step S404, and object recognition process by monocular vision using only the other of the captured images is performed. For example, when the transparency (3) illustrated in FIG. 3 is set as a threshold value, the transparency (1) and the transparency (2) are smaller than the threshold value, and therefore the object recognition process by stereoscopic vision of the left image 301 and the right image 302 is performed. Since the transparencies (3) to (5) are greater than or equal to the threshold value, the object recognition process by monocular vision of the left image 301 is performed") .“ 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marumatsu and Endo, in view of Tang et al. (CN110687922B -translation from espacenet) . Regarding claim 7 (similarly claim 14 ), the combination Marumatsu and Endo teaches “The abnormality diagnosis device according to claim 1, wherein the individual abnormal image region determination unit heightens an abnormality score of an abnormality score map (Imai paragraph [0029] "In the vehicle control content determination process (P402), the system determines what kind of vehicle control to implement on the vehicle based on the identification score Total_Score from the vehicle type determination process (P107)") of a lost portion in a case where the target is lost in the monocular region (Marumatsu paragraph [0025] “second object recognition unit 104 that performs object recognition by monocular vision at a time of abnormality”).” However, the combination of Marumatsu and Endo is not relied on to teach “a lost portion in a case where the target is lost”. Tang teaches “a lost portion in a case where the target is lost (Tang paragraph [0013] "after visual tracking begins, if the drone's camera fails to detect the tracked target, or detects abnormal changes in the image information of the tracked target, the drone will issue a warning signal to prompt the user to take action") ”. 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 device for determining abnormality in a monocular region as by Marumatsu to include alert for when a target is lost as taught by Endo. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been "this drone can be used by the elderly, children, disabled people, and other people with travel safety hazards or travel barriers. Before traveling, the person to be followed is set as the target. The drone follows the traveler and continuously takes pictures, and sends the pictures to the traveler's relatives' computers or smartphones via a wireless module. If there are abnormal changes in the pictures, such as a significant change in the traveler's position in a short period of time, it may be that the traveler has fallen or encountered other accidents. In this case, a warning signal can be sent to the traveler's relatives via the wireless module to prompt them to provide assistance" as noted by the Tang disclosure in paragraph n0033. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the disclosure of Marumatsu and Endo with the Tang disclosure to obtain the invention as specified in claim 7 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. 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: 18/855,451 Page 2 Art Unit: 2662 Application/Control Number: 18/855,451 Page 3 Art Unit: 2662 Application/Control Number: 18/855,451 Page 4 Art Unit: 2662 Application/Control Number: 18/855,451 Page 5 Art Unit: 2662 Application/Control Number: 18/855,451 Page 6 Art Unit: 2662 Application/Control Number: 18/855,451 Page 8 Art Unit: 2662 Application/Control Number: 18/855,451 Page 9 Art Unit: 2662 Application/Control Number: 18/855,451 Page 10 Art Unit: 2662 Application/Control Number: 18/855,451 Page 11 Art Unit: 2662 Application/Control Number: 18/855,451 Page 12 Art Unit: 2662 Application/Control Number: 18/855,451 Page 13 Art Unit: 2662 Application/Control Number: 18/855,451 Page 14 Art Unit: 2662 Application/Control Number: 18/855,451 Page 15 Art Unit: 2662 Application/Control Number: 18/855,451 Page 16 Art Unit: 2662 Application/Control Number: 18/855,451 Page 17 Art Unit: 2662 Application/Control Number: 18/855,451 Page 18 Art Unit: 2662 Application/Control Number: 18/855,451 Page 19 Art Unit: 2662 Application/Control Number: 18/855,451 Page 20 Art Unit: 2662 Application/Control Number: 18/855,451 Page 21 Art Unit: 2662
Prosecution Insights