CTNF 18/860,838 CTNF 96390 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. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. 07-34-01 Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 1 recites the limitation "the set of desired tissue parameters" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because it is not aforementioned. It is suggested to amend the claim to recite “[[the]] a set of desired tissue parameters”. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 1 recites the limitation "a diagnostic scan of the subject" in line 10. It is unclear whether it is referring to multiple diagnostic scans of the subject or the same(singular) diagnostic scan mentioned in line 1. If it is referring to the diagnostic scan mentioned in line 1, then it is suggested to amend the claim to recite “[[a]] the diagnostic scan of the subject”. If it is referring to multiple scans, then it is suggested to amend the claim to recite each scan as “a first diagnostic scan of the subject”, “a second diagnostic scan of the subject”, “a third diagnostic scan of the subject” and so forth. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 1 recites the limitation "the calculated data acquisition parameter sequences" in line 10-11. It is unclear whether it is referring to the set of data acquisition parameter sequences calculated in lines 7-8 or another data acquisition parameter sequences. If it is referring to the set of data acquisition parameter sequences calculated in lines 7-8, then it is suggested to amend the claim to recite “the calculated set of data acquisition parameter sequences”. Appropriate correction is required. Claims 2-17 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph for being dependent on claim 1. 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. PNG media_image1.png 930 645 media_image1.png Greyscale PNG media_image2.png 681 881 media_image2.png Greyscale Regarding claim 1, the claim recites a method of performing a diagnostic scan of a subject, comprising: defining a set of data acquisition parameter sequences; defining a set of upper bounds and a set of lower bounds for each of the set of data acquisition parameter sequences; defining a set of representative tissue parameters for a tissue of the subject; selecting a set of basis functions; calculating values for a set of basis function coefficients to yield a piecewise polynomial representation of each of the set of data acquisition parameter sequences within the sets of upper and lower bounds based on the set of desired tissue parameters; and performing a diagnostic scan of the subject using the calculated data acquisition parameter sequences. Step Analysis 1: Statutory Category? Yes . The claim recites a method; therefore, it is a process 2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited? Yes . The claim recites the limitation of defining a set of data acquisition parameter sequences. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind; for example, defining a set of data acquisition parameter sequences can be done by a human with pen and paper. The claim recites the limitation of defining a set of upper bounds and a set of lower bounds for each of the set of data acquisition parameter sequences. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind; for example, defining a set of upper bounds and a set of lower bounds for each of the set of data acquisition parameter sequences can be done by a human with pen and paper. The claim recites the limitation of defining a set of representative tissue parameters for a tissue of the subject. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind; for example, defining a set of representative tissue parameters for a tissue of the subject can be done by a human with pen and paper. The claim recites the limitation of calculating values for a set of basis function coefficients to yield a piecewise polynomial representation of each of the set of data acquisition parameter sequences within the sets of upper and lower bounds based on the set of desired tissue parameters. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind; for example, calculating values for a set of basis function coefficients to yield a piecewise polynomial representation can be done by a human with pen and paper. The claim as a whole recites an abstract idea. The claimed invention is a method that defines parameters and bounds to calculate values of a selected basis functions. The mere nominal recitation of a generic subject scan does not take the claim out of the abstract idea. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea. 2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application? No . The additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as elements to perform mere data gathering, selecting a particular data or type of data to be manipulated and thus having insignificant application. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. The claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of performing a diagnostic scan of a subject. The claims individually and as a whole recites instructions to apply the judicial-exception/abstract-idea. 2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept? No . the following additional elements merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea: selecting a set of basis functions; and performing a diagnostic scan of the subject using the calculated data acquisition parameter sequences. These additional elements are activities that the courts have found to be insignificant extra solution activity The step of selecting a set of basis functions is viewed as selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated: Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Furthermore, References US 7469160 B2- Banks; Perry S. et al. (par.170), US 7459696 B2- Schomacker; Kevin T. et al. (par.170) and US 10777398 B2- Richardson; Keith et al. (par.156) show that the step is a well- understood, routine, conventional activity; thus making it an insignificant extra solution activity. These additional elements are activities that the courts have found to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity: The step of performing a diagnostic scan of the subject using the calculated data acquisition parameter sequences is viewed as Electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, Content Extraction and Transmission, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348, 113 USPQ2d 1354, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (optical character recognition); Furthermore, References US 7469160 B2- Banks; Perry S. et al. (par.320-326), US 7459696 B2- Schomacker; Kevin T. et al. (par.322-328) and US 11614508 B1 (par.120-126) show that the step is a well-understood, routine, conventional activity; As noted previously, the claim as a whole merely describes instructions to apply the judicial-exception/abstract-idea relative to performing a diagnostic scan of a subject. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claim is ineligible . Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 2 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims. In addition, claim 2 is further recites the element(s) “ … wherein the diagnostic scan is a magnetic resonance imaging (IRI) scan. ”, which is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry. Furthermore, Claim 2 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because this limitation(s) is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 3 depends on claim 2, which depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims. In addition, claim 3 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein the diagnostic scan is a magnetic resonance fingerprinting scan. ”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry. Furthermore, Claim 3 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 4 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims. In addition, claim 4 is further recites the element(s) “ … wherein the set of data acquisition parameter sequences are selected from flip angles, radiofrequency phases, repetition times, echo times, time-bandwidth products, or k-space sampling locations. ”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry. Furthermore, Claim 4 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 5 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims. In addition, claim 5 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein the set of basis functions is selected from B-splines, wavelets, radial basis functions, or Fourier basis functions. ”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry. Furthermore, Claim 5 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 6 depends on claim 5, which depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims. In addition, claim 6 is further recites the element(s) “ … wherein the set of basis functions is a B-spline basis function. ”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry. Furthermore, Claim 6 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 7 depends on claim 6, which depends on claim 5, which depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims. In addition, claim 7 is further recites the element(s) “… further comprising the step of selecting a degree of the B-spline basis functions to use in the step of calculating the piecewise polynomial. ”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry. Furthermore, Claim 7 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 8 depends on Claim 7 depends on claim 6, which depends on claim 5, which depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims. In addition, claim 8 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein the degree of the B-spline basis function is selected using a machine learning algorithm. ”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry. Furthermore, Claim 8 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 9 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims. In addition, claim 9 is further recites the element(s) “… generating a set of possible values for each of the set of basis function coefficients; iterating through each combination of the possible values in the set of possible values to generate a set of piecewise polynomials; calculating a result of a simulated diagnostic scan for each piecewise polynomial in the set of piecewise polynomials to create a multidimensional set of results; and calculating a maximum value among the multidimensional set of results using an algorithm to yield the piecewise polynomial representation; wherein the step of calculating the values of the set of basis function coefficients to yield the piecewise polynomial comprises executing an iterative algorithm. ”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry. Furthermore, Claim 9 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 10 depends on claim 9, which depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims. In addition, claim 10 is further recites the element(s) “ … wherein the iterative algorithm is selected from a sequential quadratic programming algorithm, an interior point algorithm, a genetic algorithm, and a simulated annealing algorithm. ”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry. Furthermore, Claim 10 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 11 depends on claim 10, which depends on claim 9, which depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims. In addition, claim 11 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein the algorithm is a sequential quadratic programming algorithm. ”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry. Furthermore, Claim 11 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 12 depends on claim 9, which depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims. In addition, claim 12 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein the algorithm comprises setting a tolerance threshold and terminating the algorithm when the norm of a gradient of the multidimensional set of results is less than the tolerance threshold. ”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry. Furthermore, Claim 12 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 13 on claim 9, which depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims. In addition, claim 13 is further recites the element(s) “ … wherein the simulated diagnostic scan is a Bloch simulation. ”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry. Furthermore, Claim 13 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 14 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims. In addition, claim 14 is further recites the element(s) “… further comprising selecting a set of time offsets for the set of basis functions to calculate the piecewise polynomial. ”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry. Furthermore, Claim 14 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 15 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims. In addition, claim 15 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein the tissue of the subject is selected from liver, spleen, kidney medulla, kidney cortex, kidney, skeletal muscle, fat, myocardium, abdomen, lungs, stomach, intestines, brain, or blood. ”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry. Furthermore, Claim 15 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 16 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims. In addition, claim 16 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein the step of defining the set of upper and lower bounds comprises calculating at least one of the upper and lower bound based on a desired total acquisition time or a specific absorption rate. ”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry. Furthermore, Claim 16 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 17 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims. In addition, claim 17 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein the step of calculating values for each of the set of basis function coefficients to yield a piecewise polynomial representation of each of the set of data acquisition parameters comprises constructing the piecewise polynomials using the Cox-de Boor recursion formula. ”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry. Furthermore, Claim 17 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. US 7459696 B2; Schomacker; Kevin T. et al. et al. are Methods and apparatus for calibrating spectral data. US 20170156630 A1; GABR; Refaat E. et al. system and method for adaptive and patient-specific magnetic resonance imaging. US 10777398 B2; Richardson; Keith et al. is an embodiment for Spectrometric analysis. US 7469160 B2; Banks; Perry S. et al. are Methods and apparatus for evaluating image focus. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARL F.R. TCHATCHOUANG whose telephone number is (571)272-3991. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am -5:00am. 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, Huy Phan can be reached at 571-272-7924. 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. /CARL F.R. TCHATCHOUANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2858 /ALVARO E FORTICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/860,838 Page 2 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/860,838 Page 3 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/860,838 Page 4 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/860,838 Page 5 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/860,838 Page 6 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/860,838 Page 7 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/860,838 Page 8 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/860,838 Page 9 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/860,838 Page 10 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/860,838 Page 11 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/860,838 Page 12 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/860,838 Page 13 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/860,838 Page 14 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/860,838 Page 15 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/860,838 Page 16 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/860,838 Page 17 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/860,838 Page 18 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/860,838 Page 19 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/860,838 Page 20 Art Unit: 2858
Prosecution Insights