CTNF 18/862,966 CTNF 96916 DETAILED ACTION Introduction This office action is in response to Applicant’s submission filed on November 5, 2024. Claims 1-17 are pending in the application. As such, claims 1-17 have been examined. 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. Drawings The drawings were received on November 5, 2024. These drawings have been accepted and considered by the Examiner. Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 17, line 2 , reads “execute the steps of”. Examiner believes this to be a clerical error and it is intended to read “execute steps of” . Appropriate correction is required. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation 07-30-03 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. 07-30-05 The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses 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 limitation(s) is/are: “an input unit that receives” in claims 1, 11, 13-16 “a generation unit that generates” in claims 1, 4-6, 10, 12-14 “a determination unit that determines” in claims 1-3 “an update unit that updates” in claims 1, 3, 7-8 “a utilization unit” in claim 7 “an integration unit” in claims 8-9 “an adjustment unit” in claim 10. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Specifically, these units are interpreted as being processors as mentioned in the specification [0248]. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) 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 § 112 07-30-02 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. 07-34-01 Claims 1-17 are 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. Claims 1 and 17 , each in line 12, recite the limitation "the persona information". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. Claims 2-16 depend from claim 1, either directly or indirectly, and therefore inherit this rejection. 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 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 1 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite: A determination device/method comprising: causing a computer to execute the steps of: an input unit that receives an input of reaction information indicating a reaction of a user; a generation unit that generates first persona information that is information generated on a basis of the reaction information received by the input unit, the information indicating a characteristic of the user; a determination unit that determines consistency between the first persona information generated by the generation unit and second persona information based on past reaction information of the user; and an update unit that updates the persona information regarding the user on a basis of the consistency determined by the determination unit. The claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind. For example, “receives an input of reaction information indicating a reaction of a user” in the context of this claim encompasses a person observing the reaction of another person, “generates first persona information that is information generated on a basis of the reaction information received by the input unit, the information indicating a characteristic of the user” in the context of this claim encompasses a person determining what the reaction is and writing it on a piece of paper, “determines consistency between the first persona information generated by the generation unit and second persona information based on past reaction information of the user” in the context of this claim encompasses a person comparing the reaction to a previous reaction, “updates the persona information regarding the user on a basis of the consistency determined by the determination unit” in the context of this claim encompasses a person updating the other person’s profile for each reaction manually on paper. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “ Mental Processes ” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea . This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application . In particular, the claim recites these additional elements. These additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea. a computer an input unit a generation unit a determination unit an update unit. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea . The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea that do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. The dependent claims do not add limitations that would either integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application or could help the Claim as a whole to amount to significantly more than the Abstract idea identified for the Independent Claim. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites: wherein in a case where there is inconsistency between the first persona information and the second persona information, the determination unit transmits a question regarding the inconsistency to the user, and determines the consistency on a basis of an answer of the user. The additional limitations of the claim do not preclude the method from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “in a case where there is inconsistency between the first persona information and the second persona information” in the context of this claim encompasses a person deciding if the comparison is similar or different, “the determination unit transmits a question regarding the inconsistency to the user” in the context of this claim encompasses a person asks the other person to explain, “determines the consistency on a basis of an answer of the user” in the context of this claim encompasses a person using the explanation to finalize the reaction selection. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “ Mental Processes ” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea . This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application . In particular, the claim recites these additional elements. These additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea . a determination unit. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea . The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea that do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites: wherein in a case where the determination unit determines that the first persona information and the second persona information are not consistent, the update unit holds either the first persona information or the second persona information as the persona information of the user, and discards the persona information that is not held. The additional limitations of the claim do not preclude the method from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “wherein in a case where the determination unit determines that the first persona information and the second persona information are not consistent” in the context of this claim encompasses a person deciding if the comparison is similar or different, “the update unit holds either the first persona information or the second persona information as the persona information of the user” in the context of this claim encompasses a person keeping one reaction, “discards the persona information that is not held” in the context of this claim encompasses a person deleting the other reaction. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “ Mental Processes ” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea . This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application . In particular, the claim recites these additional elements. These additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea . an update unit a determination unit. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea . The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea that do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites: wherein the generation unit gives basis information, which is information serving as a basis for generating the first persona information, to the first persona information. The additional limitations of the claim do not preclude the method from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “wherein the generation unit gives basis information, which is information serving as a basis for generating the first persona information, to the first persona information” in the context of this claim encompasses a person explaining the reason for selecting a reaction. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “ Mental Processes ” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea . This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application . In particular, the claim recites these additional elements. These additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea . a generation unit. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea . The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea that do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites: wherein when generating the first persona information, the generation unit classifies the first persona information according to type. The additional limitations of the claim do not preclude the method from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “wherein when generating the first persona information, the generation unit classifies the first persona information according to type” in the context of this claim encompasses a person classifying the reactions into types. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “ Mental Processes ” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea . This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application . In particular, the claim recites these additional elements. These additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea . a generation unit. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea . The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea that do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites: wherein the generation unit generates the first persona information on a basis of the reaction information and information held in a predetermined knowledge database. The additional limitations of the claim do not preclude the method from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “wherein the generation unit generates the first persona information on a basis of the reaction information and information held in a predetermined knowledge database” in the context of this claim encompasses a person using a database to help determine the reaction. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “ Mental Processes ” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea . This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application . In particular, the claim recites these additional elements. These additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea . a generation unit. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea . The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea that do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites: further comprising: a utilization unit that provides the persona information regarding the user updated by the update unit to a predetermined external program to utilize. The additional limitations of the claim do not preclude the method from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “a utilization unit that provides the persona information regarding the user updated by the update unit to a predetermined external program to utilize” in the context of this claim encompasses a person giving the reaction data to another entity. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “ Mental Processes ” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea . This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application . In particular, the claim recites these additional elements. These additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea . an update unit a utilization unit. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea . The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea that do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites: further comprising: an integration unit that integrates, in a case where a plurality of pieces of persona information of the user updated by the update unit is held, the plurality of pieces of persona information. The additional limitations of the claim do not preclude the method from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “an integration unit that integrates, in a case where a plurality of pieces of persona information of the user updated by the update unit is held, the plurality of pieces of persona information” in the context of this claim encompasses a person integrating multiple reactions into a user profile. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “ Mental Processes ” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea . This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application . In particular, the claim recites these additional elements. These additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea . an update unit an integration unit. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea . The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea that do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites: wherein the integration unit provides the user with information serving as a basis for integrating the plurality of pieces of persona information via a user interface, and integrates the plurality of pieces of persona information designated by the user in the user interface. The additional limitations of the claim do not preclude the method from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “wherein the integration unit provides the user with information serving as a basis for integrating the plurality of pieces of persona information via a user interface” in the context of this claim encompasses a person giving the other person instructions for creating a profile, “integrates the plurality of pieces of persona information designated by the user in the user interface” in the context of this claim encompasses a person creating the profile according to the other person’s preferences. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “ Mental Processes ” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea . This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application . In particular, the claim recites these additional elements. These additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea . an integration unit. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea . The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea that do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites: an adjustment unit that receives the reaction information in generation of the first persona information and adjustment of a weight of information of the user acquired together with the reaction information, from the user via a user interface, wherein the generation unit generates the first persona information on a basis of the weight adjusted by the adjustment unit. The additional limitations of the claim do not preclude the method from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “an adjustment unit that receives the reaction information in generation of the first persona information and adjustment of a weight of information of the user acquired together with the reaction information, from the user via a user interface” in the context of this claim encompasses a person weighting the reactions within the profile, “the generation unit generates the first persona information on a basis of the weight adjusted by the adjustment unit” in the context of this claim encompasses a person adjusting the weights. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “ Mental Processes ” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea . This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application . In particular, the claim recites these additional elements. These additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea . an adjustment unit a generation unit. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea . The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea that do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites: wherein the input unit receives an input of voice uttered by the user or a text corresponding to the voice. The additional limitations of the claim do not preclude the method from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “wherein the input unit receives an input of voice uttered by the user or a text corresponding to the voice” in the context of this claim encompasses a person uses the other person’s vocal response to determine the reaction. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “ Mental Processes ” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea . This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application . In particular, the claim recites these additional elements. These additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea . an input unit. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea . The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea that do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites: wherein the generation unit generates the first persona information on a basis of at least one of a volume of the voice uttered by the user, feeling of the user estimated from the voice, a conversation speed in the voice, or a surrounding environmental sound. The additional limitations of the claim do not preclude the method from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “wherein the generation unit generates the first persona information on a basis of at least one of a volume of the voice uttered by the user, feeling of the user estimated from the voice, a conversation speed in the voice, or a surrounding environmental sound” in the context of this claim encompasses a person uses the other person’s vocal response to determine the reaction, specifically the characteristics listed. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “ Mental Processes ” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea . This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application . In particular, the claim recites these additional elements. These additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea . a generation unit. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea . The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea that do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites: wherein the input unit receives an input of image information obtained by imaging the user together with the reaction information, and the generation unit generates the first persona information by using at least one of expression, motion, and a line of sight of the user estimated from the image information, or object information included in the image information. The additional limitations of the claim do not preclude the method from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “wherein the input unit receives an input of image information obtained by imaging the user together with the reaction information” in the context of this claim encompasses a person uses the other person’s image to determine the reaction, “the generation unit generates the first persona information by using at least one of expression, motion, and a line of sight of the user estimated from the image information, or object information included in the image information” in the context of this claim encompasses a person uses the other person’s image to determine the reaction, specifically the characteristics listed. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “ Mental Processes ” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea . This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application . In particular, the claim recites these additional elements. These additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea . an input unit the generation unit. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea . The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea that do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites: wherein the input unit receives an input of biological information detected from the user together with the reaction information, and the generation unit generates the first persona information by using at least one piece of information of a perspiration amount, body temperature, heartbeat, pulse, blood pressure, or respiratory rate of the user measured as the biological information. The additional limitations of the claim do not preclude the method from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “wherein the input unit receives an input of biological information detected from the user together with the reaction information” in the context of this claim encompasses a person uses the other person’s biological information, “the generation unit generates the first persona information by using at least one piece of information of a perspiration amount, body temperature, heartbeat, pulse, blood pressure, or respiratory rate of the user measured as the biological information” in the context of this claim encompasses a person uses the other person’s biological information to determine the reaction, specifically the characteristics listed. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “ Mental Processes ” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea . This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application . In particular, the claim recites these additional elements. These additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea . an input unit the generation unit. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea . The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea that do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites: wherein the input unit receives a text input by the user as the reaction information. The additional limitations of the claim do not preclude the method from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “wherein the input unit receives a text input by the user as the reaction information” in the context of this claim encompasses a person obtaining a written response for the reaction. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “ Mental Processes ” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea . This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application . In particular, the claim recites these additional elements. These additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea . an input unit. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea . The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea that do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites: wherein the input unit receives behavior information on a network of the user as the reaction information. The additional limitations of the claim do not preclude the method from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “wherein the input unit receives behavior information on a network of the user as the reaction information” in the context of this claim encompasses a person obtaining network activity for the reaction. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “ Mental Processes ” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea . This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application . In particular, the claim recites these additional elements. These additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea . an input unit. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea . The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea that do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 07-20-aia AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-4, 6-7, 11, 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rokhlenko et al. (US Patent Pub. No. 20160034585 A1), hereinafter Rokhlenko, in view of Siders et al. (US Patent Pub. No. 20040010439 A1), hereinafter Siders . Regarding claims 1 and 17 , Rokhlenko teaches a determination device and method (Rokhlenko in [0091-0092] teaches obtaining information from users to determine preferences) comprising: [claim 17 only] causing a computer to execute the steps of (Rokhlenko in [0051] teaches a method which may be implemented, e.g., as instructions stored in a memory (e.g., a hard disk drive, a solid-state storage device such as a flash memory device, or a magnetic or optical disc) that, when executed on a processor of a computer such as a client device and/or a server 104, cause the computer to operate according to at least a portion of the techniques presented): an input unit that receives an input of reaction information indicating a reaction of a user (Rokhlenko in [0023, Fig. 1] teaches using input devices, and in [0091-0092] teaches obtaining reaction information from users); a generation unit that generates first persona information that is information generated on a basis of the reaction information received by the input unit, the information indicating a characteristic of the user (Rokhlenko in [0091-0092] teaches obtaining information from users to determine preferences [here preference maps to characteristics], and the user response of the user may be used to update a user profile of the user); and an update unit that updates the [first or second ] persona information regarding the user on a basis of the consistency determined by the determination unit (Rokhlenko in [0091-0092] teaches obtaining information from users to determine preferences and the user response of the user may be used to update a user profile of the user). Rokhlenko teaches the first persona information, the generation unit, and the second persona information. Rokhlenko does not teach, however Siders teaches a determination unit that determines consistency between [the first persona information generated by the generation unit and second persona information based on past reaction information of the user] (Siders in [0008] teaches comparing the current answer to those previously submitted, and if any previous answers are different from the current response an action is taken). Siders is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of analysis of responses. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Rokhlenko further in view of Siders to allow for comparing the current answer to those previously submitted. Motivation to do so would allow for one to cost effectively obtain the data needed and simultaneously minimize the chance that one of the many types of biases will invalidate the results (Siders [0005]). Regarding claim 2 , Rokhlenko, as modified above, teaches the determination device according to claim 1. Rokhlenko, as modified above, teaches the first persona information, the determination unit, determining inconsistency, and the second persona information. Rokhlenko, as modified above, does not teach, however Siders teaches [wherein in a case where there is inconsistency between the first persona information and the second persona information, the determination unit] transmits a question regarding the inconsistency to the user, and determines the consistency on a basis of an answer of the user (Siders in [0008] teaches if any previous answers are different from the current response, the user is presented with a screen 1) containing a histogram illustrating the distribution of previous responses and text instructing the user to 2) record comments justifying his/her answer ). Siders is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of analysis of responses. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Rokhlenko, as modified above, further in view of Siders to allow for justifying an answer. Motivation to do so would allow for one to cost effectively obtain the data needed and simultaneously minimize the chance that one of the many types of biases will invalidate the results (Siders [0005]). Regarding claim 3 , Rokhlenko, as modified above, teaches the determination device according to claim 1. Rokhlenko, as modified above, teaches the first persona information, the update unit, the determination unit, determining inconsistency, and the second persona information. Rokhlenko further teaches wherein in a case where the determination unit determines that the first persona information and the second persona information are not consistent, the update unit holds either the first persona information or the second persona information as the persona information of the user, and discards the persona information that is not held (Rokhlenko in [0091-0092] teaches obtaining information from users to determine preferences and the user response of the user may be used to update a user profile of the user). Regarding claim 4 , Rokhlenko, as modified above, teaches the determination device according to claim 1. Rokhlenko, as modified above, teaches the first persona information, and the generation unit. Rokhlenko, as modified above, does not teach, however Siders teaches [wherein the generation unit] gives basis information, which is information serving as a basis for [generating the first persona information, to the first persona information] (Siders in [0008] teaches if any previous answers are different from the current response, the user is presented with a screen 1) containing a histogram illustrating the distribution of previous responses and text instructing the user to 2) record comments justifying his/her answer ). Siders is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of analysis of responses. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Rokhlenko, as modified above, further in view of Siders to allow for justifying an answer. Motivation to do so would allow for one to cost effectively obtain the data needed and simultaneously minimize the chance that one of the many types of biases will invalidate the results (Siders [0005]). Regarding claim 6, Rokhlenko, as modified above, teaches the determination device according to claim 1. Rokhlenko, as modified above, teaches the first persona information, the reaction information, and the generation unit. Rokhlenko further teaches [wherein the generation unit generates the first persona information on a basis of the reaction information and] information held in a predetermined knowledge database (Rokhlenko in [0084] teaches using a corpus of text messages may be derived from a variety of sources, including a public fact or opinion database , a social network, and a forum or multi-user chat session). Regarding claim 7 , Rokhlenko, as modified above, teaches the determination device according to claim 1. Rokhlenko, as modified above, teaches the first persona information, the update unit, the determination unit, determining inconsistency, and the second persona information. Rokhlenko further teaches further comprising: a utilization unit that provides the [first or second ] persona information regarding the user updated by the update unit to a predetermined external program to utilize (Rokhlenko in [0091-0092] teaches a user profile of the user may be updated based on the user's comparison responses, which may be used, e.g., to target recommendations and advertisements of media and products based on the user's interests). Regarding claim 11 , Rokhlenko, as modified above, teaches the determination device according to claim 1. Rokhlenko, as modified above, teaches the input unit. Rokhlenko further teaches wherein the input unit receives an input of voice uttered by the user or a text corresponding to the voice (Rokhlenko in [0027] teaches using a chatting device). Regarding claim 15 , Rokhlenko, as modified above, teaches the determination device according to claim 1. Rokhlenko, as modified above, teaches the input unit. Rokhlenko further teaches wherein the input unit receives a text input by the user as the reaction information (Rokhlenko in [0027] teaches using a text chatting device) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rokhlenko, in view of Siders, in view of Benkreira et al. (US Patent Pub. No. 20220391954 A1), hereinafter Benkreira . Regarding claim 5 , Rokhlenko, as modified above, teaches the determination device according to claim 1. Rokhlenko, as modified above, teaches the first persona information, and the generation unit. Rokhlenko, as modified above, does not teach, however Benkreira teaches wherein when generating the first persona information, the generation unit classifies the first persona information according to type (Benkreira in [0004] teaches utilizing a data profile classification machine learning model to classify a particular data profile according to a data profile classification type ). Benkreira is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of handling profile data. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Rokhlenko, as modified above, further in view of Benkreira to allow for classifying according to a data profile classification type. Motivation to do so would allow for some entities which may be capable of data entry reversal to reverse electronic activities but may not or may rarely allow for data entry reversal (Benkreira [0051]) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rokhlenko, in view of Siders, in view of Gunn et al. (US Patent Pub. No. 20210097615 A1), hereinafter Gunn . Regarding claim 8 , Rokhlenko, as modified above, teaches the determination device according to claim 1. Rokhlenko, as modified above, does not teach, however Gunn teaches further comprising: an integration unit that integrates, in a case where a plurality of pieces of persona information of the user updated by the update unit is held, the plurality of pieces of persona information (Gunn in [0034] teaches using a user interface, and in [0011] teaches modifying a profile which has a plurality of elements). Gunn is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of handling profile data. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Rokhlenko, as modified above, further in view of Gunn to allow for modifying a profile. Motivation to do so would allow for users to make socially-conscious choices that take into consideration certain user factors that are their “core values” (e.g., stances on political issues, environment, religion) received or derived from various sources (e.g., survey, social network posts, web site visits, investment institution profile, behavioral modeling) (Gunn [0016]). Regarding claim 9, Rokhlenko, as modified above, teaches the determination device according to claim 8. Rokhlenko, as modified above, teaches the plurality of pieces of persona information, and the integration unit. Rokhlenko, as modified above, does not teach, however Gunn teaches wherein the integration unit provides the user with information serving as a basis for integrating the plurality of pieces of persona information via a user interface (Gunn in [0011] teaches modifying a profile which has a plurality of elements, and outputting an identifier of the first element provider and its matching score to the user, and receive a selected element identifier of the first element provider from the user, and modify the current user collection to include an element identified by the selected element identifier and associated with the first element provider), and integrates the plurality of pieces of persona information designated by the user in the user interface (Gunn in [0011] teaches modifying a profile which has a plurality of elements, and outputting an identifier of the first element provider and its matching score to the user, and receive a selected element identifier of the first element provider from the user , and modify the current user collection to include an element identified by the selected element identifier and associated with the first element provider). Gunn is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of handling profile data. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Rokhlenko, as modified above, further in view of Gunn to allow for modifying a profile. Motivation to do so would allow for users to make socially-conscious choices that take into consideration certain user factors that are their “core values” (e.g., stances on political issues, environment, religion) received or derived from various sources (e.g., survey, social network posts, web site visits, investment institution profile, behavioral modeling) (Gunn [0016]). Regarding claim 10 , Rokhlenko, as modified above, teaches the determination device according to claim 1. Rokhlenko, as modified above, teaches the first persona information, the reaction information, and the generation unit. Rokhlenko, as modified above, does not teach, however Gunn teaches further comprising: an adjustment unit that receives [the reaction information in generation of the first persona information] and adjustment of a weight of information of the user acquired together with [the reaction information], from the user via a user interface (Gunn in [0011] teaches modifying a profile which has a plurality of elements, and outputting an identifier of the first element provider and its matching score to the user, and receive a selected element identifier of the first element provider from the user, and modify the current user collection to include an element identified by the selected element identifier and associated with the first element provider, and in [0034] teaches using a user interface , and in [0011] teaches using element provider profile information associated with a plurality of element providers, parse the element provider profile information into the plurality of element provider factors, assign the element provider factor weight for each of the element provider factors based on the element provider profile information, store the plurality of element provider factors and their respective weights in the element provider profile that is stored in the memory, and in [0024] teaches applying some function to the weightings to adjust them according to the users preferences), [wherein the generation unit generates the first persona information] on a basis of the weight adjusted by the adjustment unit (Gunn in [0011] teaches modifying a profile which has a plurality of elements, and outputting an identifier of the first element provider and its matching score to the user, and receive a selected element identifier of the first element provider from the user, and modify the current user collection to include an element identified by the selected element identifier and associated with the first element provider, and in [0034] teaches using a user interface, and in [0011] teaches using element provider profile information associated with a plurality of element providers, parse the element provider profile information into the plurality of element provider factors, assign the element provider factor weight for each of the element provider factors based on the element provider profile information, store the plurality of element provider factors and their respective weights in the element provider profile that is stored in the memory, and in [0024] teaches applying some function to the weightings to adjust them according to the users preferences). Gunn is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of handling profile data. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Rokhlenko, as modified above, further in view of Gunn to allow for modifying a profile. Motivation to do so would allow for users to make socially-conscious choices that take into consideration certain user factors that are their “core values” (e.g., stances on political issues, environment, religion) received or derived from various sources (e.g., survey, social network posts, web site visits, investment institution profile, behavioral modeling) (Gunn [0016]) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 12-14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rokhlenko, in view of Siders, in view of Jensen et al. (US Patent Pub. No. 20150067708 A1), hereinafter Jensen . Regarding claim 12 , Rokhlenko, as modified above, teaches the determination device according to claim 11. Rokhlenko, as modified above, teaches the generation unit, and the first persona information. Rokhlenko, as modified above, does not teach, however Jensen teaches [wherein the generation unit generates the first persona information] on a basis of at least one of a volume of the voice uttered by the user, feeling of the user estimated from the voice, a conversation speed in the voice, or a surrounding environmental sound (Jensen in [0105] teaches using a reaction of the volume of the user's scream may indicate the extent to which he or she has been surprised or startled, and in [0079] teaches using emotional responses from the user such as emotions that may be good indicators of user interest include, but are not limited to, agitation, amusement, anger, annoyance, astonishment, attentiveness, boredom, calmness, disappointment, disgust, fear, grief, indifference, nervousness, rage, sadness, surprise, and terror, and in [0047] teaches using sensors for detecting ambient light intensity and background noise ). Jensen is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of measuring user responses. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Rokhlenko, as modified above, further in view of Jensen to allow for collecting user reaction data. Motivation to do so would allow for a user to provide user profile information or may automatically compile user profile information (Jensen [0037]). Regarding claim 13 , Rokhlenko, as modified above, teaches the determination device according to claim 1. Rokhlenko, as modified above, teaches the input unit, the reaction information, and the first persona information. Rokhlenko, as modified above, does not teach, however Jensen teaches [wherein the input unit] receives an input of image information obtained by imaging the user together with [the reaction information] (Jensen in [0047] teaches using sensing devices which may include one or more image capturing devices), and the generation unit generates the first persona information by using at least one of expression, motion, and a line of sight of the user estimated from the image information, or object information included in the image information (Jensen in [0047] teaches using sensing devices which may include one or more image capturing devices, video capturing devices, and motion , physiological, and neurological sensing devices, and image and video capturing devices may include conventional still image cameras, video cameras, thermographic cameras, and other types of image capturing devices capable of extracting facial expressions , eye movements, head and body motions, in conjunction with voice, audio, and speech, and in [0090] teaches data may be generated automatically by analyzing a pre-defined graphical representation and recognizing characters or objects present, using object recognition techniques such as sharpness detection which may be employed in this process). Jensen is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of measuring user responses. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Rokhlenko, as modified above, further in view of Jensen to allow for collecting user reaction data. Motivation to do so would allow for a user to provide user profile information or may automatically compile user profile information (Jensen [0037]). Regarding claim 14 , Rokhlenko, as modified above, teaches the determination device according to claim 1. Rokhlenko, as modified above, teaches the input unit, the generation unit, the reaction information, and the first persona information. Rokhlenko, as modified above, does not teach, however Jensen teaches [wherein the input unit] receives an input of biological information detected from the user together with [the reaction information] (Jensen in [0047] teaches using motion, physiological , and neurological sensing devices), and [the generation unit generates the first persona information] by using at least one piece of information of a perspiration amount, body temperature, heartbeat, pulse, blood pressure, or respiratory rate of the user measured as the biological information (Jensen in [0047] teaches using motion, physiological, and neurological sensing devices which may include wearable accelerometers, gyroscopes, multi-sensors, electroencephalograph sensors, electrocardiograph sensors, electromyograph sensors, and physiological sensors capable of detecting posture, body movement, heart rate , blood pressure , body temperature , respiration rate , brainwave, muscle contraction, and other motion, physiological, or neurological signals indicative of a user's emotional state. Jensen is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of measuring user responses. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Rokhlenko, as modified above, further in view of Jensen to allow for collecting user reaction data. Motivation to do so would allow for a user to provide user profile information or may automatically compile user profile information (Jensen [0037]). Regarding claim 16 , Rokhlenko, as modified above, teaches the determination device according to claim 1. Rokhlenko, as modified above, teaches the input unit, and the reaction information. Rokhlenko, as modified above, does not teach, however Jensen teaches [wherein the input unit] receives behavior information on a network of the user as [the reaction information] (Jensen in [0056-0058] teaches using devices over a network to monitor user activity such as on a social network). Jensen is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of measuring user responses. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Rokhlenko, as modified above, further in view of Jensen to allow for collecting user reaction data. Motivation to do so would allow for a user to provide user profile information or may automatically compile user profile information (Jensen [0037]). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL J. MUELLER whose telephone number is (571)272-1875. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00am-5:00pm (Eastern). 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, Daniel C. Washburn can be reached at 571-272-5551. 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. PAUL MUELLER Examiner Art Unit 2657 /PAUL J. MUELLER/Examiner, Art Unit 2657 Application/Control Number: 18/862,966 Page 2 Art Unit: 2657 Application/Control Number: 18/862,966 Page 3 Art Unit: 2657 Application/Control Number: 18/862,966 Page 4 Art Unit: 2657 Application/Control Number: 18/862,966 Page 5 Art Unit: 2657 Application/Control Number: 18/862,966 Page 6 Art Unit: 2657 Application/Control Number: 18/862,966 Page 7 Art Unit: 2657 Application/Control Number: 18/862,966 Page 8 Art Unit: 2657 Application/Control Number: 18/862,966 Page 9 Art Unit: 2657 Application/Control Number: 18/862,966 Page 10 Art Unit: 2657 Application/Control Number: 18/862,966 Page 11 Art Unit: 2657 Application/Control Number: 18/862,966 Page 12 Art Unit: 2657 Application/Control Number: 18/862,966 Page 13 Art Unit: 2657 Application/Control Number: 18/862,966 Page 14 Art Unit: 2657 Application/Control Number: 18/862,966 Page 15 Art Unit: 2657 Application/Control Number: 18/862,966 Page 16 Art Unit: 2657 Application/Control Number: 18/862,966 Page 17 Art Unit: 2657 Application/Control Number: 18/862,966 Page 18 Art Unit: 2657 Application/Control Number: 18/862,966 Page 19 Art Unit: 2657 Application/Control Number: 18/862,966 Page 20 Art Unit: 2657 Application/Control Number: 18/862,966 Page 21 Art Unit: 2657 Application/Control Number: 18/862,966 Page 22 Art Unit: 2657 Application/Control Number: 18/862,966 Page 23 Art Unit: 2657 Application/Control Number: 18/862,966 Page 24 Art Unit: 2657 Application/Control Number: 18/862,966 Page 25 Art Unit: 2657 Application/Control Number: 18/862,966 Page 26 Art Unit: 2657 Application/Control Number: 18/862,966 Page 27 Art Unit: 2657 Application/Control Number: 18/862,966 Page 28 Art Unit: 2657 Application/Control Number: 18/862,966 Page 29 Art Unit: 2657 Application/Control Number: 18/862,966 Page 30 Art Unit: 2657 Application/Control Number: 18/862,966 Page 31 Art Unit: 2657 Application/Control Number: 18/862,966 Page 32 Art Unit: 2657 Application/Control Number: 18/862,966 Page 33 Art Unit: 2657 Application/Control Number: 18/862,966 Page 34 Art Unit: 2657 Application/Control Number: 18/862,966 Page 35 Art Unit: 2657 Application/Control Number: 18/862,966 Page 36 Art Unit: 2657 Application/Control Number: 18/862,966 Page 37 Art Unit: 2657 Application/Control Number: 18/862,966 Page 38 Art Unit: 2657 Application/Control Number: 18/862,966 Page 39 Art Unit: 2657
Prosecution Insights