CTNF 18/881,286 CTNF 79412 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. This action is in response to Applicant’s preliminary amendment filed January 4, 2025. Claims 6, 8, 9, 11 and 12 have been amended. Claims 1-12 are pending. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation 07-30-03 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. 07-30-05 The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. 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. 07-30-06 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: “a detection module,” “a processing module,” and “an execution module” 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. 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 Claim 10 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. 07-34-23 Claim limitations “a detection module,” “a processing module,” and “an execution module” in claim 10 invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Applicant may: (a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph; (b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or (c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)). If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either: (a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or (b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181. Claim 4 recites in part: “(x)th network recovery operation.” “(x)th” is not defined in the claim nor in the specification so it is unclear as to what it is referred to, therefore making the claim indefinite. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Regarding clam 1, the claim(s) recite(s) detecting network fault, determining a recovery strategy, and executing the recovery strategy according to an arbitration rule. All the limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, is human decision-making logic. Nothing in the claim precludes the step from being practically performed the mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because it does not recite any specialized hardware, protocol, or technical improvement. Accordingly, the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, therefore it is not patent eligible. Claim 2 recites the network fault recovery method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the arbitration rule comprises: when multiple network faults of different severities are present together, determining the network recovery strategy according to a network fault of high severity. The claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, therefore it is not patent eligible. Claim 3 recites the network fault recovery method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the arbitration rule comprises: when multiple network faults of different severities are present together, separately determining network recovery operations to be executed in the next stage according to the multiple network faults, and determining the network recovery strategy according to priorities of the network recovery operations to be executed in the next stage. The claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, therefore it is not patent eligible. Claim 4 recites the network fault recovery method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the arbitration rule comprises: if a second network fault is detected when execution reaches an (x)th network recovery operation for a first network fault, determining the network recovery strategy according to priorities of an (x+1)th network recovery operation and a (y)th network recovery operation, wherein the (y)th network recovery operation is a first-stage network recovery operation corresponding to the second network fault. The claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, therefore it is not patent eligible. Claim 5 recites the network fault recovery method as claimed in claim 1, wherein, when multiple network faults of different severities are present together, the step of executing the network recovery strategy comprises: each time execution of a network recovery operation stage is completed, judging whether the multiple network faults are repaired; upon judging that a network fault of high severity has been repaired but a network fault of low severity has not been repaired, executing a specific network recovery operation, the priority of the specific network recovery operation being not higher than the lowest priority among network recovery operations corresponding to repair of the network fault of high severity, wherein lower priority of a network recovery operation indicates stronger repair ability of the corresponding network recovery operation. The claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, therefore it is not patent eligible. Claim 6 recites the network fault recovery method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the network fault comprises at least one of the following: a modem fault, reception of a rejection code of a network service provider, a SIM card fault, failure to read an ICCID, failure to make or receive a call, failure to send or receive a message, failure to register on a network and failure to transmit network data. The claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, therefore it is not patent eligible. Claim 7 recites the network fault recovery method as claimed in claim 6, wherein the modem fault has a first severity; the reception of a rejection code of a network service provider, SIM card fault and failure to read an ICCID all have a second severity; the failure to make or receive a call, failure to send or receive a message, failure to register on a network and failure to transmit network data all have a third severity; and the degrees of severity of the first to the third severities decrease in sequence. The claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, therefore it is not patent eligible. Claim 8 recites the network fault recovery method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the network recovery operation comprises at least one of the following: in order of decreasing priority, switching flight mode, switching flight mode and resetting a SIM card, resetting a SIM card, and rebooting a system, wherein a network recovery operation of high priority is executed before a network recovery operation of low priority. The claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, therefore it is not patent eligible. Claim 9 recites the network fault recovery method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the step of determining a network recovery strategy according to an arbitration rule upon detecting the presence of a network fault comprises: upon detecting the presence of a network fault, judging whether a preset condition is met, and if the preset condition is met, executing the step of determining a network recovery strategy according to an arbitration rule, wherein the preset condition comprises at least one of the following: a network fault automatic recovery function being in an activated state, a remaining power level of a device being greater than a preset value, and the device not being in a programming session. The claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, therefore it is not patent eligible. Regarding clam 10, the claim(s) recite(s) detecting network fault, determining a recovery strategy, and executing the recovery strategy according to an arbitration rule. All the limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, is human decision-making logic. Nothing in the claim precludes the step from being practically performed the mind. Other than reciting “apparatus” and “modules,” nothing in the clam precludes the steps from being practically performed in the mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because it does not recite any specialized hardware, protocol, or technical improvement. Accordingly, the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, therefore it is not patent eligible. Regarding claim 11, the claim(s) recite(s) detecting network fault, determining a recovery strategy, and executing the recovery strategy according to an arbitration rule. All the limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, is human decision-making logic. Nothing in the claim precludes the step from being practically performed the mind. Other than reciting “electronic device,” “processor,” and “memory,” nothing in the clam precludes the steps from being practically performed in the mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because it does not recite any specialized hardware, protocol, or technical improvement. Accordingly, the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, therefore it is not patent eligible. Regarding claim 12, the claim(s) recite(s) detecting network fault, determining a recovery strategy, and executing the recovery strategy according to an arbitration rule. All the limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, is human decision-making logic. Nothing in the claim precludes the step from being practically performed the mind. Other than reciting “non-transitory computer-readable storage medium,” and “a processor,” nothing in the clam precludes the steps from being practically performed in the mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because it does not recite any specialized hardware, protocol, or technical improvement. Accordingly, the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, therefore it is not patent eligible. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claim recites an apparatus comprising a detection module, a processing module, and an execution module. The “module” as claimed is not necessarily hardware. Instead, one can reasonably interpret it as software, per se, which is non-statutory. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – 07-08-aia AIA (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-15-aia AIA Claim(s) 1-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Winger et al., (US 20130254586, hereinafter referred to as “Winger”) . Regarding claim 1, Winger teaches a network fault recovery method, comprising: detecting whether a network fault is present ([0063] At 402, the mobile device 100 is operating normally. At 404, the method 400 attempts to detect a fault in a subsystem of the mobile device 100; figure 5: step 404); upon detecting a network fault, determining a network recovery strategy according to an arbitration rule (abstract – selecting fault recovery technique); and executing the network recovery strategy, until network recovery or until execution of the network recovery strategy is complete (figure 5: various techniques are executed until issue is resolved or completed), wherein the arbitration rule is an arbitration rule related to network fault severity and/or network recovery operation priority (figure 5: different fault conditions (i.e. state reset, power reset, etc. inherently reflects differing severity and corresponding recovery actions), and the network recovery strategy comprises: one or more network recovery operations to be executed (figure 5: various techniques are executed until issue is resolved or completed). Regarding claim 2, Winger teaches the network fault recovery method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the arbitration rule comprises: when multiple network faults of different severities are present together, determining the network recovery strategy according to a network fault of high severity (figure 5: recovery is based on fault condition; periodization of recovery actions for more critical subsystem faults, therefore selecting recovery based on fault condition inherently prioritizes more severe faults first). Regarding claim 3, Winger teaches the network fault recovery method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the arbitration rule comprises: when multiple network faults of different severities are present together, separately determining network recovery operations to be executed in the next stage according to the multiple network faults, and determining the network recovery strategy according to priorities of the network recovery operations to be executed in the next stage (figure 5: recovery is based on fault condition; periodization of recovery actions for more critical subsystem faults, therefore selecting recovery based on fault condition inherently prioritizes more severe faults first). Regarding claim 4, Winger teaches the network fault recovery method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the arbitration rule comprises: if a second network fault is detected when execution reaches an (x)th network recovery operation for a first network fault, determining the network recovery strategy according to priorities of an (x+1)th network recovery operation and a (y)th network recovery operation, wherein the (y)th network recovery operation is a first-stage network recovery operation corresponding to the second network fault ([0053] faults are being monitored, and detected faults are recovered. It would be understood that detection of a new fault during operation would result in selection of an appropriate recovery technique, therefore Winger implicitly teaches this feature). Regarding claim 5, Winger teaches the network fault recovery method as claimed in claim 1, wherein, when multiple network faults of different severities are present together, the step of executing the network recovery strategy comprises: each time execution of a network recovery operation stage is completed, judging whether the multiple network faults are repaired; upon judging that a network fault of high severity has been repaired but a network fault of low severity has not been repaired, executing a specific network recovery operation, the priority of the specific network recovery operation being not higher than the lowest priority among network recovery operations corresponding to repair of the network fault of high severity, wherein lower priority of a network recovery operation indicates stronger repair ability of the corresponding network recovery operation (figure 5: staged recovery attempts, and escalation/selection of different recovery operations depend on system state, therefore the teaching is implied). Regarding claim 6, Winger teaches the network fault recovery method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the network fault comprises at least one of the following: a modem fault, reception of a rejection code of a network service provider, a SIM card fault, failure to read an ICCID, failure to make or receive a call, failure to send or receive a message, failure to register on a network and failure to transmit network data ([0010] A fault may be due to a failure in hardware or software or both.) If there is a fault, the device inherently fails to send/receive a message, or transmit data). Regarding claim 7, Winger teaches the network fault recovery method as claimed in claim 6, wherein the modem fault has a first severity; the reception of a rejection code of a network service provider, SIM card fault and failure to read an ICCID all have a second severity; the failure to make or receive a call, failure to send or receive a message, failure to register on a network and failure to transmit network data all have a third severity; and the degrees of severity of the first to the third severities decrease in sequence ([0010] A fault may be due to a failure in hardware or software or both.) If there is a fault, the device inherently fails to send/receive a message, or transmit data). . Regarding claim 8, Winger teaches the network fault recovery method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the network recovery operation comprises at least one of the following: in order of decreasing priority, switching flight mode, switching flight mode and resetting a SIM card, resetting a SIM card, and rebooting a system, wherein a network recovery operation of high priority is executed before a network recovery operation of low priority ([0067] system reboot). Regarding claim 9, Winger teaches the network fault recovery method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the step of determining a network recovery strategy according to an arbitration rule upon detecting the presence of a network fault comprises: upon detecting the presence of a network fault, judging whether a preset condition is met, and if the preset condition is met, executing the step of determining a network recovery strategy according to an arbitration rule (abstract – selecting fault recovery technique), wherein the preset condition comprises at least one of the following: a network fault automatic recovery function being in an activated state, a remaining power level of a device being greater than a preset value, and the device not being in a programming session ([0057] The reset lines 102a to 102c and 132a to 132c do not remove power to the subsystems to which they are coupled but are used to provide a state reset to these subsystems. Accordingly, in a state reset, the power to a subsystem is maintained, however, certain components may be electronically set to a particular starting state. For example, any registers or values associated with the subsystem may be reset so that the subsystem returns to the initial state that it had when it was first powered up. The microprocessor 102 and the PMIC 132 are both capable of initiating a state reset on a subsystem or the entire device itself (i.e. a state reset of the system, or every subsystem in the device). The power switches 132d, 132e, 132f, 132g and 132h are used to provide a power reset to the subsystems to which they are connected and therefore are used to disconnect power down (i.e. disable power) and power up (i.e. enable power) to the subsystems to which they are connected. Accordingly, in a power reset, by disabling and then re-enabling the power to a subsystem, the subsystem also returns to its initial state. A power reset is considered to be more effective in resetting a given subsystem since there may be some influences from other subsystems that can only be cleared from the given subsystem by performing a power reset.). Claim 10 is similar to claim 1, but in apparatus form. It differs in that it recites a detection module, a processing module, and an execution module. Nevertheless, it is rejected under the same rationale because Winger teaches various modules that perform the steps recited in claim 1 ([0026]). Claim 11 is similar to claim 1, but in an electronic device, comprising: a processor; and a memory. Nevertheless, it is rejected under the same rationale because Winger teaches an electronic device comprising a processor and memory that perform the steps recited in claim 1 ([0016]). Claim 12 is similar to claim 1, but in a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium form. Nevertheless, it is rejected under the same rationale because Winger teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium that perform steps recited in claim 1 ([0016]) . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. McCabe et al., US 9021310- policy-driven automatic network remediation service. Inaba et al., US 20120287776 - a fault recovery method for backing up a ring network. D'Amato et al., US 10275302 - Recovery requests are scheduled and prioritized according to priority valuations of the minimum time to next failure relative to the minimum time to next recovery for corresponding storage data sets. Yang et al., KR 20110069571- device for managing a network based on a database about a network failure is provided to inform recovery method of a network failure to a user and a corresponding device Hong et al., CN 107846330 - a network fault detection for monitoring the network connection state, and automatically detecting the network failure, and generating prompt information to guide the user for network repair operation. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALINA N BOUTAH whose telephone number is (571)272-3908. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00 AM - 3:00 PM. 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, Umar Cheema can be reached at (571) 270-3037. 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. ALINA BOUTAH Primary Examiner Art Unit 2458 /ALINA A BOUTAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2458 Application/Control Number: 18/881,286 Page 2 Art Unit: 2458 Application/Control Number: 18/881,286 Page 3 Art Unit: 2458 Application/Control Number: 18/881,286 Page 4 Art Unit: 2458 Application/Control Number: 18/881,286 Page 5 Art Unit: 2458 Application/Control Number: 18/881,286 Page 6 Art Unit: 2458 Application/Control Number: 18/881,286 Page 7 Art Unit: 2458 Application/Control Number: 18/881,286 Page 8 Art Unit: 2458 Application/Control Number: 18/881,286 Page 9 Art Unit: 2458 Application/Control Number: 18/881,286 Page 10 Art Unit: 2458 Application/Control Number: 18/881,286 Page 11 Art Unit: 2458 Application/Control Number: 18/881,286 Page 12 Art Unit: 2458 Application/Control Number: 18/881,286 Page 13 Art Unit: 2458 Application/Control Number: 18/881,286 Page 14 Art Unit: 2458 Application/Control Number: 18/881,286 Page 15 Art Unit: 2458 Application/Control Number: 18/881,286 Page 16 Art Unit: 2458 Application/Control Number: 18/881,286 Page 17 Art Unit: 2458 Application/Control Number: 18/881,286 Page 18 Art Unit: 2458 Application/Control Number: 18/881,286 Page 19 Art Unit: 2458 Application/Control Number: 18/881,286 Page 20 Art Unit: 2458
Prosecution Insights