CTNF 18/923,877 CTNF 87992 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Priority 02-25 AIA Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Great Britain on 10/27/2023 . It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the GB2316458.5 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55. Information Disclosure Statement 06-52 AIA The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/12/2025 and 10/23/2024 was filed after the mailing date of the application on 03/09/2026 . The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim 33 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. 13-03-01 AIA The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Masterson et al in view of Lindau et al and further in view of Lee et al disclose a computer-implemented method of compressing an impulse response database, the impulse response database comprising a plurality of impulse response sets, each impulse response set comprising a plurality of impulse responses, the method comprising: computing a common impulse response set; for each impulse response set in the plurality of impulse response sets, removing the common impulse response set from the impulse response set to generate a corresponding simplified impulse response set; and storing the simplified impulse response sets and the common impulse response set; wherein each of the plurality of impulse response sets is a respective head-related transfer function (HRTF); wherein computing the common impulse response set comprises computing an average of some or all of the impulse response sets or sub-sets thereof at each location represented by those impulse response sets; wherein each of the impulse response sets is a respective head-related transfer function (HRTF), the impulse responses of each HRTF comprising a left- ear subset and a right-ear subset, but do not expressly disclose and computing the average comprises: for the HRTFs to be averaged, spatially inverting either the left-ear subsets or the right- ear subsets of those HRTFs along a left-right direction; and computing an average of the inverted left-ear or right-ear subsets and non-inverted subsets of the HRTFs to be averaged at each location represented by those subsets . None of the prior art of record disclose in their entirety or in combination the claimed limitation “and computing the average comprises: for the HRTFs to be averaged, spatially inverting either the left-ear subsets or the right- ear subsets of those HRTFs along a left-right direction; and computing an average of the inverted left-ear or right-ear subsets and non-inverted subsets of the HRTFs to be averaged at each location represented by those subsets”. Therefore, the prior art of record cannot anticipate Applicant's claimed invention by a single reference nor render Applicant’s claimed invention obvious by the combination of more than one reference . 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim 29 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. 13-03-01 AIA The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Masterson et al in view of Lindau et al and further in view of Nowak disclose a computer-implemented method of compressing an impulse response set, the impulse response set comprising a plurality of impulse responses, the method comprising: identifying, by one or more processors, at least one common impulse response element in the plurality of impulse responses, wherein the at least one common impulse response element is present in at least some of the plurality of impulse responses; removing, by the one or more processors, the at least one common impulse response element from each respective impulse response identified as comprising the at least one common impulse response element to generate a corresponding set of compressed impulse responses; storing, in a memory, the at least one common impulse response element and the corresponding set of compressed impulse responses; and storing, in the memory, mapping data that represents, a mapping of the at least one common impulse response element to the corresponding set of compressed impulse responses from which the at least one common impulse response element was removed; further comprising: selecting one of the compressed impulse responses corresponding to an impulse response to be obtained; and reconstructing the compressed impulse response using the mapping data associated with the compressed impulse response and the common impulse response element represented in the mapping data; but do not expressly disclose wherein reconstructing the compressed impulse response comprises computing a convolution of the common impulse response element represented in the mapping data with the compressed impulse response . None of the prior art of record disclose in their entirety or in combination the claimed limitation “wherein reconstructing the compressed impulse response comprises computing a convolution of the common impulse response element represented in the mapping data with the compressed impulse response”. Therefore, the prior art of record cannot anticipate Applicant's claimed invention by a single reference nor render Applicant’s claimed invention obvious by the combination of more than one reference . 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) 17-18, 22, 25, 34-35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masterson et al (A method for head related impulse response simplification) in view of Lindau et al (EP 2357854 B1) . Regarding claim 17, Masterson et al disclose a computer-implemented method of compressing an impulse response set, the impulse response set comprising a plurality of impulse responses (Masterson et al; Page 2; col 1; lines 1-10), the method comprising: identifying, by one or more processors, at least one common impulse response element in the plurality of impulse responses (Masterson et al; Page 2; col 1; lines 1-10; page 1; col 2; lines 10-15), wherein the at least one common impulse response element is present in at least some of the plurality of impulse responses (Masterson et al; Page 2; col 1; lines 1-10; page 1; col 2; lines 10-15); removing, by the one or more processors, the at least one common impulse response element from each respective impulse response identified as comprising the at least one common impulse response element to generate a corresponding set of compressed impulse responses (Masterson et al; Page 1; col 2; lines 15-40); but do not expressly disclose storing, in a memory, the at least one common impulse response element and the corresponding set of compressed impulse responses; and storing, in the memory, mapping data that represents, a mapping of the at least one common impulse response element to the corresponding set of compressed impulse responses from which the at least one common impulse response element was removed. However, in the same field of endeavor, Lindau et al disclose a method further comprising, removing, by the one or more processors, the at least one common impulse response element from each respective impulse response identified as comprising the at least one common impulse response element to generate a corresponding set of compressed impulse responses (Lindau et al; Para [0032][0048]; subtract extracted impulse response from original impulse response; extracted impulse response interpreted as common impulse response); storing, in a memory, the at least one common impulse response element and the corresponding set of compressed impulse responses (Lindau et al; Para [0048]; save the extracted impulse response and the ITD); and storing, in the memory, mapping data that represents, a mapping of the at least one common impulse response element to the corresponding set of compressed impulse responses from which the at least one common impulse response element was removed (Lindau et al; Fig 2; Para [0032] [0049]; store information about start point and end point are interpreted as mapping data that represents a mapping of the extracted impulse response to the corresponding set of compressed impulse responses from which the at least one common impulse response element was removed). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the data removal taught by Lindau to the compressed filter data of Masterson. The motivation to do so would have been to reduce the occurrence of perceptual artifacts such as localization errors, latency perception or cross-fade errors (Lindau; Para [0015]). Regarding claim 18, Masterson et al in view of Lindau et al disclose the method of claim 17, wherein the impulse response set represents a head-related transfer function (HRTF) (Masterson et al; Page 2; col 2; lines 10-40), and wherein each of the plurality of impulse responses represents a value of the HRTF at a respective sound source position (Masterson et al; Page 2; col 2; lines 10-40). Regarding claim 22, Masterson et al in view of Lindau et al disclose the method of claim 17, wherein the plurality of impulse responses are minimum phase impulse responses (Masterson et al; Page 1; col 2; lines 1-10). Regarding claim 25, Masterson et al in view of Lindau et al disclose the method of claim 17, further comprising transforming the compressed impulse responses into minimum phase impulse responses (Masterson et al; Page 1; col 2; lines 1-10). Regarding claim 34, Masterson et al disclose a system comprising: one or more computer processors; and one or more storage devices storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more computer processors (Masterson et al; Page 1; col 1; lines 1-10; immersive gaming system comprises processor executing instructions or algorithms), cause the one or more computer processors to perform operations for compressing an impulse response set, the impulse response set comprising a plurality of impulse responses (Masterson et al; Page 2; col 1; lines 1-10), the operations comprising: identifying at least one common impulse response element in the plurality of impulse responses, wherein the at least one common impulse response element is present in at least some of the plurality of impulse responses (Masterson et al; Page 2; col 1; lines 1-10; page 1; col 2; lines 10-15); removing the at least one common impulse response element from each respective impulse response identified as comprising the at least one common impulse response element to generate a corresponding set of compressed impulse responses; but do not expressly disclose storing the at least one common impulse response element and the corresponding set of compressed impulse responses; and storing mapping data that represents, a mapping of the at least one common impulse response element to the corresponding set of compressed impulse responses from which the at least one common impulse response element was removed. However, in the same field of endeavor, Lindau et al disclose a device further comprising, one or more computer processors; and one or more storage devices storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more computer processors, cause the one or more computer processors to perform operations (Lindau et al; Para [0006][0067]) for removing, by the one or more processors, the at least one common impulse response element from each respective impulse response identified as comprising the at least one common impulse response element to generate a corresponding set of compressed impulse responses (Lindau et al; Fig 2; Para [0032] [0048]); storing, in a memory, the at least one common impulse response element and the corresponding set of compressed impulse responses (Lindau et al; Para [0048]; save the extracted impulse response and the ITD); and storing, in the memory, mapping data that represents, a mapping of the at least one common impulse response element to the corresponding set of compressed impulse responses from which the at least one common impulse response element was removed (Lindau et al; Fig 2; Para [0032] [0049]; store information about start point and end point are interpreted as mapping data that represents a mapping of the extracted impulse response to the corresponding set of compressed impulse responses from which the at least one common impulse response element was removed). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the data removal taught by Lindau to the compressed filter data of Masterson. The motivation to do so would have been to reduce the occurrence of perceptual artifacts such as localization errors, latency perception or cross-fade errors (Lindau; Para [0015]). Regarding claim 35, Masterson et al in view of Lindau et al disclose the system of claim 34, wherein the impulse response set represents a head-related transfer function (HRTF) (Masterson et al; Page 2; col 2; lines 10-40), and wherein each of the plurality of impulse responses represents a value of the HRTF at a respective sound source position (Masterson et al; Page 2; col 2; lines 10-40) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masterson et al (A method for head related impulse response simplification) in view of Lindau et al (EP 2357854 B1) and further in view of Schissler (US 2020/0128347 A1) . Regarding claim 19, Masterson et al in view of Lindau et al disclose the method of claim 18, but do not expressly disclose wherein identifying the at least one common impulse response element comprises: selecting a spatial sub-region of a space formed by the sound source positions of the impulse responses, and identifying a common impulse response element in the impulse responses whose sound source positions fall within the spatial sub-region. However, in the same field of endeavor, Schissler discloses a method wherein identifying the at least one common impulse response element comprises: selecting a spatial sub-region of a space formed by the sound source positions of the impulse responses (Schissler; Para [0086]), and identifying a common impulse response element in the impulse responses whose sound source positions fall within the spatial sub-region (Schissler; Para [0086]). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the hrtf identification taught by Schissler as hrtf in the method of Masterson. The motivation to do so would have been to reduce latency experienced by a user (Schissler; Para [0007]). Regarding claim 36, Masterson et al in view of Lindau et al disclose the system of claim 34, but do not expressly disclose wherein identifying the at least one common impulse response element comprises: selecting a spatial sub-region of a space formed by sound source positions of the impulse responses, and identifying a common impulse response element in the impulse responses whose sound source positions fall within the spatial sub-region. However, in the same field of endeavor, Schissler discloses a device wherein identifying the at least one common impulse response element comprises: selecting a spatial sub-region of a space formed by sound source positions of the impulse responses (Schissler; Para [0086]), and identifying a common impulse response element in the impulse responses whose sound source positions fall within the spatial sub-region (Schissler; Para [0086]). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the hrtf identification taught by Schissler as hrtf in the method of Masterson. The motivation to do so would have been to reduce latency experienced by a user (Schissler; Para [0007]) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 20, 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masterson et al (A method for head related impulse response simplification) in view of Lindau et al (EP 2357854 B1) and further in view of Villemoes (US 2010/0017195 A1) . Regarding claim 20, Masterson et al in view of Lindau et al disclose the method of claim 17, but do not expressly disclose wherein the at least one common impulse response element comprises a plurality of common impulse response elements, wherein at least some of the impulse responses comprise two or more common impulse response elements of the plurality of common impulse response elements, and wherein the method comprises removing the two or more common impulse response elements from each of the impulse responses identified as comprising the two or more common impulse response elements. However, in the same field of endeavor, Villemoes discloses a method wherein the at least one common impulse response element comprises a plurality of common impulse response elements, wherein at least some of the impulse responses comprise two or more common impulse response elements of the plurality of common impulse response elements (Villemoes; Para [0196][0198]); and wherein the method comprises removing the two or more common impulse response elements from each of the impulse responses identified as comprising the two or more common impulse response elements (Villemoes; Para [0196][0198]). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the data removal taught by Villemoes to the compressed filter data of Masterson. The motivation to do so would have been to enable a complexity reduction for implementing long HRTF filters (Villemoes; Para [0021]). Regarding claim 26, Masterson et al in view of Lindau et al disclose the method of claim 17, further comprising, before storing the corresponding set of compressed impulse responses: defining a threshold trailing value; and removing from the compressed impulse responses any trailing values having a magnitude below the magnitude of the threshold trailing value. However, in the same field of endeavor, Villemoes discloses a method further comprising, before storing the corresponding set of compressed impulse responses: defining a threshold trailing value (Villemoes; Para [0019][0200]); and removing from the compressed impulse responses any trailing values having a magnitude below the magnitude of the threshold trailing value (Villemoes; Para [0019]). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the data removal taught by Villemoes to the compressed filter data of Masterson. The motivation to do so would have been to enable a complexity reduction for implementing long HRTF filters (Villemoes; Para [0021]) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masterson et al (A method for head related impulse response simplification) in view of Lindau et al (EP 2357854 B1) and further in view of Arevalo et al (NPL, Compressing Head Related Transfer Function databases by Eigen decomposition) . Regarding claim 21, Masterson et al in view of Lindau et al disclose the method of claim 17, but do not expressly disclose wherein removing the at least one common impulse response element from each impulse response identified as comprising the at least one common impulse response element comprises: performing a reverse convolution on each impulse response identified as comprising the at least one common impulse response element. However, in the same field of endeavor, Arevalo et al discloses a method wherein removing the at least one common impulse response element from each impulse response identified as comprising the at least one common impulse response element comprises: performing a reverse convolution on each impulse response identified as comprising the at least one common impulse response element (Arevalo et al; Page 2; col 1; lines 20-40). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the hrtf compression taught by Arevalo as hrtf compression in the method of Masterson. The motivation to do so would have been reduces the memory footprint of the HRTF database (Arevalo et al; Page 3; col 2; lines 5-15) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 23, 27-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masterson et al (A method for head related impulse response simplification) in view of Lindau et al (EP 2357854 B1) and further in view of Nowak et al (US 2016/0255452 A1) . Regarding claim 23, Masterson et al in view of Lindau et al disclose the method of claim 22, but do not expressly disclose wherein at least one common response element comprises a set of trailing values. However, in the same field of endeavor, Nowak et al disclose a method wherein at least one common response element comprises a set of trailing values (Nowak; Para [0009]; late sound field data interpreted as trailing values; only one late sound field data is needed therefore the late sound field is interpreted as common response element). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the common data taught by Nowak to the compressed filter data of Masterson. The motivation to do so would have been to reduce computing times (Nowak; Para [0044]). Regarding claim 27, Masterson et al in view of Lindau et al disclose the method of claim 17, but do not expressly disclose wherein the at least one common impulse element comprises a plurality of common impulse response elements, and wherein the method further comprises: identifying at least one common sub-element in the plurality of common impulse response elements, wherein each common sub-element is present in at least some of the plurality of common impulse response elements; removing the at least one common sub-element from each of the common impulse response elements identified as comprising that common sub-element, thereby generating a corresponding set of compressed common impulse response elements; and storing, the compressed common impulse response elements, and storing, for each identified common sub-element, mapping data representing a mapping of that common sub-element to the compressed common impulse response element from which it was removed. However, in the same field of endeavor, Nowak et al disclose a method wherein the at least one common impulse element comprises a plurality of common impulse response elements, and wherein the method further comprises: identifying at least one common sub-element in the plurality of common impulse response elements, wherein each common sub-element is present in at least some of the plurality of common impulse response elements (Nowak et al; Para [0093]-[0095]; low frequency of early response are separated from the early response interpreted as common impulse response); removing the at least one common sub-element from each of the common impulse response elements identified as comprising that common sub-element, thereby generating a corresponding set of compressed common impulse response elements (Nowak et al; Para [0093]-[0095]; low frequency of early response are separated from the early response interpreted as common impulse response); and storing, the compressed common impulse response elements (Nowak et al; Para [0093]-[0095]), and storing, for each identified common sub-element, mapping data representing a mapping of that common sub-element to the compressed common impulse response element from which it was removed (Nowak et al; Para [0093]-[0095]). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the data removal taught by Nowak to the compressed filter data of Masterson. The motivation to do so would have been to reduce computing times (Nowak; Para [0044]). Regarding claim 28, Masterson et al in view of Lindau et al disclose the method of claim 17, but do not expressly disclose further comprising: selecting one of the compressed impulse responses corresponding to an impulse response to be obtained; and reconstructing the compressed impulse response using the mapping data associated with the compressed impulse response and the common impulse response element represented in the mapping data. However, in the same field of endeavor, Nowak et al disclose a method further comprising: selecting one of the compressed impulse responses corresponding to an impulse response to be obtained (Nowak et al; Para [0029][0066]); and reconstructing the compressed impulse response using the mapping data associated with the compressed impulse response and the common impulse response element represented in the mapping data (Nowak et al; Para [0029][0066]). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the impulse response reconstruction taught by Nowak to decompress the compressed filter data of Masterson. The motivation to do so would have been to reduce computing times (Nowak; Para [0044]) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masterson et al (A method for head related impulse response simplification) in view of Lindau et al (EP 2357854 B1) and further in view of Nowak et al (US 2016/0255452 A1) and further in view of Audfray et al (US 2019/0387340 A1) . Regarding claim 24, Masterson et al in view of Lindau et al and further in view of Nowak et al disclose the method of claim 23, but do not expressly disclose wherein the trailing values are zeros. However, in the same field of endeavor, Audfray et al disclose a method wherein the trailing values are zeros (Audfray; Para [0047]). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the trailing data taught by Audfray as late soundfield data in the impulse response taught by Masterson. The motivation to do so would have been to create a compelling, realistic, and immersive experience (Audfray et al; Para [0003]) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 30-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masterson et al (NPL; A method for head related impulse response simplification) in view of Lindau et al (EP 2357854 B1) . Regarding claim 30, Masterson et al disclose a computer-implemented method of compressing an impulse response database (Masterson et al; Page 2; col 1; lines 1-10), the impulse response database comprising a plurality of impulse response sets, each impulse response set comprising a plurality of impulse responses (Masterson et al; Page 2; col 1; lines 1-10), the method comprising: computing a common impulse response set (Masterson et al; Page 2; col 1; lines 1-10; page 1; col 2; lines 10-15); for each impulse response set in the plurality of impulse response sets, removing the common impulse response set from the impulse response set to generate a corresponding simplified impulse response set (Masterson et al; Page 1; col 2; lines 15-40); and storing the simplified impulse response sets (Masterson et al; Page 1; col 2; lines 15-40) but do not expressly disclose and the common impulse response set. However, in the same field of endeavor, Lindau et al disclose a method further comprising, for each impulse response set in the plurality of impulse response sets, removing the common impulse response set from the impulse response set (Lindau et al; Fig 2; Page 7; lines 15-65; subtract extracted impulse response from original impulse response; extracted impulse response interpreted as common impulse response); storing, in a memory, the at least one common impulse response element and the corresponding set of compressed impulse responses (Lindau et al; Para [0048]; save the extracted impulse response and the ITD); and storing the simplified impulse response sets and the common impulse response set (Lindau et al; Fig 2; Para [0032] [0049]; store information of extracted impulse response interpreted as common impulse response). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the data removal taught by Lindau to the compressed filter data of Masterson. The motivation to do so would have been to reduce the occurrence of perceptual artifacts such as localization errors, latency perception or cross-fade errors (Lindau; Para [0015]). Regarding claim 31, Masterson et al in view of Lindau disclose the method of claim 30, wherein each of the plurality of impulse response sets is a respective head-related transfer function (HRTF) (Masterson et al; Page 2; col 2; lines 10-40) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masterson et al (A method for head related impulse response simplification) in view of Lindau et al (EP 2357854 B1) and further in view of Lee et al (US 2019/0379995 A1) . Regarding claim 32, Masterson et al in view of Lindau disclose the method of claim 30, but do not expressly disclose wherein computing the common impulse response set comprises computing an average of some or all of the impulse response sets or sub-sets thereof at each location represented by those impulse response sets. However, in the same field of endeavor, Lee et al disclose a method wherein computing the common impulse response set comprises computing an average of some or all of the impulse response sets or sub-sets thereof at each location represented by those impulse response sets (Lee et al; Para [0039]-[0040]). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the hrtf identification taught by Lee et al as hrtf in the method of Masterson. The motivation to do so would have been to more efficient and simple system (Lee et al; Para [0013]). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KUASSI A GANMAVO whose telephone number is (571)270-5761. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 AM-5PM. 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, Carolyn Edwards can be reached at 5712707136. 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. /KUASSI A GANMAVO/Examiner, Art Unit 2692 /CAROLYN R EDWARDS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2692 Application/Control Number: 18/923,877 Page 2 Art Unit: 2692 Application/Control Number: 18/923,877 Page 3 Art Unit: 2692 Application/Control Number: 18/923,877 Page 4 Art Unit: 2692 Application/Control Number: 18/923,877 Page 5 Art Unit: 2692 Application/Control Number: 18/923,877 Page 6 Art Unit: 2692 Application/Control Number: 18/923,877 Page 7 Art Unit: 2692 Application/Control Number: 18/923,877 Page 8 Art Unit: 2692 Application/Control Number: 18/923,877 Page 9 Art Unit: 2692 Application/Control Number: 18/923,877 Page 10 Art Unit: 2692 Application/Control Number: 18/923,877 Page 11 Art Unit: 2692 Application/Control Number: 18/923,877 Page 12 Art Unit: 2692 Application/Control Number: 18/923,877 Page 13 Art Unit: 2692 Application/Control Number: 18/923,877 Page 14 Art Unit: 2692 Application/Control Number: 18/923,877 Page 15 Art Unit: 2692 Application/Control Number: 18/923,877 Page 17 Art Unit: 2692 Application/Control Number: 18/923,877 Page 18 Art Unit: 2692 Application/Control Number: 18/923,877 Page 19 Art Unit: 2692
Prosecution Insights