CTFR 18/950,741 CTFR 85799 DETAILED ACTION This office action is in response to the amendment dated March 17, 2026. Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Status Claims 1, 5-8, 12-15, and 19-20 are currently amended. Claims 2-4, 9-11, and 16-18 are canceled. Therefore, claims 1, 5-8, 12-15, and 19-20 are currently pending. Priority 02-26 AIA Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. 07-20-aia AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. 07-23-aia AIA The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1, 5-8, 12-15, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Korean Patent #10-2171630 (KR; translation provided) in view of Dulberg et al. (Dulberg; US PG Pub #2020/0242922) . As to claim 1, KR teaches a roadside device (Paragraph [0008] teaches a smart crosswalk traffic light) comprising: a communication unit (Paragraph [0008] teaches a communication unit); a shooting unit (Paragraph [0008] teaches a camera unit); a notification unit (Paragraph [0008] teaches an output unit); and a control unit, wherein the control unit is configured to execute: detecting a pedestrian heading toward a roadway captured by the shooting unit (Paragraph [0008] teaches a processing unit recognizing an object in the image; Paragraphs [0010]-[0011] teach an object determination unit determining the object is a pedestrian; Paragraph [0039] teaches the object determination unit determines the object is a person); and notifying the pedestrian that the roadway can be crossed (Paragraphs [0044]-[0045] teach a crossing output unit that outputs so that the pedestrian can recognize that the crossing the crosswalk is possible). KR does not explicitly teach detecting a pedestrian in a video, estimating a remaining time until a vehicle crosses the roadside device; determining whether the remaining time until the vehicle crosses the roadside device is less than a first threshold value; upon determination that the remaining time until the vehicle crosses the roadside device is not less than the first threshold value, notifying the pedestrian that the roadway can be crossed; and upon determination that the remaining time until the vehicle crosses the roadside device is less than the first threshold value, notifying the pedestrian of constraints regarding crossing the roadway. In the field of traffic monitoring systems, Dulberg teaches detecting a pedestrian in a video (Paragraph [0244] teaches a camera capturing image data to monitor location of moving road users over time) estimating a remaining time until a vehicle crosses the roadside device (Paragraph [0267] teaches determining the time for a vehicle to pass an intersection; Paragraph [0110] teaches the system is deployed at the intersection); determining whether the remaining time until the vehicle crosses the roadside device is less than a first threshold value (Paragraph [0413] teaches processor can determine respective trajectories of at least two road users and determine whether the trajectories cross within a given period of time such that an accident can occur if the trajectories intersect at a time or within a time window); and upon determination that the remaining time until the vehicle crosses the roadside device is less than the first threshold value, notifying the pedestrian of constraints regarding crossing the roadway (Paragraph [0242] teaches determining the speed and trajectory of an automobile and a pedestrian, determining a likely collision, and transmitting a remedial action signal to the pedestrian; Paragraph [0249] teaches the remedial action signal for the pedestrian is a crosswalk signal). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of KR with the determining and notifying of Dulberg such that upon determination that the remaining time until the vehicle crosses the roadside device is not less than the first threshold value, notifying the pedestrian that the roadway can be crossed because this helps avoid a likely collision (Paragraph [0242]). As to claim 5, depending from the roadside device according to claim 1, KR does not explicitly teach wherein the control unit is configured to execute estimating a traveling route of the vehicle, based on changes in positions of automated driving vehicles present on the roadway, and map information, and monitoring the remaining time for each automated driving vehicle regarding which the roadside device is installed on the traveling route. In the field of traffic monitoring systems, Dulberg teaches wherein the control unit is configured to execute estimating a traveling route of the vehicle, based on changes in positions of automated driving vehicles present on the roadway, and map information, and monitoring the remaining time for each automated driving vehicle regarding which the roadside device is installed on the traveling route (Paragraph [0413] teaches processor can determine respective trajectories of at least two road users and determine whether the trajectories cross within a given period of time such that an accident can occur if the trajectories intersect at a time or within a time window; Paragraph [0429] teaches accessing stored data defining roadways including map data). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of KR with the map data of Dulberg because incorporating more data in the calculations and estimations of trajectories yields the predictable result of increasing the reliability of the processing by basing the conclusions and determinations off of more data to better represent the situation. As to claim 6, depending from the roadside device according to claim 1, KR does not explicitly teach wherein the control unit is configured to execute acquiring information indicating a traveling route of each automated driving vehicle present on the roadway from an information processing device via the communication unit, and monitoring the remaining time for each automated driving vehicle regarding which the roadside device is installed on the traveling route. In the field of traffic monitoring systems, Dulberg teaches wherein the control unit is configured to execute acquiring information indicating a traveling route of each automated driving vehicle present on the roadway from an information processing device via the communication unit (Paragraph [0124] teaches each local system exchanges raw or processed data with main server where the main server can aggregate data and map the traffic in an area), and monitoring the remaining time for each automated driving vehicle regarding which the roadside device is installed on the traveling route (Paragraph [0413] teaches processor can determine respective trajectories of at least two road users and determine whether the trajectories cross within a given period of time such that an accident can occur if the trajectories intersect at a time or within a time window). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of KR with the server of Dulberg because aggregating data in the server and then using this data yields the predictable result of increasing the reliability of the processing by basing the conclusions and determinations off of more data to better represent the situation. As to claim 7, depending from the roadside device according to claim 1, KR teaches wherein: the control unit is configured to receive information, when the pedestrian is detected (Paragraph [0026] teaches recognizing an object as a human; Paragraph [0031] teaches determining if the object requires more time to cross), but does not explicitly teach transmitting a request for acquiring information to an information processing device via the communication unit when the pedestrian is detected from video, receiving the information from the information processing device via the communication unit; and the information is information indicating whether a predetermined automated driving vehicle is present on the roadway. In the field of traffic monitoring systems, Dulberg teaches transmitting a request for acquiring information to an information processing device via the communication unit (Paragraph [0032] teaches receiving a request at a processor and using aggregated and stored information thereafter; Paragraph [0124] teaches each local system exchanges raw or processed data with main server where the main server can aggregate data and map the traffic in an area) when the pedestrian is detected from the video (Paragraph [0244] teaches a camera capturing image data to monitor location of moving road users over time), receiving the information from the information processing device via the communication unit; and the information is information indicating whether a predetermined automated driving vehicle is present on the roadway (Paragraph [0124] teaches each local system exchanges raw or processed data with main server where the main server can aggregate data and map the traffic in an area; Paragraph [0413] teaches processor can determine respective trajectories of at least two road users and determine whether the trajectories cross within a given period of time such that an accident can occur if the trajectories intersect at a time or within a time window). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of KR with the server of Dulberg to request information because requesting aggregated data in the server and then using this data yields the predictable result of increasing the reliability of the processing by basing the conclusions and determinations off of more data to better represent the situation. As to claim 8, KR teaches a method (Paragraph [0048] teaches a configuration and operation) executed by a roadside device including a communication unit, a shooting unit, and a notification unit (Paragraph [0008] teaches a smart crosswalk traffic light comprising a communication unit, camera unit, and output unit), the method comprising: detecting a pedestrian heading toward a roadway captured by the shooting unit (Paragraph [0008] teaches a processing unit recognizing an object in the image; Paragraphs [0010]-[0011] teach an object determination unit determining the object is a pedestrian; Paragraph [0039] teaches the object determination unit determines the object is a person); and notifying the pedestrian that the roadway can be crossed (Paragraphs [0044]-[0045] teach a crossing output unit that outputs so that the pedestrian can recognize that the crossing the crosswalk is possible). KR does not explicitly teach detecting a pedestrian in a video, estimating a remaining time until a vehicle crosses the roadside device; determining whether the remaining time until the vehicle crosses the roadside device is less than a first threshold value; upon determination that the remaining time until the vehicle crosses the roadside device is not less than the first threshold value, notifying the pedestrian that the roadway can be crossed; and upon determination that the remaining time until the vehicle crosses the roadside device is less than the first threshold value, notifying the pedestrian of constraints regarding crossing the roadway. In the field of traffic monitoring systems, Dulberg teaches detecting a pedestrian in a video (Paragraph [0244] teaches a camera capturing image data to monitor location of moving road users over time) estimating a remaining time until a vehicle crosses the roadside device (Paragraph [0267] teaches determining the time for a vehicle to pass an intersection; Paragraph [0110] teaches the system is deployed at the intersection); determining whether the remaining time until the vehicle crosses the roadside device is less than a first threshold value (Paragraph [0413] teaches processor can determine respective trajectories of at least two road users and determine whether the trajectories cross within a given period of time such that an accident can occur if the trajectories intersect at a time or within a time window); and upon determination that the remaining time until the vehicle crosses the roadside device is less than the first threshold value, notifying the pedestrian of constraints regarding crossing the roadway (Paragraph [0242] teaches determining the speed and trajectory of an automobile and a pedestrian, determining a likely collision, and transmitting a remedial action signal to the pedestrian; Paragraph [0249] teaches the remedial action signal for the pedestrian is a crosswalk signal). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of KR with the determining and notifying of Dulberg such that upon determination that the remaining time until the vehicle crosses the roadside device is not less than the first threshold value, notifying the pedestrian that the roadway can be crossed because this helps avoid a likely collision (Paragraph [0242]). As to claim 12, depending from the method according to claim 8, KR does not explicitly teach the method further comprising: estimating a traveling route of the vehicle, based on changes in positions of automated driving vehicles present on the roadway, and map information; and monitoring, by the roadside device, the remaining time for each automated driving vehicle regarding which the roadside device is installed on the traveling route. In the field of traffic monitoring systems, Dulberg teaches the method further comprising: estimating a traveling route of the vehicle, based on changes in positions of automated driving vehicles present on the roadway, and map information, and monitoring, by the roadside device, the remaining time for each automated driving vehicle regarding which the roadside device is installed on the traveling route (Paragraph [0413] teaches processor can determine respective trajectories of at least two road users and determine whether the trajectories cross within a given period of time such that an accident can occur if the trajectories intersect at a time or within a time window; Paragraph [0429] teaches accessing stored data defining roadways including map data). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of KR with the map data of Dulberg because incorporating more data in the calculations and estimations of trajectories yields the predictable result of increasing the reliability of the processing by basing the conclusions and determinations off of more data to better represent the situation. As to claim 13, depending from the method according to claim 8, KR does not explicitly teach the method further comprising: acquiring information indicating a traveling route of each automated driving vehicle present on the roadway from an information processing device via the communication unit; and monitoring, by the roadside device, the remaining time for each automated driving vehicle regarding which the roadside device is installed on the traveling route. In the field of traffic monitoring systems, Dulberg teaches the method further comprising: acquiring information indicating a traveling route of each automated driving vehicle present on the roadway from an information processing device via the communication unit (Paragraph [0124] teaches each local system exchanges raw or processed data with main server where the main server can aggregate data and map the traffic in an area), and monitoring, by the roadside device, the remaining time for each automated driving vehicle regarding which the roadside device is installed on the traveling route (Paragraph [0413] teaches processor can determine respective trajectories of at least two road users and determine whether the trajectories cross within a given period of time such that an accident can occur if the trajectories intersect at a time or within a time window). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of KR with the server of Dulberg because aggregating data in the server and then using this data yields the predictable result of increasing the reliability of the processing by basing the conclusions and determinations off of more data to better represent the situation. As to claim 14, depending from the method according to claim 8, KR teaches the method further comprising: the control unit is configured to receive information, when the pedestrian is detected (Paragraph [0026] teaches recognizing an object as a human; Paragraph [0031] teaches determining if the object requires more time to cross), KR does not explicitly teach the method further comprising: transmitting a request for acquisition of information indicating whether a predetermined automated driving vehicle is present on the roadway, to an information processing device via the communication unit, when the pedestrian is detected from the video; and receiving the information from the information processing device via the communication unit. In the field of traffic monitoring systems, Dulberg teaches the method further comprising: transmitting a request for acquisition of information indicating whether a predetermined automated driving vehicle is present on the roadway, to an information processing device via the communication unit (Paragraph [0032] teaches receiving a request at a processor and using aggregated and stored information thereafter; Paragraph [0124] teaches each local system exchanges raw or processed data with main server where the main server can aggregate data and map the traffic in an area), when the pedestrian is detected from the video (Paragraph [0244] teaches a camera capturing image data to monitor location of moving road users over time); and receiving the information from the information processing device via the communication unit (Paragraph [0124] teaches each local system exchanges raw or processed data with main server where the main server can aggregate data and map the traffic in an area; Paragraph [0413] teaches processor can determine respective trajectories of at least two road users and determine whether the trajectories cross within a given period of time such that an accident can occur if the trajectories intersect at a time or within a time window). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of KR with the server of Dulberg to request information because requesting aggregated data in the server and then using this data yields the predictable result of increasing the reliability of the processing by basing the conclusions and determinations off of more data to better represent the situation. As to claim 15, KR teaches a control system (Paragraph [0008] teaches a smart crosswalk traffic light) comprising: a roadside device including a shooting unit and a notification unit (Paragraph [0008] teaches the smart crosswalk traffic light comprises a camera unit and an output unit); and an information processing device that is communicable with the roadside device (Paragraph [0008] teaches a processing unit and a communication unit), wherein the roadside device is configured to execute detecting a pedestrian heading toward a roadway captured by the shooting unit (Paragraph [0008] teaches a processing unit recognizing an object in the image; Paragraphs [0010]-[0011] teach an object determination unit determining the object is a pedestrian; Paragraph [0039] teaches the object determination unit determines the object is a person); and notifying the pedestrian that the roadway can be crossed (Paragraphs [0044]-[0045] teach a crossing output unit that outputs so that the pedestrian can recognize that the crossing the crosswalk is possible). KR does not explicitly teach detecting a pedestrian in a video, estimating a remaining time until a vehicle crosses the roadside device; determining whether the remaining time until the vehicle crosses the roadside device is less than a first threshold value; upon determination that the remaining time until the vehicle crosses the roadside device is not less than the first threshold value, notifying the pedestrian that the roadway can be crossed; and upon determination that the remaining time until the vehicle crosses the roadside device is less than the first threshold value, notifying the pedestrian of constraints regarding crossing the roadway. In the field of traffic monitoring systems, Dulberg teaches detecting a pedestrian in a video (Paragraph [0244] teaches a camera capturing image data to monitor location of moving road users over time) estimating a remaining time until a vehicle crosses the roadside device (Paragraph [0267] teaches determining the time for a vehicle to pass an intersection; Paragraph [0110] teaches the system is deployed at the intersection); determining whether the remaining time until the vehicle crosses the roadside device is less than a first threshold value (Paragraph [0413] teaches processor can determine respective trajectories of at least two road users and determine whether the trajectories cross within a given period of time such that an accident can occur if the trajectories intersect at a time or within a time window); and upon determination that the remaining time until the vehicle crosses the roadside device is less than the first threshold value, notifying the pedestrian of constraints regarding crossing the roadway (Paragraph [0242] teaches determining the speed and trajectory of an automobile and a pedestrian, determining a likely collision, and transmitting a remedial action signal to the pedestrian; Paragraph [0249] teaches the remedial action signal for the pedestrian is a crosswalk signal). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of KR with the determining and notifying of Dulberg such that upon determination that the remaining time until the vehicle crosses the roadside device is not less than the first threshold value, notifying the pedestrian that the roadway can be crossed because this helps avoid a likely collision (Paragraph [0242]). As to claim 19, depending from the control system according to claim 15, KR does not explicitly teach wherein the roadside device or the information processing device is configured to execute estimating a traveling route of the vehicle, based on changes in positions of automated driving vehicles present on the roadway, and map information, and monitoring the remaining time for each automated driving vehicle regarding which the roadside device is installed on the traveling route. In the field of traffic monitoring systems, Dulberg teaches wherein the roadside device or the information processing device is configured to execute estimating a traveling route of the vehicle, based on changes in positions of automated driving vehicles present on the roadway, and map information, and monitoring the remaining time for each automated driving vehicle regarding which the roadside device is installed on the traveling route (Paragraph [0413] teaches processor can determine respective trajectories of at least two road users and determine whether the trajectories cross within a given period of time such that an accident can occur if the trajectories intersect at a time or within a time window; Paragraph [0429] teaches accessing stored data defining roadways including map data). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of KR with the map data of Dulberg because incorporating more data in the calculations and estimations of trajectories yields the predictable result of increasing the reliability of the processing by basing the conclusions and determinations off of more data to better represent the situation. As to claim 20, depending from the control system according to claim 15, KR teaches wherein: the roadside device is configured to receive information, when the pedestrian is detected (Paragraph [0026] teaches recognizing an object as a human; Paragraph [0031] teaches determining if the object requires more time to cross), but does not explicitly teach transmitting a request for acquiring information to the information processing device, the pedestrian is detected from the video, the information processing device is configured to transmit the information to the roadside device in response to receiving the acquisition request; and the information is information indicating whether the predetermined automated driving vehicle is present on the roadway. In the field of traffic monitoring systems, Dulberg teaches transmitting a request for acquiring information to the information processing device (Paragraph [0032] teaches receiving a request at a processor and using aggregated and stored information thereafter; Paragraph [0124] teaches each local system exchanges raw or processed data with main server where the main server can aggregate data and map the traffic in an area), the pedestrian is detected from the video (Paragraph [0244] teaches a camera capturing image data to monitor location of moving road users over time), the information processing device is configured to transmit the information to the roadside device in response to receiving the acquisition request; and the information is information indicating whether the predetermined automated driving vehicle is present on the roadway (Paragraph [0124] teaches each local system exchanges raw or processed data with main server where the main server can aggregate data and map the traffic in an area; Paragraph [0413] teaches processor can determine respective trajectories of at least two road users and determine whether the trajectories cross within a given period of time such that an accident can occur if the trajectories intersect at a time or within a time window). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of KR with the server of Dulberg to request information because requesting aggregated data in the server and then using this data yields the predictable result of increasing the reliability of the processing by basing the conclusions and determinations off of more data to better represent the situation . Response to Arguments 07-37 AIA Applicant's arguments filed March 17, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. On pages 7-10, the applicant argues that independent claims 1, 8, and 15 can no longer be rejected as unpatentable over KR in view of Dulberg. In support of this conclusion, the applicant provides a summary of the teaching of KR on page 8 and summary of the teaching of Dulberg on page 9. Further, the applicant argues on page 9 that Dulberg does not teach a time until a vehicle crosses a roadside device and that neither KR nor Dulberg teach determining that the time for the vehicle to cross the roadside device is or is not less than a first threshold value. The examiner respectfully disagrees. No comment is made with respect to the provided summaries of the teaching of KR and Dulberg. With respect to the applicant’s argument that Dulberg does not teach a time until a vehicle crosses a roadside device, Dulberg does teach the time for a vehicle to pass through an intersection (Paragraph [0267]) and that the system is deployed at the intersection (Paragraph [0110]). Therefore, Dulberg does teach the time to cross a roadside device. Further, with respect to the applicant’s argument that neither KR nor Dulberg teach determining that the time for the vehicle to cross the roadside device is or is not less than a first threshold value, Dulberg teaches a processor can determine respective trajectories of at least two road users and determine whether the trajectories cross within a given period of time such that an accident can occur if the trajectories intersect at a time or within a time window (Paragraph [0413]). In Dulberg, the system deployed at the intersection determines if the trajectories of two detected road users, can be a vehicle and a pedestrian, will cross at a time or within a time window. In operation, when a window of time is used, the end of that window of time is considered the first threshold, such that when the time for the vehicle to cross the intersection device is less than the end of the window of time, a collision is likely and notification can be made, whereas when the time is greater than the end of the window of time, a collision is not likely. Therefore, the system determines whether or not the time for the vehicle to cross the intersection-based device is or is not less than a threshold value. Therefore, independent claims 1, 8, and 15, and all claims that depend thereon, remain rejected. Conclusion 07-39 AIA THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Contact Information Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN W SHERWIN whose telephone number is (571)270-7269. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7:00-8:00, 9:00-3:00 and 4:00-5:00 EST. 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, Steven Lim can be reached at 571.270.1210. 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. /RYAN W SHERWIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2688 Application/Control Number: 18/950,741 Page 2 Art Unit: 2688 Application/Control Number: 18/950,741 Page 3 Art Unit: 2688 Application/Control Number: 18/950,741 Page 4 Art Unit: 2688 Application/Control Number: 18/950,741 Page 5 Art Unit: 2688
Prosecution Insights