CTFR 18/963,484 CTFR 94863 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. 12-151 AIA 26-51 12-51 Status of Claims This action is in response to the amendments filed on 03/19/2026, in which claims 1, 3, and 4, are amended and claim 2 is cancelled. Claims 1, and 3-6 are rejected. Response to Arguments Applicant’s amendments and arguments, see REMARKS, filed 03/19/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1 and 2, under 35 USC §102, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the previous rejections under 35 USC §102 have been withdrawn. Applicant's arguments, with respect to the rejection of claims 3-5, under 35 USC §103, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Therefore, the previous rejections have been maintained. With respect to the rejections under 35 USC §102, the Applicant has amended the independent claims to include subject matter from previously presented claims 3 and 4. These claims were rejected under 35 USC §103. Therefore, the amended limitations overcome the previous rejections under 35 USC §102. With respect to the rejections under 35 USC §103, the Applicant argues: With regard to claims 3 and 4, which are now incorporated into amended claim 1, while the Examiner concedes that Miyahara does not explicitly teach the features recited in claims 3 and 4, the Examiner asserts that Takeshi and Xie teach them respectively. See Office Action at pages 10-12. Applicant respectfully disagrees with the Examiner's positions for at least the following reasons. As discussed above, amended claim 1 now recites, inter alia , that a controller configured to control the imager to capture a still image at a predetermined shutter speed in a case in which a first capturing operation is detected and capture a moving image at a predetermined frame rate in a case in which a second capturing operation is detected , the first capturing operation being a short press operation and the second capturing operation being a long press operation, and that the controller is configured to increase at least one of the predetermined shutter speed of the still image and the predetermined frame rate of the moving image as a vehicle speed increases. This amendment clarifies that the controller optimizes the shutter speed or frame rate for the specific capture event triggered by the user's manual press duration , rather than for a general automated background process. While Takeshi and Xie may discuss adjusting imaging parameters based on vehicle speed, they do so in the context of automated systems (obstacle detection in Takeshi and autonomous data collection in Xie). Neither Takeshi nor Xie teaches or suggests that parameters corresponding to manual, user-initiated capturing operations should be dynamically modified based on vehicle speed. Primary art Miyahara discloses changing camera settings based on user input, e.g., the duration of button presses. (see at least ¶ [0059] and [0079]). Further, Miyahara discloses a blur correction function that adjusts the camera settings to reduce blur based a camera state. These states include camera velocity, acceleration, GPS data and the vehicle moving state. (see at least ¶ [0065]) Miyahara does not explicitly teach that the blur correction includes increasing one of the shutter speed or frame rate as the vehicle speed increases. However, Takeshi teaches increasing the shutter speed of a camera based on the increased speed of a vehicle and Xie teaches increasing the frame rate of a camera based on the increased speed. The goal of both of the increasing functions is to provide higher quality images while the vehicle is moving. In summary, Miyahara discloses changing camera settings and/or functions based on the duration of a button push. Miyahara also teaches performing a correction function based on a camera/vehicle velocity to increase the quality of the captured image. Miyahara does not teach that the correction function includes increasing one of the shutter speed and frame rate. However, Takeshi improves the quality of the image by increasing the shutter speed as the vehicle speed increases. While Xie improves the quality of the image by increasing the frame rate as the vehicle speed increases. Thus, the combination of Miyahara, Takeshi, and Xie discloses the entirety of claim 1. As noted in MPEP § 2143(I) and KSR, the combination of familiar elements is only obvious when it yields "predictable results." Here, the result is not predictable because the prior art focuses on automated safety or mapping cycles , whereas amended claim 1 addresses the specific technical problem of ensuring image quality during intentional user documentation in a moving vehicle. (See pg. 6-7, Emphasis added by Applicant) The Examiner disagrees because each of the prior art is concerned with ensuring a high standard of image quality of the environment surrounding the moving vehicle. Further, Miyahara is specifically concerned with user initiated documentation functionality of the camera. Therefore, the Examiner finds this argument unpersuasive. Kojima fails to cure the defects of Miyahara, Takeshi, and Xie since it is completely silent on the above-mentioned specific feature recited in amended claim 1. As provided above, there are no defects to cure in the combination of Miyahara, Takeshi, and Xie. Therefore the Examiner finds this argument unpersuasive. Moreover, with regard to claim 3, the Examiner explains that the motivation to combine Miyahara and Takeshi is "to detect obstacles to a vehicle at low cost." See Office Action at page 11. Applicant respectfully disagrees and submits that this rationale lacks a factual basis in view of the actual nature of the cited references. Miyahara is specifically directed to a "life-log camera," which it defines as a digital camera known to automatically capture images at appropriate timings even without explicit instructions from a user. Miyahara further clarifies that such life-log cameras are highly portable devices intended to be carried for long periods while hanging from a user's neck or worn on the user's body to record daily life activities. See Miyahara at paragraphs [0002]-[0003]. In contrast, Takeshi is directed to an in-vehicle obstacle detection system designed to solve problems related to the high cost of using multiple imaging devices for vehicle safety. A person of ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) seeking to improve the manual user interface of a body-worn, automatic recording life-log camera as described in Miyahara would have no rational underpinning to look toward the specialized, automated obstacle-detection logic of an in-vehicle safety system like Takeshi. As established in In re Warner, the Patent Office may not resort to "unfounded assumptions or hindsight reconstruction" to supply deficiencies in its factual basis. Applicant respectfully submits that the proposed combination of Miyahara's life-log technology and Takeshi's obstacle detection logic appears to involve hindsight reasoning. While Takeshi is directed toward the objective of vehicle obstacle detection, Miyahara focuses on highly portable life-log documentation intended for neck-worn use. In view of these different technical objectives, the cited art does not provide a clear suggestion to modify the manual capturing interface of a wearable device to be dynamically adjusted in accordance with a vehicle's speed. As such, Applicant respectfully submits that the motivation for such a configuration is found not in the prior art, but rather in the teachings of the present disclosure. 07-37-03 AIA In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin , 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). Miyahara provides for the camera to be attached to a vehicle and that the camera will detect “subject information” in the surrounding environment. The camera of Takeshi is performing a similar function identifying obstacles in the environment. Therefore, using the low cost camera of Takeshi would be improvement recognized by a PHOSITA. Thus, the Examiner finds this argument unpersuasive. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation 07-30-03 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. 07-30-05 The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) are: “…an imager configured to capture an image…” in claim 1, and “…an input interface configured to accept…” in claim 1. Because these claim limitation(s) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. For the purposes of this action “an imager” will be interpreted in light of ¶ [0024]: “The imager 17 includes an in-vehicle camera that generates still and moving images (hereinafter also collectively referred to as images), which are captured images of the outside scenery in front of the vehicle 1. The in-vehicle camera included in the imager 17 may be a monocular camera or a stereo camera.” Whereas the “input interface” will be interpreted in light of ¶ [0020]: “The input interface 13 includes at least one interface for input. The interface for input is, for example, a physical key, a capacitive key, a pointing device, or a touch screen integrally provided with a display. The interface for input may be, for example, a sound sensor that accepts audio input, a camera that accepts gesture input, or the like. The input interface 13 accepts an operation for inputting data to be used for the operations of the information processing apparatus 10. The input interface 13 may be connected to the information processing apparatus 10 as an external input device, instead of being included in the information processing apparatus 10.” If applicant does not intend to have 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 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 § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 07-20-aia AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1, 3, 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyahara (US 2023/0254571 A1, “Miyahara”) view of Takeshi (JP 2023137258 A, “Takeshi”) and in further view of Xie (US 2024/0013549 A1, “Xie”) . Regarding claim 1 , Miyahara discloses image capturing apparatus, method for controlling the same, and storage medium and teaches: An information processing apparatus to be mounted in a vehicle, the information processing apparatus comprising: (For example, in a case where the camera 101 is attached to an automobile to capture an image, subject information such as surrounding scenery can vary significantly depending on the distance moved – See at least ¶ [0065]) an imager configured to capture an image of scenery outside the vehicle; (The recording/reproduction unit 220 is a digital signal processing circuit that records the compressed image and audio signals generated by the image processing unit 207 and the audio processing unit 214, respectively, and other image capturing control data into a recording medium 221 – See at least ¶ [0024]; For example, in a case where the camera 101 is attached to an automobile to capture an image, subject information such as surrounding scenery can vary significantly depending on the distance moved. The first control unit 223 determines whether the camera 101 is in a "vehicle moving state" where the camera 101 is attached to an automobile and is moving at a high speed – See at least ¶ [0065]) an input interface configured to accept a capturing operation by a user; and (In the present exemplary embodiment, it is assumed that the communication button of the camera 101 is assigned the function of receiving an image capturing instruction in advance and the communication button functions as the image capturing instruction button – See at least ¶ [0059]) a controller configured to control (FIG. 2 is a block diagram illustrating an overall configuration of the camera 101 according to the present exemplary embodiment. A first control unit 223 includes, for example, a central processing unit CPU (a micro processing unit (MPU)) and memories (a dynamic random access memory (DRAM) and a static RAM (SRAM)). The first control unit 223 performs various types of processing to control the blocks of the camera 101 and control data transfer between the blocks according to a program stored in a nonvolatile memory (an electrically erasable programmable read only memory (EEPROM)) 216. The nonvolatile memory 216, which is an electrically erasable and recordable memory, stores constants and programs for operations of the first control unit 223 – See at least ¶ [0017]) the imager to capture a still image at a predetermined shutter speed in a case in which a first capturing operation is detected and capture a moving image at a predetermined frame rate in a case in which a second capturing operation is detected, the first capturing operation being a short press operation and the second capturing operation being a long press operation [] (In step S507, the first control unit 223 determines whether an image capturing instruction member is operated to issue an image capturing instruction. If the image capturing instruction member is operated (YES in step S507), the processing proceeds to step S508. The camera 101 according to the present exemplary embodiment includes a button exposed external to the housing of the camera 101. In this step, this button is used as the image capturing instruction member. The user can issue a still image capturing instruction by short-pressing this button. The user can issue a moving image recording start instruction by holding down the button – See at least ¶ [0079]) Miyahara does not explicitly teach wherein the controller is configured to increase at least one of the predetermined shutter speed of the still image and the predetermined frame rate of the moving image as a vehicle speed increases. However, Takeshi discloses obstacle detection system and obstacle detection method and teaches: wherein the controller is configured to increase at least one of the predetermined shutter speed of the still image (The control device 15d adjusts the shutter speed SS of the image capture device 11 in accordance with the detected traveling speed V of the automobile 100. Here, the shutter speed SS is a term that indirectly means the time the shutter is open – See at least ¶ [0150]) and the predetermined frame rate of the moving image as a vehicle speed increases. (Therefore, in this embodiment, the control device 15d controls the imaging device 11 so that the shutter speed SS for capturing images by the imaging device 11 is increased as the traveling speed V of the automobile 100 increases, and the shutter speed SS is decreased as the traveling speed V decreases – See at least ¶ [0153]) In summary, Miyahara is configured to change a setting of the imager according to vehicle speed. For instance, the first control unit 223 calculates an image blur correction amount and determines a image blur correction angle based on the state of the camera. Miyahara further defines the state as including a vehicle moving state, i.e., a speed. Miyahara does not explicitly teach that the image blur correction increases at least one of a shutter speed of the still image and the predetermined frame rate of the moving image as the vehicle speed increases . However, Takeshi discloses an obstacle detection system and obstacle detection method that causes the controller to increase the shutter speed as the traveling speed of an automobile increases. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have modified the image capturing apparatus, method for controlling the same, and storage medium of Miyahara to provide for the obstacle detection system and obstacle detection method, as taught in Takeshi, to detect obstacles to a vehicle at low cost. (At Takeshi ¶ [0005]) The combination of Miyahara and Takeshi does not explicitly teach wherein the controller is configured to increase at least one of the predetermined shutter speed of the still image and the predetermined frame rate of the moving image as a vehicle speed increases . However, Xie discloses vehicle-mounted collection device and teaches: wherein the controller is configured to increase at least one of the predetermined shutter speed of the still image and the predetermined frame rate of the moving image as a vehicle speed increases. (when the vehicle speed is high, the industrial computer may instruct the front-view camera and the rear-view camera to increase the frame rate and reduce the exposure time – See at least ¶ [0069]) In summary, Miyahara discloses adjusting the settings of a camera to correct blur based on the camera state, e.g., a speed of the camera. Takeshi discloses increasing a setting based on the increase of vehicle speed. The combination does not explicitly teach increasing the frame rate as a vehicle speed increases. However, Xie discloses a vehicle-mounted collection device and teaches increasing the frame rate as the vehicle speed increases. Xie further explains that making this change provides a variety of advantages, e.g., reduce image blur, ability to collect high definition images at different speeds, etc. (¶ [0069]-[0070]) Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have modified the image capturing apparatus, method for controlling the same, and storage medium of Miyahara and Takeshi to provide for the vehicle-mounted collection device, as taught in Xie, to ensure a quantity of target collection times and inter-frame coverage, and reduce image blur. (At Xie ¶ [0069]) Regarding claim 3 , the combination of Miyahara and Xie does not explicitly teach but, Takeshi further teaches: wherein the controller is configured to change a setting of the imager according to the vehicle speed, the predetermined setting includes a shutter speed, and the controller is configured to increase the predetermined shutter speed as the vehicle speed increases. (Therefore, in this embodiment, the control device 15d controls the imaging device 11 so that the shutter speed SS for capturing images by the imaging device 11 is increased as the traveling speed V of the automobile 100 increases, and the shutter speed SS is decreased as the traveling speed V decreases – See at least ¶ [0153]) Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have modified the image capturing apparatus, method for controlling the same, and storage medium of Miyahara and Xie to provide for the obstacle detection system and obstacle detection method, as taught in Takeshi, to detect obstacles to a vehicle at low cost. (At Takeshi ¶ [0005]) Regarding claim 4 , the combination of Miyahara and Takeshi does not explicitly teach but, Xie further teaches: wherein the controller is configured to change a setting of the imager according to the vehicle speed, setting includes the predetermined frame rate, and the controller is configured to increase the predetermined frame rate as the vehicle speed increases. (when the vehicle speed is high, the industrial computer may instruct the front-view camera and the rear-view camera to increase the frame rate and reduce the exposure time – See at least ¶ [0069]) Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have modified the image capturing apparatus, method for controlling the same, and storage medium of Miyahara and Takeshi to provide for the vehicle-mounted collection device, as taught in Xie, to ensure a quantity of target collection times and inter-frame coverage, and reduce image blur. (At Xie ¶ [0069]) 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyahara in view of Takeshi and Xie, as applied to claim 1, and in further view of Kojima et al. (US 2022/0217309 A1, “Kojima”) . Regarding claim 5 , the combination of Miyahara, Takeshi, and Xie does not explicitly teach wherein the controller is configured to determine whether to accept the capturing operation based on positional information for the vehicle. However, Kojima discloses drive recorder, image recording method, and recording medium for image recording and teaches: wherein the controller is configured to determine whether to accept the capturing operation based on positional information for the vehicle. (The function control processing unit 17b transmits the position information on the vehicle to the server apparatus 5 via the communication unit 16 and acquires area information relating to a predetermined area from the server apparatus 5 via the communication unit 16. The function control processing unit 17b controls the function in the drive recorder 1 based on the acquired area information. When the area information includes information indicating a restriction that necessitates suspending recording of images, the function control processing unit 176 performs function control for suspending recording of images in the image processing unit 11. Further, the function control processing unit 17b alerts the user that the vehicle is in an area with a restriction that requires suspending image recording – See at least ¶ [0032]-[0033]) Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have modified the image capturing apparatus, method for controlling the same, and storage medium of Miyahara, Takeshi, and Xie to provide for the drive recorder, image recording method, and recording medium for image recording, as taught in Kojima, to follow imposed restrictions on recording of images due to legal regulations in the area such as a country and a region in which the vehicle is locate. (At Kojima ¶ [0021]) Regarding claim 6 , the combination of Miyahara, Takeshi, and Xie does not explicitly teach but, Kojima further teaches: wherein the controller is configured to allow an acceptance of the capturing operation when the positional information for the vehicle is in a predetermined area, and the predetermined area is a landscaped area. (For example, the drive recorder 1 performs the image recording process or changing the quality of images recorded, when it is found that the vehicle is located in an area with no restriction on image recording , when the vehicle is located in a high accident area , etc. , or when the vehicle is located in a sightseeing spot – See at least ¶ [0044]; Examiner notes that sightseeing spots include “landscaped” areas.) Conclusion 07-40 AIA Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL . See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHASE L COOLEY whose telephone number is (303)297-4355. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7-5MT. 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, Aniss Chad can be reached at 571-270-3832. 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. /C.L.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3662 /ANISS CHAD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3662 Application/Control Number: 18/963,484 Page 2 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 18/963,484 Page 3 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 18/963,484 Page 4 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 18/963,484 Page 5 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 18/963,484 Page 6 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 18/963,484 Page 7 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 18/963,484 Page 8 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 18/963,484 Page 9 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 18/963,484 Page 10 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 18/963,484 Page 11 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 18/963,484 Page 13 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 18/963,484 Page 14 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 18/963,484 Page 16 Art Unit: 3662
Prosecution Insights