CTNF 18/974,735 CTNF 89647 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. 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. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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. Claim(s) 1, 15 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Gilbertson et al. ( US patent Publication: 20210319603, “Gilbertson”) in view of Menichelli et al. ( US Patent Publication: 20230244563, “ Menichelli”). Regarding claim 1, Gilbertson teaches, A computer-implemented method (Fig.2) comprising: receiving semantic data regarding a Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA), wherein the semantic data specifies one or more groups of nodes, respective semantic group types of the one or more groups, respective semantic node types of the nodes, and relationships between the nodes; (“[0017]….FIG. 1 shows an example visual representation of nodes and edges for a set of graph data 100 stored on a computing device. The visual representation of FIG. 1 can be generated by a standard graph viewer, as an example. Where graph data 100 represents diagnostic data, the graph data can include test nodes, function nodes, and failure mode nodes, as examples.” Referenced Diagnostic data is the claimed semantic data regarding a Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA) specifying node, node type and relationship between them ) generating preliminary layout data for the FMEA, wherein generating the preliminary layout data for the FMEA comprises performing a graph traversal on the semantic data, and wherein the preliminary layout data specifies relative positions of the one or more groups, relative positions of the nodes within the groups, and positions of edges relative to the nodes; ( Fig. 2A steps 204, 212 and 216 generate a preliminary layout data for FMEA by performing a graph traversal of the semantic data. “ [0022] Next, in a grid initialization phase, method 200 includes, at 204, for each connected group of nodes, at 206, determining a reachability from each node with no inputs to each of one or more nodes with no outputs, to determine a plurality of initial node/terminal node pairs. Reachability refers to the ability to get from one node to another node within the graph. FIG. 3 schematically shows an example of a starting connected group of nodes 300. Nodes A, B and C represent test nodes, nodes a, b, c, d, e and f represent function nodes, and nodes W, X, Y and Z represent failure mode nodes. In this example, test nodes A, B and C are nodes with no inputs, and failure mode nodes X, W, Y and Z are nodes with no outputs. Reachability can be determined using any suitable algorithm, including, but not limited to, the Floyd-Warshall algorithm. [0023] Further during the grid initialization phase, method 200 includes, at 208, for each initial node/terminal node pair, determining a path from the initial node to the terminal node. In some examples, a shortest path can be determined from the initial node to the terminal node, as shown at 209. FIG. 4 shows example shortest paths determined for the connected group of nodes of FIG. 3. Shortest paths can be determined using any suitable algorithm, such as, but not limited to, Dijkstra's algorithm. Shortest paths can help to identify initial candidate locations for nodes in a grid. In other examples, instead of determining shortest paths, other paths can be determined for each initial node/terminal node pair. For example, an approximation of a minimum Steiner tree between all test and all failure mode nodes can be determined. As a further example, a minimum spanning tree can be computed over all of the notes” Fig.3, Fig.4 and Fig.5 are examples of preliminary layout data for the FMEA found by traversing graph that provides relative positions of the one or more groups, relative positions of the nodes within the groups, and positions of edges relative to the nodes;) generating processed layout data for the FMEA, wherein generating the processed layout data for the FMEA comprises: determining absolute positions for the nodes based on the preliminary layout data and the respective semantic node types of the nodes; (“0030] Thus, continuing with FIG. 2B, modifying the initial grid representation via a cost function can include, at 226, applying a penalty term P.sub.geometric based on a summed geometric length of edges in the grid, where P.sub.geometric=sum of the geometric length of all edges in the graph. An example equation for calculating the length of an edge from a start node s1 to an end node e2 is as follows: Length ( s 1, e 2)=√{square root over (( s 1.row− e 2.row).sup.2+( s 1.col− e 2.col).sup.2)}” Fig. 7 and 8 discloses determined absolute position of nodes (each similar node type is positioned at same column, which is based on preliminary layout data of Fig.5 and semantic node type (for example test node, failure mode type.). determining absolute positions and geometries for the edges based on the preliminary layout data and the absolute positions for the nodes; ( ….. [0031] Additionally or alternatively, modifying the initial grid representation via a cost function can include, at 228, applying a penalty term P.sub.edge equal to a number of edge crossings. For example, given two node pairs (s1, e1) and (s2, e2), it is determined if line segment 1 defined by (s1.row, s1.col) to (e1.row, e1.col) overlaps with line segment 2 defined by (s2.row, s2.col) to (e2.row, e2.col). As another example, the row positioning for the nodes of a constrained column set can be checked by determining if a start node s2 is in a same or an earlier column as s1 and an end node e2 is after s1, and start node s2 is above s1 and end node e2 is below e1, or start node s2 is below s1 and end node e2 is above e1.:” Fig. 8 discloses of each edge position and geometries ( straight line or slanted line connection) based on initial layout and absolute position of nodes I for processed layout.) rendering a visual representation of a layout for the FMEA based on the processed layout data; and outputting the visual representation of the layout for display. (“[0038] Continuing with FIG. 2B, method 200 further includes, at 234, outputting the modified grid representation for display. Grid representation 800 and grid representation 1000 are examples of grid representations that can be displayed via a display device.”) but doesn’t teach so via an user interface . However, Menichelli teaches, outputting the visual representation of the layout for display via a user interface . ( Refer to Fig.1 “[0019] c) selecting a representation of the technical system as a FMEA table or as one or more FTA fault tree(s); and [0020] c1) if a representation of the technical system as a FMEA table is selected, generating and displaying on a graphical user interface the FMEA table of the technical system by using the data of the common data set and by grouping the failure modes in said table according to the process step they correspond to”) Gilbertson and Menichelli are analogous as they are from the field of generating FMEA. Therefore it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gilbertson to have included outputting the visual representation of the layout for display via a user interface as taught by Menichelli. The motivation for the above is to provide control to user to manipulate MFEA in the display. Regarding claim 15, Gilbertson as modified by Menichelli teaches, a given edge of the edges represents a relationship between a first node and a second node of the nodes; (Gilbertson, “{0017]…..FIG. 1 shows an example visual representation of nodes and edges for a set of graph data 100 stored on a computing device. The visual representation of FIG. 1 can be generated by a standard graph viewer, as an example. Where graph data 100 represents diagnostic data, the graph data can include test nodes, function nodes, and failure mode nodes, as examples.”) and the absolute position for the given edge is determined such that the given edge originates at the first node and terminates at the second node in the visual representation of the layout. (Gilbertson, “[0030] Thus, continuing with FIG. 2B, modifying the initial grid representation via a cost function can include, at 226, applying a penalty term P.sub.geometric based on a summed geometric length of edges in the grid, where P.sub.geometric=sum of the geometric length of all edges in the graph. An example equation for calculating the length of an edge from a start node s1 to an end node e2 is as follows: Length ( s 1, e 2)=√{square root over (( s 1.row− e 2.row).sup.2+( s 1.col− e 2.col).sup.2)}” ….. [0031] Additionally or alternatively, modifying the initial grid representation via a cost function can include, at 228, applying a penalty term P.sub.edge equal to a number of edge crossings. For example, given two node pairs (s1, e1) and (s2, e2), it is determined if line segment 1 defined by (s1.row, s1.col) to (e1.row, e1.col) overlaps with line segment 2 defined by (s2.row, s2.col) to (e2.row, e2.col). As another example, the row positioning for the nodes of a constrained column set can be checked by determining if a start node s2 is in a same or an earlier column as s1 and an end node e2 is after s1, and start node s2 is above s1 and end node e2 is below e1, or start node s2 is below s1 and end node e2 is above e1.:” Fig. 8 shows the absolute position for the given edge is determined such that the given edge originates at the first node and terminates at the second node in the visual representation of the layout) Regarding claim 18, Gilbertson teaches, A computing system (Fig. 12) comprising: at least one hardware processor ( element 1202 ); at least one memory (element 1204) coupled to the at least one hardware processor; and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media having stored therein computer- executable instructions that, when executed by the computing system, (“[0041] FIG. 12 schematically shows a non-limiting embodiment of a computing system 1200 that can enact one or more of the examples described above. For example, computing system 1200 can be used to execute instructions to implement graph representation generation module 104, to perform method 200, and to generate, display, and potentially perform other functions with the example graph data representations of FIGS. 3-10.”) cause the computing system to perform: receiving semantic data regarding a Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA), wherein the semantic data specifies one or more groups of nodes, respective semantic group types of the one or more groups, respective semantic node types of the nodes, and relationships between the nodes; ([0017]….“FIG. 1 shows an example visual representation of nodes and edges for a set of graph data 100 stored on a computing device. The visual representation of FIG. 1 can be generated by a standard graph viewer, as an example. Where graph data 100 represents diagnostic data, the graph data can include test nodes, function nodes, and failure mode nodes, as examples.” Referenced Diagnostic data is the claimed semantic data regarding a Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA) specifying node, node type and relationship between them ) Gilbertson doesn’t teach, receiving a request to generate a visual representation of a layout for the FMEA However, Menichelli teaches, receiving a request to generate a visual representation of a layout for the FMEA; in response to the request ( generating and displaying on a graphical user interface the FMEA table) ( Refer to Fig.1 “[0019] c) selecting a representation of the technical system as a FMEA table or as one or more FTA fault tree(s); and [0020] c1) if a representation of the technical system as a FMEA table is selected, generating and displaying on a graphical user interface the FMEA table of the technical system by using the data of the common data set and by grouping the failure modes in said table according to the process step they correspond to”) Gilbertson and Menichelli are analogous as they are from the field of generating FMEA. Therefore it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gilbertson to have included receiving a request to generate a visual representation of a layout for the FMEA as taught by Menichelli. The motivation for the above is to provide control to user so user can choose when to generate and display the FMEA. Gilbertson as modified by Menichelli teaches, in response to the request, pre-processing the semantic data to generate preliminary layout data for the FMEA, wherein the preliminary layout data specifies relative positions of the one or more groups, relative positions of the nodes within the groups, and positions of edges relative to the nodes; (Gilbertson, Fig. 2A steps 204, 212 and 216 generate a preliminary layout data for FMEA by performing a graph traversal of the semantic data. “ [0022] Next, in a grid initialization phase, method 200 includes, at 204, for each connected group of nodes, at 206, determining a reachability from each node with no inputs to each of one or more nodes with no outputs, to determine a plurality of initial node/terminal node pairs. Reachability refers to the ability to get from one node to another node within the graph. FIG. 3 schematically shows an example of a starting connected group of nodes 300. Nodes A, B and C represent test nodes, nodes a, b, c, d, e and f represent function nodes, and nodes W, X, Y and Z represent failure mode nodes. In this example, test nodes A, B and C are nodes with no inputs, and failure mode nodes X, W, Y and Z are nodes with no outputs. Reachability can be determined using any suitable algorithm, including, but not limited to, the Floyd-Warshall algorithm. Gilbertson, [0023] Further during the grid initialization phase, method 200 includes, at 208, for each initial node/terminal node pair, determining a path from the initial node to the terminal node. In some examples, a shortest path can be determined from the initial node to the terminal node, as shown at 209. FIG. 4 shows example shortest paths determined for the connected group of nodes of FIG. 3. Shortest paths can be determined using any suitable algorithm, such as, but not limited to, Dijkstra's algorithm. Shortest paths can help to identify initial candidate locations for nodes in a grid. In other examples, instead of determining shortest paths, other paths can be determined for each initial node/terminal node pair. For example, an approximation of a minimum Steiner tree between all test and all failure mode nodes can be determined. As a further example, a minimum spanning tree can be computed over all of the notes” Fig.3, Fig.4 and Fig.5 are examples of preliminary layout data for the FMEA found by traversing graph that provides relative positions of the one or more groups, relative positions of the nodes within the groups, and positions of edges relative to the nodes;) processing the preliminary layout data to generate processed layout data for the FMEA, ( Gilbertson, “[0030] Thus, continuing with FIG. 2B, modifying the initial grid representation via a cost function can include, at 226, applying a penalty term P.sub.geometric based on a summed geometric length of edges in the grid, where P.sub.geometric=sum of the geometric length of all edges in the graph. An example equation for calculating the length of an edge from a start node s1 to an end node e2 is as follows: Length ( s 1, e 2)=√{square root over (( s 1.row− e 2.row).sup.2+( s 1.col− e 2.col).sup.2)}” Fig. 7 and 8 discloses determined absolute position of nodes (each similar node type is positioned at same column, which is based on preliminary layout data of Fig.5 and semantic node type (for example test node, failure mode type.). wherein the processing comprises determining absolute positions for the nodes and the edges and geometries for the edges; ( Gilbertson, ….. [0031] Additionally or alternatively, modifying the initial grid representation via a cost function can include, at 228, applying a penalty term P.sub.edge equal to a number of edge crossings. For example, given two node pairs (s1, e1) and (s2, e2), it is determined if line segment 1 defined by (s1.row, s1.col) to (e1.row, e1.col) overlaps with line segment 2 defined by (s2.row, s2.col) to (e2.row, e2.col). As another example, the row positioning for the nodes of a constrained column set can be checked by determining if a start node s2 is in a same or an earlier column as s1 and an end node e2 is after s1, and start node s2 is above s1 and end node e2 is below e1, or start node s2 is below s1 and end node e2 is above e1.:” Fig. 8 discloses of each edge position and geometries ( straight line or slanted line connection) based on initial layout and absolute position of nodes I for processed layout.) rendering the visual representation of the layout for the FMEA based on the absolute positions for the nodes and the edges and the geometries for the edges; and outputting the visual representation of the layout. ( Gilbertson. “[0038] Continuing with FIG. 2B, method 200 further includes, at 234, outputting the modified grid representation for display. Grid representation 800 and grid representation 1000 are examples of grid representations that can be displayed via a display device.”) Regarding claim 19, Gilbert as modified by Menichelli t eaches, further comprising a user interface displaying the visual representation of the layout. ( Menichelli, Fig.1 and “[0019] c) selecting a representation of the technical system as a FMEA table or as one or more FTA fault tree(s); and [0020] c1) if a representation of the technical system as a FMEA table is selected, generating and displaying on a graphical user interface the FMEA table of the technical system by using the data of the common data set and by grouping the failure modes in said table according to the process step they correspond to,”) Claim(s) 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Gilbertson as modified by Menichelli as applied claim 1 and further in view of Stetson et al. ( US Patent Publication: 20170221240, Stetson). Regarding claim 17, Gilbertson as modified by Menichelli doesn’t teach, wherein the graph traversal comprises at least one of the following: a breadth-first graph traversal; or a depth-first graph traversal. However, Stetson teaches, wherein the graph traversal comprises at least one of the following: a breadth-first graph traversal; or a depth-first graph traversal. (“[0104] The perspective of the source node is determined (414) by recursively traversing the graph database. A number of techniques can be utilized to traverse the graph in accordance with embodiments of the invention, including, but not limited to, depth-first search (DFS), breadth-first search (BFS), iterative deepening DFS, depth-limited DFS, lexicographic BFS, beam search, and best-first search. Other techniques, including path finding techniques, can be utilized as appropriate to the requirements of specific applications in accordance with embodiments of the invention. ……… In a variety of embodiments, the node weight for a particular related node is determined (416) based on the node weight for its predecessor node (e.g. the node traversed prior to the particular related node during the determination (414) of the node perspective) and the edge weight metadata for the edge connecting the particular related node and its predecessor node. A node layout can be generated (418) based on the determined node weight and the edge display metadata for the edge connecting the particular related node and the predecessor node.”) Gilbertson as modified by Menichelli and Stetson are analogous as they are from the field of layout generation. Therefore it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gilbertson as modified by Menichelli to have included the graph traversal comprise at least one of the following: a breadth-first graph traversal; or a depth-first graph traversal as taught by Stetson. The motivation for the modification is to have an efficient graph searching to generate the FMEA layout. Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-07 AIA 07-97 12-51-07 Claim 20 is allowed. 13-03 AIA The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Claim 20 is allowable because Gilbertson teaches, One or more non-transitory computer-readable media comprising computer- executable instructions that, when executed by a computing system, cause the computing system to perform operations (“ (“[0041] FIG. 12 schematically shows a non-limiting embodiment of a computing system 1200 that can enact one or more of the examples described above. For example, computing system 1200 can be used to execute instructions to implement graph representation generation module 104, to perform method 200, and to generate, display, and potentially perform other functions with the example graph data representations of FIGS. 3-10.”) comprising: receiving semantic data regarding a Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA), wherein the semantic data specifies one or more groups of nodes, descriptive text for the respective nodes, respective semantic group types of the one or more groups, respective semantic node types of the nodes, and relationships between the nodes, wherein a given group of one or more the groups comprises a system element node that represents a system element of the FMEA, a function node that represents a function of the system element, and a failure mode nodes that represents a failure mode of the function; ([0017]….“FIG. 1 shows an example visual representation of nodes and edges for a set of graph data 100 stored on a computing device. The visual representation of FIG. 1 can be generated by a standard graph viewer, as an example. Where graph data 100 represents diagnostic data, the graph data can include test nodes, function nodes, and failure mode nodes, as examples.” Referenced Diagnostic data is the claimed semantic data regarding a Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA) specifying node, node type and relationship between them ) and processing the semantic data to generate layout data for the FMEA, wherein the processing comprises determining absolute positions for nodes, ( Gilbertson, “0030] Thus, continuing with FIG. 2B, modifying the initial grid representation via a cost function can include, at 226, applying a penalty term P.sub.geometric based on a summed geometric length of edges in the grid, where P.sub.geometric=sum of the geometric length of all edges in the graph. An example equation for calculating the length of an edge from a start node s1 to an end node e2 is as follows: Length ( s 1, e 2)=√{square root over (( s 1.row− e 2.row).sup.2+( s 1.col− e 2.col).sup.2)}” Fig. 7 and 8 discloses determined absolute position of nodes (each similar node type is positioned at same column, which is based on preliminary layout data of Fig.5 and semantic node type (for example test node, failure mode type.). determining absolute positions for edges representing the relationships between the nodes, and determining geometries for the edges; ( ….. [0031] Additionally or alternatively, modifying the initial grid representation via a cost function can include, at 228, applying a penalty term P.sub.edge equal to a number of edge crossings. For example, given two node pairs (s1, e1) and (s2, e2), it is determined if line segment 1 defined by (s1.row, s1.col) to (e1.row, e1.col) overlaps with line segment 2 defined by (s2.row, s2.col) to (e2.row, e2.col). As another example, the row positioning for the nodes of a constrained column set can be checked by determining if a start node s2 is in a same or an earlier column as s1 and an end node e2 is after s1, and start node s2 is above s1 and end node e2 is below e1, or start node s2 is below s1 and end node e2 is above e1.:” Fig. 8 discloses of each edge position and geometries ( straight line or slanted line connection) based on initial layout and absolute position of nodes I for processed layout.) rendering a visual representation of a layout for the FMEA based on the layout data, outputting the visual representation of the layout for display ( Gilbert “[0038] Continuing with FIG. 2B, method 200 further includes, at 234, outputting the modified grid representation for display. Grid representation 800 and grid representation 1000 are examples of grid representations that can be displayed via a display device.”) but doesn’t teach so via an user interface . Menichelli teaches, outputting the visual representation of the layout for display via a user interface . ( Refer to Fig.1 “[0019] c) selecting a representation of the technical system as a FMEA table or as one or more FTA fault tree(s); and [0020] c1) if a representation of the technical system as a FMEA table is selected, generating and displaying on a graphical user interface the FMEA table of the technical system by using the data of the common data set and by grouping the failure modes in said table according to the process step they correspond to”) The combination of prior art fails to expressly teach, wherein in the visual representation of the layout, the function node is centered below the system element node, the failure mode node is arranged below and rightward of the function node in a cherry-on-tree formation, and the respective nodes are labeled with the descriptive text; Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.” 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim s 2-14 and 16 are 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. Claim 2 is objected because Gilbert teaches, wherein: the semantic node type of a given one of the nodes is selected from the group consisting of: a system element node type; (referenced test node) a function node type; (referenced function node) and a failure mode node type; (referenced failure mode nodes ) (Gilbert “ The visual representation of FIG. 1 can be generated by a standard graph viewer, as an example. Where graph data 100 represents diagnostic data, the graph data can include test nodes, function nodes, and failure mode nodes, as examples ) and However, the combination of prior art fails to expressly teach, the semantic group type of a given group of the one or more groups is selected from the group consisting of: a focus FMEA group type; a superordinate FMEA group type; and a subordinate FMEA group type. Claims 3-14 are also objected by virtue of dependency. Claim 16 is objected because the combination of prior art fails to expressly teach, determining absolute positions for one or more 90° angles in the given edge in the visual representation of the layout based on the absolute positions for the first node and the second node. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAPTARSHI MAZUMDER whose telephone number is (571)270-3454. The examiner can normally be reached 8 am-4 pm PST. 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, Said Broome can be reached at (571)272-2931. 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. /SAPTARSHI MAZUMDER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2612 Application/Control Number: 18/974,735 Page 2 Art Unit: 2612 Application/Control Number: 18/974,735 Page 3 Art Unit: 2612 Application/Control Number: 18/974,735 Page 4 Art Unit: 2612 Application/Control Number: 18/974,735 Page 5 Art Unit: 2612 Application/Control Number: 18/974,735 Page 6 Art Unit: 2612 Application/Control Number: 18/974,735 Page 7 Art Unit: 2612 Application/Control Number: 18/974,735 Page 8 Art Unit: 2612 Application/Control Number: 18/974,735 Page 9 Art Unit: 2612 Application/Control Number: 18/974,735 Page 10 Art Unit: 2612 Application/Control Number: 18/974,735 Page 11 Art Unit: 2612 Application/Control Number: 18/974,735 Page 12 Art Unit: 2612 Application/Control Number: 18/974,735 Page 13 Art Unit: 2612 Application/Control Number: 18/974,735 Page 14 Art Unit: 2612 Application/Control Number: 18/974,735 Page 15 Art Unit: 2612 Application/Control Number: 18/974,735 Page 16 Art Unit: 2612 Application/Control Number: 18/974,735 Page 17 Art Unit: 2612 Application/Control Number: 18/974,735 Page 18 Art Unit: 2612 Application/Control Number: 18/974,735 Page 19 Art Unit: 2612 Application/Control Number: 18/974,735 Page 20 Art Unit: 2612
Prosecution Insights