CTNF 18/990,339 CTNF 80525 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. PNG media_image1.png 228 399 media_image1.png Greyscale Note: The primary issues raised under 112(a) and (b) below are because applicant’s Claim 1 is expressly directed towards what the magnetic sensor comprises, but that this magnetic sensor is now being claimed to “comprise” a permanent magnet. However, as seen above, the only magnets that are disclosed are always disclosed to be completely separate from the magnetic sensor. To that point, applicant is now expressly claiming that the magnetic sensor “comprising … a permanent magnet disposed adjacent to the magnetic sensor” in Claim 1, but where such a feature is not disclosed in the original disclosure. Instead, the magnetic sensor is expressly disclosed to be distinct and separate from the permanent magnet, as even evidenced by the fact that applicant is expressly claiming that the magnet is “adjacent to” the magnetic sensor. All rejections that follow are directed towards this issue, both because no magnetic sensor is reasonably disclosed to include such a magnet, and because it is unclear (112(b) issue) how this claim should be interpreted. That stated, this high level explanation is provided to exemplify those issues that follow, as the magnetic sensor does not reasonably include the magnet, and because it is unclear how the magnet and any effect from this magnet should be treated. Also note, an issue of a proper claim to be priority is not being raised at this time, but note that any claims that are not fully supported by the parent application do not have priority to the parent application. Divisional and continuation applications that add features not found in the parent application do not have continuity and thus priority to the parent application for those respective features not found in the parent application. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-01 AIA The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. 07-31-01 Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. As to Claim 1, PNG media_image1.png 228 399 media_image1.png Greyscale The phrase “A magnetic sensor using a spin-orbit torque (SOT), the magnetic sensor comprising: … a permanent magnet disposed adjacent to the magnetic sensor, wherein polarity of the permanent magnet facing the magnetic sensor is changeable, wherein a magnetization switching of the ferromagnetic layer occurs by an external auxiliary magnetic field generated by the permanent magnet in a direction parallel to the direction of the current after the SOT occurs, wherein a magnetization state of the ferromagnetic layer is maintained unless no change in direction of the external auxiliary magnetic field, wherein the polarity of the permanent magnet facing the magnetic sensor changes and a direction of the external auxiliary magnetic field changes to a direction antiparallel to a previous direction, thereby the magnetization of the ferromagnetic layer occurs again” on lines 1 to the end lacks proper written description. 1) The first issue is that applicant is claiming the permanent magnet as part of the magnetic sensor. However, the entirety of the disclosure expressly distinguishes between the magnetic and any permanent magnet or magnets. For example as seen above and in paragraph [0070], applicant expressly discloses that the magnetic sensor is element (10), and the permanent magnets are elements (35). As such, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably recognize that applicant had possession of the above claim features because such a person would not reasonably recognize any permanent magnet that is actually part of magnetic sensor (10) that is reasonably capable of the above claim features. 2) The second issue is that applicant is claiming that the polarity of the permanent magnet facing the sensor is changeable, and that the plurality of this magnet “changes,” as seen in the last paragraph. Such a feature lacks proper written description. A permanent magnet does not reasonably have any changeable magnetic field, as it is a “permanent” magnet, and thus not subject to change. Any change of the magnet would require raising the temperature of the magnet above its curie point, or exposing it to a magnetic field so strong that it alters the magnetization of the magnet. In short, applicant does not reasonably disclose any magnet that has any aspect that is “changeable” as claimed, as what applicant discloses are permanent magnets merely used for movement detection. As best understood, applicant is considering more than one distinct magnet as the claimed magnet, where for example all four individual permanent magnets (35) as seen above are collectively being considered a “magnet.” When applicant claims a “changeable” magnet, as best understood, applicant intends this concept to refer to the magnets rotating past the sensor, where some have different polarities than the others so as to cause different polarities to face the magnetic sensor as the rotating object rotates the magnets past the sensor. However, this concept just explained does not reasonably include any “changeable” polarity for the magnets as they do not change. The proper claim scope interpretation of the claim is to interpret one magnet to be changeable in polarity, but applicant does not reasonably disclose such a feature, as no one magnet (or even plural magnets) have an polarity that itself is disclosed to be changeable. A person of ordinary skill in the art would therefore not reasonably recognize that applicant had possession of the claim feature. As to Claims 2-10, These claims stand rejected for incorporating and reciting the above rejected subject matter of their respective parent claim(s) and therefore stand rejected for the same reasons. 07-30-02 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. 07-34-01 Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. As to Claim 1, PNG media_image1.png 228 399 media_image1.png Greyscale The phrase “A magnetic sensor using a spin-orbit torque (SOT), the magnetic sensor comprising: … a permanent magnet disposed adjacent to the magnetic sensor, wherein polarity of the permanent magnet facing the magnetic sensor is changeable, wherein a magnetization switching of the ferromagnetic layer occurs by an external auxiliary magnetic field generated by the permanent magnet in a direction parallel to the direction of the current after the SOT occurs, wherein a magnetization state of the ferromagnetic layer is maintained unless no change in direction of the external auxiliary magnetic field, wherein the polarity of the permanent magnet facing the magnetic sensor changes and a direction of the external auxiliary magnetic field changes to a direction antiparallel to a previous direction, thereby the magnetization of the ferromagnetic layer occurs again” on lines 1 to the end is indefinite. 1) The first issue is that applicant is claiming the permanent magnet as part of the magnetic sensor. However, the entirety of the disclosure expressly distinguishes between the magnetic and any permanent magnet or magnets. For example as seen above and in paragraph [0070], applicant expressly discloses that the magnetic sensor is element (10), and the permanent magnets are elements (35). As such, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably recognize that applicant had possession of the above claim features because such a person would not reasonably recognize any permanent magnet that is actually part of magnetic sensor (10) that is reasonably capable of the above claim features. To that point, it is unclear how the above claim feature should be interpreted, in that it is unclear if the magnet and any related aspect should be given patentable weight or is otherwise required in the claim. No magnet is disclosed to be part of the magnetic sensor, and thus, as best understood, the magnet itself is the object that is detected, and not part of the sensor itself. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner is not giving the magnet patentable weight, because, in light of the disclosure, it is not part of the magnetic sensor. No feature of the permanent magnet, its polarity, or any switching claimed is given patentable weight. Instead, the above claim feature is being interpreted to mean that the magnetic sensor must have a configuration such that “when” exposed to a series of magnets with different polarity, such as that seen in Figure 16, the magnetic sensor is “configured to have a magnetization switching of the ferromagnetic layer that occurs by an external auxiliary magnetic field generated by the permanent magnet in a direction parallel to the direction of the current after the SOT occurs, wherein “the sensor is configured to have” a magnetization state of the ferromagnetic layer that is maintained unless no change in direction of the external auxiliary magnetic field, wherein, “when” the polarity of the permanent magnet facing the magnetic sensor changes and a direction of the external auxiliary magnetic field changes to a direction antiparallel to a previous direction, thereby the magnetization of the ferromagnetic layer occurs again.” 2) The second issue is that applicant is claiming that the polarity of the permanent magnet facing the sensor is changeable, and that the plurality of this magnet “changes,” as seen in the last paragraph. Such a feature is indefinite. A permanent magnet does not reasonably have any changeable magnetic field, as it is a “permanent” magnet, and thus not subject to change. Any change of the magnet would require raising the temperature of the magnet above its curie point, or exposing it to a magnetic field so strong that it alters the magnetization of the magnet. In short, applicant does not reasonably disclose any magnet that has any aspect that is “changeable” as claimed, as what applicant discloses are permanent magnets merely used for movement detection. As best understood, applicant is considering more than one distinct magnet as the claimed magnet, where for example all four individual permanent magnets (35) as seen above are collectively being considered a “magnet.” When applicant claims a “changeable” magnet, as best understood, applicant intends this concept to refer to the magnets rotating past the sensor, where some have different polarities than the others so as to cause different polarities to face the magnetic sensor as the rotating object rotates the magnets past the sensor. However, this concept just explained does not reasonably include any “changeable” polarity for the magnets as they do not change. The proper claim scope interpretation of the claim is to interpret one magnet to be changeable in polarity, but applicant does not reasonably disclose such a feature, as no one magnet (or even plural magnets) have an polarity that itself is disclosed to be changeable. As such, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably understand how to interpret the above claim feature, in light of the disclosure, because no magnet or combination of magnets are disclosed to have any ability to change its polarity. A person of ordinary skill would also fail to understand what applicant means when applicant claims a “permanent magnet,” in that such a person would not understand whether applicant was referring to just one magnet (35) as disclosed and seen in Figure 16, for example, or if applicant intended the claimed permanent magnet to refer to plural magnets. Such a person would also not understand whether any rotation is required in the claim in order to change the polarity of the magnet relative to the sensor. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner is interpreting that when applicant claims a “permanent magnet” with a changeable polarity, applicant is referring to plural magnets, whose polarity changes relative to the sensor when the magnets rotate relative to the sensor. 3) Lastly, the above phrase is indefinite because it is unclear whether applicant is requiring that the sensor be used as in a method claim, in order to implement some of the claim features. Initially, applicant expressly claims “ wherein the polarity of the permanent magnet facing the magnetic sensor changes and a direction of the external auxiliary magnetic field changes to a direction antiparallel to a previous direction, thereby the magnetization of the ferromagnetic layer occurs again” in the last paragraph, but the only way that the polarity and direction of the permanent magnet can “change,” in light of the disclosure, is by way of movement or rotation of the magnet(s) relative to the sensor. As such, this phrase would necessarily require the use of the permanent magnet to rotate it past the sensor which equates to a method of using the apparatus, but where, as explained in MPEP 21703.05(p)(II), any use of the apparatus features in an apparatus claim is indefinite. This is because it is unclear whether any actual use of an aspect of the apparatus is required. Furthermore, as best understood, when applicant changes that the magnet’s polarity is changeable, applicant is referring to and requiring an actual use of the magnet(s) to rotate past the sensor. As such, any actual changing or any ability to change the polarity of the magnet(s) would require an actual use of the magnet to physically move them relative to the sensor. As noted above, requiring a physical use of the apparatus is the same as a method step of using the apparatus, and such a recitation is indefinite in an apparatus claim as it is unclear if such use is or is not required. Apparatus claims are directed towards the final product, and not any use thereof. Method claims are the proper mechanism to claim a use of the apparatus. For the purpose of compact prosecution, consistent with that noted above, the Examiner is interpreting that no use of the apparatus is required, and that the magnetic sensor is configured to be able to be used by a moving plurality of magnets with different polarities to therefore include the above switching, but that no actual switching or changeable magnets are positively required or required in the claims. As to Claims 2-10, These claims stand rejected for incorporating and reciting the above rejected subject matter of their respective parent claim(s) and therefore stand rejected for the same reasons. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – 07-08-aia AIA (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-20-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. 07-20-02-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. Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Wang et al. (Wang) (US 2018/0166197) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Wang et al. (Wang) (US 2018/0166197) in view of Strong et al. (Strong) (US 9,966,885). As to Claim 1, Wang discloses A magnetic sensor using a spin-orbit torque (SOT), the magnetic sensor comprising: an SOT channel layer (26) made of a heavy metal material (Paragraph [0056]); a ferromagnetic layer (28) stacked on the SOT channel layer (Figure 2), (Paragraph [0079]); and a protective layer (34) stacked on the ferromagnetic layer (Figure 2), (Paragraph [0084]), wherein the SOT is generated due to a current applied to the SOT channel layer to vary magnetization of the ferromagnetic layer (Paragraph [0052] / note that while the prior art discloses the claim, as best understood, this claim feature is reciting what happens when current is applied, but this feature is not positively recited as no current is positively recited to be applied), and wherein the magnetic sensor further including a sensing portion configured to measure a voltage of a component parallel to a flat surface formed by the ferromagnetic layer and perpendicular to a direction of the current (Figure 8 / note voltmeter measuring a voltage perpendicular to the direction of current I), (Paragraph [0102]), a permanent magnet disposed adjacent to the magnetic sensor (Note: 1) as explained in the 112 rejections above, this magnet is not part of the magnetic sensor and is therefore not given patentable weight, and 2) Wang expressly discloses the application of an external magnetic field Hext which can reasonably come from a permanent magnet in paragraph [0103])), wherein polarity of the permanent magnet facing the magnetic sensor is changeable (Note: 1) as explained in the 112 rejections above, this magnet is not part of the magnetic sensor and is therefore not given patentable weight, and Wang discloses different external magnetic fields applied in-plane and out-of-plane to the sensor, which reasonably includes a changeable polarity of the magnet in paragraphs [0103],[0104]), wherein a magnetization switching of the ferromagnetic layer occurs by an external auxiliary magnetic field generated by the permanent magnet in a direction parallel to the direction of the current after the SOT occurs (Paragraph [0103] / note this feature is a property of the system as Wang discloses a substantially similar device to applicant and therefore must switch in a similar manner, and because Wang expressly discloses in Figure 8 / that Hext is parallel to current I and in Paragraphs [0111],[0112] / note that 1) the prior art discloses this feature, 2) this feature is a property of the system, especially given the similarities between the prior art and applicant’s disclosure), wherein a magnetization state of the ferromagnetic layer is maintained unless no change in direction of the external auxiliary magnetic field, wherein the polarity of the permanent magnet facing the magnetic sensor changes and a direction of the external auxiliary magnetic field changes to a direction antiparallel to a previous direction, thereby the magnetization of the ferromagnetic layer occurs again (Figures 12A-12H), (Paragraphs [0111],[0112] / note that 1) the prior art discloses this feature, 2) this feature is a property of the system, especially given the similarities between the prior art and applicant’s disclosure, and 3) this phrase requires the changing or maintaining of the external magnetic field, which requires a use of the device and the field, as explained in MPEP 2114(II), “A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim.” In the instant case, the prior art discloses all of the structural features of this claim, and therefore discloses the claim). That stated, Wang does not expressly disclose a permanent magnet disposed adjacent to the magnetic sensor, wherein polarity of the permanent magnet facing the magnetic sensor is changeable, and therefore does not expressly disclose a permanent magnet disposed adjacent to the magnetic sensor, wherein polarity of the permanent magnet facing the magnetic sensor is changeable, wherein a magnetization switching of the ferromagnetic layer occurs by an external auxiliary magnetic field generated by the permanent magnet in a direction parallel to the direction of the current after the SOT occurs, wherein a magnetization state of the ferromagnetic layer is maintained unless no change in direction of the external auxiliary magnetic field, wherein the polarity of the permanent magnet facing the magnetic sensor changes and a direction of the external auxiliary magnetic field changes to a direction antiparallel to a previous direction, thereby the magnetization of the ferromagnetic layer occurs again. Strong discloses a permanent magnet (the combination of all magnets 202 in Figure 2) disposed adjacent to the magnetic sensor (204) (Figure 2), (Column 5, Lines 36-67), wherein polarity of the permanent magnet facing the magnetic sensor is changeable (Figure 2 / note as the motor rotates the polarity changes as the magnets collectively have different polarity). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Wang to include a series of rotating magnets with different polarities rotating past the sensor to allow for rotation detection to therefore disclose a permanent magnet disposed adjacent to the magnetic sensor, wherein polarity of the permanent magnet facing the magnetic sensor is changeable, wherein a magnetization switching of the ferromagnetic layer occurs by an external auxiliary magnetic field generated by the permanent magnet in a direction parallel to the direction of the current after the SOT occurs, wherein a magnetization state of the ferromagnetic layer is maintained unless no change in direction of the external auxiliary magnetic field, wherein the polarity of the permanent magnet facing the magnetic sensor changes and a direction of the external auxiliary magnetic field changes to a direction antiparallel to a previous direction, thereby the magnetization of the ferromagnetic layer occurs again given the above disclosure and teaching of Strong in order to advantageously provide a rotation sensing configuration that can provide more than just a Hall measurement and provide lower power consumption relative to existing Hall sensors (Paragraphs [0049],[0112]) As to Claim 2, Wang discloses the ferromagnetic layer is made of a magnetic anisotropy material, and is magnetized in a perpendicular direction (Figure 12E), (Paragraph [0079]). As to Claim 3, Wang discloses the varied magnetization of the ferromagnetic layer is in a direction perpendicular to a flat surface formed by the ferromagnetic layer (Paragraph [0079] / note the easy axis can be perpendicular to the surface of the free layer). As to Claim 4, Wang discloses a waveform of the voltage measured by the sensing portion is a rectangular waveform (Figure 8 / note that 1) Wang discloses a substantially similar magnetic sensor to that of applicant, including the Hall cross shape and use of SOT, and as such, because applicant’s invention provides this feature, Wang reasonably provides this feature, 2) (Paragraphs [0111],[0112] and Figures 12A-12H show a binary RAHE in response to a magnetic field which would reasonably require a rectangular waveform as claimed). As to Claim 5, PNG media_image2.png 570 720 media_image2.png Greyscale Wang discloses the SOT channel layer, the ferromagnetic layer and the protective layer are in a form of a cross, and a measurement terminal is connected to at least two end portions of the protective layer (Figure 8), (Paragraph [0102] / note electrical contacts). As to Claim 6, Wang discloses a measurement terminal connected to the channel layer to measure the voltage includes a metal layer made of Ta, Ti, or Cr and is deposited on a bottom portion of the measurement terminal (Figure 8), (Paragraph [0102] / note electrical contacts). As to Claim 7, Wang discloses a buffer layer (24) for increasing adhesive strength to a wafer (22) below the SOT channel layer (Paragraph [0071]). As to Claim 8, Wang discloses the ferromagnetic layer is made of Co or CoFeB (Paragraph [0080]), wherein the SOT channel layer is made of the heavy metal material including Ta, Pt, W, or Hf (Paragraph [0056],[0130]), and wherein the protective layer is made of MgO, Ru, or Ta (Paragraph [0085]). As to Claim 9, Wang discloses A sensing method of the magnetic sensor using the spin-orbit torque (SOT), the sensing method comprising: applying the current to the SOT channel layer of the magnetic sensor using the SOT of claim 1 (see the above Claim 1 rejection), (Figure 8 / note current I is applied), (Paragraph [0103]), after the SOT occurs, applying the external auxiliary magnetic field in a direction parallel to the direction of the current (Paragraph [0103], [0028] / note the applied field is along the current channel); and measuring the voltage of the component parallel to the flat surface formed by the ferromagnetic layer and perpendicular to the direction of the current (Figure 8 / note the voltage is measured in a direction perpendicular to applied current I), (Paragraph [0103]) As to Claim 10, Wang discloses the ferromagnetic layer is made of a perpendicular magnetic anisotropy material (Paragraph [0079] / note the magnetic easy axis, and thus direction of magnetization, may be perpendicular to the surface of the free layer, and further that it is a property of the system that the ferromagnetic layer is of a material that can be used as a perpendicular magnetic anisotropy material). Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. 1) US 2014/0159710 to Yu et al. which discloses contactless detection using magnets rotating past a sensor .. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID M. SCHINDLER whose telephone number is (571)272-2112. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-4:30pm. 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, Lee Rodak can be reached at 571-270-5628. 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. DAVID M. SCHINDLER Primary Examiner Art Unit 2858 /DAVID M SCHINDLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/990,339 Page 2 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/990,339 Page 3 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/990,339 Page 4 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/990,339 Page 5 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/990,339 Page 6 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/990,339 Page 7 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/990,339 Page 8 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/990,339 Page 9 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/990,339 Page 10 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/990,339 Page 11 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/990,339 Page 12 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/990,339 Page 13 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/990,339 Page 14 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/990,339 Page 15 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/990,339 Page 16 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/990,339 Page 17 Art Unit: 2858
Prosecution Insights