CTNF 19/033,684 CTNF 96256 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. Examiner’s Note Examiner has cited particular paragraphs/columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicants’ definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The determination of whether a claim recites patent ineligible subject matter is a 2 step inquiry. STEP 1 : the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), see MPEP 2106.03 , or STEP 2 : the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis: see MPEP 2106.04 STEP 2A (PRONG 1) : Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1) STEP 2A (PRONG 2) : Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2) STEP 2B : Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? see MPEP 2106.05 101 Analysis – Step 1 Claim 1 is directed to a device (i.e., a machine). Therefore, claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories. 101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes. see MPEP 2106(A)(II)(1) and MPEP 2106.04(a)-(c) Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below [with the category of abstract idea in brackets]) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites an active sound effect generating device for causing a speaker to output a sound effect into a cabin of a vehicle driven by an electric motor, the active sound effect generating device comprising one or more processors that execute computer-executable instructions stored in a memory, wherein the one or more processors execute the computer- executable instructions to cause the active sound effect generating device to: generate a first sound effect signal that is a signal for causing the speaker to output the sound effect; [abstract idea – mental process] set a gain according to an amount of regeneration of the electric motor; [abstract idea – mental process] and output to the speaker a second sound effect signal generated by multiplying the first sound effect signal by the gain. [abstract idea – mental process, mathematical process] The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers limitations which may be performed in the human mind. Regarding the limitations of this claim, the limitations “ generate a first sound effect signal that is a signal for causing the speaker to output the sound effect ” in the context of this claim encompass a person determining a sound effect for use in a speaker. The limitations “ set a gain according to an amount of regeneration of the electric motor ” in the context of this claim encompass a person determining a gain type, value, or the like based on battery regeneration. The limitations “ generated by multiplying the first sound effect signal by the gain ” in the context of this claim encompass a person multiplying two values, as well as represents an abstract idea mathematical formula/equation. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea. 101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2) and MPEP 2106.04(d)(2). It must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.” In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” [with a description of the additional limitations in brackets], while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”.): one or more processors that execute computer-executable instructions stored in a memory, wherein the one or more processors execute the computer- executable instructions to cause the active sound effect generating device to: [performing the abstract idea using a generic computer] generate a first sound effect signal that is a signal for causing the speaker to output the sound effect; [abstract idea – mental process] set a gain according to an amount of regeneration of the electric motor; [abstract idea – mental process] and output to the speaker a second sound effect signal [insignificant post-solution activity (post-solution results transmitting)] generated by multiplying the first sound effect signal by the gain. [abstract idea – mental process, mathematical process] For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application. Regarding the additional limitations “one or more processors that execute computer-executable instructions stored in a memory, wherein the one or more processors execute the computer- executable instructions to cause the active sound effect generating device to:” are in the context of this claims recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of measuring a value and determining another value based on the measurement). The limitation to “and output to the speaker a second sound effect signal” is a mere post-solution activity of transmitting the results of a determination, in this case transmitting the results of the gain determination and multiplication against the sound. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP § 2106.05. Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. 101 Analysis – Step 2B Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the receiving steps and the displaying step were considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The background recites that the sensors are all conventional sensors mounted on the vehicle, and the specification does not provide any indication that the vehicle controller is anything other than a conventional computer within a vehicle. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Further, the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. Accordingly, a conclusion that the collecting step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer. Thus, the claim is ineligible Dependent claims 2-8 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 2-8 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of Independent Claim 1. Claim 9 is rejected for the same reasons as the representative Claim 1 above, as the claim is substantially identical to the examined claims with only minor changes to the limitations; being a method rather than a device, changes which do not affect the analysis as demonstrated above. 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. 07-23-aia AIA The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1, 2, 4, 5, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanehara (US 20140097950), herein after referred to as Kanehara, in view of Terashima (US 20170330549), herein after referred to as Terashima . Regarding Claim 1, Kanehara discloses: one or more processors that execute computer-executable instructions stored in a memory, wherein the one or more processors execute the computer- executable instructions to cause the active sound effect generating device to: (see at least [0094] “in this embodiment, the deceleration information notification device includes a regeneration amount detecting unit 17, a control unit 13 constituted, for example, of a microcomputer, an amplifier 14, and a speaker 15.”) generate a first sound effect signal that is a signal for causing the speaker to output the sound effect; (see at least [0034] “Subsequently, in step S14 corresponding to a process by the output frequency calculating unit 24, a tone (deceleration sound) depending on an order component of the engine torque is set from sound source data." [0034] "The sound source data is a wav file, a midi file or the like stored in advance”) set a [sound modifier] according to an amount of regeneration of the electric motor; (see at least [0097] “the sound volume is adjusted using the sound volume adjustment coefficient kb determined depending on the regeneration amount B.”) and output to the speaker a second sound effect signal generated by multiplying the first sound effect signal by the [sound modifier]. (see at least [] “The regeneration amount B of the regeneration brake is calculated and the sound volume of a deceleration sound is adjusted depending on the regeneration amount B and the deceleration sound is transmitted to a driver”) Kanehara does not explicitly disclose: gain In the same field of endeavor, Terashima discloses: gain (see at least [0026] “a signal processing unit which generates a control signal that forms the sound effect by multiplying the reference signal by an amplitude adjustment gain related to the reference signal, and outputs the control signal to the sound output unit;”) The above pieces of prior art are considered analogous as they both represent inventions in the vehicle sound generation field. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Kanehara to set the gain and modify the sound gain, as taught by Terashima to set the gain before outputting the signal in order to generate a sound effect during driving with an electric motor [0026, 0027]. Regarding Claim 2, modified Kanehara discloses the limitations of Claim 1, but Kanehara does not explicitly disclose: wherein the gain when a remaining amount of a battery of the vehicle charged by regenerative power of the electric motor is equal to or more than a predetermined amount is smaller than the gain when the remaining amount of the battery is less than the predetermined amount. In the same field of endeavor, Terashima discloses: wherein the gain when a remaining amount of a battery of the vehicle charged by regenerative power of the electric motor is equal to or more than a predetermined amount is smaller than the gain when the remaining amount of the battery is less than the predetermined amount. (see at least [0014] “ in the case where the residual capacity of the storage battery falls below a predetermined first residual capacity threshold, the signal processing unit sets the amplitude adjustment gain smaller than that in the case where the residual capacity of the storage battery is equal to or above the first residual capacity threshold.”) The above pieces of prior art are considered analogous as they both represent inventions in the vehicle sound generation field. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Kanehara to set the gain and modify the sound gain, as taught by Terashima to set the gain so that when a remaining amount of a battery of the vehicle charged by regenerative power of the electric motor is equal to or more than a predetermined amount is smaller than the gain when the remaining amount of the battery is less than the predetermined amount in order to generate a sound effect during driving with an electric motor [0026, 0027]. Regarding Claim 4, modified Kanehara discloses the limitations of Claim 1, and further discloses: wherein as the amount of regeneration is larger, the [sound modifier] is larger. (see at least [0099] “In this map, the larger the regeneration amount B is, the larger the sound volume adjustment coefficient kb is.”) Kanehara does not explicitly disclose: gain In the same field of endeavor, Terashima discloses: gain (see at least [0026] “a signal processing unit which generates a control signal that forms the sound effect by multiplying the reference signal by an amplitude adjustment gain related to the reference signal, and outputs the control signal to the sound output unit;”) The above pieces of prior art are considered analogous as they both represent inventions in the vehicle sound generation field. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Kanehara to set the gain and modify the sound gain, as taught by Terashima to set the gain before outputting the signal in order to generate a sound effect during driving with an electric motor [0026, 0027]. Regarding Claim 5, modified Kanehara discloses the limitations of Claim 1, and further discloses: wherein the one or more processors execute the computer-executable instructions to cause the active sound effect generating device to set the [sound modifier] further according to a deceleration of the vehicle, (see at least [0079] “a degree of deceleration G is calculated on the basis of a variation (for example, a derivative value) of a vehicle speed per unit time, and the map shown in FIG. 8 is referred to, and a sound volume is adjusted by using a sound volume adjustment coefficient kg determined depending on the degree of deceleration G.”) and as the deceleration is larger, the [sound modifier] is larger. (see at least [0081] “In this map, the larger the degree of deceleration G is, the larger the sound volume adjustment coefficient kt is.”) Kanehara does not explicitly disclose: gain In the same field of endeavor, Terashima discloses: gain (see at least [0026] “a signal processing unit which generates a control signal that forms the sound effect by multiplying the reference signal by an amplitude adjustment gain related to the reference signal, and outputs the control signal to the sound output unit;”) The above pieces of prior art are considered analogous as they both represent inventions in the vehicle sound generation field. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Kanehara to set the gain and modify the sound gain, as taught by Terashima to set the gain before outputting the signal in order to generate a sound effect during driving with an electric motor [0026, 0027]. Regarding Claim 9, Kanehara discloses: generating a first sound effect signal that is a signal for causing the speaker to output the sound effect; (see at least [0034] “Subsequently, in step S14 corresponding to a process by the output frequency calculating unit 24, a tone (deceleration sound) depending on an order component of the engine torque is set from sound source data." [0034] "The sound source data is a wav file, a midi file or the like stored in advance”) setting a [sound modifier] according to an amount of regeneration of the electric motor; (see at least [0097] “the sound volume is adjusted using the sound volume adjustment coefficient kb determined depending on the regeneration amount B.”) and outputting to the speaker a second sound effect signal generated by multiplying the first sound effect signal by the [sound modifier]. (see at least [] “The regeneration amount B of the regeneration brake is calculated and the sound volume of a deceleration sound is adjusted depending on the regeneration amount B and the deceleration sound is transmitted to a driver”) Kanehara does not explicitly disclose: gain In the same field of endeavor, Terashima discloses: gain (see at least [0026] “a signal processing unit which generates a control signal that forms the sound effect by multiplying the reference signal by an amplitude adjustment gain related to the reference signal, and outputs the control signal to the sound output unit;”) The above pieces of prior art are considered analogous as they both represent inventions in the vehicle sound generation field. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Kanehara to set the gain and modify the sound gain, as taught by Terashima to set the gain before outputting the signal in order to generate a sound effect during driving with an electric motor [0026, 0027] . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 3 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanehara (US 20140097950), herein after referred to as Kanehara, in view of Terashima (US 20170330549), herein after referred to as Terashima, and Niibe (US 20180268804), herein after referred to as Niibe . Regarding Claim 3, modified Kanehara discloses the limitations of Claim 1, but Kanehara does not explicitly disclose: wherein the one or more processors execute the computer-executable instructions to cause the active sound effect generating device to set the gain further according to a gradient of a road surface on which the vehicle is traveling. In the same field of endeavor, Niibe discloses: wherein the one or more processors execute the computer-executable instructions to cause the active sound effect generating device to set the gain further according to a gradient of a road surface on which the vehicle is traveling. (see at least [0104] “when an ascending gradient input from the gradient sensor 10 is the determination threshold t5 or more, an actual behavior of the vehicle V can hardly follow a steering angle operation performed by the driver. For this reason, the adjustment wave sound selector 22 selects the decrease gain map M3 having low responsivity such that the sound effect is corrected to be decreased”) The above pieces of prior art are considered analogous as they both represent inventions in the vehicle sound generation field. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Kanehara to cause the active sound effect generating device to set the gain further according to a gradient of a road surface on which the vehicle is traveling, as taught by Niibe to reduce the gain based on ascending gradient [0104]. Regarding Claim 6, modified Kanehara discloses the limitations of Claim 3, but Kanehara does not explicitly disclose: wherein as an uphill gradient of the road surface becomes larger, the gain is smaller whereas as a downhill gradient of the road surface becomes larger, the gain is larger. In the same field of endeavor, Niibe discloses: wherein as an uphill gradient of the road surface becomes larger, the gain is smaller whereas as a downhill gradient of the road surface becomes larger, the gain is larger. (see at least [0104] “when an ascending gradient input from the gradient sensor 10 is the determination threshold t5 or more, an actual behavior of the vehicle V can hardly follow a steering angle operation performed by the driver. For this reason, the adjustment wave sound selector 22 selects the decrease gain map M3 having low responsivity such that the sound effect is corrected to be decreased”) (*Examiner interprets that a device capable of making the gain smaller in an uphill gradient is capable of making the gain larger in a downhill gradient.) The above pieces of prior art are considered analogous as they both represent inventions in the vehicle sound generation field. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Kanehara to cause the active sound effect generating device to set the gain further according to a gradient of a road surface on which the vehicle is traveling, in which it is smaller when going uphill and larger downhill, as taught by Niibe to reduce the gain based on ascending gradient [0104]. Regarding Claim 7, modified Kanehara discloses the limitations of Claim 1, but Kanehara does not explicitly disclose: wherein the one or more processors execute the computer-executable instructions to cause the active sound effect generating device to set the gain according to an output of the electric motor, a gradient of a road surface on which the vehicle is traveling, and an acceleration of the vehicle In the same field of endeavor, Niibe discloses: wherein the one or more processors execute the computer-executable instructions to cause the active sound effect generating device to set the gain according to an output of the electric motor, a gradient of a road surface on which the vehicle is traveling, and an acceleration of the vehicle (see at least [0081] “For this reason, the vibration sound map M1 includes, per rotation speed of an engine, a fundamental wave sound," [0104] "when an ascending gradient input from the gradient sensor 10 is the determination threshold t5 or more, an actual behavior of the vehicle V can hardly follow a steering angle operation performed by the driver. For this reason, the adjustment wave sound selector 22 selects the decrease gain map M3 having low responsivity such that the sound effect is corrected to be decreased" [0250] "a sound effect generation apparatus that generates a sound effect of an engine based on an accelerator opening degree may be used in combination.”) The above pieces of prior art are considered analogous as they both represent inventions in the vehicle sound generation field. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Kanehara to cause the active sound effect generating device to execute the computer-executable instructions to cause the active sound effect generating device to set the gain according to an output of the electric motor, a gradient of a road surface on which the vehicle is traveling, and an acceleration of the vehicle, as taught by Niibe to reduce the gain based on ascending gradient [0104]. Regarding Claim 8, modified Kanehara discloses the limitations of Claim 7, and further discloses: and the [sound modifier] is smaller as the acceleration becomes smaller. (see at least [0081] “ the larger the degree of deceleration G is, the larger the sound volume adjustment coefficient kt is.”) Kanehara does not explicitly disclose: gain wherein the gain is larger as the output of the electric motor becomes larger, the gain is smaller as an uphill gradient of the road surface becomes larger, In the same field of endeavor, Terashima discloses: gain (see at least [0026] “a signal processing unit which generates a control signal that forms the sound effect by multiplying the reference signal by an amplitude adjustment gain related to the reference signal, and outputs the control signal to the sound output unit;”) wherein the gain is larger as the output of the electric motor becomes larger, (see at least [0085] “in the case where the supplied electric power amount sp to the electric motor is equal to or above a predetermined second electric power amount threshold and the electric motor is driven, the sound effect gain setting module 69A sets the sound effect gain (the amplitude adjustment gain) Gef larger than that in the case where the supplied electric power amount sp to the electric motor falls below the second electric power amount threshold. ”) The above pieces of prior art are considered analogous as they both represent inventions in the vehicle sound generation field. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Kanehara to set the gain and modify the sound gain, as taught by Terashima to set the gain before outputting the signal in order to generate a sound effect during driving with an electric motor [0026, 0027]. In the same field of endeavor, Niibe discloses: the gain is smaller as an uphill gradient of the road surface becomes large (see at least [0104] “when an ascending gradient input from the gradient sensor 10 is the determination threshold t5 or more, an actual behavior of the vehicle V can hardly follow a steering angle operation performed by the driver. For this reason, the adjustment wave sound selector 22 selects the decrease gain map M3 having low responsivity such that the sound effect is corrected to be decreased”) The above pieces of prior art are considered analogous as they both represent inventions in the vehicle sound generation field. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Kanehara to cause the active sound effect generating device to set the gain further according to a gradient of a road surface on which the vehicle is traveling, in which it is smaller when going uphill, as taught by Niibe to reduce the gain based on ascending gradient [0104]. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB D UNDERBAKKE whose telephone number is (571)272-6657. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00. 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, Jelani Smith can be reached at 571-270-3969. 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. /JACOB DANIEL UNDERBAKKE/Examiner, Art Unit 3662 /MAHMOUD S ISMAIL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662 Application/Control Number: 19/033,684 Page 2 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 19/033,684 Page 3 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 19/033,684 Page 4 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 19/033,684 Page 5 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 19/033,684 Page 6 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 19/033,684 Page 7 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 19/033,684 Page 10 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 19/033,684 Page 12 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 19/033,684 Page 13 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 19/033,684 Page 14 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 19/033,684 Page 16 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 19/033,684 Page 17 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 19/033,684 Page 18 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 19/033,684 Page 19 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 19/033,684 Page 20 Art Unit: 3662
Prosecution Insights