CTNF 19/055,826 CTNF 85092 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. DETAILED ACTION This non-final Office action is in response to applicant’s communication received on February 18, 2025, wherein claims 1-6 are currently pending. Specification The title of the invention is not descriptive. The current title only state “Method” and nothing else. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation 07-30-03 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. 07-30-05 The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre- AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. 07-30-06 This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “an information processing apparatus used for” in claim 1. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Regarding Step 1 (MPEP 2106.03) of the subject matter eligibility test per MPEP 2106.03, Claims 1-6 are directed to a method (i.e., process). Accordingly, all claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention. (Under Step 2) The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. (Under Step 2A, Prong 1 (MPEP 2106.04)) The independent claim (1) recites acquiring/collecting information/data (where the information itself is abstract in nature – e.g. General Transit Feed Specification (GTFS) file data (which is known in the industry to contain public transportation schedules, geographic information, queues, constraints, costs, rules, performance, states, and the like – all abstract information), data analysis/manipulation (comparing information, solving for new/extra scenarios (transit/transportation services), arranging information (for scheduling), etc.,) to determine more data/information, possibly obtaining more abstract information/data, and providing this determined data/information for further analysis and decision-making (on creating new schedules). The limitations of the independent claim (1), under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers methods of organizing human activity (fundamental economic principles or practices (transit/transportation services and logistical management); and also managing personal relationships (creating schedules)). If a claims limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation as fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including scheduling, social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions), then it falls within the “organizing human activities” grouping of abstract ideas. (MPEP 2106.04). Accordingly, since Applicant's claims fall under organizing human activities grouping, the claims recite an abstract idea. (Under Step 2A, prong 2 (MPEP 2106.04(d))) This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because but for the recitation of generic/general-purpose computing/technology components/elements/terms (“information processing apparatus,” “system,” (in independent claim 1)), in the context of the independent claim (1), the claim encompass the above stated abstract idea (organizing human activity (fundamental economic principles or practices (transit/transportation services and logistical management); and also managing personal relationships (creating schedules))). As shown above, the independent claim (1) recite generic/general-purpose computing/technology components/elements/terms/limitations (“information processing apparatus,” “system,” (in independent claim 1)) which are recited at a high level of generality performing generic/general purpose computer/computing functions. (MPEP 2106.04). The generic/general-purpose computing/technology components/elements/terms/limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception (the above abstract idea – organizing human activity (fundamental economic principles or practices (transit/transportation services and logistical management); and also managing personal relationships (creating schedules))) in an apply-it fashion using generic/general-purpose computing/technology components/elements/terms/limitations (“information processing apparatus,” “system,” (in independent claim 1)). The CAFC has stated that it is not enough, however, to merely improve abstract processes by invoking a computer merely as a tool. Customedia Techs., LLC v. Dish Network Corp., 951 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2020). The focus of the claims is simply to use computers and a familiar network as a tool to perform abstract processes (discussed above) involving simple information exchange. Carrying out abstract processes involving information exchange is an abstract idea. See, e.g., BSG, 899 F.3d at 1286 ; SAP America, 898 F.3d at 1167-68 ; Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1261-62 (Fed. Cir. 2016) . And use of standard computers and networks to carry out those functions—more speedily, more efficiently, more reliably—does not make the claims any less directed to that abstract idea. See Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 222-25 ; Customedia, 951 F.3d at 1364 ; Trading Techs. Int'l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ; SAP America, 898 F.3d at 1167 ; Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ; Electric Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ; Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ; buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014) . Accordingly, the additional elements (“information processing apparatus,” “system,” (in independent claim 1)) do not integrate the abstract idea in to a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea – i.e. they are just post-solution/extra-solution activities. (Under Step 2B (MPEP 2106.05)) The independent claim (1) do not include additional elements (“information processing apparatus,” “system,” (in independent claim 1)) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims do not recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The independent claims recite using generic/general-purpose computing/technology components/elements/terms/limitations (“information processing apparatus,” “system,” (in independent claim 1)). For the role of a computer in a computer implemented invention to be deemed meaningful in the context of this analysis, it must involve more than performance of "well-understood, routine, [and] conventional activities previously known to the industry." Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (U.S. 2014), at 2359 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294 (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted)). These activities as claimed by the Applicant are all well-known and routine tasks in the field of art – as can been seen in the specification of Applicant’s application (for example, see Applicant’s specification at, for example, figures 2-4 and paragraphs 0018-0027 [where Applicant recites general-purpose/generic computers/processors/etc., and generic/general-purpose computing components/devices/etc., in Applicant’s specification]) and/or the specification of the below cited art (used in the rejection below and on the PTO-892) and/or also as noted in the court cases in §2106.05 in the MPEP. Further, "the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention." Alice at 2358. None of the hardware offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the system to a particular technological environment, that is, implementation via computers. Adding generic computer components to perform generic functions that are well‐understood, routine and conventional, such as gathering data, performing calculations, and outputting a result would not transform the claims into eligible subject matter. Abstract ideas are excluded from patent eligibility based on a concern that monopolization of the basic tools of scientific and technological work might impede innovation more than it would promote it. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims require no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions. The additional elements (“information processing apparatus,” “system,” (in independent claim 1)) or combination of elements in the claims other than the abstract idea per se amounts to no more than: (i) mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer, and/or (ii) recitation of generic computer structure that serves to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Applicant is directed to the following citations and references: Digitech Image., LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc. (758 F.3d 1344 (2014) discussing U.S. Patent No. 6,128,415); and (2) Federal register/Vol. 79, No 241 issued on December 16, 2014, page 74629, column 2, Gottschalk v. Benson. Viewed as a whole, the independent claims do not purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself, or to improve any other technology or technical field. Use of an unspecified, generic computer does not transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. Thus, the independent claim (1) does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (U.S. 2014). The dependent claims (2-6) further define the independent claims and merely narrow the described abstract idea, but not adding significantly more than the abstract idea. T he dependent claims either individually or in combination are merely an extension of the abstract idea itself. The above rejection discussed for the independent claims fully applies to the dependent claims. In summary, the dependent claims (2-6) also cover methods of organizing human activity (fundamental economic principles or practices (transit/transportation services and logistical management); and also managing personal relationships (creating schedules)) . This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the dependent claims and specification recite additional elements as generic/general-purpose computing/technology components/elements/terms/limitations (“information processing apparatus,” “system,” “interface,” “processor,” (in claim 1’s dependent claims 2-6)) performing generic computer/computing/technology functions. (MPEP 2106.04). The dependent claims merely use the same general technological environment and instructions as the independent claims above to implement the abstract idea. The generic/general-purpose computing/technology components/elements/terms/limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception (organizing human activity (fundamental economic principles or practices (transit/transportation services and logistical management); and also managing personal relationships (creating schedules))) in an apply-it fashion using generic/general- purpose computing/technology components/elements/terms/limitations (“information processing apparatus,” “system,” “interface,” “processor,” (in claim 1’s dependent claims 2-6)). Hence, the additional elements (“information processing apparatus,” “system,” “interface,” “processor,” (in claim 1’s dependent claims 2-6)) do not integrate the abstract idea in to a practical application because they does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea – i.e. they are just post-solution/extra-solution activities. Also, t he dependent claims either individually or in combination are merely an extension of the abstract idea itself and the dependent claims (similar to the independent claims) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims require no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions. The additional elements (“information processing apparatus,” “system,” “interface,” “processor,” (in claim 1’s dependent claims 2-6)) or combination of elements in the dependent claims other than the abstract idea per se amounts to no more than: (i) mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer, and/or (ii) recitation of generic computer structure that serves to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Applicant is directed to the following citations and references: Digitech Image., LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc. (758 F.3d 1344 (2014) discussing U.S. Patent No. 6,128,415); and (2) Federal register/Vol. 79, No 241 issued on December 16, 2014, page 74629, column 2, Gottschalk v. Benson. Viewed as a whole, dependent claims do not purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself, or to improve any other technology or technical field. Use of an unspecified, generic computer does not transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. Thus, the dependent claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (U.S. 2014). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Gkiotsalitis et al., (US 2018/0032964) . As per claim 1 , Gkiotsalitis discloses a method performed by an information processing apparatus used for providing an operation management system that manages operations of a plurality of vehicles (Abstract [transit system]; ¶¶ 0002-0003 [transit services…plurality of vehicles (managed)], 0007-0010 [vehicles…transit system….transportation]), the method comprising: acquiring information on an extra service based on a GTFS file containing information on the extra service to be additionally registered in the operation management system or based on information on an operating service that has been registered in the operation management system ((note that the General Transit Feed Specification (GTFS) defines a common format for public transportation schedules and associated geographic information) ¶¶ 0006 [new frequency setting and allocation discussed in regards to transportations and, for example, demand and other factors/information – operationally reliable frequency setting solution is provided as the new frequency setting to a command center of the transit service], 0025 [automated bus dispatcher applies any new frequency setting allocations….automated bus dispatcher can be, for example, a dedicated server at a command center which; with 0056 [providing new frequencies to the operations command center and updating the time period slots and the allocated frequency values for each bus line; with 0064 [using General Transit Feed Specification (GTFS) data] and 0083]]], 0103 [new setting applied to online timetables, smartphone applications with access to such timetables and electronic displays, for example, at transit stops]; see also claim 1 of Gkiotsalitis); and creating an operation schedule for the extra service based on the information on the extra service (¶¶ 0006 [timetable of the transit service is updated to include the new frequency setting], 0025 [upon receiving new frequency setting allocations, can apply the new frequency settings to new or existing electronic timetables], 0103 [new setting…applied to…timetables…electronic displays of timetables which are controlled by the methods/command center, and are thereby dynamically updated]; see also claim 1 of Gkiotsalitis). As per claim 2 , Gkiotsalitis discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the information processing apparatus selects a vehicle to be assigned to the extra service from among the plurality of vehicles excluding each vehicle that has already been assigned to any of operating services registered in the operation management system, and creates the operation schedule for the extra service by assigning the selected vehicle to the extra service (see claim 15 of Gkiotsalitis [automated bus dispatcher configured to electronically communicate an alert to a bus on a bus line of the transit service (i.e. from plurality of buses) to which the new frequency setting applies indicating new instructions or a new route to be followed by the bus based on the new frequency setting; see with ¶ 0102 [availability of bus drivers]]; and also see ¶¶ 0022 [changes…adding additional buses; see with 0087 [available buses…bus lines…based on current fleet]], 0047). As per claim 3 , Gkiotsalitis discloses the method according to claim 1, further comprising providing an interface that allows modification of a transit point and a time to pass the transit point included in the created operation schedule (see citations above for claim 1 and in addition see ¶¶ 0006 [travel time…waiting time…at transfer stops (transit point) [is modified/reduced/etc.,]], 0025 [automated bus dispatcher applies any new frequency setting allocations…automated bus dispatcher …server at a command center which, upon receiving new frequency setting allocations, can apply the new frequency settings to new or existing electronic timetables stored in memory or on the web, alert drivers or buses of frequency changes and providing instructions and new or adapted routes as applicable, update electronic displays at the bus or transit stops…decreased waiting times (at transit points/stops/etc.,); see with 0056]). As per claim 4 , Gkiotsalitis discloses the method according to claim 1, further comprising outputting information on the created operation schedule to a GTFS file ((note that the General Transit Feed Specification (GTFS) defines a common format for public transportation schedules and associated geographic information) ¶¶ 0064-0065 [discusses GTFS files and data; see with 0083 and 0103 [changes and modifications applied to system and devices and displayed – also timetables updated], 0033 [receive update instructions from a central computer system implementing the method in order to dynamically display updated and the system updated]]). As per claim 5 , Gkiotsalitis discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the information processing apparatus changes a service ID included in the information on the operating service that has been registered and acquires the information on the extra service (see citations above for claims 1-2 and also see ¶¶ 0083-0084 [specific bus lines (service ID) and selecting specific bus lines (service ID) and then discussing changes based on new information/frequencies/demands in 0089, 0091, 0099-0103 [bus line (specific service ID)…parameters changed…new frequency/etc., (extra services)…new settings applied]; see with 0100 [during bus operations and/or for identifying the weight factor values range that does not affect each proposed frequency setting solution, thereby allowing the service operator to select solutions…for each line (where each bus line is identified by its route/travel)]]). As per claim 6 , Gkiotsalitis discloses a method, by a processor, for improving travel mobility as a service (MaaS), comprising processing steps executed by the information processing apparatus according to claim 1 (claim is directed to intended (“improving travel mobility”) use and refers to the limitations of claim and is therefore rejected under the same rationale and citations presented for claim 1 above (see citations in claim 1); in addition see ¶¶ 0023-0025 [“provides improvements in transportation…improving bus operations…improvements in transit system”]). Conclusion The prior art made of record on the PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. For example, some of the pertinent art is as follows: Taub et al., (US 2024/0320582): Discusses planning a public transit system including determining costs of providing a fixed-route service are provided. The systems and method can receive a set of fixed route lines and trips for the public transit system and a plurality of ride requests. The systems and method can include determining a plurality of possible proposals for each ride request of the plurality of ride requests based on the received set of fixed route lines and trips and/or one or more constraints, determine for each ride request a set of proposals of the plurality of proposals having the lowest overall cost to provide the fixed-route service and determine whether one or more of a subset of the fixed route lines or trips are to be removed from the received set of fixed route lines and trips. Beaurepaire et al., (US 2020/0167702): Provides for managing a vehicle reservation used in an intermodal route. A routing platform determines that the intermodal route includes a segment to be traveled using a vehicle booked via the vehicle reservation, and another segment that is traveled using a different mode of transport for a user to reach the vehicle to travel the segment. The routing platform monitors an expiration period of the vehicle reservation and a user location of the user on the another segment. The routing platform calculates a probability that the user will reach the vehicle to travel the segment before an end of the expiration period based on the user location. The routing platform generates at least one route option based on the probability, wherein the at least one route option includes an extension the vehicle reservation, and/or a creation of another vehicle reservation for another vehicle. Petralia et al., (US 2010/0280853): Provides a transportation route to a user. Travel information from the user, a plurality of transportation route goals ranked in a specified order by the user, and attribute information of a plurality of transit modes from a transit information system are received by the central system. An optimized transportation route is determined for the user through a correlation of the plurality of ranked transportation route goals and attribute information that corresponds to the received travel information. The transportation route comprises one or more of the plurality of transit modes. The optimized transportation route is transmitted to the user. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GURKANWALJIT SINGH whose telephone number is (571)270-5392. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30-5:30. 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, Brian Epstein can be reached on 571-270-5389. 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. /Gurkanwaljit Singh/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625 Application/Control Number: 19/055,826 Page 2 Art Unit: 3625 Application/Control Number: 19/055,826 Page 4 Art Unit: 3625 Application/Control Number: 19/055,826 Page 5 Art Unit: 3625 Application/Control Number: 19/055,826 Page 6 Art Unit: 3625 Application/Control Number: 19/055,826 Page 7 Art Unit: 3625 Application/Control Number: 19/055,826 Page 8 Art Unit: 3625 Application/Control Number: 19/055,826 Page 9 Art Unit: 3625 Application/Control Number: 19/055,826 Page 10 Art Unit: 3625 Application/Control Number: 19/055,826 Page 11 Art Unit: 3625 Application/Control Number: 19/055,826 Page 12 Art Unit: 3625 Application/Control Number: 19/055,826 Page 13 Art Unit: 3625 Application/Control Number: 19/055,826 Page 14 Art Unit: 3625
Prosecution Insights