CTNF 19/073,202 CTNF 97475 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. 2. This communication is responsive to Application No. 19/073,202 and the claims filed on 3/7/2025. 3. Claims 1-5 are presented for examination. Information Disclosure Statement 4. The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 3/7/2025 and 3/25/2026 have been fully considered by the Examiner. Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA 5. Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: Regarding Claim 5 , the term “a probability that the vehicle travels on the target road along the target route to the destination” recited in lines 4-5 of claim 5 is objected to for resulting in awkward language that is cumbersome to read . Appropriate correction is required. 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 6. 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 7. 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: The “ malfunction recognition unit configured to recognize a malfunction ” in claim 1. The “ notification control unit configured to notify ” 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. In view of this, the Examiner interprets the “malfunction recognition unit” under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, as an electronic control unit including a processor. Support for this interpretation can be found in paragraphs [0025] and [0026] of the specification of the instant application and Figure 1 of the drawings. Further, the Examiner interprets the “notification control unit” under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, as an electronic control unit including a processor. Support for this interpretation can be found in paragraphs [0025] and [0026] of the specification of the instant application and Figure 1 of the drawings. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 8. 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 9. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. 07-21-aia AIA 10. Claim( s) 1 i s/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over S un (US 20190149813 A1 hereinafter Sun) in view of Hermann (US 20240109489 A1 hereinafter Hermann). R egarding Claim 1 , Sun teaches a notification device of a vehicle capable of executing driving assistance control or autonomous driving control on a target road ([0026] via “Vehicle 10 may be equipped with additional one or more cameras 50, located inside or outside the vehicle. Cameras 50 may capture image data, such as still images and/or video data, that may be useful for various vehicle functions, including, but not limited to, steering assist, navigation, cruise control assist, and parking assist.”), comprising: a malfunction recognition unit configured to recognize a malfunction of an external sensor used for the driving assistance control or the autonomous driving control ([0034] via “Processing unit 104 may be configured to detect a camera fault based on the received image data. As described above, during image analysis, processing unit 104 may detect an anomaly within the image data.”); and a notification control unit configured to notify an occupant of the vehicle about the malfunction of the external sensor when a malfunction of the external sensor is recognized ([0036] via “In some embodiments, processing unit 104 may also be configured to provide a malfunction notification signal based on the determined camera malfunction. After a malfunction or fault has been determined, processing unit 104 may cause a notification signal to be provided. Such a signal may be provided to a user notification device—e.g., a vehicle HUD, main display, LED, dashboard, user smartphone, etc., and/or to vehicle controller 120. The notification signal may include information that a camera fault has occurred, which camera the fault has occurred in, and the severity of the fault.”), ([0052] via “In an operation 408, onboard computer 100 may provide a malfunction notification signal based on the determined camera malfunction. … In an operation 410, a notification signal may be provided. In some implementations, the notification signal may be provided to a vehicle user via user interface 26.”). Sun is silent on wherein the notification control unit evaluates whether the vehicle is likely to travel on the target road based on a vehicle position, a target route, or a travel history of the vehicle; and when the vehicle is not likely to travel on the target road, notifies the occupant of the vehicle about the malfunction of the external sensor in a reduced manner compared to a manner when the vehicle is likely to travel on the target road, or does not notify the occupant of the vehicle about the malfunction of the external sensor. However, Hermann teaches wherein the notification control unit evaluates whether the vehicle is likely to travel on the target road based on a vehicle position, a target route, or a travel history of the vehicle ([0014] via “The device for recognizing the urban environment can, in particular, use street lighting recognized by environment sensors, a brightness recorded by a sensor, a driving speed and a position of the vehicle determined via satellite navigation in comparison with a map showing the urban environment to determine whether the vehicle is in an urban environment.”), ([0026] via “For this purpose, as already mentioned above, it is necessary to recognize whether the vehicle 1 is in an urban environment. This is achieved via the query in step S102. If the vehicle is in an urban environment, then in step S103 the operation is exclusively performed with the low beam and the method returns to the beginning and repeatedly runs through the corresponding steps. If the urban area is left or if the start of the lighting assistance system is outside of the urban area, then instead of step S103, step S104 will occur, in which the high beam is activated and the lighting assistance system is thus actively in use as a high beam assistant.”); and when the vehicle is not likely to travel on the target road, notifies the occupant of the vehicle about the malfunction of the external sensor in a reduced manner compared to a manner when the vehicle is likely to travel on the target road, or does not notify the occupant of the vehicle about the malfunction of the external sensor ([0027] via “The method according to the invention is used when the view is correspondingly impaired. Typically, this would lead to an error message independently of the otherwise present use of the lighting assistance system. According to the invention, in this branch, in which the query in S101 is answered with yes, the query of whether the vehicle 1 is in an urban environment is carried out. … If this is not the case, and the vehicle is thus located outside of an urban environment, then in step S204 the error message known per se is generated, for example that the high beam assistant is unavailable due to an impaired view of the camera 2, and for example transmitted on a multi-functional display of the vehicle 1 for a person driving the vehicle 1. Often, however, the vehicle 1 is in an urban environment because vehicles 1 have a high probability of beginning their journey in an urban environment and the problem of fogged-up windowpanes typically occurs at the beginning of the journey. In this case, after the query in step S202, the method skips directly to the step S203, and thus the sensible operation for the urban environment with the low beam is initiated. The error message is not required or the error message is actively suppressed in the method according to the invention. The person driving the vehicle 1 is thus not burdened with error messages unnecessary in this situation, and potentially distracted from traffic events.”), (Note: See paragraphs [0007] – [0009] of Hermann as well.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Hermann wherein the notification control unit evaluates whether the vehicle is likely to travel on the target road based on a vehicle position, a target route, or a travel history of the vehicle; and when the vehicle is not likely to travel on the target road, notifies the occupant of the vehicle about the malfunction of the external sensor in a reduced manner compared to a manner when the vehicle is likely to travel on the target road, or does not notify the occupant of the vehicle about the malfunction of the external sensor. Doing so reduces the burden and potential distraction of the driver by not providing error messages of a faulty device when the faulty device is unnecessary in the present situation, as stated above by Herman in paragraph [0027] . 07-21-aia AIA 11. Claim (s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun (US 20190149813 A1 hereinafter Sun) in view of Hermann (US 20240109489 A1 hereinafter Hermann), and further in view of Naito (US 20240182029 A1 hereinafter Naito) . Regarding Claim 2 , modified reference Sun teaches the notification device according to claim 1, but is silent on wherein the notification control unit evaluates that the vehicle is not likely to travel on the target road when the target road is not included in the target route, or when the vehicle position is at or more than a predetermined distance threshold away from the target road. However, Naito teaches wherein the notification control unit evaluates that the vehicle is not likely to travel on the target road when the target road is not included in the target route, or when the vehicle position is at or more than a predetermined distance threshold away from the target road ([0040] via “The deviation amount calculation unit 107 determines whether the vehicle is in a deviated state in which the vehicle deviates from the target trajectory based on the output of the own vehicle position estimation unit 104 and an output of the target trajectory calculation unit 106, and calculates a deviation amount indicating the deviated state when it is determined that the vehicle is in the deviated state. As the deviation amount, for example, it is possible to use a separation distance between a vehicle center and the target trajectory such as a distance when the vehicle is apart from the target trajectory in the road width direction, or a deviation speed at which the vehicle deviates from the target trajectory calculated by differentiating the separation distance by time.”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Naito wherein the notification control unit evaluates that the vehicle is not likely to travel on the target road when the target road is not included in the target route, or when the vehicle position is at or more than a predetermined distance threshold away from the target road. Doing so observes that the current location of the vehicle does not correspond to the targeted location based on gathered sensor data relating to the position of the vehicle, as stated above by Naito . 07-21-aia AIA 12. Claim (s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun (US 20190149813 A1 hereinafter Sun) in view of Hermann (US 20240109489 A1 hereinafter Hermann), and further in view of Upadhyay et al. (US 20180340784 A1 hereinafter Upadhyay) . Regarding Claim 3 , modified reference Sun teaches the notification device according to claim 1, but is silent on wherein the notification control unit estimates, based on past travel history, a probability that the vehicle travels on the target road at a timing corresponding to the same day and time period of the week, and evaluates that the vehicle is not likely to travel on the target road when the probability is less than a predetermined probability threshold. However, Upadhyay teaches wherein the notification control unit estimates, based on past travel history, a probability that the vehicle travels on the target road at a timing corresponding to the same day and time period of the week, and evaluates that the vehicle is not likely to travel on the target road when the probability is less than a predetermined probability threshold ([0035] via “During situations when the driver does not select a route from the one or more routes recommended (displayed) to the driver, an upcoming route segment may be dynamically predicted based on a driving history (of driver) retrieved from the database. …During such deviations, the controller may dynamically predict an upcoming route segment based on a driver driving history (such as preferred routes of travel during a specific time of day or day of week) as retrieved from the database. One or more routes or route segments may be selected from the database based on the predicted destination, ranked in terms of their particulate filter regeneration efficiency, probability of completion of a PF regeneration event, fuel efficiency, and travel time of each of the one or more routes and displayed to the driver.”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Upadhyay wherein the notification control unit estimates, based on past travel history, a probability that the vehicle travels on the target road at a timing corresponding to the same day and time period of the week, and evaluates that the vehicle is not likely to travel on the target road when the probability is less than a predetermined probability threshold. Doing so only selects predicted routes for the vehicle to traverse that have a more than likely chance of being correct based on the user’s driving history, as stated above by Upadhyay . 07-21-aia AIA 13. Claim (s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun (US 20190149813 A1 hereinafter Sun) in view of Hermann (US 20240109489 A1 hereinafter Hermann), and further in view of Sasaki et al. (JP 2020128135 A hereinafter Sasaki) . Regarding Claim 4 , modified reference Sun teaches the notification device according to claim 1, but is silent on wherein the notification control unit estimates, based on past travel history, a probability that the vehicle travels on the target road at a corresponding timing during a holiday period, and evaluates that the vehicle is not likely to travel on the target road when the probability is less than a predetermined probability threshold. However, Sasaki teaches wherein the notification control unit estimates, based on past travel history, a probability that the vehicle travels on the target road at a corresponding timing during a holiday period, and evaluates that the vehicle is not likely to travel on the target road when the probability is less than a predetermined probability threshold (Page 4 paragraph 8 via “On the other hand, when the occupant does not set the traveling route using the operation panel 28, the vehicle control ECU 22 determines the predicted traveling route based on the traveling route of the vehicle 10 in the past, the current date and time, weather information and the like. In other words, the vehicle control ECU 22 executes the behavior prediction of the vehicle 10. … The history information including it is recorded. Then, the vehicle control ECU 22 determines, on the basis of the history information, a predicted travel route in which the vehicle 10 is predicted to travel. … Further, it is assumed that the driver travels on a specific traveling route with the vehicle 10 in order to move from his/her home to a predetermined game facility with a high probability at a specific time on a holiday. In this case, if the current date and time is the above-mentioned specific time zone of a holiday, the vehicle control ECU 22 determines that this travel route is the predicted travel route. Further, in step S202, the vehicle control ECU 22 sets a plurality of predicted passage points on the determined predicted travel route.”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Sasaki wherein the notification control unit estimates, based on past travel history, a probability that the vehicle travels on the target road at a corresponding timing during a holiday period, and evaluates that the vehicle is not likely to travel on the target road when the probability is less than a predetermined probability threshold. Doing so accounts for the travel history of the user, including already known holiday information, to select the most likely route that the user will travel, as stated above by Sasaki . 07-21-aia AIA 14. Claim (s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun (US 20190149813 A1 hereinafter Sun) in view of Hermann (US 20240109489 A1 hereinafter Hermann), and further in view of Sugioka et al. (US 10504052 B2 hereinafter Sugioka) and Wilson et al. (US 20130231824 A1 hereinafter Wilson) . Regarding Claim 5 , modified reference Sun teaches the notification device according to claim 1, but is silent on wherein the notification control unit estimates, based on schedule information including a destination of the occupant obtainable from an information terminal carried by the occupant, a probability that the vehicle travels on the target road along the target route to the destination, and evaluates that the vehicle is not likely to travel on the target road when the probability is less than a predetermined probability threshold. However, Sugioka teaches wherein the notification control unit estimates, based on schedule information including a destination of the occupant obtainable from an information terminal, a probability that the vehicle travels on the target road along the target route to the destination, and evaluates that the vehicle is not likely to travel on the target road when the probability is less than a predetermined probability threshold (Col. 7 lines 22-54, where “The navigation unit 12 is configured to determine 30 that the autonomous vehicle is driving on an unplanned route or the autonomous vehicle is deviating from a planned route. The processing unit 25 is configured to determine that the autonomous vehicle is driving on an unplanned route or the autonomous vehicle is deviating from a planned route. … The navigation unit 12 is further configured to identify a trigger for routing the autonomous vehicle to the certified autonomous road. The trigger is based on at least one of a current location, a time and date, a driving history or a calendar event. The triggering unit 23 is configured to identify the trigger for routing the vehicle to the certified autonomous road. Thus, in addition to determining that the vehicle does not have a planned route, or has deviated from a planned route, a trigger is identified, after which the vehicle will be directed to a certified autonomous road for route input or confirmation. Operations 30 and 32 have the example advantage of reducing the likelihood that navigation to the certified autonomous road will be provided unnecessarily, as operations 30 and 32 provide a two-step confirmation in determining if such navigation shall be provided.”). Further, Wilson teaches the information terminal being carried by the occupant ([0019] via “User devices 106 can include mobile processing systems such as, e.g., cellular telephones, tablet computers, e-readers, mp3 players, and portable media players such as, e.g., iPod touches and iPads.”), ([0038] via “After the routing directions have been provided in 424, in 427 the user device 106 and/or the vehicle 103 records route information (e.g., route time, speeds, etc.), which is sent to the DISS 109 for evaluation and storage in the data store.”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Sugioka wherein the notification control unit estimates, based on schedule information including a destination of the occupant obtainable from an information terminal, a probability that the vehicle travels on the target road along the target route to the destination, and evaluates that the vehicle is not likely to travel on the target road when the probability is less than a predetermined probability threshold. Doing so provides proper autonomous navigation of the vehicle when it is predicted that the vehicle is correctly navigating the user based on scheduled activities including a destination, as stated above by Sugioka. In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Wilson of the information terminal being carried by the occupant. Doing so allows for multiple individual drivers to have their own unique schedules and driving preferences stored and incorporated into the autonomous navigation of the vehicle when entering the vehicle, as stated by Wilson ([0067] via “The user may configure the gradual intelligent route learning to determine how often a path must be travelled to have the route's driving preferences learned by the AIV system 100. … Processing circuitry within the vehicle 103 stores travel information and learned user preferences. For instance, the vehicle activity may be tracked using, e.g., GPS tracking, camera imaging, laser range finding, and/or Lidar information over a defined time period (e.g., a week). The activity information may be stored in memory by the processing circuitry (e.g., a computer) and evaluated by the gradual intelligent route learning to determine if a route and/or driving preferences are to be learned. The learned routes and preferences may be sent to the DISS 109 for storage and use when the DISS 109 determines recommendations for the user. These routes and preferences may also be used by the vehicle 103 for autonomous operation.”). Examiner’s Note 15. The Examiner has cited particular paragraphs or columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested of the Applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their 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. See MPEP 2141.02 [R-07.2015] VI. A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed Invention. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert, denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984). See also MPEP §2123. Conclusion 16. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BYRON X KASPER whose telephone number is (571)272-3895. 07-100 The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 am - 5 pm EST. 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, Adam Mott can be reached on (571) 270-5376. 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. /BYRON XAVIER KASPER/Examiner, Art Unit 3657 /ADAM R MOTT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3657 Application/Control Number: 19/073,202 Page 2 Art Unit: 3657 Application/Control Number: 19/073,202 Page 3 Art Unit: 3657 Application/Control Number: 19/073,202 Page 4 Art Unit: 3657 Application/Control Number: 19/073,202 Page 5 Art Unit: 3657 Application/Control Number: 19/073,202 Page 6 Art Unit: 3657 Application/Control Number: 19/073,202 Page 7 Art Unit: 3657 Application/Control Number: 19/073,202 Page 8 Art Unit: 3657 Application/Control Number: 19/073,202 Page 9 Art Unit: 3657 Application/Control Number: 19/073,202 Page 10 Art Unit: 3657 Application/Control Number: 19/073,202 Page 11 Art Unit: 3657 Application/Control Number: 19/073,202 Page 12 Art Unit: 3657 Application/Control Number: 19/073,202 Page 13 Art Unit: 3657 Application/Control Number: 19/073,202 Page 14 Art Unit: 3657 Application/Control Number: 19/073,202 Page 15 Art Unit: 3657 Application/Control Number: 19/073,202 Page 16 Art Unit: 3657 Application/Control Number: 19/073,202 Page 17 Art Unit: 3657 Application/Control Number: 19/073,202 Page 18 Art Unit: 3657 Application/Control Number: 19/073,202 Page 19 Art Unit: 3657
Prosecution Insights