CTNF 19/083,627 CTNF 99952 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. Claim Status Claims 1-20 are currently pending and are examined on the merits herein. Priority The instant application is a CON of U.S. Application No. 17/233,101 filed on 04/16/2021, which claims domestic benefit to U.S. Application No. 63/011,492 filed on 04/17/2020 as reflected in the filing receipt dated on 03/25/2025. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 03/19/2025 and 07/25/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements have been considered by the Examiner. Drawings 06-22-07 AIA The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: FIG. 1 includes the reference characters “100” and “180” which are not described in Applicant’s instant specification . Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b) 07-30-02 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. 07-34-01 Claims 2-3 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claims 2, 15, and 16 each recite the limitation “wherein the plurality of particles has a porosity…”. It is unclear whether the porosity limitation applies to the plurality of particles before or after the drying step recited in claims 1, 11, and 16, respectively. Therefore, the scope of the claim is indefinite. For the purposes of compact prosecution in the prior art rejections below, the Examiner is interpreting the claims to mean that a plurality of particles having the claimed porosity before or after the claimed drying step is sufficient to meet the claims. Claims 17-20 are rejected by virtue of their dependency from claim 16, as they fail to resolve the ambiguity in question. Claims 3, 14, and 20 each recite the limitation “wherein the plurality of particles has an average diameter…”. It is unclear whether the average diameter limitation applies to the plurality of particles before or after the drying step recited in claims 1, 11, and 16, respectively. Therefore, the scope of the claim is indefinite. For the purposes of compact prosecution in the prior art rejections below, the Examiner is interpreting the claims to mean that a plurality of particles having the claimed average diameter before or after the claimed drying step is sufficient to meet the claims. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation The Examiner is interpreting the limitation “about” as encompassing ± 5% of a specified amount or value, as is consistent with Applicant’s instant specification (Paragraph 0016). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. 07-23-aia AIA The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. 07-20-02-aia AIA This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-5, 8, 10-12, and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeng et al. ( J. Biomed. Mat. Res. Part A , p. 869-876; published: 03/11/2009; IDS of 03/19/2025) in combination with Kim et al. ( Carbohydrates Polymers , vol. 84, p. 1329-1336; published: 01/25/2011; IDS of 03/19/2025) and Tapia-Hernández (J. Agric. Food Chem., vol. 63, p. 4699-4707; published: 05/04/2015; IDS of 03/19/2025) and as evidenced by Tuğcu-Demiröz ( Marmara Pharm. J. , vol. 21, p. 762-770; published: 2017; PTO-892) . Maeng teaches a method of electrospraying chitosan particles followed by freeze drying to produce porous microbeads for cell scaffolds (Abstract; Page 870, Materials and Methods). For example, 0.5 – 2 wt.% high molecular weight chitosan in acetic acid solution is electrosprayed out through a needle at an applied voltage of 7 kV, collected in liquid nitrogen, filtered with a 150 µm sieve, and lyophilized (Page 870, L. Col.). Subsequent thaw-refreezing can be used to increase microbead pore size, thereby enhancing biocompatibility (Page 872, Results and Discussion; Figs. 2 and 3). Regarding claims 1, 11, and 16 : The method of Maeng reads on the instantly claimed electrospraying and drying active steps, wherein the chitosan in acetic acid solution reads on the instantly claimed first solution. Regarding the porosity recited in claims 2, 15, and 16 : Using 1 wt.% chitosan solution, the method of Maeng produces microbeads with a porosity within the range of 91% ± 2.6% (Page 872, Results and Discussion; Table I; Figs. 3-5), which lies within and thus reads on the instantly claimed ranges. Regarding the limitation “as measured by mercury intrusion porosimetry”, Maeng teaches that a mercury porosimeter was used to determine pore size (Abstract). Regarding the average diameter recited in claims 3, 14, and 20 : Using 1 wt.% chitosan solution, the method of Maeng produces microbeads with an average diameter of 516 µm ± 13 µm (Page 872, Results and Discussion; Table I; Figs. 3-5), which lies within and thus reads on the instantly claimed ranges. Regarding claims 4, 12, and 17 : Acetic acid reads on the instantly claimed organic acid. Regarding claim 5 : The amount of chitosan lies within and thus reads on the instantly claimed range. Regarding claim 19 : The freeze drying step of Maeng meets the claim limitation. However, the reference does not expressly teach the step wherein the chitosan solution is electrosprayed into a crosslinking solution as recited in claims 1, 7-8, 11, 13, 16, and 18, the viscosity recited in claims 1, 11, and 16, or the voltage recited in claim 10. Kim teaches a method of electrospraying chitosan particles intended for use in biomedical applications, such as preparation of scaffolds and cell delivery systems (Abstract; Page 1335, L. Col.). By electrospraying a solution of 1 wt.% chitosan in 0.9 wt.% acetic acid into tripolyphosphate (TPP) solution before freezing the particles in liquid nitrogen and freeze drying the particles, Kim found that TPP promoted aggregation of particles while preventing further morphological transformation into fibrous structures (Page 1330, Section 2.2; Page 1333, R. Col.). Importantly, increased TPP concentration and increased voltage to 12 kV allowed for increased particle sizes in the 10 – 1000 µm range (Page 1331, L. Col.; Table 1; Fig. 2). Tapia-Hernández teaches the effect of electrospray parameters on particle size, noting that viscosity can be increased or decreased by factors such as polymer concentration, applied voltage, and flow rate in order to adjust the size of the particles obtained (Abstract; Page 47001, Table 1). Tapia-Hernández further teaches that higher voltage is required to produce micrometric particles over nanospheres, wherein 15 kV is ideal to produce greater stability of the jet cone (Page 4700, L. Col.; Table 1). Regarding the second solution comprising a crosslinking agent recited in claims 1, 8, 11, 16, and 18 : It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Maeng with the TPP crosslinking technique of Kim to obtain crosslinked porous chitosan particles. An ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated and would reasonably expect success because Maeng teaches that bulk type scaffolds are undesirable since they obstruct adequate diffusion of nutrients and waste throughout the structure (Page 876, L. Col.), and Kim teaches that TPP induced crosslinking is known to prevent formation of such structures. Applying a known technique to a known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results is the rationale supporting obviousness. See MPEP § 2143 and KSR International Co. V. Teleflex Inc. , 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007). Regarding the viscosity recited in claims 1, 11, and 16 : Maeng is silent as to the viscosity of the chitosan solution, which may in fact fall within the range of about 1,000 cPs to about 10,000 cPs, given that high molecular weight chitosans like that of Maeng are known to have viscosities in the range of 800 – 2,000 cP when diluted in acetic acid, as evidenced by Tuğcu-Demiröz (Page 763, Materials). Nonetheless, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to manipulate the viscosity of the chitosan electrospraying solution in order to achieve particle sizes of greater than 150 µm, as desired by Maeng. One of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success because viscosity is an art-recognized parameter that influences the final size of electrosprayed particles, and one skilled in the art would know how to adjust system parameters to determine the optimum viscosity using the guidance of Tapia-Hernández. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Regarding claim 10 : It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to manipulate the voltage applied to the needle of the electrospraying system using 15 kV, which lies within and thus renders obvious the instantly claimed applied voltage, as a starting point for routine optimization to produce microbeads above 150 µm as desired by Maeng without destabilizing the jet cone. One of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success because electrostatic potential is an art-recognized parameter that influences the final particle size and stability of the electrospray system, and one skilled in the art would know how to adjust system parameters to determine the optimum applied voltage using the guidance of Tapia-Hernández. See MPEP 2143(I)(A) . 07-22-aia AIA Claim s 1-6, 8, 10-12, and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeng et al. ( J. Biomed. Mat. Res. Part A , p. 869-876; published: 03/11/2009; IDS of 03/19/2025) in combination with Kim et al. ( Carbohydrates Polymers , vol. 84, p. 1329-1336; published: 01/25/2011; IDS of 03/19/2025) and Tapia-Hernández (J. Agric. Food Chem., vol. 63, p. 4699-4707; published: 05/04/2015; IDS of 03/19/2025) , as applied to claim s 1-5, 8, 10-12, and 14-20 above, and further in view of Park et al. ( J. of Appl. Pol. Sci. , vol. 114, 430-437; published: 06/08/2009; PTO-892) and as evidenced by Tuğcu-Demiröz ( Marmara Pharm. J. , vol. 21, p. 762-770; published: 2017; PTO-892) . The combination of Maeng, Kim, and Tapia-Hernández as evidenced by Tuğcu-Demiröz teaches the invention(s) of claims 1-5, 8, 10-12, and 14-20 as discussed in detail above and further incorporated herein. However, the prior art combination does not expressly teach the concentration of organic acid recited in claim 6 . Park teaches the effects of electrospraying parameters on the morphological and dimensional changes of solidified polymer particles (Abstract). Park found that particle sizes increase with a decrease in the boiling point of the solvent and that boiling point also affects the morphology of the particles, such as the ability to form porous structures (Page 434, R. Col.; Page 435, L. Col; Fig. 5). Regarding claim 6 : It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to manipulate the concentration of acetic acid in the chitosan electrospraying solution, which in turn affects the boiling point of the solvent, in order to achieve a desired size and porosity of the microspheres. One of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success because solvent boiling point is an art-recognized parameter that influences the final particle size and morphology, and one skilled in the art would know how to adjust system parameters to determine the optimum solvent using the guidance of Park. See MPEP 2143(I)(A) . 07-22-aia AIA Claim s 1-5 and 7-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeng et al. ( J. Biomed. Mat. Res. Part A , p. 869-876; published: 03/11/2009; IDS of 03/19/2025) in combination with Kim et al. ( Carbohydrates Polymers , vol. 84, p. 1329-1336; published: 01/25/2011; IDS of 03/19/2025) and Tapia-Hernández (J. Agric. Food Chem., vol. 63, p. 4699-4707; published: 05/04/2015; IDS of 03/19/2025) , as applied to claim s 1-5, 8, 10-12, and 14-20 above, and further in view of Xu et al. ( J. of Microencapsulation ; published: March 2007; IDS of 03/19/2025) and as evidenced by Tuğcu-Demiröz ( Marmara Pharm. J. , vol. 21, p. 762-770; published: 2017; PTO-892) . The combination of Maeng, Kim, and Tapia-Hernández as evidenced by Tuğcu-Demiröz teaches the invention(s) of claims 1-5, 8, 10-12, and 14-20 as discussed in detail above and further incorporated herein. However, the prior art combination does not expressly teach the concentration of crosslinking agent recited in claims 7 and 13 , or the rinsing step recited in claim 9 . Xu, throughout the reference, also teaches the preparation of tripolyphosphate (TPP) crosslinked chitosan capsules using an electrospraying technique (Abstract). Xu demonstrates that increasing the TPP concentration from 5 – 10% w/v results in improved yields since the denser structure decreases the loss of capsules during the formation and collection processes (Page 148; Table I). Because Xu notes that the TPP solution is aqueous (Fig. 1), an ordinarily skilled artisan would reasonably determine that the concentration of TPP as reported in w/v is approximately equivalent to its concentration in w/w since the density of water is ~1 g/mL. Regarding claims 7 and 13 : It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method taught by the combination of Maeng and Kim by increasing the concentration of TPP in the dispersing medium within the range of 5 – 10 wt.%, which lies within and thus renders obvious the instantly claimed range. An ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated and would reasonably expect success because Xu teaches that this concentration in combination with 1 – 2% w/v aqueous solution of chitosan in acetic acid (i.e., ~1 – 2 wt.% chitosan) is effective in increasing the yield of crosslinked chitosan particles due to the dense crosslinked structures formed. Regarding claim 9 : Xu further teaches that following electrospraying of chitosan solution into TPP solution, the resulting particles are separated from the collection solution by centrifugation and washed with distilled water prior to drying (Page 146, First Paragraph). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method taught by the combination of Maeng and Kim by further including a centrifugation and washing step after electrospraying, as taught by Xu, in order to separate the crosslinked particles from the residual TPP solution. An ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated and would reasonably expect success in producing purified crosslinked chitosan particles because Xu teaches that this technique is known to effectively separate particles from the collection solution prior to drying. Applying a known technique to a known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results is the rationale supporting obviousness. See MPEP § 2143 and KSR International Co. V. Teleflex Inc. , 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) . Double Patenting 08-33 AIA The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg , 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman , 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi , 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum , 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington , 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer. 08-36 AIA Claim s 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1-12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,285,539 B2 in view of Maeng et al. ( J. Biomed. Mat. Res. Part A , p. 869-876; published: 03/11/2009; IDS of 03/19/2025), Park et al. ( J. of Appl. Pol. Sci. , vol. 114, 430-437; published: 06/08/2009; PTO-892), and Xu et al. ( J. of Microencapsulation ; published: March 2007; IDS of 03/19/2025) . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of US ‘539 recite all active steps and features of the instantly claimed method with the exception that the claims of US ‘539 do not expressly recite that the electrospraying solution includes an organic acid as recited in instant claims 1, 4, 6, 11-12, and 17 , that the amount of tripolyphosphate crosslinking agent is within the ranges recited in instant claims 7 and 13 , or the rinsing step recited in instant claim 9 . The teachings of Maeng, Park, and Xu are as set forth above and further incorporated herein. Regarding the organic acid recited in instant claims 1, 4, 6, 11-12, and 17 : It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method recited in the claims of US ‘539 by dissolving chitosan in acetic acid to produce a solution consisting essentially of chitosan salt because Maeng acknowledges that the combination of chitosan solution with acetic acid is known to inherently produce chitosan acetate salt (Page 869, R. Col.) and that the combination is useful for electrospraying chitosan microparticles. Regarding the concentration of organic acid recited in instant claim 6 : It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to manipulate the concentration of acetic acid in the chitosan electrospraying solution, which in turn affects the boiling point of the solvent, in order to achieve a desired size and morphology of the microspheres. One of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success because solvent boiling point is an art-recognized parameter that influences the final particle size and morphology, and one skilled in the art would know how to adjust system parameters to determine the optimum solvent using the guidance of Park. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Regarding instant claims 7 and 13 : It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to increase the concentration of tripolyphosphate in the aqueous solution comprising a crosslinking agent within the range of 5 – 10 wt.%, which lies within and thus renders obvious the instantly claimed range. An ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated and would reasonably expect success because Xu teaches that this concentration in combination with 1 – 2% w/v aqueous solution of chitosan in acetic acid (i.e., ~1 – 2 wt.% chitosan) is effective in increasing the yield of crosslinked chitosan particles due to the dense crosslinked structures formed. Regarding claim 9 : It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method taught by the combination of US ‘539 claims and Maeng by further including a centrifugation and washing step after electrospraying, as taught by Xu, in order to separate the crosslinked particles from the residual TPP solution. An ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated and would reasonably expect success in producing purified crosslinked chitosan particles because Xu teaches that this technique is known to effectively separate particles from the collection solution prior to drying. Applying a known technique to a known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results is the rationale supporting obviousness. See MPEP § 2143 and KSR International Co. V. Teleflex Inc. , 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007). Conclusion No claim is allowed. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH CLINKSCALES WISTNER whose telephone number is (571)270-7715. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM ET. 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, Sue Liu can be reached at (571)272-5539. 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. /SARAH C WISTNER/Examiner, Art Unit 1616 /Mina Haghighatian/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1616 Application/Control Number: 19/083,627 Page 2 Art Unit: 1616 Application/Control Number: 19/083,627 Page 3 Art Unit: 1616 Application/Control Number: 19/083,627 Page 4 Art Unit: 1616 Application/Control Number: 19/083,627 Page 5 Art Unit: 1616 Application/Control Number: 19/083,627 Page 6 Art Unit: 1616 Application/Control Number: 19/083,627 Page 7 Art Unit: 1616 Application/Control Number: 19/083,627 Page 8 Art Unit: 1616 Application/Control Number: 19/083,627 Page 9 Art Unit: 1616 Application/Control Number: 19/083,627 Page 10 Art Unit: 1616 Application/Control Number: 19/083,627 Page 11 Art Unit: 1616 Application/Control Number: 19/083,627 Page 12 Art Unit: 1616 Application/Control Number: 19/083,627 Page 13 Art Unit: 1616 Application/Control Number: 19/083,627 Page 14 Art Unit: 1616 Application/Control Number: 19/083,627 Page 15 Art Unit: 1616 Application/Control Number: 19/083,627 Page 16 Art Unit: 1616 Application/Control Number: 19/083,627 Page 17 Art Unit: 1616
Prosecution Insights