CTNF 19/089,419 CTNF 91058 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. Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim s 7 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities: In re claim 7, claim 7 is missing ending punctuation. In re claim 15, claim 15 is missing ending punctuation . Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 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 6 and 11 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. In re claim 6, claim 6 recites, inter alia, “wherein the first computing device is external to the OBD unit of the vehicle is removably couplable to the vehicle”. It is unclear in the claim , if the term “removably couplable” is in reference to the first computing device, or is in reference to the OBD unit. In re claim 11, claim 11 recites, inter alia, “wherein the first computing device is external to an on board diagnostic (OBD) unit of the vehicle is removably couplable to the vehicle”. It is unclear in the claim , if the term “removably couplable” is in reference to the first computing device, or is in reference to the on board diagnostic unit (OBD) unit. 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Each of claims 1-20 have been analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exceptions. Step 2A, Prong 1 Each of claims 1-20 recites at least one step or instruction for an abstract idea , which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG or a certain method of organizing human activity under the 2019 PEG. Claim 1 recites , A method, comprising: receiving, at a first processing resource of a first computing device via a first application included on the first computing device, first signaling including data representing a status of a vehicle; sending, from the first computing device to a second computing device, the second signaling including data representing the status of the vehicle; diagnosing, at a second processing resource of the second computing device via the first application included on the second computing device, that the vehicle needs repair based on the status of the vehicle; and sending, from second computing device to a service provider, a request to schedule a service appointment with the service provider to repair the vehicle based on the diagnosis and a request for a rental car while the vehicle is being repaired. Here, the steps of receiving, at a first processing resource of a first computing device via a first application included on the first computing device, first signaling including data representing a status of a vehicle; sending, from the first computing device to a second computing device, the second signaling including data representing the status of the vehicle as recited in claim 1, comprise pre-solution data gathering (i.e. sending and receiving data) and as such are considered to be an abstract idea (i.e. a mental process), and as such is ineligible subject matter. Accordingly, each of claims 1, 10 and 15 recite an abstract idea. Specifically, Claim 1 recites A method, comprising: receiving, at a first processing resource of a first computing device via a first application included on the first computing device, first signaling including data representing a status of a vehicle; sending, from the first computing device to a second computing device, the second signaling including data representing the status of the vehicle; diagnosing, at a second processing resource of the second computing device via the first application included on the second computing device, that the vehicle needs repair based on the status of the vehicle; and sending, from second computing device to a service provider, a request to schedule a service appointment with the service provider to repair the vehicle based on the diagnosis and a request for a rental car while the vehicle is being repaired. The recited limitations of a first processing resource a first computing device a vehicle a second computing device a second processing resource a rental car as recited in claim 1, are additional claim elements, however, these additional claim elements fail to meaningfully limit the claim. Specifically, the recitation of the following claim limitation receiving, at a first processing resource of a first computing device via a first application included on the first computing device, first signaling including data representing a status of a vehicle; sending, from the first computing device to a second computing device, the second signaling including data representing the status of the vehicle; is merely pre-solution data gathering. Furthermore, the courts have held that using mathematical algorithms/relationships to update or convert data is ineligible subject matter. See e.g. Parker v. Flook; Gottschaulk v. Benson The claim limitations of sending, from second computing device to a service provider, a request to schedule a service appointment with the service provider to repair the vehicle based on the diagnosis and a request for a rental car while the vehicle is being repaired. is merely post solution activity, which fails to meaning limit the claim ( note : the claim is merely using a computer/computer device to perform a mental process of requesting/asking to schedule an automotive service appointment and also requesting/asking for a rental vehicle for the duration of the repair , which is a common/routine practice in the art and is also commonly performed by humans without a computer ). The claims also include additional structural elements (a first processing resource, a first computing device, a vehicle, a second computing device, a second processing resource and a rental car) which are well-known and understood, routine, and conventional elements to those having ordinary skill within the relevant art. These elements do not meaningfully limit the claim. Mutatis mutandis claims 10 and 15. Accordingly, as indicated above, each of the above-identified claims recites an abstract idea. Further, dependent claims 2-9, 11-14 and 16-20 merely include limitations that either further define the abstract idea (and thus don’t make the abstract idea any less abstract) or amount to no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use because they’re merely incidental or token additions to the claims that do not alter or affect how the process steps are performed. Step 2A, Prong 2 The above-identified abstract idea in each of independent claims 1, 10 and 15 (and their respective dependent claims 2-9, 11-14 and 16-20) are not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG because the additional elements (identified above in independent claims 1 and 18), either alone or in combination, generally link the use of the above-identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. More specifically, the additional elements of: ( a first processing resource, a first computing device, a vehicle, a second computing device, a second processing resource, a rental car, a first radio, a second radio, an onboard diagnostic (OBD) unit, a first memory, a second memory and a third computing device ) are generically recited structural elements and generically recited computer elements in independent claims 1, 10 and 15 (and their respective dependent claims) which do not improve the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field. Nor do these above-identified additional elements serve to apply the above-identified abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine, effect a transformation or apply or use the above-identified abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Furthermore, the above-identified additional elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. For at least these reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent claims 1, 10 and 15 (and their respective dependent claims) are not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG. Moreover, the above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG because the claimed method and system merely implements the above-identified abstract idea (e.g., mental process and certain method of organizing human activity) using rules (e.g., computer instructions) executed by a computer (e.g., a first computing device, as claimed). In other words, these claims are merely directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements which do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. Additionally, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. That is, like Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution. The Federal Circuit has also determined that both computer-implemented system and method claims directed to "anonymous loan shopping", which was an abstract idea because it could be " performed by humans without a computer ." 811 F.3d. at 1318, 1324-25, 117 USPQ2d at 1695, 1699-1700. Thus, for these additional reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent claims 1, 10 and 15 (and their respective dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application under the 2019 PEG. Accordingly, independent Claims 1, 10 and 15 (and their respective dependent claims) are each directed to an abstract idea under 2019 PEG. Step 2B None of claims 1-20 include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for at least the following reasons. These claims require the additional elements of: a first processing resource, a first computing device, a vehicle, a second computing device, a second processing resource, a rental car, a first radio, a second radio, an onboard diagnostic (OBD) unit, a first memory, a second memory and a third computing device as recited in independent claims 1, 10 and 15. The above-identified additional elements are generically claimed structural components (i.e. a vehicle, a rental car, a first radio, and a second radio ) and generically claimed computer components ( a first processing resource, a first computing device, a second computing device, a second processing resource, an onboard diagnostic (OBD) unit, a first memory, a second memory and a third computing device ) which enable the above-identified abstract idea(s) to be conducted by performing the basic functions of automating mental tasks (such as mathematical functions/operations (including comparing estimated/measured values), or more specifically, diagnosing that the vehicle needs repair (i.e. my vehicle is broken, it needs to be fixed), then scheduling the repair, and arranging for alternate transportation (i.e. a rental car, etc)). The courts have recognized such computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am. , Inc. , 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and OIP Techs. , 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93. The Applicant’s specification, in [0042-0052], states that “ [0042] The system 480-1 illustrated in Figure 4A can include a computing device on a module that can be removably coupled to a control panel and/or a on board diagnostic (OBD) unit of a vehicle. The system 480-1 can include a computing with processing resource 468. The system 480-1 can be coupled (e.g., coupled via a wireless network) to other systems and/or computing devices (e.g., system 480-2 in Figure 4B). The system 480-1 can further include the memory resource 484-1 (e.g., a non-transitory MRM), on which may be stored instructions, such as instructions 485 and 486. Although the following descriptions refer to a processing resource and a memory resource , the descriptions may also apply to a system with multiple processing resources and multiple memory resources . In such examples, the instructions may be distributed (e.g., stored) across multiple memory resources and the instructions may be distributed (e.g., executed by) across multiple processing resources. [0043] The memory resource 484-1 may be electronic, magnetic, optical, or other physical storage device that stores executable instructions. Thus, the memory resource 484-1 may be, for example, non-volatile or volatile memory. For example, non-volatile memory can provide persistent data by retaining written data when not powered, and non-volatile memory types can include NAND flash memory, NOR flash memory, read only memory (ROM), Electrically Erasable Programmable ROM (EEPROM), Erasable Programmable ROM (EPROM), and Storage Class Memory (SCM) that can include resistance variable memory, such as phase change random access memory (PCRAM), three-dimensional cross-point memory, resistive random access memory (RRAM), ferroelectric random access memory (FeRAM), magnetoresistive random access memory (MRAM), and programmable conductive memory, among other types of memory. Volatile memory can require power to maintain its data and can include random-access memory (RAM), dynamic random- access memory (DRAM), and static random-access memory (SRAM), among others. [0044] In some examples, the memory resource 484-1 is a non-transitory MRM comprising Random Access Memory (RAM), an Electrically-Erasable Programmable ROM (EEPROM), a storage drive, an optical disc, and the like. The memory resource 484 may be disposed within a controller and/or computing device. In this example, the executable instructions 485 and 486 can be "installed" on the device. Additionally, and/or alternatively, the memory resource 484-1 can be a portable, external or remote storage medium, for example, that allows the system to download the instructions 485 and 486 from the portable/external/remote storage medium. In this situation, the executable instructions may be part of an "installation package". As described herein, the memory resource 484-1 can be encoded with executable instructions for vehicle diagnosis and repair. [0045] The instructions 485, when executed by a processing resource such as the processing resource 482-1, can include instructions to receive at the processing resource 482-1, the memory resource 484-1, or both, vehicle status information from a control panel and/or an OBD unit of a vehicle. In some examples, the vehicle status information can include battery information, tire pressure information, fuel level information, check engine indicator information, oil life information, and/or vehicle location information, among other types of vehicle information. [0046] The instructions 486, when executed by a processing resource such as processing resource 482-1, can include instructions send vehicle status information to a vehicle diagnosis and repair tool operating on a mobile device of user. The vehicle status information can be sent from system 480-1 to mobile device of user via a Bluetooth, cellular, and/or Wi-Fi data connection. [0047] Figure 4B is a functional diagram representing a processing resource 482-2 in communication with a memory resource 484-2 having instructions 487, 488, 489, 490, and 491 written thereon of a computing device of a user operating a vehicle diagnosis and repair tool in accordance with a number of embodiments of the present disclosure.. In some examples, the processing resource 482-2 and memory resource 484-2 comprise a system 480-2 such as a vehicle diagnosis and repair tool (e.g., vehicle diagnosis and repair tool 110-2 illustrated in Figure 1). [0048] The system 480-2 illustrated in Figure 4B can include a computing device of a user that is operating a vehicle diagnosis and repair tool. The system 480-2 can include a computing with processing resource 482-2. The system 480-2 can be coupled (e.g., coupled via a wireless network) to other systems and/or computing devices (e.g., system 480-1 in Figure 4A). The system 480-2 can further include the memory resource 484-2 (e.g., a non-transitory MRM), on which may be stored instructions, such as instructions 487, 488, 489, 490, and 491. Although the following descriptions refer to a processing resource and a memory resource, the descriptions may also apply to a system with multiple processing resources and multiple memory resources. In such examples, the instructions may be distributed (e.g., stored) across multiple memory resources and the instructions may be distributed (e.g., executed by) across multiple processing resources. [0049] The memory resource 484-2 may be electronic, magnetic, optical, or other physical storage device that stores executable instructions. Thus, the memory resource 484-2 may be, for example, non-volatile or volatile memory. For example, non-volatile memory can provide persistent data by retaining written data when not powered, and non-volatile memory types can include NAND flash memory, NOR flash memory, read only memory (ROM), Electrically Erasable Programmable ROM (EEPROM), Erasable Programmable ROM (EPROM), and Storage Class Memory (SCM) that can include resistance variable memory, such as phase change random access memory (PCRAM), three-dimensional cross-point memory, resistive random access memory (RRAM), ferroelectric random access memory (FeRAM), magnetoresistive random access memory (MRAM), and programmable conductive memory, among other types of memory. Volatile memory can require power to maintain its data and can include random-access memory (RAM), dynamic random- access memory (DRAM), and static random-access memory (SRAM), among others. [0050] In some examples, the memory resource 484-2 is a non-transitory MRM comprising Random Access Memory (RAM), an Electrically-Erasable Programmable ROM (EEPROM), a storage drive, an optical disc, and the like. The memory resource 464 may be disposed within a controller and/or computing device. In this example, the executable instructions 487, 488, 489, 490, and 491 can be "installed" on the device. Additionally, and/or alternatively, the memory resource 484-2 can be a portable, external or remote storage medium, for example, that allows the system to download the instructions 487, 488, 489, 490, and 491 from the portable/external/remote storage medium. In this situation, the executable instructions may be part of an "installation package". As described herein, the memory resource 484-2 can be encoded with executable instructions for vehicle diagnosis and repair. [0051] The instructions 487, when executed by a processing resource such as the processing resource 482-2, can include instructions to receive at the processing resource 482-2, the memory resource 484-2, or both, vehicle status information from another computing device. In some examples, the vehicle status information can include battery information, tire pressure information, fuel level information, check engine indicator information, oil life information, and/or vehicle location information, among other types of vehicle information. [0052] The instructions 488, when executed by a processing resource such as processing resource 482-2, can include instructions to diagnosis the vehicle status information to determine if the vehicle needs service or repair.” This being the case, it seems that the control system is a generic control system, which is well understood, routine and conventional. Accordingly, in light of Applicant’s specification, the claimed term “control system” is reasonably construed as to constitute a generic computing device. Like SAP America vs Investpic, LLC (Federal Circuit 2018), it is clear, from the claims themselves and the specification, that these limitations require no improved computer resources, just already available computers, with their already available basic functions, to use as tools in executing the claimed process. Furthermore, Applicant’s specification does not describe any special programming or algorithms required for the processor. This lack of disclosure is acceptable under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) since this hardware performs non-specialized functions known by those of ordinary skill in the computer arts. By omitting any specialized programming or algorithms, Applicant's specification essentially admits that this hardware is conventional and performs well understood, routine and conventional activities in the computer industry or arts. In other words, Applicant’s specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the above-identified additional elements because it describes these additional elements in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) (see Berkheimer memo from April 19, 2018, (III)(A)(1) on page 3). Adding hardware that performs “ ‘well understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry” will not make claims patent-eligible ( TLI Communications ). The recitation of the above-identified additional limitations in claims 1-20 amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Simply using a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV , 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); and TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto , LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Moreover, implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not add significantly more, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer. A claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc. , 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp. , 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). However, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification for any assertion that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. Here, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. Instead, as in Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC 838 F.3d 1253, 1263-64, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207-08 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution. For at least the above reasons, the system and method of claims 10-14, 1-9 and 15-20, respectively , are directed to applying an abstract idea (e.g., mental process or certain method of organizing human activity) on a general purpose computer without (i) improving the performance of the computer itself (as in McRO, Bascom and Enfish), or (ii) providing a technical solution to a problem in a technical field (as in DDR). In other words, none of claims 1-20 provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that these claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Taking the additional elements individually and in combination, the additional elements do not provide significantly more. Specifically, when viewed individually, the above-identified additional elements in independent claims 1, 10 and 15 (and their dependent claims) do not add significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. That is, neither the general computer elements nor any other additional element adds meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because these additional elements represent insignificant extra-solution activity. When viewed as a combination, these above-identified additional elements simply instruct the practitioner to implement the claimed functions with well-understood, routine and conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment. As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. As such, the above-identified additional elements, when viewed as whole, do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Thus, claims 1-20 merely apply an abstract idea to a computer and do not (i) improve the performance of the computer itself (as in Bascom and Enfish), or (ii) provide a technical solution to a problem in a technical field (as in DDR). Therefore, none of the claims 1-20 amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, claims 1-20 are not patent eligible and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to abstract ideas implemented on a generic computer in view of the Supreme Court Decision in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. and 2019 PEG. 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. Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 3 of U.S. Patent No. 12277809 . 08-36 Claim 2 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 12277809 . 08-36 Claim 4 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 12277809 . 08-36 Claim 5 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 12277809 . 08-36 Claim 6 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 12277809 . 08-36 Claim 7 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 12277809 . 08-36 Claim 8 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12277809 . Claim 10 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 10 and 3 of U.S. Patent No. 12277809 . 08-36 Claim 11 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 12277809 . 08-36 Claim 12 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12277809 . 08-36 Claim 13 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 13 of U.S. Patent No. 12277809 . 08-36 Claim 14 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 14 of U.S. Patent No. 12277809 . Claim 15 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 15 and 3 of U.S. Patent No. 12277809 . 08-36 Claim 16 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 16 of U.S. Patent No. 12277809 . 08-36 Claim 17 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 17 of U.S. Patent No. 12277809 . 08-36 Claim 18 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 19 of U.S. Patent No. 12277809 . 08-36 Claim 19 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12277809 . 08-34 AIA Claim 20 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12277809 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the recite substantially the same limitations . 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-4 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chenn (U.S. 20120010775) in view of Gronsbell et al. (U.S. 20200234515) and in view of Pillar et al. (U.S. 20030158640) . In re claim 1, Chenn discloses a method, comprising: receiving, at a first processing resource (device 6 may include a central processing unit 41; [0048]) of a first computing device (fig. 2; diagnostic device 6; [0030]) via a first application (necessarily present) included on the first computing device, first signaling including data (diagnostic information; [0030-0031]) representing a status of a vehicle (when the vehicle flags a fault, and stores a fault code and related vehicle diagnostic data. That information is communicated to a diagnostic device; [0049]; Here, in [0049] the presence/absence a fault code and related vehicle diagnostic data indicates a status of the vehicle (i.e. vehicle is operating normally, or that the vehicle is in need of service.); sending, from the first computing device to a second computing device (fig. 2; wireless communication device 9; [0031]; note : wireless communication device 9 may be a cell phone, PDA, or other device), the second signaling including data representing the status of the vehicle (communication of diagnostic information and control signals between the diagnostic device 6 and…wireless communication device 9; [0031]; Here, in [0031] the diagnostic information and control signals indicate a status of the vehicle); diagnosing, at a second processing resource (necessarily present in wireless communication device 9; Additionally, [0031] indicates that device 9 may be a cellphone, which necessarily contains an internal processor, as suggested in [0024]) of the second computing device via the first application included on the second computing device (cell phone display; [0047]; note : device 9 can be a cell phone as indicated in [0031]), that the vehicle needs repair based on the status of the vehicle (“wherein vehicle diagnostic information may be analyzed and corrective actions identified. Information respecting parts and services useful for such corrective actions may be communicated to the user and displayed”; [0047]). Chenn lacks sending, from second computing device to a service provider, a request to schedule a service appointment with the service provider to repair the vehicle based on the diagnosis and a request for a rental car while the vehicle is being repaired. Gronsbell discloses an analogous method wherein malfunction information may be transmitted to a plurality of service providers to determine the recommended remedial measure ([0210]) scheduling a repair when a vehicle malfunction is detected ([0211]) the apparatus may be configured to either automatically or at the prompt of a user, reserve alternative transportation for the some or all of the estimated duration of the repairs…may include ride sharing, a rental vehicle, a loaner vehicle, or similar transportation ([0211]). Thus it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Chenn, so as to incorporate requesting a rental car while the vehicle is being repaired, as clearly suggested and taught by Gronsbell, in order to avoid the inconvenience of the loss of use of a vehicle while awaiting repairs, service, or other vehicle maintenance. Pillar discloses an analogous method wherein scheduling maintenance for an equipment service vehicle comprises performing a diagnostic test on the equipment service vehicle using an on-board computer system of the equipment service vehicle (abstract), and transmitting a request to schedule the equipment service vehicle for maintenance (abstract). Thus it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Chenn, so as to incorporate performing a diagnostic test on the vehicle and then transmitting a request to schedule an appointment to repair the vehicle, based upon the diagnostic test, as clearly suggested and taught by Pillar, in order to have an equipment service vehicle that can schedule routine maintenance with little or no input from the operator or other person responsible for maintaining the vehicle ([0006]) and to communicate the recall information to a computer on the equipment service vehicle that may inform the owner of the recall and may even automatically set up a service appointment to comply with the recall ([0007]) and in order to decrease the amount of time spent on service and repair of the vehicle as well as decrease the costs associated with maintaining and owning the vehicle ([0009]). In re claim 2, Chenn, Gronsbell and Pillar teach the method of claim 1, and Chenn further teaches sending, at the second computing device (cell phone) via the first application included on the second computing device, a request to a vehicle service provider (fig. 1; central automotive diagnostic and services center 18; [0033]) to make the needed repair to the vehicle (fig. 1; steps appropriate to the diagnostic condition are taken, such as further communicating with repair services 26; [0033]). In re claim 3, Chenn, Gronsbell and Pillar teach the method of claim 1, and Gronsbell further teaches sending, at the second computing device via the first application included on the second computing device, a request for a ride share service while the vehicle is being repaired (the apparatus may be configured to either automatically or at the prompt of a user, reserve alternative transportation for the some or all of the estimated duration of the repairs…may include ride sharing , a rental vehicle, a loaner vehicle, or similar transportation; [0211]). In re claim 4, Chenn, Gronsbell and Pillar teach the method of claim 1, and Chenn further teaches sending, at the second computing device via the first application included on the second computing device, an indication of the needed repair to other computing devices (fig. 2; central automotive diagnostic and services center 18 includes a computer terminal 22 and interconnected automotive diagnostic database 24; [0033]; Here, in [0033], the interconnected automotive database 24 serves as the “other computing device(s). The “interconnectivity” of this diagnostic database indicates that it is connected to a plurality of other devices, and that at least some of the information contained within this database is diagnostic information related to the needed repairs of the vehicle.) that are operating the first application. In re claim 6, Chenn, Gronsbell and Pillar teach the method of claim 1, and Chenn further teaches sending, by the first processing resource of the first computing device via the first application included on the first computing device, a request for signals from an on board diagnostic (OBD) unit of the vehicle (diagnostic device 6 has a diagnostic port connector 17…to access diagnostic information from the vehicle onboard diagnostic computer 2; [0030]; Here, in [0030], accessing the diagnostic information from the computer 2 is interpreted as a request for signals from the OBD unit), wherein the first computing device is external to the ODB unit of the vehicle (as shown in fig. 1; device 6 is shown connected to ECU via a connector and a diagnostic port which implies a connection that is external of the ECU, as is commonly known in the art) is removable couplable to the vehicle (via connector 17, as shown in fig. 1). In re claim 7, Chenn, Gronsbell and Pillar teach the method of claim 1, and Chenn further teaches providing, at the second processing resource of the second computing device via the first application included on the second computing device, third signaling including a notification of the needed repair to a third computing device (fig. 5; local PC, report is shown to the user; fig. 1; computer terminal 22). In re claim 8, Chenn, Gronsbell and Pillar teach the method of claim 1, and Chenn further teaches diagnosing, at the second processing resource of the second computing device via the first application included on the second computing device, that the vehicle is in working order based on the status of the vehicle (Illumination of the red indicator 33 may serve to indicate presence of one or more predetermined trouble codes, or other diagnostic information indicative of a more immediate need for attention.; [0041]; Here, in [0041], the illumination of red indicator 33 serves to indicate that something has been diagnosed as being malfunctioning (via DTC or other diagnostic information), and suggests that, when the red indicator 33 is not illuminated , that everything the vehicle in working order (otherwise there would be a DTC or other diagnostic information, along with a corresponding illumination of the red indicator 33)) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chenn (U.S. 20120010775) in view of Gronsbell et al. (U.S. 20200234515) and in view of Pillar et al. (U.S. 20030158640) and in further view of Greenberg et al. (U.S. 20160133062) . In re claim 5, Chenn, Gronsbell and Pillar teach the method of claim 4, but lack receiving, at the second computing device via the first application included on the second computing device, information regarding how to perform the needed repair from the other computing devices that are operating the first application. Greenberg discloses an analogous method wherein custom content pertaining to a specific code generated by the OBD system corresponding to an event (abstract) and further teaches wherein custom content is preferably selected or otherwise defined at least partially based on the type of diagnostic event and vehicle, location, etc. ([0014]); and custom content may include…instructional content addressing how to fix the specified diagnostic event if applicable ([0014]; also see fig. 38a-38b; note: the content is displayed on a mobile device (cell phone)). Thus it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Chenn, to incorporate displaying information regarding how to perform the needed repair, as clearly suggested and taught by Greenberg, in order to transform the mobile phone into a powerful tool by intimately contacting drivers and/or passengers at their point of immediacy delivering a user friendly, interactive, multi-media experience, that delivers needed content and services, far beyond what existing OTA systems can currently provide ([0017]) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chenn (U.S. 20120010775) in view of Gronsbell et al. (U.S. 20200234515) and in view of Pillar et al. (U.S. 20030158640) and in further view of Vanderveen et al. (U.S. 11,783,302) . In re claim 9, Chenn, Gronsbell and Pillar teach the method of claim 1, but lack sending, at the second computing device via the first application included on the second computing device, an indication of a status of the repair to a third computing device. Vanderveen teaches an analogous vehicle repair method of sending, at the second computing device via the first application included on the second computing device, an indication of a status of the repair to a third computing device (in response to an indication of completion of the automotive service, sending, by the vehicle to the computer of the vehicle manufacturer, information useable by the computer of the vehicle manufacturer to validate that: the automotive service was completed by the authorized repair entity on the vehicle, or the automotive service performed by the authorized repair entity on the vehicle is the automotive service identified by the authorization information; claim 12). Thus it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Chenn, to incorporate sending an indication of a status of the repair to a third computing device, as clearly suggested and taught by Vanderveen, in order to have the vehicle enable access of an electronic component of the vehicle by an authorized repair entity to perform the automotive service (abstract) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 10-12, 15, 17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chenn (U.S. 20120010775) in view of Gronsbell et al. (U.S. 20200234515) . In re claim 10, Chenn discloses a system, comprising: a first computing device (fig. 2; diagnostic device 6; [0030]) comprising a first processing resource (device 6 may include a central processing unit 41; [0048]) configured to execute instructions stored in a first memory (random access memory 43, flash memory 45; [0048]) to: receive first signaling including data representing a status of a vehicle (when the vehicle flags a fault, and stores a fault code and related vehicle diagnostic data. That information is communicated to a diagnostic device; [0049]; Here, in [0049] the presence/absence a fault code and related vehicle diagnostic data indicates a status of the vehicle (i.e. vehicle is operating normally, or that the vehicle is in need of service)); and a second computing device (fig. 2; wireless communication device 9; [0031]; note : wireless communication device 9 may be a cell phone, PDA, or other device) comprising a second processing resource (necessarily present in wireless communication device 9; Additionally, [0031] indicates that device 9 may be a cellphone, which necessarily contains an internal processor, as suggested in [0024]) configured to execute instructions stored in a second memory to: receive second signaling including data representing the status of the vehicle from the first computing device (communication of diagnostic information and control signals between the diagnostic device 6 and…wireless communication device 9; [0031]; Here, in [0031] the diagnostic information and control signals indicate a status of the vehicle); and diagnose whether or not the vehicle is in need of repair based on the status of the vehicle (“wherein vehicle diagnostic information may be analyzed and corrective actions identified. Information respecting parts and services useful for such corrective actions may be communicated to the user and displayed”; [0047]); and send a request to a vehicle service provider (fig. 1; central automotive diagnostic and services center 18; [0033]) to make the needed repair to the vehicle (fig. 1; steps appropriate to the diagnostic condition are taken, such as further communicating with repair services 26; [0033]). Chenn lacks sending a request for a rental car while the vehicle is being repaired. Gronsbell discloses an analogous method wherein malfunction information may be transmitted to a plurality of service providers to determine the recommended remedial measure ([0210]) scheduling a repair when a vehicle malfunction is detected ([0211]) the apparatus may be configured to either automatically or at the prompt of a user, reserve alternative transportation for the some or all of the estimated duration of the repairs…may include ride sharing, a rental vehicle, a loaner vehicle, or similar transportation ([0211]). Thus it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Chenn, so as to incorporate requesting a rental car while the vehicle is being repaired, as clearly suggested and taught by Gronsbell, in order to avoid the inconvenience of the loss of use of a vehicle while awaiting repairs, service, or other vehicle maintenance. In re claim 11, Chenn and Gronsbell teach the system of claim 10, and Chenn further teaches wherein the first processing resource is configured to execute instructions to receive signaling including data representing the status of the vehicle at periodic intervals (necessarily present; Chenn indicates in [0049] that the vehicle flags a fault, and stores a fault code and related vehicle diagnostic data; Further, one of such fault, as commonly known in the art, is engine misfire/knock, where there is a misfire count/knock count which indicates the number of misfires/counts that happen over a pre-determined period (number of engine combustion cycles)) and wherein the first computing device is external to an on board diagnostic (OBD) unit of the vehicle is removably couplable to the vehicle (as indicated via. fig. 2; note the connector 17 and diagnostic port 4, allowing a removable coupling to the vehicle). In re claim 12, Chenn and Gronsbell teach the system of claim 10, and Chenn further teaches wherein the second processing resource is configured to execute instructions to provide the indication that that vehicle needs repair to a contact list (diagnostic information is communicated to any of a plurality of contacts; claim 37). In re claim 15, Chenn discloses a non-transitory machine-readable medium comprising a first processing resource (device 6 may include a central processing unit 41; [0048]) in communication with a memory resource having instructions executable to: receive at the first processing resource, the memory resource, or both, data representing a need for a vehicle repair (diagnostic information; [0030-0031]), via first signaling sent via a first radio in communication (wherein the local connectivity network is a radio frequency communication network; [claim 35; 0031]) with a second processing resource of a computing device (fig. 2; diagnostic device 6; [0030]) coupled to a vehicle (as shown in fig. 1-2); and transmit at the first processing resource (fig. 2; note: wireless transmission via Bluetooth from diagnostic device 6, via 19, is shown), the memory resource, or both, data representing a request for the vehicle repair (fig. 1; steps appropriate to the diagnostic condition are taken, such as further communicating with repair services 26; [0033]) to a vehicle service provider (fig. 1; central automotive diagnostic and services center 18; [0033]). Chenn lacks a request for a rental car while the vehicle is being repaired via a second radio in communication with the first processing resource. Gronsbell discloses an analogous method wherein malfunction information may be transmitted to a plurality of service providers to determine the recommended remedial measure ([0210]) scheduling a repair when a vehicle malfunction is detected ([0211]) the apparatus may be configured to either automatically or at the prompt of a user, reserve alternative transportation for the some or all of the estimated duration of the repairs…may include ride sharing, a rental vehicle, a loaner vehicle, or similar transportation ([0211]). Thus it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Chenn, so as to incorporate requesting a rental car while the vehicle is being repaired, as clearly suggested and taught by Gronsbell, in order to avoid the inconvenience of the loss of use of a vehicle while awaiting repairs, service, or other vehicle maintenance. In re claim 17, Chenn and Gronsbell teach the the medium of claim 15, and Chenn further teaches receiving at the first processing resource (fig. 2; note: wireless transmission via Bluetooth from diagnostic device 6, via 19, is shown; note: this transmission is a two way transmission, which includes both transmission and receiving), the memory resource, or both, data indicating that the vehicle service provider will perform data representing a request for the vehicle repair (fig. 1; steps appropriate to the diagnostic condition are taken, such as further communicating with repair services 26; [0033]) via the radio in communication with the processing resource of the computing device associated with the vehicle service provider (fig. 1; central automotive diagnostic and services center 18; [0033]). Chenn further discloses communicating with repair services 26…or to other parts or services providers, via. internet 16 ([0033]). Chenn lacks explicitly stating indicating that the vehicle service provider will perform the vehicle repair. However, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, that in communicating with repair services 26, that there would be some sort of indication/confirmation (or refusal services) that the repair services would actually perform the vehicle repair or alternatively, one having ordinary skill in the art, would simply want to ask the relevant repair services if they’ll simply perform the repair (or fix) the vehicle, with the corresponding response being either a confirmation that the repair services will be performed, or a refusal of services. In re claim 19, Chenn and Gronsbell teach the medium of claim 15, and Chenn further teaches having instructions executable to receive at the first processing resource, the memory resource, or both, data indicating a status of the vehicle repair (“wherein vehicle diagnostic information may be analyzed and corrective actions identified. Information respecting parts and services useful for such corrective actions may be communicated to the user and displayed”; [0047]; when the vehicle flags a fault, and stores a fault code and related vehicle diagnostic data. That information is communicated to a diagnostic device; [0049]; Here, in [0049] the presence/absence a fault code and related vehicle diagnostic data indicates a status of the vehicle (i.e. vehicle is operating normally, or that the vehicle is in need of service.); note : the presence of the fault indicates that the repair has not yet been completed) via the radio in communication with the processing resource of the computing device associated with the vehicle service provider (fig. 1; steps appropriate to the diagnostic condition are taken, such as further communicating with repair services 26; [0033]). In re claim 20, Chenn and Gronsbell teach the medium of claim 15, and Chenn further teaches having instructions executable to send at the first processing resource, the memory resource, or both, data representing the need for the vehicle repair (communicating with repair services 26…or to other parts or services providers, via. internet 16; [0033]), via first signaling sent via a radio (as indicated via. fig. 2) in communication with a processing resource of a computing device (fig. 2; wireless communication device 9; [0031]) associated with a social media network (device 9 may be implemented as a cell phone; [0031]; note : it is common to associate a computing device, such as a cell phone, with social media networks (i.e. facebook, twitter, etc.)) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 13-14, 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chenn (U.S. 20120010775) in view of Gronsbell et al. (U.S. 20200234515) and in view of Fischer et al. (U.S. 20160042576) . In re claim 13, Chenn and Gronsbell teach the system of claim 10, but lack wherein the second processing resource is configured to execute instructions to receive an indication from the vehicle service provider that the needed repair is completed. Fischer discloses an analogous system determining, based on vehicle data received from vehicle sensors, a maintenance indication indicative of vehicle maintenance required, according to a vehicle maintenance schedule (abstract) and further discloses the maintenance recommendation application 210 may determine that the recommended vehicle 31 maintenance has been completed based on maintenance scheduling information for the vehicle 31 retrieved from the maintenance scheduler service 208 (fig. 2; [0054]). Thus it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Chenn, to incorporate receiving an indication from the vehicle service provider that the needed repair is completed, as clearly suggested and taught by Fischer, in order to better inform the maintenance recommendation application 210 in forming future maintenance recommendations 214 for the vehicle 31 ([0056]; fig. 6, step 602). In re claim 14, Chenn and Gronsbell teach the system of claim 10, but lack wherein the second processing resource is configured to execute instructions to receive data representing an updated status of the vehicle during the repair from the vehicle service provider. Fischer discloses an analogous system determining, based on vehicle data received from vehicle sensors, a maintenance indication indicative of vehicle maintenance required, according to a vehicle maintenance schedule (abstract) and further discloses wherein the second processing resource is configured to execute instructions to receive data representing an updated status of the vehicle during the repair from the vehicle service provider (At operation 604, the maintenance recommendation application 210 updates the maintenance recommendation 214; [0055]; fig. 6, step 604). Motivation to combine is given in claim 13 above. In re claim 16, see claims 13 and 15 above. In re claim 18, Chenn and Gronsbell teach the medium of claim 15, further including having instructions executable to receive at the first processing resource, the memory resource, or both, data indicating a repair (communicating with repair services 26…or to other parts or services providers, via. internet 16 ([0033]). Chenn lacks disclosing cost estimate for the vehicle repair. Fischer discloses an analogous system determining, based on vehicle data received from vehicle sensors, a maintenance indication indicative of vehicle maintenance required, according to a vehicle maintenance schedule (abstract) and further discloses cost estimate for the vehicle repair (a cost for the maintenance procedures, and an indication of how immediate the need is for the recommended maintenance to be performed; [0036]). Motivation is provided with claim 13 above. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN D BAILEY whose telephone number is (571)272-5692. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5. 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, Logan Kraft can be reached at 571-270-5625. 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. /JOHN D BAILEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3747 /KURT PHILIP LIETHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747 Application/Control Number: 19/089,419 Page 2 Art Unit: 3747 Application/Control Number: 19/089,419 Page 3 Art Unit: 3747 Application/Control Number: 19/089,419 Page 4 Art Unit: 3747 Application/Control Number: 19/089,419 Page 5 Art Unit: 3747 Application/Control Number: 19/089,419 Page 6 Art Unit: 3747 Application/Control Number: 19/089,419 Page 7 Art Unit: 3747 Application/Control Number: 19/089,419 Page 8 Art Unit: 3747 Application/Control Number: 19/089,419 Page 9 Art Unit: 3747 Application/Control Number: 19/089,419 Page 10 Art Unit: 3747 Application/Control Number: 19/089,419 Page 11 Art Unit: 3747 Application/Control Number: 19/089,419 Page 12 Art Unit: 3747 Application/Control Number: 19/089,419 Page 13 Art Unit: 3747 Application/Control Number: 19/089,419 Page 14 Art Unit: 3747 Application/Control Number: 19/089,419 Page 15 Art Unit: 3747 Application/Control Number: 19/089,419 Page 16 Art Unit: 3747 Application/Control Number: 19/089,419 Page 17 Art Unit: 3747 Application/Control Number: 19/089,419 Page 18 Art Unit: 3747 Application/Control Number: 19/089,419 Page 19 Art Unit: 3747 Application/Control Number: 19/089,419 Page 20 Art Unit: 3747 Application/Control Number: 19/089,419 Page 21 Art Unit: 3747 Application/Control Number: 19/089,419 Page 22 Art Unit: 3747 Application/Control Number: 19/089,419 Page 23 Art Unit: 3747 Application/Control Number: 19/089,419 Page 24 Art Unit: 3747 Application/Control Number: 19/089,419 Page 25 Art Unit: 3747 Application/Control Number: 19/089,419 Page 26 Art Unit: 3747 Application/Control Number: 19/089,419 Page 27 Art Unit: 3747 Application/Control Number: 19/089,419 Page 28 Art Unit: 3747 Application/Control Number: 19/089,419 Page 29 Art Unit: 3747 Application/Control Number: 19/089,419 Page 30 Art Unit: 3747 Application/Control Number: 19/089,419 Page 31 Art Unit: 3747 Application/Control Number: 19/089,419 Page 32 Art Unit: 3747 Application/Control Number: 19/089,419 Page 33 Art Unit: 3747 Application/Control Number: 19/089,419 Page 34 Art Unit: 3747 Application/Control Number: 19/089,419 Page 35 Art Unit: 3747 Application/Control Number: 19/089,419 Page 36 Art Unit: 3747 Application/Control Number: 19/089,419 Page 37 Art Unit: 3747 Application/Control Number: 19/089,419 Page 38 Art Unit: 3747 Application/Control Number: 19/089,419 Page 39 Art Unit: 3747
Prosecution Insights