CTNF 19/099,507 CTNF 95006 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. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation 07-30-03 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. 07-30-05 The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “ a state transition unit configured to cause the relay device in a sleep state to transition to a wake-up state when receiving a first wake-up request from a first in-vehicle device of the three or more in-vehicle devices” in claim 1 . The specification discloses “As shown in FIG. 2, the relay device 101 includes communication ports 51, a switch unit 52, a processing unit 53, and a storage unit 54” in [0041] and “Either or both of the switch unit 52 and the processing unit 53 are realized by, for example, processing circuitry including one or more processors. The storage unit 54 is, for example, a non-volatile memory included in the above processing circuitry. The processing unit 53 includes a determination unit 61, a state transition unit 62, and a sleep control unit 63.” The specification discloses that a state transition unit is included in a processing circuitry, which further includes one or more processors. However, the specification does not describe a corresponding structure regarding the claim limitation “a state transition unit.” For the purpose of the examination, examiner interprets the limitation “a state transition unit” as a processor or a software component. “ a sleep control unit configured to select a second in-vehicle device from among the in- vehicle devices other than the first in-vehicle device and transmit a second wake-up request to the second in-vehicle device to cause the second in-vehicle device to transition to the wake-up state” in claim 1 . The specification discloses “As shown in FIG. 2, the relay device 101 includes communication ports 51, a switch unit 52, a processing unit 53, and a storage unit 54” in [0041] and “Either or both of the switch unit 52 and the processing unit 53 are realized by, for example, processing circuitry including one or more processors. The storage unit 54 is, for example, a non-volatile memory included in the above processing circuitry. The processing unit 53 includes a determination unit 61, a state transition unit 62, and a sleep control unit 63.” The specification discloses that a sleep control unit is included in a processing circuitry, which further includes one or more processors. However, the specification does not describe a corresponding structure regarding the claim limitation “a sleep control unit.” For the purpose of the examination, examiner interprets the limitation “a sleep control unit” as a processor or a software component. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 1 - 5 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. Regarding claim 1 , claim limitations “ a state transition unit configured to cause the relay device in a sleep state to transition to a wake-up state…” and “ a sleep control unit configured to select a second in-vehicle device from among the in- vehicle devices other than the first in-vehicle device and transmit…” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. As discussed above, the specification describes that a state transition unit and a sleep control unit are included in a processing unit of a relay device in [0042]. The specification further describes that the processing unit includes one or more processors. However, the specification does not describe corresponding structures regarding the state transition unit and the sleep control unit. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. 07-34-23 Applicant may: (a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph; (b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or (c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)). If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either: (a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or (b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181. Regarding claims 2 - 5 , the claims 2 - 5 inherit the deficiency of the independent claim 1 , as discussed above. Thus, the claims 2 - 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). Claim 5 recites the limitation "wherein the correspondence information indicates a correspondence between the communication ports, the VLANs, and the PNCs " in the 3 rd line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, examiner interprets the limitation “the PNCs” as “PNCs.” Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – 07-08-aia AIA (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-12-aia AIA (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-15-03-aia AIA Claim (s) 1 , 6 , and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by HIRANO (United States Patent Application Publication US 2021/0009054), hereinafter HIRANO . Regarding claim 1 , HIRANO teaches a relay device to be used in an in-vehicle system that includes three or more in- vehicle devices, comprising: a state transition unit configured to cause the relay device in a sleep state to transition to a wake-up state when receiving a first wake-up request from a first in-vehicle device of the three or more in-vehicle devices ([0026] “Each of the first intermediate ECU 21 and the second intermediate ECU 22 includes an NM unit 29… The NM units 29 and 39 have the network management (NM) function described above, and perform control to switch the state of each ECU between the standby state in which operation is suppressed and the startup state in which various operations can be executed.” [0031] “The first intermediate ECU 21 receives the message. The NM unit 29 causes the first intermediate ECU 21 to transition from the standby state to the startup state in accordance with the instruction in the message to transition to the startup state.” [0039] “In step S102, the first inter mediate ECU 21 transitions from the standby state to the startup state in accordance with the standard of the NM function, regardless of the message received.” [0045] “a control program for the network system to be performed by the ECU having a processor and a memory and a computer-readable non-transitory storage medium that stores the control program, and a vehicle equipped with the network system, etc.” An upper ECU, which is interpreted as a first in-vehicle device, transmits a message to an intermediate ECU, which causes the first intermediate ECU to transition from a standby state to a startup state. Furthermore, as shown in FIG. 1, a network system of a vehicle includes a plurality of ECUs.) ; and a sleep control unit configured to select a second in-vehicle device from among the in- vehicle devices other than the first in-vehicle device ([0040] “In step S102, the first intermediate ECU 21 that has transitioned to the startup state determines whether it is necessary to start the subordinate first lower ECUs 31 based on the received message…This information may be information such as the IG ON described above, or may be information that more specifically specifies the first lower ECUs 31.” ) and transmit a second wake-up request to the second in-vehicle device to cause the second in-vehicle device to transition to the wake-up state ([0032] “The first intermediate ECU 21 closes the relay 28 to connect the power line 101 and the power line 201, and starts power supply from the power supply 10 to the first lower ECUs 31 via the first intermediate ECU 21.”) . Regarding claim(s) 6 , the claim(s) 6 is the method claim of the apparatus claim(s) 1 . The claim(s) 6 does(do) not further teach or define the limitation over the limitations recited in the rejected claims above. Therefore, HIRANO teaches all the limitations of the claim(s) 6 . Regarding claim(s) 7 , the claim(s) 7 are the computer program product to be used in a relay device to be used in an in-vehicle system that includes three or more in-vehicle devices, the computer program product comprising a non-transitory, machine-readable medium storing instructions claim of the apparatus claim(s) 1 . HIRANO further teaches the computer program product to be used in a relay device to be used in an in-vehicle system that includes three or more in-vehicle devices, the computer program product comprising a non-transitory, machine-readable medium storing instructions ([0045] “a control program for the network system to be performed by the ECU having a processor and a memory and a computer-readable non-transitory storage medium that stores the control program, and a vehicle equipped with the network system, etc.”) . The claim(s) 7 does(do) not further teach or define the limitation over the limitations recited in the rejected claims above. Therefore, HIRANO teaches all the limitations of the claim(s) 7 . 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HIRANO in view of NAKAGAWA et al . (United States Patent Application Publication US 2016/0065298), hereinafter NAKAGAWA . Regarding claim 2 , HIRANO teaches all the limitations of the relay device according to claim 1, as discussed above. HIRANO further teaches three or more communication ports to which the three or more in-vehicle devices are to be connected, respectively ([0024] “The upper ECU 11 and the first intermediate ECU 21 are connected by a communication line 111. The first intermediate ECU 21 and the first lower ECUs 31 are connected by a communication line (bus) 211. The upper ECU 11 and the second intermediate ECU 22 are connected by a communication line 112. The second intermediate ECU 22 and the second lower ECUs 32 are connected by a communication line (bus) 212...the Ethernet…standard…controller area network standard.”) . However, HIRANO does not explicitly teach a storage unit configured to store correspondence information indicating a correspondence between the communication ports and networks to which the in-vehicle devices belong, wherein the sleep control unit selects the second in-vehicle device based on the correspondence information. NAKAGAWA teaches a storage unit configured to store correspondence information indicating a correspondence between the communication ports and networks to which the in-vehicle devices belong, wherein the sleep control unit selects the second in-vehicle device based on the correspondence information ([0048] “when the port 41b receives the Ethernet communication frame including a MAC address of the ECU 20a as the destination MAC address, the switching hub 40 outputs the Ethernet communication frame to the port 41c, which is connected with the ECU 20a.” [0050] “according to a table described in FIG. 2A, the port 41a and the port 41b belong to the identical group, that is, the vehicle-outside connection group. The ports 41c-4lf belong to an in-vehicle connection group, which is different from the vehicle-outside connection group.” [0096] “when the ECU 20a corresponds to the communication target (that is, when the ECU 20 to be the communication target is the ECU 20a), the relay control portion 83 outputs the control signal that sets a grouping of the port 41 in the switching hub 40 as described in FIG. 2B, so that only the ECU 20a enables to perform the data communication with the outside tool 2.”) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teaching of HIRANO by modifying the teaching of NAKAGAWA of a storage unit configured to store correspondence information indicating a correspondence between the communication ports and networks to which the in-vehicle devices belong, wherein the sleep control unit selects the second in-vehicle device based on the correspondence information. They are all directed toward electronic control units in a vehicle. As recognized by NAKAGAWA, when a processing load on a relay apparatus increases, the communication speed may lower ([0009]) . By storing correspondence information indicating a correspondence between the communication ports and networks to which the in-vehicle devices belong, the communication speed can be improved. Therefore, it would be advantageous to incorporate the teaching of NAKAGAWA of storage unit configured to store correspondence information indicating a correspondence between the communication ports and networks to which the in-vehicle devices belong, wherein the sleep control unit selects the second in-vehicle device based on the correspondence information in order to improve the communication speed. Regarding claim 3 , HIRANO teaches all the limitations of the relay device according to claim 2 , as discussed above. NAKAGAWA further teaches wherein the correspondence information indicates a correspondence between the communication ports and VLANs (Virtual Local Area Networks), and the sleep control unit selects, as the second in-vehicle device, an in-vehicle device belonging to the same VLAN as the VLAN corresponding to the communication port to which the first in-vehicle device is connected, based on the correspondence information ([0049] “The switching hub 40 has a function referred to as a VLAN function. According to this function, on the basis of a table that groups the multiple ports 41, the switching hub 40 enables to relay the Ethernet communication frame among the ports 41 that belong to the identical group, and disables the relay of the Ethernet communication frame among the ports 41 that belong to different groups.”) . 07-22-aia AIA Claim (s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HIRANO in view of NAKAGAWA as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of SEO KANG WOON; PARK PIL YONG (KR 2020012991 A), hereinafter SEO . Regarding claim 4 , HIRANO in view of NAKAGAWA teaches all the limitations of the relay device according to claim 2 , as discussed above. However, HIRANO in view of NAKAGAWA does not teach wherein the correspondence information indicates a correspondence between the communication ports and PNCs (Partial Network Clusters), and the sleep control unit selects, as the second in-vehicle device, an in-vehicle device belonging to the same PNC as the PNC corresponding to the communication port to which the first in-vehicle device is connected, based on the correspondence information. SEO further teaches wherein the correspondence information indicates a correspondence between the communication ports and PNCs (Partial Network Clusters), and the sleep control unit selects, as the second in-vehicle device, an in-vehicle device belonging to the same PNC as the PNC corresponding to the communication port to which the first in-vehicle device is connected, based on the correspondence information (Page 3-4 “first, the storage unit 10 stores a control message (for example, an NM message) including a plurality of PNC (Partial Network Cluster) information configured for all ECUs provided in the vehicle… each PNC may include at least one ECU. For example, the first PNC may include all ECUs 300 provided in the vehicle, and the second PNC is related to power, charging, and starting of the vehicle. ECUs 310, 320, and 330 may be included, and each of the remaining PNCs (third PNC to 32 nd PNC) may include at least one or more ECUs 340 and 350 to be updated. Here, the second PNC includes a basic ECU that must maintain the network activation mode in order to update the software of the ECU, and the second PNC must be set to 1 when updating software of other ECUs other than the basic ECU.” Page 9 “A vehicle comprising a first PNC including all ECUs provided in the vehicle, a second PNC including an ECU related to power and charging and starting of the vehicle, and at least one third PNC including an ECU to be updated.”) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teaching HIRANO in view of NAKAGAWA by incorporating the teaching of SEO of wherein the correspondence information indicates a correspondence between the communication ports and PNCs (Partial Network Clusters), and the sleep control unit selects, as the second in-vehicle device, an in-vehicle device belonging to the same PNC as the PNC corresponding to the communication port to which the first in-vehicle device is connected, based on the correspondence information. They are all directed toward ECUs in a vehicle. As well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, a partial network cluster is a designated grouping of nodes or ECUs, specific ECUs can be powered on, which improves power consumptions. Therefore, it would be advantageous to incorporate the teaching of SEO of wherein the correspondence information indicates a correspondence between the communication ports and PNCs (Partial Network Clusters), and the sleep control unit selects, as the second in-vehicle device, an in-vehicle device belonging to the same PNC as the PNC corresponding to the communication port to which the first in-vehicle device is connected, based on the correspondence information. They are all directed toward ECUs in a vehicle in order to improve power consumption . Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim 5 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. 13-03-01 AIA The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: HIRANO teaches to transition an intermediate ECUs from the standby state to a startup state when receiving a message from an upper ECU. HIRANO further teaches that the intermediate ECUs to transmit messages to transition lower ECUs from the standby state to the startup state in accordance with the message. However, HIRANO does not teach “wherein the correspondence information indicates a correspondence between the communication ports, the VLANs, and the PNCs, and the sleep control unit preferentially selects, as the second in-vehicle device, an in-vehicle device belonging to the same PNC as the PNC corresponding to the communication port to which the first in-vehicle device is connected, over an in-vehicle device belonging to the same VLAN as the VLAN corresponding to the communication port to which the first in-vehicle device is connected.” NAKAGAWA teaches a table storing correspondence between ports and VLANs and to perform data communication by identifying a target ECU by setting a grouping of the ports and the target ECUs. However, NAKAGAWA does not teach “wherein the correspondence information indicates a correspondence between the communication ports, the VLANs, and the PNCs, and the sleep control unit preferentially selects, as the second in-vehicle device, an in-vehicle device belonging to the same PNC as the PNC corresponding to the communication port to which the first in-vehicle device is connected, over an in-vehicle device belonging to the same VLAN as the VLAN corresponding to the communication port to which the first in-vehicle device is connected.” SEO teaches a storage unit to store information to configure a plurality of PNC and the ECUs. However, SEO does not teach “wherein the correspondence information indicates a correspondence between the communication ports, the VLANs, and the PNCs, and the sleep control unit preferentially selects, as the second in-vehicle device, an in-vehicle device belonging to the same PNC as the PNC corresponding to the communication port to which the first in-vehicle device is connected, over an in-vehicle device belonging to the same VLAN as the VLAN corresponding to the communication port to which the first in-vehicle device is connected.” Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. HARADA et al . (United States Patent Application Publication US 2023/0231738) teaches a vehicle communication system including a gateway device to couple communication lines and perform a sleep wake-up operation by transmitting a wake-up request signal to switch one or more of the ECUs in view of electric power consumption of the battery. Kata et al . (United States Patent Application Publication US 2022/0242367) teaches a vehicle control system including an entry ECU to perform first authentication processing for access, a door control ECU to control locking and unlocking of a door and a central ECU. Kata further teaches to perform startup processing of the central ECU, the door control ECU when the entry ECU detects touch to door handle and authentication processing. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HYUN SOO KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-1768. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 5:30 pm. 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, Jaweed Abbaszadeh can be reached at (571)270-1640. 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. /HYUN SOO KIM/Examiner, Art Unit 2176 Application/Control Number: 19/099,507 Page 2 Art Unit: 2176 Application/Control Number: 19/099,507 Page 3 Art Unit: 2176 Application/Control Number: 19/099,507 Page 4 Art Unit: 2176 Application/Control Number: 19/099,507 Page 5 Art Unit: 2176 Application/Control Number: 19/099,507 Page 6 Art Unit: 2176 Application/Control Number: 19/099,507 Page 7 Art Unit: 2176 Application/Control Number: 19/099,507 Page 8 Art Unit: 2176 Application/Control Number: 19/099,507 Page 9 Art Unit: 2176 Application/Control Number: 19/099,507 Page 10 Art Unit: 2176 Application/Control Number: 19/099,507 Page 11 Art Unit: 2176 Application/Control Number: 19/099,507 Page 12 Art Unit: 2176 Application/Control Number: 19/099,507 Page 13 Art Unit: 2176 Application/Control Number: 19/099,507 Page 14 Art Unit: 2176 Application/Control Number: 19/099,507 Page 15 Art Unit: 2176 Application/Control Number: 19/099,507 Page 16 Art Unit: 2176 Application/Control Number: 19/099,507 Page 17 Art Unit: 2176 Application/Control Number: 19/099,507 Page 18 Art Unit: 2176 Application/Control Number: 19/099,507 Page 19 Art Unit: 2176 Application/Control Number: 19/099,507 Page 20 Art Unit: 2176 Application/Control Number: 19/099,507 Page 21 Art Unit: 2176
Prosecution Insights