CTNF 19/153,636 CTNF 81888 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. Remarks Claims 10-17 are pending. Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim s 1 and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities: As per claim 1, line 9: “replay” should be “reply”. As per claim 17, line 9: “replay” should be “reply” . Appropriate correction is required. 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. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites “An information providing apparatus comprising: a processor to execute a program, and a memory to store the program which, when executed by the processor, performs processes of, acquiring input information input by a user; constructing a providing form matching a reply form required by the user for multimedia information including at least one of text, images, and sounds; and providing, to the user, provided information created based on a candidate for a reply to the user and the constructed providing form, the candidate for the replay being prepared based on a result of analysis of the input information and a result of analysis of the multimedia information”. The limitations of “ An information providing apparatus comprising: a processor to execute a program, and a memory to store the program which, when executed by the processor , performs processes of, acquiring input information input by a user ; constructing a providing form matching a reply form required by the user for multimedia information including at least one of text, images, and sounds; and providing, to the user, provided information created based on a candidate for a reply to the user and the constructed providing form, the candidate for the replay being prepared based on a result of analysis of the input information and a result of analysis of the multimedia information”, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “An information providing apparatus comprising: a processor to execute a program, and a memory to store the program”, nothing in the claim precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites an additional element – using “An information providing apparatus comprising: a processor to execute a program, and a memory to store the program” to perform the claimed steps. The “information providing apparatus comprising: a processor to execute a program, and a memory to store the program” in these steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as “An information providing apparatus comprising: a processor to execute a program, and a memory to store the program” performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The claim also recites the additional elements of “acquiring input information input by a user” and “providing, to the user, provided information” that are the insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering and/or output, and can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using “An information providing apparatus comprising: a processor to execute a program, and a memory to store the program” to perform the claimed steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The claim also recites the additional elements of “acquiring input information input by a user” and “providing, to the user, provided information” that are the insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering and/or output, and can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “ The information providing apparatus according to claim 10, wherein the provided information is created by selecting, from the candidate for the reply, the multimedia information matching the constructed providing form and inputting the selected multimedia information into the providing form, and the created provided information is provided to the user ”. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim also recites the additional elements of “the created provided information is provided to the user” that are the insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering and/or output, and can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim also recites the additional elements of “the created provided information is provided to the user” that are the insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering and/or output, and can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “ The information providing apparatus according to claim 10, wherein a structure of the providing form is constructed from information relating to a preference of the user”. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “ The information providing apparatus according to claim 12, wherein the information relating to the preference of the user input by the user via a keyboard is acquired, and the input information input by the user via the keyboard is acquired ”. The “keyboard” is a generic computer component. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim also recites the additional elements of “input by the user via a keyboard is acquired, and the input information input by the user via the keyboard is acquired” that are the insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering and/or output, and can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim also recites the additional elements of “input by the user via a keyboard is acquired, and the input information input by the user via the keyboard is acquired” that are the insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering and/or output, and can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “ The information providing apparatus according to claim 10, wherein the providing form is constructed to preferentially include information relating to use of the provided information by the user”. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “The information providing apparatus according to claim 14, wherein the providing form is constructed to preferentially include information frequently used by the user”. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05. Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites “An information providing method comprising: constructing a providing form to provide information to a user so that the providing form matches a reply form required by the user; and providing, to the user, provided information created based on the providing form”. The limitations of “An information providing method comprising: constructing a providing form to provide information to a user so that the providing form matches a reply form required by the user; and providing, to the user, provided information created based on the providing form”, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the additional elements of “providing, to the user, provided information” that are the insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering and/or output, and can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim recites the additional elements of “providing, to the user, provided information” that are the insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering and/or output, and can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05. Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites “An information receiving apparatus comprising: a processor to execute a program, and a memory to store the program which, when executed by the processor, performs processes of, receiving input information input by a user; constructing a providing form matching a reply form required by the user for multimedia information including at least one of text, images, and sounds; and providing, to the user, provided information created based on a candidate for a reply to the user and the constructed providing form, the candidate for the replay being prepared based on a result of analysis of the input information and a result of analysis of the multimedia information”. The limitations of “ An information receiving apparatus comprising: a processor to execute a program, and a memory to store the program which, when executed by the processor, performs processes of, receiving input information input by a user ; constructing a providing form matching a reply form required by the user for multimedia information including at least one of text, images, and sounds; and providing, to the user, provided information created based on a candidate for a reply to the user and the constructed providing form, the candidate for the replay being prepared based on a result of analysis of the input information and a result of analysis of the multimedia information”, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “An information receiving apparatus comprising: a processor to execute a program, and a memory to store the program”, nothing in the claim precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites an additional element – using “An information receiving apparatus comprising: a processor to execute a program, and a memory to store the program” to perform the claimed steps. The “information receiving apparatus comprising: a processor to execute a program, and a memory to store the program” in these steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as “An information receiving apparatus comprising: a processor to execute a program, and a memory to store the program” performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The claim also recites the additional elements of “receiving input information input by a user” and “providing, to the user, provided information” that are the insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering and/or output, and can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using “An information receiving apparatus comprising: a processor to execute a program, and a memory to store the program” to perform the claimed steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The claim also recites the additional elements of “receiving input information input by a user” and “providing, to the user, provided information” that are the insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering and/or output, and can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05. 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. 07-23-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 10-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoffman et al. (‘ Hoffman ’ hereinafter) (Publication Number 20050144133) in view of Cotter et al. (‘ Cotter ’ hereinafter) (Publication Number 20080201326) . As per claim 10, Hoffman teaches An information providing apparatus comprising: (see abstract and background) a processor to execute a program, and a memory to store the program which, when executed by the processor, performs processes of, (paragraphs [0021]-[0022]) acquiring input information input by a user ; constructing a providing form matching a reply form required by the user for multimedia information including at least one of text, images, and sounds; (user-customization commands governing display or presentation include controlling the organization and prioritization of content such that text, audio and graphics are displayed according to a user’s pre-determined preferences, paragraph [0198], where users customization commands reads on the claimed reply form required by the user, and the display according to user’s pre-determined preferences reads on the claimed construction of a providing for matching the reply form) and providing, to the user, provided information created based on a candidate for a reply to the user and the constructed providing form, the candidate for the replay being prepared based on a result of analysis of the input information and a result of analysis of the multimedia information. (customization commands governing display or presentation include controlling the organization and prioritization of content such that text, audio and graphics are displayed according to a user’s pre-determined preferences, paragraph [0198]). Hoffman does not explicitly indicate “acquiring input information input by a user”. However, Cotter discloses “acquiring input information input by a user” (user’s search request, paragraph [0016]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Hoffman and Cotter because using the steps claimed would have given those skilled in the art the tools to improve the invention by providing a search utility that can retrieve, package and present search results in an efficient and user-friendly fashion (see Cotter , paragraph [0016]). This gives the user the advantage of having combinations of views or perspectives with which to access information in a more useful and intuitive fashion. As per claim 11, Hoffman teaches the provided information is created by selecting, from the candidate for the reply, the multimedia information matching the constructed providing form and inputting the selected multimedia information into the providing form, and the created provided information is provided to the user. (text, audio and graphics are displayed according to a user’s pre-determined preferences, paragraph [0198]) As per claim 12, Hoffman teaches a structure of the providing form is constructed from information relating to a preference of the user. (user’s pre-determined preferences, paragraph [0198]) As per claim 13, Hoffman does not explicitly indicate “the information relating to the preference of the user input by the user via a keyboard is acquired, and the input information input by the user via the keyboard is acquired”. However, Cotter discloses “the information relating to the preference of the user input by the user via a keyboard is acquired, and the input information input by the user via the keyboard is acquired” (paragraph [0057]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Hoffman and Cotter because using the steps claimed would have given those skilled in the art the tools to improve the invention by providing a search utility that can retrieve, package and present search results in an efficient and user-friendly fashion (see Cotter , paragraph [0016]). This gives the user the advantage of having combinations of views or perspectives with which to access information in a more useful and intuitive fashion. As per claim 14, Hoffman does not explicitly indicate “the providing form is constructed to preferentially include information relating to use of the provided information by the user”. However, Cotter discloses “the providing form is constructed to preferentially include information relating to use of the provided information by the user” (paragraph [0087]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Hoffman and Cotter because using the steps claimed would have given those skilled in the art the tools to improve the invention by providing a search utility that can retrieve, package and present search results in an efficient and user-friendly fashion (see Cotter , paragraph [0016]). This gives the user the advantage of having combinations of views or perspectives with which to access information in a more useful and intuitive fashion. As per claim 15, Hoffman does not explicitly indicate “the providing form is constructed to preferentially include information frequently used by the user”. However, Cotter discloses “the providing form is constructed to preferentially include information frequently used by the user” (paragraph [0089]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Hoffman and Cotter because using the steps claimed would have given those skilled in the art the tools to improve the invention by providing a search utility that can retrieve, package and present search results in an efficient and user-friendly fashion (see Cotter , paragraph [0016]). This gives the user the advantage of having combinations of views or perspectives with which to access information in a more useful and intuitive fashion. As per claim 16, This claim is rejected on grounds corresponding to the reasons given above for rejected claim 10 and is similarly rejected. As per claim 17, This claim is rejected on grounds corresponding to the reasons given above for rejected claim 10 and is similarly rejected. Conclusion 07-101 Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAY A MORRISON whose telephone number is (571)272-7112. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 8:00 am - 4:00 pm ET. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Trujillo K James, can be reached at telephone number (571)272-3677. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center and Private PAIR for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). 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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form. /JAY A MORRISON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2151 Application/Control Number: 19/153,636 Page 2 Art Unit: 2151 Application/Control Number: 19/153,636 Page 4 Art Unit: 2151 Application/Control Number: 19/153,636 Page 5 Art Unit: 2151 Application/Control Number: 19/153,636 Page 6 Art Unit: 2151 Application/Control Number: 19/153,636 Page 7 Art Unit: 2151 Application/Control Number: 19/153,636 Page 8 Art Unit: 2151 Application/Control Number: 19/153,636 Page 9 Art Unit: 2151 Application/Control Number: 19/153,636 Page 10 Art Unit: 2151 Application/Control Number: 19/153,636 Page 11 Art Unit: 2151 Application/Control Number: 19/153,636 Page 12 Art Unit: 2151 Application/Control Number: 19/153,636 Page 13 Art Unit: 2151 Application/Control Number: 19/153,636 Page 14 Art Unit: 2151 Application/Control Number: 19/153,636 Page 16 Art Unit: 2151 Application/Control Number: 19/153,636 Page 17 Art Unit: 2151 Application/Control Number: 19/153,636 Page 18 Art Unit: 2151 Application/Control Number: 19/153,636 Page 19 Art Unit: 2151
Prosecution Insights