CTNF 19/233,311 CTNF 95842 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 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 an abstract idea without significantly more: Claims 1 and 11 recite determining with a computing device or processor diameters and locations of the blood vessels in a subset of the ultrasound images. The limitation of determining diameters and locations of the blood vessels in the ultrasound images using either a computing device or a processor, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting, “computing device” or “processor” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “computing device” or “processor” language, “determining” in the context of the claim encompasses the user observing the ultrasound images and either mentally or by hand identifying the location of the blood vessels and their diameter within the images. 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. The claims additional recite determining a detection failure for one of the blood vessels in the ultrasound images using a computing device or processor, which is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting, “computing device” or “processor” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “computing device” or “processor” language, “determining” in the context of the claim encompasses the user observing the ultrasound images and either mentally or by hand identifying that the image does not contain a diameter or location of a blood vessel. Therefore the step of determining a detection failure is considered an abstract idea. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional steps of claims 1 and 11 are a receiving of ultrasound images step which amounts to data gathering recited at a high level of generality which is required to obtain the input data for the determining steps and the step of displaying an indicator in response to the detection failure which is considered insignificant post-solution activity recited at a high level of generality for displaying the outcome of the determining steps. Additional claim 1 recites a computing device and claim 11 recites a memory and a processor. The computing device, memory, and processor are considered to be merely generic components of an ultrasound system and do no more than link the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As noted above the additional elements are seen as merely generic components of an ultrasound system and/or amount to mere data gathering/display of data/results. Additionally, there is no improvement in the functioning of the computer or technological field, and there is no transformation of subject matter into a different state. For these reasons, the additional elements do not result in the claims, as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. Dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20 further limit the abstract idea of independent claims 1 and 11. When analyzed as a whole, these claims are held to be patent ineligible under 35 USC 101 because the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are not directed towards an abstract idea and do not sufficiently integrate the subject matter into a practical application or recite elements which constitute significantly more than the abstract ideas identified above. the dependent claims are directed toward additional elements which encompass abstract ideas. In this instance, dependent claims recite the following limitations: detecting one or more blood vessels, calculating a likelihood values indicating a level of confidence and comparing the likelihood value to a threshold in claims 9 and 19 and tracking the blood vessels between images in claims 10 and 20. The cited limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, encompass mental processes which can be performed in the mind or by a human using a pen and a paper (e.g. observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion). In other words, a human can reasonably detect a blood vessel, calculate a likelihood value and compare the likelihood value to a threshold. Additionally, a human can reasonably track blood vessels between images by identifying the location of the vessels within each image. Examiner notes that with the exception of generic computer-implemented steps (e.g. the computing device or processor), there is nothing in the claims that preclude the limitations from being performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper, thus the claimed limitation is considered to be directed towards a judicial exception. Claims 2 and 12-13 recite the additional elements of a touchscreen for providing a user selection of the indicator which is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to merely outputting data/results. Claims 3 recites the additional element of a neural network which is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claims 4-8 and 14-18 further limit the displaying by providing examples of how the data is being displayed. The claims doe not recite any additional elements. The dependent claims include not additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Additionally, there is no improvement in the function of the computer or technological field, and there is no transformation of subject matter into a different state. 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claims 1 and 11 recite the limitation “displaying…an indicator of the diameter and the location of the one of the blood vessels in the one of the ultrasound images” which is considered indefinite. It is not clear to the examiner how an indication of the location and diameter of the one of the blood vessels of the one of the ultrasound images can be displayed when it has been previously determined that the one of the ultrasound images does not have a location or diameter of the blood vessel. For the purpose of examination and this office action the limitation is being interpreted as the indicator represents an estimated diameter and location of the one of the blood vessels that is estimated based on the diameters and locations of the blood vessels in the subset of the ultrasound images. Claims dependent upon the rejected claims above, but not directly addressed, are also rejected because they inherit the indefiniteness of the claim(s) they respectively depend upon. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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-aia AIA Claim(s) 1, 4, 8, 10-11, 18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being unpatentable by Nakaya (US 20080269605) . Regarding claim 1, Nakaya teaches a method implemented by a computing device (figs. 3 and 7 disclose a method implemented by the apparatus of fig. 1 which is considered the computing device) , the method comprising: receiving ultrasound images that include blood vessels ([0042] discloses receiving ultrasonic images. [0054] discloses the images contain blood vessels) ; determining, with the computing device, diameters and locations of the blood vessels in a subset of the ultrasound images ([0068] discloses calculating the blood vessel diameter. [0096] further discloses estimating the position of a vessel within the images) ; determining a detection failure for one of the blood vessels in one of the ultrasound images that is not included in the subset ([0090]-[0092] discloses determining the blood vessel cannot be observed (detection failure) in the newest ultrasonic image) , the detection failure indicating an absence of a diameter or a location being determined by the computing device for the one of the blood vessels in the one of the ultrasound images ([0090]-[0092] discloses the detection failure indicates the absence of a diameter and position of the blood vessel within the image) ; and displaying, in the one of the ultrasound images and responsive to the determining the detection failure, an indicator of the diameter and the location of the one of the blood vessels in the one of the ultrasound images ([0102] discloses estimating the position of the vessel in the newest ultrasonic image and displaying an indication (V5) of the vessel as shown in fig. 10) , the indicator based on the diameters and the locations determined by the computing device for the subset of the ultrasound images ([0100]-[0102] disclose the indicator V5 is generated based on the diameters and locations determined for the previous images (subset)) . Regarding claim 11, Nakaya teaches an ultrasound system ([0036] ultrasonic diagnostic apparatus 1 in fig. 1) , comprising: a memory (storage unit 23 in fig. 1) ; and one or more processors coupled to the memory (the electronic circuitry of the system 1 in fig. 1) , wherein the one or more processors are configured to: receive ultrasound images that include blood vessels; determine diameters and locations of the blood vessels in a subset of the ultrasound images ([0068] discloses calculating the blood vessel diameter. [0096] further discloses estimating the position of a vessel within the images) ; determine a detection failure for one of the blood vessels in one of the ultrasound images that is not included in the subset ([0090]-[0092] discloses determining the blood vessel cannot be observed (detection failure) in the newest ultrasonic image) , the detection failure indicating an absence of a diameter or a location being determined by the one or more processors for the one of the blood vessels in the one of the ultrasound images ([0090]-[0092] discloses the detection failure indicates the absence of a diameter and position of the blood vessel within the image) ; and display, in the one of the ultrasound images and responsive to the determining the detection failure, an indicator of the diameter and the location of the one of the blood vessels in the one of the ultrasound images ([0102] discloses estimating the position of the vessel in the newest ultrasonic image and displaying an indication (V5) of the vessel as shown in fig. 10) , the indicator based on the diameters and the locations determined by the one or more processors for the subset of the ultrasound images ([0100]-[0102] disclose the indicator V5 is generated based on the diameters and locations determined for the previous images (subset)) . Regarding claim 4, Nakaya teaches the method of claim 1, as set forth above. Nakaya further teaches the displaying includes displaying the indicator for the one of the blood vessels in a first format and displaying an additional indicator for an additional blood vessel of the blood vessels in a second format to indicate the detection failure of the one of the blood vessels (fig. 10 shows displaying the indicator for the one of the blood vessels in a first format V5 and an additional indicator for an additional blood vessel in a second format V4) . Regarding claims 8 and 18, Nakaya teaches the method of claim 1 and apparatus of claim 11, as set forth above. Nakaya further teaches the one of the ultrasound images is a current image that is subsequent to a previous ultrasound image in the subset of the ultrasound images ([0094], [0100]-[0102] and fig. 7 disclose the one of the ultrasound images is a newest (current) image that is subsequent to a previous image) , and wherein the indicator is a first indicator that is superimposed on the current image that has a first shape and a first outline, and a second indicator that is displayed on the previous ultrasound image has a second shape that is similar to the first shape and a second outline that is different from the first outline to indicate the detection failure (figs. 9-10 show that the first indicator V5 is superimposed on the current image in a first shape and a first outline and a second indicator V3 is displayed on the previous image and has a second shape similar to the first shape and an outline that is different from the first outline) . Regarding claims 10 and 20, Nakaya teaches the method of claim 1 and apparatus of claim 11, as set forth above. Nakaya further teaches tracking the blood vessels between images in the subset of the ultrasound images to identify the same detected blood vessel in the images ([0077] and fig. 3 disclose that in step SA9 the position of the venous vessel is determined and the diameter is calculated for each new image within the scan. Thereby tracking the same venous vessel throughout the scan) . 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 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakaya in view of Jung et al. (US 20150005630, hereinafter Jung) . Regarding claim 2, Nakaya teaches the method of claim 1, as set forth above. Nakaya does not specifically teach receiving a user selection via a touchscreen of the computing device proximate to the indicator; disabling, responsive to the receiving the user selection, the displaying of the indicator; receiving an additional user selection via the touchscreen of the computing device proximate to the location indicated by the indicator; and enabling, responsive to the receiving the additional user selection, the displaying of the indicator. However, Jung in a similar field of endeavor teaches receiving a user selection via a touchscreen of the computing device proximate to the indicator; disabling, responsive to the receiving the user selection, the displaying of the indicator; receiving an additional user selection via the touchscreen of the computing device proximate to the location indicated by the indicator; and enabling, responsive to the receiving the additional user selection, the displaying of the indicator ([0190] discloses the user provides a touch input in order to delete (disable) the annotation (indicator). [0196] discloses the user providing an additional touch input in order to enable the annotation to be displayed on the screen. [0128] discloses the screen is a touch screen) . 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 method disclosed by Nakaya to receive a user selection via a touchscreen of the computing device proximate to the indicator; disabling, responsive to the receiving the user selection, the displaying of the indicator; receiving an additional user selection via the touchscreen of the computing device proximate to the location indicated by the indicator; and enabling, responsive to the receiving the additional user selection, the displaying of the indicator in order to allow for quicker review of the image by the user, as recognized by Jung ([0007]). Regarding claim 12, Nakaya teaches the system of claim 11, as set forth above. Nakaya does not specifically teach the one or more processors are further configured to: receive a user selection via a touchscreen of the computing device proximate to the indicator; and disable, responsive to the receiving the user selection, the displaying of the indicator. However, Jung in a similar field of endeavor teaches receive a user selection via a touchscreen of the computing device proximate to the indicator; and disable, responsive to the receiving the user selection, the displaying of the indicator ([0190] discloses the user provides a touch input in order to delete (disable) the annotation (indicator). [0128] discloses the screen is a touch screen) . 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 processor disclosed by Nakaya to have the one or more processors are further configured to: receive a user selection via a touchscreen of the computing device proximate to the indicator; and disable, responsive to the receiving the user selection, the displaying of the indicator in order to allow for quicker review of the image by the user, as recognized by Jung ([0007]). Regarding claim 13, Nakaya in view of Jung teaches the system of claim 12, as set forth above. Jung further teaches the one or more processors are further configured to: receive an additional user selection via the touchscreen of the computing device proximate to the location indicated by the indicator; and enable, responsive to the receiving the additional user selection, the displaying of the indicator. ([0196] discloses the user provides an additional touch input in order to enable the annotation to be displayed on the screen. [0128] discloses the screen is a touch screen) . 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 processor disclosed by Nakaya in view of Jung to have the one or more processors are further configured to: receive an additional user selection via the touchscreen of the computing device proximate to the location indicated by the indicator; and enable, responsive to the receiving the additional user selection, the displaying of the indicator. in order to allow for quicker review of the image by the user, as recognized by Jung ([0007]). Regarding claim 14, Nakaya in view of Jung teaches the system of claim 12, as set forth above. Nakaya further teaches the displaying includes displaying the indicator for the one of the blood vessels in a first format and displaying an additional indicator for an additional blood vessel of the blood vessels in a second format to indicate the detection failure of the one of the blood vessels (fig. 10 shows displaying the indicator for the one of the blood vessels in a first format V5 and an additional indicator for an additional blood vessel in a second format V4) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakaya in view of Min et al. (US 20210209757, hereinafter Min) . Regarding claim 3, Nakaya teaches the method of claim 1, as set forth above. Nakaya does not specifically teach the computing device comprises a neural network. However, Min in a similar field of endeavor teaches the computing device comprises a neural network ([0127] discloses using a convolutional neural network to identify the presence of vessels) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the computing device of Nakaya for the neural network of Min because it amounts to simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain the predictable results of identifying the presence of vessels within a medical image . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakaya in view of Merritt (US 20190282199, hereinafter Merritt) . Regarding claim 5, Nakaya teaches the method of claim 4, as set forth above. Nakaya does not specifically teach the first format of the indicator includes a dashed container and the second format of the additional indication includes a solid container. However, Merritt in a similar field of endeavor teaches the first format of the indicator includes a dashed container and the second format of the additional container includes a solid container ([0062] and fig. 7 disclose a first indicator 522 includes a dashed line and a second indicator 520 includes a solid line) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the indicator containers of Nakaya for the dashed and solid containers of Merritt because it amounts to simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain the predictable results of indicating the vessel on the display . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakaya in view of Burkholz et al. (US 20150209113, hereinafter Burkholz) . Regarding claim 6, Nakaya teaches the method of claim 4, as set forth above. Nakaya does not specifically teach the first format of the indicator includes a first color and the second format of the additional indication includes a second color. However, Burkholz in a similar field of endeavor teaches the first format of the indicator includes a first color and the second format of the additional indication includes a second color ([0089] discloses color coding the different size veins in different colors) . 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 method of Nakaya to have the first format of the indicator includes a first color and the second format of the additional indication includes a second color in order to differentiate between the vessels, as recognized by Burkholz ([0089]). Regarding claim 7, Nakaya in view of Burkholz teaches the method of claim 6, as set forth above. Nakaya further discloses displaying a color that does not indicate a standard catheter size (figs. 8-9 show the artery being displayed in a color which does not indicate a catheter size) . Burkholz further teaches the second color corresponds to a standard color representing a catheter size ([0089] discloses displaying the veins in different colors based on their diameter and using the colors to select an appropriately sized catheter. [0016] “the virtual trace is color-coded to signify a preferred catheter gauge for insertion”) . 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 method of Nakaya in view of Burkholz to have the second color correspond to a standard color representing a catheter size in order to assist in selecting the correct catheter, as recognized by Burkholz ([0016]) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 9 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakaya in view of Bedi et al. (US 20210045710, hereinafter Bedi) . Regarding claims 9 and 19, Nakaya teaches the method of claim 1 and system of claim 11, as set forth above. Nakaya further teaches detecting one or more of the blood vessels from the ultrasound images [0096] further discloses estimating the position of a vessel within the images . Nakaya does not specifically teach calculating a likelihood value indicating a level of confidence of the detecting for each of the one or more blood vessels; and comparing the likelihood value to a threshold to determine the detection failure. However, Bedi in a similar field of endeavor teaches calculating a likelihood value indicating a level of confidence of the detecting for each of the one or more blood vessels; and comparing the likelihood value to a threshold to determine the detection failure ([0065] discloses determining a confidence interval (value) that the detected vessel of interest is in fact a vessel of interest and removes the detection based on a comparison with a specific threshold, thereby determining a detection failure when the detected vessel of interest is not an actual vessel of interest) . 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 method of Nakaya to have calculated a likelihood value indicating a level of confidence of the detecting for each of the one or more blood vessels; and compared the likelihood value to a threshold to determine the detection failure in order to improve the detection result, as recognized by Bedi ([0065]-[0066]) . 07-22-aia AIA Claim (s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakaya in view of Jung as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Merritt (US 20190282199, hereinafter Merritt) . Regarding claim 15, Nakaya in view of Jung teaches the system of claim 14, as set forth above. Nakaya in view of Jung does not specifically teach the first format of the indicator includes a dashed container and the second format of the additional indication includes a solid container. However, Merritt in a similar field of endeavor teaches the first format of the indicator includes a dashed container and the second format of the additional container includes a solid container ([0062] and fig. 7 disclose a first indicator 522 includes a dashed line and a second indicator 520 includes a solid line) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the indicator containers of Nakaya for the dashed and solid containers of Merritt because it amounts to simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain the predictable results of indicating the vessel on the display . 07-22-aia AIA Claim (s) 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakaya in view of Jung as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Burkholz et al. (US 20150209113, hereinafter Burkholz) . Regarding claim 16, Nakaya in view of Jung teaches the system of claim 14, as set forth above. Nakaya in view of Jung does not specifically teach the first format of the indicator includes a first color and the second format of the additional indication includes a second color. However, Burkholz in a similar field of endeavor teaches the first format of the indicator includes a first color and the second format of the additional indication includes a second color ([0089] discloses color coding the different size veins in different colors) . 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 system of Nakaya in view of Jung to have the first format of the indicator includes a first color and the second format of the additional indication includes a second color in order to differentiate between the vessels, as recognized by Burkholz ([0089]). Regarding claim 17, Nakaya in view of Jung and Burkholz teaches the method of claim 16, as set forth above. Nakaya further discloses displaying a color that does not indicate a standard catheter size (figs. 8-9 show the artery being displayed in a color which does not indicate a catheter size) . Burkholz further teaches the second color corresponds to a standard color representing a catheter size ([0089] discloses displaying the veins in different colors based on their diameter and using the colors to select an appropriately sized catheter. [0016] “the virtual trace is color-coded to signify a preferred catheter gauge for insertion”) . 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 system of Nakaya in view of Jung and Burkholz to have the second color correspond to a standard color representing a catheter size in order to assist in selecting the correct catheter, as recognized by Burkholz ([0016]). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW BEGEMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4744. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30-5:00. 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, Keith Raymond can be reached at 5712701790. 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. /ANDREW W BEGEMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3798 Application/Control Number: 19/233,311 Page 2 Art Unit: 3798 Application/Control Number: 19/233,311 Page 3 Art Unit: 3798 Application/Control Number: 19/233,311 Page 4 Art Unit: 3798 Application/Control Number: 19/233,311 Page 5 Art Unit: 3798 Application/Control Number: 19/233,311 Page 6 Art Unit: 3798 Application/Control Number: 19/233,311 Page 7 Art Unit: 3798 Application/Control Number: 19/233,311 Page 8 Art Unit: 3798 Application/Control Number: 19/233,311 Page 9 Art Unit: 3798 Application/Control Number: 19/233,311 Page 10 Art Unit: 3798 Application/Control Number: 19/233,311 Page 11 Art Unit: 3798 Application/Control Number: 19/233,311 Page 12 Art Unit: 3798 Application/Control Number: 19/233,311 Page 13 Art Unit: 3798 Application/Control Number: 19/233,311 Page 14 Art Unit: 3798 Application/Control Number: 19/233,311 Page 15 Art Unit: 3798 Application/Control Number: 19/233,311 Page 16 Art Unit: 3798 Application/Control Number: 19/233,311 Page 17 Art Unit: 3798 Application/Control Number: 19/233,311 Page 18 Art Unit: 3798 Application/Control Number: 19/233,311 Page 19 Art Unit: 3798
Prosecution Insights