CTNF 19/401,031 CTNF 94804 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Information Disclosure Statement 2. The information disclosure statement (IDS) filled on 11/25/2025 and 05/21/2026 is being considered in the examination of this application. Drawings 3. The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “the riblet further comprises at least one fastener extending in a chordwise direction between fastener holes” in claim 2, the “eccentric bush” in claim 3 and the “leading edge nose portion” in claim 20 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. 06-22 AIA 4. The drawings are objected to because the upper instance of reference number “32” in FIG. 5A appears to be a typographical error in view of the specification and should be replaced with “30” which reflects the positioning of the fittings as disclosed in the specification and shown in FIG. 3 . Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Specification 06-11 AIA 5. The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA 6. Claim s 1, 12-15 and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities: a. Claim 1, lines 1-2: the term “comprising” should be rewritten as --comprising:-- and the limitations following the term should be entered on line 2, and separated by appropriate indentation such that the claim conforms with current U.S. practice. b. Claim 12: lines 1-2: the term “the fixed leading edge (FLE) assembly comprises” should be rewritten as --further comprising-- such that the claim conforms with current U.S. practice. c. Claim 13, line 1: the term “the fixed leading edge (FLE) assembly” should be rewritten as --the fixed leading edge assembly-- for the purpose of clarity. d. Claim 15, line 4: the term “the fixed leading edge (FLE) assembly” should be rewritten as --a fixed leading edge (FLE) assembly-- for the purpose of clarity e. Claim 19, line 1: the term “the airfoil structure” should be rewritten as --an airfoil structure-- for the purpose of clarity. f. Claim 19, line 3: the term “a forward spar” should be rewritten as --the forward spar-- which is positively recited in claim 15 . Appropriate correction is required. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation 07-30-03 AIA 7. 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. 07-30-06 8. 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. Claim 1: the “first aft mounting”, the “second aft mounting”, the “forward mounting” and the “second aft mounting”; b. Claim 14: the “second aft mounting” and the “forward mounting”. 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 9. 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 10. Claims 1, 4-7 and 12 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. 11. Claim 2, line 4, recites the limitation “the chordwise direction” which renders the claim indefinite, since the it is unclear as to exactly which direction is considered to be a chordwise direction with respect to the riblet. The claimed invention is not drawn to an airfoil structure or a wing, therefore it is unclear as to the exact arrangement that is being claimed. Similarly, claims 8 and 12 (i.e., span-wise direction) are unclear for the same reasons. 12. Claim 4, lines 1-3, recites the limitation “the first aft mounting of the first riblet portion is without a fastener hole prior to aligning the first riblet portion to the wing box assembly” which renders the claim indefinite, since it unclear as to whether the fastener hole is required or merely optionally required by the claimed invention. The claimed invention is drawn to an apparatus and not a method of manufacturing, therefore the fastener hole is either required or it is not required by the claim. Further clarification and appropriate correction is required. 13. Claim 5, lines 1-2, recites the limitation “the first riblet portion comprises first and second aft projections which are spaced apart in the thickness direction” which renders the claim indefinite, since no references have been claimed and established such that it is clear as to exactly which direction is considered to be the thickness direction. Furthermore, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the thickness direction” in the claim. Similarly, claim 6 is unclear for the same reasons. Further clarification and appropriate correction is required. 14. Claim 6, lines 1-2, recites the limitation “a plurality of first aft mountings” which renders the claim indefinite, since it is unclear as to whether the plurality includes the first aft mounting as recited in claim 1. Similarly, claim 7 is unclear for the same reasons. Further clarification and appropriate correction is required. 15. Claim 12, line 2, recites the limitation “a plurality of riblets” which renders the claim indefinite, since it is unclear to whether the plurality includes the riblet as recited in claim 1. Further clarification and appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 16. 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 17. Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 6, 9, 11, and 13-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kelly (US 2024/0174351 A1) . 18. Regarding Claim 1, Kelly discloses a riblet for a fixed leading edge (FLE) assembly (Abstract and para. [0044] and FIG. 2) comprising: a first riblet portion (20) and a second riblet portion (16) , wherein the first riblet portion comprises a first aft mounting (para. [0052]; portion of support 20 which accommodates fasteners 52 as seen in FIGS. 3-4) for attaching the first riblet portion to a wing box assembly (para. [0044] and FIGS. 3-4) , and a forward mounting (para. [0052]; other portions of support 20 which accommodate fasteners 50 and 52 as seen in FIG. 3) opposite the first aft mounting; and wherein the second riblet portion (16) comprises a second aft mounting (paras. [0046] and [0049; portions of structure 16 which accommodate fasteners 30/36) for attaching the second riblet portion to the forward mounting of the first riblet portion (FIGS. 9-10) . 19. Regarding Claim 2, Kelly discloses the riblet according to claim 1, wherein the forward mounting of the first riblet portion and the second aft mounting of the second riblet portion each comprise a fastener hole (paras. [0046], [0049] and [0052]; portions of structure 16 and support must comprise fasteners holes to accommodate respective the fasteners as seen in FIGS. 3-4) , and wherein the riblet further comprises at least one fastener extending in a chordwise direction between said fastener holes (FIG. 3) . 20. Regarding Claim 4, Kelly discloses the riblet according to claim 1, wherein the first aft mounting of the first riblet portion is without a fastener hole prior to aligning the first riblet portion to the wing box assembly (the portion of support 20 can be without a fastener hole prior to aligning the support 20 to a wing box assembly as seen in FIGS. 3-4) . 21. Regarding Claim 6, Kelly discloses the riblet according to claim 1, wherein the first riblet portion comprises a plurality of first aft mountings which are spaced apart in the thickness direction, and, optionally, wherein the plurality of first aft mountings lie on the same plane (para. [0052]; a plurality of portions that accommodate fatteners to fasten support 20 to spar 18 which lie on the same plane as seen in FIG. 4) . 22. Regarding Claim 9, Kelly discloses the riblet according to claim 1, wherein the riblet further comprises a second cavity formed between the first and second riblet portions, said second cavity being configured for receiving one or more aircraft sub-systems (para. [0053]; electric motor 29 positioned in a space between support 20 and structure 16, accordingly the space formed between the structure and support is structurally capable of receiving aircraft sub-systems as seen FIGS. 3 and 9-10) . 23. Regarding Claim 11, Kelly discloses a fixed leading edge (FLE) assembly (Abstract and FIG. 3) comprising: a riblet according to claim 1 (see the discussion above, regarding claim 1) ; and a D-nose cover which defines an aerodynamic surface of the fixed leading edge assembly (para. [0044]; slat 26 (misnumbered as 24) which by definition defines an aerodynamic surface of the fixed leading assembly as seen in FIG. 2, slat 26 is D-shaped) , wherein said D-nose cover is attached to the second riblet portion (slat 26 attached to a bottom portion of structure proximal to fastener 36 as seen in FIG. 2) . 24. Regarding Claim 13, Kelly discloses the riblet according to claim 1, wherein the D-nose cover is not directly connected to the first riblet portion (FIGS. 2-3) . 25. Regarding Claim 14, Kelly discloses a fixed leading edge (FLE) module comprising: a D-nose cover which defines an aerodynamic surface of the fixed leading edge (FLE) module (see the discussion above, regarding claim 11) ; and a second riblet portion comprising a second aft mounting for attaching to a forward mounting of a first riblet portion (see the discussion above, regarding claim 1) , wherein said D-nose cover is attached to the second riblet portion (see the discussion above, regarding claim 11) . 26. Regarding Claim 15, Kelly discloses an airfoil structure (10) , comprising: a wing box assembly having a forward spar (para. [0044]; spar 18 of a wing box as seen in FIGS. 1-4) and at least one airfoil cover (24) which defines an aerodynamic surface of the airfoil structure (para. [0044]; upper surface of 12 wing assembly 10 by definition defines an aerodynamic surface as seen in FIGS. 1-2) ; and the fixed leading edge (FLE) assembly according to claim 11 (see the discussion above, regarding claim 11) , wherein said fixed leading edge assembly is attached to the forward spar (18) via the first aft mounting of the first riblet portion (para. [0052]; via fasteners 52) . 27. Regarding Claim 16, Kelly discloses the airfoil structure according to claim 15, wherein the airfoil cover and D-nose cover together form a substantially flush aerodynamic surface (FIG. 2) . 28. Regarding Claim 17, Kelly discloses the airfoil structure according to claim 15, wherein the airfoil structure is an aircraft wing (FIG. 1) . 29. Regarding Claim 18, Kelly discloses an aircraft comprising the airfoil structure according to claim Kelly discloses the airfoil structure according to claim 15 (an aircraft comprising wing assembly 10 as seen in FIG. 1) . 07-15-aia AIA 30. Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Schplif et al. (US 2019/0002079 A1), hereinafter “Schlipf” . 31. Regarding Claim 14, Schlipf discloses a fixed leading edge (FLE) module (Schlipf Abstract and para. [0044]; leading edge member 301 as seen in FIGS. 3-4) comprising: a D-nose cover (305) which defines an aerodynamic surface of the fixed leading edge (FLE) module (301) ; and a second riblet portion (306) comprising a second aft mounting (311) for attaching to a forward mounting of a first riblet portion (FIG. 3) , wherein said D-nose cover is attached to the second riblet portion (FIG. 3) . 07-15-03-aia AIA 32. Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Li et al. (US 2017/0044681 A1), hereinafter “Li” . 33. Regarding Claim 20, Li discloses a riblet for an airfoil structure (Abstract and para. [0028]; leading edge guard 30 as seen in FIGS. 1 and 6) , comprising: a leading edge nose portion (42) ; a tail portion (42) configured to facilitate attachment of the leading edge nose portion to a leading edge spar of the airfoil structure (FIG. 6) ; and a joint line extending through a thickness of the riblet between the leading edge nose portion and the tail portion (para. [0033]; planar interface surface which is by definition a joint extends through a thickness of the guard 30 between fist half 42 and second half 62 as clearly seen in FIGS. 6-8) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 34. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 07-20-aia AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. 07-21-aia AIA 35. Claim (s) 3 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kelly (US 2024/0174351 A1), in view of Schplif et al. (US 2019/0002079 A1), hereinafter “Schlipf” . 36. Regarding Claim 3, Kelly discloses the riblet according to claim 2. Kelly is silent regarding at least one of the forward mounting and/or the second aft mounting comprises an eccentric bush for adjusting a position and/or orientation of the fastener hole with respect to the second aft mounting and/or the forward mounting. Schplif discloses a riblet for a fixed leading edge assembly (Schplif Abstract and para. [0044]; riblet 306 as seen in FIGS. 3-4) wherein at least one of the forward mounting and/or the second aft mounting comprises an eccentric bush for adjusting a position and/or orientation of the fastener hole with respect to the second aft mounting and/or the forward mounting (paras. [0045]-[0046] and [0061]-[0062]; eccentric bush 801 inserted into bore 331 defined by clevis 311 of rib 306 as well as tang 32 as seen in FIGS. 3-4 and 7-8) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Kelly as taught by Schplif such that at least one of the forward mounting and/or the second aft mounting comprises an eccentric bush for adjusting a position and/or orientation of the fastener hole with respect to the second aft mounting and/or the forward mounting in order compensate for a combined linear tolerance gap in the x and z direction between the fixed leading edge member and the wing box assembly (Schplif para. [0062]) . 37. Regarding Claim 12, Kelly discloses the fixed leading edge (FLE) assembly according to claim 11. Kelly is silent regarding the fixed leading edge (FLE) assembly comprises a plurality of riblets disposed at regular intervals in a span-wise direction along the fixed leading edge assembly. Schplif discloses a fixed leading edge assembly (Schlipf Abstract and para. [0044]; leading edge member 301 as seen in FIGS. 3-4) wherein the fixed leading edge (FLE) assembly comprises a plurality of riblets (306) disposed at regular intervals in a span-wise direction (FIG. 12) along the fixed leading edge assembly (301) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Kelly as taught by Schplif such that the fixed leading edge (FLE) assembly comprises a plurality of riblets disposed at regular intervals in a span-wise direction along the fixed leading edge assembly in order to increase the structural capacity of the fixed leading edge assembly, thereby enabling the leading edge assembly to withstand greater aerodynamic loads . 07-21-aia AIA 38. Claim (s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kelly (US 2024/0174351 A1), in view of McNaught et al. (Us 2019/0176960 A1), hereinafter “McNaught” . 39. Regarding Claim 8, Kelly discloses the riblet according to claim 1, wherein the second riblet portion is substantially C-shaped when viewed in a spanwise direction (FIG. 9) . Kelly is silent regarding the second riblet portion is substantially D-shaped when viewed in a spanwise direction. McNaught discloses a riblet for a fixed leading edge assembly (McNaught Abstract para. [0039]; leading rib 324 as seen in FIG. 3) wherein the second riblet portion is substantially D-shaped when viewed in a spanwise direction (rib 324 is substantially D-shaped as seen in FIG. 3) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Kelly as taught by McNaught such that wherein the second riblet portion is substantially D-shaped when viewed in a spanwise direction in order to increase the structural capacity of the riblet, thereby enabling the riblet to withstand greater aerodynamic loads . Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim s 5, 7, 10 and 19 are 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. Prior Art 07-96 The prior art made of record not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure: Peterson (US 12358607 B2) and Jones et al. (US 11807396 B2) individually disclose a method of manufacturing an airfoil structure including a drilling the airfoil structure and drilling the rib of the airfoil structure. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this or any earlier communication from the examiner should be directed to Examiner Arfan Sinaki, whose telephone number is 571-272-7185. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 10:00 am to 6:00 pm EST. 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, Joshua J. Michener can be reached at 571-272-1467. The fax number for the organization to which 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. /ARFAN Y. SINAKI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642 Application/Control Number: 19/401,031 Page 2 Art Unit: 3642 Application/Control Number: 19/401,031 Page 3 Art Unit: 3642 Application/Control Number: 19/401,031 Page 4 Art Unit: 3642 Application/Control Number: 19/401,031 Page 5 Art Unit: 3642 Application/Control Number: 19/401,031 Page 6 Art Unit: 3642 Application/Control Number: 19/401,031 Page 7 Art Unit: 3642 Application/Control Number: 19/401,031 Page 8 Art Unit: 3642 Application/Control Number: 19/401,031 Page 9 Art Unit: 3642 Application/Control Number: 19/401,031 Page 10 Art Unit: 3642 Application/Control Number: 19/401,031 Page 11 Art Unit: 3642 Application/Control Number: 19/401,031 Page 12 Art Unit: 3642 Application/Control Number: 19/401,031 Page 13 Art Unit: 3642 Application/Control Number: 19/401,031 Page 14 Art Unit: 3642 Application/Control Number: 19/401,031 Page 15 Art Unit: 3642
Prosecution Insights