www.uspto.gov
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and TrademarkOffice
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`
`17/695,361
`
`03/15/2022
`
`HIROSHI YAHATA
`
`P65860
`
`8800
`
`GREENBLUM & BERNSTEIN,P.L.C.
`1950 ROLAND CLARKE PLACE
`RESTON, VA 20191
`
`TRAN, LIEN THUY
`
`ART UNIT
`
`1793
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`03/28/2023
`
`ELECTRONIC
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`Thetime period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
`following e-mail address(es):
`
`gbpatent @ gbpatent.com
`greenblum.bernsteinplc @ gmail.com
`
`PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`

`

`Office Action Summary
`
`Application No.
`17/695, 361
`Examiner
`LIEN T TRAN
`
`Applicant(s)
`YAHATAetal.
`Art Unit
`1793
`
`AIA (FITF) Status
`Yes
`
`-- The MAILING DATEof this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address --
`Period for Reply
`
`A SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD FOR REPLYIS SET TO EXPIRE 3 MONTHS FROM THE MAILING
`DATE OF THIS COMMUNICATION.
`Extensions of time may be available underthe provisions of 37 CFR 1.136(a). In no event, however, may a reply betimely filed after SIX (6) MONTHSfrom the mailing
`date of this communication.
`If NO period for reply is specified above, the maximum statutory period will apply and will expire SIX (6) MONTHSfrom the mailing date of this communication.
`-
`- Failure to reply within the set or extended period for reply will, by statute, cause the application to become ABANDONED (35 U.S.C. § 133).
`Any reply received by the Office later than three months after the mailing date of this communication, evenif timely filed, may reduce any earned patent term
`adjustment. See 37 CFR 1.704(b).
`
`Status
`
`
`
`1) Responsive to communication(s) filed on 12/13/22.
`C} A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/werefiled on
`
`2a)() This action is FINAL. 2b)¥)This action is non-final.
`3)02 An election was madeby the applicant in responseto a restriction requirement set forth during the interview
`on
`; the restriction requirement and election have been incorporated into this action.
`4)\0) Since this application is in condition for allowance except for formal matters, prosecution as to the merits is
`closed in accordance with the practice under Exparte Quayle, 1935 C.D. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`Disposition of Claims*
`1-19 is/are pending in the application.
`)
`Claim(s)
`5a) Of the above claim(s) ___ is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`Cj} Claim(s)
`is/are allowed.
`Claim(s) 1-19 is/are rejected.
`S)
`) © Claim(s)___is/are objected to.
`Cj) Claim(s
`are subjectto restriction and/or election requirement
`)
`S)
`* If any claims have been determined allowable, you maybeeligible to benefit from the Patent Prosecution Highway program at a
`participating intellectual property office for the corresponding application. For more information, please see
`http://Awww.uspto.gov/patents/init_events/pph/index.jsp or send an inquiry to PPHfeedback@uspto.gov.
`
`) )
`
`Application Papers
`10) The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`11)0) The drawing(s) filedon__ is/are: a)(J accepted or b)( objected to by the Examiner.
`Applicant may not request that any objection to the drawing(s) be held in abeyance. See 37 CFR 1.85(a).
`Replacement drawing sheet(s) including the correction is required if the drawing(s) is objected to. See 37 CFR 1.121 (d).
`
`Priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119
`12)[VM. Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d)or (f).
`Certified copies:
`c)Z None ofthe:
`b)() Some**
`a) All
`1.{¥] Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`2.1) Certified copies of the priority documents have beenreceived in Application No.
`3.1.) Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been receivedin this National Stage
`application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).
`* See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received.
`
`Attachment(s)
`
`1)
`
`Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
`
`Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08a and/or PTO/SB/08b)
`2)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date 09/27/2022,03/15/2022,
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`3)
`
`(LJ Interview Summary (PTO-413)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date
`4) (J Other:
`
`PTOL-326 (Rev. 11-13)
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Part of Paper No./Mail Date 20230323
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/695,361
`Art Unit: 1793
`
`Page 2
`
`Notice of Pre-AlA or AIA Status
`
`1.
`
`The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first
`
`inventor to file provisions of the AIA.
`
`Priority
`
`2.
`
`Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
`
`3.
`
`The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
`
`(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and
`of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to
`enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to
`makeand use the same,and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint
`inventor of carrying out the invention.
`
`The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 112:
`
`The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and
`process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person
`skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with whichit is most nearly connected, to make and use the
`same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
`
`4.
`
`Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AlA), first paragraph, as
`
`failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not
`
`described in the specification in such a way as to enable oneskilled in the art to which it pertains, or
`
`with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
`
`Factors for Assessing Enablement(a.k.a. The Wands Factors)
`
`These factors include, but are not limited to:
`
`1. Breadth of the claims;
`
`2. Nature of the invention;
`
`3. State of the prior art;
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/695,361
`Art Unit: 1793
`
`Page 3
`
`4. Level of one of ordinaryskill;
`
`5. Level of predictability in the art;
`
`6. Amountof direction provided;
`
`7. Existence of working examples; and
`
`8. Quantity of experimentation needed.
`See: MPEP §2164.01(a); In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1988)
`
`The claims are directed to a method for controlling the food printer to produce food having a
`
`certain pattern based on the chewing/swallowing data. The print pattern is changed based on the
`
`number of chewsandafirst print patter. However, the breadth of the claims is too broad. The claims
`
`do not provide anyspecificity to enable one skilled in the art to carry out the method. While the claims
`
`recite to print food based on the chewing/swallowing cycle, there is no specificity to the data and howit
`
`is used to affect the pattern. The term patternitself is broad and the meaningis not specific. What
`
`exactly does pattern encompasses. The chewing and swallowing of food can vary amongdifferent
`
`people. One person can take a long time to chew the same food as opposed to another individual.
`
`Thereis no disclosure to take into consideration such factor. The instant specification does not define
`
`any formulation of food.
`
`It is not know which population is targeted as chewing/swallowing differs
`
`amongpeople and howthe data is used to make the second food. There is no disclosure of correlation
`
`between the data and the food printed. For instance, if the number of chewsis 20, how doesthat
`
`number translate to printing the food versus a chewing numbers of 19 or 16 or 15, etc.. The
`
`specification does not disclose how a predetermined numberof chewsis determined. Whatfactors are
`
`involved the determination of the predetermined number of chews. For instance, claim 5 recites the
`
`size of the chunks. But, there is no teaching of how the size is determined. What factors are involved in
`
`the determination of the size. The nature of the invention is too variable and unpredictable. The
`
`chewing and swallowing pattern are unlikely to be consistent from different populations and habit. For
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/695,361
`Art Unit: 1793
`
`Page 4
`
`instance, the specification discloses the acceleration sensor is attached to chopstick, fork or spoon and
`
`detects the beginning of the swallow cycle from the time the utensil is picked up to the time it is lower.
`
`However, picking up and lowering the utensil does not necessarily mean the food is put in the mouth
`
`and swallow as a person can very well picking up and lowering the utensil without eating a food. For
`
`instance, a child can play at meal time by playing with the utensil and not actually eating the food which
`
`will make the data collected to be inaccurate to form the second food. The instant specification does
`
`not have any teaching to accountto variation in such instance. There is no baseline of pattern or mass
`
`or volume established for the first food and how suchpattern, or mass or volume should be varied
`
`based on the swallowing/chewing cycle. There is no working example set forth in the disclosure. There
`
`is no direction provided. The field of printing of food is relatively new. The printing of food in relation
`
`to swallowing/chewing cycle is not prevalent in the art. Thus, undue experimentation would be
`
`required to form the food meeting a required pattern based on the data as the specification provides no
`
`direction of how to use the data to form the food. What pattern or volume or size or mass are
`
`required? How should the pattern, volume,size or mass be changed based on the data? The
`
`specification discloses the second hardness can be changed such as increasing or decreasing the number
`
`of holes. However, the specification does not disclose the cause of the holes and howthe holes can be
`
`increased or decreased and how much of an increase or decrease is needed. There is no disclosure of
`
`any formulation for the food.
`
`It is unclear what the food is made of. There is no disclosure of
`
`ingredients or any composition. The specification discloses the hardness can be adjusted by controlling
`
`or specifying the temperature. However,it is a general disclosure without any specific teaching. The
`
`specification generally discloses a computer programming to print the food. But, there is no teaching of
`
`how the data inputted is used to form the food. There is not a single example in the specification to
`
`demonstrate how the method is carried out. Based on the broadnessand generalization of the method,
`
`it is not enabling to one skilled in the art.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/695,361
`Art Unit: 1793
`
`Page 5
`
`5.
`
`Claim 1-2,6,8,16,18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AlA), 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-AlA 35 U.S.C. 112, the
`
`applicant), regards as the invention.
`
`In claim 1, the limitation “ print pattern” is vague and indefinite becauseit is not clear whatis
`
`encompassed or intended by pattern. A pattern seems to suggest a design. However, the specification
`
`doesnotdisclose any design. Thus,it is unclear what the term indicates.
`
`Claim 2 has the same problem as claim 1.
`
`In claim 6, the limitation “ hard portion” is vague and indefinite because the term “ hard”is
`
`relative.
`
`It is unclear what would be considered as hard. The limitation “ hard portion has a hardness
`
`greater than or equal to a predetermined hardness”is vague and indefinite because the term hardis
`
`relative. The specification does not disclose any formulation for food; it is unclear what would be
`
`considered as hard or what would be considered as a predetermined hardness.
`
`In claim 8, the limitation “ distance to a skin” is vague and indefinite becauseit is unclear whatis
`
`intendedby it. Skin is present throughout the body; it is not clear what area of skin is intended.
`
`In claim 16, the limitation of “ print pattern” has the same problem as claim 1.
`
`In claim 18, the limitation of “ print pattern” ahs the same problem as claim 1.
`
`6.
`
`35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
`
`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 requirementsofthis title.
`
`The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) a
`
`method of forming a second printed food having a pattern based on the chewing/swallowing
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/695,361
`Art Unit: 1793
`
`Page 6
`
`information from a sensing device. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application
`
`because the method only provides broad general steps without any specificity to actually carryout the
`
`method. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amountto
`
`significantly more than the judicial exception because.
`
`The claims are directed to a method for controlling the food printer to produce food having a
`
`certain pattern based on the chewing/swallowing data. However, the breadth of the claims is too
`
`broad. The claims do not provide any specificity to carry out the method. While the claims recite to
`
`print food based on the chewing/swallowing cycle, there is no specificity to the data.
`
`It is not know
`
`which population is targeted as chewing/swallowing differs among people and how the datais used to
`
`make the second food. There is no disclosure of correlation between the data and the food printed. For
`
`instance,if the number of chew is 20, how does that numbertranslate to printing the food versus a
`
`number of chews 19 or 16 or 15, etc.. There is variation and unpredictability that can affect the
`
`outcome. The claimed method doesnotdisclose all the variables. The chewing and swallowing pattern
`
`are unlikely to be consistent from different populations. For instance, the specification discloses the
`
`acceleration sensor is attached to chopstick, fork or spoon and detects the beginning of the swallow
`
`cycle from the time the utensil is picked up to the time it is lower. However, picking up and lowering the
`
`utensil does not necessarily mean the foodis put in the mouth and swallow as a person can very well
`
`picking up and lowering the utensil without eating a food. For instance, a child can play at meal time by
`
`playing with the utensil and not actually eating the food which will make the data collected to be
`
`inaccurate to form the second food. The instant specification does not have any teaching to account for
`
`variation in such instance. There is no baseline of pattern established for the first food and how such
`
`pattern should be varied based on the swallowing/chewing cycle. There is no working example set forth
`
`in the disclosure. There is no direction provided in the specification. What pattern is acceptable? How
`
`should the pattern be varied based on the data? How can the pattern be changed? The specification
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/695,361
`Art Unit: 1793
`
`Page 7
`
`discloses the second hardness can be changed such as increasing or decreasing the number of holes.
`
`However, the specification does not disclose the cause of the holes and how the holes can be increased
`
`or decreased and how muchof an increase or decrease is needed. There is no disclosure of any
`
`formulation for the food.
`
`It is unclear what the food is made of. Thereis no disclosure of ingredients or
`
`any composition. The specification generally discloses a computer programming to print the food. But,
`
`there is no teaching of how the data inputted is used to form the food. There is not a single example in
`
`the specification to demonstrate how the method is carried out.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
`
`7.
`
`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 ordinaryskill in the art to which the
`claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention
`was made.
`
`8.
`
`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 contentsofthe prior art.
`
`2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
`
`3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinentart.
`
`4. Considering objective evidence presentin the application indicating obviousness or
`
`nonobviousness.
`
`9.
`
`Claim(s) 1-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hardee(
`
`2018/0116272) in view of Conor ( 2020/0152312)
`
`For claims 1,2, Hardee discloses a method for printing a food material by a processor. The
`
`method comprises the steps of receiving a request to 3D print a food item, receiving information
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/695,361
`Art Unit: 1793
`
`Page 8
`
`associated with a consumer for the food item and printing the requested food item based on the
`
`information associated with the consumer of the food item. The information received from the
`
`consumer is used to modify the food item being printed. The information received is transmitted to the
`
`food printer via network to print the food item according to the information received. Sensor can be
`
`included to device layer. The 3D printing of food item is customized based on information associated
`
`with the consumers of the food items. The information can be based on health, medical history, dietary
`
`restriction etc.. (see paragraphs 0004,0012,0014,0015,0046,0050,0054,0055,0060,0061,0064)
`
`Hardee does not disclose sensing the chew/swallowing to determine the swallow cycle to make
`
`printed food with a determined pattern asin claims 1,2, the sensing parametersas in claims 3-15, the
`
`food as in claims 16-18 and the baking as in claim 19.
`
`Connor discloses systems for nutritional monitoring and management. Conor discloses different
`
`sensors to monitor food in nutrition monitoring. The sensors include camera on eyewear, earwear, ring
`
`etc, spectroscopic sensor, wearable biometric sensor including EMG, smart utensil which collects fata
`
`concerning food item consumed by a person etc.. The food utensil can tract the number of times that a
`
`utensil is put down or weigh each bite or mouthful. Smart utensil can use motion senor to measure the
`
`lifting and lowering of the utensil. The nutritional monitoring can include a device which is worn on or
`
`around a person neck. The smart collar can have a microphone which monitors sounds associated with
`
`eating such as chewing, swallowing. ( see paragraphs 0022,0023,0027,0029,0031,0050,0144)
`
`Hardee discloses the printing of the food is customized based on the information received.
`
`Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to input information to obtain different
`
`pattern or food depending on the sensory attribute and food types desired. The information inputted
`
`can vary depending on consumer preference.
`
`It would have been an obvious matter of choice to input
`
`different data based on a previous consuming food when such sensoryattribute is desired to be
`
`changed. Hardeediscloses various sensor devices can be used in connection with the system.
`
`It would
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/695,361
`Art Unit: 1793
`
`Page 9
`
`have been obvious to one skilled in the art to use the sensing devices taught in Connor to measure
`
`various parameters on eating and to customize the food printed based on the eating preference
`
`measured. Applicant is combining known concept with expected result.
`
`It would have been obvious to
`
`form food having various different layers, different hardness, different size so as to occupy different
`
`volume as an obvious matter of preference. The hole in food can vary depending on the type of food.
`
`It
`
`would also have been obvious to control the temperature in baking. This parameter would have been
`
`readily apparentto one skilled in the art.
`
`Double Patenting
`
`10.
`
`The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded
`
`in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise
`
`extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple
`
`assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not
`
`identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference
`
`claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious
`
`over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re
`
`Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164
`
`USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
`
`A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to
`
`overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the
`
`reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application,
`
`or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research
`
`agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination underthe first inventor tofile
`
`provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146et seq. for applications not subject
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/695,361
`Art Unit: 1793
`
`Page 10
`
`to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be
`
`signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
`
`The USPTOInternet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Pleasevisit
`
`www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed
`
`determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) should be used. A
`
`web-based eTerminal Disclaimer maybefilled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal
`
`Disclaimer that meetsall requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission.
`
`For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to
`
`www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-l.jsp.
`
`11.
`
`Claims 1-19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being
`
`unpatentable over claims 1-18 of copending Application No. 17/695392 (reference application).
`
`Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because
`
`both applications are directed to a method for controlling of a food printer to form printed food item.
`
`The co-pending application does not recite perform by a computer and different size to occupydifferent
`
`volume. However, the different is not patentably distinct as it would have been obvious to use a
`
`computer to program the printing.
`
`It would also have been obvious to print food having different
`
`pattern, layer and sizes as an obvious matter of preference.
`
`This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct
`
`claims have notin fact been patented.
`
`12.
`
`Claims 1-19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being
`
`unpatentable over claims 1-18 of copending Application No. 17/695380 (reference application).
`
`Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because
`
`both applications are directed to a method for controlling of a food printer to form printed food item.
`
`The co-pending application does notrecite different pattern and size to occupydifferent volume.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/695,361
`Art Unit: 1793
`
`Page 11
`
`However, the different is not patentably distinct.
`
`It would have been obvious to print food having
`
`different pattern, layer and sizes as an obvious matter of preference.
`
`This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct
`
`claims have notin fact been patented.
`
`Conclusion
`
`13.
`
`Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner
`
`should be directed to LIEN THUY TRAN whosetelephone number is (571)272-1408. The examiner can
`
`normally be reached Monday-Thursday.
`
`Examiner interviewsare 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,
`
`Emily Le can be reached on 571-272-0903. The fax phone number for the organization wherethis
`
`application or proceedingis 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 aboutfiling 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.
`
`March 23, 2023
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/695,361
`Art Unit: 1793
`
`/LIEN T TRAN/
`Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1793
`
`Page 12
`
`