CTFR 18/802,212 CTFR 88063 DETAILED ACTION Response to Amendment Applicant's response with amendments filed on 02/26/2026 has been received and entered. Applicant has amended claims 1, 2, 4-9, 11-16 and 18-20. Claims 1-20 have been examined on the merits. Response to Arguments Claim rejections under 35 USC § 112 for claims 5, 12 and 19 have been withdrawn in view of the amendments. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1, 2, 6, 8, 9, 13, 15, 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Traynor et al. (US 20180294959 A1) , hereinafter Traynor , in view of Ginsburg (US 20240221763 A1) , Rührmair et al. (NPL: “ Watermark-Based Authentication and Key Exchange in Teleconferencing Systems ”), hereinafter Rührmair , and Jeon (US 20200036940 A1) . Regarding claim 1 , Traynor discloses a computer-implemented method for validating the authenticity of digital content between digital devices, the computer-implemented method comprising: registering a first user with a server (the enrollment protocol can ensure that a client controls a claimed number and establishes a certificate that binds the identity of the client to a phone number; enrollment protocol has two participants: a client C and an enrollment server S - see [0037-41]) ; registering and storing an approved contact associated with the first user (handshake protocol can take place when a caller intends to contact a callee; the caller can place a voice call over the telephone network while simultaneously using a data connection to conduct the handshake protocol [in two phases]; the first indicates to the server and the calling party that a call is imminent; the second phase authenticates both parties on the call and establishes shared secrets – see [0044-52]; examiner’s note: both the caller and the callee are enrolled and verified – see [0055] – and thus they are authenticated by the server (approved) and the handshake protocol “associates” both approved users to establish the communication ); creating unique IDs (identification) for the first user and a second user from the approved contact (the enrollment protocol can issue a certificate that binds the identity of the client to a phone number – see abstract; Message 5 contains all information necessary for a Diffie-Hellman key establishment authenticated with a signature key defined in the certificate of [caller] R or [callee] E – see [0049]); generating a security code for a first user pair, wherein the first user pair contains the first user and the second user and wherein the security code is shared between the first user and the second user (the second phase authenticates both parties on the call and establishes shared secrets; these secrets are only known end-to-end and are computed in a manner that preserves perfect forward secrecy – see [0044]; message 5 contains all information necessary for a Diffie-Hellman key establishment authenticated with a signature key defined in the certificate of [caller] R or [callee] E; it also contains identity information for R or E, the calling or called phone number, a timestamp, and a nonce; each side also provides a Diffie-Hellman share, and the entire message is signed with the public key in the certificate issued – see [0049]; after message 5, both sides combine their Diffie-Hellman secret with the share they received to generate the derived secret; each client then generates keys using the Diffie-Hellman result, the timestamps of both parties, and the nonces of both parties – see [0050]); verifying the security code of the first user pair; creating a first A/V watermark for the first user pair as a common watermark based on validity of the security code; validation of the first A/V watermark against a second A/V watermark during a communication session, wherein the second A/V watermark was overlayed onto the digital content and the second A/V watermark was created during the communication session; and displaying an authentication status during the communication session and wherein the communication session is a video [[voice]] call (when the callee receives a call, depending on the success of the handshake protocol, one of two screens is presented to the user; if the handshake is successful (i.e., the Caller ID was authenticated), FIG. 13(a) is shown; screen shows a green lock signaling that the call is secure; if the handshake is unsuccessful (i.e., the Caller ID authentication fails), the screen from FIG. 13(b) will appear; as the call is insecure, the screen displays a danger message and a red “X” to warn the user – see [0121], FIG. 13). Traynor fails to disclose verifying the security code of the first user pair; creating a first A/V watermark for the first user pair as a common watermark based on validity of the security code; validation of the first A/V watermark against a second A/V watermark during a communication session, wherein the second A/V watermark was overlayed onto the digital content and the second A/V watermark was created during the communication session; and wherein the communication session is a video call. Instead, in Traynor , the second phase of the handshake protocol can include Diffie-Hellman key establishment authenticated with a signature key defined in the certificate of R or E; and, content authentication information can be exchanged for the duration of the call using “digests” of call audio, which can be authenticated with hash message authentication codes (HMACs) – see [0007-0008]. However, Ginsburg discloses a method for providing insertion of watermarks into audio content including verifying the security code of the first user pair; creating a first A/V watermark for the first user pair as a common watermark based on validity of the security code (a user, application, or other such source can provide or select a credential or secret that can be used to generate the watermark, or that can be included in the watermark; this can include, for example, a digital key stored in a key database 216, or other trusted or secure storage location; a copy of the digital key can then be provided to an authorized recipient of the audio data, for example, who can store that key locally in a secure location such as a key repository; use of such “secret” data can help to prevent an unauthorized or unintended third party from being able to identify and remove the audio watermark, as the third party will not know the key data that is encoded into the audio signal as a watermark – see [0027]; examiner’s note: the secret use to generate the watermark is verified as it is stored in a trusted, secure location and only authorized parties have access ); and, wherein the communication session is a video call (approaches in accordance with various embodiments can provide for insertion of specific watermarks into synthesized content, such as audio data that includes at least some amount of synthesized speech; an audio player (or video conferencing application such as Zoom or Skype, for example) might include functionality to display an icon or notification when synthetic audio is being played, or may even prevent synthetic audio from being played, at least when so instructed by a user – see [0020-21]). Traynor and Ginsburg fail to disclose the first A/V watermark being for the first user pair as a common watermark; validation of the first A/V watermark against a second A/V watermark during a communication session, wherein the second A/V watermark was overlayed onto the digital content and the second A/V watermark was created during the communication session. However, Rührmair discloses a method that combines watermarking with traditional cryptographic key agreement protocols to establish an authenticated or encrypted channel in teleconferencing systems (see abstract) including creating a first A/V watermark for the first user pair as a common watermark; and validation of the first A/V watermark against a second A/V watermark during a communication session, wherein the second A/V watermark was overlayed onto the digital content and the second A/V watermark was created during the communication session (the proposed method embeds messages of the key agreement protocol within an audio or video stream – see abstract; Alice and Bob share, among other parameters, a global watermarking key Kw; after initiating a telephone/video call, Alice embeds a watermark in her part of the conversation by using the watermarking key Kw; Bob verifies that Alice’s transmission was watermarked with Kw; Bob also watermarks the stream simultaneously to Alice, and Alice verifies that Bob’s transmission was watermarked with Kw; and, Alice and Bob set their secret key to be K – see section 2, pages 2-3). Traynor, Ginsburg and Rührmair fail to explicitly disclose the second A/V watermark was overlayed onto the digital content. For instance, in Rührmair , the watermark is embedded in the conversation. However, Jeon discloses a method for providing a video call service by a server (see abstract) the A/V watermark overlayed onto the digital content (electronic device 110 may insert a watermark to a part of the image related to the counterpart user output through the display 116 while making a video call, for example, or to a part of the area in which the user is displayed; the watermark may be a visible watermark; the electronic device 110 may display the image, which is output through the display 116, and the visible watermark in an overlay type; when the visible watermark is inserted, the visible watermark may be inserted into the area in which the image related to the counterpart user is displayed, for example; the visible watermark may, for example, include information regarding the user (for example, the user's name, ID, or nickname) – see [0054]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method in Traynor to include verifying the security code of the first user pair; creating a first A/V watermark for the first user pair as a common watermark based on validity of the security code; validation of the first A/V watermark against a second A/V watermark during a communication session, wherein the second A/V watermark was overlayed onto the digital content and the second A/V watermark was created during the communication session; and wherein the communication session is a video call, as taught by Ginsburg, Rührmair and Jeon . One would have been motivated to make such a combination because the use of such secret/shared data can help to prevent an unauthorized or unintended third party from being able to identify and remove the audio watermark, as the third party will not know the key data that is encoded into the audio signal as a watermark, as recognized by Ginsburg (see [0027]); the watermark establishes a close coupling between the cryptographic key exchange messages and the media stream, thus authenticating the source of the messages as one should be able to distinguish an object where a watermark was embedded in a previously unmarked media from one that already carried a watermark with the same key, as recognized by Rührmair (see abstract, section 2 and 4); and to facilitate effortless identification of an authentic caller with a visible/overlayed watermark. Regarding claim 2 , Traynor, Ginsburg, Rührmair and Jeon disclose all the claimed subject matter recited in claim 1 above. Furthermore, Traynor discloses the computer-implemented method, wherein creating unique IDs for the first user and the second user from the approved contact further comprises: creating a first unique ID for the first user; creating a second unique ID for the second user; and storing the first unique ID and second unique ID (Callers and Callees can register and generate credentials including a public key – see [0032]; the enrollment protocol can issue a certificate that binds the identity of the client to a phone number – see abstract; Message 5 contains all information necessary for a Diffie-Hellman key establishment authenticated with a signature key defined in the certificate of [caller] R or [callee] E – see [0049]; registered members are maintained in a database – see [0110]; upon registration, the server issues the client certificate consisting of a user's claimed identity, phone number, validity, public key and signature of the Certificate Authority – see [0112]). Regarding claim 6 , Traynor, Ginsburg, Rührmair and Jeon disclose all the claimed subject matter recited in claim 1 above. Traynor fails to disclose the computer-implemented method, wherein validation of the A/V watermark further comprises: detecting a presence of the second A/V watermark that is transmitted by the second user to the first user during a communication session; retrieving the first A/V watermark from the server; comparing the second A/V watermark against the first A/V watermark; and generating the authentication status based on the comparison. However, Rührmair discloses the computer-implemented method, wherein validation of the A/V watermark further comprises: detecting a presence of the second A/V watermark that is transmitted by the second user to the first user during the communication session; retrieving the first A/V watermark from the server; comparing the second A/V watermark against the first A/V watermark; and generating the authentication status based on the comparison (Alice and Bob share, among other parameters, a global watermarking key Kw; after initiating a telephone/video call, Alice embeds a watermark in her part of the conversation by using the watermarking key Kw; Bob verifies that Alice’s transmission was watermarked with Kw; Bob also watermarks the stream simultaneously to Alice, and Alice verifies that Bob’s transmission was watermarked with Kw; and, Alice and Bob set their secret key to be K – see section 2, pages 2-3; examiner’s note: both Alice and Bob verify that the transmission includes Kw, which implies both detecting its presence and verifying (comparing) the Kw in the transmission is the global watermarking Kw originally shared ). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method in Traynor to include wherein validation of the A/V watermark further comprises: detecting a presence of the second A/V watermark that is transmitted by the second user to the first user during a communication session; retrieving the first A/V watermark from the server; comparing the second A/V watermark against the first A/V watermark; and generating the authentication status based on the comparison, as taught by Rührmair . One would have been motivated to make such a combination to detect any tampering with the audio/video stream because the watermark establishes a close coupling between the cryptographic key exchange messages and the media stream, as recognized by Rührmair (see abstract, section 2 and 4). Regarding claim 8 , all limitations correspond to the computer program product performing the method of claim 1. Therefore, claim 8 is being rejected on the same basis as claim 1. Furthermore, Traynor discloses a computer program product for validating authenticity of digital content between digital devices, the computer program product comprising: one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media having computer-readable program instructions stored on the one or more computer-readable storage media said program instructions executes a computer-implemented method (FIGs. 1-5 illustrate a client-server architecture that provide protocols for call authentication – see abstract, and [0005-0012]; all communications between clients and servers use a secure TLS configuration with server authentication – see [0034]). Regarding claim 9 , all limitations correspond to the computer program product performing the method of claim 2. Therefore, claim 9 is being rejected on the same basis as claim 2. Regarding claim 13 , all limitations correspond to the computer program product performing the method of claim 6. Therefore, claim 13 is being rejected on the same basis as claim 6. Regarding claim 15 , all limitations correspond to the computer system performing the method of claim 1. Therefore, claim 15 is being rejected on the same basis as claim 1. Furthermore, Traynor discloses a computer system for validating authenticity of digital content between digital devices, the computer system comprising: one or more computer processors; one or more non-transitory computer readable storage media; and program instructions stored on the one or more non-transitory computer readable storage media (FIGs. 1-5 illustrate a client-server architecture that provide protocols for call authentication – see abstract, and [0005-0012]; all communications between clients and servers use a secure TLS configuration with server authentication – see [0034]). Regarding claim 16 , all limitations correspond to the computer system performing the method of claim 2. Therefore, claim 16 is being rejected on the same basis as claim 2. Regarding claim 20 , all limitations correspond to the computer system performing the method of claim 6. Therefore, claim 20 is being rejected on the same basis as claim 6 . 07-22-aia AIA Claim s 3-5, 10-12 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Traynor et al. (US 20180294959 A1) , Ginsburg (US 20240221763 A1) , Rührmair et al. (NPL: “ Watermark-Based Authentication and Key Exchange in Teleconferencing Systems ”), and Jeon (US 20200036940 A1) , as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Becker et al. (US 11363069 B1), hereinafter Becker . Regarding claim 3 , Traynor, Ginsburg, Rührmair and Jeon disclose all the claimed subject matter recited in claim 1 above. Furthermore, Traynor discloses the computer-implemented method generating the security code (Message 5 contains all information necessary for a Diffie-Hellman key establishment authenticated with a signature key defined in the certificate of [caller] R or [callee] E; it also contains identity information for R or E, the calling or called phone number, a timestamp, and a nonce; each side also provides a Diffie-Hellman share, and the entire message is signed with the public key in the certificate issued – see [0049]; after message 5, both sides combine their Diffie-Hellman secret with the share they received to generate the derived secret; each client then generates keys using the Diffie-Hellman result, the timestamps of both parties, and the nonces of both parties – see [0050]). Traynor, Ginsburg, Rührmair and Jeon fail to disclose wherein the security code contains a first half of the security code and a second half of the security code; assigning the first half to the first user and assigning the second half to the second user; and transmitting the assigned first half to the first user and the assigned second half to the second user. However, Becker discloses methods for accessing secure resources via multiple custody linkages using mobile devices including wherein the security code contains a first half of the security code and a second half of the security code; assigning the first half to the first user and assigning the second half to the second user; and transmitting the assigned first half to the first user and the assigned second half to the second user (institution computing system 102 may dynamically generate a passcode and provide a first portion (e.g., a first half) of the passcode to first user device 104 and a second portion of the passcode to second user device 106; based on the received passcodes, the first user and the second user can enter their respective portion of the passcode to a display component of resource 107 - see col. 8, lines 21-34). Thus, Traynor and Becker each disclose security code. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the security code of Becker could have been substituted for the security code (i.e., derived secret) of Traynor because both the security codes serve the purpose of providing authentication and access to users that are associated/linked in some way. Furthermore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to carry out the substitution. Finally, the substitution achieves the predictable result of allowing a user to access a resource or service. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the security code of Becker for the derived secret of Traynor according to known methods to yield the predictable result of providing authentication and access to a resource or service. Regarding claim 4 , Traynor, Ginsburg, Rührmair, Jeon and Becker disclose all the claimed subject matter recited in claim 3 above. Traynor fail to disclose wherein creating the A/V watermark further comprises: creating an A/V watermark for the first and the second user. However, Rührmair discloses wherein creating the A/V watermark further comprises: creating an A/V watermark for the first user and the second user (the proposed method embeds messages of the key agreement protocol within an audio or video stream – see abstract; Alice and Bob share, among other parameters, a global watermarking key Kw; after initiating a telephone/video call, Alice embeds a watermark in her part of the conversation by using the watermarking key Kw; Bob verifies that Alice’s transmission was watermarked with Kw; Bob also watermarks the stream simultaneously to Alice, and Alice verifies that Bob’s transmission was watermarked with Kw; and, Alice and Bob set their secret key to be K – see section 2, pages 2-3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method in Traynor to include wherein creating the A/V watermark further comprises: creating an A/V watermark for the first and the second user, as taught by Rührmair . One would have been motivated to detect any tampering with the audio/video stream because the watermark establishes a close coupling between the cryptographic key exchange messages and the media stream, as recognized by Rührmair (see abstract, section 2 and 4). Regarding claim 5 , Traynor, Ginsburg, Rührmair, Jeon and Becker disclose all the claimed subject matter recited in claim 4 above. Traynor, Ginsburg, Rührmair and Jeon fail to disclose wherein verifying the security code further comprises: retrieving the first half of the security code from the first user; retrieving the second half of the security code from the second user; combining the first half and the second half to create a combined security code; comparing the combined security code against the security code; and determining whether the combined security code matches the security code based on the comparison. However, Becker discloses methods for accessing secure resources via multiple custody linkages using mobile devices including retrieving the first half of the security code from the first user; retrieving the second half of the security code from the second user; combining the first half and the second half to create a combined security code; comparing the combined security code against the security code; and determining whether the combined security code matches the security code based on the comparison (institution computing system 102 may dynamically generate a passcode and provide a first portion (e.g., a first half) of the passcode to first user device 104 and a second portion of the passcode to second user device 106; based on the received passcodes, the first user and the second user can enter their respective portion of the passcode to a display component of resource 107 - see col. 8, lines 21-34; examiner’s note: first and second users gain access using their respective portions of the passcode together, thus the combined portions are verified ). Thus, Traynor and Becker each disclose security code. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the security code of Becker could have been substituted for the security code (i.e., derived secret) of Traynor because both the security codes serve the purpose of providing authentication and access to users that are associated/linked in some way. Furthermore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to carry out the substitution. Finally, the substitution achieves the predictable result of allowing a user to access a resource or service. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the security code of Becker for the derived secret of Traynor according to known methods to yield the predictable result of providing authentication and access to a resource or service. Regarding claim 10 , all limitations correspond to the computer program product performing the method of claim 3. Therefore, claim 10 is being rejected on the same basis as claim 3. Regarding claim 11 , all limitations correspond to the computer program product performing the method of claim 4. Therefore, claim 11 is being rejected on the same basis as claim 4. Regarding claim 12 , all limitations correspond to the computer program product performing the method of claim 5. Therefore, claim 12 is being rejected on the same basis as claim 5. Regarding claim 17 , all limitations correspond to the computer system performing the method of claim 3. Therefore, claim 17 is being rejected on the same basis as claim 3. Regarding claim 18 , all limitations correspond to the computer system performing the method of claim 4. Therefore, claim 18 is being rejected on the same basis as claim 4. Regarding claim 19 , all limitations correspond to the computer system performing the method of claim 5. Therefore, claim 19 is being rejected on the same basis as claim 5 . 07-22-aia AIA Claim s 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Traynor et al. (US 20180294959 A1) , Ginsburg (US 20240221763 A1) , Rührmair et al. (NPL: “ Watermark-Based Authentication and Key Exchange in Teleconferencing Systems ”), and Jeon (US 20200036940 A1) , as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Altaf et al. (US 20240355336 A1) , hereinafter Altaf . Regarding claim 7 , Traynor, Ginsburg, Rührmair and Jeon disclose all the claimed subject matter recited in claim 1 above. Traynor discloses that when the callee receives a call, depending on the success of the handshake protocol, one of two screens is presented to the user; if the handshake is successful (i.e., the Caller ID was authenticated), FIG. 13(a) is shown; screen shows a green lock signaling that the call is secure; if the handshake is unsuccessful (i.e., the Caller ID authentication fails), the screen from FIG. 13(b) will appear; as the call is insecure, the screen displays a danger message and a red “X” to warn the user – see [0121], FIG. 13. Traynor, Ginsburg, Rührmair and Jeon fail to disclose the computer-implemented method, wherein the authentication status can include “approved” or “fake”. However, Altaf discloses a system and method to detect audio-based synthetic speech (“deepfakes”) in a call conversation (see abstract) including the computer-implemented method, wherein the authentication status can include “approved” or “fake” (at step 1740, the computer may send, transmit, or otherwise provide an indication of the classification; when the speaker is classified as fake, the computer may generate the indication to identify the speaker as fake; conversely, when the speaker is identified as real (or human), the computer may generate the indication to identify the speaker as a human caller; the computer may provide the indication to an agent computer (e.g., the agent device 116 or the callee communication device 216) for presentation that to the agent; once received, the agent computer may display, render, or otherwise present that indication of the caller as one of fake or real to the agent via an interface (e.g., a graphical user interface (GUI)) – see [0356]). Thus, Traynor and Altaf each disclose presenting the user with an indication of an authentication status that a call/caller is either real or fake, secure on not secure. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the indication of Altaf could have been substituted for the indication of Traynor because both indications serve the purpose of providing call/caller authentication status to a user that is receiving a call. Furthermore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to carry out the substitution. Finally, the substitution achieves the predictable result of allowing a user to access a resource or service. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the indication (status) of Altaf for the indication of Traynor according to known methods to yield the predictable result of indicating a real or fake status of a call/caller. Regarding claim 14 , all limitations correspond to the computer program product performing the method of claim 7. Therefore, claim 14 is being rejected on the same basis as claim 7. Conclusion 07-40 AIA Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL . See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DORIANNE ALVARADO DAVID whose telephone number is (571)272-4228. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am-5:00pm ET. 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, Philip Chea can be reached at (571) 272-3951. 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. /DORIANNE ALVARADO DAVID/Examiner, Art Unit 2499 /PHILIP J CHEA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2499 Application/Control Number: 18/802,212 Page 2 Art Unit: 2499 Application/Control Number: 18/802,212 Page 3 Art Unit: 2499 Application/Control Number: 18/802,212 Page 4 Art Unit: 2499 Application/Control Number: 18/802,212 Page 5 Art Unit: 2499 Application/Control Number: 18/802,212 Page 6 Art Unit: 2499 Application/Control Number: 18/802,212 Page 7 Art Unit: 2499 Application/Control Number: 18/802,212 Page 8 Art Unit: 2499 Application/Control Number: 18/802,212 Page 9 Art Unit: 2499 Application/Control Number: 18/802,212 Page 10 Art Unit: 2499 Application/Control Number: 18/802,212 Page 11 Art Unit: 2499 Application/Control Number: 18/802,212 Page 12 Art Unit: 2499 Application/Control Number: 18/802,212 Page 13 Art Unit: 2499 Application/Control Number: 18/802,212 Page 14 Art Unit: 2499 Application/Control Number: 18/802,212 Page 15 Art Unit: 2499 Application/Control Number: 18/802,212 Page 16 Art Unit: 2499 Application/Control Number: 18/802,212 Page 17 Art Unit: 2499 Application/Control Number: 18/802,212 Page 18 Art Unit: 2499
Prosecution Insights