CTFR 18/906,336 CTFR 84401 DETAILED ACTION This Office Action has been issued in response to Applicant's Amendment filed March 27, 2026. Claims 1, 11, and 20 have been amended. Claims 1-20 have been examined and are pending. 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. Response to Arguments 07-37 AIA Applicant's arguments filed March 27, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues the references do not disclose the request being received without being authenticated and for a credential that is not associated with the entity. Paragraph [0133] of de Kok discloses the credential holder and the credential issuer setting up an anonymous communication channel and the credential holder requesting the credential from the credential issuer. Paragraph [0134] of de Kok discloses the claim information might relate specifically to the credential holder, e.g. whether the credential holder is employed by a certain company, whether the credential holder has been vaccinated (the issuer being health-care staff), an access authorization, or privileged contact information, or it might not relate specifically to the credential holder, e.g. an anonymous concert ticket or a concert ticket in the name of a different credential holder. Applicant argues the anonymous communication channel does not necessitate being unauthenticated. Applicant argues de Kok the claim information relates specifically to the credential holder. Paragraph [0134] of de Kok discloses the claim information might relate specifically to the credential holder, e.g. whether the credential holder is employed by a certain company, whether the credential holder has been vaccinated (the issuer being health-care staff), an access authorization, or privileged contact information, or it might not relate specifically to the credential holder, e.g. an anonymous concert ticket or a concert ticket in the name of a different credential holder . Additionally, paragraphs [0068]-[0072] of de Kok discloses Anonymous and private communication channels may be used between the credential holder and the credential issuer, between the credential issuer and the credential verifier, and/or between the credential holder and the credential verifier. Examples of such channels are: Anonymous emailers, anonymous chat, WhatsApp, Signal, Telegram, forum chat, Onion routing networks, like TOR and NYM, In-person Bluetooth, Wi-Fi direct, QR-code, dead drop, DIDcomm protocol . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 07-20-aia AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. 07-23-aia AIA The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. 07-20-02-aia AIA This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-3, 6-13, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 2024/0323021 to de Kok et al. (hereinafter “de Kok”) and further in view of US Pat. No. 11277415 to Rinehart (hereinafter “Rinehart”) . As to Claim 1, de Kok discloses a method, in a data processing system, for [re-issuance] of credentials in a data network, the method comprising: receiving, from a requester entity, a first request to [re-issue] a target credential in a plurality of credentials of a public credential listing, wherein any entity, in a plurality of entities, can request re-issuance of any credential in the plurality of credentials and have the credential successfully re-issued to that entity , wherein the first request is received without authenticating the requester entity and wherein the target credential is not associated with the requester entity (Paragraph [0133] of de Kok discloses the credential holder and the credential issuer setting up an anonymous communication channel and the credential holder requesting the credential from the credential issuer. Paragraph [0134] of de Kok discloses the claim information might relate specifically to the credential holder, e.g. whether the credential holder is employed by a certain company, whether the credential holder has been vaccinated (the issuer being health-care staff), an access authorization, or privileged contact information, or it might not relate specifically to the credential holder, e.g. an anonymous concert ticket or a concert ticket in the name of a different credential holder) ; in response to the request to [re-issue] the target credential, re-randomizing an original public key associated with the target credential to generate a re-randomized public key (Paragraph [0124] of de Kok discloses performing, at the system of the credential issuer, polymorphic re-randomization and/or polymorphic pseudonymization on the signing information obtained in step 103. Step 203 comprises creating, at the system of the credential issuer, the proof for the claim information by creating the signature with the re-randomized and/or pseudonymized signing information obtained in step 201) ; generating a new credential based on the target credential but with the original public key replaced with the re-randomized public key (Paragraph [0124] of de Kok discloses performing, at the system of the credential issuer, polymorphic re-randomization and/or polymorphic pseudonymization on the signing information obtained in step 103. Step 203 comprises creating, at the system of the credential issuer, the proof for the claim information by creating the signature with the re-randomized and/or pseudonymized signing information obtained in step 201) ; and providing the new credential to the requester entity, wherein the requester entity can use the new credential for authentication transactions successfully only if the requester entity is an owner of the target credential (Paragraph [0120] of de Kok discloses providing, by the system of the credential holder, a presentation of the verifiable credential received in step 111 to a system of a credential verifier) . de Kok does not explicitly disclose re-issue. However, Rinehart discloses this. Column 8 lines 40-45 of Rinehart disclose the credential renewal request can include a request for new credentials for multiple expiring credentials. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to combine the credential system as disclosed by de Kok, with re-issuing multiple credentials as disclosed by Rinehart. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine to apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results. de Kok and Rinehart are directed toward credential systems and as such it would be obvious to use the techniques of one in the other. Column 8 lines 40-60 because only security manager 305 knows which expiring credential has been compromised, the new credentials returned by third-party server 315 can be assigned to expiring credentials by security manager 305 while excluding (or deleting) the new credential for the expiring and compromised credential. Without an association between an expiring and compromised credential and a renewed credential, a malicious attack can be neutralized (or deviated to a honeypot) without providing a malicious attack further attack possibilities with freshly renewed credentials. As to Claim 2, de Kok-Rinehart discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the first request is one of a plurality of requests from the same requester entity, each request in the plurality of requests requesting re-issue of a corresponding other target credential (Column 8 lines 40-45 of Rinehart disclose the credential renewal request can include a request for new credentials for multiple expiring credentials) . Examiner recites the same rationale to combine used for claim 1. As to Claim 3, de Kok-Rinehart discloses the method of claim 2, wherein the plurality of requests comprises the first request and one or more second requests that are decoy requests submitted to hide the first request within the plurality of requests (Column 8 lines 40-60 because only security manager 305 knows which expiring credential has been compromised, the new credentials returned by third-party server 315 can be assigned to expiring credentials by security manager 305 while excluding (or deleting) the new credential for the expiring and compromised credential. Without an association between an expiring and compromised credential and a renewed credential, a malicious attack can be neutralized (or deviated to a honeypot) without providing a malicious attack further attack possibilities with freshly renewed credentials) . Examiner recites the same rationale to combine used for claim 1. As to Claim 6, de Kok-Rinehart discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the data processing system publishes all certified public keys and credentials, for all holders that have been issued a credential, in a published listing data structure accessible to all users (Paragraph [0027] of de Kok discloses the verification information comprising group information and public cryptographic information associated with the anonymity group) . As to Claim 7, de Kok-Rinehart discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the requesting entity is not the identity holder of the target credential, and wherein when the requesting entity presents the new credential to a verifier, the requesting entity provides an invalid presentation of the new credential (Paragraph [0093] of de Kok disclose invalid signatures always fail verification) . As to Claim 8, de Kok-Rinehart discloses the method of claim 1, wherein: the request is one of a plurality of requests from the requesting entity, which are submitted to the data processing system, each request in the plurality of requests is directed to a different target credential, each request is successful and generates a corresponding re-issued credential that is provided to the requesting entity, the requesting entity is an identity holder associated with the target credential, and the requesting entity uses the new credential in a presentation of the new credential as part of an interaction with a verifier and discards the other re-issued credentials (Paragraph [0120] of de Kok discloses providing, by the system of the credential holder, a presentation of the verifiable credential received in step 111 to a system of a credential verifier. Column 8 lines 40-45 of Rinehart disclose the credential renewal request can include a request for new credentials for multiple expiring credentials) . Examiner recites the same rationale to combine used for claim 1. As to Claim 9, de Kok-Rinehart discloses the method of claim 1, wherein successful collusion between an issuer of credentials and a verifier to generate a profile of an identity holder is prevented by the method since the new credential is not able to be correlated, by the issuer or verifier, with the target credential (Paragraph [0023] of de Kok discloses third parties cannot correlate verifiable credentials from the same credential issuer. Column 8 lines 40-60 because only security manager 305 knows which expiring credential has been compromised, the new credentials returned by third-party server 315 can be assigned to expiring credentials by security manager 305 while excluding (or deleting) the new credential for the expiring and compromised credential. Without an association between an expiring and compromised credential and a renewed credential, a malicious attack can be neutralized (or deviated to a honeypot) without providing a malicious attack further attack possibilities with freshly renewed credentials) . Examiner recites the same rationale to combine used for claim 1. As to Claim 10, de Kok-Rinehart discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the target credential is a first JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) Web Token (JWT) and wherein the new credential is a second JWT comprising a same header, same attributes, but different public key and signature than the first JWT (Paragraph [0073] of de Kok disclose Different implementations may encapsulate the exchanged information in different ways, e.g. JSON, JSON-LD and XML. Paragraph [0124] of de Kok discloses performing, at the system of the credential issuer, polymorphic re-randomization and/or polymorphic pseudonymization on the signing information obtained in step 103. Step 203 comprises creating, at the system of the credential issuer, the proof for the claim information by creating the signature with the re-randomized and/or pseudonymized signing information obtained in step 201) . As to Claim 11, de Kok discloses a computer program product comprising a computer readable storage medium having a computer readable program stored therein, wherein the computer readable program, when executed in a data processing system, causes the data processing system to: receive, from a requester entity, a first request to [re-issue] a target credential in a plurality of credentials of a public credential listing, wherein any entity, in a plurality of entities, can request re-issuance of any credential in the plurality of credentials and have the credential successfully re-issued to that entity , wherein the first request is received without authenticating the requester entity and wherein the target credential is not associated with the requester entity (Paragraph [0133] of de Kok discloses the credential holder and the credential issuer setting up an anonymous communication channel and the credential holder requesting the credential from the credential issuer. Paragraph [0134] of de Kok discloses the claim information might relate specifically to the credential holder, e.g. whether the credential holder is employed by a certain company, whether the credential holder has been vaccinated (the issuer being health-care staff), an access authorization, or privileged contact information, or it might not relate specifically to the credential holder, e.g. an anonymous concert ticket or a concert ticket in the name of a different credential holder) ; re-randomize, in response to the request to [re-issue] the target credential, an original public key associated with the target credential to generate a re-randomized public key (Paragraph [0124] of de Kok discloses performing, at the system of the credential issuer, polymorphic re-randomization and/or polymorphic pseudonymization on the signing information obtained in step 103. Step 203 comprises creating, at the system of the credential issuer, the proof for the claim information by creating the signature with the re-randomized and/or pseudonymized signing information obtained in step 201) ; generate a new credential based on the target credential but with the original public key replaced with the re-randomized public key (Paragraph [0124] of de Kok discloses performing, at the system of the credential issuer, polymorphic re-randomization and/or polymorphic pseudonymization on the signing information obtained in step 103. Step 203 comprises creating, at the system of the credential issuer, the proof for the claim information by creating the signature with the re-randomized and/or pseudonymized signing information obtained in step 201) ; and provide the new credential to the requester entity, wherein the requester entity can use the new credential for authentication transactions successfully only if the requester entity is an owner of the target credential (Paragraph [0120] of de Kok discloses providing, by the system of the credential holder, a presentation of the verifiable credential received in step 111 to a system of a credential verifier) . de Kok does not explicitly disclose re-issue. However, Rinehart discloses this. Column 8 lines 40-45 of Rinehart disclose the credential renewal request can include a request for new credentials for multiple expiring credentials. Examiner recites the same rationale to combine used for claim 1. As to Claim 12, de Kok-Rinehart discloses the computer program product of claim 11, wherein the first request is one of a plurality of requests from the same requester entity, each request in the plurality of requests requesting re-issue of a corresponding other target credential (Column 8 lines 40-45 of Rinehart disclose the credential renewal request can include a request for new credentials for multiple expiring credentials) . Examiner recites the same rationale to combine used for claim 1. As to Claim 13, de Kok-Rinehart discloses the computer program product of claim 12, wherein the plurality of requests comprises the first request and one or more second requests that are decoy requests submitted to hide the first request within the plurality of requests (Column 8 lines 40-60 because only security manager 305 knows which expiring credential has been compromised, the new credentials returned by third-party server 315 can be assigned to expiring credentials by security manager 305 while excluding (or deleting) the new credential for the expiring and compromised credential. Without an association between an expiring and compromised credential and a renewed credential, a malicious attack can be neutralized (or deviated to a honeypot) without providing a malicious attack further attack possibilities with freshly renewed credentials) . Examiner recites the same rationale to combine used for claim 1. As to Claim 16, de Kok-Rinehart discloses the computer program product of claim 11, wherein the data processing system publishes all certified public keys and credentials, for all holders that have been issued a credential, in a published listing data structure accessible to all users (Paragraph [0027] of de Kok discloses the verification information comprising group information and public cryptographic information associated with the anonymity group) . As to Claim 17, de Kok-Rinehart discloses the computer program product of claim 11, wherein the requesting entity is not the identity holder of the target credential, and wherein when the requesting entity presents the new credential to a verifier, the requesting entity provides an invalid presentation of the new credential (Paragraph [0093] of de Kok disclose invalid signatures always fail verification) . As to Claim 18, de Kok-Rinehart discloses the computer program product of claim 11, wherein: the request is one of a plurality of requests from the requesting entity, which are submitted to the data processing system, each request in the plurality of requests is directed to a different target credential, each request is successful and generates a corresponding re-issued credential that is provided to the requesting entity, the requesting entity is an identity holder associated with the target credential, and the requesting entity uses the new credential in a presentation of the new credential as part of an interaction with a verifier and discards the other re-issued credentials (Paragraph [0120] of de Kok discloses providing, by the system of the credential holder, a presentation of the verifiable credential received in step 111 to a system of a credential verifier. Column 8 lines 40-45 of Rinehart disclose the credential renewal request can include a request for new credentials for multiple expiring credentials) . Examiner recites the same rationale to combine used for claim 1. As to Claim 19, de Kok-Rinehart discloses the computer program product of claim 11, wherein successful collusion between an issuer of credentials and a verifier to generate a profile of an identity holder is prevented by the method since the new credential is not able to be correlated, by the issuer or verifier, with the target credential via a public key (Paragraph [0023] of de Kok discloses third parties cannot correlate verifiable credentials from the same credential issuer. Column 8 lines 40-60 because only security manager 305 knows which expiring credential has been compromised, the new credentials returned by third-party server 315 can be assigned to expiring credentials by security manager 305 while excluding (or deleting) the new credential for the expiring and compromised credential. Without an association between an expiring and compromised credential and a renewed credential, a malicious attack can be neutralized (or deviated to a honeypot) without providing a malicious attack further attack possibilities with freshly renewed credentials) . Examiner recites the same rationale to combine used for claim 1. As to Claim 20, de Kok discloses an apparatus comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory coupled to the at least one processor, wherein the at least one memory comprises instructions which, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to: receive, from a requester entity, a first request to [re-issue] a target credential in a plurality of credentials of a public credential listing, wherein any entity, in a plurality of entities, can request re-issuance of any credential in the plurality of credentials and have the credential successfully re-issued to that entity , wherein the first request is received without authenticating the requester entity and wherein the target credential is not associated with the requester entity (Paragraph [0133] of de Kok discloses the credential holder and the credential issuer setting up an anonymous communication channel and the credential holder requesting the credential from the credential issuer. Paragraph [0134] of de Kok discloses the claim information might relate specifically to the credential holder, e.g. whether the credential holder is employed by a certain company, whether the credential holder has been vaccinated (the issuer being health-care staff), an access authorization, or privileged contact information, or it might not relate specifically to the credential holder, e.g. an anonymous concert ticket or a concert ticket in the name of a different credential holder) ; re-randomize, in response to the request to [re-issue] the target credential, an original public key associated with the target credential to generate a re-randomized public key (Paragraph [0124] of de Kok discloses performing, at the system of the credential issuer, polymorphic re-randomization and/or polymorphic pseudonymization on the signing information obtained in step 103. Step 203 comprises creating, at the system of the credential issuer, the proof for the claim information by creating the signature with the re-randomized and/or pseudonymized signing information obtained in step 201) ; generate a new credential based on the target credential but with the original public key replaced with the re-randomized public key (Paragraph [0124] of de Kok discloses performing, at the system of the credential issuer, polymorphic re-randomization and/or polymorphic pseudonymization on the signing information obtained in step 103. Step 203 comprises creating, at the system of the credential issuer, the proof for the claim information by creating the signature with the re-randomized and/or pseudonymized signing information obtained in step 201) ; and provide the new credential to the requester entity, wherein the requester entity can use the new credential for authentication transactions successfully only if the requester entity is an owner of the target credential (Paragraph [0120] of de Kok discloses providing, by the system of the credential holder, a presentation of the verifiable credential received in step 111 to a system of a credential verifier) . de Kok does not explicitly disclose re-issue. However, Rinehart discloses this. Column 8 lines 40-45 of Rinehart disclose the credential renewal request can include a request for new credentials for multiple expiring credentials. Examiner recites the same rationale to combine used for claim 1 . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 4, 5, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over de Kok-Rinehart and further in view of US Pub. No. 2024/0135380 to Azgad-Tromer et al. (hereinafter “Azgad”) . As to Claim 4, de Kok-Rinehart discloses the method of claim 1. de Kok-Rinehart does not explicitly disclose wherein generating the new credential comprises performing a blind signing of the new credential by the data processing system, wherein the blind signing comprises the data processing system signing the new credential without knowing whether the requester entity is an identity owner of the target credential. However, Azgad discloses this. Paragraph [0122] of Azgad discloses it may be signed using a “blind signature” in such a way that a person who possesses the credential information can interact with the authority to obtain a signature on this credential, without the authority learning any (or some) information on the credential. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to combine the credential system as disclosed by de Kok, with blind signatures as disclosed by Azgad. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine to apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results. de Kok and Azgad are directed toward credential system and as such it would be obvious to use the techniques of one in the other. Implementing the techniques of Azgad in de Kok improves user privacy. As to Claim 5, de Kok-Rinehart-Azgad discloses the method of claim 4, wherein after blind signing of the new credential, the new credential is a reissued credential that is not able to be related to the target credential via a public key since the original public key and the re-randomized public key are uncorrelatable (Paragraph [0023] of de Kok discloses third parties cannot correlate verifiable credentials from the same credential issuer. Column 8 lines 40-60 because only security manager 305 knows which expiring credential has been compromised, the new credentials returned by third-party server 315 can be assigned to expiring credentials by security manager 305 while excluding (or deleting) the new credential for the expiring and compromised credential. Without an association between an expiring and compromised credential and a renewed credential, a malicious attack can be neutralized (or deviated to a honeypot) without providing a malicious attack further attack possibilities with freshly renewed credentials) . Examiner recites the same rationale to combine used for claim 1. As to Claim 14, de Kok-Rinehart discloses the computer program product of claim 11. de Kok-Rinehart does not explicitly disclose wherein generating the new credential comprises performing a blind signing of the new credential by the data processing system, wherein the blind signing comprises the data processing system signing the new credential without knowing whether the requester entity is an identity owner of the target credential. However, Azgad discloses this. Paragraph [0122] of Azgad discloses it may be signed using a “blind signature” in such a way that a person who possesses the credential information can interact with the authority to obtain a signature on this credential, without the authority learning any (or some) information on the credential. Examiner recites the same rationale to combine used for claim 4. As to Claim 15, de Kok-Rinehart-Azgad discloses the computer program product of claim 14, wherein after blind signing of the new credential, the new credential is a reissued credential that is not able to be related to the target credential via a public key since the original public key and the re-randomized public key are uncorrelatable (Paragraph [0023] of de Kok discloses third parties cannot correlate verifiable credentials from the same credential issuer. Column 8 lines 40-60 because only security manager 305 knows which expiring credential has been compromised, the new credentials returned by third-party server 315 can be assigned to expiring credentials by security manager 305 while excluding (or deleting) the new credential for the expiring and compromised credential. Without an association between an expiring and compromised credential and a renewed credential, a malicious attack can be neutralized (or deviated to a honeypot) without providing a malicious attack further attack possibilities with freshly renewed credentials) . Examiner recites the same rationale to combine used for claim 1. 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 Kevin S Mai whose telephone number is (571)270-5001. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 9AM to 5PM. 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 5712723951. 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. /KEVIN S MAI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2499 Application/Control Number: 18/906,336 Page 2 Art Unit: 2499 Application/Control Number: 18/906,336 Page 3 Art Unit: 2499 Application/Control Number: 18/906,336 Page 4 Art Unit: 2499 Application/Control Number: 18/906,336 Page 5 Art Unit: 2499 Application/Control Number: 18/906,336 Page 7 Art Unit: 2499 Application/Control Number: 18/906,336 Page 8 Art Unit: 2499 Application/Control Number: 18/906,336 Page 10 Art Unit: 2499 Application/Control Number: 18/906,336 Page 12 Art Unit: 2499 Application/Control Number: 18/906,336 Page 13 Art Unit: 2499 Application/Control Number: 18/906,336 Page 14 Art Unit: 2499 Application/Control Number: 18/906,336 Page 15 Art Unit: 2499 Application/Control Number: 18/906,336 Page 16 Art Unit: 2499
Prosecution Insights