CTFR 18/920,729 CTFR 84401 DETAILED ACTION This Office Action has been issued in response to Applicant's Amendment filed March 11, 2026. Claims 1, 3, 9, 11, 17, and 18 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 11, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s argues the specifics of making the persistence diagram are non obvious over the references. As understood by the examiner, the steps listed are the standard steps taken to create a persistence diagram. These would necessarily occur to create any persistence diagram. Accordingly, the question comes to if it would be obvious to use persistence diagrams in the context of the claims. The claims use persistence diagrams as a method to challenge a user to prove they are who they are. The system and the user both know a piece of (presumably secret) information, the identification number, and then using a filtration threshold provided by the system, both entities process the identification number and filtration threshold to create persistence diagrams. The system then compares the persistence diagrams to see if the user really know the information and thus is who they say they are. This is very similar to the system discussed in O’Mahony. Paragraph [0086] of O’Mahony discloses the device may receive a challenge consisting of a value (e.g., a random number) encrypted using a key. Analogous to getting a filtration threshold. Paragraph [0086] of O’Mahony discloses (1) decrypting the encrypted value (e.g., using a symmetric or asymmetric key); (2) determining a response value using the decrypted value (e.g., by calculating a value of a function using the decrypted value; and (3) transmitting the response value to the computing device. Analogous to creating persistence diagrams. Paragraph [0086] of O’Mahony discloses if the response value meets an expected value, the monitoring device may be authenticated (e.g., determined to be a trusted source of information) by the computing device. Analogous to checking if the persistence diagrams are the same. However, O’Mahony doesn’t explicitly disclose the function used. Paragraph [0047] of Jakobsson discloses for using hash functions for challenges, hash( ) is a function such as a cryptographic hash function or another function that is hard to invert or which is many-to-one. Persistence diagrams in topological data analysis are a known function that fit the criteria of hard to invert and many to one. Accordingly, with the teaching that challenges use this category of functions it would be obvious to use persistence diagrams in such a fashion. As a further example, Paragraph [0115] of US Pub. No. 2018/0027004 to Huang et al. (hereinafter “Huang”) discusses the device may use locality sensitive hashing or topological analysis (e.g., persistent homology techniques), to assess the correlations. Suggesting that hashing techniques and topological analysis including persistent homology techniques are known alternatives of each other . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 In view of applicant’s arguments the pending claim rejections under 35 USC § 101 have been withdrawn. 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) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 2022/0082627 to O’Mahony et al. (hereinafter “O’Mahony”) and further in view of US Pub. No. 2019/0324995 to Jakobsson (hereinafter “Jakobsson”) . As to Claim 1, O’Mahony discloses a method, comprising: encoding an identification number into a persistence diagram (Paragraph [0086] of O’Mahony discloses if the response value meets an expected value) by: generating a point cloud based on the identification number, generating a simplicial complex by increasing a filtration value incrementally until reaching a filtration threshold, and collating topological features from the simplicial complex into a single representation, the topological features including initial coordinates and terminal coordinates (Paragraph [0086] of O’Mahony discloses (1) decrypting the encrypted value (e.g., using a symmetric or asymmetric key); (2) determining a response value using the decrypted value (e.g., by calculating a value of a function using the decrypted value; and (3) transmitting the response value to the computing device) ; transmitting the filtration threshold associated with the persistence diagram as a one time password (OTP) to a user device (Paragraph [0086] of O’Mahony discloses the device may receive a challenge consisting of a value (e.g., a random number) encrypted using a key) ; receiving, from the user device, a recreated persistence diagram, wherein the recreated persistence diagram is generated at the user device using the identification number and the filtration threshold (Paragraph [0086] of O’Mahony discloses (1) decrypting the encrypted value (e.g., using a symmetric or asymmetric key); (2) determining a response value using the decrypted value (e.g., by calculating a value of a function using the decrypted value; and (3) transmitting the response value to the computing device) ; in response to determining that the persistence diagram and the recreated persistence diagram are the same, providing access to a restricted computational system (Paragraph [0086] of O’Mahony discloses if the response value meets an expected value, the monitoring device may be authenticated (e.g., determined to be a trusted source of information) by the computing device) ; and in response to an elapsed predetermined period of time, changing the filtration threshold (Paragraph [0086] of O’Mahony discloses the device may receive a challenge consisting of a value (e.g., a random number) encrypted using a key) . O’Mahony does not explicitly disclose the components related to the topological data analysis. However, this would have been obvious in view of Jakobsson. Paragraph [0047] of Jakobsson discloses for using hash functions for challenges, hash( ) is a function such as a cryptographic hash function or another function that is hard to invert or which is many-to-one. Persistence diagrams in topological data analysis are a known function that fit the criteria of hard to invert and many to one. Accordingly, with the teaching that challenges use this category of functions it would be obvious to use persistence diagrams in such a fashion. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to combine the challenge response system as disclosed by O’Mahony, with using any function that is hard to invert or which is many to one as disclosed by Jakobsson. 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. O’Mahony and Jakobsson are directed toward challenge response systems and as such it would be obvious to use the techniques of one in the other. Paragraph [0047] of Jakobsson discloses for using hash functions for challenges, hash( ) is a function such as a cryptographic hash function or another function that is hard to invert or which is many-to-one. Accordingly, any known function that is hard to invert or many to one would be an obvious candidate for challenge response systems. As to Claim 2, O’Mahony-Jakobsson discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the transmitting the filtration threshold to the user device includes: encrypting the filtration threshold; and transmitting the encrypted filtration threshold to the user device (Paragraph [0086] of O’Mahony discloses the device may receive a challenge consisting of a value (e.g., a random number) encrypted using a key) . As to Claim 3, O’Mahony-Jakobsson discloses the method of claim 2, wherein the recreated persistence diagram is generated at the user device by extracting secondary topological features from a secondary simplicial complex generated using the identification number and the filtration threshold (Paragraph [0086] of O’Mahony discloses (1) decrypting the encrypted value (e.g., using a symmetric or asymmetric key); (2) determining a response value using the decrypted value (e.g., by calculating a value of a function using the decrypted value; and (3) transmitting the response value to the computing device) . Examiner recites the same rationale to combine used for claim 1. As to Claim 4, O’Mahony-Jakobsson discloses the method of claim 3, wherein respective colors in the persistence diagram correspond to respective Betti numbers (Paragraph [0047] of Jakobsson discloses for using hash functions for challenges, hash( ) is a function such as a cryptographic hash function or another function that is hard to invert or which is many-to-one. Persistence diagrams in topological data analysis are a known function that fit the criteria of hard to invert and many to one. Accordingly, with the teaching that challenges use this category of functions it would be obvious to use persistence diagrams in such a fashion. The claimed steps are standard practice in topological data analysis) . Examiner recites the same rationale to combine used for claim 1. As to Claim 5, O’Mahony-Jakobsson discloses the method of claim 4, wherein a first of the Betti numbers corresponds to a number of connected points in the persistence diagram, wherein a second of the Betti numbers corresponds to a number of cycles and/or loops in the persistence diagram, wherein a third of the Betti numbers corresponds to a number of three dimensional holes in the persistence diagram (Paragraph [0047] of Jakobsson discloses for using hash functions for challenges, hash( ) is a function such as a cryptographic hash function or another function that is hard to invert or which is many-to-one. Persistence diagrams in topological data analysis are a known function that fit the criteria of hard to invert and many to one. Accordingly, with the teaching that challenges use this category of functions it would be obvious to use persistence diagrams in such a fashion. The claimed steps are standard practice in topological data analysis) . Examiner recites the same rationale to combine used for claim 1. As to Claim 6, O’Mahony-Jakobsson discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the recreated persistence diagram is generated at the user device by: transforming the identification number into a secondary point cloud using a one-dimension to two-dimension mapping function; incrementally increasing a radius around each point in the secondary point cloud along with the filtration value; and in response to the filtration value reaching the filtration threshold, producing the recreated persistence diagram (Paragraph [0086] of O’Mahony discloses (1) decrypting the encrypted value (e.g., using a symmetric or asymmetric key); (2) determining a response value using the decrypted value (e.g., by calculating a value of a function using the decrypted value; and (3) transmitting the response value to the computing device. Paragraph [0047] of Jakobsson discloses for using hash functions for challenges, hash( ) is a function such as a cryptographic hash function or another function that is hard to invert or which is many-to-one. Persistence diagrams in topological data analysis are a known function that fit the criteria of hard to invert and many to one. Accordingly, with the teaching that challenges use this category of functions it would be obvious to use persistence diagrams in such a fashion. The claimed steps are standard practice in topological data analysis) . Examiner recites the same rationale to combine used for claim 1. As to Claim 7, O’Mahony-Jakobsson discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: in response to determining that the persistence diagram and the recreated persistence diagram are not the same, rejecting access to the restricted computational system (Paragraph [0086] of O’Mahony discloses If the response value does not meet the expected value, the device may be determined to be tampered with or compromised to an adversary) . As to Claim 8, O’Mahony-Jakobsson discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the method is performed at a central server that is connected to the user device over one or more networks (Paragraph [0049] of O’Mahony discloses the computing device may be a desktop, laptop, server, smartphone, tablet, or any other suitable computing device) . As to Claim 9, O’Mahony discloses a computer program product, comprising: one or more computer-readable storage media; and program instructions stored on the one or more storage media to perform operations comprising: encoding an identification number into a persistence diagram (Paragraph [0086] of O’Mahony discloses if the response value meets an expected value) by: generating a point cloud based on the identification number, generating a simplicial complex by increasing a filtration value incrementally until reaching a filtration threshold, and collating topological features from the simplicial complex into a single representation, the topological features including initial coordinates and terminal coordinates ; transmitting the filtration threshold associated with the persistence diagram as a one time password (OTP) to a user device (Paragraph [0086] of O’Mahony discloses the device may receive a challenge consisting of a value (e.g., a random number) encrypted using a key) ; receiving, from the user device, a recreated persistence diagram, wherein the recreated persistence diagram is generated at the user device using the identification number and the filtration threshold (Paragraph [0086] of O’Mahony discloses (1) decrypting the encrypted value (e.g., using a symmetric or asymmetric key); (2) determining a response value using the decrypted value (e.g., by calculating a value of a function using the decrypted value; and (3) transmitting the response value to the computing device) ; in response to determining that the persistence diagram and the recreated persistence diagram are the same, providing access to a restricted computational system (Paragraph [0086] of O’Mahony discloses if the response value meets an expected value, the monitoring device may be authenticated (e.g., determined to be a trusted source of information) by the computing device) ; and in response to an elapsed predetermined period of time, changing the filtration threshold (Paragraph [0086] of O’Mahony discloses the device may receive a challenge consisting of a value (e.g., a random number) encrypted using a key) . O’Mahony does not explicitly disclose the components related to the topological data analysis. However, this would have been obvious in view of Jakobsson. Paragraph [0047] of Jakobsson discloses for using hash functions for challenges, hash( ) is a function such as a cryptographic hash function or another function that is hard to invert or which is many-to-one. Persistence diagrams in topological data analysis are a known function that fit the criteria of hard to invert and many to one. Accordingly, with the teaching that challenges use this category of functions it would be obvious to use persistence diagrams in such a fashion. Examiner recites the same rationale to combine used for claim 1. As to Claim 10, O’Mahony-Jakobsson discloses the computer program product of claim 9, wherein the transmitting the filtration threshold to the user device includes: encrypting the filtration threshold; and transmitting the encrypted filtration threshold to the user device (Paragraph [0086] of O’Mahony discloses the device may receive a challenge consisting of a value (e.g., a random number) encrypted using a key) . As to Claim 11, O’Mahony-Jakobsson discloses the computer program product of claim 10, wherein the recreated persistence diagram is generated at the user device by extracting secondary topological features from a secondary simplicial complex generated using the identification number and the filtration threshold (Paragraph [0086] of O’Mahony discloses if the response value meets an expected value. Paragraph [0047] of Jakobsson discloses for using hash functions for challenges, hash( ) is a function such as a cryptographic hash function or another function that is hard to invert or which is many-to-one. Persistence diagrams in topological data analysis are a known function that fit the criteria of hard to invert and many to one. Accordingly, with the teaching that challenges use this category of functions it would be obvious to use persistence diagrams in such a fashion. The claimed steps are standard practice in topological data analysis) . Examiner recites the same rationale to combine used for claim 1. As to Claim 12, O’Mahony-Jakobsson discloses the computer program product of claim 11, wherein respective colors in the persistence diagram correspond to respective Betti numbers (Paragraph [0047] of Jakobsson discloses for using hash functions for challenges, hash( ) is a function such as a cryptographic hash function or another function that is hard to invert or which is many-to-one. Persistence diagrams in topological data analysis are a known function that fit the criteria of hard to invert and many to one. Accordingly, with the teaching that challenges use this category of functions it would be obvious to use persistence diagrams in such a fashion. The claimed steps are standard practice in topological data analysis) . Examiner recites the same rationale to combine used for claim 1. As to Claim 13, O’Mahony-Jakobsson discloses the computer program product of claim 12, wherein a first of the Betti numbers corresponds to a number of connected points in the persistence diagram, wherein a second of the Betti numbers corresponds to a number of cycles and/or loops in the persistence diagram, wherein a third of the Betti numbers corresponds to a number of three dimensional holes in the persistence diagram (Paragraph [0047] of Jakobsson discloses for using hash functions for challenges, hash( ) is a function such as a cryptographic hash function or another function that is hard to invert or which is many-to-one. Persistence diagrams in topological data analysis are a known function that fit the criteria of hard to invert and many to one. Accordingly, with the teaching that challenges use this category of functions it would be obvious to use persistence diagrams in such a fashion. The claimed steps are standard practice in topological data analysis) . Examiner recites the same rationale to combine used for claim 1. As to Claim 14, O’Mahony-Jakobsson discloses the computer program product of claim 9, wherein the recreated persistence diagram is generated at the user device by: transforming the identification number into a secondary point cloud using a one-dimension to two-dimension mapping function; incrementally increasing a radius around each point in the secondary point cloud along with the filtration value; and in response to the filtration value reaching the filtration threshold, producing the recreated persistence diagram (Paragraph [0086] of O’Mahony discloses (1) decrypting the encrypted value (e.g., using a symmetric or asymmetric key); (2) determining a response value using the decrypted value (e.g., by calculating a value of a function using the decrypted value; and (3) transmitting the response value to the computing device. Paragraph [0047] of Jakobsson discloses for using hash functions for challenges, hash( ) is a function such as a cryptographic hash function or another function that is hard to invert or which is many-to-one. Persistence diagrams in topological data analysis are a known function that fit the criteria of hard to invert and many to one. Accordingly, with the teaching that challenges use this category of functions it would be obvious to use persistence diagrams in such a fashion. The claimed steps are standard practice in topological data analysis) . Examiner recites the same rationale to combine used for claim 1. As to Claim 15, O’Mahony-Jakobsson discloses the computer program product of claim 9, wherein the operations further comprise: in response to determining that the persistence diagram and the recreated persistence diagram are not the same, rejecting access to the restricted computational system (Paragraph [0086] of O’Mahony discloses If the response value does not meet the expected value, the device may be determined to be tampered with or compromised to an adversary) . As to Claim 16, O’Mahony-Jakobsson discloses the computer program product of claim 9, wherein the operations are performed at a central server that is connected to the user device over one or more networks (Paragraph [0049] of O’Mahony discloses the computing device may be a desktop, laptop, server, smartphone, tablet, or any other suitable computing device) . As to Claim 17, O’Mahony discloses a computer system, comprising: a processor set; one or more computer-readable storage media; and program instructions stored on the one or more storage media to cause the processor set to perform operations comprising: encoding an identification number into a persistence diagram (Paragraph [0086] of O’Mahony discloses if the response value meets an expected value) by: generating a point cloud based on the identification number, generating a simplicial complex by increasing a filtration value incrementally until reaching a filtration threshold, and collating topological features from the simplicial complex into a single representation, the topological features including initial coordinates and terminal coordinates (Paragraph [0086] of O’Mahony discloses (1) decrypting the encrypted value (e.g., using a symmetric or asymmetric key); (2) determining a response value using the decrypted value (e.g., by calculating a value of a function using the decrypted value; and (3) transmitting the response value to the computing device) ; transmitting a filtration threshold associated with the persistence diagram as a one time password (OTP) to a user device (Paragraph [0086] of O’Mahony discloses the device may receive a challenge consisting of a value (e.g., a random number) encrypted using a key) ; receiving, from the user device, a recreated persistence diagram, wherein the recreated persistence diagram is generated at the user device using the identification number and the filtration threshold (Paragraph [0086] of O’Mahony discloses (1) decrypting the encrypted value (e.g., using a symmetric or asymmetric key); (2) determining a response value using the decrypted value (e.g., by calculating a value of a function using the decrypted value; and (3) transmitting the response value to the computing device) ; in response to determining that the persistence diagram and the recreated persistence diagram are the same, providing access to a restricted computational system (Paragraph [0086] of O’Mahony discloses if the response value meets an expected value, the monitoring device may be authenticated (e.g., determined to be a trusted source of information) by the computing device) ; and in response to an elapsed predetermined period of time, changing the filtration threshold (Paragraph [0086] of O’Mahony discloses the device may receive a challenge consisting of a value (e.g., a random number) encrypted using a key) . O’Mahony does not explicitly disclose the components related to the topological data analysis. However, this would have been obvious in view of Jakobsson. Paragraph [0047] of Jakobsson discloses for using hash functions for challenges, hash( ) is a function such as a cryptographic hash function or another function that is hard to invert or which is many-to-one. Persistence diagrams in topological data analysis are a known function that fit the criteria of hard to invert and many to one. Accordingly, with the teaching that challenges use this category of functions it would be obvious to use persistence diagrams in such a fashion. Examiner recites the same rationale to combine used for claim 1. As to Claim 18, O’Mahony-Jakobsson discloses the computer system of claim 17, wherein the recreated persistence diagram is generated at the user device by extracting secondary topological features from a secondary simplicial complex generated using the identification number and the filtration threshold (Paragraph [0086] of O’Mahony discloses if the response value meets an expected value. Paragraph [0047] of Jakobsson discloses for using hash functions for challenges, hash( ) is a function such as a cryptographic hash function or another function that is hard to invert or which is many-to-one. Persistence diagrams in topological data analysis are a known function that fit the criteria of hard to invert and many to one. Accordingly, with the teaching that challenges use this category of functions it would be obvious to use persistence diagrams in such a fashion. The claimed steps are standard practice in topological data analysis) . Examiner recites the same rationale to combine used for claim 1. As to Claim 19, O’Mahony-Jakobsson discloses the computer system of claim 18, wherein the topological features represent: a number of connected points in the persistence diagram, a number of cycles and/or loops in the persistence diagram, and a number of three dimensional holes in the persistence diagram (Paragraph [0047] of Jakobsson discloses for using hash functions for challenges, hash( ) is a function such as a cryptographic hash function or another function that is hard to invert or which is many-to-one. Persistence diagrams in topological data analysis are a known function that fit the criteria of hard to invert and many to one. Accordingly, with the teaching that challenges use this category of functions it would be obvious to use persistence diagrams in such a fashion. The claimed steps are standard practice in topological data analysis) . Examiner recites the same rationale to combine used for claim 1. As to Claim 20, O’Mahony-Jakobsson discloses the computer system of claim 17, wherein the recreated persistence diagram is generated at the user device by: transforming the identification number into a secondary point cloud using a one-dimension to two-dimension mapping function; incrementally increasing a radius around each point in the secondary point cloud along with the filtration value; and in response to the filtration value reaching the filtration threshold, producing the recreated persistence diagram (Paragraph [0086] of O’Mahony discloses (1) decrypting the encrypted value (e.g., using a symmetric or asymmetric key); (2) determining a response value using the decrypted value (e.g., by calculating a value of a function using the decrypted value; and (3) transmitting the response value to the computing device. Paragraph [0047] of Jakobsson discloses for using hash functions for challenges, hash( ) is a function such as a cryptographic hash function or another function that is hard to invert or which is many-to-one. Persistence diagrams in topological data analysis are a known function that fit the criteria of hard to invert and many to one. Accordingly, with the teaching that challenges use this category of functions it would be obvious to use persistence diagrams in such a fashion. The claimed steps are standard practice in topological data analysis) . 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: 18/920,729 Page 2 Art Unit: 2499 Application/Control Number: 18/920,729 Page 3 Art Unit: 2499 Application/Control Number: 18/920,729 Page 4 Art Unit: 2499 Application/Control Number: 18/920,729 Page 5 Art Unit: 2499 Application/Control Number: 18/920,729 Page 6 Art Unit: 2499 Application/Control Number: 18/920,729 Page 7 Art Unit: 2499 Application/Control Number: 18/920,729 Page 8 Art Unit: 2499 Application/Control Number: 18/920,729 Page 10 Art Unit: 2499 Application/Control Number: 18/920,729 Page 11 Art Unit: 2499 Application/Control Number: 18/920,729 Page 14 Art Unit: 2499 Application/Control Number: 18/920,729 Page 15 Art Unit: 2499 Application/Control Number: 18/920,729 Page 16 Art Unit: 2499 Application/Control Number: 18/920,729 Page 17 Art Unit: 2499
Prosecution Insights