Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . The present office action is responsive to communication received 10/3/2025.
Claims 1, 8-11, and 13-16 have been amended.
Claims 1-22 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 10/7/2025 was filed after the mailing date of the application no. 17/948,827 on 09/20/2022. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10/3/2025 has been entered. This Action is made Non-FINAL.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments in the instant Amendment, filed on 10/3/2025, with respect to limitations listed below, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding claim 1 applicant argues reference Williams fails to explicitly disclose “an indication of a second authority associated with the system executing the gatekeeping application, the second health authority being different than the first health authority”. The examiner respectfully disagrees, the examiner believes reference Williams [0055] discloses a second user device including an app which allows a user to authenticate and validate healthy status information detected from the first user device. That second user device is being interpretated to be the second health authority. In Williams [0046] discloses 416 being the identifier of the patient which is the second participant (404) if we take look at Fig. 4 we can 404 the patient has the identifier of 416 which is being sent to the patient device 426 which is the “second user device” which does the validation of the health status information. This shows the patient identifier can be interpretated as the second health authority which is associated with the device that executes the gatekeeping application (validation application) and is different from the indication of the healthcare provider.
Allowable Subject Matter
Regarding claim 15,
Williams in view of White in further view of Pearson and in further view of Gotthardt disclose the method of claim 14, but fail to explicitly disclose wherein the second hash comprises a hash calculated based on a third hash of the public key associated with the first authority and a fourth hash of the public key associated with the second authority.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to claim 15.
Gasparini et al., (US 11025436) discloses the hashes of public keys being used inside the identity instead of the key itself, an identity broker could lookup the actual public key based on the hashed public key.
Claim 15 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-11 and 16-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams et al. (US 20210313069) in view of White et al. (US 10923216).
Regarding claim 1,
Williams teaches a method for verifying personal health status information performed by a gatekeeping application executing on a system comprising a processor and a non- transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the system executing the gatekeeping application to perform the method, the method comprising:
[The second user device 508 includes an installed software application (i.e., an app) programmed to allow a user to authenticate and validate health status information detected from the first user device 506. (Williams et al., paragraph 49, verification performed by the second user device app or the gatekeeping application)]
[The processes and logic flows described in this specification can be performed by one or more programmable processors executing one or more computer programs to perform functions by operating on input data and generating output. The processes and logic flows can also be performed by, and apparatus can also be implemented as, special purpose logic circuitry. (Williams et al., paragraph 67)]
[In accordance with additional aspects of this specification, a computer storage medium is encoded with a computer program, and the program includes instructions that when executed by data processing apparatus cause the data processing apparatus to perform operations including detecting an image displayed on a display of a mobile device using an image sensor. (Williams et al., paragraph 11)]
receiving, by the gatekeeping application from a verification application executing on a user device associated with a user, personal health status information verification credentials,
[A first user device 506 includes an installed software application (i.e., an app) programmed to allow a user to authenticate to the validation platform 502, to retrieve health status information, and to display the health status information. (Williams et al., paragraph 49, first user device has a installed software application as well which can be interpreted to being the verification application)]
[The second user device 508 includes an installed software application (i.e., an app) programmed to allow a user to authenticate and validate health status information detected from the first user device 506. In some implementations, the software application installed on each user device 506 in 508 can be different applications, while in other implementations, the application can include functionality to selectively display health status information and to authenticate and validate health status information. (Williams et al., paragraph 49, receiving the health status information from the first user device and authenticating using second user device application which can be interpreted as the gatekeeping application)]
the personal health status information verification credentials comprising:
an indication of identification information associated with the user,
[The validation platform 502 then transmits the retrieved health status information and participant identification information to the second user device 508. (Williams et al., paragraph 51, the combination of health status information and participant can be interpreted to be the personal health status information verification credentials)]
an indication of health status information associated with the user,
[the health status information (e.g., as displayed and stored) can include an indication that the first user has received a vaccination or a positive antibody test, that a predetermined period of time since a positive test result for a communicable disease, a certification from an authorizing authority, or compliance with a required quarantine. (Williams et al., paragraph 55, health status information indicating user and being received at the second user device app)]
an indication of a first health authority associated with the health status information,
[the health status information (e.g., as displayed and stored) can include an indication that the first user has received a vaccination or a positive antibody test, that a predetermined period of time since a positive test result for a communicable disease, a certification from an authorizing authority, or compliance with a required quarantine. (Williams et al., paragraph 55)]
and an indication of a second health authority associated with the system executing the gatekeeping application, the second health authority being different than the first health authority;
[a verified source of a health test kit or a vaccine, a recordation of a sequence of events in a distributed ledger, administration of a vaccination or a health test by an authorized entity, or verifying certification of a health status by a governmental, healthcare provider, or other certifying entity. (Williams et al., paragraph 55, indication of healthcare provider all part of the health status information)]
[A second example event can involve one entity, two participants, and an object, each again with its own identifier. For example, an agent (a first participant 402) of a healthcare provider (a third entity 410) may administer a test kit (an object 412) to a patient (a second participant 404). When the event occurs, the respective identifiers 414, 416, 422, and 424 can be collected using an app on a mobile device 426. The app can collect the respective identifiers by, for example, scanning a bar code on the test kit, a QR code displayed on the app of the patient, and identifying the authenticated agent user of the app and the healthcare provider with which the agent is associated. (Williams et al., paragraph 46, the identifiers can be interpreted to be an indication of the second health authority which here is the second participant (patient) )]
issuing a health status verification query to one or more ledger nodes maintaining one or more trusted distributed assertion ledgers, the health status verification query being generated based on the received personal health status information verification credentials;
[The software application on the second user device transmits a request to verify the health status certificate including a serialized version of the extracted reference to the verification platform at 616. (Williams et al., paragraph 53, request to verify health status certificate coming from second user device application )]
Williams fails to explicitly disclose receiving, from the one or more ledger nodes, at least one query response generated by the one or more ledger nodes, determining, based on the received query response, whether the personal health status information verification credentials meet at least one policy requirement enforced by the gatekeeping application and generating, based on the determination, an indication of whether the personal health status information verification credentials are validated by the gatekeeping application.
However in an analogous art White discloses receiving, from the one or more ledger nodes, at least one query response generated by the one or more ledger nodes,
[the transaction module of server 610 first may query the distributed ledger 522 to determine if a certification transaction is stored therein that would satisfy access requirements for the venue. (White et al., column 16, lines 53-57, receiving query response)]
determining, based on the received query response, whether the personal health status information verification credentials meet at least one policy requirement enforced by the gatekeeping application;
[the key request 720 indicates a requested transaction type (e.g., health certification (i.e., the key request 720 is for a health credential that the transaction module requires to complete the transaction(s)). (White et al., column 17, lines 2-5, the key request relating to health credential)]
[the key management module accesses the distributed ledger 522 to determine whether the key request 720 satisfies one or more validation criterion (White et al., column 17, lines 9-12, checking to see if it satisfies a validation criterion “policy requirement” )]
and generating, based on the determination, an indication of whether the personal health status information verification credentials are validated by the gatekeeping application.
[the first entity proceeds with block 802 to determine if the key request is valid. Validity may be based on one or more criteria including is the key request valid based on a predetermined time duration value, a number of times the key has been used compared to an allowed use number (note that a key may, in some embodiments, be used only once), the transaction type (e.g., purchase a ticket), and other validity criteria. When the key request is determined to be valid, the first entity synthesizes a key as part of the operation of block 802. In block 803, the first entity stores the key and any associated key data (e.g., key ID) in the distributed ledger 522, making the key accessible to any entity having access to the distributed ledger 522. (White et al., column 21, lines 4-17, since key request is mapped to health credential or certification then when the request is valid it is made accessible)]
Williams and White are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of information verification . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the instant application effective filing date to have modified the teachings of Williams to incorporate the teachings of White et al. to include receiving, from the one or more ledger nodes, at least one query response generated by the one or more ledger nodes, determining, based on the received query response, whether the personal health status information verification credentials meet at least one policy requirement enforced by the gatekeeping application and generating, based on the determination, an indication of whether the personal health status information verification credentials are validated by the gatekeeping application, in order to determine whether a health credential required satisfies validity criteria and when determining key request to be valid then making the key accessible to any entity having access to the distributed ledger. (White et al., column 4, lines 4-17)]
Regarding claim 2,
Williams in view of White discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the identification information associated with the user comprises an account associated with the user.
[ the patient participant 206 downloads the app at 236 and registers with the tracking platform at 238. (Williams et al., paragraph 39, registering can be seen as creating an account)]
[ FIG. 3 is an illustration of a mobile device 300 displaying a health status (e.g., an immunity) certificate 302, as generated through the process of FIG. 2, on the app. In this example, the health status certificate 302 is illustrated as an immunity certificate, although in other implementations, the health status certificate 302 may provide other health status information (e.g., vaccination status or status of a health test outcome). The immunity certificate 302 includes the name 304 of the patient participant along with other identifying information 306 and a photo 308 of the patient participant. In addition, the immunity status 310 is displayed. (Williams et al., paragraph 43, the health status certificate can be seen as an account refer to fig 3.)
Regarding claim 3,
Williams in view of White discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the health status information associated with the user comprises an indication of a vaccination status associated with the user.
[vaccination status can be retrieved using the app associated with the service platform by authenticating the identification of a patient participant and retrieving records associated with that patient participant using the service platform. (Williams et al., paragraph 21)]
Regarding claim 4,
Williams in view of White discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the health status information associated with the user comprises an indication of at least one administered vaccine dose associated with the user.
[Various other events can be recorded in a similar manner to, for example, track and record the chain of custody of a test kit, vaccine dose, or other health-related objects. (Williams et al., paragraph 47)]
Regarding claim 5,
Williams in view of White discloses the method of claim 4, wherein the health status information further comprises one or more of a vaccine administration date associated with the at least one administered vaccine dose, a vaccine manufacturer associated with the at least one administered vaccine dose, vaccine lot information associated with the at least one administered vaccine dose, vaccine dosage information data associated with the at least one administered vaccine dose, identification information relating to an individual that administered the at least one administered vaccine dose, and identification information relating to an entity associated with the administration of the at least one administered vaccination dose.
[Patient participants can view detailed information about the healthcare provider (or agent participant) and test kits or vaccines administered to them. (Williams et al., paragraph 23)]
Regarding claim 6,
Williams in view of White discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the health status information associated with the user comprises an indication of an immunity status associated with the user.
[A software application can be used to show a patient participant's current testing status as well as a previous record of exposure to a virus, as evidenced by the outcomes of testing. Participants can also be certified as to their status by respective medical or governmental bodies. These certifications (e.g., immunity certificates or immunization passports) can be shared by the patient with others, such as employers, businesses, and other people at their discretion. (Williams et al., paragraph 22)]
Regarding claim 7,
Williams in view of White discloses the method of claim 6, wherein the indication of the immunity status associated with the user comprises one or more of an infection test result associated with the user and an antibody test result associated with the user.
[Similarly, the health status information (e.g., as displayed and stored) can include an indication that the first user has received a vaccination or a positive antibody test, that a predetermined period of time since a positive test result for a communicable disease, a certification from an authorizing authority, or compliance with a required quarantine. (Williams et al., paragraph 55)]
Regarding claim 8,
Williams in view of White discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the first health authority and second health authority comprise public health authorities.
[The user can also decide which certifying authorities are displayed for each profile. A certifying authority can be any governmental, private, or other entity that is sets forth standards for assessing or categorizing health status, that authenticates or validates test results, immunization status, or other health status, or that serves as a trusted source for verification of health status. The user can select the appropriate health status profile as part of selectively displaying health status information to another person. (Williams et al., paragraph 57)]
Regarding claim 9,
Williams in view of White discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the health status information associated with the user comprises an indication of a vaccination status and the first health authority comprises a first public health authority associated with the indication of the vaccination status.
[The user can also decide which certifying authorities are displayed for each profile. A certifying authority can be any governmental, private, or other entity that is sets forth standards for assessing or categorizing health status, that authenticates or validates test results, immunization status, or other health status, or that serves as a trusted source for verification of health status. The user can select the appropriate health status profile as part of selectively displaying health status information to another person. (Williams et al., paragraph 57)]
[a certification from an authorizing authority; or a quarantine status. The communication includes a verification that at least one of a vaccination or a health test was administered by an authorized entity. (Williams et al., paragraph 8)]
Regarding claim 10,
Williams in view of White discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the system executing the gatekeeping application is associated with a managed location.
[in addition to being able to define rules for validating health status on individuals, a certifying authority can specify rules for a location (i.e., a space) to let people know the health status of a location or physical space. (Williams et al., paragraph 62)]
Regarding claim 11,
Williams in view of White discloses the method of claim 10, wherein the second health authority comprises a public health authority associated with the managed location.
[in addition to being able to define rules for validating health status on individuals, a certifying authority can specify rules for a location (i.e., a space) to let people know the health status of a location or physical space. (Williams et al., paragraph 62)]
Regarding claim 16,
Williams in view of White discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the indication of whether the personal health status information verification credentials are validated by the gatekeeping application comprises an indication provided by an interface of the system executing the gatekeeping application.
[Implementations of the subject matter described in this specification can be implemented in a computing system that includes a backend component, e.g., as a data server, or that includes a middleware component, e.g., an application server, or that includes a front end component, e.g., a client computer having a graphical user interface or a Web browser through which a user can interact with an implementation of the subject matter described is this specification, or any combination of one or more such backend, middleware, or front end components. (Williams et al., paragraph 70)]
Regarding claim 17,
Williams in view of White discloses the method of claim 16, wherein the indication of whether the personal health status information verification credentials are validated by the gatekeeping application comprises at least one of a text indication, a visual indication, and an audio indication.
[and validating the test participant credentials (e.g., by sending an email or text message to the test participant that requires the test participant to confirm the account). (Williams et al., paragraph 29)]
Regarding claim 18,
Williams in view of White discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the method further comprises transmitting the indication of whether the personal health status information verification credentials are validated by the gatekeeping application to the user device.
[the platform 5 stores the data regarding the test kit and the test participant, while corresponding tokens for confirming the authenticity and validity of the data can be stored in the distributed ledger 45. (Williams et al., paragraph 33)]
[the platform may only store tokens (which may actually be stored in the distributed ledger 45) that can be used to validate that certain events occurred, that a participant's identity was verified, and the outcome of a particular test (e.g., for purposes of displaying an immunity certificate). (Williams et al., paragraph 33)]
[The verification can be used to ensure that the health status information complies with a predetermined set of criteria for determining the health status information. (Williams et al., paragraph 55)]
Regarding claim 19,
Williams in view of White discloses the method of claim 1, wherein each trusted distributed assertion ledger of the one or more trusted distributed assertion ledgers comprises cryptographically linked ledger entries.
[Using these techniques, events are recorded in blockchain or other distributed ledger (Williams et al., paragraph 24)]
Regarding claim 20,
Williams in view of White discloses the method of claim 1, wherein each trusted distributed assertion ledger comprises a blockchain ledger.
[Using these techniques, events are recorded in blockchain or other distributed ledger (Williams et al., paragraph 24)]
Regarding claim 21,
Williams in view of White discloses the method of claim 1, wherein at least one trusted distributed assertion ledger of the one or more trusted distributed assertion ledgers comprises one or more entries derived from at least subset of entries of one or more other trusted ledgers.
[The manufacturer (and other entities discussed below) can be authenticated using trusted third-party validators 50 (e.g., using a trusted identity provider, such as Auth0). Any or all of the entities that participate in the process may be authenticated in this manner. (Williams et al., paragraph 25)]
Regarding claim 22,
Williams in view of White discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the health status verification query comprises at least one indication of an assertion type associated with the health status verification query.
[the health status certificate 302 is illustrated as an immunity certificate, although in other implementations, the health status certificate 302 may provide other health status information (e.g., vaccination status or status of a health test outcome). The immunity certificate 302 includes the name 304 of the patient participant along with other identifying information 306 and a photo 308 of the patient participant. In addition, the immunity status 310 is displayed. For illustrative purposes, different possible immunity statuses are depicted. (Williams et al., paragraph 43)]
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams et al. (US 20210313069) in view of White et al. (US 10923216) in further view of Gotthardt et al. (US 20110123027).
Regarding claim 12,
Williams in view of White discloses the method of claim 1, but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the indication of identification information associated with the user and the indication of health status information are represented by a first hash included in the personal health status information verification credentials, the first hash being generated based on the indication of identification information associated with the user and the indication of health status information.
However in an analogous art Gotthardt discloses, wherein the indication of identification information associated with the user and the indication of health status information are represented by a first hash included in the personal health status information verification credentials, the first hash being generated based on the indication of identification information associated with the user and the indication of health status information.
[wherein the medical data object is released only when the signature for the medical data object has been verified. By way of example, the signature may be formed by an encrypted hash value for the medical data object, wherein the hash value is encrypted with a first health service provider key, wherein the signature check in this case comprises the steps of retrieving a second health service provider key associated with the first health service provider key, decrypting the signature with the second health service provider key and calculating a hash value for the medical data object, wherein the medical data object is verified when the hash value of the medical data object corresponds to the decrypted signature. By way of example, the first and second health service provider keys are the private and public keys of the doctor, which are linked to the latter's healthcare professional ID. (Gotthardt et al., paragraph 14)]
Williams, White, and Gotthardt are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of health information . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the instant application effective filing date to have modified the teachings of Williams and White to incorporate the teachings of Gotthardt et al. to include wherein the indication of identification information associated with the user and the indication of health status information are represented by a first hash included in the personal health status information verification credentials, the first hash being generated based on the indication of identification information associated with the user and the indication of health status information, in order to calculate hash value relating to the first health service provider and a second hash relating to the second health service provider. (Gotthard et al., paragraph 14)]
Claims 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams et al. (US 20210313069) in view of White et al. (US 10923216) in further view of Pearson et al. (US 20140119540).
Regarding claim 13,
Williams in view of White discloses the method of claim 1, but fail to explicitly disclose wherein the indication of the first health authority comprises a public key associated with the first authority and the indication of the second health authority comprises a public key associated with the second health authority.
However in an analogous art Pearson discloses, wherein the indication of the first health authority comprises a public key associated with the first health authority and the indication of the second health authority comprises a public key associated with the second health authority.
[an entity (e.g., the client 110, the service provider 120, the trust authority 130) has a published public key that binds with an identity of that entity and a corresponding unpublished private key. The public/private key pair is certified by a trusted certification authority and can be used as asymmetric keys to encrypt/decrypt messages. (Pearson et al., paragraph 9, service provider being mapped to an authority and the trust authority being mapped to the other authority)]
Williams, White, and Pearson are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of health information . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the instant application effective filing date to have modified the teachings of Williams and White to incorporate the teachings of Pearson et al. to include wherein the indication of the first health authority comprises a public key associated with the first health authority and the indication of the second health authority comprises a public key associated with the second health authority, in order to include published public/private key pairs with the entities the service provide and trust authority to be used in the encrypting/decrypting of messages. (Pearson et al., paragraph 9)]
Claims 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams et al. (US 20210313069) in view of White et al. (US 10923216) in further view of Pearson et al. (US 20140119540) in further view of Gotthardt et al. (US 20110123027).
Regarding claim 14,
Williams in view of White and in further view of Pearson discloses the method of claim 13, as seen in the rejection of claim 13 the indication of the first and second health authority are taught by Pearson et al. (paragraph 9).
[an entity (e.g., the client 110, the service provider 120, the trust authority 130) has a published public key that binds with an identity of that entity and a corresponding unpublished private key. The public/private key pair is certified by a trusted certification authority and can be used as asymmetric keys to encrypt/decrypt messages. (Pearson et al., paragraph 9)]
However Williams in view of White and in further view of Pearson fails to explicitly disclose,
wherein the indication of the first health authority associated with the health status information and the indication of a second health authority associated with the system executing the gatekeeping application are represented by a second hash included in the personal health status information verification credentials, the second hash being generated based on the indication of the first health authority associated with the health status information and the indication of a second health authority associated with the system executing the gatekeeping application.
However in an analogous art Gotthardt discloses wherein the indication of the first health authority associated with the health status information and the indication of a second health authority associated with the system executing the gatekeeping application are represented by a second hash included in the personal health status information verification credentials, the second hash being generated based on the indication of the first health authority associated with the health status information and the indication of a second health authority associated with the system executing the gatekeeping application.
[the signature of the medical data object is a hash value for the medical data object, which hash value has been encrypted with a nonpublic first health service provider key, that is to say the private key of a doctor. In order to check the signature, a hash value is in turn formed from the medical data object and is then compared with the hash value which is obtained through decryption of the signature with the second health service provider key 113. The second health server provider key 114 is in turn stored at the Trust Center 136 in the database thereof. (Gotthardt et al., paragraph 54, second hash is mapped to the hash value obtained with the second health service provider key, the two keys are the first and second health service provider keys)]
Williams, White, Pearson, and Gotthardt are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of health information. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the instant application effective filing date to apply the teachings of Gotthardt to the teachings of Williams in view of White to achieve the claim, in order to compare hash values from the first and second provider key in order to verify the signature which can allow the patient to redeem an electronic prescription. (Gotthardt et al., paragraph 54 and 56)]
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Worden et al. (US 20140358584) discloses a system and method that provides central storage of patient health records and allows for temporal access to be provided by the patient to other individuals and healthcare providers. The patient providing authentication information such as a PIN in order to provide the health record to the client.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL ELAHIAN whose telephone number is (703) 756-1284. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday from 7:30am to 5pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Catherine Thiaw can be reached at telephone number 571-270-1138. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center and Private PAIR for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/D.E./
DANIEL ELAHIAN, Examiner, Art Unit 2407
/Catherine Thiaw/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2407 10/31/2025