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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/21/2025 has been entered. This Office-Action is made Non-Final.
Status of claims
This office action is in response to claims filed on 11/21/2025
Claims 1-20 are pending and rejected; claims 1, 10 and 16 are independent claims
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 11/21/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to applicant’s argument: the combination of Gorman and Demarne does not disclose the amended limitation: “controlling how access to data that is identified as potentially sensitive is to be controlled as part of the transmitting the digital content to the plurality of client devices and as part of the monitored user interaction of the plurality of client devices with the digital content.” As claimed in claims 1, 10 and 16.
Examiner respectfully disagree with applicant argument for the following reason: (Gorman discloses (see Gorman, ¶5 35, defining, by the compliance computer platform, privacy objectives for the proprietary data based on the governance structure; and means for defining, by the compliance computer platform, specific machine-level controls to test and confirm compliance with the governance structure; ¶71, stores a program 1415 and/or a compliance engine or application for controlling the processor 1410. The processor 1410 performs instructions of the program 1415, and thereby operates in accordance with any of the embodiments described herein. For example, the processor 1410 may access an enterprise proprietary data store contains a set of electronic data records, each electronic data record having with proprietary data and an associated governance structure. The processor 1410 may receive the proprietary data and associated governance structure from the enterprise proprietary data store and define enterprise-wide decision accountabilities for the proprietary data based on the governance structure. The processor 1410 may also define privacy objectives for the proprietary data based on the governance structure along with specific machine-level controls to test and confirm compliance with the governance structure…), disclosing the recited claim limitation.
With respect to applicant’s argument regarding the amended claim limitations, Applicant' s arguments have been fully considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gorman et al. US Pub. No.: 2021/0141924 A1 (hereinafter Gorman) in view of Demarne et al. US Pub. No.: 2022/0283793 A1 (hereinafter Demarne) further in view of Ainslie et al. US Pub: 2010/0332550 A1 (hereinafter Ainslie)
Gorman teaches:
As to claim 1, a system comprising:
a testing data input module implemented by a processing device to receive governance data defining how access to data that is identified as potentially sensitive is to be controlled (see Gorman ¶4, receive the proprietary data and associated governance structure from the enterprise proprietary data store…the governance structure along with specific machine-level controls to test and confirm compliance with the governance structure) ;
a governance data input module implemented by the processing device to receive testing data defining an online test of digital content to be transmitted to a plurality of client devices via a network (see Gorman ¶36; define specific machine-level controls to test and confirm compliance with the governance structure at S240; ¶55, acquisition 901 systems are those systems that take data into the institution from outside origins. Non-limiting examples include feeds from third-party sources, web sites that may be used by parties such as external customers 302),
controlling how access to data that is identified as potentially sensitive is to be controlled as part of the transmitting the digital content to the plurality of client devices and as part of the monitored user interaction of the plurality of client devices with the digital content (see Gorman, ¶¶5 35 71, defining, by the compliance computer platform, privacy objectives for the proprietary data based on the governance structure; and means for defining, by the compliance computer platform, specific machine-level controls to test and confirm compliance with the governance structure); and
Gorman does not explicitly teach but the related art Demarne teaches:
a testing governance system implemented by the processing device to control performance of the online test in transmitting the digital content over the network to the plurality of client devices based on the governance data (see Demarne ¶¶38-40, the usage pattern data may represent how many applications are running, how many resources are utilized, how much data is received (e.g., in a database), how much data is transmitted by a resource, etc. ¶59, performance related issues are observed… in test metrics comparisons may cover metrics before and after the deployment).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify system to facilitate proprietary data restriction compliance for an enterprise disclosed by Gorman to include the selecting a sample set of cloud computing resources for A/B testing of a software deployment as thought by Demarne, in order to apply the governance for testing implemented in the online environment. A person with ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to enhance testing and validation without compromising sensitive data (see Demarne ¶4).
Even though the combination of Gorman and Demarne teaches:
the online test involving monitored user interaction of the plurality of client devices with the digital content (see Gorman ¶¶8 4 and 61, the system might be used to tag and track data elements as it travels throughout the enterprise's databases. The tagged data can then be identified and described by a system. The system can then identify all users who have access to read the data and alert the enterprise if any of the data is sensitive; ¶¶55 65, acquisition 901 systems are those systems that take data into the institution from outside origins. Non-limiting examples include feeds from third-party sources, web sites that may be used by parties such as external customers 302; ¶67, a data flow diagram… to paint a clear picture about how each of these assets are moving amongst one another. At S1250, the system may get a User ID list, and a User ID Template may act as a place to keep track of all User IDs, emails, and active directory groups);
The combination of Gorman and Demarne does not explicitly teach but the related art Ainslie teaches:
monitoring online user interaction involving selection of a link (see Ainslie ¶18, the logging object may add a dwell time monitor operative to measure how long the user keeps the page open, a link monitor to log whether the user selects a link included in the web page)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify system to facilitate proprietary data restriction compliance for an enterprise disclosed by Gorman and the selecting a sample set of cloud computing resources for A/B testing of a software deployment disclosed by Demarne to include the platform for configurable logging instrumentation as thought by Ainslie, in order to monitor online user activity including selection of link and dwell time. A person with ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to capture a user behavior associated with testing and validation without compromising sensitive data (see Ainslie ¶9).
As to claim 2, the combination of Gorman, Demarne and Ainslie teaches the system as described in claim 1, wherein the governance data identifies attributes that are potentially sensitive and policies to be applied for the attributes (see Gorman ¶64, enterprise may list the entities with access to SPI/PII; ¶54, determine if decisions and outcomes are in compliance with the defined privacy policy ).
As to claim 3, the combination of Gorman, Demarne and Ainslie teaches the system as described in claim 1, wherein the testing governance system includes a design governance module configured to control design of the testing data of the online test (see Gorman ¶65, the enterprise may review big data security architecture. For example, the system may analyze the tooling and design to ensure that access to data aligns to the appropriate roles, rights, and staff).
As to claim 4, the combination of Gorman, Demarne and Ainslie teaches the system as described in claim 3, wherein the design governance module configured is configured to control the design by restricting inclusion of one or more attributes usable to define a segment of a user population (see Gorman ¶65. the system may analyze the tooling and design to ensure that access to data aligns to the appropriate roles, rights, and staff. At S1160, the system may evaluate web service permissions/access controls (e.g., to identify controls for granting and reviewing permissions); ¶71, define privacy objectives for the proprietary data based on the governance structure along with specific machine-level controls to test and confirm compliance with the governance structure ).
As to claim 5, the combination of Gorman, Demarne and Ainslie teaches the system as described in claim 1, wherein the testing governance system includes a runtime governance module configured to control operation of the testing data at runtime (see Gorman ¶65, At S1170, the system may perform analysis of redundant flows within data flow diagram (e.g., to evaluate ways to reduce the number of necessary connections)) .
As to claim 6, the combination of Gorman, Demarne and Ainslie teaches the system as described in claim 5, wherein the runtime governance module configured to control operation of the testing data at runtime by restricting use of one or more attributes usable to define a segment of a user population as part of the online test (see Demarne ¶42, FIG. 2 is a flowchart 200 of a method for dynamically selecting/restricting a cloud computing resource sample set; ¶61, when software deployment manager 106 and/or user observation determines that the deployment of the new software release in the B resource group resources 308 is successful).
Same motivation is applied as above to claim 1 to combine the cited prior art references.
As to claim 7, the combination of Gorman, Demarne and Ainslie teaches the system as described in claim 1, wherein the testing governance system includes a reporting governance module configured to control reporting of analysis of test result data resulting from the performance of the online test (see Demarne ¶101, automated issue detector 320, A/B monitoring reports, and any one or more of flowcharts)
Same motivation is applied as above to claim 1 to combine the cited prior art references.
As to claim 8, the combination of Gorman, Demarne and Ainslie teaches the system as described in claim 7, wherein the reporting governance module is configured to control reporting by restricting use of one or more attributes usable to define a segment of a user population as part of reporting results of the online test (see Demarne ¶¶42, FIG. 2 is a flowchart 200 of a method for dynamically selecting/restricting a cloud computing resource sample set; ¶101, automated issue detector 320, A/B monitoring reports, and any one or more of flowcharts).
Same motivation applied as above to claim 1 to combine the cited prior art references.
As to claim 9, the combination of Gorman, Demarne and Ainslie teaches the system as described in claim 1, wherein the online test is configured as an A/B test involving a defined segment of a user population (see Demarne ¶87, customer support data during A/B testing of a sample set of cloud computing resources).
Same motivation is applied as above to claim 1 to combine the cited prior art references.
Gorman teaches:
As to claim 10, a computing device comprising:
a processing device (see Gorman Fig. 1); and
a computer-readable storage medium having instructions stored thereon that, responsive to execution by the processing device (see Gorman Fig. 1), causes the processing device to perform operations including:
receiving inputs defining an online test of digital content to be transmitted to a plurality of client devices via a network (see Gorman ¶4, receive the proprietary data and associated governance structure from the enterprise proprietary data store…the governance structure along with specific machine-level controls to test and confirm compliance with the governance structure),
controlling design of the online test based on governance data defining how access to user data that is identified as potentially sensitive is to be controlled for access as part of the monitored user interaction (see Gorman ¶36; define specific machine-level controls to test and confirm compliance with the governance structure at S240; ¶55, acquisition 901 systems are those systems that take data into the institution from outside origins. Non-limiting examples include feeds from third-party sources, web sites that may be used by parties such as external customers 302);
control access to the user data that is identified as potentially sensitive by the plurality of client device as part of the online test (see Gorman, ¶¶5 35 71, defining, by the compliance computer platform, privacy objectives for the proprietary data based on the governance structure; and means for defining, by the compliance computer platform, specific machine-level controls to test and confirm compliance with the governance structure); and
Gorman does not explicitly teach but the related art Demarne teaches:
controlling performance of the online test in transmission of digital content over a network to the plurality of client devices using the controlled design (see Demarne ¶¶38-40, the selection criterion may be based on, the usage pattern data may represent how many applications are running, how many resources are utilized, how much data is received (e.g., in a database), how much data is transmitted by a resource, etc.; ¶59, performance related issues are observed… in test metrics comparisons may cover metrics before and after the deployment).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify system to facilitate proprietary data restriction compliance for an enterprise disclosed by Gorman to include the selecting a sample set of cloud computing resources for A/B testing of a software deployment as thought by Demarne, in order to apply the governance for testing implemented in the online environment. A person with ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to enhance testing and validation without compromising sensitive data (see Demarne ¶4).
Even though the combination of Gorman and Demarne teaches:
the online test involving monitored user interaction of the plurality of client devices with the digital content (see Gorman ¶¶4 8 and 61, the system might be used to tag and track data elements as it travels throughout the enterprise's databases. The tagged data can then be identified and described by a system. The system can then identify all users who have access to read the data and alert the enterprise if any of the data is sensitive; ¶51, data activity 602, might include many different types of criteria 307 to look for fraudulent activity, such as, for example, parameters above (or below) threshold values, pre-determined periods of time (e.g., once per year), data indicating that a person wants to delete data (and remove a data trail that might potentially be used to detect fraud), etc. [i.e. parameters above or below threshold value including pre-determined periods of time/dwell time]);
The combination of Gorman and Demarne does not explicitly teach but the related art Ainslie teaches:
monitoring online user interaction involving dwell time (see Ainslie ¶18the logging object may add a dwell time monitor operative to measure how long the user keeps the page open, a link monitor to log whether the user selects a link included in the web page)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify system to facilitate proprietary data restriction compliance for an enterprise disclosed by Gorman and the selecting a sample set of cloud computing resources for A/B testing of a software deployment disclosed by Demarne to include the platform for configurable logging instrumentation as thought by Ainslie, in order to monitor online user activity including selection of link and dwell time. A person with ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to capture a user behavior associated with testing and validation without compromising sensitive data (see Ainslie ¶9).
As to claim 11, the combination of Gorman, Demarne and Ainslie teaches the computing device as described in claim 10, wherein the governance data identifies one or more attributes that are potentially sensitive and are configured to define membership, as part of the online testing, in a user segment of a user population (see Gorman ¶65. the system may analyze the tooling and design to ensure that access to data aligns to the appropriate roles, rights, and staff. At S1160, the system may evaluate web service permissions/access controls (e.g., to identify controls for granting and reviewing permissions)).
As to claim 12, the combination of Gorman, Demarne and Ainslie teaches the computing device as described in claim 11, wherein the user segment is a demographic segment, psychographic segment, needs-based segment, technographic segment, or a customer-journey segment (see Demarne ¶28, the purpose of monitoring the system during the test and determining the test results, a sample set of resources selected for running a software test may be designated as a B resource group while other resources in the system may be designated as an A resource group)
Same motivation is applied as above to claim 11 to combine the cited prior art references.
As to claim 13, the combination of Gorman, Demarne and Ainslie teaches the computing device as described in claim 11, wherein the one or more attributes define personal identification information (PII), contact information, health information, digital identity information, or sensitive demographic information (see Gorman ¶62, this data might include Personally Identifying Information (“PII”) and/or Sensitive Personal Information (“SPI”))
As to claim 14, the combination of Gorman, Demarne and Ainslie teaches the computing device as described in claim 10, wherein the controlling includes controlling operation of the testing data at runtime (see Demarne ¶101, automated issue detector 320, A/B monitoring reports, and any one or more of flowcharts).
Same motivation is applied as above to claim 11 to combine the cited prior art references.
As to claim 15, the combination of Gorman, Demarne and Ainslie teaches the computing device as described in claim 10, wherein the controlling further includes controlling reporting of analysis of test result data resulting from the performance of the online test (see Demarne ¶101, automated issue detector 320, A/B monitoring reports, and any one or more of flowcharts).
Same motivation is applied as above to claim 11 to combine the cited prior art references.
Claims 16-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gorman in view of Gorman et al. US Pub. No.: 2021/0141924 A1 (hereinafter Gorman) in view of Demarne et al. US Pub. No.: 2022/0283793 A1 (hereinafter Demarne) further in view of Liu et al. US Patent: 8,880,697 B1 (hereinafter Liu)
Gorman teaches:
As to claim 16, a method comprising:
collecting, by a processing device, test result data describing performance of an online test in transmission of digital content over a network to a plurality of client devices (see Gorman ¶36; define specific machine-level controls to test and confirm compliance with the governance structure at S240; ¶55, acquisition 901 systems are those systems that take data into the institution from outside origins. Non-limiting examples include feeds from third-party sources, web sites that may be used by parties such as external customers 302),
generating based on governance data controlling access to the user data that is identified as potentially sensitive (see Gorman ¶71 governance data controlling access; ¶76, a unique alphanumeric code identifying PII or SPI information)
having access controlled to the user data that is identified as potentially sensitive based on the governance data (see Gorman, ¶¶5 35 71, defining, by the compliance computer platform, privacy objectives for the proprietary data based on the governance structure; and means for defining, by the compliance computer platform, specific machine-level controls to test and confirm compliance with the governance structure);
Gorman does not explicitly teach but the related art Demarne teaches:
generating, by the processing device, analyzed test result data describing the performance of the online test,(see Demarne ¶65. the system may analyze the tooling and design to ensure that access to data aligns to the appropriate roles, rights, and staff. At S1160, the system may evaluate web service permissions/access controls (e.g., to identify controls for granting and reviewing permissions); ¶59, performance related issues are observed… in test metrics comparisons may cover metrics before and after the deployment) and
and outputting, by the processing device, the analyzed test result data in a user interface (see Demarne ¶31, generate reports).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify system to facilitate proprietary data restriction compliance for an enterprise disclosed by Gorman to include the selecting a sample set of cloud computing resources for A/B testing of a software deployment as thought by Demarne, in order to apply the governance for testing implemented in the online environment. A person with ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to enhance testing and validation without compromising sensitive data (see Demarne ¶4).
Even though The combination of Gorman and Demarne teaches:
the test result data communicated to report user interaction monitored by the digital content with the user data of the digital content that is potentially sensitive (see Gorman ¶¶8 4 and 61, the system might be used to tag and track data elements as it travels throughout the enterprise's databases. The tagged data can then be identified and described by a system. The system can then identify all users who have access to read the data and alert the enterprise if any of the data is sensitive; ¶35, compliance computer platform may then define specific machine-level controls to test and confirm compliance with the governance structure at S240; ¶62, this data might include Personally Identifying Information (“PII”) and/or Sensitive Personal Information (“SPI”)); ¶65, S1140, the enterprise may provide information about business process functionality. At S1150, the enterprise may review big data security architecture. For example, the system may analyze the tooling and design to ensure that access to data aligns to the appropriate roles, rights, and staff. At S1160, the system may evaluate web service permissions/access controls (e.g., to identify controls for granting and reviewing permissions))
The combination of Gorman and Demarne does not explicitly teach but the related art Liu teaches:
data communicated by functionality of the digital content (see Liu Col. 10 lines 25-67 and Col. 11 lines 1-19, specific data structure used in a given implementation, along with the particular expression language used and the degree of flexibility desired, will indicate which of the above functions and which additional functions should be introduced to the resource sponsor for use in customizing the attribute and list rules [i.e. data communicated by functionality of the digital content].; Col. 6 lines 62-67 and Col. 7 lines 102, user event data 400 includes both smart pixel data 402 and cookie data 404, as described above in reference to FIG. 1. The smart pixel data 402 includes a product type "footwear", a product ID number "1234", a product category "apparel", a URL "runningshoe.html", and a timestamp. The smart pixel data 402 is specific to the user event, , such as visiting the specific web page "runningshoe.html", that resulted in the data transmission);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify system to facilitate proprietary data restriction compliance for an enterprise disclosed by Gorman and selecting a sample set of cloud computing resources for A/B testing of a software deployment disclosed by Demarne, to include using rule set to determine user lists as thought by Liu. A person with ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use smart pixels because web page may include code, such as in the form of a small transparent image, that causes a browser to convey information to a server upon requesting the image. The conveyed information can be used for various purposes, such as in selecting content for presentation to a viewing entity (see Liu Col. 1 lines 25-29).
As to claim 17, the combination of Gorman, Demarne and Liu teaches the method as described in claim 16, generate and communicate the test result data describing monitored user interaction (see Gorman, ¶¶5-6, defining, by the compliance computer platform, specific machine-level controls to test and confirm compliance with the governance structure…a communication device… exchanges information with remote devices… via public and/or proprietary communication networks; ¶35, defining, by the compliance computer platform, privacy objectives for the proprietary data based on the governance structure; and means for defining, by the compliance computer platform, specific machine-level controls to test and confirm compliance with the governance structure)
the digital content includes a smart pixel (see Liu Col. 6 lines 62-67 and Col. 7 lines 102, user event data 400 includes both smart pixel data 402 and cookie data 404, as described above in reference to FIG. 1. The smart pixel data 402 includes a product type "footwear", a product ID number "1234", a product category "apparel", a URL "runningshoe.html", and a timestamp [i.e. content including smart pixel]. The smart pixel data 402 is specific to the user event, , such as visiting the specific web page "runningshoe.html", that resulted in the data transmission)
Same motivation is applied as above to claim 16 to combine the cited prior art references.
As to claim 19, the combination of Gorman, Demarne and Liu teaches the method as described in claim 16, wherein: the governance data identifies one or more attributes that are potentially sensitive and are configured to define membership, as part of the online testing, in a user segment of a user population; and the user segment is a demographic segment, psychographic segment, needs- based segment, technographic segment, or a customer-journey segment (see Demarne ¶28, the purpose of monitoring the system during the test and determining the test results, a sample set of resources selected for running a software test may be designated as a B resource group while other resources in the system may be designated as an A resource group).
Same motivation is applied as above to claim 16 to combine the cited prior art references.
As to claim 20, the combination of Gorman, Demarne and Liu teaches the method as described in claim 16, wherein:
the governance data identifies one or more attributes that are potentially sensitive and are configured to define membership, as part of the online testing, in a user segment of a user population (see Gorman ¶67, the system may get a User ID list, and a User ID Template may act as a place to keep track of all User IDs, emails, and active directory groups); and
the one or more attributes define personal identification information (PII), contact information, health information, digital identity information, or sensitive demographic information (see Gorman ¶64, list the entities with access to SPI/PII. This may also list how the entities are accessing the data and the type of SPI/PII).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gorman in view of Gorman in view of Demarne , further in view of Liu, and further in view of Ainslie US Pub.: 2010/0332550 A1 (hereinafter Ainslie)
As to claim 18, the combination of Gorman, Demarne and Liu teaches the method as described in claim 16, however the combination Gorman, Demarne and Liu does not explicitly teach but the related art Ainslie teaches: wherein the monitored user interaction includes selection of a link or dwell time (see Ainslie ¶18, the logging object may add a dwell time monitor operative to measure how long the user keeps the page open, a link monitor to log whether the user selects a link included in the web page)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify system to facilitate proprietary data restriction compliance for an enterprise disclosed by Gorman, the selecting a sample set of cloud computing resources for A/B testing of a software deployment disclosed by Demarne and using rule set to determine user lists disclosed by Liu to include the platform for configurable logging instrumentation as thought by Ainslie, in order to monitor online user activity including selection of link and dwell time. A person with ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to capture a user behavior associated with testing and validation without compromising sensitive data (see Ainslie ¶9).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NEGA WOLDEMARIAM whose telephone number is (571)270-7478. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 8am-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, Cathy Thiaw can be reached at 5712701138. 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.
NEGA . WOLDEMARIAM
Examiner
Art Unit 2407
/N.W/Examiner, Art Unit 2407
/Catherine Thiaw/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2407 2/6/2026