DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
• The following is an office action in response to the communication filed 10/08/2025.
• Claims 1, 11, and 18 have been amended.
• Claims 3, 5, 13, 15 and 20 have been canceled.
• Claims 1-2, 4, 6-12, 14, 16-19, and 21-25 are currently pending and have been examined.
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6-12, 14, 16-19, and 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. The claims recite an abstract idea. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
First, it is determined whether the claims are directed to a statutory category of invention. See MPEP 2106.03(II). In the instant case, claims 1-2, 4, 6-10, and 21-22 are directed to a machine, claims 11-12, 14, 16-17, and 24-25 are directed to a process, and claims 18-19 and 23 are directed to a manufacture. Therefore, claims 1-2, 4, 6-12, 14, 16-19, and 21-25 are directed to statutory subject matter under Step 1 of the Alice/Mayo test (Step 1: YES).
The claims are then analyzed to determine if the claims are directed to a judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.04. In determining whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception, the claims are analyzed to evaluate whether the claims recite a judicial exception (Prong 1 of Step 2A), as well as analyzed to evaluate whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the judicial exception (Prong 2 of Step 2A). See MPEP 2106.04.
Taking claim 1 as representative, claim 1 recites at least the following limitations that are believed to recite an abstract idea:
obtain, from storage, a plurality of search queries, engagement data identifying engagements of each of a plurality of items corresponding to each of the plurality of search queries, and a plurality of attributes for each of the plurality of items;
determine, for each search query of the plurality of search queries, a first relevance value for each item of the plurality of items based on a first attribute of the plurality of items and the engagements of the item corresponding to each search query;
determine, for each search query of the plurality of search queries, a second cross-attribute value for each item of the plurality of items based on a combination of the first attribute and a second attribute of the plurality of items for the item and the engagements of the item corresponding to the search query, wherein the second attribute includes a word or phrase appearing in the respective search query;
determine, for each search query of the plurality of search queries, a third cross-attribute value for each item of the plurality of items based on a combination of the first attribute and a third attribute of the plurality of items for the item and the engagements of the item corresponding to the search query, wherein the third attribute is not specified in the respective search query;
store the first relevance values, second cross-attribute values, and third cross-attribute values corresponding to each of the plurality of items for each of the plurality of search queries in the storage;
determine, for each search query of the plurality of search queries, a query-item value for each item of the plurality of items based on each item's corresponding first relevance value, second cross-attribute value, and third cross-attribute value, the query-item value characterizing a respective query-item relevance;
generate a plurality of first features based on the plurality of search queries and at least the query-item value for each item of the plurality of items corresponding to each search query of the plurality of search queries;
in accordance with one or more performance metrics, prepare an item ranking model to rank the plurality of items corresponding to each search query using the plurality of first features associated with the plurality of search queries;
obtain a validation data set including a test query;
for the test query:
apply the item ranking model to generate an ordered list of items;
determine a performance value for the one or more performance metrics based on the ordered list of items, and compare the performance value to a threshold;
based on the comparison, determine that the one or more performance metrics are satisfied; and
in accordance with a determination that the one or more performance metrics are satisfied, validate the item ranking model comprising storing model data characterizing the item ranking model;
receive a search query request characterizing a search query inputted by a user interacting; and
in response to receiving the search query request:
determine an initial set of items corresponding to the search query request;
generate a query specific set of first features corresponding to each respective item of the initial set of items, wherein each query specific set of features is generated based on a corresponding query-item value characterizing a relevancy between the search query and the respective item;
apply the validated item ranking model to the query specific set of features and based on the application of the validated item ranking model to the query specific set of features,
generate a ranking of the initial set of items, wherein the initial set of items are ranked characterizing a relevance to the search query request, and wherein the ranked initial set of items comprise at least a first item ranked higher than a second item; and
send the ranked initial set of items to display to the user advertisements for the initial set of items in ranked order, wherein a first advertisement for the first item is displayed before a second advertisement for the second item, the first advertisement for the first item being more relevant to the user than the second advertisement for the second item.
The above limitations recite the concept of analyzing attributes relevant to searches to rank items in response to a search to provide advertisements. These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas, enumerated in the MPEP, in that they recite commercial or legal interactions such as advertising, marketing, or sales activities or behaviors. Specifically, the identification of relevant attributes relates to product recommendations and providing advertisements is a marketing and advertising activity. This is further illustrated in [0030] of the Specification, describing item recommendations. Furthermore, these limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas, enumerated in the MPEP, in that they recite concepts performed in the human mind, such as observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. Specifically, determining the values, generating the features, and ranking the items are all evaluations, and obtaining the search queries are observations. The limitation recited collecting information, analyzing information, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis. Independent claims 11 and 18 recite similar limitations as claim 1 and, as such, fall within the same identified grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, under Prong One of Step 2A of the MPEP, claims 1, 11, and 18 recite an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Under Prong Two of Step 2A of the MPEP, claims 1, 11, and 18 recite additional elements, such as a system, a database, a processor communicatively coupled to the database; a non-transitory memory storing instructions that, when executed, cause the processor to: perform; train[ing] an item ranking model; the trained item ranking model; a network; a web server; a webpage; transmit[ting] information; and a non-transitory computer readable medium having instructions stored thereon, wherein the instructions, when executed by at least one processor, cause a device to. These additional elements are described at a high level in Applicant’s specification without any meaningful detail about their structure or configuration. As such, these computer-related limitations are not found to be sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Although these additional computer-related elements are recited, claims 1, 11, and 18 merely invoke such additional elements as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer is not indicative of integration into a practical application. Similar to the limitations of Alice, claims 1, 11, and 18 merely recite a commonplace business method (i.e., analyzing attributes relevant to searches to rank items in response to a search) being applied on a general purpose computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Furthermore, claims 1, 11, and 18 merely generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The courts have identified various examples of limitations as merely indicating a field of use/technological environment in which to apply the abstract idea, such as specifying that the abstract idea of monitoring audit log data relates to transactions or activities that are executed in a computer environment, because this requirement merely limits the claims to the computer field, i.e., to execution on a generic computer (see FairWarning v. Iatric Sys.). Likewise, claims 1, 11, and 18 specifying that the abstract idea of analyzing attributes relevant to searches to rank items in response to a search is executed in a computer environment merely indicates a field of use in which to apply the abstract idea because this requirement merely limits the claims to the computer field, i.e., to execution on a generic computer. As such, under Prong Two of Step 2A of the MPEP, when considered both individually and as a whole, the limitations of claims 1, 11, and 18 are not indicative of integration into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO).
Since claims 1, 11, and 18 recite an abstract idea and fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, claims 1, 11, and 18 are “directed to” an abstract idea (Step 2A: YES).
Next, under Step 2B, the claims are analyzed to determine if there are additional claim limitations that individually, or as an ordered combination, ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05. The instant claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for at least the following reasons.
Returning to independent claims 1, 11, and 18, these claims recite additional elements, such as a system, a database, a processor communicatively coupled to the database; a non-transitory memory storing instructions that, when executed, cause the processor to: perform; train[ing] an item ranking model; the trained item ranking model; a network; a web server; a webpage; transmit[ting] information; and a non-transitory computer readable medium having instructions stored thereon, wherein the instructions, when executed by at least one processor, cause a device to. As discussed above with respect to Prong Two of Step 2A, although additional computer-related elements are recited, the claims merely invoke such additional elements as a tool to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Moreover, the limitations of claims 1, 11, and 18 are manual processes (e.g., receiving information, sending information, etc.). The courts have indicated that mere automation of manual processes is not sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality (see MPEP 2106.05(a)(I)). Furthermore, as discussed above with respect to Prong Two of Step 2A, claims 1, 11, and 18 merely recite the additional elements in order to further define the field of use of the abstract idea, therein attempting to generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such as the Internet or computing networks (see Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC. (Fed. Cir. 2014); Bilski v. Kappos (2010); MPEP 2106.05(h)). Similar to FairWarning v. Iatric Sys., claims 1, 11, and 18 specifying that the abstract idea of analyzing attributes relevant to searches to rank items in response to a search is executed in a computer environment merely indicates a field of use in which to apply the abstract idea because this requirement merely limits the claim to the computer field, i.e., to execution on a generic computer.
Even when considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements do not add anything that is not already present when they are considered individually. In Alice Corp., the Court considered the additional elements “as an ordered combination,” and determined that “the computer components…‘[a]dd nothing…that is not already present when the steps are considered separately’ and simply recite intermediated settlement as performed by a generic computer.” Id. (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1972). Similarly, viewed as a whole, claims 1, 11, and 18 simply convey the abstract idea itself facilitated by generic computing components. Therefore, under Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, there are no meaningful limitations in claims 1, 11, and 18 that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself (Step 2B: NO).
Dependent claims 2, 4, 6-10, 12, 14, 16-17, 19, and 21-25, when analyzed as a whole, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they do not add “significantly more” to the abstract idea. Dependent claims 2, 4, 6-10, 12, 14, 16-17, 19, and 21-25 further fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas, enumerated in the MPEP, in that they recite commercial or legal interactions such as advertising, marketing, or sales activities or behaviors. The dependent claims additionally fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas, enumerated in the MPEP, in that they recite concepts performed in the human mind, including observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. Dependent claims 2, 4, 6-7, 9-10, 12, 14, 17, 19, and 21-25 fail to identify additional elements and as such, are not indicative of integration into a practical application. Dependent claims 8 and 16 further identify additional elements, such as clicks, add-to-cart events, and click events. Similar to discussion above the with respect to Prong Two of Step 2A, although additional computer-related elements are recited, the claims merely invoke such additional elements as a tool to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). As such, under Step 2A, dependent claims 2, 4, 6-10, 12, 14, 16-17, 19, and 21-25 are “directed to” an abstract idea. Similar to the discussion above with respect to claims 1, 11, and 18, dependent claims 2, 4, 6-10, 12, 14, 16-17, 19, and 21-25 analyzed individually and as an ordered combination, invoke such additional elements as a tool to perform the abstract idea and merely indicate a field of use in which to apply the abstract idea because this requirement merely limits the claims to the computer field, i.e., to execution on a generic computer, and therefore, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). Accordingly, under the Alice/Mayo test, claims 1-2, 4, 6-12, 14, 16-19, and 21-25 are ineligible.
Subject Matter Allowable over the Prior Art
Claims 1-2, 4, 6-12, 14, 16-19, and 21-25 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6-12, 14, 16-19, and 21-25 incorporate substantially the same limitations as those found to overcome the 103 rejection in the Office action dated 12/06/2024. Thus, the claims contain allowable subject matter for the same reasons discussed in the Office action dated 12/06/2024. For further discussion see the Office action dated 12/06/2024.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 10/08/2025, have been fully considered.
35 U.S.C. § 101
Applicant argues the claims do not recite an abstract idea because “none of the independent claims recite ‘analyzing attributes relevant to searches to rank items in response to a search.’ Moreover, nowhere do any of the claims recite ‘observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions.’… even if, at best, the independent claims can be considered to be ‘based on or involve’ any of these alleged abstract ideas, the independent claims do not ‘recite’ any of the alleged abstract ideas.” (Remarks pages 17-19). The examiner disagrees. As shown in the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 above, the limitations directed to the abstract idea are directly quoted and concepts within the identified as belonging to the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and Mental Processes groupings of abstract ideas. Furthermore, the claims being directed to an abstract idea of analyzing attributes relevant to searches to rank items in response to a search to provide advertisements is not a description of the claims at a high level of abstraction untethered from the language of the claim. The MPEP highlights that a claim recites a judicial exception (e.g., an abstract idea) when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim. Claims can “describe” an abstract concept without ever explicitly stating the abstract concept, e.g., the claims in Alice “described” the concept of intermediated settlement without ever explicitly using the words “intermediated” or “settlement.” see MPEP 2106.04(II). With respect to the instant claims, a system, a database, a processor communicatively coupled to the database; a non-transitory memory storing instructions that, when executed, cause the processor to: perform; train[ing] an item ranking model; the trained item ranking model; a network; a web server; a webpage; transmit[ting] information; and a non-transitory computer readable medium having instructions stored thereon, wherein the instructions, when executed by at least one processor, cause a device to have been analyzed as additional elements and accordingly are not analyzed under Step 2A, Prong 1. The claims further recite performing an analysis to rank items for the purpose of advertising. These claims fall into the Methods of Organizing Human Activity grouping, which includes activity that falls within the enumerated sub-grouping of commercial or legal interactions, including subject matter relating to advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors. Specifically, these claims recite marketing and advertising. These claims further fall within the Mental Processes grouping of abstract ideas. Specifically, determining the values, generating the features, and ranking the items are all evaluations, obtaining the search queries are observations. The limitation recite the Mental Process of collecting information, analyzing information, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis. Accordingly, these claims recite an abstract idea.
Applicant argues the claims are integrated into a practical application because “the claims recite an improved technological process that more efficiently generates ranked lists of items based on search queries, and can present advertisements in an order that is based on the generated ranked lists,” the claims are similar to Core Wireless, Enfish and McRO, and “the independent claims clearly recite how the ranking of the initial set of items is generated” (Remarks pages 19-22). The examiner disagrees. The MPEP provides guidance on how to evaluate whether claims recite an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to other technology or technical field. For example, the MPEP states “the specification should be evaluated to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement.” The MPEP further states that “[t]he specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art,” and that, “conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner…the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology” (see MPEP 2106.04). That is, the claim includes the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification. Looking to the specification is a standard that the courts have employed when analyzing claims as it relates to improvements in technology. For example, in Enfish, the specification provided teaching that the claimed invention achieves benefits over conventional databases, such as increased flexibility, faster search times, and smaller memory requirements. Enfish LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Additionally, in Core Wireless the specification noted deficiencies in prior art interfaces relating to efficient functioning of the computer. Core Wireless Licensing v. LG Elecs. Inc., 880 F.3d 1356 (Fed Cir. 2018). With respect to McRO, the claimed improvement, as confirmed by the originally filed specification, was “…allowing computers to produce ‘accurate and realistic lip synchronization and facial expressions in animated characters…’” and it was “…the incorporation of the claimed rules, not the use of the computer, that “improved [the] existing technological process” by allowing the automation of further tasks”. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, (Fed. Cir. 2016).
While the examiner acknowledges that improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field may constitute integration into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(a)), the instant claims do not provide a technical improvement. Rather, the claims provide an improvement to the abstract idea of analyzing attributes relevant to searches to rank items in response to a search to provide advertisements. With respect to Applicant’s argument that the claimed limitation provide the benefit of allowing users to save time by being presented with more relevant search results, the examiner notes that providing more relevant search results is not a technical improvement, but rather an improvement to the abstract idea, and any time savings achieved is due to an improvement to the abstract idea.
Although the claims include computer technology such as a system, a database, a processor communicatively coupled to the database; a non-transitory memory storing instructions that, when executed, cause the processor to: perform; train[ing] an item ranking model; the trained item ranking model; a network; a web server; a webpage; transmit[ting] information; and a non-transitory computer readable medium having instructions stored thereon, wherein the instructions, when executed by at least one processor, cause a device to, such elements are merely peripherally incorporated in order to implement the abstract idea. Put another way, these additional elements are merely used to apply the abstract idea of analyzing attributes relevant to searches to rank items in response to a search to provide advertisements in a technological environment without effectuating any improvement or change to the functioning of the additional elements or other technology. This is unlike the improvements recognized by the courts in cases such as Enfish, Core Wireless, and McRO. Unlike precedential cases, neither the specification nor the claims of the instant invention identify such a specific improvement to computer capabilities. The instant claims are not directed to technological improvements but are directed to improving the business method of analyzing attributes relevant to searches to rank items in response to a search to provide advertisements. The claimed process, while arguably resulting in a more accurate process for providing relevant search results, is not providing any improvement to another technology or technical field as the claimed process is not, for example, improving the server and/or computer components that operate the system. Rather, the claimed process is utilizing data sets related to items while still employing the same server and/or computer components used in conventional systems to improve analyzing attributes relevant to searches to rank items in response to a search to provide advertisements, e.g. a business method, and therefore is merely applying the abstract idea using generic computing components. As such, the claims are not integrated into practical application.
Applicant argues the claims provide significantly more because “the claims recite ‘specific limitation[s] other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field,’ and ‘add[] unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application.’…the Office Action acknowledges that the claimed subject matter is novel and non-obvious.” (Remarks pages 22-23). The examiner disagrees. The MPEP sets forth that if a claim has been determined to be directed to a judicial exception under revised Step 2A, examiners should then evaluate the additional elements individually and in combination under Step 2B to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). In this case, Applicant's claims merely recite steps of a method with generic computer components being recited in a generic manner. While electronic devices such as a system, a database, a processor communicatively coupled to the database; a non-transitory memory storing instructions that, when executed, cause the processor to: perform; train[ing] an item ranking model; the trained item ranking model; a web server; a webpage; transmit[ting] information; and a non-transitory computer readable medium having instructions stored thereon, wherein the instructions, when executed by at least one processor, cause a device to are included within the claims, they are claimed in a generic manner and merely perform generic functions. The additional elements are merely peripherally incorporated in order to implement the abstract idea. Put another way, these additional elements are merely used to apply the abstract idea of analyzing attributes relevant to searches to rank items in response to a search to provide advertisements in a technological environment without effectuating any improvement or change to the functioning of the additional elements or other technology. Applicant’s disclosure does not articulate or suggest how these additional elements function, individually or in combination, in any manner other than using generic functionality nor does the disclosure articulate how the elements provide a technical improvement. Accordingly, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more because they merely amount to using the additional elements as a tool to perform the abstract idea. With respect to Applicant’s arguments regarding well-understood, routine and conventional, the examiner has not commented on whether the claims are well-understood, routine, and conventional and accordingly these arguments are moot. With respect to Applicant’s argument regarding non-obviousness, the examiner disagrees. The question of whether a particular claimed invention is novel or obvious is "fully apart" from the question of whether it is eligible. Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 190, 209 USPQ 1, 9 (1981). As made clear by the courts, the search for an inventive concept is different from an obviousness analysis under 35 U.S.C. 103. See, e.g., BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1350, 119 USPQ2d 1236, 1242 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("The inventive concept inquiry requires more than recognizing that each claim element, by itself, was known in the art. . . . [A]n inventive concept can be found in the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces."). Because they are separate and distinct requirements from eligibility, patentability of the claimed invention under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 with respect to the prior art is neither required for, nor a guarantee of, patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101. See MPEP 2106.05(I). Accordingly, non-obviousness under 35 U.S.C, 103 has no bearing on the eligibility of the claims over 35 U.S.C. 101. Accordingly, the claims do not provide significantly more.
Applicant argues that claims 11 and 18 and the dependent claims are patent eligible for the same reasons as claim 1 (Remarks page 23). The examiner respectfully disagrees. The 101 rejection of claim 1 has been maintained for the reasons discussed in the 101 rejection above, as well as in the response to remarks paragraph above. The 101 rejections of claims 11 and 18 and the dependent claims have been maintained for the same reasons, as well as for additional reasons discussed in the 101 rejection above.
Conclusion
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 ANNA MAE MITROS whose telephone number is (571)272-3969. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 9:30-6.
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, Marissa Thein can be reached at 571-272-6764. 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.
/ANNA MAE MITROS/Examiner, Art Unit 3689
/MARISSA THEIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3689