DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-14, in the reply filed on June 18, 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 15-16 have been withdrawn from consideration as being directed towards a non-elected invention.
Claim Interpretation
The limitation “substantially free of halogens” in claim 1 is interpreted as meaning the phenolic resin includes less than 1 wt.% of a halogen, as discussed in para 0068 of the published application.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: - Claim 2: The abbreviation “LDPE” should be spelled out as low density polyethylene for clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “90 to 99 weight percent hot-melt processable adhesive core.” It is unclear if the reference “hot-melt processible adhesive core” in claim 3 is intended to refer to the adhesive core in claim 1. If so, it is unclear if claim 3 intend for the adhesive core to be hot-melt processable as a further limitation. For the purpose of compact prosecution and prior art application, Examiner will interpret claim 3 as encompassing limiting the amount of the adhesive core from claim 1.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “the tackifier” in line 2. However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation. Claim 6 recites the additive being a plasticizer, an antioxidant and/or a thermal stabilizer. There is no mention of a tackifier. It is unclear if a tackifier is required to be present or merely limited to being 50 weight percent or less of the adhesive core. It is unclear if the phenolic resin intended to be encompassed by the tackifier or the tackifier is intended to be different.
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, 3-8, and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 2005/0196612 to Flood in view of US Pub. No. 2014/0080965 to Yunfeng.
Regarding claims 1, 3-8, and 10-12, Flood teaches a bicomponent fiber having a sheath-core morphology (core-sheath filament) where the sheath is a thermoplastic polymer (non-tacky sheath) and the core is an elastomeric compound, such as a polystyrene-polyisoprene copolymer (claim 4, styrene-isoprene block copolymer) (Flood, abstract, para 0002, 0009-0013), reading on a core comprising a polymer comprising an isoprene moiety. Flood teaches the sheath completely covering the core and being formed of a thermoplastic polymer, such as polypropylene having a melt flow rate of at least 10 g/10 min (Id., para 0028, 0052-0055). Flood teaches the use of processing aid and other additive in the elastomeric core, including other copolymers, tackifying resin, polymer extending oil, waxes, lubricant, stabilizer (claim 6), and mixture thereof (Id., para 0057-0058). Flood teaches styrenic block copolymer have inherent stickiness (Id., para 0004, 0082), reading on the core being an adhesive core. Flood teaches using melt extrusion to form the bicomponent fiber (Id., para 0063-0065), reading on the core being melt processible. Flood teaches the elastomeric further comprising up to 50% by weight of a thermoplastic polymer (Id., para ).
While the reference does not specifically teach the claimed range of less than 15 g/10 min, the disclosed range of the prior art combination overlaps with the instant claimed range. It should be noted that in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The existence of overlapping or encompassing ranges shifts the burden to Applicant to show that his invention would not have been obvious. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to adjust, vary, and optimize the melt flow rate, such as within the claimed range, motivated by the desire to successfully practice the invention of the prior art based on the totality of the teachings of the prior art.
Flood does not teach the core comprising a phenolic resin comprising an alkyl-substituted phenol and is substantially free of halogens.
However, Yunfeng teaches an alkyl phenolic resin having an alkyl phenol with 6-12 carbon atoms, such as 4-(1,1,3,3-tetramethylbutyl) phenol (claim 5) suitable for use as a tackifier (Yunfeng, abstract).Yunfeng teaches the tackifier being used with synthetic rubbers, such as polyisoprene and styrene/butadiene/isoprene copolymers in an amount from about 0.5 parts to about 7 parts per 100 parts by weight rubber (claim 7) (Id., para 0085-0089). Yunfeng does not teach the alkyl phenolic resin comprising a halogen (Id., all, claim 1), reading on being substantially free of halogens. Yunfeng teaches the alkyl phenol having a low content of residual phenol while maintaining excellent tackiness as well as processing performance and mechanical properties (Id., para 0143).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form the fiber of Flood, wherein the tackifying resin is the alkyl phenol of Yunfeng, motivated by the desire of using conventionally known tackifying resin predictably suitable for use in rubber and elastomers, such as polyisoprene and styrene containing materials, and by the desire to use a tackifying material that has low residual phenol while maintaining excellent tackiness as well as processing performance and mechanical properties.
Regarding claim 3, the prior art combination teaches the volume ratio of the sheath to core being 5/95 to 49/51 (Flood, para 0028), reading on 5 to 49% by volume of the sheath and 51 to 95% by volume or the core. While the prior art combination is silent with regards to the weight percent ratio, in order to fall outside the claimed range, the density of the polypropylene sheath would need to be greater than double the density of the styrene-isoprene core, which is not generally known in the art. Therefore, the percentage would overlap with the claimed ranges of 1 to 10 weight percent sheath and 90 to 99 weight percent core. It should be noted that in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The existence of overlapping or encompassing ranges shifts the burden to Applicant to show that his invention would not have been obvious. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to adjust and vary the volume ratio, and therefore the weight amounts, such as within the claimed range, motivated by the desire to successfully practice the invention of the prior art based on the totality of the teachings of the prior art.
Regarding claim 8, the prior art combination teaches the alkyl including cycloaliphatic hydrocarbon groups (Yunfeng, para 0035), reading on the tackifier comprising a cycloaliphatic hydrocarbon.
Regarding claim 10, the prior art combination teaches coextrusion of the thermoplastic polymer and the elastomeric compound through a die (Flood, para 0022, 0065), reading on a product resulting from compounding the core-sheath filament through a heat-extruder nozzle. As the core is polymeric and contains the blend of styrene-isoprene copolymer with the alkyl phenol resin that is melt processed, this reads on a cured adhesive composition. Examiner will note that claim 10 is being broadest reasonable interpretation. The degree of curing, or crosslinking, is not specified, nor the reactant beyond the presence, but not necessarily participation, of the core-sheath filament.
Regarding claim 11, the prior art combination teaches the copolymer having an order-disorder temperature (ODT) of from about 210°C to about 240°C and that ODT below 210°C results in low strength (Flood, para 0043), indicating a high strength. Regarding the claimed static shear performance as measured by the Shear Strength Test Method, although the prior art does not disclose this feature, the claimed properties are deemed to flow naturally from the teachings of the prior art since the prior art reference teaches an invention with a substantially similar structure and chemical composition as the claimed invention. The prior art combination teaches the core-sheath material feed through a heat extrusion die (nozzle) , wherein the core comprising a polystyrene-polyisoprene copolymer with an alkyl phenol as claimed. Products of identical structure and composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. The burden is on the Applicants to prove otherwise.
Regarding claim 12, the prior art combination is silent with regards to the specific temperature the fiber is spun, and therefore the extruder nozzle. However, the limitation “wherein the heated extruder nozzle is heated to at least 170°C” is interpreted as a product-by-process limitation. Absent a showing to the contrary, it is Examiner's position that the article of the applied prior art is identical to or only slightly different than the claimed article. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). The burden has been shifted to Applicant to show unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 218 USPQ 289 (Fed. Cir. 1983). The applied prior art either anticipated or strongly suggested the claimed subject matter. The prior art teaches a polymerized material comprising a polymer having an isoprene moiety and a phenolic resin that has been heated. It is noted that if Applicant intends to rely on Examples in the specification or in a submitted declaration to show unobviousness, Applicant should clearly state how the Examples of the present invention are commensurate in scope with the claims and how the Comparative Examples are commensurate in scope with the applied prior art.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 2005/0196612 to Flood in view of US Pub. No. 2014/0080965 to Yunfeng, as applied to claims 1, 3-8, and 10-12, optionally further in view of USPN 5,358,783 to Diehl.
Regarding claim 9, the prior art combination teaches the elastomer without the sheath self-adhering (Flood, para 0082), reading on adhesive exhibiting tack and therefore exhibiting pressure-sensitive adhesion. The prior art combination teaches the styrene content of the block copolymer to be from 13 to 25 weight percent (Id., para 0009) and the use of tackifying resins, extending oils, waxes, lubricants, and mixtures thereof (Id., para 0053) as well as antioxidants (Id., para 0057). Additionally, Diehl teaches polystyrene-polyisoprene-polystyrene block copolymer having a styrene of less than 25 weight precent are known to yield pressure sensitive adhesive when used with tackifier resins, plasticizer oil, and antioxidants (Diehl, abstract, col. 1 lines 20-25). Therefore, absent evidence to the contrary, the core of the prior art combination would exhibit pressure sensitive adhesive properties and read on the core being a pressure-sensitive adhesive core.
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 2005/0196612 to Flood in view of US Pub. No. 2014/0080965 to Yunfeng, as applied to claims 1, 3-8, and 10-12, further in view of US Pub. No. 2015/0246506 to Ducker.
Regarding claims 13-14, the prior art combination teaches the fiber made from elastic material being used in a wide variety of application, including personal hygiene items (article) (Flood, para 0003).
The prior art combination does not explicitly teach a substrate selected from the group consisting of a glass substrate, a metal substate, a polymeric substrate, and combination thereof.
However, Ducker teaches an absorbent laminate for an absorbent article, such as a disposable hygiene articles, comprising upper and lower laminates comprising layers of synthetic nonwovens or polymer film (polymeric synthetic substrate) and the present of thermoplastic adhesive fibers, including styrene-isoprene-styrene (Ducker, para 0005, 0027-0028, 0031, 0039). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form the hygiene article of the prior art combination, wherein the hygiene article comprising the synthetic polymer nonwoven or film substrate of Ducker, motivated by the desire of forming conventionally known layers predictably suitable for use in hygiene products, including hygiene products comprising fibers of styrene-isoprene fibers.
Claims 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 2005/0196612 to Flood in view of US Pub. No. 2014/0080965 to Yunfeng and/or US Pub. No. 2015/0246506 to Ducker, as applied to claims 1, 3-8, and 10-14 above, in view of USPN 4,708,833 to Ohsawa.
Regarding claims 10-14, in the event that the prior art combination does not teach the cured adhesive composition being a product resulting from compounding the core-sheath fiber through a heated extruder nozzle, Ohsawa teaches it is known to form an elastomeric fiber comprising a core made of an elastomer with rubber elasticity and a cladding, including a non-elastomeric material (Ohsawa, abstract, col. 1 lines 44-48, col. 2 lines 44-48), wherein the core is made from a liquid polymer for the core that is crosslinking it, and simultaneously with or after the formation of the core, providing the cladding around the core with the crosslinking radiation source including heat (Id., col. 1 lines 55-63, col. 2 lines 27-39), reading on crosslinking, or curing, the elastomer during extrusion (claim 10). Ohsawa teaches the core being any liquid polymer that has rubber elasticity after crosslinked (Id., col. 2 lines 7-9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date form the core-sheath fiber of the prior art combination, wherein the core is crosslinked during the fiber formation, as taught by Ohsawa, motivated by desire of forming conventionally known elastomeric rubber core predictably suitable for use in core-sheath fiber
Claims 1-8 and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 2005/0101739 to Webb in view of US Pub. No. 2014/0080965 to Yunfeng.
Regarding claims 1-8 and 10-13, Webb teaches a fiber (core-sheath filament) comprising a styrenic block copolymer, such as styrene-isoprene-styrene copolymer (polymer comprising an isoprene moiety, as a core with a sheath of a polyolefin (non-tacky sheath) (Webb, abstract, para 0002, 0008-0009, 0017-0026, 0054-0057, 0076-0080). Webb teaches strand comprising a sheath made of a blend of polyethylene and polypropylene have a soft hand with very little “stickiness” or surface friction (Id., para 0079), reading on a non-tacky sheath. Webb teaches the polyethylene can be linear low density polyethylene (claim 2) with a MFI from 0.2 to about 150 g/10 min (Id., para 0080). Webb teaches the polypropylene can have a melt flow of even 1 to 3 (Id., para 0081). Webb teaches the fiber comprising a tackifier, such as aliphatic C5 resins, polyterpene resins, hydrogenated resins, mixed aliphatic-aromatic resins, rosin esters, and hydrogenated rosin esters (Id., para 0024-0025, 0032, 0060, 0063). Webb teaches the composition forming core being 50% to 100% by weight of the block copolymer (Id., para 0018, 0025), reading on the core comprising 50% to 100% by weight of the block copolymer (polymer).
While the reference does not specifically teach the claimed range of sheath exhibiting a melt flow index of less than 15 grams per 10 minutes and the block copolymer being 10 to 99% by weight, the disclosed range of the prior art combination overlaps with the instant claimed range. It should be noted that in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The existence of overlapping or encompassing ranges shifts the burden to Applicant to show that his invention would not have been obvious. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to adjust, vary, and optimize the melt flow index and block copolymer amount, such as within the claimed range, motivated by the desire to successfully practice the invention of the prior art based on the totality of the teachings of the prior art, especially given the suitability of low melt flow index polypropylene.
Webb does not teach the core comprising a phenolic resin comprising an alkyl-substituted phenol and is substantially free of halogens.
However, Yunfeng teaches an alkyl phenolic resin having an alkyl phenol with 6-12 carbon atoms, such as 4-(1,1,3,3-tetramethylbutyl) phenol (claim 5) suitable for use as a tackifier (Yunfeng, abstract).Yunfeng teaches the tackifier being used with synthetic rubbers, such as polyisoprene and styrene/butadiene/isoprene copolymers in an amount from about 0.5 parts to about 7 parts per 100 parts by weight rubber (claim 7) (Id., para 0085-0089). Yunfeng does not teach the alkyl phenolic resin comprising a halogen (Id., all, claim 1), reading on being substantially free of halogens. Yunfeng teaches the alkyl phenol having a low content of residual phenol while maintaining excellent tackiness as well as processing performance and mechanical properties (Id., para 0143).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form the fiber of Webb, wherein the styrene-isoprene-styrene copolymer core comprises the alkyl phenol of Yunfeng, motivated by the desire of using conventionally known tackifier resin predictably suitable for use in rubber and elastomers, such as polyisoprene and styrene containing materials, and by the desire to use a tackifier material that has low residual phenol while maintaining excellent tackiness as well as processing performance and mechanical properties.
Regarding claim 3, the prior art combination teaches the sheath/core fiber having a core to sheath weight ratio greater than or equal to about 85:15, such as 95:5 (Webb, para 0084), reading 5 to 15% by weight sheath and 85 to 95% by weight.
Regarding claim 6, the prior art combination teaches the core comprising an antioxidant (Webb, para 0062).
Regarding claim 8, the prior art combination teaches the alkyl including cycloaliphatic hydrocarbon groups (Yunfeng, para 0035), reading on the tackifier comprising a cycloaliphatic hydrocarbon.
Regarding claims 10-12, the prior art combination teaches crosslinking occurring for styrenic block copolymer at temperature necessary to pass the material through fine holes of the textile or nonwoven fibers at commercial rates or draw-downs (Webb, para 0005, 0016), reading on a degree of crosslinking, or curing, during the extrusion process to form the fiber. As the degree of curing, or crosslinking, has not been defined, any degree of crosslinking, or curing, would read on a cured adhesive and the cured adhesive composition being a product resulting from compounding the core-sheath filament through a heated extruder nozzle. The prior art combination also teach the spinnerette face being 260°C (Id., para 0124), reading on a heated extruder nozzle, specifically heated about 170°C.
Regarding claim 11 and the claimed static shear performance as measured by the Shear Strength Test Method, although the prior art does not disclose this feature, the claimed properties are deemed to flow naturally from the teachings of the prior art since the prior art reference teaches an invention with a substantially similar structure and chemical composition as the claimed invention. The prior art combination teaches the core-sheath fiber feed through a heat extrusion die (nozzle), included at a temperature above 170°C , wherein the core comprising a polystyrene-polyisoprene copolymer with an alkyl phenol as claimed. Products of identical structure and composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. The burden is on the Applicants to prove otherwise.
Regarding claim 13, the prior art combination teaches the fiber being used to form a laminate used in an articles such as a disposable diaper, wherein the fibers are formed by melt blowing or spunbonding (Webb, para 0024, 0085-0086), reading on an article comprising the cured adhesive composition and a substrate.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 2005/0101739 to Webb in view of US Pub. No. 2014/0080965 to Yunfeng, as applied to claims 1, 3-8, and 10-13, optionally further in view of USPN 5,358,783 to Diehl.
Regarding claim 9, the prior art combination teaches elastomer having adhesive nature (Flood, para 0071), reading on adhesive exhibiting tack. The prior art combination teaches the styrene content of the block copolymer to be from 13 to 25 weight percent (Id., para 0009) and the use of tackifying resins, extending oils, waxes, lubricants, and mixtures thereof (Id., para 0053) as well as antioxidants (Id., para 0057). Additionally, Diehl teaches polystyrene-polyisoprene-polystyrene block copolymer having a styrene of less than 25 weight precent are known to yield pressure sensitive adhesive when used with tackifier resins, plasticizer oil, and antioxidants (Diehl, abstract, col. 1 lines 20-25). Therefore, absent evidence to the contrary, the core of the prior art combination would exhibit pressure sensitive adhesive properties and read on the core being a pressure-sensitive adhesive core.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Curing to IUPAC Gold Book teaches curing is the chemical process of converting a prepolymer or pa polymer into a polymer of higher molar mass and crosslinking reacting can be referred to as curing. Phase Contrast Imaging of Styrene-Isoprene and Styrene-Butadiene Block Copolymer to Handlin teaches polystyrene has a density of 1.05 g/cm3 and polyisoprene has a density of 0.904 g/cm3 and polyolefins polybutadiene and polyethylene having densities ranging from 0.87 to 1 g/cm3. WO 2019/030914 to Lei/ US Pub. No. 2020/0181458 to Lei teaches at adhesive layer having a protective layer that is hot-melt protective layer that flows, decomposes or sublimated by heating when bonding the adhesive sheet and, as a result, does not prevent the adhesive layer from adhering to an adherend. USPN 3,981,943 to Fujio teaches a rubber composition comprising polyisoprene and a phenol compound, such as 2,6-di-t-butyl-4-methyl phenol, added as 0.5 to 2.0 parts by weight resulting in a cured rubber having a high Young’s modulus and excellent in tear resistance, heat resistance, and rubber elasticity maintainable at a broad temperature range useful in molded articles. USPN 4,889,891 to Durairaj teaches a rubber compounding novolak type resin formed form an alkyl substituted phenol, having C1-10 alkyl, that provides improved mechanical properties to synthetic rubber compositions, including butadiene polymers polymerized with styrene and polyisoprene. USPN 6,190,768 to Turley teaches a bicomponent fiber having a sheath concentrically surrounding a core (core-sheath filament) comprising a first component random interpolymer as a sheath and a second polymer, such as polyisoprene and phenolic resins, and blends thereof as the core and teaches the polymer composition used to make the fibers or the fibers themselves can be modified by various crosslinking process using curing methods at any stage of the fiber preparation WO 2016/090164 to Heston
Heston teaches a filament for fused deposit modeling comprising a soft core formed by a first material, such as rubber and/or thermoplastic, surrounded by a harder jacket of a second and teaches low durometer material tend to have tacky surfaces while the jacket has a lower coefficient of friction. WO 2019/12886 / US Pub. No. 2020/0207030 to Mishima teaches a shaping filament comprising a resin that can be a thermosetting resin or can comprise an elastomer, including a polyolefin-substrated elastomer or polystyrene-substrated elastomer.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER ANN GILLETT whose telephone number is (571)270-0556. The examiner can normally be reached 7 AM- 4:30 PM EST M-H.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached at 571-270-7692. 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.
/JENNIFER A GILLETT/Examiner, Art Unit 1789