DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the amendments and remarks filed 06/25/2025, in which claims 21, 33 and 40 have been amended, and claims 21-28, 30-36 and 38-50 are pending and ready for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 25 JUNE 2025 and 19 FEBRUARY 2026 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and has/have been considered. An initialed copy of Form 1449 is enclosed herewith.
Claim Interpretation
The term “a metal hydro(oxide)” is interpreted to mean a metal oxide and/or metal hydroxide.
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 31 and 32 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) 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 31 recites the limitation “The chemical of claim 21 wherein …”. However claim 1 is directed to a particle. This should be corrected to “The particle of claim 21 wherein …”.
Claim 32 recites the limitation “The fluid of claim 21 wherein …”. However claim 1 is directed to a particle. This should be corrected to “The particle of claim 21 wherein …”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 21-24 and 28, 30-35, 38, 40-41 and 48-49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Çiftçi, T. D. (2017). Adsorptive properties of Fe3O4/Ni/NixB nanocomposite coated nutshell for the removal of arsenic(iii) and arsenic(V) from waters. Cogent Chemistry, 3(1). (hereinafter “Çiftçi”), as evidenced by Yasemin Bulut, Zeki Tez, Adsorption studies on ground shells of hazelnut and almond, Journal of Hazardous Materials, Volume 149, Issue 1, 2007, Pages 35-41 (hereinafter “Bulut”).
Regarding Claim 21 Çiftçi discloses a particle for removal of a chemical (arsenic) from a fluid (water), the particle comprising: a nut shell (hazelnut); and a metal hydro(oxide), Fe3O4/Ni/NixB; Title, Abstract, 2.3., 2.5., Conclusion.
With regard to the metal hydro(oxide) being bonded to the surface of the nut shell by a hydrolytic bond, since the particle disclosed in the produced in a substantially similar way as that claimed and disclosed, it is asserted, absent evidence to the contrary, that one would reasonably expect that the particle disclosed by Çiftçi inherently has the same properties as recited. Specifically, it is asserted that the metal hydro(oxide) is bonded to the surface of the nut shell by a hydrolytic bond. See MPEP 2112.01. Specifically, the particles of Çiftçi are made by a process including contacting a (hazelnut) nut shell with an acidic solution (HCl) and washing the nut shell (with distilled water); contacting the nut shell with a source of metal ions (Ni(II)/Fe(II)/Fe(II) mix solution); forming a mixture comprising an aqueous metal complex (Ni(II)/Fe(II)/Fe(II) mix solution with NaBH4); heating the mixture to produce a thermal hydrolysis reaction (dried at 70°C); and thus forming a metal hydro(oxide) Fe3O4/Ni/NixB bonded to a surface of the nut shell; Title, Abstract, 2.3., 2.5., Conclusion. Where Applicants’ particle is made by a similar process, wherein Applicants’ note that the hydrolytic bond is formed via carboxylic acid groups on the nutshell surface reacting with the metal hydro(oxide) during hydrolysis reaction (instant specification [0035]-[0037]). Thus, as hazelnut shells, as used by Çiftçi, are known to inherently comprise carboxylic groups as evidenced by Bulut (Sec. 2.2. and Table 1 shows carboxylic groups are inherent to washed and ground hazelnut shells “SH”), and the nutshell is further reacted with FeCl3 (the same chemical as used by Applicants) in a hydrolysis reaction (either or both of the initial reaction in solution at 25°C or the heated drying at 70°, Çiftçi sec. 2.3.), it is expected, absent evidence to the contrary, that one would reasonably expect that the particle disclosed by Çiftçi inherently has, to at least some extent, hydrolytic bonds bonding the metal hydro(oxide) to the surface of the nut shell.
Regarding Claims 22-23 Çiftçi discloses the particle of claim 21 wherein the metal hydro(oxide) Fe3O4/Ni/NixB comprises iron, a transition metal; Title.
Regarding Claim 24 Çiftçi discloses the particle of claim 21 wherein the metal hydro(oxide) Fe3O4/Ni/NixB comprises Boron, a Group IIIA metal.
Regarding Claim 28 Çiftçi discloses the particle of claim 21 wherein the metal hydro(oxide) is bonded to the surface of the nut shell; i.e. due to the formation method which is substantially similar to that claimed, see Sec. 2.3., the rejection of claim 21 supra, and MPEP 2112.01.
Regarding Claim 30 Çiftçi discloses the particle of claim 21 further comprising a carboxylate group associated with the metal hydro(oxide) and bonded to the nut shell, i.e. because carboxylate groups are inherent to the nutshells and due to the formation method, which is substantially similar to that claimed, see Sec. 2.3., the rejection of claim 21 supra, and MPEP 2112.01.
Regarding Claim 31 Çiftçi discloses the chemical of claim 21 wherein “the chemical” is material worked upon and is thus not positively claimed, see MPEP 2115.
Regarding Claim 32 Çiftçi discloses the fluid of claim 21 wherein “the fluid” is material worked upon and is thus not positively claimed, see MPEP 2115.
Regarding Claim 33 Çiftçi discloses a process for preparing a filter medium for removal of a chemical (arsenic) from a fluid (water), the process comprising:
contacting a (hazelnut) nut shell with an acidic solution (HCl) and washing the nut shell (with distilled water);
contacting the nut shell with a source of metal ions (Ni(II)/Fe(II)/Fe(II) mix solution);
forming a mixture comprising an aqueous metal complex (Ni(II)/Fe(II)/Fe(II) mix solution with NaBH4);
heating the mixture to produce a thermal hydrolysis reaction (dried at 70°C); and thus forming a metal hydro(oxide) Fe3O4/Ni/NixB bonded to a surface of the nut shell; Title, Abstract, 2.3., 2.5., Conclusion.
With regard to the metal hydro(oxide) being bonded to the surface of the nut shell by a hydrolytic bond, since the particle disclosed in the produced in a substantially similar way as that claimed and disclosed, it is asserted, absent evidence to the contrary, that one would reasonably expect that the particle disclosed by Çiftçi inherently has the same properties as recited. Specifically, it is asserted that the metal hydro(oxide) is bonded to the surface of the nut shell by a hydrolytic bond. See MPEP 2112.01. Specifically, the particles of Çiftçi are made by a process including contacting a (hazelnut) nut shell with an acidic solution (HCl) and washing the nut shell (with distilled water); contacting the nut shell with a source of metal ions (Ni(II)/Fe(II)/Fe(II) mix solution); forming a mixture comprising an aqueous metal complex (Ni(II)/Fe(II)/Fe(II) mix solution with NaBH4); heating the mixture to produce a thermal hydrolysis reaction (dried at 70°C); and thus forming a metal hydro(oxide) Fe3O4/Ni/NixB bonded to a surface of the nut shell; Title, Abstract, 2.3., 2.5., Conclusion. Where Applicants’ particle is made by a similar process, wherein Applicants’ note that the hydrolytic bond is formed via carboxylic acid groups on the nutshell surface reacting with the metal hydro(oxide) during hydrolysis reaction (instant specification [0035]-[0037]). Thus, as hazelnut shells, as used by Çiftçi, are known to inherently comprise carboxylic groups as evidenced by Bulut (Sec. 2.2. and Table 1 shows carboxylic groups are inherent to washed and ground hazelnut shells “SH”), and the nutshell is further reacted with FeCl3 (the same chemical as used by Applicants) in a hydrolysis reaction (either or both of the initial reaction in solution at 25°C or the heated drying at 70°, Çiftçi sec. 2.3.), it is expected, absent evidence to the contrary, that one would reasonably expect that the particle disclosed by Çiftçi inherently has, to at least some extent, hydrolytic bonds bonding the metal hydro(oxide) to the surface of the nut shell.
Regarding Claim 34 Çiftçi discloses the process of claim 33 wherein the metal hydro(oxide) Fe3O4/Ni/NixB comprises iron, a transition metal.
Regarding Claim 35 Çiftçi discloses the process of claim 33 wherein the metal hydro(oxide) Fe3O4/Ni/NixB comprises Boron, a Group IIIA metal.
Regarding Claim 38 Çiftçi discloses the process of claim 33 wherein the chemical comprises a contaminant (arsenic).
Regarding Claim 40 Çiftçi discloses a process for treating fluid (water) to remove a chemical (arsenic), the process comprising: contacting the fluid with a particle comprising: a nut shell; and a metal hydro(oxide) Fe3O4/Ni/NixB; adhering the chemical to the metal hydro(oxide); and recovering the fluid; Title, Abstract, 2.3., 2.5., Conclusion and Sec.2.5. Adsorption experiments.
With regard to the metal hydro(oxide) being bonded to the surface of the nut shell by a hydrolytic bond, since the particle disclosed in the produced in a substantially similar way as that claimed and disclosed, it is asserted, absent evidence to the contrary, that one would reasonably expect that the particle disclosed by Çiftçi inherently has the same properties as recited. Specifically, it is asserted that the metal hydro(oxide) is bonded to the surface of the nut shell by a hydrolytic bond. See MPEP 2112.01. Specifically, the particles of Çiftçi are made by a process including contacting a (hazelnut) nut shell with an acidic solution (HCl) and washing the nut shell (with distilled water); contacting the nut shell with a source of metal ions (Ni(II)/Fe(II)/Fe(II) mix solution); forming a mixture comprising an aqueous metal complex (Ni(II)/Fe(II)/Fe(II) mix solution with NaBH4); heating the mixture to produce a thermal hydrolysis reaction (dried at 70°C); and thus forming a metal hydro(oxide) Fe3O4/Ni/NixB bonded to a surface of the nut shell; Title, Abstract, 2.3., 2.5., Conclusion. Where Applicants’ particle is made by a similar process, wherein Applicants’ note that the hydrolytic bond is formed via carboxylic acid groups on the nutshell surface reacting with the metal hydro(oxide) during hydrolysis reaction (instant specification [0035]-[0037]). Thus, as hazelnut shells, as used by Çiftçi, are known to inherently comprise carboxylic groups as evidenced by Bulut (Sec. 2.2. and Table 1 shows carboxylic groups are inherent to washed and ground hazelnut shells “SH”), and the nutshell is further reacted with FeCl3 (the same chemical as used by Applicants) in a hydrolysis reaction (either or both of the initial reaction in solution at 25°C or the heated drying at 70°, Çiftçi sec. 2.3.), it is expected, absent evidence to the contrary, that one would reasonably expect that the particle disclosed by Çiftçi inherently has, to at least some extent, hydrolytic bonds bonding the metal hydro(oxide) to the surface of the nut shell.
Regarding Claim 41 Çiftçi discloses the process of claim 40 wherein the step of contacting the fluid with the particle is performed in a batch mode; Sec. 2.5.
Regarding Claim 48 Çiftçi discloses the process of claim 40 wherein the recovered fluid comprises less of the chemical than the fluid, i.e. because this is inherent to removing the arsenic, see MPEP 2112.01.
Regarding Claim 49 Çiftçi discloses the process of claim 40 wherein the chemical comprises a contaminant (arsenic).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 25 and 46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Çiftçi as evidenced by Bulut further in view of US 3562153 (hereinafter “Tully”).
Regarding Claims 25 Çiftçi discloses the particle of claim 24, but does not disclose the metal is aluminum.
However, Tully discloses a similar particle for removal of a chemical (oil) from a fluid (water), the particle comprising: a nut shell; and a metal oxide particle, wherein the metal oxide may be iron oxide or alumina; C1/L67-C2/L26.
Therefore, before the effective filing date, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the particle of Çiftçi by substituting for the metal hydro(oxide) particle alumina particles as disclosed by Tully because this involves the simple substitution of known metal hydro(oxide) particles for coating a nutshell for use in an adsorbent for removal of a chemical from a fluid to obtain the predictable results of forming a successful filtration media, and because Tully discloses alumina is a known alternative to iron oxide for coating a nutshell for use in an adsorbent for removal of a chemical from a fluid. Thus the metal hydro(oxide) comprises the Group IIIA metal aluminum.
Regarding Claim 46 Çiftçi discloses the process of claim 40, but does not disclose the chemical comprises oil.
However, Tully discloses a similar process for treating a fluid (water) to remove a chemical (oil), the process comprising: contacting the fluid with a particle comprising: a nut shell; and a metal oxide particle, wherein the metal oxide may be iron oxide or alumina; adhering the chemical to the metal oxide particle; and recovering the fluid; C1/L67-C2/L26.
Therefore, before the effective filing date, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the process of Çiftçi by substituting oil for the chemical to be removed as disclosed by Tully because it is known that similar metal hydro(oxide) coated nutshells may be used to remove oil from water and therefore it would have been obvious to modify the process to be used for additional applications including oil removal, to obtain the predictable results of removing oil contaminant from the water.
Claims 26 and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Çiftçi as evidenced by Bulut further in view of CN 104383886 A (hereinafter “Cao”).
Regarding Claims 26 and 36 Çiftçi discloses the particle of claim 21 and the process of claim 33 but does not disclose wherein the nut shell comprises a walnut shell.
However Cao discloses a similar metal oxide treated nutshell adsorbent for removing a contaminant (Cu) from water, wherein the nutshell used in a walnut shell; Abstract, Claims.
Therefore, before the effective filing date, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the particle and process of Çiftçi by substituting fort the nutshell walnut shell as disclosed by Cao because this involves the simple substitution of known nut shells used for absorbent particles in water filtration to obtain the predictable results of forming a successful filtration media.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Çiftçi as evidenced by Bulut further in view of US 8,551,431 B1 (hereinafter “Adams”).
Regarding Claim 27 Çiftçi discloses the particle of claim 21 but does not disclose wherein the nut shell comprises a pecan shell.
However Adams discloses it is known to treated pecan shell as adsorbent for mercury removal in flue gas streams (Title, Abstract, C1/L18-56),
Therefore, before the effective filing date, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the particle and process of Çiftçi by substituting for the nutshell, pecan shell as disclosed by Adams because this involves the simple substitution of known nut shells used for absorbent particles in fluid filtration to obtain the predictable results of forming a successful filtration media.
Claims 39, 42 and 50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Çiftçi as evidenced by Bulut.
Regarding Claim 39 Çiftçi discloses the process of claim 33 wherein the fluid comprises water, and while wastewater is not specifically disclosed, manmade sources of arsenic are noted and thus it would have been obvious to filter wastewaters containing arsenic.
Regarding Claim 42 Çiftçi discloses the process of claim 40 and while a continuous process is not disclosed, it has been held obvious to make continuous a batch process, see MPEP 2144.04(V)(E).
Regarding Claim 50 Çiftçi discloses the process of claim 40 wherein the fluid comprises water, and while wastewater is not specifically disclosed, manmade sources of arsenic are noted (Introduction) and thus it would have been obvious to filter wastewaters containing arsenic.
Claims 43-45 and 47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Çiftçi as evidenced by Bulut further in view of US 2014/0251806 (hereinafter “Larson”).
Regarding Claim 43-45 and 47 Çiftçi discloses the process of claim 40, but does not disclose the chemical comprises (claims 43 and 45) total organic carbon, (claim 44) silica, or (claim 47) hardness.
However, Larson discloses a process for treating fluid to remove a chemical, the process comprising: contacting the fluid with a particle comprising: a nut shell; adhering the chemical to the nutshell; and recovering the fluid; SAGD operation uses walnut shell filter 34 to remove (suspended solids and/or organics including oil), [0007]-[0010], [0017], Fig. Wherein the chemicals removed are “suspended solids and/organics” for example trace amounts of oil [0017], thus includes sources of total organic carbon, which are left over after softening and clarification, which are disclosed to remove silica and hardness [0015]-[0016].
Therefore, before the effective filing date, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the process of Çiftçi by using the particle in a filter to remove any undesirable chemicals remaining in the water including suspended solids and/organics, including oil, silica and hardness, as disclosed by Larson because it is known to use similar nutshell filters to remove undesirable chemicals remaining in the water including suspended solids and/organics, including oil, silica and hardness and therefore it would have been obvious to modify the process to be used for additional applications including removal of suspended solids and/organics, including oil, silica and hardness, to obtain the predictable results of removing undesirable chemicals remaining in the water including suspended solids and/organics, including oil, silica and hardness.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/24/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicants’ argument that the particles of Çiftçi do not inherently comprise wherein the metal hydro(oxide) is bonded to the surface of the nutshell by a hydrolytic bond; the Examiner disagrees. Applicants’ argue that one of skill in the art would not understand that carboxylate groups are inherent to nutshells or that Çiftçi teaches the formation of a hydrolytic bond between the nut shell and Fe₃O₄/Ni/NiₓB. However, inherent features need not be recognized by, or obvious to, one of skill in the art, they merely need to be necessarily inherent to the prior art disclosed, see MPEP 2112(II).
With regard to the metal hydro(oxide) being bonded to the surface of the nut shell by a hydrolytic bond, since the particle disclosed in the produced in a substantially similar way as that claimed and disclosed, it is asserted, absent evidence to the contrary, that one would reasonably expect that the particle disclosed by Çiftçi inherently has the same properties as recited. Specifically, it is asserted that the metal hydro(oxide) is bonded to the surface of the nut shell by a hydrolytic bond. See MPEP 2112.01. Specifically, the particles of Çiftçi are made by a process including contacting a (hazelnut) nut shell with an acidic solution (HCl) and washing the nut shell (with distilled water); contacting the nut shell with a source of metal ions (Ni(II)/Fe(II)/Fe(II) mix solution); forming a mixture comprising an aqueous metal complex (Ni(II)/Fe(II)/Fe(II) mix solution with NaBH4); heating the mixture to produce a thermal hydrolysis reaction (dried at 70°C); and thus forming a metal hydro(oxide) Fe3O4/Ni/NixB bonded to a surface of the nut shell; Title, Abstract, 2.3., 2.5., Conclusion. Where Applicants’ particle is made by a similar process, wherein Applicants’ note that the hydrolytic bond is formed via carboxylic acid groups on the nutshell surface reacting with the metal hydro(oxide) during hydrolysis reaction (instant specification [0035]-[0037]). Thus, as hazelnut shells, as used by Çiftçi, are known to inherently comprise carboxylic groups as evidenced by Bulut (Sec. 2.2. and Table 1 shows carboxylic groups are inherent to washed and ground hazelnut shells “SH”), and the nutshell is further reacted with FeCl3 (the same chemical as used by Applicants) in a hydrolysis reaction (either or both of the initial reaction in solution at 25°C or the heated drying at 70°, Çiftçi sec. 2.3.), it is expected, absent evidence to the contrary, that one would reasonably expect that the particle disclosed by Çiftçi inherently has, to at least some extent, hydrolytic bonds bonding the metal hydro(oxide) to the surface of the nut shell.
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 Eric J. McCullough whose telephone number is (571)272-8885. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10:00-6:00.
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, Benjamin L Lebron can be reached at 571-272-0475. 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.
/ERIC J MCCULLOUGH/ Examiner, Art Unit 1773
/BENJAMIN L LEBRON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1773