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 .
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because:
Line 1, replace “comprising:” with “including:”. Legalese style language is not permitted within the abstract.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph [0018], each of Lines 1, 3, and 4, replace “ring 30” with “ring 16”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, Line 1, replace “comprising” with “comprising:”
Claim 15, Line 1, replace “comprising” with “comprising:”
Appropriate correction is required.
Applicant is advised that should claim 15 be found allowable, claim 17 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof (the subject matter of claim 17 is already located within claim 15, upon which claim 17 depends). When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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 8-14 and 20 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 8 recites “greater than or equal to a third a length of a pallet’s center stringer.” However, it is indefinite and unclear then as to whether the applicant means to positively recite the “pallet stringer” as part of the invention being claimed? The examiner noting that there are multiple different size pallets so it is not clear as to how the length of a “pallet stringer” relates to the size of the bars as claimed.
Claim 9 recites “greater than or equal to a third a length of a pallet’s center stringer.” However, it is indefinite and unclear then as to whether the applicant means to positively recite the “pallet stringer” as part of the invention being claimed? The examiner noting that there are multiple different size pallets so it is not clear as to how the length of a “pallet stringer” relates to the size of the bars as claimed.
Claim 20 recites “greater than or equal to a third a length of a pallet’s center stringer.” However, it is indefinite and unclear then as to whether the applicant means to positively recite the “pallet stringer” as part of the invention being claimed? The examiner noting that there are multiple different size pallets so it is not clear as to how the length of a “pallet stringer” relates to the size of the bars as claimed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1, 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 2,354,107 (Diamond).
Regarding Claim 1, Diamond teaches: Claim 1 - a pallet puller comprising a first bar (12) having a first hook (17) disposed on a distal end of the first bar (12), wherein the first hook (17) is a wedge connected to the distal end of the first bar (12); a second bar (14) having a second hook (18) disposed on a distal end of the second bar (14), wherein the second hook (18) is a wedge connected to the distal end of the second bar (14); a ring (11) loosely coupled to a proximal end of the first bar (12) and to a proximal end of the second bar (14) such that the first and second bars (12 and 14) are able to move with respect to the ring (11) and such that pointed ends of the first and second hooks (17 and 18) are pointed in opposite directions with respect to each other; and a line (34) having a proximal end coupled to the ring (11) and a distal end terminated in a connection point, (Figures 1-5).
Regarding Claims 9 and 10, Diamond teaches: Claim 9 - a pallet puller comprising: a first bar (12) having a first hook (17) disposed on a distal end of the first bar (12); a second bar (14) having a second hook (18) disposed on a distal end of the second bar (14); a link (11) coupled to a proximal end of the first bar (12) and to a proximal end of the second bar (14) such that the first and second bars (12 and 14) are able to move with respect to the link (11) and such that the first and second hooks (17 and 18) are pointed in opposite directions, wherein a distance between the proximal and distal ends of each of the first and second bars (12 and 14) is capable of being greater than or equal to a third of a length of a pallet’s center stringer; and a line (34) having a proximal end coupled to the link (11) and a distal end terminated in a connection point such that when the distal ends of the first and second bars (12 and 14) are inserted into the pallet on either side of the center stringer and when any slack in the line (34) is removed by pulling the connection point in a direction away from the pallet, the first and second hooks (17 and 18) are configured to grip the center stringer or to hook into a notch in the center stringer, (Figures 1-5); Claim 10 - wherein the first and second hooks (17 and 18) are wedges respectively connected to the distal ends of the first and second bars (12 and 14), (Figures 1-5).
Claim(s) 1, 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 673,356 (Brittain).
Regarding Claim 1, Brittain teaches: Claim 1 - a pallet puller comprising a first bar (10) having a first hook (14) disposed on a distal end of the first bar (10), wherein the first hook (14) is a wedge connected to the distal end of the first bar (10); a second bar (11) having a second hook (14) disposed on a distal end of the second bar (11), wherein the second hook (14) is a wedge connected to the distal end of the second bar (11); a ring (31) loosely coupled to a proximal end of the first bar (10) and to a proximal end of the second bar (11) such that the first and second bars (10 and 11) are able to move with respect to the ring (31) and such that pointed ends of the first and second hooks (14) are pointed in opposite directions with respect to each other; and a line (33) having a proximal end coupled to the ring (31) and a distal end terminated in a connection point, (Figures 1-3).
Regarding Claims 9 and 10, Brittain teaches: Claim 9 - a pallet puller comprising: a first bar (10) having a first hook (14) disposed on a distal end of the first bar (10); a second bar (11) having a second hook (14) disposed on a distal end of the second bar (11); a link (31) coupled to a proximal end of the first bar (10) and to a proximal end of the second bar (11) such that the first and second bars (10 and 11) are able to move with respect to the link (31) and such that the first and second hooks (14) are pointed in opposite directions, wherein a distance between the proximal and distal ends of each of the first and second bars (10 and 11) is capable of being greater than or equal to a third of a length of a pallet’s center stringer; and a line (33) having a proximal end coupled to the link (31) and a distal end terminated in a connection point such that when the distal ends of the first and second bars (10 and 11) are inserted into the pallet on either side of the center stringer and when any slack in the line (33) is removed by pulling the connection point in a direction away from the pallet, the first and second hooks (14) are configured to grip the center stringer or to hook into a notch in the center stringer, (Figures 1-3); Claim 10 - wherein the first and second hooks (14) are wedges respectively connected to the distal ends of the first and second bars (10 and 11), (Figures 1-3).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 2, 3, 11-13, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 2,354,107 (Diamond).
Regarding Claims 2, 3, 11 and 12, Diamond teaches the pallet puller as described above, but does not teach: wherein each wedge is disposed at an angle of 75 degrees with respect to each wedge’s respective bar (Claims 2 and 11); and wherein the first and second bars are each approximately forty-seven centimeters long (Claims 3 and 12). However, the examiner takes the position that the claimed dimensions are merely a design choice that is an obvious variation of the distances/angles shown in Diamond, and further points to case law Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), which states that the recitation of relative dimensions to the claimed invention does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention as it does not cause the device to perform differently then the prior art device (Diamond), (See MPEP 2144.04).
Regarding Claim 13, Diamond teaches: Claim 13 - wherein when the pallet is a one-way pallet and any slack in the line (34) is capable of being removed by pulling the connection point in a direction away from the pallet, the hooks (17 and 18) are configured to dig into the center stringer, (Figures 1-5).
Regarding Claims 15-17, Diamond teaches: Claim 15 - a pallet puller comprising a first bar (12) having a first hook (17) disposed on a distal end of the first bar, wherein the first hook (17) is a wedge connected to the distal end of the first bar (12); a second bar (14) having a second hook (18) disposed on a distal end of the second bar (14), wherein the second hook (18) is a wedge connected to the distal end of the second bar (14); a ring (11) loosely coupled to a proximal end of the first bar (12) and to a proximal end of the second bar (14) such that the first and second bars (12 and 14) are able to move with respect to the ring (11) and such that pointed ends of the first and second hooks (17 and 18) are pointed in opposite directions with respect to each other; and a line (34) having a proximal end coupled to the ring (11) and a distal end terminated in a connection point, (Figures 1-5).
Diamond does not teach: wherein the first and second hooks are approximately 6.5 centimeter-long (Claim 15); wherein each wedge is disposed at an angle of 75 degrees with respect to each wedge’s respective bar (Claim 16); and wherein the first and second bars are each approximately forty-seven centimeters long (Claims 15 and 17). However, the examiner takes the position that the claimed dimensions are merely a design choice that is an obvious variation of the distances/angles shown in Diamond, and further points to case law Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), which states that the recitation of relative dimensions to the claimed invention does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention as it does not cause the device to perform differently then the prior art device (Diamond), (See MPEP 2144.04).
Claim(s) 2, 3, 11-13 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 673,356 (Brittain).
Regarding Claims 2, 3, 11 and 12, Brittain teaches the pallet puller as described above, but does not teach: wherein each wedge is disposed at an angle of 75 degrees with respect to each wedge’s respective bar (Claims 2 and 11); and wherein the first and second bars are each approximately forty-seven centimeters long (Claims 3 and 12). However, the examiner takes the position that the claimed dimensions are merely a design choice that is an obvious variation of the distances/angles shown in Brittain, and further points to case law Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), which states that the recitation of relative dimensions to the claimed invention does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention as it does not cause the device to perform differently then the prior art device (Brittain), (See MPEP 2144.04).
Regarding Claim 13, Brittain teaches: Claim 13 - wherein when the pallet is a one-way pallet and any slack in the line (33) is capable of being removed by pulling the connection point in a direction away from the pallet, the hooks (14) are configured to dig into the center stringer, (Figures 1-3).
Regarding Claims 15-17, Brittain teaches: Claim 15 - a pallet puller comprising a first bar (10) having a first hook (14) disposed on a distal end of the first bar, wherein the first hook (14) is a wedge connected to the distal end of the first bar (10); a second bar (11) having a second hook (14) disposed on a distal end of the second bar (11), wherein the second hook (14) is a wedge connected to the distal end of the second bar (11); a ring (31) loosely coupled to a proximal end of the first bar (10) and to a proximal end of the second bar (11) such that the first and second bars (10 and 11) are able to move with respect to the ring (31) and such that pointed ends of the first and second hooks (14) are pointed in opposite directions with respect to each other; and a line (33) having a proximal end coupled to the ring (31) and a distal end terminated in a connection point, (Figures 1-3).
Brittain does not teach: wherein the first and second hooks are approximately 6.5 centimeter-long (Claim 15); wherein each wedge is disposed at an angle of 75 degrees with respect to each wedge’s respective bar (Claim 16); and wherein the first and second bars are each approximately forty-seven centimeters long (Claims 15 and 17). However, the examiner takes the position that the claimed dimensions are merely a design choice that is an obvious variation of the distances/angles shown in Brittain, and further points to case law Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), which states that the recitation of relative dimensions to the claimed invention does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention as it does not cause the device to perform differently then the prior art device (Brittain), (See MPEP 2144.04).
Claim(s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 2,354,107 (Diamond) in view of website baremotion.com, dated 08/30/20 via WaybackMachine, (https://www.baremotion.com/products/medium-duty-grade-70-transport-binder-chain-kit).
Regarding Claim 4, Diamond teaches the pallet puller as described above, but does not teach: wherein the line is a grade 70 chain and the connection point is a chain hook (Claim 4). However, baremotion.com teaches: Claim 4 – a grade 70 chain (AA) including connection points (BB) in the form of chain hooks (BB), (Annotated Figure Below). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the pallet puller of Diamond to have wherein the line is a grade 70 chain and the connection point is a chain hook (Claim 4) as taught by baremotion.com as it represents the simple substation of one known element (the 70 grade chain of baremotion.com) for another (the line (34) of Diamond) to obtain the predictable result of using a line in the form of a chain which is well known, and easy to find and manufacture.
PNG
media_image1.png
294
516
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 673,356 (Brittain) in view of website baremotion.com, dated 08/30/20 via WaybackMachine, (https://www.baremotion.com/products/medium-duty-grade-70-transport-binder-chain-kit).
Regarding Claim 4, Brittain teaches the pallet puller as described above, but does not teach: wherein the line is a grade 70 chain and the connection point is a chain hook (Claim 4). However, baremotion.com teaches: Claim 4 – a grade 70 chain (AA) including connection points (BB) in the form of chain hooks (BB), (Annotated Figure Above). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the pallet puller of Brittain to have wherein the line is a grade 70 chain and the connection point is a chain hook (Claim 4) as taught by baremotion.com as it represents the simple substation of one known element (the 70 grade chain of baremotion.com) for another (the line (33) of Brittain) to obtain the predictable result of using a line in the form of a chain which is well known, and easy to find and manufacture.
Claim(s) 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 2,354,107 (Diamond) in view of website baremotion.com, dated 08/30/20 via WaybackMachine, (https://www.baremotion.com/products/medium-duty-grade-70-transport-binder-chain-kit), and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 4,326,744 (Long, III).
Regarding Claims 5-8, Diamond as modified by baremotion.com teaches the pallet puller as described above, in addition to Diamond teaching: Claim 6 - wherein the proximal ends of the first and second bars (12 and 14) comprise holes through which the ring (11) is disposed, and the ring (11) having a diameter of and a cross-sectional diameter, (Figures 1-5); Claim 7 - wherein the first and second bars (12 and 14) are only connected to each other via the ring (11), (Figures 1-5); Claim 8 - wherein a distance between the proximal and distal ends of each of the first and second bars (12 and 14) is capable of being greater than or equal to a third of a length of a pallet’s center stringer, (Figures 1-5).
Diamond as modified by baremotion.com does not teach:
(A) The first and second bars are made of steel (Claim 5); and the ring is a steel ring (Claim 6).
(B) The first and second hooks are respectively welded to the distal ends of the first and second bars (Claim 5).
(C) The ring having the diameter of approximately 7.6 centimeters and the cross-sectional diameter of approximately 0.6 centimeters (Claim 6).
In regards to (A), Long, III teaches: Claims 5 and 6 – first and second bars (24/28) and a ring (12), wherein the first and second bars (24/28) and the ring (12) are made of steel (Column 4, Lines 35-38), (Figure 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the pallet puller of Diamond as modified by baremotion.com to have the first and second bars are made of steel (Claim 5); and the ring is a steel ring (Claim 6) as taught by Long, III for the purposes of having the first and second bars and the ring made from a material which is easy to find and manufacture.
In regards to (B), the examiner notes that the claim is a product by process claim and the first and second hooks do not depend on the process of making them. The product-by-process limitation " welded" would not be expected to impart distinctive structural characteristics to the first and second hooks. Therefore, the claimed first and second hooks is not a different and unobvious first and second hook from the first and second hooks of Diamond.
In regards to (C), the examiner takes the position that the claimed dimensions are merely a design choice that is an obvious variation of the distances/angles shown in Diamond, and further points to case law Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), which states that the recitation of relative dimensions to the claimed invention does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention as it does not cause the device to perform differently than the prior art device (Diamond), (See MPEP 2144.04).
Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 673,356 (Brittain) in view of website baremotion.com, dated 08/30/20 via WaybackMachine, (https://www.baremotion.com/products/medium-duty-grade-70-transport-binder-chain-kit), and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 4,326,744 (Long, III).
Regarding Claim 5, Brittain as modified by baremotion.com teaches the pallet puller as described above, but does not teach:
(A) The first and second bars are made of steel (Claim 5).
(B) The first and second hooks are respectively welded to the distal ends of the first and second bars (Claim 5).
In regards to (A), Long, III teaches: Claim 5 – first and second bars (24/28) and a ring (12), wherein the first and second bars (24/28) and the ring (12) are made of steel (Column 4, Lines 35-38), (Figure 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the pallet puller of Brittain as modified by baremotion.com to have the first and second bars are made of steel (Claim 5) as taught by Long, III for the purposes of having the first and second bars and the ring made from a material which is easy to find and manufacture.
In regards to (B), the examiner notes that the claim is a product by process claim and the first and second hooks do not depend on the process of making them. The product-by-process limitation " welded" would not be expected to impart distinctive structural characteristics to the first and second hooks. Therefore, the claimed first and second hooks is not a different and unobvious first and second hook from the first and second hooks of Brittain.
Claim(s) 14, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 2,354,107 (Diamond) in view of U.S. Patent No. 4,326,744 (Long, III).
Regarding Claim 14, Diamond teaches the pallet puller as described above, in addition to teaching: Claim 14 – wherein the link (11) is a ring (11), wherein the proximal ends of the first and second bars (12 and 14) comprise holes through which the ring (11) is disposed, (Figures 1-5).
Diamond does not teach: wherein the ring is a steel ring (Claim 14). However, Long, III teaches: Claim 4 – first and second bars (24/28) and a ring (12), wherein the first and second bars (24/28) and the ring (12) are made of steel (Column 4, Lines 35-38), (Figure 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the pallet puller of Diamond to have wherein the ring is a steel ring (Claim 14) as taught by Long, III for the purposes of having the first and second bars and the ring made from a material which is easy to find and manufacture.
Regarding Claims 18-20, Diamond teaches the pallet puller as described above, in addition to teaching: Claim 19 – wherein the proximal ends of the first and second bars comprise holes through which the ring is disposed, (Figures 1-5); Claim 20 - wherein a distance between the proximal and distal ends of each of the first and second bars (12 and 14) is capable of being greater than or equal to a third of a length of a pallet’s center stringer, (Figures 1-5).
Diamond does not teach:
(A) Wherein first and second bars are made of steel (Claim 18).
(B) The first and second hooks are respectively welded to the distal ends of the first and second bars (Claim 18).
In regards to (A), Long, III teaches: Claim 18 – first and second bars (24/28) and a ring (12), wherein the first and second bars (24/28) and the ring (12) are made of steel (Column 4, Lines 35-38), (Figure 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the pallet puller of Diamond to have wherein first and second bars are made of steel (Claim 18) as taught by Long, III for the purposes of having the first and second bars and the ring made from a material which is easy to find and manufacture.
In regards to (B), the examiner notes that the claim is a product by process claim and the first and second hooks do not depend on the process of making them. The product-by-process limitation " welded" would not be expected to impart distinctive structural characteristics to the first and second hooks. Therefore, the claimed first and second hooks is not a different and unobvious first and second hook from the first and second hooks of Diamond.
Claim(s) 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 673,356 (Brittain) in view of U.S. Patent No. 4,326,744 (Long, III).
Regarding Claim 18, Brittain teaches the pallet puller as described above, but does not teach:
(A) Wherein first and second bars are made of steel (Claim 18).
(B) The first and second hooks are respectively welded to the distal ends of the first and second bars (Claim 18).
In regards to (A), Long, III teaches: Claim 18 – first and second bars (24/28) and a ring (12), wherein the first and second bars (24/28) and the ring (12) are made of steel (Column 4, Lines 35-38), (Figure 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the pallet puller of Brittain to have wherein first and second bars are made of steel (Claim 18) as taught by Long, III for the purposes of having the first and second bars and the ring made from a material which is easy to find and manufacture.
In regards to (B), the examiner notes that the claim is a product by process claim and the first and second hooks do not depend on the process of making them. The product-by-process limitation " welded" would not be expected to impart distinctive structural characteristics to the first and second hooks. Therefore, the claimed first and second hooks is not a different and unobvious first and second hook from the first and second hooks of Brittain.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Josh Rodden whose telephone number is (303) 297-4258. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 8-5 MST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joshua Michener can be reached on (571) 271467. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOSHUA E RODDEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642