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 disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph [0016], recites “the parameter of puffing cavity pressure is between 30°C and 90°C”. It appears the term pressure is a typographical error since the parameter being referred to is a temperature parameter range of 30°C and 90°C.
Paragraph [0029], line 6, recites “Emmental: Emmental”. It appears to be a typographical duplicate error.
Paragraph [0029], lines 4 and 6, recites “Parmigiano-Reggiano” twice.
Paragraphs [0031-0032]: On paragraph [0031], line 7, the Specification mentions “Wosfield iron series stainless steel”, on paragraph [0032], line 5, mentions “Wochfield iron series” and on page 10, paragraph [0032] continuation, lines 1-2, mentions “Wochonite stainless steel”. It is unclear if it is referring to the same metal material (i.e., all reading the same as “Wosfield” or “Wochfield” or “Wochonite”) or to different materials.
Paragraph [0032], line 4, of the Specification the recitation of “the material of puffing cavity” should read “the material of the puffing cavity”.
Paragraph [0032], line 3, of the Specification the recitation of “with a resistivity less than 10-6 Ωm” should read “with a resistivity of less than 10-6 Ωm”.
Appropriate correction is required.
The use of the term “Teflon”, on [0031], lines 10-11 of the instant Specification, which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 4-5, 8 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1 (steps 5-6), 8 and 10 recites “the puffing process parameters”. It appears the claims should read “the multiple puffing process parameters” in order to maintain consistency with “the multiple puffing process parameters” recited in claim 1 step 4.
Claim 4 recites “10-6Ωm”. It appears the claim should read “10-6 Ωm”.
Claim 5 recites “wherein the parameter of puffing cavity pressure is between 30°C and 90°C”. It appears the term pressure is a typographical error in light of paragraph [0020] of the Specification, since the numerical rage being claimed is directed to a temperature parameter range of 30-90°C, and in order to maintain consistency with “the puffing process parameters at least include a parameter of puffing temperature” recited in claim 1 step 6.
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 1-10 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.
Claims 1-10 recites the limitation “natural cheese”. While claim 2 recites the limitation “natural cheese is non-processed cheese, and the main ingredients of the natural cheese are animal milk, lactic acid bacteria, salt and rennet (rennet) after being matured made cheese.”, and paragraphs 0003, 0013 and 0029 of the instant Specification provides support for the limitation, it is unclear what differentiates “natural cheese that is non-processed cheese” having animal milk, lactic acid bacteria, salt and rennet, from a processed cheese having the same main ingredients of animal milk, lactic acid bacteria, salt and rennet.
Claims 1 and 10 recites the limitation "the settings" of the puffing process parameters, both in step 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 1 and 10 (steps 2 and 5) recites “after physical pretreatment”. It is unclear if this is “the physical pretreatment” of step 1 or some other additional physical pretreatment.
Claim 2 recites “rennet (rennet)”. It is unclear why there is a “rennet” in parenthesis.
Claim 2 recites “after being matured made cheese”. It is unclear what this means.
Claim 3 recites the limitation " the physical pretreatment", in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because claim 1 step 1 recites “a physical pretreatment” and claim 1 step 5 recites “physical pretreatment”.
Claim 8 recites “a parameter of puffing temperature, a parameter of electromagnetic power density, and a parameter of puffing cavity pressure”. It is unclear if these parameters are different parameters from the parameters recited in claim 1 step 6, or if this parameters refer to the same parameters of claim 1 step 6 (i.e., “the parameter of puffing temperature, the parameter of electromagnetic power density, and the parameter of puffing cavity pressure”).
Claim 8, line 4 recites the term “certain”. It is unclear what the term “certain” refers to.
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.
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Stromotich et al. [US 20130164429 A1] , hereinafter Stromotich.
Regarding claim 9, Stromotich teaches a puffed product of natural cheese (feta cheese [Stromotich, Title, 0009], as disclosed on [0029] of the instant Specification), wherein a volume of the puffed product of natural cheese is 50%-1000% (10-1000%) compared to a volume of the natural cheese before puffing [Stromotich, 0013].
Regarding claim 10, Claim 10 is considered a product-by-process claim. The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed product. The determination of patentability is based upon the product structure itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production or formation. 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. See In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP § 2113). See claim 9 rejection above where Stromotich teaches a puffed product of natural cheese.
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) 1, 3, 5-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stout et al. [US 20220071223 A1], hereinafter Stout, in view of Sumi et al. [US 3941967 A], hereinafter Sumi, and Stromotich et al. [US 20130164429 A1], hereinafter Stromotich.
Regarding claim 1, Stout teaches a method for puffing natural cheese [Stout, Abstract, 0011, 0030, claim 7], (made entirely of cheeses such as Cheddar, Monterey Jack and/or Gouda, equivalent to natural cheese as disclosed on [0029] of the instant Specification), which includes the following steps of:
step 1: subjecting a natural cheese to a physical pretreatment (i.e., extrusion, shredding, slicing, conversion) [Stout, 0025-0027], to form a target shape (i.e., cubes, spheres, cones, etc.…) [Stout, 0009-0010, 0033];
step 3: sending the natural cheese placed in the bearing plate into a puffing cavity of a puffing equipment (i.e., place cheese into a microwave apparatus) [Stout, 0029, 0043];
step 4: setting multiple puffing process parameters for the puffing equipment (i.e., two stage temperature parameters, stage 1: low dehydration temperatures of 65-170 °F, stage 2: high puffing temperatures of 150-500 °F dielectric heat, and a pressure parameter setting for puffing performed in a negative pressure) [Stout, 0028, 0031, 0035, 0024];
step 5: providing an electromagnetic energy (i.e., electromagnetic waves) by the puffing equipment under the settings of the puffing process parameters to perform a puffing process on the natural cheese after physical pretreatment [Stout, 0031, 0035]; and
Stout teaches placing the natural cheese after physical pretreatment into a (electromagnetic wave apparatus) microwave apparatus [Stout, 0029, 0043], but does not explicitly recites placing the natural cheese after physical pretreatment into a bearing plate, the material of the bearing plate is selected from an electromagnetic wave absorbing material, a reflecting electromagnetic wave material or an electromagnetic wave penetrating material as required by claim 1, step 2.
Sumi teaches electromagnetic wave (microwave) cooking apparatus and methods [Sumi, Title, Abstract]. Sumi teaches placing the food product (material 4) to be treated/heated/cooked into a bearing plate (metal plate 3 or support plate 3 serves as the support for material 4) [Sumi, col.4, l.10-13; col.5, l.44-47; Fig.1, 8-9], the material of the bearing plate (metal plate 3 serves as the support for material 4) is a reflecting electromagnetic wave material [Sumi, col.7, l.20-22; Fig.1, 8-9], (stainless teel, as disclosed on [0031] of the instant Specification).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the bearing plate made of a reflecting electromagnetic wave material as taught by Sumi, into the method of Stout, and place the natural cheese after physical pretreatment on said reflecting electromagnetic wave bearing plate for further electromagnetic wave treatment, because Sumi disclose that using a bearing plate made of a reflecting electromagnetic wave material such as stainless steel provides the advantage of offering sufficient heat resistance and is not harmful to human beings [Sumi, col.4, l.10-13; col.5, l.44-47].
Modified Stout teaches producing a puffed product after the puffing process is completed; wherein, the puffing process parameters at least include a parameter of puffing temperature [Stout, 0031, 0033, 0035], and a parameter of puffing cavity pressure [Stout, 0010, 0024, 0033, 0038], but does not explicitly recite wherein, the puffing process parameters at least include a parameter of electromagnetic power density as required by claim 1, step 6.
Stromotich teaches a puffed cheese product and method for making the same [Stromotich, Title]. The cheese puffing process uses a parameter of electromagnetic power density [Stromotich, 0005, 0013, claim 1].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the electromagnetic power density as taught by Stromotich, into the method of modified Stout, since both are directed to puffing cheese products under vacuum and electromagnetic waves treatment [Stromotich, 0005], and since Stout already teach applying electromagnetic power (waves, heat, energy) but simply did not mention the specific term of electromagnetic power density, and further because Stromotich teaches that applying a power density would provide puffed cheese products with a size that is at least 10-1000% greater than their original size, and further since the amount of microwave heating applied and the time period of heating will determine the final moisture level and degree of puffing that is desired and since the amount of microwave heating applied and the time period of heating will vary depending on the type of cheese being puffed [Stromotich, 0013-0014].
Regarding claim 3, modified Stout teaches the method for puffing natural cheese as described in claim 1, wherein the physical pretreatment is cutting (cut into star shapes) [Stout, 0020], and extrusion [Stout, 0025].
Regarding claim 5, modified Stout teaches the method for puffing natural cheese as described in claim 1, wherein the parameter of puffing cavity temperature is between 150-500°F (66-260°C) [Stout, 0031], which encompass the claimed range of 30°C and 90°C.
Regarding claim 6, Stout teaches the method for puffing natural cheese discussed above in claim 1 rejection, but is silent regarding the parameter of electromagnetic power density is between 0.2 kW and 4 kW/kg.
Stromotich teaches a puffed cheese product and method for making the same [Stromotich, Title]. The cheese puffing process uses a parameter of electromagnetic power density of between 0.2 kW/kg and 4 kW/kg [Stromotich, 0005, 0013, claim 1].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the electromagnetic power density of between 0.2 kW/kg and 4 kW/kg as taught by Stromotich, into the method of modified Stout, since both are directed to puffing cheese products under vacuum and electromagnetic waves treatment [Stromotich, 0005], and because Stromotich teaches that using this power density would provide puffed cheese products with a size that is at least 10-1000% greater than their original size, and further since the amount of microwave heating applied and the time period of heating will determine the final moisture level and degree of puffing that is desired and since the amount of microwave heating applied and the time period of heating will vary depending on the type of cheese being puffed [Stromotich, 0013-0014].
Regarding claim 7, modified Stout teaches the method for puffing natural cheese comprising a puffing process parameter of puffing cavity pressure [Stout, 0010, 0024, 0033, 0038], but does not explicitly recite that the parameter of puffing cavity pressure is between an absolute value of 875 Torr and 2 Torr.
Stromotich teaches the puffed cheese product and method of making discussed above, and further teaches the method includes a parameter of puffing cavity pressure throughout the process is between -75 kPa to -101 kPa [Stromotich, 0005], which is an absolute value range of about 562 Torr and 758 Torr, which falls within the claimed range of 875 Torr and 2 Torr.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the parameter of puffing cavity pressure between an absolute value of about 562 Torr and 758 Torr as taught by Stromotich, in the method of modified Stout, since Stout already teach using a pressure (vacuum) without limiting the amount of said pressure and explicitly teach that using vacuum in combination with electromagnetic waves is useful for decreasing or eliminating the sharp edges that may be formed during the cheese puffing process, generally producing a cheese puffed product with more pleasant mouthfeel [Stout, 0033, 0038]. Further because Stromotich teaches that the pressure/vacuum level is dependent upon the percentage fat content of the cheese [Stromotich, 0014], where the vacuum is used to dehydrate or reduce moisture/water content and promote puffing effect (puffing and moisture control, also taught by Stout [Stout, 0038]) of the cheese product [Stromotich, Abstract], since the amount of pressure/vacuum applied will determine the desired final moisture level and degree of puffing, because different cheeses have different moisture levels (vacuum level applied depends on the type of cheese being puffed), in order to provide puffed cheese products with a size that is at least 10-1000% greater than their original size [Stromotich, 0013-0014] and a selected moisture/water content with reference to desired shelf-life [Stromotich, Abstract].
Regarding claim 8, see claim 1 step 6 rejection above, where modified Stout teaches the puffing process parameters includes a parameter of puffing temperature (stage 2: high puffing temperatures of 150-500 °F dielectric heat [Stout, 0028, 0031]), a parameter of puffing cavity pressure (a pressure parameter setting for puffing performed in a negative pressure [Stout, 0024]), and modified Stout in view of Stromotich teaches a parameter of electromagnetic power density [Stromotich, 0005, 0013, claim 1], and further modified Stout teaches these puffing temperature, electromagnetic power density, and puffing cavity pressure parameters are combined into a certain energy mode (microwave heating, radio frequency (RF) heating, and combinations thereof) [Stout, 0012, 0014, 0035], a certain temperature mode (i.e., dehydration temperature mode, stage 1: low dehydration temperature mode [Stout, 0012-0013, 0028, 0031]), a certain time mode (temperature for a time period of from about 4 hours to about 4 days) [Stout, 0014], or a continuous temperature supply mode (uses electromagnetic waves to produce uniform heating) [Stout, 0035].
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stout et al. [US 20220071223 A1], hereinafter Stout, in view of Sumi et al. [US 3941967 A], hereinafter Sumi, and Stromotich et al. [US 20130164429 A1], hereinafter Stromotich as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Adams et al. [US 20180242599 A1], hereinafter Adams.
Regarding claim 2, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issue identified above, modified Stout teaches the method for puffing natural cheese using natural cheeses [Stout, 0011, 0030, 0044, claim 7] as discussed above in claim 1 rejection, but does not explicitly recite the natural cheese is non-processed cheese, and the main ingredients of the natural cheese are animal milk, lactic acid bacteria, salt and rennet (rennet) after being matured made cheese.
Adams teaches a method for puffing (expanded cheese) natural cheese [Adams, Title], wherein the natural cheese is non-processed (unprocessed) cheese [Adams, 0018], and the main ingredients of the natural cheese are animal milk [Adams, 0018-0020], lactic acid bacteria [Adams, 0019-0020], salt [Adams, 0019-0020] and rennet (rennet) [Adams, 0018-0020] after being matured (aged) made cheese [Adams, 0002].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the natural cheese as a non-processed cheese, wherein the main ingredients of the natural cheese are animal milk, lactic acid bacteria, salt and rennet (rennet) after being matured made cheese as taught by Adams, in the method of Stout, because Adams teaches that incorporating desired ingredients such as natural or aged cheeses [Adams, 0002], would allow the delivery of significant amounts of natural cheese made directly from milk [Adams, 0001] into puffed natural cheese products having also shelf-stable properties [Adams, 0002] and is free of processed cheese [Adams, 0018]. Furthermore, because both Stout and Adams are directed to the same filed of methods for puffing natural cheese and both disclose the use of the same types of natural cheeses such as Cheddar, Monterey Jack and Gouda [Stout, 0011, 0044, claim 7; Adams, 0018, claims 4-5, 21, 29], but Stout simply did not mention the term non-processed or the specific individual main raw materials of animal milk, lactic acid bacteria, salt and rennet.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stout et al. [US 20220071223 A1], hereinafter Stout, in view of Sumi et al. [US 3941967 A], hereinafter Sumi, and Stromotich et al. [US 20130164429 A1], hereinafter Stromotich as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ishimaru et al. [TW I796838 B], hereinafter Ishimaru, Atlantic Stainless [A comprehensive guide to ferritic stainless steel, 2022], and Ulbrich [444 Stainless Steel, 2021], hereinafter Ulbrich.
Regarding claim 4, Stout teaches the method for puffing natural cheese using (microwaves) electromagnetic waves [Stout, 0035], wherein the puffing cavity is a closed vacuum space [Stout, 0038], and modified Stout in view of Sumi teach the method of cooking/heating a food product by placing said food product into the interior cavity/vessel of the microwave (electromagnetic waves) apparatus, said apparatus comprising casing 1 having inner wall 1 [Sumi, col.8, l.61; Fig.1], metal plate 3 as discussed in claim 1 rejection above, however, modified Stout are silent regarding the puffing cavity being composed of a material with a resistivity of less than 10-6 Ωm.
Ishimaru teaches fertilized (ferritic/ferrite-based) iron series stainless steel plates [Ishimaru, Title], (“the puffing cavity is composed of a material with a resistivity of less than 10-6 Ωm, specifically, the material of the puffing cavity can be fertilized iron series, stainless steel”, as disclosed on [0032] of the instant Specification), suitable for making home appliances and kitchen machines (i.e., microwave ovens) [Ishimaru, p.3, par.2], and has excellent properties which makes it especially suitable for home appliances and kitchen machines applications [Ishimaru, p.6, par.9].
While Ishimaru does not explicitly mention the fertilized iron series stainless steel has a resistivity of less than 10-6 Ωm, because Stout and Ishimaru teach using the same apparatus (microwaves, electromagnetic waves ovens) and Ishimaru teach using the same material as Applicant (fertilized iron series stainless steel, instant Specification, par.0032) it would have been reasonable to expect the same material to have the same resistivity, because as disclosed by Applicant on paragraph [0032] “the material of puffing cavity can be a space made, composed, synthesized, and assembled of metals such as fertilized iron series, stainless steel”. “Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP §2112.01.
Moreover, Atlantic Stainless teaches ferritic stainless steel 444 is suitable for use in microwave ovens applications [Atlantic Stainless, p.3, par.3-5], and Ulbrich teaches that ferritic stainless steel 444 have a resistivity of less than 10-6 Ωm (57 µΩ-cm, or 5.7 10-6 Ωm) [Ulbrich p.1, Physical Properties].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the puffing cavity being composed of a material (fertilized iron series stainless steel) with a resistivity of less than 10-6 Ωm as taught by Ishimaru, into the method of Stout of puffing natural cheese using electromagnetic waves in a puffing cavity, wherein the puffing cavity is a closed vacuum space, because Ishimaru teach that using fertilized iron series stainless steel for home appliances and kitchen machines applications (which a skilled artisan would recognize microwaves, electromagnetic waves ovens are considered home appliances and kitchen machines) would be advantageous due to the fertilized iron series stainless steel material having excellent formability which would produce molded products satisfying dimensional accuracy and designability, as well as industrial applicability for offering light weight home appliances and kitchen machines [Ishimaru, p.8, par.9]. And lastly because Atlantic Stainless teaches that ferritic stainless steel 444 is known to have good corrosion resistance properties, higher thermal conductivity and lower thermal expansion coefficient, making it suitable for use in cooking applications where heat exchange or transfer occurs [Atlantic Stainless, p.3, par.3-5], and Ulbrich also teaches ferritic stainless steel 444 have good corrosion resistance properties, is suitable for use in food processing (cooking) applications where heat exchange or transfer occurs [Ulbrich, p.1, Applications, Descriptions], have a low electrical resistivity (i.e., highly conductive of heat/energy) [Ulbrich, p.1, Physical Properties], thus making the ferritic stainless steel material suitable for use in microwave devices.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kawano et al. [WO 2022202507 A1, Patent Family TW I814284 B], hereinafter Kawano.
Kawano teaches stainless steel materials [Title], for making kitchen equipment and home appliances (i.e., microwave ovens) [p.16, par.11]. Suitable materials include Wosfield iron series/systems stainless steel , (Wosfield iron series stainless steel, as disclosed on [0031] of the instant Specification), (referred as ferritic stainless steel material in WO 2022202507 A1, and referred as Wosfield iron series in TW I814284 B patent family) [p.3, par.4; p.16-17, last and first paragraph, see Patent Family TW I814284 B, p.4, par.1; p.17, par.7 for translation].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LUIS EUGENIO DIOU BERDECIA whose telephone number is (571)270-0963. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-4:30.
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, Erik Kashnikow can be reached at (571) 270-3475. 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.
/L.E.D./Examiner, Art Unit 1792
/VIREN A THAKUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1792