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 use of the term “Honda DREAMO strain”, 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. It is noted that the term is already capitalized only in the specification and not the claim and includes “Registered Trademark” verbiage but “Registered Trademark” verbiage appears begore and not following the term thus creating confusion.
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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “inputter”, “specifying unit”, and “storage” in claims 1-8 having corresponding structure of a generic computer as per [0017]-[0022] of the instant specification as published while noting that these elements are functionally defined, devoid of structure and do not denote structure to one of ordinary skill.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The rejected claims purport to determine/specify a protein content of any generic microalgae based on color (second information given to a color sample closest to a color of the microalgae among a plurality of color samples for comparison with the color of the microalgae) but the instant disclosure only describes that the species of Chlamydomonas reinhardtii and a genetic variant thereof (Honda DREAMO® strain, accession number: FERM BP-22306) have color characteristics that vary based on protein content as per [0014] of the instant application as published. Furthermore, there appears to be no common property or activity of other microalgae species in which external color appearance thereof accurately indicates protein content thereof.
Furthermore, there is no proper written description support discussing how color-based protein analysis applies to the alternative microalgae species. As such, Applicant has only provided adequate written description support for determining protein content based on color for Chlamydomonas reinhardtii and a genetic variant thereof (Honda DREAMO® strain, accession number: FERM BP-22306) but not the broader concept of color-based protein content determination for all microalgae species as currently claimed.
Furthermore, the lack of any detail regarding applications to any other type or species of microalgae casts serious doubt on the notion that, at the time the application was filed, the inventors were in possession of the broadly claimed color-based protein determination for microalgae in general.
One of ordinary skill in the art has not been provided with details sufficient to apply color-based protein determination for microalgae in general and would find the two disclosed species examples insufficient to support the genus of color-based protein determination for microalgae as recited in the rejected claims and consequently raise doubt as to possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing.
It is noted that, for example, claim 1 does not claim the color-based protein determination but instead merely inputting ID and color information for storage. As such the rejection above does not apply to claims 1 or 5-10. Note also that claims 7 and 8 which specify the species do not depend from claim 2 and thus the claims do not currently recite color-based protein determination for the disclosed species of microalgae and that, should such a combination be recited, then the instant specification would adequately support this combination {e.g. claims 1+2+ (7 or 8)} of color-based protein determination for the disclosed species of Chlamydomonas reinhardtii and a genetic variant thereof (Honda DREAMO® strain, accession number: FERM BP-22306).
Claim 8 is also rejected under 112(a) because no deposit or reference to a deposit has been filed for the DREAMO® strain, accession number: FERM BP-22306. While the accession number has been provided the accession number by itself is not sufficient, absent a corresponding deposit in an International Depositary Authority consistent with 37 CFR 1.803, to provide an enabling disclosure as to how to make and use the claimed DREAMO® strain without undue experimentation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. All of the claims pass Step 1 reciting statutory categories of apparatus (1-8), article of manufacture (9) and method (10), but under Step 2A all of these claims recite abstract ideas and specifically mental processes—concepts performed in the human mind including observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion which are:
Recited in claim 1 as
An algae information management apparatus {e.g. mental notes and/or a notebook kept by human managing algae crops while noting that using a pen and paper is within the definition of mental process as per CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011) and MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)III. The pen and paper may serve as the apparatus embodiment while noting that such manual recordation of information is also within the scope of the functionally defined claim elements being interpreted under 112f herein} comprising:
an inputter that receives input of first identification information given for each measurement microalgae {which corresponds to and encompasses a human looking at and recognizing first identification information (e.g. label or other ID for a specific sample of algae which may be visually and mentally determined by a human and inputted by a human onto paper as per [0046-[0047]]} ;
a specifying unit that specifies second identification information given to a color sample closest to a color of the microalgae among a plurality of color samples for comparison with the color of the microalgae {a human may mentally compare the algae color with a color chart 200 as per [0033]-[0034], [0049] by using human vision instead of the camera and manually specify the second ID information (color)}; and
storage that stores the first identification information and the second identification information to be associated with each other {a human may record these informations in a table or other associative format using pen and paper}.
b) recited in claim 2 as:
2. The algae information management apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the specifying unit specifies a protein content of the microalgae based on the second identification information {this may be done by a human referring to a paper LUT (look up table) consistent with [0060]}.
c) recited in claim 3 as:
3. The algae information management apparatus according to claim 2, further comprising a classifier that classifies the microalgae in accordance with the protein content by intended application {once the protein content is known as explained above using a paper LUT, the human may mentally classify the microalgae based on the protein content as, for example, having a high or low protein content classification}.
this may be done by a human referring to a paper LUT (look up table) consistent with [0060]}.
d) recited in claim 4 as:
4. The algae information management apparatus according to claim 3, wherein
the classifier classifies the intended application as a protein source when the protein content is equal to or greater than a predetermined threshold, and classifies the intended application as a starch source when the protein content is less than the predetermined threshold {this is another mental process and the threshold is governed by common knowledge in that microalgae is well-known as having different protein/starch ratios which are more or less suitable as a protein (e.g food) source or as a starch (e.g. fuel) source. Official Notice is taken regarding the general suitability of microalgae for food or fuel sources depending upon the relative amounts of protein and starch. See also Lingeman, Jake, Honda’s Microscopic CO2 Fighter Can Eliminate The Effects of 20,000 Civics, Published Nov 12, 2022 at 10:00 AM EST, retrieved from https://www.newsweek.com/hondas-microscopic-co2-fighter-can-eliminate-effects-20000-civics-1758392 on 06 February 2026.
e) recited in claim 5 as:
5. The algae information management apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the inputter receives input of the first identification information by reading the first identification information from an image captured by a camera {a human may also read the ID information from a displayed image captured by a camera thus not distinguishing from a mental process}.
f) recited in claim 6 as:
6. The algae information management apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the specifying unit specifies the second identification information of the color sample closest to the color of the microalgae among the plurality of color samples by using an image showing the microalgae {see claims 1 and 5 above re mental process}.
g) recited in claims 7 and 8 as:
7. The algae information management apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the microalgae is microalgae belonging to Chlamydomonas reinhardtii.
8. The algae information management apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the microalgae is Honda DREAMO strain, accession number: FERM BP-22306 {a human may observe both of these conventional strains for their pigmentation/color}
h) claims 9 and 10 are parallel to claim 1 and broadly recite (claim 9) a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a program and (claim 10) a method; further as to claim 9 the invention’s article of manufacture elements are recited at a very broad, “apply it” level that does not add significantly more.
It is noted that the above analysis is according to Section I of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance published in the Federal Register (84 FR 50) on January 7, 2019 and MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Under Step 2B, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because each of claims 1-10 are wholly devoid of structural elements and may be completely performed in the human mind as a mental process solely utilizing human faculties such as eyes, brain, and pen and paper to perform the broadly recited methods thus failing to integrate the judicial exception of a mental process into a practical application.
In regards to claims 1-8, however, note that the “inputter”, “specifying unit”, and “storage” are properly interpreted under 112(f) and the corresponding structures is either pen and paper or a generic computer implementing the method that fail to integrate the mental process exception into a practical application. As noted in the MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) with respect to Mental Processes: “Nor do the courts distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer”. See also MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)(3) Using a computer as tool to perform a mental process and MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(D) as well as the case law cited therein.
Consider also that “If a claim recites a limitation that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper, the limitation falls within the mental processes grouping, and the claim recites an abstract idea” as per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(B). See also footnotes 14 and 15 of the Federal Register Notice.
For all of the above reasons, taken alone or in combination, claims 1-10 recites a non-statutory mental process.
Claims 1-10 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because no such elements exist in the rejected claims. In regards to claims 1-8 the generic computer implicated in that claim does not amount to significantly more and/or are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 1, 2, 6, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fang (CN-109612945-A).
Claim 1
In regards to claim 1, Fang discloses an algae information management apparatus {see abstract, Figs. 1, 4 including tube for drawing water sample, filter, color filter and color reference card, pgs. 3-4, shooting (photographing with a camera)} comprising:
an inputter that receives input of first identification information given for each measurement microalgae {Fig. 4, S402, photo identification to obtain identification data of the sample};
a specifying unit that specifies second identification information given to a color sample closest to a color of the microalgae among a plurality of color samples for comparison with the color of the microalgae {Figs. 1, 4 including S403-S404 camera images color comparison card and color filter containing the filtered algae to specify the closest color to estimate algae content, pgs. 3-4}; and
storage that stores the first identification information and the second identification information to be associated with each other {Figs 3, 4, and 5 for each identified sample the color and calculated algae content are stored and displayed}.
Claim 2
In regards to claim 2, Fang discloses wherein the specifying unit specifies a protein content of the microalgae based on the second identification information {see above cites for specifying algae content while noting that the algae being tested includes protein content such that by determining/specifying the algae content in the sample the method also specifies a protein content of the microalgae sample based on the color (second identification information)}.
Claim 6
In regards to claim 6, Fang discloses wherein the specifying unit specifies the second identification information of the color sample closest to the color of the microalgae among the plurality of color samples by using an image showing the microalgae {Figs. 1, 4 including S403-S404 camera images color comparison card and color filter containing the filtered algae to specify the closest color to estimate algae content, pgs. 3-4}.
Claim 10
The rejection of device claim 1 above applies mutatis mutandis to the corresponding limitations of method claim 10
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 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fang and Lingeman {Lingeman, Jake, Honda’s Microscopic CO2 Fighter Can Eliminate The Effects of 20,000 Civics, Published Nov 12, 2022 at 10:00 AM EST, retrieved from https://www.newsweek.com/hondas-microscopic-co2-fighter-can-eliminate-effects-20000-civics-1758392 on 06 February 2026}.
Claims 3 and 4
Fang is not relied upon to disclose (claim 3) a classifier that classifies the microalgae in accordance with the protein content by intended application or (claim 4)
the classifier classifies the intended application as a protein source when the protein content is equal to or greater than a predetermined threshold, and classifies the intended application as a starch source when the protein content is less than the predetermined threshold.
Lingeman teaches that microalgae may be classified into protein (food) source or starch (fuel) source based the amount of protein being above a threshold.
It 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 to have modified Fang’s algae information management system such that it includes a classifier that classifies the microalgae in accordance with the protein content by intended application and the classifier classifies the intended application as a protein source when the protein content is equal to or greater than a predetermined threshold, and classifies the intended application as a starch source when the protein content is less than the predetermined threshold as taught by Lingeman because such classification is useful for determining which tested algae strains grown under which conditions provide the greatest protein content and to otherwise roughly determine which strains and growing conditions are most suitable for producing food or fuel from the biomass, because there is a reasonable expectation of success and/or because doing so merely combines prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results
Claims 1, 5, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fang and Halpern (US 20250005902 A1).
Claims 1, 5 and 9
In regards to claim 5, Fang is not relied upon to disclose wherein the inputter receives input of the first identification information by reading the first identification information from an image captured by a camera.
Halpern is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor which is tracking data collected from samples of a living material including algae growth. See abstract, Figs. 1-3, 11, 16, 18B, and 22.
Halpern also teaches many of the elements of claim 1 including:
an inputter that receives input of first identification information given for each measurement of algae {[0115], [0122], [0129]};
a specifying unit that specifies second identification information including color information {see [0062]-[0065] in which various wavelengths/colors may be detected and recorded for each tracked sample of coral and algae}; and
storage that stores the first identification information and the second identification information to be associated with each other {see database in [0115] that associates output sensor data such as color with the barcode ID of each sample}.
Halpern also teaches (claim 5) wherein the inputter receives input of the first identification information by reading the first identification information from an image captured by a camera {see [0115], [0122], [0129] including sample trays for testing that include identification data labels such as barcodes that can be read by a camera and subjected to convention OCR/Barcode reader algorithms to read the first identification information}.
It 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 to have modified Fang’s algae information management system such that it includes an inputter that receives input of the first identification information by reading the first identification information from an image captured by a camera as taught by Halpern because automatically read identification data labels affixed to sample trays provide a convenient and efficient way to track test data for various different samples, because there is a reasonable expectation of success and/or because doing so merely combines prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Further in regards to claim 1 and to the extent that Fang’s inputter and storage are not viewed as fully meeting the claimed limitations, see Halpern mapping above.
Still further, Halpern also teaches the non-transitory computer readable embodiment of claim 9 in [0104][0114].
It 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 to have modified Fang’s inputter that the inputter receives input of the first identification information by reading the first identification information from an image captured by a camera, and to employ a non-transitory computer readable embodiment as taught by Halpern because automatically read identification data labels affixed to sample trays provide a convenient and efficient way to track test data for various different samples, because such data associations enhance data tracking and analysis, because there is a reasonable expectation of success and/or because doing so merely combines prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fang and Shiobara (US 10,745,718 B2).
Claims 7 and 8
Fang is not relied upon to disclose (claim 7) wherein the microalgae is microalgae belonging to Chlamydomonas reinhardtii or (claim 8) wherein the microalgae is Honda DREAMO strain, accession number: FERM BP-22306.
Shiobara is cited to demonstrate that the two recited microalgae strains are conventional. See column 2, lines 61-65.
It 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 to have modified Fang’s algae information management system such that wherein the microalgae is microalgae belonging to Chlamydomonas reinhardtii and wherein the microalgae is Honda DREAMO strain, accession number: FERM BP-22306 as taught by Shiobara because there is a reasonable expectation of success and/or because doing so merely combines prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results of determining algae content of other species of algae based on color.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Aoki JP-2021132642-A discloses an algae information management apparatus that tracks culturing status of algae including determining algae color from image data to determine algae concentration. See abstract, pgs. 2-6.
Heo, Jina, et al. "PhotoBiobox: A tablet sized, low-cost, high throughput photobioreactor for microalgal screening and culture optimization for growth, lipid content and CO2 sequestration." Biochemical Engineering Journal 103 (2015): 193-197 discloses culturing and screening microalgae using a PhotoBiobox that appears well suited to gathering and managing test data from a variety of microalgae samples being cultured. See abstract, Figs. 1-2,
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael R Cammarata whose telephone number is (571)272-0113. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7am-5pm EST.
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, Matthew Bella can be reached at 571-272-7778. 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.
/MICHAEL ROBERT CAMMARATA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2667