DETAILED ACTION
Introduction
Applicant's submission filed on 04/12/2024 has been entered. Claims 1-26 are pending in the application and have been examined.
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 .
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 1-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an extra solution activity abstract idea without significantly more.
According to USPTO guidelines, a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter if:
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, method of manufacture, or composition of matter), or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception (e.g. an abstract idea) without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis:
STEP 2A (Prong 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? The guidelines provide three groupings of subject matter that are considered abstract ideas:
Mathematical concepts- mathematical relationships, formulas or equations, calculations
Certain methods of organizing human activity- fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people
Mental processes- concepts that are practicably performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinions)
STEP 2A (Prong 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? The guidelines provide the following exemplary considerations that are indicative than an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application:
an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to affect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
While the guidelines further state that the exemplary considerations are not an exhaustive list and that there may be other examples of integrating the exception into a practical application, the guidelines also list examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application:
an additional element merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
an additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and
an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? Consider whether an additional element or combination of elements:
adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, or conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
simply appends well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
Using the two-step inquiry, claim 26 is directed to an abstract idea as show below:
STEP 1: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
YES. Claim 26 is directed to method.
STEP 2A (Prong 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
YES. The claim recites an abstract idea:
The limitation generating, based on a first portion of the audio stream, a first request, wherein the first request has a first type of predefined state as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be performed by a human.
The limitation of generating, based on a first portion of the audio stream, a first request, wherein the first request has a first type of predefined state, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recites a mathematical formula or calculation.
The limitation of in accordance with a determination that the first request is intended for a digital assistant operating on the electronic device: changing the first type of predefined state of the first request to a second type of predefined state different from the first type of predefined state, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recites a process a human can determine if the request is meant for the digital assistant/electronic device and compute the next predefined state of a flow machine generating, based on a second portion of the audio stream that is received after the first portion of the audio stream, a second request; providing an output, generated by the digital assistant, based on the second request as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, is a mathematical formula or calculation.
STEP 2A (Prong 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
NO.
Claim 1 recites the additional element of processing through a “digital assistant operating on the electronic device” which are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea or mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the insignificant extra-solution activities abstract idea but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Claim 1 also recites receiving an audio stream, which is a data-gathering step that adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
NO.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a digital assistant operating on the electronic device amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Claim 26 is not patent eligible.
Claims 1 and 25 are analogous to claim 26 respectively, as directed to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing one or more programs, the one or more programs comprising instructions, which when executed by one or more processors of an electronic device to perform the operations set forth in claim 26 and are subjected to the same rejections as claim 26 respectively.
Claims 2-24 further specifies providing processing steps for the computing the change of the predefined states and is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, is a data gathering process (insignificant extra-solution activity) and does not reflect an improvement in the functioning of a technology or computer . The claims are not patent eligible.
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, 5-8, 10-11, 13-15 and 17-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 a(1)/a(2) as being anticipated by Fabbrizio et. al. US PgPub. 2008/0184164.
Regarding claim 1, Fabbrizio teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing one or more programs, the one or more programs comprising instructions, which when executed by one or more processors of an electronic device (see Fabbrizio, [0011]), cause the electronic device to: receive an audio stream; (see Fabbrizio, [0102] teaches S0 to state S1 which receives the user input); generate, based on a first portion of the audio stream, a first request, wherein the first request has a first type of predefined state (see Fabbrizio, [0102] If user input is received at state S.sub.1, that requires confirmation, the flow transitions to state S.sub.2 that performs a confirmation interaction with the user, the spoken dialog system can confirm user input ( first type of predefined state)); in accordance with a determination that the first request is intended for a digital assistant operating on the electronic device: change the first type of predefined state of the first request to a second type of predefined state different from the first type of predefined state (see Fabbrizzio, Fig. 5B, [0102] S2 transitions to S3 /S4 or Done.. or S1 transitions to S6 S7 Fail (second type of predefined state))); generate, based on a second portion of the audio stream that is received after the first portion of the audio stream, a second request (see Fabbrizio, [0098] when receives input for context switch (second portion of audio stream)); and in accordance with a determination, based on the second request, that a first set of criteria is satisfied: change the second type of predefined state of the first request to a third type of predefined state different from the first type of predefined state and the second type of predefined state (see Fabbrizio, [0098] comparing the input with context shift ( first set of criteria), set the state that the shift describes(third type of predefined state)); provide an output, generated by the digital assistant, based on the second request state that the shift describes (see Fabbrizio, [0084-0086] discusses further processing with context switches and outputs by spoken systems by the flow controller ).
Regarding claim 5, Fabbrizio teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 1, further teaches wherein: the first type of predefined state of the first request is a candidate state of the first request (see Fabbrizio, [0102] teaches S0 to state S1 to state S2 (candidate state)); and the second type of predefined state of the first request is an active state of the first request (see Fabbrizio, [0102] S2 transitions to S3 /S4 (Active state)or S1 transitions to S6 S7 (Active state)).
Regarding claim 6, Fabbrizio teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 1, further teaches wherein the third type of predefined state of the first request is a canceled state of the first request (see Fabbrizio, [0102] teaches invalid prompt(S4) (canceled state)).
Regarding claim 7, Fabbrizio teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 6, further teaches wherein the first set of criteria includes a second criterion that is satisfied when the second request includes a continuation of the first request (see Fabbrizio, [0101-102] If input is received appropriately, then the flow may transition to the done state from S1 (continuation of first request)).
Regarding claim 8, Fabbrizio teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 1, further teaches wherein the third type of predefined state of the first request is a completed state of the first request (see Fabbrizio, [0102] teaches S1 to S2 to done state (completed state)).
Regarding claim 10, Fabbrizio teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 8, further teaches wherein the first set of criteria includes a third criterion that is satisfied when the audio stream includes a cessation of speech for a predetermined duration that follows the first request (see Fabbrizio, [0102] teaches If silence is heard, the C4 transition goes to state S5 which increments the SilentCount parameter(third criterion)).
Regarding claim 11, Fabbrizio teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 1, further teaches wherein the third type of predefined state of the first request is a background state of the first request (see Fabbrizio, [0102] teaches during silence the transition to silence action(S5) (background state)).
Regarding claim 13, Fabbrizio teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 11, further teaches wherein the first set of criteria includes a third criterion that is satisfied when the second request specifies to pause a task corresponding to the first request (see Fabbrizio, [0034] teaches implementation of pause for the RTN state to pause before exiting to get new user input ( second request specifies a pause to the task)).
Regarding claim 14, Fabbrizio teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 11, further teaches after changing the second type of predefined state of the first request to the background state of the first request: receive a user input requesting to continue the first request (see Fabbrizio, [0101], when the active state S1 if silence in input goes to S2 (background) and then input receives further input before timer expires); and in response to receiving the user input requesting to continue the first request: change the background state of the first request to a second active state of the first request (see Fabbrizio, [0102] changes from S5 to S1 to S2/S6/S7 (second active state)); and provide a second output, generated by the digital assistant, based on the first request (see Fabbrizio, [0102] transition to done ( provide the second output)).
Regarding claim 15, Fabbrizio teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 14, further teaches before receiving the user input requesting to continue the first request, provide a third output including a prompt to continue the first request (see Fabbrizio, [0102], when the state S2 transitions to done before receiving the user input requesting to continue first request).
Regarding claim 17, Fabbrizio teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 1, further teaches in accordance with a determination that a second set of criteria is satisfied, generating the second request based on speech input in the first portion of the audio stream and speech input in the second portion of the audio stream (see Fabbrizio, [0084-0086] discusses further processing with context switches and outputs by spoken systems by the flow controller).
Regarding claim 18, Fabbrizio teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 17, further teaches wherein the second set of criteria includes a fourth criterion that is satisfied when the first request has an active state or when the first request has a candidate state (see Fabbrizio, [0101-102] If input is received appropriately, then the flow may transition to the done state from S1(active) or S2 (candidate) or S5).
Regarding claim 19, Fabbrizio teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 1, further teaches in accordance with a determination that a third set of criteria is satisfied, generate a third request based on speech input in the second portion of the audio stream, wherein the generated third request is not based on speech input in the first portion of the audio stream (see Fabbrizio, [0101-102] If user input received needs confirmation, the flow transitions to S2 to perform the task based confirmation based on S3 or S4; third request based on second portion ).
Regarding claim 20, Fabbrizio teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 19, further teaches wherein the third set of criteria includes a fifth criterion that is satisfied when at least one of: the speech input in the first portion of the audio stream is followed by a pause in speech of at least a predetermined duration (see Fabbrizio, [0101] the state transition to silent( pause) while the input is received); and the speech input in the first portion of the audio stream is determined to include a complete utterance (see Fabbrizio, [0101-102] In the input prompt state S1 handles silence, interaction continues correctly(progress to done state), rejection, a wrong category and a confirmation interaction with the user).
Regarding claim 21, Fabbrizio teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 1, further teaches the second request, when generated, has a first type of predefined phase (see Fabrizio, Fig. 7, step 702); when the second request has the first type of predefined phase, the electronic device is prohibited from performing a first set of actions corresponding to the second request (see Fabrizio, Fig. 7, 704 and [0098] the table can be programmed to shift to another FC or not change the context(prohibit)); and the one or more programs further comprise instructions, which when executed by the one or more processors, cause the electronic device to: in accordance with a determination that a phase transition criterion is satisfied: change the first type of predefined phase of the second request to a second type of predefined phase different from the first type of predefined phase, wherein when the second request has the second type of predefined phase, the electronic device is permitted to perform the first set of actions.(see Fabbrizio, Fig. 7, 708 and it processed per the FC ).
Regarding claim 22, Fabbrizio teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 21, further teaches wherein the phase transition criterion is satisfied when the second request is determined to be complete (see Fabbrizio, [0102] done state).
Regarding claim 23, Fabbrizio teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 21, further teaches wherein the phase transition criterion is satisfied when the second request currently has an active state or currently has a background state (see Fabbrizio, [0101-102] If input is received appropriately, then the flow may transition to the done state from S1(active) or S2 (candidate) or S5(background state)).
Regarding claim 24, Fabbrizio teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 1, further teaches wherein only a single request can have the second type of predefined state at a time (see Fabbrizio, [0101-102] the RTN can only be in a particular predefined state at a time as indicated).
Regarding claim 25, is directed to a device claim corresponding to the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium claim presented in claim 1 and is rejected under the same grounds stated above regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 26, is directed to a method claim corresponding to the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium claim presented in claim 1 and is rejected under the same grounds stated above regarding claim 1.
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 (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 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 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fabbrizio et. al. US PgPub. 2008/0184164 in view of Grupen et. al. US Patent 10,733,982.
Regarding claim 2, Fabbrizio teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 1, however fails to teach wherein the first set of criteria includes a first criterion that is satisfied when the second request is intended for the digital assistant.
However, Grupen teaches wherein the first set of criteria includes a first criterion that is satisfied when the second request is intended for the digital assistant (see Grupen, Fig. 8, 805, col 42 lines 36-54).
Fabbrizio and Grupen are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they relate to spoken dialog processing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Fabbrizio on the routines of dialog manager with the processing of audio for digital assistant teachings of Grupen to improve user to interaction with a digital assistant using natural-language dialog ( see Grupen, col 2 lines 29-35).
Regarding claim 3, Fabbrizio teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 1, and further teaches change the candidate state of the second request to an active state of the second request (see Fabbrizio, [0098] when receives input for context switch (second request), comparing the input with context shift, set the state that the shift describes(active state of second request)). Grupen also teaches in accordance with a determination that the second request is intended for the digital assistant, change the candidate state of the second request to an active state of the second request (see Grupen, Fig. 8, steps 825-835 discusses the processing of the second requests based on the dialog flow parameters(states) ). The same motivation to combine as claim 2 applies.
Claims 4, 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fabbrizio et. al. US PgPub. 2008/0184164 in view of Rastrow et. al. US Patent 12,236,950.
Regarding claim 4, Fabbrizio teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 1, further teaches change the first type of predefined state of the first request to a canceled state of the first request, wherein the canceled state of the first request is different from the first type of predefined state of the first request and the second type of predefined state of the first request (see Fabbrizio, [0102] discusses processing of wrong category(S7), rejection action(S6), invalid prompt(S4) to fail the processing different from (S2), Fig. 5B). However Fabrizio fails to teach in accordance with a determination that the first request is not intended for the digital assistant .
However, Rastrow teaches in accordance with a determination that the first request is not intended for the digital assistant(see Rastrow, col 30 lines 14-18, If the speech is not determined to be system-directed (564: No) (e.g. SDD result 551 indicates no system-directed speech), the system may cancel (566) further processing for the audio data.).
Fabbrizio and Rastrow are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they relate to spoken dialog processing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Fabbrizio on the routines of dialog manager with the detection of device directed speech for digital assistant teachings of Rastrow to improve speech processing and other audio-based user interface systems ( see Rastrow, col 4 lines 10-25).
Regarding claim 9, Fabbrizio teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 1, however fails to teach wherein the first request corresponds to a first task, and wherein the first set of criteria include a second criterion that is satisfied when the second request corresponds to a second task different from the first task and when the second request is received after the first task completes.
However Rastrow teaches wherein the first request corresponds to a first task, and wherein the first set of criteria include a second criterion that is satisfied when the second request corresponds to a second task different from the first task and when the second request is received after the first task completes (Rastrow, Fig. 11, user 5 requests for a song per audio input 1110( first requests & first set of criterion), audio output 1120 (first task complete) from device 110 starts playing the music(task), the user input 1130(second request) clarifies the first request as being different from audio output (1120) ).Same motivation to combine as claim 4 applies here.
Claims 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fabbrizio et. al. US PgPub. 2008/0184164 in view of Selfridge et al, Continuously Predicting and Processing Barge-in During a Live Spoken Dialogue Task " Proceedings of the SIGDIAL 2013 Conference. 2013 in view of Rastrow et. al., US PgPub. 2023/022302.
Regarding claim 12, Fabbrizio teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 11, fails to teach wherein the first request corresponds to a first task, and wherein the first set of criteria includes a second criterion that is satisfied when the second request corresponds to a second task different from the first task and when the second request is received before the first task completes.
However Selfridge teaches wherein the first request corresponds to a first task, and wherein the first set of criteria includes a second criterion that is satisfied when the second request corresponds to a second task different from the first task and when the second request is received before the first task completes (see Selfridge, sect 3.3 when the speech ( second request) is a barge in(before first task completes) during the prompt, will classify as Understood Barge-In (UBI) and change to new speech act or if not understood then it is discarded and the recognition is NUBI as shown in Fig. 1, 2).
Fabbrizio and Selfridge are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they relate to spoken dialog processing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Fabbrizio on the routines of dialog manager with the barge-in processing of input during system speech teachings of Selfridge to improve the spoken dialog systems to demonstrate more human-like turn-taking behavior ( see Selfridge, sect 1).
Claims 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fabbrizio et. al. US PgPub. 2008/0184164 in view of Gruber et. al. US Patent 9,318,108 .
Regarding claim 16, Fabbrizio teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 1, however fails to teach while receiving the audio stream:
in accordance with a determination that the audio stream includes speech input and that the first request has the first type of predefined state: display an affordance corresponding to the digital assistant in a first state; and in accordance with a determination that the audio stream includes speech input and that the first request has the second type of predefined state display the affordance corresponding to the digital assistant in the first state.
However, Gruber teaches while receiving the audio stream: in accordance with a determination that the audio stream includes speech input and that the first request has the first type of predefined state: display an affordance corresponding to the digital assistant in a first state (see Gruber, Fig. 14); and in accordance with a determination that the audio stream includes speech input and that the first request has the second type of predefined state display the affordance corresponding to the digital assistant in the first state (see Gruber, Fig. 15-17).
Fabbrizio and Gruber are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they relate to spoken dialog processing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Fabbrizio on the routines of dialog manager with the interfaces for digital assistant teachings of Gruber to present users with consistent interfaces of different devices and improve ease of usage ( see Gruber, col 1, lines 28-42).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kennewick, US Patent Application Publication 2021/0082397 teaches the DM subsystem 116 includes subsystems configured to track the dialog states and determine stopping conditions and responses based on such dialog state information (see Kennewick, Fig. 2).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NANDINI SUBRAMANI whose telephone number is (571)272-3916. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 12:00pm - 5:00 pm 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, Bhavesh M Mehta can be reached at (571)272-7453. 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.
/NANDINI SUBRAMANI/Examiner, Art Unit 2656
/BHAVESH M MEHTA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2656