DETAILED ACTION
This Non-Final Office action is in response to Applicant’s filing on 05/14/2024. Claims 1-10 are pending. The effective filing date of the claimed invention is 01/25/2024.
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 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.
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 (a control unit) that is coupled with functional language (configured to enable. . . .) 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: “a control unit” in claim 3.
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 § 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 claims are found to be directed to abstract idea.
Step 1 – Claims 1-10 relate to process claims. Step 1 is satisfied.
Step 2A, Prong 1 – Claims 1-10 recite the following abstract idea:
sterilizing a food item using UV-C irradiation to deactivate a plurality of spoilage and harmful microorganisms using a UV-C light conveyor system (see e.g. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(A-B) where cleaning food before it is sold, such as by using UV-C or the like is fundamental economic practice/commercial legal interaction; also addressed in Step 2A, Prong 2; Step 2B);
after the sterilization using the UV-C irradiation, packaging the food item (see e.g. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(A-B) where cleaning food and then packaging the food before it is sold is fundamental economic practice/commercial legal interaction; also addressed in Step 2A, Prong 2; Step 2B);
implementing a data collection about the food item comprising a package marking with information about the food item, a time of UV-C irradiation of the food item and a packaging information of the food item; implements storage or shipping operations (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(A) Other examples of "fundamental economic principles or practices" include: vi. using a marking affixed to the outside of a mail object to communicate information about the mail object, i.e., the sender, recipient, and contents of the mail object, Secured Mail Solutions LLC v. Universal Wilde, Inc., 873 F.3d 905, 911, 124 USPQ2d 1502, 1506 (Fed. Cir. 2017); see also MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A) a claim to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis,” where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
after the packaging process is completed, storing the packaged food item in a chiller on-site (addressed as additional limitation in Step 2A, Prong 2; Step 2B), wherein before shipping, when the packaged food item is loaded onto a delivery transport vehicle, a handheld terminal is used to instantly scan the RFID tags of all packages simultaneously (addressed as additional limitation in Step 2A, Prong 2; Step 2B WURC);
tracking the packaged food item by obtaining and storing in a server: a destination for transporting the packaged food item, a quantity of each food type in kilograms, at least one scan information of the packaged food item, and at least one transportation status of the packaged food item (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A) a claim to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis,” where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016); see also MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C) citing IV I v. Capital One, where the Federal Circuit determined that the claims were directed to the abstract idea of “tracking financial transactions to determine whether they exceed a pre-set spending limit (i.e., budgeting)”, which “is not meaningfully different from the ideas found to be abstract in other cases before the Supreme Court and our court involving methods of organizing human activity.” 792 F.3d. at 1367-68, 115 USPQ2d at 1640.); and
automatically monitoring a transportation status and a freshness status of the packaged food item (see also MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A) a claim to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis,” where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016); see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(D) Examples of product claims reciting mental processes include: wide-area real-time performance monitoring system for monitoring and assessing dynamic stability of an electric power grid – Electric Power Group, 830 F.3d at 1351 and n.1, 119 USPQ2d at 1740 and n.1).
When these abstract idea concepts are viewed alone and in ordered combination, the examiner finds that claim 1 (as a whole) recites abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2 – Exemplary claim 1 is not found to integrate the abstract idea into practical application. Claim 1 recites the additional limitations of:
sterilizing a food item using UV-C irradiation to deactivate a plurality of spoilage and harmful microorganisms using a UV-C light conveyor system (see e.g. MPEP 2106.05(a)(II) Examples that the courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement to technology include: ii. Using well-known standard laboratory techniques to detect enzyme levels in a bodily sample such as blood or plasma, Cleveland Clinic Foundation v. True Health Diagnostics, LLC, 859 F.3d 1352, 1355, 1362, 123 USPQ2d 1081, 1082-83, 1088 (Fed. Cir. 2017); the examiner finds this limitation to include insignificant extra solution activity as shown in MPEP 2106.05(g), insignificant application – MPEP 2106.05(g) i. Cutting hair after first determining the hair style, In re Brown, 645 Fed. App'x 1014, 1016-1017 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (non-precedential); and ii. Printing or downloading generated menus, Ameranth, 842 F.3d at 1241-42, 120 USPQ2d at 1854-55);
after the sterilization using the UV-C irradiation, packaging the food item (see where the concept of packaging an item with a marking affixed to package was found to be part of abstract idea citing Secured Mail; see also MPEP 2106.05(g) insignificant extra-solution activity);
after the packaging process is completed, storing the packaged food item in a chiller on-site (see e.g. MPEP 2106.04(f) field of use and technological environment), wherein before shipping, when the packaged food item is loaded onto a delivery transport vehicle, a handheld terminal is used to instantly scan the RFID tags of all packages simultaneously (see e.g. MPEP 2106.04(d)(III) citing Solutran The Federal Circuit then continued with its analysis under part one of the Alice/Mayo test finding that the claims are not directed to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology. In particular, the court determined that the claims “did not improve the technical capture of information from a check to create a digital file or the technical step of electronically crediting a bank account” nor did the claims “improve how a check is scanned.” Id. This analysis is equivalent to the Office’s analysis of determining that the exception is not integrated into a practical application at Step 2A Prong Two, and thus that the claims are directed to the judicial exception (Step 2A: YES));
automation – see MPEP 2106.05(a)(I) iii. Mere automation of manual processes, such as using a generic computer to process an application for financing a purchase, Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055, 123 USPQ2d 1100, 1108-09 (Fed. Cir. 2017) or speeding up a loan-application process by enabling borrowers to avoid physically going to or calling each lender and filling out a loan application, LendingTree, LLC v. Zillow, Inc., 656 Fed. App'x 991, 996-97 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (non-precedential);
When these additional limitations are viewed alone and in ordered combination, the examiner finds that when viewed as a whole claim 1 is directed to abstract idea, and does not find the integration into practical application.
Step 2B - Exemplary claim 1 is not found to include significantly more. Claim 1 recites the additional limitations of:
sterilizing a food item using UV-C irradiation to deactivate a plurality of spoilage and harmful microorganisms using a UV-C light conveyor system (see e.g. MPEP 2106.05(a)(II) Examples that the courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement to technology include: ii. Using well-known standard laboratory techniques to detect enzyme levels in a bodily sample such as blood or plasma, Cleveland Clinic Foundation v. True Health Diagnostics, LLC, 859 F.3d 1352, 1355, 1362, 123 USPQ2d 1081, 1082-83, 1088 (Fed. Cir. 2017); the examiner finds this limitation to include insignificant extra solution activity as shown in MPEP 2106.05(g), insignificant application – MPEP 2106.05(g) i. Cutting hair after first determining the hair style, In re Brown, 645 Fed. App'x 1014, 1016-1017 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (non-precedential); and ii. Printing or downloading generated menus, Ameranth, 842 F.3d at 1241-42, 120 USPQ2d at 1854-55);
after the sterilization using the UV-C irradiation, packaging the food item (see where the concept of packaging an item with a marking affixed to package was found to be part of abstract idea citing Secured Mail; see also MPEP 2106.05(g) insignificant extra-solution activity);
after the packaging process is completed, storing the packaged food item in a chiller on-site (see e.g. MPEP 2106.04(f) field of use and technological environment), wherein before shipping, when the packaged food item is loaded onto a delivery transport vehicle, a handheld terminal is used to instantly scan the RFID tags of all packages simultaneously (see e.g. MPEP 2106.04(d)(III) citing Solutran The Federal Circuit then continued with its analysis under part one of the Alice/Mayo test finding that the claims are not directed to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology. In particular, the court determined that the claims “did not improve the technical capture of information from a check to create a digital file or the technical step of electronically crediting a bank account” nor did the claims “improve how a check is scanned.” Id. This analysis is equivalent to the Office’s analysis of determining that the exception is not integrated into a practical application at Step 2A Prong Two, and thus that the claims are directed to the judicial exception (Step 2A: YES));
automation – see MPEP 2106.05(a)(I) iii. Mere automation of manual processes, such as using a generic computer to process an application for financing a purchase, Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055, 123 USPQ2d 1100, 1108-09 (Fed. Cir. 2017) or speeding up a loan-application process by enabling borrowers to avoid physically going to or calling each lender and filling out a loan application, LendingTree, LLC v. Zillow, Inc., 656 Fed. App'x 991, 996-97 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (non-precedential).
For the well-understood, routine, and conventional analysis, the examiner refers to following portions of the MPEP that are relevant in this determination:
See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) - Because examiners should rely on what the courts have recognized, or those of ordinary skill in the art would recognize, as elements that describe well‐understood, routine activities, the following section provides examples of elements that have been recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, conventional activity in particular fields. It should be noted, however, that many of these examples failed to satisfy other considerations (e.g., because they were recited at a high level of generality and thus were mere instructions to apply an exception, or were insignificant extra-solution activity). The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. v. Electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, Content Extraction and Transmission, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348, 113 USPQ2d 1354, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (optical character recognition). The scanning in the present claim set is at a high level of “scan the RFID tags . . . simultaneously” and scanning is known and WURC.
When these additional limitations are viewed alone and in ordered combination, the examiner finds that when viewed as a whole claim 1 is directed to abstract idea, and does not find significantly more.
Dependent claims – Claim 2 recites more specifics of the UV-C. See e.g. MPEP 2106.05(a)(II) Examples that the courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement to technology include: ii. Using well-known standard laboratory techniques to detect enzyme levels in a bodily sample such as blood or plasma, Cleveland Clinic Foundation v. True Health Diagnostics, LLC, 859 F.3d 1352, 1355, 1362, 123 USPQ2d 1081, 1082-83, 1088 (Fed. Cir. 2017); the examiner finds this limitation to include insignificant extra solution activity as shown in MPEP 2106.05(g), insignificant application – MPEP 2106.05(g) i. Cutting hair after first determining the hair style, In re Brown, 645 Fed. App'x 1014, 1016-1017 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (non-precedential); and ii. Printing or downloading generated menus, Ameranth, 842 F.3d at 1241-42, 120 USPQ2d at 1854-55. Claim 3 recites a display screen and control unit to adjust the UV-C, where these are recited at a high level, using well-known standard laboratory techniques, insignificant application MPEP 2106.05(g); see also touch screen and control unit used in “apply it” manner as shown in MPEP 2106.05(f). Claim 4-5 recites storing the food in MAP bag/vacuum container. See MPEP 2106.05(g) insignificant extra-solution activity. Claim 6-7 recites the use of RFID tag/barcode on package. See MPEP 2106.05(g)(1) citing IV I v. Capital One Bank - the use of a well-known XML tag to form an index was deemed token extra-solution activity). Because this overlaps with the well-understood, routine, conventional consideration, it should not be considered in the Step 2A Prong Two extra-solution activity analysis. Claim 8 recites more insignificant application. See MPEP 2106.05(g)(3). Claim 9-10 recites more scanning of RFID tags and monitoring/tracking data, which is addressed above.
Accordingly, claims 1-10 are found to be directed to abstract idea.
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.
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) 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2023/0066227 to Young (“Young”) in view of U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2006/0163338 to Allen et al. (“Allen”).
With regard to claim 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, Young discloses the claimed method for automated fresh food inventory management, comprising:
sterilizing a food item using UV-C irradiation to deactivate a plurality of spoilage and harmful microorganisms using a UV-C light conveyor system (see e.g. [0012-17]; [0033-36], [0034] In one aspect of the method of the invention, the UV light is UV-C light. [0035] In one aspect of the method of the invention, the UV light has a wavelength of between about 100 nm and about 280 nm, or between about 200 nm and about 270 nm, or between about 240 nm and about 270 nm, or between about 250 nm and about 260 nm, or about 254 nm (claim 2); [0085-86]; [0046-49] [0244]; [0114] conveyer belt system);
after the sterilization using the UV-C irradiation, packaging the food item (see e.g. [0012-17], [0014] in particular; [0019-27]; for claim 4 – see MAP at e.g. [0018]);
implements storage or shipping operations (see e.g. [0016-17] [0040-41]));
after the packaging process is completed, storing the packaged food item in a chiller on-site, wherein before shipping, when the packaged food item is loaded onto a delivery transport vehicle (see e.g. [0016-17] [0040-41]);
Young does not disclose, and Allen does teach at the following cited locations, the following:
a handheld terminal is used to instantly scan the RFID tags of all packages simultaneously (see e.g. [0040] [0042] RFID reader, barcode scanner, etc.; [0006] read simultaneously [0021-25] Fig. 4)
implementing a data collection (see e.g. [0008]) about the food item comprising a package marking with information about the food item (see e.g. abstract, The sources of data include RFID tags), a time of UV-C irradiation of the food item (see e.g. a time stamp with the data; [0048] Fig. 5 step 420, “associate time tamp with data”) and a packaging information of the food item (see e.g. abstract, The data from the RFID tags is used to correlate the gathered data to attributes associated with the object (e.g., name, description or price).; [0028] RFID read through packaging, etc.);
tracking the packaged food item by obtaining and storing in a server a destination for transporting the packaged food item, a quantity of each food type in kilograms, at least one scan information of the packaged food item, and at least one transportation status of the packaged food item (see abstract, [0008-10] [0021-25] Fig. 4 Allen stores status information (timestamps, read/location IDs) and attributes mapped via EPC to the object, made available to applications; Fig. 8 schema includes location, reading, status change timestamp. A PHOSITA would treat the other data such as destination and quantity (kg) as standard shipping attributes that the design engineer could design to include if needed, commonly referred to as a design choice);
automatically monitoring a transportation status and a freshness status of the packaged food item (see e.g. [0010] One embodiment of the present invention includes receiving status information about one or more objects, where the status information includes RFID data and status data about the one or more objects. That status data is stored in a first format. The status data is mapped to attribute information about the one or more objects using the RFID data. The status data and attribute information is transformed to a first schema based on metadata and provided to different applications via an application integration entity. In addition to being used for monitoring data in the supply chain, the technology described herein can be used to monitor objects within other processes; [0082] monitors integration events and invokes the correct process for handling them; [0086]; for the freshness status, using Allen’s timestamps/attributes to compute a freshness/expiry indicator for perishables treated/packaged per Young’s system would have been a routine extension—Young’s purpose is shelf-life extension of treated, packaged produce; Allen’s platform already stores timestamps and publishes status. See Young at e.g. Fig. 9, monitoring freshness status in relation to an increasing amount of days after packaging. For claims 6-7, see Allen abstract (RFID tags) and [0031] EPC codes as matrix code. Combining these to derive a freshness status is a predictable use of known systems with a reasonable expectation of success. See KSR.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the inventory management art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Young’s UV-t0-packaging process on a line (including a moveable surface between UV and packer) that produces packages units of perishable food to include, as taught by Allen, the off-the-shelf identification, scanning (including handheld devices, multi-tag reads), time-stamping, database, and publishing needed to track those packaged units through storage and shipping. Applying Allen’s mature supply chain visibility stack to Young’s packaged produce line yields the predictable benefit of traceability/operational control (destination, quantity, load verification, status, etc.), and supports freshness status from time/handling data—a common sense integration of complementary systems. See Young at [0046-49] Fig. 12 (line flow); and Allen at [0006-10], [0021-25], Figs. 4-5, 8.
With regard to claim 3, Young further discloses controlling UV dose via exposure (time, display, intensity) (see Young
PNG
media_image1.png
152
416
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Young also discloses an in-line UV treatment on a production line and the apparatus implementing it (conveyor between UV and packer). See Young at [0036-37], [0091-93]; Figs 11-12). Young is silent regarding the touch screen. However, given Young’s explicit teaching to adjust exposure variables to meet dose targets, selecting a UI (e.g. touch screen) is a routine design choice. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the inventory management art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Young to include a routine touch screen to adjust variables as a routine and obvious design choice, as a touch screen provides another option for the user to control the variables.
With regard to claim 5, Young further discloses where the step of packaging the food item further comprises: storing the food item in a vacuum container (e.g. [0005]).
With regard to claim 8, Young further discloses process flows shows ripening/allocation[Wingdings font/0xE0] delivery to package line [Wingdings font/0xE0] in-line UV [Wingdings font/0xE0] flow wrap with MAP[Wingdings font/0xE0] packed[Wingdings font/0xE0] dispatched (a distribution style workflow) Fig. 12. To complement this, Allen discuses a distributor warehouse with readers at entry, inventory, and loading dock (i.e. classic distribution center operations) See Allen at [0022-25] The computerized method of claim 7, wherein the packaging process is completed at a distribution center.
With regard to claim 9, Young provides the product flow through dispatch stage. Young does not disclose the limitations of claim 9. However, Allen teaches at e.g. [0006-7] [0027] describes RFID for tracking entire pallets and transit containers, and readers at facility entrances/dock doors/assembly lines—the scan points for goods as they move in and out of transport assets, with multiple tags read simultaneously. See Allen [0006-7] [0027]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the inventory management art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Young to include such tracking, including transport assets, as this allows for more monitoring in the system, as shown throughout Allen.
With regard to claim 10, Young discloses the dispatch step; at Fig. 12, as referred to above. Young does not disclose the tracking and monitoring steps. Allen teaches at e.g. [0021-25] [0019] Fig. 8, 5, that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the inventory management art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Young dispatch system to include corelating RFID reads to attributes (e.g. object identity), maintaining location tables and status change timestamps, while explicitly describing loading-dock scanning when packages are ready to ship. Those disclosures support associating package IDs with a specific transport asset (e.g. vehicle/trailer number in the location/attribute data) and confirming departure when the dock-door occurs, where the advantage of Allen’s teaching provide another mechanism to track and associate data with the target data, as described throughout Allen.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Peter Ludwig whose telephone number is (571)270-5599. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-5.
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, Fahd Obeid can be reached at 571-270-3324. 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.
/PETER LUDWIG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627