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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on March 9, 2026 has been entered.
Summary
The Applicant’s arguments and claim amendments received on March 9, 2026 are entered into the file. Currently, claims 1-9, 11, 13, 14, 16, 23, and 24 are cancelled; claim 10 is amended; claims 25-28 are new; resulting in claims 10, 12, 15, 17-22, and 25-28 pending for examination.
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 25 and 28 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.
Regarding claims 25 and 28, the limitations reciting “further comprising heating wires connected to the planar heating element” are considered new matter that is not adequately supported by the original disclosure. In particular, the current language of the claim requires that the interior surface arrangement comprises heating wires which are separate from the claimed planar heating element and are connected thereto, whereas the instant specification discloses that the heating wires are a component of the planar heating element.
The only disclosure of the claimed heating wires is in paragraph [0026] of the as-filed specification, in which the second haptic layer (7) is said to be arranged between the planar heating element (4) and the outer decorative layer (3), which affords the advantage that the heating wires of the planar heating element can be leveled out. In order to overcome this rejection, the Applicant could consider amending the aforementioned limitations to recite --wherein the planar heating element comprises heating wires, wherein the heating wires are leveled out--, consistent with the disclosure in paragraph [0026].
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 12, 15, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 12, the limitation reciting “where each of the first and second haptic layers directly adjoins the planar heating element” is indefinite in light of the limitations of claim 10 reciting “the first haptic layer is arranged between and adhesively bonded to the planar heating element and the carrier layer” and “the second haptic layer is arranged between and adhesively bonded to the outer decorative layer and the planar heating element”. In particular, it is not clear how the first and second haptic layers can be said to “directly adjoin” the planar heating element if they are required to be adhesively bonded thereto.
In looking to paragraphs [0025]-[0026] of the as-filed specification the planar heating element (4) is said to be connected, for example by way of an adhesive bond, to the first haptic layer (6), and that the second haptic layer (7) can also be adhesively bonded to the planar heating element (4). In paragraph [0024], the planar heating element (4) is said to be arranged directly adjacent to the decorative layer (3) and can be connected thereto by way of an adhesive bond.
The Applicant asserts on page 6 of the remarks filed March 9, 2026 that, by definition, adhesive bonding is carried out with an adhesive. It is not clear whether the claimed adhesive bonding is intended to require the presence of a layer of adhesive arranged between each of the first and second haptic layers and the planar heating element, or if one or more materials of the haptic layers and/or the planar heating element can serve as an adhesive that performs the claimed adhesive bonding. Given that the current language of claim 1 merely recites that the layers are “adhesively bonded” to one another, and the specification does not provide any additional clarification, these limitations are interpreted to be satisfied either by a separate adhesive layer interposed between the planar heating element and the haptic layers, or by a material present as part of the haptic layers or planar heating element which carries out the claimed adhesive bonding.
However, in the case where a separate adhesive layer is arranged in between the haptic layers and the planar heating element, it is not clear whether the haptic layers can be said to “directly adjoin” the planar heating element, given that the common definition of the term “adjoining” is being in contact at some point or line (see https://www.thefreedictionary.com/adjoining). For the purpose of applying prior art, the limitation of claim 12 will be interpreted to be satisfied by a layer configuration in which each of the first and second haptic layers directly adjoin the planar heating element without any layers other than an adhesive layer interposed therebetween. Clarification from the Applicant is respectfully requested.
Regarding claims 15, 17, and 18, the claims are rejected based on their dependency on claim 12.
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 10, 12, 15, 18, 19, 22, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Bieder (WO 2013/020627, machine translation previously provided).
Regarding claim 10, Bieder teaches an interior trim component (interior surface arrangement, decorative structure) for a motor vehicle, comprising a decorative material (5; outer decorative layer) which provides the visible surface of the component, a substrate (9; second haptic layer) arranged to conceal defects and to adapt the surface in order to meet haptic requirements, a thermoplastic layer (10), a heating textile (4; planar heating element), an upper cover layer (3; first haptic layer), a honeycomb core (1), and a lower cover layer (2) ([0001], [0052]-[0054], see Fig. 1 reproduced below).
PNG
media_image1.png
242
654
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The lower cover layer (2) and the honeycomb core (1) together correspond to the claimed carrier layer. As shown in Fig. 1, the upper cover layer (3) is arranged between the heating textile (4) and the lower cover layer (2), and the substrate (9) is arranged between the decorative material (5) and the heating textile (4). Bieder teaches that the substrate (9; second haptic layer) can be a foam, fleece, or spacer fabric, while the upper cover layer (3; first haptic layer) may be a fiber-reinforced thermoplastic having reinforcing fibers in the form of a nonwoven, a knitted fabric, or the like in order to absorb mechanical stress ([0053], [0055]).
With respect to the limitations requiring that the first haptic layer is adhesively bonded to the planar heating element and the carrier layer and that the second haptic layer is adhesively bonded to the outer decorative layer and the planar heating element, Bieder teaches that the heating textile (4) may be embedded in the thermoplastic matrix of the upper cover layer (3) by melting or fusing during the manufacturing process ([0054]), such that the upper cover layer is adhesively bonded to the heating textile via the thermoplastic material of the upper cover layer. Bieder further teaches that a thermoplastic layer (11) is provided between the upper cover layer (3) and the honeycomb core (1) to enable an improved connection therebetween, that a thermoplastic layer (10) is arranged between the heating textile (4) and the substrate (9) to ensure a strong bond, and that an intermediate bonding material which may also consist of a thermoplastic material may be arranged to provide the adhesion of the decorative layer (5) to the substrate (9) ([0018]-[0020], [0059]-[0060]). Bieder teaches that the thermoplastic materials can have appropriate melting properties to enable their melting and thus the bonding of the layers in one step [0061]. The thermoplastic materials therefore satisfy the limitations requiring that the claimed layers are adhesively bonded, wherein the thermoplastic material serves as a hot-melt adhesive.
Regarding claim 12, Bieder teaches all of the limitations of claim 10 above. As shown in Fig. 1 above, the upper cover layer (3; first haptic layer) directly adjoins the lower surface of the heating textile (4; planar heating element), while the substrate (9; second haptic layer) directly adjoins the upper surface of the heating textile via the thermoplastic layer (10). Bieder teaches that the thermoplastic layer can be located between the heating textile and the decorative layer to ensure an improved bond ([0020]), such that the thermoplastic layer serves as an adhesive layer that joins the substrate and the heating textile to one another.
Regarding claim 15, Bieder teaches all of the limitations of claim 12 above. As noted above, Bieder teaches that the substrate (9; second haptic layer) can be a foam layer [0053].
Regarding claims 18 and 22, Bieder teaches all of the limitations of claims 10 and 12 above and further teaches that the substrate (9; second haptic layer) can be a nonwoven fabric [0017]. Bieder further teaches that the upper cover layer (2; first haptic layer) may include reinforcing fibers in the form of a nonwoven [0055]. Both of the first and second haptic layers may therefore have the form of a nonwoven.
Regarding claim 19, Bieder teaches all of the limitations of claim 10 above and further teaches that the lower cover layer (2) may be a fiber-reinforced thermoplastic ([0053], [0055]). The carrier layer therefore comprises a fiber-reinforced polymer.
Regarding claim 25, Bieder teaches all of the limitations of claim 10 above and further teaches that the heating textile can be made up of copper wires (heating wires) [0013]. Bieder further teaches that the substrate layer (9) made of a foam, fleece, or spacer fabric can be arranged to conceal defects and to adapt the surface in order to meet haptic requirements, particularly if a smooth surface is to be achieved [0053]. The heating wires of the heating textile are therefore leveled out by the substrate layer which serves to conceal defects and to provide a smooth surface.
Claims 10, 12, 15, 20, 25, 26, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kozlowski et al. (US 2021/0086670, previously cited).
Regarding claims 10, 12, 15, 20, and 26, Kozlowski et al. teaches a seat trim cover (interior surface arrangement) for an automotive vehicle seat, formed from a laminate blank (286; decorative structure) comprising an A-surface cover material layer (256; outer decorative layer), a foam lining (288; second haptic layer) which can be adhered to the cover material layer using adhesive or flame lamination, an adhesive layer (264), a seat heater (254; planar heating element), an adhesive layer (272), a moldable foam interlayer (270; first haptic layer), an adhesive layer (278), and a scrim backing layer (274; carrier layer) (Abstract, [0101], Figs. 17A-17B).
As shown in Figs. 17A-17B, the foam lining is adhesively bonded to and directly adjoins the A-surface cover material layer and the seat heater, and the moldable foam interlayer is adhesively bonded to and directly adjoins the seat heater and the scrim backing layer.
Regarding claims 25 and 28, Kozlowski et al. teaches all of the limitations of claims 10 and 26 above and further teaches that the foam lining (288) reduces and/or eliminates the read through of the seat heater (254) through the A-surface cover material layer (256), wherein, as shown in Fig. 12, the seat heater includes heating elements (200) such as heating wires ([0077], [0101], Fig. 17C). The heating wires are therefore leveled out by the foam lining.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bieder (WO 2013/020627, machine translation previously provided) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Aichner et al. (US 6,231,940, previously cited).
Regarding claim 17, Bieder teaches all of the limitations of claim 12 above. Although Bieder teaches that the substrate (9; second haptic layer) can be a spacer fabric which is arranged behind the decorative material (5) to conceal defects and to adapt the surface to meet haptic requirements ([0053]), the reference does not expressly teach that the spacer fabric has the form of a knitted spacer fabric.
However, in the analogous art of interior trim parts for motor vehicles, Aichner et al. teaches an interior fixture or fitting part (1) comprising a rigid molded support part (2), a layer of a knitted textile spacer fabric (3) provided on the surface of the support part, and a layer of natural leather (4) which forms the decorative layer located on the surface of the spacer fabric (col 6, Ln 6-22; Figs. 1-3). Aichner et al. teaches that the knitted spacer fabric is used to achieve the desired haptic quality and requisite adhesion by absorbing pressure and tensile loads, thus preventing the decorative leather from peeling away (col 3, Ln 47-56; col 5, Ln 43-50).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the interior trim component of Bieder by selecting a knitted spacer fabric as the spacer fabric of the substrate arranged behind the outer decorative layer, as suggested by Aichner et al., in order to impart the desired haptic qualities to the trim part and to improve the adhesion and dimensional stability thereof.
Claims 17 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kozlowski et al. (US 2021/0086670, previously cited) as applied to claims 10 and 12 above, and further in view of Booth et al. (US 2008/0309143, newly cited).
Regarding claims 17 and 21, Kozlowski et al. teaches all of the limitations of claims 10 and 12 above. Although Kozlowski et al. teaches that the seat cover has a layer structure in which a foam lining (288) is laminated to the back surface of the cover layer (256) to reduce or eliminate read through of the seat heater (254) through the cover layer, and in which a foam interlayer (270) is adhered to the back surface of the seat heater ([0101], Figs. 17A-17B), Kozlowski et al. differs from the claimed invention in that the reference does not expressly teach first and second haptic layers having the form of a knitted spacer fabric.
However, in the analogous art of interior parts for motor vehicles, Booth et al. teaches a vehicle seat construction comprising a flexible cover (39) defining an outer surface (40), mounted on a foam cushion (42) via a three dimensional knitted spacer fabric (46) ([0016], [0020], Fig. 2). Booth et al. teaches that the spacer fabric serves to separate the foam cushion and the cover so that any blemishes in the surface of the foam cushion, or other seat components such as occupant sensors, are not visible through the cover [0006]. Booth et al. further teaches that the flexible cover may be mounted to the first fabric panel (48) of the spacer fabric (46) by adhesive bonding, etc., such that the cover and the first fabric panel are in direct contact with one another and the cover generally follows any contours of the fabric panel, and that the second fabric panel (52) of the spacer fabric is similarly mounted to the surface (62) of the foam cushion via locally applied adhesive (64) ([0021], Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the seat cover taught by Kozlowski et al. by replacing the foam lining (288) on the rear surface of the cover layer with a knitted spacer fabric (second haptic layer), as suggested by Booth et al., given that the spacer fabric can be used for the same purpose of reducing read through of the underlying seat heater through the cover layer. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Booth et al. to include a knitted spacer fabric (first haptic layer) laminated onto the upper surface of the foam interlayer (270) in order to minimize the effects of any blemishes in the surface of the foam cushion.
Claims 10, 12, 15, 18, 19, and 25-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alter et al. (EP 3279055, machine translation via EPO provided) in view of Bieder (WO 2013/020627, machine translation previously provided).
Regarding claims 10, 12, 15, 18, and 26, Alter et al. teaches a sandwich panel (10; interior surface arrangement, decorative structure) with a heating function for a vehicle, comprising an upper cover layer (12; outer decorative layer), a foam core (14; first haptic layer), and a lower cover layer (16; carrier layer), wherein an electrical heating layer (20; planar heating element) is provided between the upper cover layer and the foam core ([0001], [0051], see Fig. 1 reproduced below).
PNG
media_image2.png
271
494
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The heating layer (20) is integrally connected to the upper cover layer (12) via an adhesive film (15) and, if necessary, to the upper side of the foam core (14) via a further adhesive film (15), and the underside of the foam core is also attached to the lower cover layer (16) via an adhesive film [0051].
Alter et al. differs from the claimed invention in that the reference does not expressly teach that a second haptic layer is arranged between and adhesively bonded to the upper cover layer (12; outer decorative layer) and the heating layer (20; planar heating element).
However, in the analogous art of interior trim parts for motor vehicles, Bieder teaches an interior trim component comprising a decorative material (5; outer decorative layer), a substrate (9; second haptic layer), a thermoplastic layer (10), a heating textile (4), an upper cover layer (3), a honeycomb core (1), and a lower cover layer (2) ([0052]-[0054], Fig. 1). Bieder teaches that the decorative material (5) provides the visible surface of the component and can include a textile such as a polyester fleece, while the substrate (9) can be arranged on a rear surface of the decorative material in order to conceal defects and to adapt the surface in order to meet the haptic requirements, e.g., to form a smooth surface [0053]. Bieder teaches that suitable materials for the substrate include a foam material, a nonwoven fabric, or a spacer fabric ([0017], [0053]). Bieder further teaches that an intermediate bonding layer may be provided to improve the adhesion of the decorative material (5) to the substrate (9), and that a thermoplastic layer (10) may be provided to ensure the bonding of the heating textile (4) to the substrate (9) by melting or fusing ([0051], [0054]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sandwich panel taught by Alter et al. by including a second haptic layer comprising a foam, a nonwoven fabric, or a spacer fabric arranged between and adhesively bonded to the upper cover layer (12) and the heating layer (20), as suggested by Bieder, in order to conceal defects to meet the haptic requirements for the component surface, e.g., to provide a smooth surface, and to ensure the necessary interlayer adhesion between the adjacent layers.
Regarding claims 19 and 27, Alter et al. in view of Bieder teaches all of the limitations of claims 10 and 26 above, and Alter et al. further teaches that the lower cover layer (16; carrier layer) comprises a phenol resin-glass fiber laminate (fiber-reinforced polymer) [0051].
Regarding claims 25 and 28, Alter et al. in view of Bieder teaches all of the limitations of claims 10 and 26 above, and Alter et al. further teaches that the heating layer is made up of a flat fiber network made up of a large number of electrically conductive fibers (heating wires) ([0017]-[0021]), wherein the conductive fibers are leveled out in that they are flat.
Response to Arguments
Response-Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 and 103
Applicant's arguments, see pages 5-7 of the remarks filed March 9, 2026, with respect to Bieder have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues on page 6 of the remarks that Bieder teaches only melt bonded layers, not adhesively bonded layers as recited in Applicant’s claims, and that paragraphs [0023] and [0070] teach away from the adhesive bonding recited in claim 10, since the melt bonding taught by Bieder “makes it possible to omit an additional binder or adhesive” and “no additional adhesives are required”.
These arguments are not persuasive. It is noted that the claimed limitations directed to the layers being “adhesively bonded” do not specifically define a type of adhesive bonding, wherein an adhesive is interpreted to mean any substance that causes two surfaces to stick together (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adhesive_ bonding). As explained in the prior art rejections above, Bieder teaches the use of thermoplastic materials having melting properties which enable their melting and thus the bonding of layers in one step [0061]. The thermoplastic material taught by Bieder acts as a hot-melt adhesive which causes the layers to stick together, thus reading on the claimed limitations requiring that the layers are “adhesively bonded”.
With respect to the Applicant’s argument that Bieder teaches away from the claimed adhesive bonding, it is noted that the disclosure cited by the Applicant supports the interpretation set forth above. In particular, paragraphs [0023] and [0070] in Bieder disclose that the use of the thermoplastic matrix of the cover layers or the additional thermoplastic layers makes it possible to omit an additional binder or adhesive, since the thermoplastic itself is suitable for forming a bond between adjacent layers when heated. The use of the term “additional” in Bieder indicates that the thermoplastic material itself is being used as an adhesive, such that a separate adhesive need not be present in addition to the thermoplastic adhesive. It is further noted that the question of whether a reference “teaches away” from the claimed invention is inapplicable to an anticipation analysis. See MPEP 2131.05.
In light of the amendments to claim 10 incorporating the limitations of previous claims 23 and 24, the previous rejections based on Hermann et al. and based on Beyer et al. in view of Bieder are withdrawn, and new rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 based on Kozlowski et al. and under 35 U.S.C. 103 based on Alter et al. in view of Bieder are presented in the office action above. The Applicant’s arguments directed to Hermann and Beyer et al. in view of Bieder are therefore moot.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REBECCA L GRUSBY whose telephone number is (571) 272-1564. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30 AM-5:30 PM.
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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at (571) 272-1291. 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.
/Rebecca L Grusby/Examiner, Art Unit 1785