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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. JP2021-200685 and JP2021-200686, filed on 12/10/21.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 6/10/24, 7/17/25 and 12/5/25. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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:
a transition determination unit in claims 1, 2 and 6;
a calculation unit in claims 1-4 and 8-11;
a degradation determination unit in claim 1; and
a clocking unit claims 4-6 and 9-10.
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.
The specification and drawing do not describe and show the structure of the above-mentioned units. Therefore, a broadest reasonable interpretation, these units are well-known.
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.
Claim 1 is 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 limitation “capacitance turn-over (CT) value” is not defined in the specification. In order to exam the merit, the examiner, interprets “capacitance turn-over (CT) value” as discharge current.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/738647 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the pending application can be compared with copending application as below:
Pending application
Copending application
A lead-acid battery system, comprising:
A lead-acid battery system, comprising
a transition determination unit configured to determine switching of charging/discharging process of a lead-acid battery;
a transition determination unit configured to determine switching of a charging/discharging process of a lead-acid battery;
a current value determination unit configured to detect a change in a discharge current value during a discharge period of the lead-acid battery;
a calculation unit configured to calculate a capacitance turn-over (CT) value based on a discharge current value during a discharge period of the lead-acid battery
a calculation unit configured to, when the current value determination unit determines that a change has occurred in the discharge current value, calculate a capacitance turn-over (CT) value based on the discharge current value acquired for each section divided by the occurrence of the change;
a degradation determination unit configured to determine a degradation degree of the lead-acid battery using the CT value calculated by the calculation unit
a degradation determination unit configured to determine a degradation degree of the lead-acid battery using the CT value calculated by the calculation unit
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-5, 8-9, 12-13 and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KOKETSU et al. (US 20220308115, hereinafter KOKETSU), and further in view of KATAOKA et al. (US 20210123980 hereinafter KATAOKA).
Regarding to claim 1, KOKETSU discloses a lead-acid battery system (paragraph 0027), comprising:
a transition determination unit configured to determine switching of charging/discharging process of a lead-acid battery (paragraph 0028 discloses a current detection unit for detecting discharge current which indicates a unit to switch from charging to discharging);
a calculation unit configured to calculate a capacitance turn-over (CT) value based on a discharge current value during a discharge period of the lead-acid battery (paragraph 0028 discloses a current detection unit); and
a degradation determination unit configured to determine a degradation degree of the lead-acid battery using the CT value calculated by the calculation unit (paragraph 0073 discloses a degradation progress estimation unit 152 calculates the accumulated discharge current (or the time length) from the current accumulated discharge current to the degradation change point CP. By the above process, with the capacity degradation prediction method, it is possible to accurately estimate the degradation change point CP).
Even if KOKETSU does not disclose a transition determination unit configured to determine switching of charging/discharging process of a lead-acid battery.
Fig. 2[116] and paragraph 0062 of KATAOKA discloses switching determination unit 116 determines whether or not switching between charging and discharging of the secondary battery unit 50 has occurred, on the basis of the current acquired by the current acquisition unit 112.
Therefore, at the time before the effective filing date, it would be obvious to a POSITA to incorporate KATAOKA into KOKETSU in order to determine the accuracy of parameters of the secondary battery estimated by using an equivalent circuit model (paragraph 0027 of KATAOKA).
Regarding to claim 2, KOKETSU in view of KATAOKA discloses the lead-acid battery system according to claim 1, wherein the calculation unit starts a calculation process of the CT value when the transition determination unit determines that the discharge period ends after the lead-acid battery transitions from the discharge period to a charge period (it would has necessitated that the calculation unit to perform the calculation during the discharge period).
Regarding to claim 4, KOKETSU in view of KATAOKA discloses the lead-acid battery system according to claim 1, further comprising: a clocking unit configured to measure a plurality of set times set in advance in a discharge period in which the lead-acid battery performs a discharging process, wherein the calculation unit calculates a CT value based on a discharge current value in the set time (paragraphs 0031-32 and 28 of KOKETSU discloses a timer to measure the time associated with charged times and periodically and continuously, while measuring the time by the timer).
Regarding to claim 5, KOKETSU in view of KATAOKA discloses the lead-acid battery system according to claim 4, wherein the clocking unit (timer) measures a plurality of the set times set in the discharge period for each set time (paragraph 0028, 31-32 and paragraph 0035).
Regarding to claim 6, KOKETSU in view of KATAOKA discloses the lead-acid battery system according to claim 4, wherein the clocking unit ends the measurement of the set time when the transition determination unit determines that the lead-acid battery has transitioned from the discharge period to a charge period (it would has necessitated that the timer would end the measurement currents of during charging or discharging since charging and discharging are two different state).
Regarding to claim 8, KOKETSU in view of KATAOKA discloses the lead-acid battery system according to claim 4, wherein the calculation unit calculates a CT value for each of the plurality of set times, and calculates a sum of the calculated CT values as the CT value in the discharge period (paragraph 0028 discloses the accumulation amount (accumulated charge current) of electrical current with which the secondary battery has been charged, and the number of times the secondary battery has been charged, or the period of time for which the secondary battery has been used).
Regarding to claim 9, KOKETSU in view of KATAOKA discloses the lead-acid battery system according to claim 4, wherein the calculation unit starts the calculation process of the CT value when the clocking unit determines that the set time has elapsed (paragraph 0032 discloses data logger 142 obtains charge current and charge voltage from the charger 120 periodically and continuously, while measuring the time by the timer since periodic implies time elapse).
Regarding to claim 12, KOKETSU discloses a lead-acid battery life estimation method (paragraph 0037), comprising:
determining whether a lead-acid battery is switched from a charging process to a discharging process (paragraph 0028 discloses a current detection unit for detecting discharge current which indicates a unit to switch from charging to discharging);
measuring a current in the discharging process when it is determined that the lead-acid battery is switched to the discharging process (paragraph 0028 discloses a current detection unit);
integrating measured discharge current values (paragraph 0028 discloses detecting discharge current);
executing a calculation process of a CT value using the integrated discharge current value when it is determined that the lead-acid battery is switched from the discharging process to the charging process (paragraph 0032 discloses a timer and paragraph 0073 discloses a degradation progress estimation unit 152 calculates the accumulated discharge current (or the time length) from the current accumulated discharge current to the degradation change point CP. By the above process, with the capacity degradation prediction method, it is possible to accurately estimate the degradation change point CP).
Even if KOKETSU does not disclose determining whether the lead-acid battery is switched from the discharging process to the charging process.
Fig. 2[116] and paragraph 0062 of KATAOKA discloses switching determination unit 116 determines whether or not switching between charging and discharging of the secondary battery unit 50 has occurred, on the basis of the current acquired by the current acquisition unit 112.
Therefore, at the time before the effective filing date, it would be obvious to a POSITA to incorporate KATAOKA into KOKETSU in order to determine the accuracy of parameters of the secondary battery estimated by using an equivalent circuit model (paragraph 0027 of KATAOKA).
Regarding to claim 13, KOKETSU discloses a lead-acid battery life estimation method (paragraph 0037), comprising:
starting measurement of a preset set time (fig. 12 step S10, paragraph 0032 discloses a timer paragraph and 0075 discloses performs an initial process of obtaining each of the initial parameters);
measuring a current in the discharging process after the measurement of the set time is started (paragraph 0028 discloses a current detection unit);
integrating measured discharge current values (paragraph 0028 discloses detecting discharge current);
determining whether the set time has elapsed; executing a calculation process of a CT value using the integrated discharge current value when it is determined that the set time has elapsed; and calculating a sum of the CT values calculated for each set time (paragraph 0032 discloses a timer and paragraph 0073 discloses a degradation progress estimation unit 152 calculates the accumulated discharge current (or the time length) from the current accumulated discharge current to the degradation change point CP. By the above process, with the capacity degradation prediction method, it is possible to accurately estimate the degradation change point CP).
Even if KOKETSU does not disclose determining whether or not a lead-acid battery is switched from a charging process to a discharging process; starting measurement of a preset set time.
Fig. 2[116] and paragraph 0062 of KATAOKA discloses switching determination unit 116 determines whether or not switching between charging and discharging of the secondary battery unit 50 has occurred, on the basis of the current acquired by the current acquisition unit 112.
Therefore, at the time before the effective filing date, it would be obvious to a POSITA to incorporate KATAOKA into KOKETSU in order to determine the accuracy of parameters of the secondary battery estimated by using an equivalent circuit model (paragraph 0027 of KATAOKA).
Regarding to claim 17, KOKETSU in view of KATAOKA discloses the lead-acid battery life estimation method according to claim 12, comprising: determining a degradation degree of the lead-acid battery using the calculated CT value after the calculation process of the CT value (paragraph 0073 discloses a degradation progress estimation unit 152 calculates the accumulated discharge current (or the time length) from the current accumulated discharge current to the degradation change point CP. By the above process, with the capacity degradation prediction method, it is possible to accurately estimate the degradation change point CP).
Regarding to claim 18, KOKETSU in view of KATAOKA discloses the lead-acid battery life estimation method according to claim 13, comprising: determining a degradation degree of the lead-acid battery using the calculated CT value after the calculation process of the sum of the CT values (paragraph 0073 discloses a degradation progress estimation unit 152 calculates the accumulated discharge current (or the time length) from the current accumulated discharge current to the degradation change point CP. By the above process, with the capacity degradation prediction method, it is possible to accurately estimate the degradation change point CP).
Claim(s) 3, 10, 11 and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KOKETSU in view of KATAOKA as applied to claims 2, 4, 1 and 12 respectively above, and further in view of Gao et al. (CN 113884883 hereinafter Gao).
Regarding to claim 3 KOKETSU in view of KATAOKA discloses the lead-acid battery system according to claim 2, except wherein the calculation unit executes the calculation process of the CT value using the discharge current value after temperature correction on a basis of a result of a temperature correction process to a measured discharge current value executed after transition to the charge period.
GAO discloses a DCR of the current test lithium ion battery is generally tested independently before and after the lithium ion battery cycle comprising time and voltage value of lithium ion battery corresponding time in the charging and discharging process, temperature and charge and discharge current value and abstract discloses all experimental batteries after being corrected by temperature.
Therefore, at the time before the effective filing date, it would be obvious to a POSITA to incorporate GAO into KOKETSU in view of KATAOKA in order reducing the influence of the temperature to the measuring direct current internal resistance, improving the accuracy of the calculation result.
Regarding to claim 10, KOKETSU in view of KATAOKA discloses the lead-acid battery system according to claim 4, except wherein the calculation unit is configured to calculate the CT value using the discharge current value after temperature correction on the basis of a result of a temperature correction process to a measured discharge current value executed after the measurement of the set time is started by the clocking unit.
GAO discloses a DCR of the current test lithium ion battery is generally tested independently before and after the lithium ion battery cycle comprising time and voltage value of lithium ion battery corresponding time in the charging and discharging process, temperature and charge and discharge current value and abstract discloses all experimental batteries after being corrected by temperature.
Therefore, at the time before the effective filing date, it would be obvious to a POSITA to incorporate GAO into KOKETSU in view of KATAOKA in order reducing the influence of the temperature to the measuring direct current internal resistance, improving the accuracy of the calculation result.
Regarding to claim 11, KOKETSU in view of KATAOKA discloses the lead-acid battery system according to claim 1, except wherein the calculation unit executes a temperature correction process to the discharge current value after calculation of the CT value is started and before the CT value is calculated.
GAO discloses a DCR of the current test lithium ion battery is generally tested independently before and after the lithium ion battery cycle comprising time and voltage value of lithium ion battery corresponding time in the charging and discharging process, temperature and charge and discharge current value and abstract discloses all experimental batteries after being corrected by temperature.
Therefore, at the time before the effective filing date, it would be obvious to a POSITA to incorporate GAO into KOKETSU in view of KATAOKA in order reducing the influence of the temperature to the measuring direct current internal resistance, improving the accuracy of the calculation result.
Regarding to claim 15, KOKETSU in view of KATAOKA discloses the lead-acid battery life estimation method according to claim 12, comprising: except performing temperature correction to the measured discharge current value after measuring the current in the discharging process.
GAO discloses a DCR of the current test lithium ion battery is generally tested independently before and after the lithium ion battery cycle comprising time and voltage value of lithium ion battery corresponding time in the charging and discharging process, temperature and charge and discharge current value and abstract discloses all experimental batteries after being corrected by temperature.
Therefore, at the time before the effective filing date, it would be obvious to a POSITA to incorporate GAO into KOKETSU in view of KATAOKA in order reducing the influence of the temperature to the measuring direct current internal resistance, improving the accuracy of the calculation result.
Regarding to claim 16, KOKETSU in view of KATAOKA discloses the lead-acid battery life estimation method according to claim 12, except wherein in the calculating the CT value, a temperature correction process to the integrated discharge current value is executed.
GAO discloses a DCR of the current test lithium ion battery is generally tested independently before and after the lithium ion battery cycle comprising time and voltage value of lithium ion battery corresponding time in the charging and discharging process, temperature and charge and discharge current value and abstract discloses all experimental batteries after being corrected by temperature.
Therefore, at the time before the effective filing date, it would be obvious to a POSITA to incorporate GAO into KOKETSU in view of KATAOKA in order reducing the influence of the temperature to the measuring direct current internal resistance, improving the accuracy of the calculation result.
Claim(s) 7 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KOKETSU in view of KATAOKA as applied to claims 4 and 13 above, and further in view of OBATA (JP 2009112170, hereinafter OBATA).
Regarding to claims 7 and 14, KOKETSU in view of KATAOKA discloses the lead-acid battery system according to claim 4 and 13 respectively, except wherein the set time is 1 millisecond or more and 10 hours or less.
KOKETSU and KATAOKA both discloses a timer.
OBATA discloses a timer set to 1 minute.
Therefore, at the time before the effective filing date, it would be obvious to a POSITA to incorporate the timer to set time 1 millisecond or more and 10 hours or less as a matter of choice suitable to user since the claim does not show the criticality of the setting time.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SON T LE whose telephone number is (571)270-5818. The examiner can normally be reached M to F, 7AM - 4PM.
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, Eman Alkafawi can be reached at 5712724448. 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.
/SON T LE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858