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 .
Response to Amendment
This Office action is in response to the amendment filed December 30, 2025. Claims 58, 64, 69, 73, and 76 are amended. Claims 1-57 are canceled. Claims 58-76 are pending and addressed below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every 35 USC § 112(a) & (b) rejection set forth previously in the Non-Final Office Action dated July 01, 20225.
Applicant’s amendments have not overcome the prior art rejections set forth previously in the Non-Final Office Action dated July 01, 20225. It is noted, as indicated by Examiner in the interview summary dated December 15, 2025 and Applicant in their remarks (page 5) filed December 13, 2025, the specific language that could overcome the prior art of record for claims 58 and 73 was “a lower center point which inwardly curves from the upper edge to the lower center point.” (emphasis added). Applicant has amended claims 58 and 73 to recite “a lower center point which inwardly curves from the upper edge toward the lower center point.” The scope of curving “toward” a center point is broader than the scope of curving “to” a center point.
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 stabilizing portion” in claim 71.
“a locking part” in claim 72.
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 § 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.
Claim(s) 58-60, 65, and 68-70 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kangastupa (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0266045).
Regarding claim 58, Kangastupa teaches an ophthalmic device, comprising:
a supporting structure (71; Fig. 13A) comprising a concave surface (53; Fig. 13B) comprising an upper edge (see first annotated Fig. 13B below) and a lower center point (see first annotated Fig. 13B below, it is noted, that “upper” and “lower” are relative terms. The device could be held such that the “upper edge” shown in first annotated Fig. 13B is higher relative to the center point) which inwardly curves from said upper edge toward said lower center point (it is further noted, Kangastupa can be interpreted in two ways that read on the claim. A first interpretation in with the lower center point is the half-way point between the top and bottom of the concave surface, and a second interpretation in which the lower center point is the center of the concavity); and
a hollow channel (45; Fig. 13B) defined by said supporting structure (71), said channel (45) comprising a channel exit which communicates with said concavity (53, see Fig. 13B);
wherein said channel (45) is configured to guide a tip of a needle (pp. [0057]) into a cornea supported by said concavity (pp. [0059]);
wherein said needle (pp. [0057]) is configured for fluid communication with a fluid injector (pp. [0149]).
PNG
media_image1.png
570
810
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 59, Kangastupa teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 58. Kangastupa further teaches said concave surface (53) comprises a plurality of holes (pp. [0084], it is noted, “base” refers to “flange 53,” pp. [0079]).
Regarding claim 60, Kangastupa teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 59. Kangastupa further teaches said plurality of holes (pp. [0084]) are configured for communication with a source of sub-atmospheric pressure (pp. [0084]).
Regarding claim 65, Kangastupa teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 58. Kangastupa further teaches a pressure sensor (pp. [0148)].
Regarding claim 68, Kangastupa teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 58. Kangastupa further teaches said needle (pp. [0057]) configured to extend into said hollow channel (45).
Regarding claim 69, Kangastupa teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 58. Kangastupa further teaches a fluid injector (pp. [0128]) configured to be in fluid communication with said needle (pp. [0128]).
Regarding claim 70, Kangastupa teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 58. Kangastupa further teaches a needle fixing mechanism (60; Fig. 11A) configured to preclude movement of said needle (pp. [0126]]) relative to said hollow channel (45), said needle fixing mechanism (60) comprising at least one pin (pp. [0126]).
Claim(s) 58-64, 66-68, and 71-72 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lin (U.S. Pub. No. 2005/0010243).
Regarding claim 58, Lin teaches an ophthalmic device, comprising:
a supporting structure (2; Fig. 1) comprising a concave surface (6; Fig. 5) comprising an upper edge (see annotated Fig. 1 below) and a lower center (see annotated Fig. 1 below) point which inwardly curves from said upper edge toward said lower center point; and
a hollow channel (16; Fig. 1) defined by said supporting structure (2), said channel (16) comprising a channel exit which communicates with said concavity (6);
wherein said channel (16) is configured to guide a tip of a needle (36; Fig. 6) into a cornea supported by said concavity (pp. [0027]);
wherein said needle is configured for fluid communication with a fluid injector (it is noted, a needle has not been positively recited; therefore, Lin must only be capable of guiding a needle configured for fluid communication with a fluid injector. Because Lin is configured to guide a needle, Lin is also configured to guide a needle that is configured for fluid communication with a fluid injector).
PNG
media_image2.png
468
845
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 59, Lin teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 58. Lin further teaches said concave surface (6) comprises a plurality of holes (14; Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 60, Lin teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 59. Lin further teaches said plurality of holes (14) are configured for communication with a source of sub-atmospheric pressure (pp. [0024]).
Regarding claim 61, Lin teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 58. Lin further teaches said concave surface (6) comprises at least one annular groove (14; Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 62, Lin teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 61. Lin further teaches said groove (14) is configured for communication with a source of sub-atmospheric pressure (pp. [0024]).
Regarding claim 63, Lin teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 58. Lin further teaches said concave surface (6) extends to an edge which defines a first plane (see annotated Fig. 1 above); and
wherein said first plane defined by said edge disposes substantially parallel to a second plane defined by a bottom surface of said supporting structure (2, see annotated Fig. 1 above).
Regarding claim 64, Lin teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 58. Lin further teaches said upper edge of said concave surface (6) extends defines a first plane (see annotated Fig. 1 above); and
wherein said first plane disposes in angled relation to a second plane defined by a bottom surface of said supporting structure (2, see annotated Fig. 1 above. It is noted, a 0 degree relation (i.e., parallel) is by definition an angled relation).
Regarding claim 66, Lin teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 58. Lin further teaches at least one wing (24; Fig. 1) which extends into said concavity (pp. [0023]).
Regarding claim 67, Lin teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 58. Lin further teaches at least one protrusion (24; Fig. 1) which extends into said concavity (pp. [0023]).
Regarding claim 68, Lin teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 58. Lin further teaches said needle (36) configured to extend into said hollow channel (16).
Regarding claim 71, Lin teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 58. Lin further teaches said supporting structure (2) comprises a base portion (4; Fig. 2A) and a stabilizing portion (12; see annotated Fig. 2B below. This element is interpreted under 112(f) as a structure with a first wing and second wing and defining a hollow channel to perform the function of stabilizing the cornea to reduce movement (see specification page 17, lines 1-2 and 15-16 in the instant application) and equivalents thereof.) configured to be positioned relative to one another to support said cornea (pp. [0020]).
PNG
media_image3.png
547
558
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 72, Lin teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 71. Lin further teaches said supporting structure (2) further comprises a locking part (26 and 28 in combination; Fig. 1. This element is interpreted under 112(f) as a structure with pegs to perform the function of fitting over and applying force to the stabilizing portion (see specification page 7, lines 28-30 in the instant application) and equivalents thereof.) configured to fit over said stabilizing portion (12; pp. [0023]).
Claim(s) 58-64, 66-69, 73, and 75-76 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rotenstreich (U.S. Pub. No. 2013/0253416).
Regarding claim 58, Rotenstreich teaches an ophthalmic device, comprising:
a supporting structure (24; Fig. 1) comprising a concave surface (20; Fig. 1B) comprising an upper edge (see first annotated Fig. 1B below) and a lower center point (see first annotated Fig. 1B below, it is noted, that “upper” and “lower” are relative terms. The device could be held such that the “upper edge” shown in first annotated Fig. 1B is higher relative to the center point) which inwardly curves from said upper edge toward said lower center point (it is further noted, Rotenstreich can be interpreted in two ways that read on the claim. A first interpretation in with the lower center point is the half-way point between the top and bottom of the concave surface, and a second interpretation in which the lower center point is the center of the concavity); and
a hollow channel (30; Fig. 1B) defined by said supporting structure (24), said channel (30) comprising a channel exit (see Fig. 1B) which communicates with said concavity (20);
wherein said channel (30) is configured to guide a tip of a needle (60; Fig. 1F) into a cornea supported by said concavity (20, pp. [0154], it is noted, while the device is taught for use with inserting into the sclera, the device is configured to guide a tip of a needle into a cornea based upon its configuration to hold an eye and deliver a needle into the eye. The location delivered is entirely dependent upon the orientation of the eyeball.);
wherein said needle is configured for fluid communication with a fluid injector (pp. [0014]).
PNG
media_image4.png
490
631
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 59, Rotenstreich teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 58. Rotenstreich further teaches said concave surface (20) comprises a plurality of holes (it is noted the hollow channel opening can be considered one hole and the opening formed by surface 22 can be considered another hole; Fig. 1B).
Regarding claim 60, Rotenstreich teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 59. Rotenstreich further teaches said plurality of holes (see Fig. 1B) are configured for communication with a source of sub-atmospheric pressure (it is noted, both holes provide openings and extend through hollow lumens; therefore, they are “configured” for communication with a source of sub-atmospheric pressure.).
Regarding claim 61, Rotenstreich teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 58. Rotenstreich further teaches said concave surface (20) comprises at least one ridge (22; Fig. 1B).
Regarding claim 62, Rotenstreich teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 61. Rotenstreich further teaches said ridge (22) is configured for communication with a source of sub-atmospheric pressure (it is noted, ridge 22 provides an opening that extends through a hollow lumen; therefore, the ridge is “configured” for communication with a source of sub-atmospheric pressure).
Regarding claim 63, Rotenstreich teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 58. Rotenstreich further teaches said concave surface (20) extends to an edge (22; Fig. 1B) which defines a first plane (see second annotated Fig. 1B below; it is noted, a plane can be defined by any three non-collinear points in space. Edge 22 is shown as a flat ring shaped structure (see Figs. 1A & 1B); therefore, three non-collinear points can exist on the edge 22 defining a plane); and
wherein said first plane defined by said edge (22) disposes substantially parallel to a second plane defined by a bottom surface of said supporting structure (24, see second annotated Fig. 1B below).
PNG
media_image5.png
662
700
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 64, Rotenstreich teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 58. Rotenstreich further teaches said upper edge (see first annotated Fig. 1B above) of said concave surface (20) defines a first plane (see third annotated Fig. 1B below; it is noted, a plane can be defined by any three non-collinear points in space. Three non-collinear points can exist on the “upper edge” defining a plane); and
wherein said first plane disposes in angled relation to a second plane defined by a bottom surface of said supporting structure (see third annotated Fig. 1B below, it is noted, a 0 degree relation (i.e., parallel) is by definition an angled relation).
PNG
media_image6.png
662
686
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 66, Rotenstreich teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 58. Rotenstreich further teaches at least one wing (22; Fig. 1B) which extends into said concavity (20).
Regarding claim 67, Rotenstreich teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 58. Rotenstreich further teaches at least one protrusion (22; Fig. 1B) which extends into said concavity (20).
Regarding claim 68, Rotenstreich teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 58. Rotenstreich further teaches said needle (60; Fig. 1F) configured to extend into said hollow channel (30, pp. [0154]).
Regarding claim 69, Rotenstreich teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 58. Rotenstreich further teaches a fluid injector (58; Fig. 1F) configured to be in fluid communication with said needle (58).
Regarding claim 73, Rotenstreich teaches an ophthalmic device (10; Fig. 1A), comprising:
a supporting structure (24; Fig. 1) comprising a bottom surface (22; Fig. 1B) which defines a plane (it is noted, the claim does not recite the bottom surface is planar or extends along a plane, but “defines a plane.” A plane can be defined by any three non-collinear points in space. Bottom surface 22 is shown as a flat ring shaped structure (see Figs. 1A & 1B); therefore, three non-collinear points can exist on the bottom surface 22 defining a plane), said supporting structure (24) comprising a concave surface (20; Fig. 1B) comprising an upper edge (see first annotated Fig. 1B below) and a lower center point (see first annotated Fig. 1B below, it is noted, that “upper” and “lower” are relative terms. The device could be held such that the “upper edge” shown in first annotated Fig. 1B is higher relative to the center point) which inwardly curves from said upper edge toward said lower center point (it is further noted, Rotenstreich can be interpreted in two ways that read on the claim. A first interpretation in with the lower center point is the half-way point between the top and bottom of the concave surface, and a second interpretation in which the lower center point is the center of the concavity); and
a hollow channel (30; Fig. 1B) defined by said supporting structure (24), said channel (30) disposed at an angle above 5 degrees and below 50 degrees relative to said plane (pp. [0087], see also, Fig. 2C showing channel 30 at a 15 degree angle relative to surface 22, pp. [0159]. It is noted, Rotenstreich teaches various features of the invention described in the context of a single embodiment may also be provided as suitable in any other described embodiment of the invention (see pp. [0179]), i.e., the 15 degree angle relative to surface 22 in Fig. 2C could also be appropriate to channel 30 and surface 22 in Fig. 1B).
wherein said channel (30) comprises a channel exit (see Fig. 1B) which communicates with said concavity (20); and wherein said channel (30) is configured to guide a tip of a needle (60; Fig. 1F) into a cornea supported by said concavity (20, pp. [0154], it is noted, while the device is taught for use with inserting into the sclera, the device is configured to guide a tip of a needle into a cornea based upon its configuration to hold an eye and deliver a needle into the eye. The location delivered is entirely dependent upon the orientation of the eyeball.)
PNG
media_image7.png
499
640
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 75, Rotenstreich teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 73. Rotenstreich further teaches said needle (60) configured to extend into said hollow channel (30, pp. [0154]).
Regarding claim 76, Rotenstreich teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 73. Rotenstreich further teaches a fluid injector (16; Fig. 1F) configured to be in fluid communication with said needle (60, pp. [0154]).
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) 65 and 74 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rotenstreich in view of Kangastupa.
Regarding claims 65 and 74, Rotenstreich teaches the invention as discussed above in claims 58 and 73. Rotenstreich further teaches the desire to have accurate control of pressure and rate of injection into the eye (pp. [0119]) but does not explicitly disclose a sensor for monitoring said pressure and rate of injection.
Kangastupa teaches an ocular injection needle (Fig. 1) used with a pressure sensor (pp. [0148]).
Kangastupa is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of ocular injection needles. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Rotenstreich to incorporate the teachings of Kangastupa by providing a pressure sensor. Doing so would provide a means to monitor the pressure applied to the eye through the injection needle to ensure a pressure is not reaches that could cause damage to the eye.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kelman (US-4969912-A)(Fig. 1) teaches an ophthalmic device with a concave supporting structure with a channel configured to guide a needle as claimed in claim 58. Brewer (US-D373050-S) teaches the structure of a concave supporting structure with a hollow channel that could be used to guide the tip of a needle.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL A. ICET whose telephone number is (571)272-0488. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:00-5:00 CT.
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, Elizabeth Houston can be reached at 571-272-7134. 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.
/DANIEL ICET/Examiner, Art Unit 3771
/ELIZABETH HOUSTON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3771