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 .
Status of Claims
No amendments have been are made to the claims, filed October 29, 2025.
Claims 1-2, 7 and 18 are currently pending and considered in this office action.
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.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klecka (previously cited, WO 2015023438 A1, cited in IDS filed March 8, 2022) in view of Braun (previously cited, US 4749398 A, cited in IDS filed March 8, 2022), Pesiri (previously cited, US 20060096393 A1) and Kimura (US 20060036067 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Klecka discloses a system for treatment of atomized powder (Abstract; Fig. 1), comprising:
a fluidized bed operable to heat treat feedstock alloy powders, the feedstock alloy powders heat treated for microstructure control to condition the feedstock alloy powders into a state to facilitate solid-state consolidation, the fluidized bed communicated with a source of an inert gas for fluidizing the feedstock alloy powders in the fluidized bed (Abstract; Fig. 1, furnace 12 comprising fluidized bed assembly 14 and in communication with a source 46 of heated inert gas 40 for fluidizing powder 38 via inlet 28A);
a fine powder collector in communication with the fluidized bed for receiving powder from the fluidized bed (Fig. 1, powder collector C is in communication with outlet 30); and
a water bubbler in communication with the fine powder collector and the inert gas exiting from the fluidized bed for collecting residual from the powder particles in the water bubbler (Fig. 1, see line which connects from outlet 30, through powder collector C and then to water bubbler B; see Pg. 5, lines 26-32 wherein inert gas travels from fluidized bed, to powder collector C, to water bubbler B, and wherein water bubbler B captures stray particles).
Klecka discloses an outlet line leading from the fluidized bed to deliver the atomized powder to subsequent downline processes such as powder collection (Fig. 1, outlet line 30 which delivers atomized powder to collector, c). One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate the atomized powder in the outlet leading from the fluidized bed would be heated because the fluidized bed is heated.
However, Klecka does not disclose a quenching reservoir, and therefore fails to disclose a quenching reservoir in communication with the fluidized bed for receiving heated atomized powder through an outlet line from the fluidized bed leading to a quenching reservoir.
Braun discloses a similar invention wherein particles in gas are communicated from a heat-treating fluidized bed using an outlet line to a quenching reservoir in order to cool the particles prior to powder collection (Col. 6, lines 41-43; Col. 8, 56-Col. 9, line 4; see Fig. 1, powders which have been heat treated (fluidized beds for heat treating (beds 15 and 110) are communicated to cooler bed 130 via outlet line 128, and are then received by collector 148). One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that cooling the powder from 600C to 90C, for example, would result in safer handling and powder collection (see Col. 8, line 42 and 56-58; see Col. 9, lines 1-2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included a cooling bed (quenching reservoir) to receive heated atomized powder from the heat-treating fluidized bed through an outlet line, and which further communicates with the powder collector, as taught by Braun, for the invention disclosed by Klecka. One would be motivated to do this in order to cool the powder and further to tailor the temperature at which the powder is collected, such as a safe handling temperature (see teaching above).
Klecka discloses a (fine) powder collector, but fails to disclose multiple powder collectors, and therefore does not disclose a quenching powder collector in addition to the fine powder collector.
Klecka therefore also fails to disclose a three-way valve in communication with the quenching reservoir (see teaching by Braun above) and multiple powder collectors, and fails to disclose a three-way valve in communication with the quenching reservoir and both the fine powder collector and a quenching powder collector.
Pesiri teaches wherein powder entrained in gas is directed to multiple powder collection vessels, and discloses a valve structure which receives the powder and routes the output mixture to different powder collection locations, including one for bulk powder and one for sampling (Abstract; para. [0028]; Fig. 1, valve structure routes power to bulk collector 135 and also to powder sample collectors (130 and 130’), and the valve structure (valve 122) further routes powder from the previous valve to each of the two powder collectors 130 and 130’). One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that these valves (see valve 122 and valve connected to valve 122) are three-way valves (one line (inlet) receiving, two lines (outlets) exiting).
Kimura further teaches a three-way valve which receives powder in gas from a single supply line and suitably distributes the powder to a plurality of fluidized treatment vessels (para. [0037], wherein three-way valve controls flow passes; Fig. 1 three-way valve system 7 which accepts powder from an upper stream; Fig. 2, three-way valve 71; para. [0023]-[0024]). Kimura teaches wherein the three-way valve structure is a suitable structure, and an art equivalent, for a mechanism for feeding powder from a single material supply line to a plurality of vessels (para. [0037]; see valve structure mechanism taught by Pesiri above). One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the powder collector of Klecka is a ‘fluidized chamber’, as particles in gas are fed into the collector.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have had multiple powder collection reservoirs or fluidized chambers, such as a bulk collection reservoir and a sampling collection reservoir, as taught by Pesiri, and a three-way valve for directing the stream of particles in gas to the different powder collection reservoirs/fluidized chambers, as taught by Pesiri and Kimura, for the invention disclosed by Klecka, in order to direct powder to multiple downstream collection reservoirs, including those which are capable of collecting samples and bulk quantities of the powder.
One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the powder received by the different powder collection reservoirs would be quenched powder, and that a sample collection reservoir would receive quenched powder and therefore be a quenched powder collector, as claimed. Klecka discloses a fine powder collector, and Pesiri further teaches collecting ultrafine powder in bulk, which reads on the claimed fine powder collector. Additionally, further limitations or structure to the quenched powder collector or the fine powder collector are not present, and the powder collectors taught by Pesiri and powder collector disclosed by Klecka would be both capable of collecting ‘fine’ and/or quenched powder, as claimed. Therefore, the structural limitations have been met.
Regarding the three-way valve, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the teachings of Pesiri and Kimura require that the three-way valve is in communication with the quenching reservoir in order to receive the powder in inert gas from the upstream process (fluidized bed) and to further distribute the powder to the collectors, and that the three-way valve would necessitate that one outlet of the three-way valve is in communication with the fine powder collector and that another outlet of the three-way valve is in communication with the quenched powder collector, as claimed (see Fig. 3 of Kimura, wherein single upper stream enters three-way valve, and wherein the three-way valve comprises two different outlets to communicate powder to different downstream regions; similarly, see Fig. 1 of Pesiri, wherein single upstream line prior to three way valve inlet comprises two different outlets in order to communicate powder to different reservoirs, bulk 135 vs sampling reservoirs, and further, sample collector 130 vs sample collector 130’).
Regarding the water bubbler, Klecka discloses wherein the fine powder collector is in communication with the water bubbler in order to capture the gas coming from the fluidized chamber, and to capture any stray particles from the powder collector (Fig. 1; Pg. 5, lines 26-32). Thus, it would be obvious to have communicated the quenched powder collector (see teaching above by Pesiri) as well to the water bubbler in order to achieve the same teaching, and to collect the gas exiting from the fluidized furnace which flows into the quenched powder collector as well as any stray particles which leave the quenched powder collector (see teaching by Klecka above). One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that in order to collect gas and stray particles from each of the powder collectors (fine powder collector and quenched powder collector), the water bubbler would need to be in communication with both powder collectors and therefore inert gas outlets of the powder collectors, as claimed.
It would therefore be obvious that the quenched powder collector also be connected to the water bubbler in a similar manner as the fine powder collector is, and comprise an outlet which is connected to an inlet of the water bubbler, as claimed, in order to perform the desired functions of capturing stray particles and collecting gas from the fluidized chambers upstream (see teaching by Klecka).
Thus, the apparatus of Klecka, Braun, Pesiri and Kimura disclose the claimed flow path for inert gas leaving the fluidized bed, passing through the quenching reservoir (see teaching by Braun, Col. 8, 56-Col. 9, line 4 and Fig. 1, wherein powders flow from fluidized beds 15 and 110, first to a cooler bed 130, and then to the powder collector 148 via gas stream) to each of the quenched powder collector and the fine powder collector after passing through different outlets of a three-way valve (teaching by Pesiri (Fig. 1) and Kimura (Fig. 3), wherein powders flow to each powder collector via gas stream by means of a three-way valve), and then from each of the quenched powder collector and the fine powder collector to the water bubbler (teaching by Klecka, see Pg. 5, lines 26-32 and Fig. 1, wherein inert gas travels from powder collector C to water bubbler in order to collect stray particles from powder collector).
Regarding Claim 2, Klecka does not disclose wherein the feedstock alloy powders are degassed. However, this limitation is directed to a material or article worked upon by the apparatus. Claim analysis is highly fact-dependent. A claim is only limited by positively recited elements. Thus, "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935). See MPEP 2115.
In the instant case, degassed feedstock alloy powders is not positively claimed as a part of the apparatus. Degassed feedstock alloy powders are worked upon by the fluidized bed during the device’s intended use. The apparatus would be both capable of heat-treating degassed particles be capable of performing degassing of powder further because inert gas is supplied to the fluidized bed.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klecka (previously cited, WO 2015023438 A1, cited in IDS filed March 8, 2022) in view of Braun (previously cited, US 4749398 A, cited in IDS filed March 8, 2022), Pesiri (previously cited, US 20060096393 A1) and Kimura (US 20060036067 A1), as applied to Claim 1 above, and in further view of Yang (previously cited, US 20140065049 A1).
Regarding Claim 7, Klecka does not disclose a vibrator in communication with the fluidized bed and a line to a quenched powder collector to facilitate the ejection of the atomized powder.
Yang discloses wherein a fluidized bed discharge pipe comprises a vibrator in order to remove accumulated solids (para. [0009]; Fig. 1, vibrator 23, discharge pipe 15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included a vibrator in communication with the fluidized bed and the discharge pipe line, as taught by Yang, for the invention disclosed by Klecka, in order to remove accumulated solids in the discharge pipe from the fluidized bed (see teaching above). One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that a vibrator in this location would also be in communication with the line to the quenched powder collector (see rejection of Claim 1 above), and would facilitate the ejection of the atomized powder, as claimed.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klecka (previously cited, WO 2015023438 A1, cited in IDS filed March 8, 2022) in view of Braun (previously cited, US 4749398 A, cited in IDS filed March 8, 2022), Pesiri (previously cited, US 20060096393 A1) and Kimura (US 20060036067 A1), as applied to Claim 1 above, and in further view of Ichidate (previously cited and cited by Applicant in IDS filed March 8, 2022, US 4385929 A).
Regarding Claim 18, Klecka discloses a flow path for powder which is defined by loading the powder into the fluidized bed via a tube (Fig. 1, tube 36; Pg. 4, lines 23-26).
Klecka fails to disclose wherein the powder flows to the fluidized bed from a powder hopper.
Ichidate discloses a powder flow path wherein powder flows from a powder hopper and release valve to a fluidized bed in order to introduce powder to the fluidized bed in a prescribed amount (Fig. 2, hopper 22, fluidized bed 24; Col. 5, lines 47-50).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included a powder hopper and release valve prior to the fluidized bed for the powder flow path, as taught by Ichidate, for the invention disclosed by Klecka, in order to introduce powder from a larger supply and into the fluidized bed in a prescribed amount (see teaching above).
Thus, the apparatus of Klecka and Ichidate disclose a powder flow path defined from a powder hopper to the fluidized bed, as claimed. Further, Braun discloses wherein the powder flow path includes flowing powder from the fluidized bed to the quenching reservoir (Braun, Col. 8, 56-Col. 9, line 4 and Fig. 1, wherein powders flow from fluidized beds 15 and 110, first to a cooler bed 130, and then to the powder collector 148), and Pesiri and Kimura teach wherein the powder flows to a three-way valve from upstream (and therefore from the quenching reservoir as taught by Braun) and then to each of the different powder collectors taught by Pesiri, and therefore from the three-way valve to the quenched powder collector and from the three-way valve to the fine powder collector, as claimed (see Claim 1 above and teaching by Pesiri, Fig. 1, wherein powders flow from three-way valve 122 to each powder collectors 130 and 130’, and bulk collection chamber 135; see also Fig. 3 of Kimura wherein three-way valve diverts powder stream to separate downline processes).
Additionally, Klecka discloses wherein the flow path of the powder includes flowing powder from the powder collector to the water bubbler (see Claim 1 above wherein each powder collector is communicated to the water bubbler; see Klecka Pg. 5, lines 26-32 and Fig. 1, wherein inert gas travels from powder collector C to water bubbler in order to collect stray particles from powder collector).
Thus, the apparatus of Klecka, Ichidate, Braun, Pesiri and Kimura disclose the claimed flow path for powder such that the powder flow path is defined from a powder hopper to the fluidized bed (Ichidate), from the fluidized bed to the quenching reservoir (Braun), from the quenching reservoir (upstream process) to the three-way valve (Pesiri and Kimura), directing therefore quenched powders from the three-way valve by different outlets to the quenched powder collector and to the fine powder collector (Pesiri), and from each of the quenched powder collector and the fine powder collector to the water bubbler (Klecka).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed October 29, 2025, with respect to Claim 1, and dependent claims thereof, rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over 35 U.S.C. 103 over Klecka in view of Braun, Pesiri and Kimura, have been fully considered, but are respectfully not found persuasive.
Applicant argues that the Examiner has reassembled the features of Klecka, Braun, Pesiri and Kimura without motivation (Remarks. Pg. 5).
Applicant argues that the teachings are drawn from different references without reason, and the rejection relies on hindsight to construct the claimed subject matter (Remarks, Pg. 7).
Applicant argues that Braun, Pesiri and Kimura only teach one segment each of the claimed subject matter, and comprise only minimum teachings, and further argues the motivation to make the combinations are not sufficient (Remarks, Pg. 7).
These arguments are not found persuasive.
Braun teaches a quenching reservoir which receives heated atomized powder from a fluidized bed, which then further communicates the cooled powder to a collector, in order to collect powder at a safe handling temperature. Thus, there is proper motivation to include the quenching reservoir of Braun.
Pesiri teaches directing powder streams to different powder collection vessels using a three-way valve structure, and Kimura teaches using a three-way valve to split a single powder stream into multiple powder streams to distribute to different vessels. Pesiri teaches a motivation for comprising different powder collection vessels in order to provide powder for sample testing and one for bulk collection, and Kimura clearly teaches a means to do so with the three-way valve, with further motivation that the three-way valve allows for controlling the gas flow to downstream vessels.
Thus, Pesiri and Kimura provide teachings with proper motivation which is compatible with Klecka because Klecka also collects powder in a powder collection vessel. Further, Applicant generally states that there is lack of motivation and insufficient teachings, but does not pointedly designate how the motivations presented in the rejection are incorrect or incompatible with Klecka.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Applicant argues that Klecka does not teach a quenching reservoir and therefore does not disclose flow connectivity through the quenching reservoir to the quenched powder collector, the fine powder collector, and the liquid bubbler, and Applicant further argues that Klecka does not teach a three-way valve for dividing powders and inert gas into two different streams (Remarks Pg. 7).
Applicant argues that none of the references of Braun, Pesiri and Kimura would lead one of ordinary skill in the art to add a quenching reservoir, a three-way valve and parallel powder collectors to the three-way valve, with each of the parallel powder collectors vented through a liquid bubbler which also receives gas flow from the outlet of the initial reactor (Remarks, Pg. 7).
These arguments are not found persuasive.
Regarding the quenching reservoir and the three-way valve, Klecka is not relied upon for these features. Rather, Braun is applied to teach the quenching reservoir and for communicating powder from the fluidized bed to the quenching reservoir, while Pesiri and Kimura teach using a three-way valve to then direct powders to multiple collection vessels via different lines from a single upstream line.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Because Klecka already discloses directing a powder collector vented through a liquid bubbler and wherein the liquid bubbler receives inert gas from the fluidized bed (via the quenching reservoir and powder collector), it would be obvious that the inclusion of each of the multiple powder collectors as taught by Braun would also comprise the feature of ventilation through the liquid bubbler wherein the liquid bubbler receives inert gas (upstream) from the fluidized bed, as claimed. Thus, Klecka in view of Braun, Pesiri and Kimura meet the claim limitations.
As stated above, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that because the liquid bubbler receives gas from the powder collector and the powder collector receives gas from the quenching reservoir which receives gas from the fluidized bed, that each of the powder collectors are therefore vented through a liquid bubbler which also receives gas flow from the outlet of the initial reactor as argued.
Regarding the features “parallel powder collectors”, these are not currently claimed features and not commensurate in scope with the claims. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., parallel powder collectors) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Tornberg (previously cited, EP 1008407 A2, English Machine Translation provided): teaches an atomizing chamber (3) which communicates to a disintegrator (6) which communicates to a diversion valve 61 which feeds into a separator 7 and collection vessel 8, and to a powder scrap container 71; see Figure).
Sun (previously cited, CN 104227004 A, English Machine Translation provided): teaches two powder collectors which are in communication with an exhaust port to recycle gas (Fig. 1, powder collector 18, powder collector 26, gas exhaust port 29; para. [0030]).
Nardi (previously cited, WO 2014176045 A, cited in IDS filed March 8, 2022): teaches wherein the particle size may be selectively controlled and collected by using different fluidized chambers (powder collecting reservoirs) and by using different gas flow rates for each chamber (see Fig. 3; pg. 4, lines 6-12; pg. 5, lines 4-9).
Kanellopoulos (previously cited, US 20180369775 A1): teaches wherein a three-way valve may be used to direct powder from a hopper in a stream of gas to different down stage processes, or to direct the stream to be recycled back into a fluidized bed (para. [0077]-[0078]). Kanellopoulos teaches wherein the three-way valve receives powder from a quenching reservoir which is communicated to a fluidized bed (see Fig. 1, wherein rotary feeder 21 comprises cooled gas from cooler 3 via line 26 and receives flow from fluidized bed 6, and wherein three-way valve receives flow from rotary feeder 21). One would be motivated to include the three-way valve of Kanellopopulos, and this arrangement, for the invention of Klecka in order to divert powder to be returned (see water bubbler) to the fluidized bed furnace for recycling.
Reid (previously cited, US 3,367,884 A): teaches wherein a three-way valve may be used to control fluid and gas flow in order to flush a system or to alternatively divert flow in order to collect process samples (Col. 8, lines 11-21).
Martel (US 20020002208 A1): teaches a diverter valve which separates cooled particles from a receiving stream based on coarseness and material which is not easily comminuted (para. [0099]; Fig. 16, diverter valve 416 receives powder 412 from sifter 408 and collects coarse powders 418, which cannot be comminuted by mill 401, and directs the powder not otherwise diverted to the mill 401; para. [0100] wherein particles may be cooled prior to sifter 408). One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the diverter valve is a three-way valve (one line receiving, two lines exiting), and wherein there is an outlet for each of the directed flows of powder and wherein the three-way valve receives a flow of gas (see para. [0098]-[0099], wherein material is suspended in a gas stream).
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 CATHERINE P SMITH whose telephone number is (303)297-4428. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 9:00-4:00 MT.
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, Keith Walker can be reached on (571)-272-3458. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CATHERINE P SMITH/ Examiner, Art Unit 1735
/KEITH WALKER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1735