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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “a longitudinal direction of the saw blade is configured to rotate by a first angle (Claim 1, lines 7-8),” and “the longitudinal direction of the saw blade is configured to rotate about a second angle, about a second rotational axis (Claim 1, lines 8-9)” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The amendments filed March 5, 2025 and December 12, 2025 are objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: Regarding claim 1, the phrase “the longitudinal direction of the saw blade is configured to rotate by a first angle, about a first axis, the longitudinal direction of the saw blade is configured to rotate by a second angle, about a second rotational axis, and the first rotational axis is not parallel to the second rotational axis” are new matter (Note, the phrase “the first rotational axis is not parallel to the second rotational axis” per the amendments filed March 5, 2025). How does a longitudinal direction rotate by a first angle, about a first rotational axis? Similarly, how does a longitudinal direction rotate about a second angle, about a second rotational axis? In other words, a direction is arbitrary without being defined relative to other structures or associated with known terms as “vertical, horizontal, diagonal, orthogonal.” Therefore, what permits rotation of the longitudinal direction by a first and/or second angle? How is the second rotational axis defined (in other words, where is the second rotational axis located with respect to the structure of the fixture? Is the second rotational axis defined between two structures of the fixtures?)? There are no details in the disclosure as to how or what permits the longitudinal axis of the saw blade to be configured to rotate by a second angle relative to the normal direction with respect to a second rotational axis. In other words, how is a saw blade configured to rotate by a second angle? Does this rotation take place via a motor of the tool? Does this rotation take place by another structure of the fixture? Does this rotation take place by the user? At best, Pages 11-12, Para [0052] “An arm member 1402A of the fixture is attached to the arm member 1403A. In some embodiments, the stroke rod opening in 1105A is lined with a stroke rod bearing 1108A as shown in Fig. 13. In some embodiments, the position of fixture-end saw blade receiver 1101A may be adjusted along a slot (indicated by the arrow in Fig. 13) in arm member 1403A. The position of fixture-end saw blade receiver 1101A may be adjusted along the slot and the orientation of the stroke rod opening in fixture mount 1105A may be rotated at a given position (as indicated by the black curved arrow) to align the fixture-end saw blade receiver 1101A to the tool blade adapter (e.g., jigsaw blade receiver 1004A in Fig. 11) based on angle 1 or angle 2.” This sets forth the stroke rod is rotated by a first angle (via the bearing), about a first rotational axis, but there are no teachings to a second axis of rotation and the first rotational axis not being parallel to the second rotational axis. At best there is at least one axis in which the stroke rod rotates, as indicated by the black arrow.
Regarding claim 1 (lines 16-18) and claim 13 (lines 17-19), per the amendment filed March 5, 2025, the phrase “the first angle and the second angle are based at least in part upon orientations of the fixture-end saw blade receiver and the tool-end saw blade receiver relative to the base” is new matter. At least Paras [0041, 0042, 0052, 0060, 0061] set forth an angle 1 and angle 2, but the disclosure does not set forth any details to angle 1 and angle 2 being based in part upon orientations of the fixture-end saw blade receiver and the tool-end saw blade receiver relative to the base. Para [0046] discloses a saw blade receiver (1801A includes a saw blade clamp 1802A for securing a first end of a saw blade (to the tool)).
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
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 1-6, 8-13, 33, 36, and 42-47 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 claim 1 (lines 7-10) and claim 13 (lines 12-16), the phrase “the longitudinal axis of the saw blade is configured to rotate by a second angle relative to the normal direction with respect to a second rotational axis, and the first rotational axis is not parallel to the second rotational axis” was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skill in the relevant art that the inventor had possession at the time of filing and is new matter. There are no details in the disclosure as to how or what permits the longitudinal axis of the saw blade to be configured to rotate by a second angle relative to the normal direction with respect to a second rotational axis. In other words, how is a saw blade configured to rotate by a second angle? Does this rotation take place via a motor of the tool? Does this rotation take place by another structure of the fixture? Does this rotation take place by the user? How is the second rotational axis defined (in other words, where is the second rotational axis located with respect to the structure of the fixture? Is the second rotational axis defined between two structures of the fixtures?)? Para [0042] on Pages 7-8, discloses, the angle of wedge 1601 of the tool receiver orients the portions of the jigsaw (and, hence, also the orientation of the saw blade) relative to the fixture base along the first direction, identified as angle 1 in Figure 5. In some embodiments, wedge 1601 may be omitted such that angle 1 is zero… In some embodiments, as shown in the zoomed-in front view of Fig. 6, the angle of tool receiver 1602A (see corresponding tool receiver 1602 in Figs. 1-3) orients the position of the jigsaw (and, hence, also the orientation of the saw blade) relative to the base along the second direction, identified as angle 2 in Fig. 6. Para [0052] discloses positioning the fixture-end saw blade receiver (1101A) relative to an arm member (1402A) and rotating the orientating of the stroke rod opening (1105A) to align the fixture-end saw blade receiver (1101A) to the tool blade adapter based on angle 1 or angle 2. Paras [0060,0061] further mention angle 1 and angle 2; however, the disclosure, as a whole does not provide any support to “the longitudinal axis of the saw blade is configured to rotate by a second angle relative to the normal direction with respect to a second rotational axis, and the first rotational axis is not parallel to the second rotational axis.”
Regarding claim 1 (lines 15-17) and claim 13 (lines 16-18), the phrase “the first angle and the second angle are based at least in part upon orientations of the fixture-end saw blade receiver and the tool-end saw blade receiver relative to the base” was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skill in the relevant art that the inventor had possession at the time of filing and is new matter. At least Paras [0041, 0042, 0052, 0060, 0061] set forth an angle 1 and angle 2, but the disclosure does not set forth any details to angle 1 and angle 2 being based in part upon orientations of the fixture-end saw blade receiver and the tool-end saw blade receiver relative to the base. Para [0046] discloses a saw blade receiver (1801A includes a saw blade clamp 1802A for securing a first end of a saw blade (to the tool)).
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 1-6, 8-13, 33, 36, and 42-47 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 1 (lines 6-10) and claim 13 (lines 12-15), the phrase “the longitudinal direction of the saw blade is configured to rotate by a first angle, about a first rotational axis…the longitudinal direction of the saw blade is configured to rotate by a second angle, about a second rotational axis” is indefinite. It is unclear how a longitudinal direction of a blade rotates. In other words, the saw blade can rotate about a longitudinal axis, but the direction of the saw blade cannot be configured to rotate. It is further unclear how the saw blade is rotating and what structure(s) the saw blade is rotating relative to. The claim has not set forth a structural relationship between the rotating saw blade and the structure which rotates the saw blade.
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.
Claims 1-4, 13, 33, 42, 46, and 47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 3,117,600 to Davis.
In re claim 1, Davis teaches a fixture comprising:
a frame (40), wherein the frame comprises a base (41);
a fixture-end saw blade receiver (18) adapted to couple to the frame, wherein the fixture-end saw blade receiver comprises a stroke rod (31), the stroke rod is adapted to removably couple to a first end of a saw blade (15), and the stroke rod is adapted to guide the saw blade through a longitudinal stroke movement along a longitudinal direction (Col. 2, lines 48-58), a longitudinal direction of the saw blade is (capable of being) configured to rotate by a first angle, about a first rotational axis, relative to a normal direction defined by the base, the longitudinal direction of the saw blade is (capable of being) configured to rotate by a second angle, about a second rotational axis, relative to the normal direction, and the first rotational axis is not parallel to the second rotational axis; and
a tool receiver (44) adapted to couple to the frame, wherein the tool receiver is adapted to couple a powered tool (10) to the frame, the powered tool is adapted to couple to a tool-end saw blade receiver (13), the tool-end saw blade receiver is adapted to removably couple to a second end of the saw blade (Col. 2, lines 13-16), and the powered tool is adapted to drive the saw blade and the stroke rod through the longitudinal stroke movement (Col. 2, lines 68-71), and the first angle and the second angle are based at least in part upon the orientations of the fixture-end saw blade receiver and the tool-end saw blade receiver relative to the base.
Note, the preamble is directed to the fixture. The fixture includes a fixture base (1301, 1302, 1303), a tool receiver, which includes a wedge (1601,1602), a fixture arm (1401, 1402, 1403). The fixture end saw blade receiver merely has to be coupled to the frame. The current claim positively recites a frame, a base, and a tool receiver. The saw blade, which is not structure imparted by the fixture merely has to be capable of being rotated, in which it can be rotated in various directions by an operator.
In re claim 2, wherein the fixture-end saw blade receiver (18) comprises a spring element (34), and the spring element is adapted to apply a tension on the saw blade during at least a portion of the longitudinal stroke movement (Col. 2, lines 48-58).
In re claim 3, wherein the powered tool is a jigsaw (Col. 1, lines 8-10).
In re claim 4, wherein the powered tool (10) is adapted to removably couple to the frame (40).
In re claim 13, as best understood, Davis teaches a system for performing a cutting task on a workpiece, the system comprising:
a frame (40), wherein the frame comprises a base (41);
a fixture-end saw blade receiver (18), wherein the fixture-end saw blade receiver is adapted to couple to the frame, the fixture-end saw blade receiver comprises a stroke rod (31), the stroke rod is adapted to removably couple to a first end of a saw blade (15), and the stroke rod is adapted to guide the saw blade through a longitudinal stroke movement (Col. 2, lines 48-58);
a powered tool (10), wherein the powered tool is adapted to couple to the frame (40); and
a tool-end saw blade receiver (13), wherein the tool-end saw blade receiver is adapted to removably couple to a second end of the saw blade (Col. 2, lines 13-16), the tool-end saw blade receiver is adapted (13) to couple to the powered tool, and the powered tool (10) is adapted to drive the saw blade and the stroke rod through the longitudinal stroke movement (Col. 2, lines 68-71) along a longitudinal direction, the longitudinal direction of the saw blade is configured to rotate by a first angle, about a first rotational axis, relative to a normal direction defined by the base, the longitudinal direction of the saw blade is configured to rotate by a second angle, about a second rotational axis, relative to the normal direction, and the first rotational axis is not parallel to the second rotational axis, and the first angle and the second angle are (capable of being) based at least in part upon the orientations of the fixture-end saw blade receiver and the tool-end saw blade receiver relative to the base.
Note, the claim sets forth the saw blade is configured to rotate, in which it is. As shown in at least Figures 1, the tool is in a first orientation, and at least Figures 3 and 4 show the tool in a second, rotated orientation (which rotates the longitudinal direction of the saw blade by a second angle to position the saw in the second rotated orientation). The rotational directions are different.
In re claim 33, wherein the fixture-end saw blade receiver (18) comprises a spring element (34), and the spring element is adapted to apply a tension on the saw blade during at least a portion of the longitudinal stroke movement (Col. 2, lines 48-58).
In re claim 42, further comprising: a tool receiver (42), wherein the tool receiver is adapted to couple to the frame, and the tool receiver is adapted to removably couple to the powered tool to the frame.
In re claims 46 and 47, wherein the second angle (is capable of being) equal to 90 degrees minus the first angle.
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.
Claims 5, 6, 12, 20, and 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis in view of DE19925747 to French at al.
In re claims 5, 6, 12, 20, and 43 Davis teaches a scroll saw blade (Col. 1, lines 8-10), but does not teach wherein the saw blade is adapted to permit omnidirectional cutting, wherein the saw blade is a spiral saw blade (claim 6), wherein the teeth of the spiral saw blade point towards the powered tool (claim 12), and the teeth of the spiral saw blade point towards the powered tool (claims 20 and 43).
Regarding claims 5, 6, 12, 20, and 43, French teaches a spiral scroll blade (33, Pg. 6, lines 1-2) adapted to permit omnidirectional cutting, and the teeth of the spiral saw blade point towards the powered tool (Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide Davis with a spiral scroll blade as taught by French which is advantageous for cutting sharp inside corners and making quick and precise intricate curves and joints.
Claims 8-11, 36, 44, and 45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis in view of DE19925745 to Lutz at al.
In re claim 8-11, 36, 44, and 45, Davis teaches a scroll saw, but does not teach wherein the longitudinal stroke movement is greater than 2 mm, 5 mm, 8 mm, or 10 mm in one direction, wherein the tension is above 5 N, I0 N, or 20 N (claims 9 and 44), wherein the tension is below 60 N, 80 N, or 100 N (Claims 10 and 45), wherein the tension varies during the longitudinal stroke movement, and the spring element is adapted to apply the tension during more than 50%, 70%, 90%, or 95% of the longitudinal stroke movement (Claim 11).
Regarding claims 8-11, 36, 44, and 45, Lutz teaches a scroll saw having a saw blade disposed between a first leaf spring (50) and a second leaf spring (51, Pg. 7, lines 29-36)). The second spring in a neutral position imparts tension (spring force) of 12 N (Pg. 7, lines 29-36). The first spring is pretensioned and causes uniform saw blade tension over the working stroke of the blade. The first spring applies 50N to an end position, which increases to 65N with a stroke of 8mm (Pg. 7, lines 29-36). The teachings of Lutz satisfy the limitations of the longitudinal stroke movement is greater than 8 mm in one direction, wherein the tension is above 5 N, I0 N, or 20 N (the tension ranges from 50N to 65N), wherein the tension is below 100 N, wherein the tension varies during the longitudinal stroke movement, and the spring element is adapted to apply the tension during more than 50% the longitudinal stroke movement.
It would have been obvious to one before the effective filing date of the invention to provide Davis with a spring having characteristics as taught by Lutz to permit uniform blade tension over the working stroke of the blade (Pg. 7, lines 29-36). One having ordinary skill in the art would possess the knowledge that a spiral compression spring could impart the similar tensioning functions as a leaf spring.
Response to Arguments
The drawing objections have been obviated by the amendments filed December 12, 2025.
Applicant's arguments filed December 12, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues the phrase “the longitudinal direction of the saw blade is configured to rotate by a second angle, about a second rotational axis, relative to the normal direction, and the first rotational axis is not parallel to the second rotational axis” is supported in at least Para [0042] of the disclosure, by reciting angle 1 and angle 2 may be adjustable. Applicant argues Figures 16-17 show an exemplary configures of a fixture.
The claim recites “a fixture-end saw blade receiver adapted to couple to the frame, wherein the fixture-end saw blade receiver comprises a stroke rod…the stroke rod is adapted to guide the saw blade through a longitudinal stroke movement…the longitudinal direction of the saw blade is configured to rotate by a second angle.” Para [0042] recites “the angle of the tool receiver (1602A) orients the position of the jigsaw (and hence the orientation of the saw blade) relative to the base along the second direction, indefinable as angle 2. However, the claim is directed the fixture-end saw blade receiver rather than the tool-receiver. These structures are mutually exclusive. Para [0052] discloses “An arm member 1402A of the fixture is attached to the arm member 1403A. In some embodiments, the stroke rod opening in 1105A is lined with a stroke rod bearing 1108A as shown in Fig. 13. In some embodiments, the position of fixture-end saw blade receiver 1101A may be adjusted along a slot (indicated by the arrow in Fig. 13) in arm member 1403A. The position of fixture-end saw blade receiver 1101A may be adjusted along the slot and the orientation of the stroke rod opening in fixture mount 1105A may be rotated at a given position (as indicated by the black curved arrow) to align the fixture-end saw blade receiver 1101A to the tool blade adapter (e.g., jigsaw blade receiver 1004A in Fig. 11) based on angle 1 or angle 2.” This appears to be the portion of the specification which corresponds to fixture-end saw blade receiver and how the blade rotates relative to a first rotational axis. Based on the disclosed subject matter in Para [0052] there are insufficient details to support the limitation “the longitudinal direction of the saw blade is configured to rotate by a second angle, about a second rotational axis, relative to the normal direction, and the first rotational axis is not parallel to the second rotational axis.”
Applicant argues the phrase “the first angle and the second angle are based in at least in part upon the orientations of the fixture-end saw blade receiver and the tool-end saw blade receiver relative to the base” is supported in at least Para [0041].
As stated above, a second rotational angle of the fixture-end saw blade receiver has not been disclosed. The angles 1 and 2 are merely exemplary angles describing how the power tool is oriented relative to the base. The angles are accomplished via a wedge or an angle-adjustment base (known in the art of jig saws). As stated above, the Examiner is not permitted to import limitations from the specification in the disclosure. The “first angle and the second angle are based at least in part upon the orientations of the fixture-end saw blade receiver and the tool-end saw blade receiver. The limitation is defined as follows:
Re claim 1) The phrase “a first angle and the second angle” are intended use limitations, since the saw blade has not been positively recited, due to the preamble being directed to (only) the fixture. The phrase “are based at least in part upon the orientations of the fixture-end saw blade receiver and the tool-end saw blade receiver” is also an intended use limitation.
Re claim 13) The phrase “the first angle and the second angle” is positively recited and the “first angle and second angle” reference the stroke rod and the longitudinal stroke movement which is directed to the fixture-end saw blade receiver and not the tool-end saw blade receiver. The phrase “are based at least in part upon the orientations of the fixture-end saw blade receiver and the tool-end saw blade receiver” is an intended use limitation.
Based on the context of the claimed subject matter, it has been interpreted, the longitudinal stroke movement and the associated angles are in direct structural relationship with the fixture-end saw blade receiver, as defined in the claim. Based on this interpretation, Para [0052] discloses the rotational movement of the fixture-end saw blade receiver and does not disclose any details to a “the first angle and the second angle are based in at least in part upon the orientations of the fixture-end saw blade receiver and the tool-end saw blade receiver relative to the base.”
Applicant argues the limitation “the longitudinal direction of the saw blade is configured to rotate by a second angle, about a second rotational axis, relative to the normal direction” describes the capability of adjusting the physical configuration of the saw blade longitudinally relative to the blasé plate and does not imply an angle can rotate a saw blade.
See above response to this particular limitation.
Applicant argues the prior art to Davis does not teach or suggest the newly amended limitations and that French and Lutz do not cure the deficiencies of Davis. Applicant argues none of the references teach or suggest the capabilities to configure the first and second angle for different crown molding installations.
After further consideration, the newly added limitations still raise 112, first and second paragraph rejections. Based on the claim interpretation, in light of the new matter, Davis teaches and suggests the claimed invention. Davis teaches the capabilities of being able to angle the saw blade in two different configurations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER S MATTHEWS whose telephone number is (571)270-5843. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8am-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, Boyer Ashley can be reached at 571-272-4502. 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.
/JENNIFER S MATTHEWS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724