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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Watanabi et al (US 2006/0076320).
Regarding claim 7, Watanabi discloses a welding device, comprising:
a body (Fig. 1 #1 torch body) configured to route power;
a first inlet (Fig. 1 #8 gas hose joint) and a first outlet (Fig. 1 #12a openings of the inner gas space 12) formed on the body (Fig. 1 #1 torch body, the first inlet (Fig. 1 #8 gas hose joint) configured to receive a shielding gas;
a first channel (Fig. 1 #10 gas supply path) extending through the body (Fig. 1 #1 torch body) and connecting the first inlet (Fig. 1 #8 gas hose joint) and the first outlet (Fig. 1 #12a openings of the inner gas space 12);
a second inlet (Fig. 1 #6 cooling power cable joint) and a second outlet (Fig. 1 #7 cooling power cable joint) formed on the body (Fig. 1 #1 torch body), the second inlet (Fig. 1 #6 cooling power cable joint) configured to receive a coolant;
a second channel (Fig. 1 #9 water path) extending through the body (Fig. 1 #1 torch body) and connecting the second inlet (Fig. 1 #6 cooling power cable joint) with the second outlet (Fig. 1 #7 cooling power cable joint), the second channel (Fig. 1 #9 water path) having a convoluted portion (Shown in the figure below) comprising a plurality of segments configured to increase a proportion of the second channel (Fig. 1 #9 water path) relative to the body (Fig. 1 #1 torch body).
PNG
media_image1.png
398
732
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, Watanabi teaches the welding device as appears above (see the rejection of claim 7), and Watanabi teaches wherein the first outlet (Fig. 1 #12a openings of the inner gas space 12) includes a plurality of splayed segments (Fig. 1 #13 orifices) connected to the first channel (Fig. 1 #10 gas supply path), configured to disburse the shielding gas received by the first outlet (Fig. 1 #12a openings of the inner gas space 12).
Regarding claim 9, Watanabi teaches the welding device as appears above (see the rejection of claim 8), and Watanabi teaches wherein the first outlet (Fig. 1 #12a openings of the inner gas space 12) is configured for coupling with a diffuser cup (Fig. 1 #3 ceramic plate).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 15, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabi et al (US 2006/0076320) in view of Matsubara et al (JP 6853409).
Regarding claim 1, Watanabi discloses a welding device, comprising:
a body (Fig. 1 #1 torch body) configured to route power;
a first inlet (Fig. 1 #8 gas hose joint) and a first outlet (Fig. 1 #12a openings of the inner gas space 12) formed on the body (Fig. 1 #1 torch body, the first inlet (Fig. 1 #8 gas hose joint) configured to receive a shielding gas;
a first channel (Fig. 1 #10 gas supply path) extending through the body (Fig. 1 #1 torch body) and connecting the first inlet (Fig. 1 #8 gas hose joint) and the first outlet (Fig. 1 #12a openings of the inner gas space 12);
a second inlet (Fig. 1 #6 cooling power cable joint) and a second outlet (Fig. 1 #7 cooling power cable joint) formed on the body (Fig. 1 #1 torch body), the second inlet (Fig. 1 #6 cooling power cable joint) configured to receive a coolant;
a second channel (Fig. 1 #9 water path) extending through the body (Fig. 1 #1 torch body) and connecting the second inlet (Fig. 1 #6 cooling power cable joint) with the second outlet (Fig. 1 #7 cooling power cable joint), the second channel (Fig. 1 #9 water path) having a convoluted portion (Shown in the figure below) comprising a plurality of segments configured to increase a proportion of the second channel (Fig. 1 #9 water path) relative to the body (Fig. 1 #1 torch body).
PNG
media_image1.png
398
732
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Watanabi does not disclose wherein the plurality of segments includes a plurality of arcuate segments encircling at least a portion of the first channel adjacent the first outlet.
Nonetheless, Matsubara teaches wherein the plurality of segments includes a plurality of arcuate segments encircling at least a portion of the first channel adjacent the first outlet (Abstract ---" A torch nozzle including a cooling water flow path 50 that orbits the outer peripheral side of the gas flow path, and the cooling water flow path is between the detour 55 that orbits the outer peripheral side of a plurality of powder gas flow paths and the powder gas flow path.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the flow path of the cooling channel to incorporate the orientation of the cooling path as taught by Matsubara for the benefit of enhancing cooling capacity. (Page 2 para. 3)
Regarding claim 15, Watanabi in view of Matsubara teaches the welding device as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), but does not teach manufactured using an additive manufacturing process.(Examiner considers the limitation “manufactured using an additive manufacturing process” to be a product by process limitation and does not structurally limit the claimed invention."[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." MPEP 2113; Furthermore, Matsubara teaches that a welding torch body can be formed by 3D printing using chrome copper material in the fourth paragraph of the DESCRCIPTION-OF-EMBODIMENTS.)
Regarding claim 21, Watanabi discloses a welding device, comprising:
a body (Fig. 1 #1 torch body) configured to route power;
a first inlet (Fig. 1 #8 gas hose joint) and a first outlet (Fig. 1 #12a openings of the inner gas space 12) formed on the body (Fig. 1 #1 torch body, the first inlet (Fig. 1 #8 gas hose joint) configured to receive a shielding gas;
a first channel (Fig. 1 #10 gas supply path) extending through the body (Fig. 1 #1 torch body) and connecting the first inlet (Fig. 1 #8 gas hose joint) and the first outlet (Fig. 1 #12a openings of the inner gas space 12);
a second inlet (Fig. 1 #6 cooling power cable joint) and a second outlet (Fig. 1 #7 cooling power cable joint) formed on the body (Fig. 1 #1 torch body), the second inlet (Fig. 1 #6 cooling power cable joint) configured to receive a coolant;
a second channel (Fig. 1 #9 water path) extending through the body (Fig. 1 #1 torch body) and connecting the second inlet (Fig. 1 #6 cooling power cable joint) with the second outlet (Fig. 1 #7 cooling power cable joint).
However, Watanabi does not disclose the second channel having a first U-shaped portion that extends around a portion of the first channel adjacent the first outlet, wherein the portion of the first channel adjacent the first outlet extends perpendicular to a plane of the first U-shaped portion.
Nonetheless, Matsubara in the same field of endeavor being welding devices, teaches that the cross-sectional shape, meandering shape, and the like of the cooling water flow path can be altered based on the need for cooling capacity (Page 4 para. 3 and Page 5 para 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the second channel of Watanabi to incorporate a first U-shaped portion that extends around a portion of the first channel adjacent the first outlet, wherein the portion of the first channel adjacent the first outlet extends perpendicular to a plane of the first U-shaped portion, since it has been held by the courts that a change in shape or configuration, without any criticality in operation of the device, is nothing more than one of numerous shapes that one of ordinary skill in the art will find obvious to provide based on the suitability for the intended final application. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976). It appears that the disclosed device would perform equally well shaped as disclosed by Matsubara.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabi et al (US 2006/0076320) in view of Matsubara et al (JP 6853409) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Jusionis et al (US 5,710,403).
Regarding claim 5, Watanabi in view of Matsubara teaches the welding device as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), but does not teach wherein the plurality of arcuate segments forms a serpentine segment.
Nonetheless, Jusionis in the same field of endeavor being welding devices, teaches wherein the plurality of arcuate segments forms a serpentine segment (Claim 2 ---" An orbital weldhead as defined in claim 1 wherein the coolant flow channel cooperatively formed by the electrode plate and body comprises a serpentine channel machined in a mating face of the electrode plate and a resilient seal surrounding the periphery of the machined surface and engaged between the mating surface of the electrode and a corresponding mating surface of the body.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cooling channel of Watanabi in view of Matsubara by incorporating the serpentine shape of the cooling channel as taught by Jusionis for the benefit of simplifying the design and maintainability of the weldhead. (Jusionis Col. 4 lines 23-26)
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabi et al (US 2006/0076320) in view of Matsubara et al (JP 6853409) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Hanebuth et al (US 2015/0246409).
Regarding claim 6, Watanabi in view of Matsubara teaches the welding device as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), but does not teach wherein the plurality of arcuate segments forms a spiral segment or a helical segment.
Nonetheless, Hanebuth in the same field of endeavor being welding devices, teaches wherein the plurality of arcuate segments forms a spiral segment or a helical segment ([0017] lines 6-11 ---" More homogeneous cooling can be achieved by a volute separating wall, since, as a result of the spiral-shaped cooling channel, the "cold" cooling medium flowing in the direction of the closure element makes it possible for the electrode holder, in particular its shell, to be cooled on all sides.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cooling channel of Watanabi in view of Matsubara by incorporating the spiral shape of the cooling channel as taught by Hanebuth for the benefit of more homogeneous cooling.
Claim(s) 10-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabi et al (US 2006/0076320) as applied to claim 9, in view of Kleppen et al (US 4,788,401).
Regarding claim 10, Watanabi teaches the welding device as appears above (see the rejection of claim 9), but does not teach wherein the first inlet comprises a first solder fitting and the second inlet comprises a second solder fitting.
Nonetheless, Kleppen in the same field of endeavor being welding devices, teaches wherein the first inlet comprises a first solder fitting and the second inlet comprises a second solder fitting (Col. 3 lines 40-50 ---" This torch has a head portion, generally shown at 4, and a side arm 6, the latter being truncated in the drawings. The side arm carries any fluid supply and/or return lines and also serves as an electrical conductor to the electrode. In the version shown here, tube 8 acts as a cooling water inlet for the torch head while tube 10 serves as a water return line. Tube 12 conducts an inert gas, such as argon or helium to the torch head. These three lines are typically brazed or hard-soldered into a copper or brass header, not shown, for connection to a power source.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the welding device of Watanabi by incorporating the soldering of the first and second inlets as taught by Kleppen for the benefit of securing the cooling and shielding gas inputs to the welding head.
Regarding claim 11, Watanabi in view of Kleppen teaches the welding device as appears above (see the rejection of claim 10), and Kleppen teaches wherein the first outlet further comprises a torch collet (Fig 2 #42 split collet) configured for holding an electrode.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the welding device of Watanabi in view of Kleppen by incorporating the collet as taught by Kleppen for the benefit of firmly retaining the electrode. (Kleppen Col. 4 lines 26-29)
Regarding claim 12, Watanabi in view of Kleppen teaches the welding device as appears above (see the rejection of claim 11), and Kleppen teaches wherein the body comprises a conductive material (Col. 33 lines 48-50 ---" These three lines are typically brazed or hard-soldered into a copper or brass header, not shown, for connection to a power source.”) configured to route the power directly through the body.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the welding device of Watanabi in view of Kleppen by incorporating body made of a conductive material as taught by Kleppen for the benefit of connecting the electrode to a power source.
Regarding claim 13, Watanabi in view of Kleppen teaches the welding device as appears above (see the rejection of claim 12), and Kleppen teaches wherein the conductive material is copper (Col. 33 lines 48-50 ---" These three lines are typically brazed or hard-soldered into a copper or brass header, not shown, for connection to a power source.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the welding device of Watanabi in view of Kleppen by incorporating body made of a copper material as taught by Kleppen for the benefit of connecting the electrode to a power source.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabi et al (US 2006/0076320) in view of Matsubara et al (JP 6853409) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Enyedy et al (US 6,495,798).
Regarding claim 14, Watanabi in view of Matsubara teaches the welding device as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), but does not teach further comprising: an input port and an output port formed on the body, and a third channel extending through the body for housing an electrically insulated power line, the third channel connecting the input port and the output port.
Nonetheless, Enyedy in the same field of endeavor being welding devices, teaches further comprising: an input port (Top opening of Fig. 3 #100 inner chamber) and an output port (Bottom opening of Fig. 3 #100 inner chamber) formed on the body, and a third channel (Fig. 3 #100 inner chamber) extending through the body for housing an electrically insulated power line, the third channel (Fig. 3 #100 inner chamber) connecting the input port (Top opening of Fig. 3 #100 inner chamber) and the output port (Bottom opening of Fig. 3 #100 inner chamber).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the welding device of Watanabi in view of Matsubara by incorporating inlet port, outlet port, and channel as taught by Enyedy for the benefit of providing a passage for the welding electrode.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tullius et al (US 2023/0003325).
Regarding claim 16, Tullius discloses a method of manufacturing a welding device using a 3D printer, comprising:
printing successive layers of a material to form a three-dimensional body having a first inlet, a first outlet, a second inlet, and a second outlet ([0023] lines 18-22 ---" More specifically, layer by layer manifold 10 is manufactured using an SLA additive manufacturing process with each layer being added (or grown) in a direction that is parallel with a central axis of each of orifice 18, 20, 22, and 24.”),
the plurality of layers including:
a first subset of adjoining layers each having respective first spaces devoid of the material, for defining a first channel (Fig. 1 #30 second fluid input line and Fig. 1 #32 second fluid output line) extending through the body (Fig. 1 #10 manifold) for pathing a shielding gas, the first channel (Fig. 1 #30 second fluid input line and Fig. 1 #32 second fluid output line) connecting the first inlet (Fig. 1 #20 second fluid input orifice) and the first outlet (Fig. 1 #24 second fluid output orifice),
and a second subset of adjoining layers each having respective second spaces devoid of the material, for defining a second channel (Fig. 1 #28 first fluid input line and Fig. 1 #32 first fluid output line) for pathing a coolant, the second channel extending through the body (Fig. 1 #10 manifold) and connecting the second inlet (Fig. 1 #18 first fluid input orifice) and the second outlet (Fig. 1 #22 first fluid output orifice), the second channel (Fig. 1 #28 first fluid input line and Fig. 1 #32 first fluid output line) having a convoluted portion comprising a plurality of segments (Fig. 1 #54 plurality of bends) configured to increase a proportion of the second channel (Fig. 1 #28 first fluid input line and Fig. 1 #32 first fluid output line) relative to the body (Fig. 1 #10 manifold).
However, Tullius does not explicitly teach the amount of layers and explicit layers existing with the claimed structure.
Nonetheless, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Tullius to form the first and second subsets of adjoining layers each having respective first and second spaces devoid of the material by adjusting the thickness of the adjoining layers to form the first and second channels.
Claim(s) 17 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tullius et al (US 2023/0003325) as applied to claim 16, in view of Kleppen et al (US 4,788,401).
Regarding claim 17, Tullius teaches the method as appears above (see the rejection of claim 16), but does not teach wherein the material is a conductive material.
Nonetheless, Kleppen in the same field of endeavor being welding devices, teaches wherein the body comprises a conductive material (Col. 33 lines 48-50 ---" These three lines are typically brazed or hard-soldered into a copper or brass header, not shown, for connection to a power source.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Tullius by incorporating the body made of a conductive material as taught by Kleppen for the benefit of connecting the electrode to a power source.
Regarding claim 19, Tullius in view of Kleppen teaches the method as appears above (see the rejection of claim 17), and Kleppen teaches wherein the conductive material comprises metal (Col. 33 lines 48-50 ---" These three lines are typically brazed or hard-soldered into a copper or brass header, not shown, for connection to a power source.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Tullius in view of Kleppen by incorporating the body made of a conductive material made of a metal as taught by Kleppen for the benefit of connecting the electrode to a power source.
Regarding claim 20, Tullius in view of Kleppen teaches the method as appears above (see the rejection of claim 19), and Kleppen teaches wherein the conductive material comprises copper (Col. 33 lines 48-50 ---" These three lines are typically brazed or hard-soldered into a copper or brass header, not shown, for connection to a power source.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Tullius in view of Kleppen by incorporating the body made of a conductive material made of copper as taught by Kleppen for the benefit of connecting the electrode to a power source.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tullius et al (US 2023/0003325) in view of Kleppen et al (US 4,788,401) as applied to claim 17, further in view of Enyedy et al (US 6,495,798).
Regarding claim 18, Tullius in view of Kleppen teaches the method as appears above (see the rejection of claim 17), and Tullius teaches wherein printing the successive layers of the material to form the three-dimensional body further comprises forming an input port and an output port on the body ([0023] lines 18-22 ---" More specifically, layer by layer manifold 10 is manufactured using an SLA additive manufacturing process with each layer being added (or grown) in a direction that is parallel with a central axis of each of orifice 18, 20, 22, and 24.”),
However, Tullius in view of Kleppen does not teach the plurality of layers further comprising: a third subset of adjoining layers each having respective third spaces for defining a third channel extending through the body between the input port and the output port, the third channel configured for housing an electrically insulated power line.
Nonetheless, Enyedy in the same field of endeavor being welding devices, teaches the plurality of layers further comprising:
a third subset of adjoining layers each having respective third spaces for defining a third channel (Fig. 3 #100 inner chamber) extending through the body between the input port (Top opening of Fig. 3 #100 inner chamber) and the output port (Bottom opening of Fig. 3 #100 inner chamber), the third channel (Fig. 3 #100 inner chamber) configured for housing an electrically insulated power line.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Tullius in view of Kleppen by incorporating forming of the inlet port, outlet port, and channel as taught by Enyedy for the benefit of providing a passage for the welding electrode.
Claim(s) 22-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabi et al (US 2006/0076320) in view of Matsubara et al (JP 6853409) as applied to claim 21, further in view of Falla et al (US 10,709,006).
Regarding claim 22, Watanabi in view of Matsubara teaches the welding device as appears above (see the rejection of claim 21), but does not teach wherein the second channel further comprises a second U-shaped portion and a third U-shaped portion.
Nonetheless, Falla in the same field of endeavor being welding devices, teaches wherein the second channel further comprises a second U-shaped portion and a third U-shaped portion (See the figure below).
PNG
media_image2.png
458
728
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the second channel of Watanabi in view of Matsubara by incorporating the second and third U-shaped portions as taught by Falla for the benefit of extending the cooling channel throughout the welding device to capture more excess heat during operation.
Regarding claim 23, Watanabi in view of Matsubara and Falla teaches the welding device as appears above (see the rejection of claim 22), but does not teach wherein the second U-shaped portion lies in a plane perpendicular to the plane of the first U-shaped portion and the third U-shaped portion lies in a plane parallel to the plane of the first U-shaped portion.
Nonetheless, Matsubara in the same field of endeavor being welding devices, teaches that the cross-sectional shape, meandering shape, and the like of the cooling water flow path can be altered based on the need for cooling capacity (Page 4 para. 3 and Page 5 para 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the second channel of Watanabi to incorporate the second U-shaped portion laying in a plane perpendicular to the plane of the first U-shaped portion and the third U-shaped portion laying in a plane parallel to the plane of the first U-shaped portion, since it has been held by the courts that a change in shape or configuration, without any criticality in operation of the device, is nothing more than one of numerous shapes that one of ordinary skill in the art will find obvious to provide based on the suitability for the intended final application. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976). It appears that the disclosed device would perform equally well shaped as disclosed by Matsubara.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOE E MILLS JR. whose telephone number is (571)272-8449. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at (571) 270-5569. 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.
/JOE E MILLS JR./Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761