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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed on January 29, 2024 and February 18, 2026 have been considered.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: [0004] lines 6 and 8, [0036] lines 7 and 8, [0041] lines 6 and 7: “a layer having a low index of reflection” should read “a layer having a low index of refraction”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-19 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 claims 1 and 15, claims 1 and 15 recite “… a layer having a low index of reflection…” in lines 8-10 and lines 6-8, respectively. Index of reflection is not a common term in the art and is inconsistent with other verbiage in the claims referring to layer with low indices of refraction (claims 1, 3, 5, and 15-17) nor is it defined in the claims, which renders the claims indefinite. For the purposes of compact prosecution, Examiner will interpret “a layer having a low index of reflection” as “a layer having a low index of refraction.
Claims 2-14 and 16-19 inherit indefiniteness from their dependency on claims 1 and 15.
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 1-9 and 11-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sheehan et al. (International Publication No. WO 2021/096840 – cited by Applicant – hereinafter referred to as “Sheehan”) in view of Barrau et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0274221).
Regarding claim 1, Sheehan teaches a wearable device ([0049], wearable devices including glasses, goggles, and other eyewear), comprising:
one or more windows positioned to allow light from a light source to propagate toward a position of a wearer's eyes ([0049], [0051] lenses and light-transmitting materials function to allow light from a light source to be transmitted to the retina); and
a spectral filter (Figure 1 thin film stack, [0091]) that comprises a coating positioned on one or more sections of the one or more windows ([0050] optical filter on lens),
wherein the spectral filter includes a multi-layer stack of dielectric material ([0091 stack of alternating layers of SiO2 and TiO2, which are dielectric materials) with alternate high and low indices of refraction ([0064] alternating layers of a material having a high index of refraction and a material having a low index of refraction) such that a layer having a high index of refraction is positioned above or below a layer having a low index of refraction , and a layer having a high index of refraction is positioned above or below a layer having a low index of refraction ([0064] layers having high and low indices of refraction alternate),
wherein a number of the layers and a thickness of each layer are selected to provide designed transmission and blocking characteristics ([0061] transmit light with a wavelength above about 505 nm and block light with a wavelength below about 495 nm) to allow circadian-active spectra to pass through the spectral filter while blocking spectral content other than the circadian-active spectra ([0049]-[0050] optical filter designed to block light that interferes with circadian rhythm and allow other wavelengths through to be able to perform tasks),
wherein the designed transmission and blocking characteristics include a contiguous transmission region in 500-560 nm band of wavelengths with a tolerance to within at least ± 5 nm ([0061] substantially transmits all light with a wavelength above about 505 nm), and, a first one of the contiguous blocking regions extending below 500 nm ([0061] substantially blocks all light with a wavelength below 495 nm), and
wherein the spectral filter is configured to block 80-100% of the spectral content in each of the contiguous blocking regions ([0061] substantially blocks all light with a wavelength below 495 nm), and transmit 98%-100% of the spectral content in the contiguous transmission region ([0061] substantially transmits all light with a wavelength above about 505 nm).
Sheehan fails to teach a second one of the contiguous blocking regions extending above 560 nm. However, Barrau teaches an optical filter (Figures 1A-C, [0014]) with a second contiguous blocking region extending above 560 nm ([0014]-[0015] transmission range of 460 nm to 560 nm and allows transmission rate of 3% to 43% outside of selected range). Barrau further teaches blocking wavelengths above 560 nm to preserve the beneficial effects of blue-green light while improving solar protection ([0082]-[0084] and [0096]). Furthermore, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). In this instance Barrau teaches optimizing the transmission and blocking wavelength regions in order to preserve the beneficial effects of blue-green light while improving solar protection ([0082]-[0084] and [0096]). Therefore, 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 filter taught by Sheehan by including the second blocking region taught by Barrau in order to preserve the beneficial effects of blue-green light while improving solar protection (Barrau [0082]-[0084] and [0096]).
Regarding claim 2, Sheehan and Barrau teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Sheehan further teaches the first contiguous blocking region extends from 500 nm to at least 300 nm with a ± 5 nm tolerance ([0061] substantially blocks all light with a wavelength below 495 nm). Sheehan fails to teach the second contiguous blocking region extends from 560 nm to at least 700 nm, with a ± 5 nm tolerance. However, Barrau teaches the second contiguous blocking region extends from 560 nm to at least 700 nm, with a ± 5 nm tolerance ([0014]-[0015] transmission range of 460 nm to 560 nm and allows transmission rate of 3% to 43% outside of selected range). Barrau further teaches blocking wavelengths above 560 nm to preserve the beneficial effects of blue-green light while improving solar protection ([0082]-[0084] and [0096]). Therefore, 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 filter taught by Sheehan by including the second blocking region taught by Barrau in order to preserve the beneficial effects of blue-green light while improving solar protection (Barrau [0082]-[0084] and [0096]).
Regarding claim 3, Sheehan and Barrau teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 2. Sheehan further teaches wherein each layer with the high index of refraction includes titanium dioxide (TiO2) and each layer with the low index of refraction includes silicon dioxide (SiO2) (Figure 1 alternating layers of TiO2 and SiO2, [0009]) and the multi-layer stack includes at least 30 layers ([0011]). Sheehan and Barrau fail to explicitly teach titanium dioxide (TiO2) has a 2.35 index of refraction, silicon dioxide (SiO2) has a 1.45 index of refraction, and the multi-layer stack includes 50 layers. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have TiO2 have a 2.35 index of refraction, SiO2 have a 1.45 index of refraction, and the multi-layer stack includes 50 layers, base on routine experimentation, for when the general conditions of a claim are disclosed by the prior art it is obvious to discover an optimum or workable range by routine experimentation such as providing for the well-being of the user (Sheehan [0004], Barrau [0082]-[0084] and [0096]; It is noted TiO2 has a refractive index from 2.2 to 3.2 and SiO2 has a refractive index from 1.4 to 1.55).
Regarding claim 4, Sheehan and Barrau teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Sheehan further teaches the first contiguous blocking region extends from 500 nm to 300 nm or below 300 nm ([0061] substantially blocks all light with a wavelength below 495 nm). Sheehan fails to teach the second contiguous blocking region extends from 560 nm to at least 725 nm, all with a ± 2 nm tolerance. However, Barrau teaches the second contiguous blocking region extends from 560 nm to at least 700 nm, ([0014]-[0015] transmission range of 460 nm to 560 nm and allows transmission rate of 3% to 43% outside of selected range). Barrau further teaches blocking wavelengths above 560 nm to preserve the beneficial effects of blue-green light while improving solar protection ([0082]-[0084] and [0096]). Furthermore, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). In this instance Barrau teaches optimizing the transmission and blocking wavelength regions in order to preserve the beneficial effects of blue-green light while improving solar protection ([0082]-[0084] and [0096]). Therefore, 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 filter taught by Sheehan by including the second blocking region taught by Barrau and have a tolerance ± 2 nm in order to preserve the beneficial effects of blue-green light while improving solar protection (Barrau [0082]-[0084] and [0096]) and doing so would be a matter of routine optimization.
Regarding claim 5, Sheehan and Barrau teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 4. Sheehan further teaches wherein each layer with the high index of refraction includes titanium dioxide (TiO2) and each layer with the low index of refraction includes silicon dioxide (SiO2) (Figure 1 alternating layers of TiO2 and SiO2, [0009]) and the multi-layer stack includes at least 30 layers ([0011]). Sheehan and Barrau fail to explicitly teach titanium dioxide (TiO2) has a 2.35 index of refraction, silicon dioxide (SiO2) has a 1.45 index of refraction, and the multi-layer stack includes 50 layers. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have TiO2 have a 2.35 index of refraction, SiO2 have a 1.45 index of refraction, and the multi-layer stack includes 75 layers, based on routine experimentation, for when the general conditions of a claim are disclosed by the prior art it is obvious to discover an optimum or workable range by routine experimentation such as providing for the well-being of the user (Sheehan [0004], Barrau [0082]-[0084] and [0096]; It is noted TiO2 has a refractive index from 2.2 to 3.2 and SiO2 has a refractive index from 1.4 to 1.55).
Regarding claim 6, Sheehan and Barrau teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Sheehan further teaches the one or more windows include two lenses ([0105] lens may include two discrete lenses), and the spectral filter is formed as the coating on each of the lenses ([0050] optical filter on lens).
Regarding claim 7, Sheehan and Barrau teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Sheehan further teaches the wearable device is a pair of goggles ([0049], wearable devices including goggles), the one or more windows form a unitary window ([0105] lens may be a single integral lens), and the spectral filter is formed as the coating on the unitary window ([0050] optical filter on lens).
Regarding claim 8, Sheehan and Barrau teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Sheehan further teaches the wearable device is a pair of goggles ([0049], wearable devices including goggles), the one or more windows form a unitary window ([0105] lens may be a single integral lens), and the spectral filter is formed as the coating on the two or more sections of the unitary window ([0050] optical filter on lens, Figure 12 single integral lens has two or more sections).
Regarding claim 9, Sheehan and Barrau teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Sheehan further teaches the one or more windows are made of glass or plastic ([0088] suitable substrate materials includes various plastics and glass).
Regarding claim 11, Sheehan and Barrau teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Sheehan further teaches the light source is one or more of: an atmospheric light source, a light emitting diode (LED) (Abstract light emitting diode), a halogen lamp, or a fluorescent lamp.
Regarding claim 12, Sheehan and Barrau teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Sheehan further teaches an anti-reflection coating positioned on one side of the one or more windows ([0116] antireflection coating can be added to further tune the properties of the coating).
Regarding claim 13, Sheehan and Barrau teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Sheehan further teaches the wearable device is a pair of goggles ([0049], wearable devices including goggles), the one or more windows form a unitary window ([0105] lens may be a single integral lens), the spectral filter is formed as the coating on the two or more sections of the unitary window ([0050] optical filter on lens, Figure 12 single integral lens has two or more sections), and locations and areal extents of the two or more sections of the unitary window are selected to allow light propagating at normal angles to pass through the spectral filter and reach the position of the wearer's eyes (Figure 12 centers of left and right sides of single lens covering the left and right eyes allow light to pass through at normal angles).
Regarding claim 14, Sheehan and Barrau teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 13. Sheehan further teaches the locations and areal extents of the two or more sections of the unitary window are selected to allow light propagating at inclined angles to pass through the spectral filter and reach the position of the wearer's eyes (Figure 12 periphery of left and right sides of single lens covering the left and right eyes allow light to pass through at inclined angles).
Regarding claim 15, Sheehan teaches a spectral filter (Figure 1 thin film stack, [0091]) for use in an eyewear for restoring circadian rhythm ([0049]-[0050] optical filter designed to block light that interferes with circadian rhythm and allow other wavelengths through to be able to perform tasks), comprising:
a multi-layer stack coating on a substrate ([0091] stack of alternating layers of SiO2 and TiO2, [0050] optical filter on lens), the multi-layer stack of dielectric material ([0091] stack of alternating layers of SiO2 and TiO2, which are dielectric materials) with alternate high and low indices of refraction ([0064] alternating layers of a material having a high index of refraction and a material having a low index of refraction) such that a layer having a high index of refraction is positioned above or below a layer having a low index of refraction , and a layer having a high index of refraction is positioned above or below a layer having a low index of refraction ([0064] layers having high and low indices of refraction alternate),
wherein a number of the layers and a thickness of each layer are selected to provide designed transmission and blocking characteristics ([0061] transmit light with a wavelength above about 505 nm and block light with a wavelength below about 495 nm) to allow circadian-active spectra to pass through the spectral filter while blocking spectral content other than the circadian-active spectra ([0049]-[0050] optical filter designed to block light that interferes with circadian rhythm and allow other wavelengths through to be able to perform tasks),
wherein the designed transmission and blocking characteristics include a contiguous transmission region in 500-560 nm band of wavelengths with a tolerance to within at least ± 5 nm ([0061] substantially transmits all light with a wavelength above about 505 nm), and, a first one of the contiguous blocking regions extending below 500 nm ([0061] substantially blocks all light with a wavelength below 495 nm), and
wherein the spectral filter is configured to block 80-100% of the spectral content in each of the contiguous blocking regions ([0061] substantially blocks all light with a wavelength below 495 nm), and transmit 98%-100% of the spectral content in the contiguous transmission region ([0061] substantially transmits all light with a wavelength above about 505 nm).
Sheehan fails to teach a second one of the contiguous blocking regions extending above 560 nm. However, Barrau teaches an optical filter (Figures 1A-C, [0014]) with a second contiguous blocking region extending above 560 nm ([0014]-[0015] transmission range of 460 nm to 560 nm and allows transmission rate of 3% to 43% outside of selected range). Barrau further teaches blocking wavelengths above 560 nm to preserve the beneficial effects of blue-green light while improving solar protection ([0082]-[0084] and [0096]). Furthermore, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). In this instance Barrau teaches optimizing the transmission and blocking wavelength regions in order to preserve the beneficial effects of blue-green light while improving solar protection ([0082]-[0084] and [0096]). Therefore, 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 filter taught by Sheehan by including the second blocking region taught by Barrau in order to preserve the beneficial effects of blue-green light while improving solar protection (Barrau [0082]-[0084] and [0096]).
Regarding claim 16, Sheehan and Barrau teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 15. Sheehan further teaches the first contiguous blocking region extends from 500 nm to at least 300 nm with a ± 5 nm tolerance ([0061] substantially blocks all light with a wavelength below 495 nm) and wherein each layer with the high index of refraction includes titanium dioxide (TiO2) and each layer with the low index of refraction includes silicon dioxide (SiO2) (Figure 1 alternating layers of TiO2 and SiO2, [0009]) and the multi-layer stack includes at least 30 layers ([0011]). Sheehan fails to teach the second contiguous blocking region extends from 560 nm to at least 700 nm, with a ± 5 nm tolerance. However, Barrau teaches the second contiguous blocking region extends from 560 nm to at least 700 nm, with a ± 5 nm tolerance ([0014]-[0015] transmission range of 460 nm to 560 nm and allows transmission rate of 3% to 43% outside of selected range). Barrau further teaches blocking wavelengths above 560 nm to preserve the beneficial effects of blue-green light while improving solar protection ([0082]-[0084] and [0096]). Therefore, 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 filter taught by Sheehan by including the second blocking region taught by Barrau in order to preserve the beneficial effects of blue-green light while improving solar protection (Barrau [0082]-[0084] and [0096]).
Sheehan and Barrau fail to explicitly teach titanium dioxide (TiO2) has a 2.35 index of refraction, silicon dioxide (SiO2) has a 1.45 index of refraction, and the multi-layer stack includes 50 layers. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have TiO2 have a 2.35 index of refraction, SiO2 have a 1.45 index of refraction, and the multi-layer stack includes 50 layers, based on routine experimentation, for when the general conditions of a claim are disclosed by the prior art it is obvious to discover an optimum or workable range by routine experimentation such as providing for the well-being of the user (Sheehan [0004], Barrau [0082]-[0084] and [0096]; It is noted TiO2 has a refractive index from 2.2 to 3.2 and SiO2 has a refractive index from 1.4 to 1.55).
Regarding claim 17, Sheehan and Barrau teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 15. Sheehan further teaches the first contiguous blocking region extends from 500 nm to 300 nm or below 300 nm ([0061] substantially blocks all light with a wavelength below 495 nm) and wherein each layer with the high index of refraction includes titanium dioxide (TiO2) and each layer with the low index of refraction includes silicon dioxide (SiO2) (Figure 1 alternating layers of TiO2 and SiO2, [0009]) and the multi-layer stack includes at least 30 layers ([0011]). Sheehan fails to teach the second contiguous blocking region extends from 560 nm to at least 725 nm, all with a ± 2 nm tolerance. However, Barrau teaches the second contiguous blocking region extends from 560 nm to at least 700 nm, ([0014]-[0015] transmission range of 460 nm to 560 nm and allows transmission rate of 3% to 43% outside of selected range). Barrau further teaches blocking wavelengths above 560 nm to preserve the beneficial effects of blue-green light while improving solar protection ([0082]-[0084] and [0096]). Furthermore, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). In this instance Barrau teaches optimizing the transmission and blocking wavelength regions in order to preserve the beneficial effects of blue-green light while improving solar protection ([0082]-[0084] and [0096]). Therefore, 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 filter taught by Sheehan by including the second blocking region taught by Barrau and have a tolerance ± 2 nm in order to preserve the beneficial effects of blue-green light while improving solar protection (Barrau [0082]-[0084] and [0096]) and doing so would be a matter of routine optimization.
Sheehan and Barrau fail to explicitly teach titanium dioxide (TiO2) has a 2.35 index of refraction, silicon dioxide (SiO2) has a 1.45 index of refraction, and the multi-layer stack includes 50 layers. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have TiO2 have a 2.35 index of refraction, SiO2 have a 1.45 index of refraction, and the multi-layer stack includes 75 layers, based on routine experimentation, for when the general conditions of a claim are disclosed by the prior art it is obvious to discover an optimum or workable range by routine experimentation such as providing for the well-being of the user (Sheehan [0004], Barrau [0082]-[0084] and [0096]; It is noted TiO2 has a refractive index from 2.2 to 3.2 and SiO2 has a refractive index from 1.4 to 1.55).
Regarding claim 18, Sheehan and Barrau teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 15. Sheehan further teaches the light source is one or more of: an atmospheric light source, a light emitting diode (LED) (Abstract light emitting diode), a halogen lamp, or a fluorescent lamp.
Regarding claim 19, Sheehan and Barrau teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 15. Sheehan further teaches the spectral filter does not include a dye-based or a pigment-based material (Figure 1 alternating layers of TiO2 and SiO2, [0009]) and the multi-layer stack includes at least 30 layers ([0011]).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sheehan (International Publication No. WO 2021/096840) in view of Barrau (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0274221) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hallock et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20170363884 – cited by Applicant – hereinafter referred to as “Hallock”).
Regarding claim 10, Sheehan and Barrau teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Sheehan and Barrau fail to teach the spectral filter is removably attached to the one or more windows. However, Hallock teaches a filter lens (Figure 1, [0070]) wherein a spectral filter is removably attached to the one or more windows ([0070] filter lens 1 may be removably attached to pane 102 via pressure sensitive adhesive, clips, or clamps). Hallock further teaches using a removable filter so that the filter can be removed and recycled/disposed of when desired ([0070]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the spectral filter taught by Sheehan and Barrau be removably attached to the one or more windows as taught by Hallock in order to allow the filter to be removed and recycled/disposed of when desired (Hallock [0070]).
Conclusion
Ogo et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0264341) describes a chromium containing multilayer film with a transmission range from 500 to 550 nm. Schmeder et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0233105) describes optical filters with dielectric multi-films comprising 12-200 layers.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEX PARK RICKEL whose telephone number is (703)756-4561. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 a.m. - 6 p.m. ET.
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, Bumsuk Won can be reached at (571)272-2713. 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.
Alex Rickel
Examiner
Art Unit 2872
/A.P.R./Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/BUMSUK WON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872