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 self-locking cotter pin" (of claim 12) 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.
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
claim 2, line 2 recites "are bars" (instead of "is a bar" which agrees with "each");
claim 3, line 1 recites "have" (instead of "has" which agrees with "each");
claim 4, line 1 recites "have" (instead of "has" which agrees with "each");
claim 6 ends with a comma (see MPEP § 608.01(m), which states: "Each claim begins with a capital letter and ends with a period.");
claim 9, line 5 recites "one said indented portion" (instead of "one indented portion of the plurality of indented portions" or "one indented portion of the indented portions");
claim 10, line 1 recites "are" (instead of "is" which agrees with "the pair");
claim 11, line 1 recites "are" (instead of "is" which agrees with "each");
claim 11, line 2 recites "one said end plate" (instead of "a respective end plate of the end plates");
claim 12, line 1 recites "are" (instead of "is" which agrees with "each");
claim 12, line 2 recites "one said end plate" (instead of "a respective end plate of the end plates");
claim 13, line 1 recites "are" (instead of "is" which agrees with "each");
claim 13, line 2 recites "one said end plate" (instead of "a respective end plate of the end plates");
claim 14, line 2 recites "are" (instead of "is" which agrees with "the plurality");
claim 15, line 2 recites "one said end plate" (instead of "a respective end plate of the end plates"); and
claim 15, lines 2-3 recite "the at least one support plate" (instead of "the at least one ring-shaped support plate" as referred to in claim 14).
Appropriate correction as outlined above (or similar to that outlined above) or explanation is required. Consistent terminology should be used. Since the claims are replete with grammatical errors, Applicant's cooperation is respectfully requested in carefully reviewing the disclosure and correcting any further errors of which Applicant may become aware.
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.
Claim 12 is 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.
Claim 12 recites "a self-locking cotter pin." This recitation includes functional language (i.e., "self-locking"). The specification sets forth: "The types of fasteners 318 can include, but are not limited to, threaded bolts and corresponding nuts, threaded bolts that can be screwed into a threaded hole, or a cotter pin, to name a few. The fasteners 318 can include one or more washer. A cotter pin type fastener may be a self-locking cotter pin." (See Specification, labeled para. 0024.) However, this fails to sufficiently identify how the function of "self-locking" is performed. Disclosure of function alone is little more than a wish for possession, and it does not satisfy the written description requirement. Therefore, claim 12 fails the written description requirement and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
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 1-15 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.
The claims are replete with indefinite language. The structure which goes to make up the device must be clearly and positively specified. The structure must be organized and correlated in such a manner as to present a complete operative device. Again, Applicant's cooperation is respectfully requested in carefully reviewing the claim language and correcting any further errors of which Applicant may become aware.
Claim 1 recites "a pair of circular-shaped end plates" in line 5. The metes and bounds of what constitutes "circular-shaped" cannot be determined, especially in light of the specification. The figures do not show end plates as circles, but rather show end plates 302 ("which are circular in shape" as described in labeled para. 0019) as 12-sided polygons (i.e., dodecagons) with indented portions. As such, it is unclear what shapes would or would not constitute that which is "circular-shaped." Particularly regarding polygons, it is unclear how many sides a polygon requires to be "circular-shaped." (E.g., if a dodecagon is circular-shaped, is a decagon? Is an octagon? Is a pentagon? Is a square or triangle?) Therefore, claim 1 is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) such that clarification and correction (and/or definition of "circular-shaped") are required. (Although Applicant is cautioned that introducing a definition must be supported by the original disclosure so as not to introduce new matter.) Additionally, claims 2-15 are rejected because of their dependency on claim 1. The term "circular-shaped" is being further examined to mean "a closed shape that contains a circle within its interior and whose end points lie on a circle, wherein any polygon that meets this definition must include at least five sides."
Claim 1 recites "a respective rolling cage," in line 5. However, claim 1 previously recites "at least one rolling cage" in line 2. It is unclear if these are the same rolling cage or if another rolling cage is being introduced. Thus, the metes and bounds of the limitations in claim 1 cannot be determined. Therefore, claim 1 is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Claim 1 is being further examined as though "a respective rolling cage," reads "the at least one rolling cage," in line 5.
Claim 5 recites "a structural member" in line 2. However, claim 1 (from which claim 5 depends) previously sets forth "a plurality of structural members" in line 7. It is unclear if "a structural member" in claim 5 is of the plurality of structural members or if another structural member is being introduced. Thus, the metes and bounds of the limitations in claim 5 cannot be determined. Therefore, claim 5 is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the one said end plate" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the at least one support plate" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 is being further examined as though it reads: "The towable rear tool attachment of claim 1, wherein the removable section is a portion of a structural member of the plurality of structural members that is removably bolted to at least one support plate and a respective end plate of the end plates."
Claim 6 recites the limitation "each tubular member" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites "one end plate" in lines 2-3 and "another end plate" in line 4. However, claim 1 (from which claim 6 depends) previously sets forth "a pair of circular-shaped end plates" in line 5. It is unclear if "one end plate" and "another end plate" in claim 6 are of the end plates in claim 1 or if additional end plates are being introduced. Thus, the metes and bounds of the end plates in claim 6 cannot be determined. Therefore, claim 6 is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the other end" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 is being further examined as though it reads: "The towable rear tool attachment of claim 1, wherein the plurality of structural members is arranged in a twisted pattern such that a first end of each structural member attached to a first respective end plate of the end plates is in a position rotated a predetermined angle from a second end that is attached to a second respective end plate of the end plates."
Claim 8 recites "a bolt-in bar having a pair of mounting plates welded to each end of a bar." It is unclear if "a bar" is of "a bolt-in bar" or if these parts are separate. Further, "a bar" is not defined as part of the claimed device. Thus, the metes and bounds of the limitations of the claimed towable rear tool attachment in claim 8 cannot be determined. Therefore, claim 8 is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Claim 8 is being further examined as though it reads: "The towable rear tool attachment of claim 1, wherein the removable section is a bolt-in bar having a bar and a pair of mounting plates welded to each end of the bar."
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the circumference of a respective said end plate" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 9 is being further examined as though "the circumference of a respective said end plate" reads "the circumference of the end plates" in lines 3-4.
Claim 10 recites "the pair of mounting plates [is] mounted to face inward toward a center rotation axis of the rolling cage..." in lines 1-2. It is unclear how this recitation is to be read in light of that shown by the specification. Fig. 3B shows support plates 314 and 316, wherein the major surfaces of 314 and 316 face inward toward a center of the rolling cage but face perpendicular to a center rotation axis of the rolling cage (i.e., the horizontal, longitudinal center axis of the rolling cage). Although this recitation can be read to be met by 314 and 316 having minor end surfaces that face inward toward the center rotation axis of the rolling cage, such a broad reading essentially renders the recitation non-limiting because any three-dimensional object (i.e., any mounting plate) has some sort of surface that faces toward any given axis. Further, such a broad reading goes beyond the plain meaning of the recitation. As such, the metes and bounds of claim 10 cannot be determined without language clarifying which surface(s) or portion(s) face inward as claimed. Therefore, claim 10 is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) such that clarification and correction are required. Claim 10 is being further examined as presented giving it the broad reading noted above.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the circumference of one said end plate" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 10 is being further examined as though it concludes "the circumference of the end plates."
Claim 12 recites "a self-locking cotter pin." This recitation includes functional language (i.e., "self-locking"). It is unclear how a cotter pin is "self-locking" and what structure is encompassed by this functional language. Thus, the metes and bounds of "a self-locking cotter pin" cannot be determined. Therefore, claim 12 is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Claim 12 is being further examined as though it concludes "a cotter pin."
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the mounting plates" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 13 is being further examined as though it depends from claim 8.
Claim 15 recites "wherein at least one of the structural members having a removable section..." in lines 1-2. However, claim 1 (from which claim 15 depends) previously sets forth "at least one of the structural members having a removable section" in line 9. It is unclear if "a removable section" in claim 15 is that of claim 1 or if another removable section is being introduced. Thus, the metes and bounds of the removable section in claim 15 cannot be determined. Therefore, claim 15 is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Claim 15 is being further examined as though it reads: "The towable rear tool attachment of claim 14, wherein the removable section is between a first respective end plate of the end plates and the at least one ring-shaped support plate."
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, 2, 4, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rice (US 219,524).
Regarding claim 1, Rice discloses a towable rear tool attachment configured for soil clod sizing and firming (via D, C, and/or G), comprising:
at least one rolling cage (including C and D) that rotates when being towed and is in contact with a soil surface,
wherein the at least one rolling cage includes
a pair of circular-shaped end plates (including C) located at each end of the at least one rolling cage, and
a plurality of structural members (including D) arranged spaced apart around a circumference of the end plates, forming a cage-like structure,
at least one of the structural members having a removable section (of D) between the end plates (D being removable via d').
Regarding claim 2, Rice discloses each of the plurality of structural members (including D) being a bar (being a relatively long, rigid piece of solid material).
Regarding claim 4, Rice discloses each of the bars (including D) having a rectangular cross-section (cross-sections of D in Fig. 2 and profiles of D in Fig. 3 shaped like rectangles, and profiles of D in Figs. 1 and 4 have a cross-section that is a rectangle).
Regarding claim 9, Rice discloses the removable section (of D) including a bar (of D), wherein the end plates (including C) have a plurality of indented portions (slots) spaced around the circumference of a respective said end plate into which the structural members are positioned (see p. 1, col. 1: "... disks or wheels C, the rims of which are slotted radially to receive the knives D."), and
wherein the bar (of D) is positioned in one indented portion of the plurality of indented portions (see Figs. 2 and 4).
Claims 1-6, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Casper et al. (US 2013/0062084)
Regarding claim 1, Casper discloses a towable rear tool attachment (see Fig. 1) configured for soil clod sizing and firming, comprising:
at least one rolling cage (including 190) that rotates (about an axis through 220) when being towed and is in contact with a soil surface,
wherein the at least one rolling cage includes
a pair of circular-shaped end plates (including 205) located at each end of the at least one rolling cage (see Fig. 8), and
a plurality of structural members (including 180) arranged spaced apart around a circumference of the end plates, forming a cage-like structure,
at least one of the structural members having a removable section (including or of 180) between the end plates (180 being removable between the end plates via unfastening 210 and uncoupling 186).
Regarding claim 2, Casper discloses each of the plurality of structural members (including 180) being a bar (being a relatively long, rigid piece of solid material).
Regarding claim 3, Casper discloses each of the bars (including 180) having a circular cross-section (180 having the form of 184 in Figs. 7-9 and 11).
Regarding claim 4, Casper discloses each of the bars (including 180) having a rectangular cross-section (180 having the form of 182 in Fig. 10).
Regarding claim 5, Casper discloses the removable section (being of 180) being a portion of a structural member of the plurality of structural members that is removably bolted (via 210 and 220) to at least one support plate (including 230) and a respective end plate of the end plates (including 205).
Regarding claim 6, Casper discloses the plurality of structural members (including 180) being arranged in a twisted pattern (see Fig. 8) such that a first end of each structural member attached to a first respective end plate of the end plates (including 205) is in a position rotated a predetermined angle from a second end that is attached to a second respective end plate of the end plates (as shown in Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 14, Casper discloses the plurality of structural members (including 180) being arranged around a circumference of at least one ring-shaped support plate (240), wherein the at least one ring-shaped support plate (240) is arranged in parallel with and between the end plates (see Figs. 7, 8, and 11).
Regarding claim 15, Casper discloses the removable section (including or of 180) being between a first respective end plate of the end plates (including 205) and the at least one ring-shaped support plate (240; see Figs. 7 and 8, wherein 180 extends between 205 and 204).
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.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rice in view of Howard (US 2,811,912).
Regarding claim 8, Rice discloses the towable rear tool attachment with respect to claim 1, as set forth above. Rice also discloses the removable section (of D) being a bolt-in bar having a bar (one of D) and a pair of mounting plates (of d') attached to each end of the bar. Rice does not explicitly disclose the mounting plates being welded to the bar. However, Howard teaches a bolt-in bar having a bar (including 22a and/or 23a) and at least one mounting plate (40) welded to the bar (see col. 4, lines 8-25).
Howard is analogous because Howard discloses a rolling cage including ground-engaging structural members having bolt-in bar. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the attachment of Rice with the welded attachment means as taught by Howard in order to conveniently form parts separately. (See Howard, col. 4, lines 8-25.)
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rice in view of Howard as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Sharp (US 1,247,018).
Regarding claim 12, neither Rice nor Howard explicitly discloses cotter pins. However, Sharp teaches a towable rear tool attachment comprising a rolling cage (including 33) wherein mounts (including 34) are attached to respective end plates (including 30) by cotter pins (41).
Sharp is analogous because Sharp discloses a towable rear tool attachment comprising a rolling cage. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the above combination with cotter pin mounting means as taught by Sharp in order to hold the mounting plates in locked position. (See Sharp, p. 1, lines 101-103.)
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Casper in view of Luttrell (US 1,128,337).
Regarding claim 7, Casper discloses the towable rear tool attachment with respect to claim 6, as set forth above. Casper does not explicitly disclose the predetermined angle being substantially five degrees of rotation. Luttrell teaches a plurality of structural members (11) arranged in a twisted pattern (see Fig. 3) such that a first end of each structural member attached to a first end plate (including 7) is in a position rotated a predetermined angle from a second end that is attached to a second end plate (including 7). Luttrell shows the predetermined angle being relatively small (see Fig. 3).
Luttrell is analogous because Luttrell discloses a rolling cage including end plates and angled structural members. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the attachment of Casper with the angular arrangement as taught by Luttrell for decreased shearing action. (See Luttrell, p. 1, lines 96-100).
Neither Casper nor Luttrell explicitly discloses a value of the predetermined angle. However, the angle at which the structural members are disposed (i.e., the predetermined angle) is a result-effective variable from which a desired outcome can be controlled. Such an outcome being shearing action that the structural members have on material (e.g., soil and/or debris) being acted upon. Luttrell shows structural members (11) being angularly arranged in Fig. 3 and states: "It will be observed that this angular arrangement may be increased or decreased, so that the shearing action may be correspondingly increased or decreased." (See p. 1, lines 96-100.) One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the shearing action of the device is desirably controlled and optimized for the material being acted upon. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrive at the claimed angle based on routine optimization in order to achieve the desired shearing action. See MPEP § 2144.05.
Claims 8, 10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Casper in view of van der Lely (US 4,344,490).
Regarding claim 8, Casper discloses the towable rear tool attachment with respect to claim 1, as set forth above. Casper also discloses the removable section (including or of 180) being a bolt-in bar having a bar (one of 180) and a pair of mounting plates (including 186) attached to each end of the bar. Casper does not explicitly disclose the mounting plates being welded to the bar. However, van der Lely teaches a similar bar having a bar (including one of 10) and at least one mounting plate (including 9) welded to the bar (see col. 2, line 66 - col. 3, line 2).
van der Lely is analogous because van der Lely discloses a rolling cage including ground-engaging structural members having a removable bar. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the attachment of Casper with the welded attachment means as taught by van der Lely in order to rigidly secure the bar. (See van der Lely, col. 2, line 66 - col. 3, line 2.)
Regarding claim 10, Casper discloses the pair of mounting plates (including 186) being mounted to face inward (surface of 160 facing inward) toward a center rotation axis of the rolling cage and within the periphery of the circumference of the end plates (at least a portion of 155 mounted within the circumference of 205).
Regarding claim 11, Casper discloses each of the mounting plates (including 186) being mounted to a respective end plate of the end plates (including 205) by at least two threaded bolts (210) and corresponding nuts (shown on 210 in Figs. 7 and 11).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Casper in view of van der Lely as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Christie et al. (US 2021/0048064)
Regarding claim 13, Casper further discloses each of the mounting plates (including 186) being mounted to a respective end plate of the end plates (including 205) by a threaded bolt (210). Neither Casper nor van der Lely explicitly discloses said respective end plate having a threaded opening for said threaded bolt. However, Christie teaches a mounting plate (550) being mounted to an end plate (810) having a threaded opening (16 or 830), by a threaded bolt (400).
Christie is analogous because Christie discloses a rolling, ground-engaging tool comprising an end plate, and Christie addresses the problem of mounting a mounting plate to the end plate. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the above combination with the attachment means (i.e., that including a threaded opening) as taught by Christie in order to reduce parts (and thus wear between parts) and space required. Additionally, providing the above combination with the attachment means of Christie is a simple substitution of one known element (i.e., threaded hole as taught by Christie) for another (i.e., the nut for 210 of Casper in the combination) to obtain predictable results (as taught by Christie). See MPEP § 2143(I)(B).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure. EP 4578257 A1 is a European application corresponding to the instant application. Weckman (US 503,629), Schonhoff (US 609,632), and Wilder (US 1,009,122) each disclose a rolling cage including a pair of circular-shaped end plates and a plurality of structural member having a removable section as claimed in at least claim 1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Joel F. Mitchell whose telephone number is (571)272-7689. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-6:00.
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, Christopher Sebesta can be reached at (571)272-0547. 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.
/JFM/2/7/26
/CHRISTOPHER J SEBESTA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671