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 .
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.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 17 November, 2025 has been fully considered and entered. In response to the claim amendments, rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 and some rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are withdrawn. Outstanding and new rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are detailed below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-10 and 12-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: “transmitting fact” should be “transmitting facet”. 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 1-10 and 12-20 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 13: Claims 1 and 13 define a converging member, a coupling waveguide, and an output facet, then go on to define a plurality of converging members, a plurality of coupling waveguides, and a plurality of output facets. It is unclear if the first instances of these terms are included in the plurality or if they are different. Do the claims require at least 2 or at least 3 converging members, coupling waveguides, and output facets? Is the converging member part of the array of the plurality of converging members or separate from the array?
Also regarding claims 1 and 13: It is unclear what structure is required by the limitation “the intermediate waveguide parts of the at least two coupling waveguides lying in a light coupling connection with each other enabling coupling of light signals between the at least two coupling waveguides”. First, “intermediate waveguide part” is vague and does not describe any specific structure. Second, it is unclear what “lying in a light coupling connection” means. To understand this unclear limitation, Examiner looked to the specification, and found, in paragraphs 0190-0197 that this corresponds to the embodiment of Fig. 6. However, in this embodiment, as noted in paragraphs 0191-0192, the different coupling waveguides form a joint waveguide, i.e. “form one single common waveguide or waveguide part” in at least part of the glass coupler body. This appears to be inconsistent with the characterization of “intermediate waveguide parts of at least two coupling waveguides”. However, since Fig. 6 is described as having “intermediate waveguide parts… in a light coupling connection with each other” (paragraph 0195), for the purpose of examination, this limitation is being interpreted, according to the arrangement shown in Fig. 6, to include the possibility of branched waveguides joining together in any portions of the glass coupler body, wherein a joint waveguide is considered to be composed of parts of different coupling waveguides.
Regarding claim 2, 3, 8: Claims 2, 3, and 8 depend on claim 1, which defines multiple converging members. Therefore, “the converging member” lacks proper antecedent basis.
Regarding claims 4, 5, 6, 7, 8: Claims 4-8 depend on claim 1, which defines multiple coupling waveguides. Therefore, “the coupling waveguide” lacks proper antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 13: Claim 13 contains multiple instances of “the converging member” and “the coupling waveguide” which lack proper antecedent basis, since the claim defines a plurality of converging members and coupling waveguides.
Regarding claim 15 and 16: Claims 15 and 16 depend on claim 13, which defines multiple coupling waveguides. Therefore, “the coupling waveguide” lacks proper antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 19: Claim 19 depends on claim 13, which defines a converging member, an output facet, and a coupling waveguide, as well as an array of a plurality of converging members, a plurality of output facets, and a plurality of coupling waveguides. It is therefore unclear if the array of a plurality of converging members and plurality of waveguides between the converging members and output facets are additional required elements or if they are the same as any or all of those defined in claim 13.
Regarding claims 2-10, 12, and 14-20: Dependent claims 2-10, 12, and 14-20 inherently contain all of the deficiencies of the base or intervening claims from which they depend.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7-9, 12-16, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pezeshki et al. (US 2020/0411587; hereinafter Pezeshki).
Regarding claim 1: Pezeshki disclosesAn optical coupling element (Fig. 2, glass substrate) configured to be positioned between and optically couple a first optical component (Fig. 2, CMOS CPU) configured to transmit a light beam (see paragraph 0042 and Fig. 2, micro-LEDs 217 on CMOS CPU), and a second optical component (Fig. 2, memory) configured to receive light of the light beam (see paragraph 0042 and Fig. 2, photodetectors 219 on memory chip), the optical coupling element comprising a glass coupler body having a receiving side surface (Fig. 2, etched mirror above the microLEDs of the CMOS CPU) and an opposite transmitting side surface (Fig. 2, etched mirror above photodetectors of the memory chip), the glass coupler body comprising: a converging member (Fig. 6, microlens 615) configured to reduce divergence of the light of the light beam entering the glass coupler body via the receiving side surface; and a coupling waveguide (Fig. 2, SiO2 waveguides) extending within the glass coupler body between the converging member and an output facet of the transmitting side surface and being configured to transmit light of the light beam from the converging member to the output facet (the SiO2 waveguides extend within the glass coupler body between the converging member and an output facet of the transmitting side surface and are configured to transmit light of the light beam from the converging member to the output facet).
Pezeshki further teaches a plurality of coupling waveguides (Fig. 2 shows a plurality of waveguides), each of the coupling waveguides comprising an input waveguide part, an intermediate waveguide part, and an output waveguide part (the coupling waveguides inherently have these features), and further teaches that the intermediate waveguide parts of at least two coupling waveguides lie in a light coupling connection with each other enabling coupling of light signals between the at least two coupling waveguides (see optical splitter of Fig. 2). Pezeshki fails to disclose an array of a plurality of converging members and that the plurality of coupling waveguides extend between the converging members and a plurality of output facets on the transmitting side surface. However, Pezeshki does teach providing a converging member (see Fig. 6, microlens 615) to focus light from a microLED on a CPU, and that doing so can tremendously improve the beam coupling to the waveguide (see paragraph 0055). In order to improve the beam coupling to the plurality of coupling waveguides, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include an array of a plurality of converging members at the surface of the glass coupler body. Additionally, Pezeshki fails to teach that the plurality of output facets of the plurality of coupling waveguides are on a shared transmission side surface. However, in another embodiment (Fig. 3), Pezeshki shows output facets on a shared transmission side surface. In applications where it is desirable for the optical signals to be input and output from opposite facets of the glass coupler, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the Pezeshki device such that a transmission side surface opposite a receiving side surface includes a plurality of output facets, based on the teachings of Pezeshki.
Regarding claim 2: Modified Pezeshki teaches The optical coupling element as defined in claim 1 (as applied above), wherein the converging member comprises a lens (Fig. 6, the microlens is a lens).
Regarding claim 3: Modified Pezeshki teaches the optical coupling element as defined in claim 1, as applied above. Pezeshki fails to disclose that the converging member forms a local extension outward of the receiving surface, since the converging member is not shown to be integral with the receiving surface. However, it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1893). It also has been held the term “integral” is sufficiently broad to embrace constructions united by such means as fastening and welding. In re Hotte, 177 USPQ 326, 328 (CCPA 1973). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to form the converging member integrally with the glass coupler body at the receiving surface. In doing so, the converging member would form a local extension outward of the receiving surface.
Regarding claim 5: Modified Pezeshki teaches the optical coupling element as defined in claim 1, as applied above. In another embodiment (see Fig. 3), Pezeshki teaches coupling waveguides having a curved section (see Fig. 3). The curved sections of the coupling waveguides allow light to be directed along paths including turns. In order to direct light along paths including turns, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the Pezeshki device (of Fig. 2) by including a curved section in the coupling waveguides based on the teachings of Pezeshki.
Regarding claim 7: Modified Pezeshki teaches The optical coupling element as defined in claim 1 (as applied above), wherein the coupling waveguide is configured to have a straight waveguide section having a substantially constant cross-section (Fig. 2 shows this).
Regarding claim 8: Modified Pezeshki teaches The optical coupling element as defined in claim 1 (as applied above), wherein the glass coupler body has a cavity therein (see Fig. 6, the ends of the waveguides with the etched mirrors form cavities; in Fig. 2, the mirror facet furthest toward the bottom of the perspective view image, on the right side, labeled 233 and 217, corresponds to one of these cavities) dividing the coupling waveguide into a first waveguide part (either of the two waveguides that extend farther right than this etched mirror can be divided into a first waveguide part between the cavity and a converging member, corresponding to the converging member that converges light entering the respective waveguide, and a second waveguide part between the cavity and the transmitting face) between the cavity and the converging member, and a second waveguide part between the cavity and the transmitting face.
Regarding claim 9: Modified Pezeshki teaches the optical element as defined in claim 8 (as applied above), comprising an intermediate optical component positioned in the cavity (the mirror 233 is an intermediate optical component positioned in the cavity).
Regarding claim 12: Modified Pezeshki teachesThe optical coupling element as defined in claim 1 (as applied above), wherein the intermediate waveguide parts of the at least two coupling waveguides form a joint waveguide (see Fig. 2, optical splitter includes the intermediate waveguide parts of the at least two coupling waveguides forming a joint waveguide).
Regarding claim 13: Pezeshki disclosesAn optical coupling arrangement (Fig. 2) comprising: a first optical component (Fig. 2, CMOS CPU) having a transmitting facet (see paragraph 0042 and Fig. 2, micro-LEDs 217 on CMOS CPU have a transmitting facet), configured to transmit a light beam with a beam divergence corresponding to a first numerical aperture out of the transmitting facet (See Fig. 6, the light transmitted by the micro-LED has this property); an optical coupling element (Fig. 2, glass coupler) configured to be positioned between and optically couple the first optical component (Fig. 2, CMOS CPU) configured to transmit a light beam (see paragraph 0042 and Fig. 2, micro-LEDs 217 on CMOS CPU), and a second optical component (Fig. 2, memory) configured to receive light of the light beam (see paragraph 0042 and Fig. 2, photodetectors 219 on memory chip), the optical coupling element comprising a glass coupler body having a receiving side surface (Fig. 2, etched mirror above the microLEDs of the CMOS CPU) and an opposite transmitting side surface (Fig. 2, etched mirror above photodetectors of the memory chip), the glass coupler body comprising: a converging member (Fig. 6, microlens 615) configured to reduce divergence of the light of the light beam entering the glass coupler body via the receiving side surface; and a coupling waveguide (Fig. 2, SiO2 waveguides) extending within the glass coupler body between the converging member and an output facet of the transmitting side surface and being configured to transmit light of the light beam from the converging member to the output facet (the SiO2 waveguides extend within the glass coupler body between the converging member and an output facet of the transmitting side surface and are configured to transmit light of the light beam from the converging member to the output facet).
Pezeshki further teaches a plurality of coupling waveguides (Fig. 2 shows a plurality of waveguides), each of the coupling waveguides comprising an input waveguide part, an intermediate waveguide part, and an output waveguide part (the coupling waveguides inherently have these features), and further teaches that the intermediate waveguide parts of at least two coupling waveguides lie in a light coupling connection with each other enabling coupling of light signals between the at least two coupling waveguides (see optical splitter of Fig. 2). Pezeshki fails to disclose an array of a plurality of converging members and that the plurality of coupling waveguides extend between the converging members and a plurality of output facets on the transmitting side surface. However, Pezeshki does teach providing a converging member (see Fig. 6, microlens 615) to focus light from a microLED on a CPU, and that doing so can tremendously improve the beam coupling to the waveguide (see paragraph 0055). In order to improve the beam coupling to the plurality of coupling waveguides, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include an array of a plurality of converging members at the surface of the glass coupler body. Additionally, Pezeshki fails to teach that the plurality of output facets of the plurality of coupling waveguides are on a shared transmission side surface. However, in another embodiment (Fig. 3), Pezeshki shows output facets on a shared transmission side surface. In applications where it is desirable for the optical signals to be input and output from opposite facets of the glass coupler, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the Pezeshki device such that a transmission side surface opposite a receiving side surface includes a plurality of output facets, based on the teachings of Pezeshki.
Pezeshki further discloses the second optical component with a second numerical aperture (Fig. 2, memory inherently has this), having a receiving facet (the photodetector has a receiving facet configured to receive light of the light beam via the receiving facet), configured to receive light of the light beam via the receiving facet.
Pezeshki further teaches the first optical component and the second optical component are mutually misaligned by an optical misalignment (see Fig. 2), the optical coupling element being positioned between the first optical component and the second optical component with the converging member and the transmitting facet facing each other (see Fig. 6, converging member 615 and the transmitting facet, i.e. top facet of microLED 611) and mutually misaligned by a coupler misalignment (to some degree, this is inherently present) to optically couple, with a coupling efficiency, the first optical component and the second optical component by transmitting the light beam of the output facet and further to the receiving facet (see paragraph 0041-0042). Furthermore, the coupling waveguide is configured to reduce effect(s) of the optical component misalignments and the coupler misalignment (since it creates a path for the light between the optical components, it reduces the effects of the optical component misalignments; since its input facet is near to the converging member, as shown in Fig. 6, it reduces effects of coupler misalignment which would cause more loss if the input facet of the waveguide were farther away from the converging member). While the transmitting and receiving facets of the Pezeshki device are shown to be facing the same direction (see Fig. 2) since the CMOS CPU and the Memory chip are disposed on the same facet of the glass, Pezeshki states that waveguides can be formed and used to connect to ICs at different facets of the glass (see paragraph 0048). Based on this teaching, it would have been obvious to configure the glass coupler such that the first optical component and the second optical component are positioned with the transmitting facet and the receiving facet thereof facing each other and mutually misaligned by an optical misalignment.
Regarding claim 14: Modified Pezeshki teaches the optical coupling arrangement as defined in claim 13, as applied above. While Pezeshki fails to disclose that the second numerical aperture is smaller than the first numerical aperture, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to optimize the device by making the second numerical aperture to be smaller than the first numerical aperture in order to minimize loss in the device, since 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).
Regarding claim 15: Modified Pezeshki teaches the optical coupling arrangement as defined in claim 13, as applied above. While Pezeshki fails to disclose that the coupling waveguide has an input numerical aperture smaller than the first numerical aperture, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to optimize the device by making the input numerical aperture of the coupling waveguide be smaller than the first numerical aperture in order to minimize loss in the device, since 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).
Regarding claim 16: Modified Pezeshki teaches the optical coupling arrangement as defined in claim 13, as applied above. While Pezeshki fails to disclose that the coupling waveguide has an output numerical aperture smaller than or equal to the second numerical aperture, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to optimize the device by making the output numerical aperture of the coupling waveguide smaller than or equal to the second numerical aperture in order to minimize loss in the device, since 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).
Regarding claim 19: Modified Pezeshki teaches The optical coupling arrangement as defined in claim 13 (as applied above), whereinthe first optical component and the second optical component comprise arrays of pluralities of transmitting and receiving facets (the plurality of microLEDs of the CMOS CPU and the plurality of photodiodes of the memory chip comprise arrays of pluralities of transmitting and receiving facets, respectively), respectively.
Pezeshki further teaches a plurality of coupling waveguides with output facets on the transmitting side surface facing and being aligned with the receiving facets (see Fig. 2, waveguides between the CMOS chip microLEDs and the photodiodes). Pezeshki fails to disclose an array of a plurality of converging members and that the plurality of coupling waveguides extend between the converging members and a plurality of output facets on the transmitting side surface. However, Pezeshki does teach providing a converging member (see Fig. 6, microlens 615) to focus light from a microLED on a CPU, and that doing so can tremendously improve the beam coupling to the waveguide (see paragraph 0055). In order to improve the beam coupling to the plurality of coupling waveguides, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include an array of a plurality of converging members at the surface of the glass coupler body. Additionally, Pezeshki fails to teach that the plurality of output facets of the plurality of coupling waveguides are on a shared transmission side surface. However, in another embodiment (Fig. 3), Pezeshki shows output facets on a shared transmission side surface. In applications where it is desirable for the optical signals to be input and output from opposite facets of the glass coupler, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the Pezeshki device such that a transmission side surface opposite a receiving side surface includes a plurality of output facets, based on the teachings of Pezeshki.
Regarding claim 20: Modified Pezeshki teaches An optical transceiver (see paragraphs 0051-0054) comprising the optical coupling arrangement as defined in claim 13 (as applied above).
Claims 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pezeshki et al. (US 2020/0411587; hereinafter Pezeshki) in view of Brusberg (US 2018/0217326; hereinafter Brusberg).
Regarding claim 4: Modified Pezeshki teaches the optical coupling element as defined in claim 1, as applied above. Pezeshki fails to teach that the coupling waveguide is configured to narrow towards the output facet. However, Brusberg, also related to glass optical couplers including waveguides (see abstract), teaches that a glass coupler including a waveguide assembly can include tapers (see paragraph 0054). Since waveguide tapers are known means for changing the mode size of light propagating through a waveguide, 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 Pezeshki device so that the coupling waveguide is configured to narrow/taper towards the output facet in applications where it is desirable to output a beam of a smaller size than the input beam.
Regarding claim 6: Modified Pezeshki teaches the optical coupling element as defined in claim 1, as applied above. Pezeshki further teaches, in another embodiment, that the coupling waveguides can include curved sections, in order to direct light along paths including turns (see Fig. 3). In the example of Fig. 3, particularly the perspective view, the waveguides are shown to be continuously curved; therefore any or the entirety of the coupling waveguide can be considered a curved section. Pezeshki fails to teach that the coupling waveguide is configured to have a curved section narrowing toward the output facet. Brusberg, also related to glass optical couplers including waveguides (see abstract), teaches including tapers and bends in the waveguide assemblies (see paragraph 0054). Since it was taught by Pezeshki in a different embodiment, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use coupling waveguides that are curved, in order to direct the light along more complex light paths. Based on the teaching of Brusberg, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the Pezeshki device by including a taper in the waveguide such that it narrows toward the output facet, in applications where it is desirable to output a beam of a smaller size than the input beam.
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pezeshki et al. (US 2020/0411587; hereinafter Pezeshki) in view of Pietambaram et al. (US 2023/0080454; hereinafter Pietambaram).
Regarding claim 17: Modified Pezeshki teaches the optical coupling arrangement as defined in claim 13, as applied above. Pezeshki fails to teach that the first optical component comprises an active optical component, the active optical component comprising one of a semiconductor laser, an optical amplifier, or an optical modulator. However, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, Pietambaram taught that it was known to include modulators and optical amplifiers in PICs (see paragraph 0080). The inclusion of these components allows one of ordinary skill in the art to better control the light emitted from the light source. In order to better control the light signal from the microLEDs, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide active optical components comprising optical amplifiers and/or optical modulators since they were known in the art.
Regarding claim 18: Modified Pezeshki teaches the optical coupling arrangement as defined in claim 13, as applied above. Pezeshki fails to teach that at least one of the first and second optical components comprises a waveguide of a photonic integrated circuit. However, the memory IC and the CMOS CPU chip are photonic integrated circuits, and it is conventional to include waveguides in photonic integrated circuits in order to guide optical signals, as was taught by Pietambaram (See paragraph 0080). Since it was known in the art, 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 Pezeshki device by including waveguides in the memory chip and/or the CMOS CPU chip, in order to guide optical signals therein. These waveguide would be waveguides of a photonic integrated circuit.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kirsten D Endresen whose telephone number is (703)756-1533. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday.
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, Thomas Hollweg can be reached at (571)270-1739. 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.
/KIRSTEN D. ENDRESEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2874
/THOMAS A HOLLWEG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2874