DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/24/2026 has been entered.
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 .
Response to Amendment
In light of the amendments, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
In light of the amendments, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Notice to Applicant
In the amendment dated 02/24/2026, the following has occurred: claims 1 and 6 have been amended; claims 2-5 and 7-10 have been canceled; and no new claims have been added.
Claims 1 and 6 are pending.
Effective Filing Date: 03/29/2023
Response to Arguments
35 U.S.C. 101 Rejections:
Applicant argues that the claims that the “randomly scaling” limitation is computer specific, and thus, an additional element which integrates with the abstract idea into a practical application. Examiner however respectfully disagrees as the purpose and necessity to randomly scale images is not something that is limiting to a computing environment. The purpose of this scaling, as described by Applicant, is to expand a training dataset as BMD value data is hard to obtain. Generating more data in order to create/train a model is not unique to a computing environment, nor is it limiting.
Applicant further states that claim 1 solves a specific technical problem and provides an enhancement to the operation of the machine learning model. Examiner however respectfully disagrees as increase the amount of data taken in by a machine learning model is not a technical improvement to a machine learning model. The model is operating in its normal capacity but the improvement is to the data which is being fed to it. MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) states that a practical application may be present where the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer. See also MPEP 2106.05(a)(I). The Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp. decision is directed to an ineligibility analysis rather than an eligibility test. Recentive held that non-specifically claimed training of an [AI/ML] algorithm is insufficient to provide a practical application or significantly more because it does not result in “improving the mathematical algorithm or making machine learning better.” Recentive at 12. The decision further instructed that “[i]terative training using selected training material…are incident to the very nature of machine learning” and thus does not provide for an improvement. Recentive at 12. Here, the Applicant has generically claimed the training of the [type of AI/ML]. There is no disclosure in the as-filed Specification or in the claims that states how the training occurs (i.e., the mathematical algorithm) and thus the Examiner must assume that the training is performed in its normal manner (otherwise a Written Description issue in view of 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) may be present). Applicant’s claim merely describes the data used to train the [AI/ML]. There is no improvement to the mathematical training algorithm because no description as to how the algorithm is trained is claimed or described in the claims and/or Specification.
Further, the Specification at paragraphs [0039], [0042], [0059] and [0060] describes the particular type of [ML/AI] as [SCN and traditional regression algorithms], which are known algorithms. Applicant did not invent these [AI/ML] algorithms. Applicant’s claims are not directed towards “making machine learning better” because the claims are utilizing admittedly known/generic [AI/ML] algorithms and the claims do not delineate steps through which the machine learning technology achieves any alleged improvement. Again, merely training known [AI/ML] algorithms with selected training data is not an improvement to how the [AI/ML] algorithms operate. Applicant has not identified nor can the Examiner locate any improvement to the [AI/ML] algorithm. The Recentive decision fully supports the Office’s position.
Lastly, Applicant cites CardioNet, McRO, and Thales and states that the present claims are similar. Examiner however respectfully disagrees. With respect to CardioNet, the claims do not provide an improved device. With respect to McRO, the McRO claims allowed a computer to perform 3-D lip-syncing animation using a new morph weight algorithm that allowed the computer to perform animation tasks that only a human could previously perform. The current claims do not provide an improvement to the computer in a similar manner. Lastly, with respect to Thales, the location of the additional elements in the present claims is not non-routine and non-conventional.
35 U.S.C. 103 Rejections:
Applicant argues that the 1st segment of lumbar vertebrae and the 12th thoracic vertebra limitation is not taught using the previously-cited Jiang reference. Examiner however respectfully disagrees. Applicant appears to point out that the present invention is only being trained on the 1st segment of lumbar vertebrae and the 12th thoracic vertebra data, while the Jiang reference teaches even more segments of spine data being used. The present claims however do not prevent any more data from being used during these steps such as in the training step. Therefore, the Jiang reference meets these previous claim limitations as they use at least the 1st segment of lumbar vertebrae and the 12th thoracic vertebra.
Additionally, Applicant argues that the SCN limitations are not taught using the previous references. Examiner now relies on another reference to address these limitations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 1 is drawn to methods and claim 6 is drawn to system, each of which is within the four statutory categories. Claims 1 and 6 are further directed to an abstract idea on the grounds set out in detail below. As discussed below, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional computer elements, which are recited at a high level of generality, provide conventional computer functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A:
Prong One:
Claim 1 recites a bone mineral density (BMD) model training method executed by a) a processing unit, comprising:
1) a training data retrieval step, obtaining a plurality of sets of chest X-ray images and BMD values of the same person and randomly scaling the chest X-ray to generate processed chest X-ray images, wherein the processed chest X-ray images and the BMD values are taken as training data;
2) a first positioning step, locating and retrieving first X-ray images of a 1st segment of lumbar vertebrae and a 12th thoracic vertebra from the chest X-ray images using b) a Self-Cure-Network (SCN); and
3) a training step, training a BMD AI model based on the first X-ray images and the BMD values of the 1st segment of lumbar vertebrae and a 12th thoracic vertebra;
4) an inference data retrieval step, obtaining a certain chest X-ray image as inference data;
5) a second positioning step, locating and retrieving second X-ray images of the 1st segment of lumbar vertebrae and a 12th thoracic vertebra from the certain chest X-ray image; and
6) an inference step, utilizing the trained BMD Al model and the second X-ray images to generate an inferred BMD value of the 1st segment of lumbar vertebrae and a 12th thoracic vertebra;
7) a risk evaluation step, evaluating risk of BMD abnormality based on the inferred BMD value to generate an evaluation result; and
8) displaying the evaluation result on c) a display unit;
9) wherein the inferred BMD value is converted into a T-score or a Z-score, wherein when the T-score is lower than a T-score threshold or the Z-score is lower than a Z-score threshold, the evaluation result indicates that the certain chest X-ray image has a high risk of BMD abnormality;
10) wherein the BMD values are lumbar vertebra BMD values measured by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA).
Claim 1 recites, in part, performing the steps of 1) a training data retrieval step, obtaining a plurality of sets of chest X-ray images and BMD values of the same person and randomly scaling the chest X-ray to generate processed chest X-ray images, wherein the processed chest X-ray images and the BMD values are taken as training data, 2) a first positioning step, locating and retrieving first X-ray images of a 1st segment of lumbar vertebrae and a 12th thoracic vertebra from the chest X-ray images, 3) “creating” a BMD AI model based on the first X-ray images and the BMD values of the 1st segment of lumbar vertebrae and a 12th thoracic vertebra, 4) an inference data retrieval step, obtaining a certain chest X-ray image as inference data, 5) a second positioning step, locating and retrieving second X-ray images of the 1st segment of lumbar vertebrae and a 12th thoracic vertebra from the certain chest X-ray image, 6) an inference step, utilizing the trained BMD Al model and the second X-ray images to generate an inferred BMD value of the 1st segment of lumbar vertebrae and a 12th thoracic vertebra, 7) a risk evaluation step, evaluating risk of BMD abnormality based on the inferred BMD value to generate an evaluation result, 8) displaying the evaluation result on a display unit, and 10) wherein the BMD values are lumbar vertebra BMD values measured by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA). These steps correspond to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, more particularly, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including following rules or instructions). For example, this claim describes a process of refining sourced data in order to make a determination.
Claim 1 also recites, in part, performing a step involving 9) wherein the inferred BMD value is converted into a T-score or a Z-score, wherein when the T-score is lower than a T-score threshold or the Z-score is lower than a Z-score threshold, the evaluation result indicates that the certain chest X-ray image has a high risk of BMD abnormality. This step corresponds to Mathematical Concepts.
Going forward, the above-recited abstract ideas will be considered as a singular abstract concept for further analysis. Independent claim 6 is similar to claim 1 (Step 2A (Prong One): YES).
Prong Two:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of – using a) a processing unit, executing a BMD abnormality risk learning application to implement, b) a Self-Cure-Network (SCN), c) a display unit, d) a non-volatile memory, storing a BMD abnormality risk learning application (from claim 6), e) a training data input module (from claim 6), f) positioning module (from claim 6), g) a AI training module (from claim 6), h) an inference data input module (from claim 6), i) an inference module (from claim 6), and j) a risk evaluation module (from claim 6) to perform the claimed steps.
The claims also include the additional element step of 3) “a training step, training a BMD AI model based on the first X-ray images and the BMD values of the 1st segment of lumbar vertebrae and a 12th thoracic vertebra.”
The a) processing unit, executing a BMD abnormality risk learning application to implement, d) non-volatile memory, storing a BMD abnormality risk learning application, e) training data input module, f) positioning module, g) AI training module, h) inference data input module, i) inference module, and j) risk evaluation module to perform the claimed steps and the additional element step of 3) “a training step, training a BMD AI model based on the first X-ray images and the BMD values of the 1st segment of lumbar vertebrae and a 12th thoracic vertebra” are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic components performing generic computer functions) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (see: Applicant’s specification for lack of description of something other than generic computing components for these components, see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Additionally, the b) Self-Cure-Network (SCN) in these steps generally links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (such as machine learning, see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Lastly, the c) display unit in these steps adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea which amounts to insignificant application, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which amount to limitations consistent with the additional elements in the independent claims. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation and do not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A (Prong Two): NO).
Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using a) a processing unit, executing a BMD abnormality risk learning application to implement, b) a Self-Cure-Network (SCN), c) a display unit, d) a non-volatile memory, storing a BMD abnormality risk learning application, e) a training data input module, f) positioning module, g) a AI training module, h) an inference data input module, i) an inference module, and j) a risk evaluation module to perform the claimed steps and the additional element step of 3) “a training step, training a BMD AI model based on the first X-ray images and the BMD values of the 1st segment of lumbar vertebrae and a 12th thoracic vertebra” amounts to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of WURC activity (well-understood, routine, and conventional activity), a general linking to a particular technological field, and mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components that do not offer “significantly more” than the abstract idea itself because the claims do not recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of any computer itself, or provide meaningful limitations beyond generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. It should be noted that the claims do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the Specification recites mere generic computer components, as discussed above that are being used to apply certain method steps of organizing human activity. Specifically, MPEP 2106.05(d), MPEP 2106.05(f), and MPEP 2106.05(h) recite that the following limitations are not significantly more:
Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d));
Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2360, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)); and
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, e.g., a claim describing how the abstract idea of hedging could be used in the commodities and energy markets, as discussed in Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 595, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1010 (2010) or a claim limiting the use of a mathematical formula to the petrochemical and oil-refining fields, as discussed in Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588-90, 198 USPQ 193, 197-98 (1978) (MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
The current invention generates and outputs a result utilizing a) a processing unit, executing a BMD abnormality risk learning application to implement, d) a non-volatile memory, storing a BMD abnormality risk learning application, e) a training data input module, f) positioning module, g) a AI training module, h) an inference data input module, i) an inference module, and j) a risk evaluation module, thus these computing components are adding the words “apply it” with mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
Furthermore, the invention trains using the step of 3) “a training step, training a BMD AI model based on the first X-ray images and the BMD values of the 1st segment of lumbar vertebrae and a 12th thoracic vertebra”, thus this training steps amount to adding the words “apply it” with mere instructions to implement the abstract idea using a generic recitation of machine learning.
Additionally, the b) Self-Cure-Network (SCN) generally links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The following represent an example that courts have identified as generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (e.g. see MPEP 2106.05(h)): Limiting the abstract idea data to an SCN, because limiting application of the abstract idea to machine learning is simply an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, e.g. see Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A.
Lastly, the c) display unit in these steps add insignificant extra-solution activity/pre-solution activity in the form of WURC activity to the abstract idea. The following is an example of a court decision demonstrating computer functions as well-understood, routine and conventional activities, e.g. see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II): Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g. see Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec – similarly, the current invention receives evaluation result data, and transmits the data to a display unit over a network, for example the Internet.
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component, a general linking to a particular technological field, or insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of WURC activity cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible (Step 2B: NO).
Claims 1 and 6 are therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over T.W. 202131863A to Chen et al. in view of U.S. 2022/0083821 to Jiang et al. further in view of U.S. 2020/0054306 to Mehanian et al. and further in view of U.S. .
As per claim 1, Chen et al. teaches a bone mineral density (BMD) model training method executed by a processing unit, (see: FIGS. 1 and 2 and paragraph [0024] where there is a model executed by a computer) comprising:
--a training data retrieval step, obtaining a plurality of sets of chest X-ray images (see: paragraph [0024] and step S01 of FIG. 1 where multiple sets of patient data are being obtained) and BMD values of the same person, wherein the BMD values are taken as training data; (see: paragraph [0025] where bone mineral density is being determined and obtained as training data)
--a first positioning step, locating and retrieving first X-ray images of specific bone positions from the chest X-ray images using a network; (see: paragraph [0024] and step S01 of FIG. 1 where a predetermined bone is being located and retrieved from the obtained images using a network model) and
--a training step, training a BMD AI model based on the first X-ray images and the BMD values of the specific bone positions; (see: paragraph [0028] and step S05 of FIG. 1 where there is training of a model based on the image data (x-rays of specific bone positions) and the bone density data (BMD values))
--an inference data retrieval step, obtaining a certain chest X-ray image as inference data; (see: paragraph [0012] where there is obtaining of a certain X-ray of the target patient as inference data)
--an inference step, utilizing the trained BMD Al model and the second X-ray images to generate an inferred BMD value of the specific bone positions; (see: paragraph [0034] and S14 of FIG. 3 where there is displaying of the evaluation result. An evaluation is occurring using the estimation model (trained BMD AI model) and the second X-ray images (image data of the target patient) in order to generate an inferred BMD value of the specific bone positions (bone density estimation data))
--a risk evaluation step, evaluating risk of BMD abnormality based on the inferred BMD value to generate an evaluation result; (see: paragraphs [0035] and [0036] and where the bone density estimation data is evaluated using a predetermined warning condition in order to determine risk. Risk of a BMD abnormality such as a high risk of osteoporosis is being determined based on the inferred BMD value (bone density estimation data)) and
--displaying the evaluation result on a display unit; (see: paragraph [0036] where there is output of the evaluation result (which may include a warning message))
--wherein the inferred BMD value is converted into a T-score or a Z-score, wherein when the T-score is lower than a T-score threshold or the Z-score is lower than a Z-score threshold, the evaluation result indicates that the certain chest X-ray image has a high risk of BMD abnormality; (see: paragraphs [0035] where there is such a conversion and comparison between scores and thresholds)
--wherein the BMD values are lumbar vertebra BMD values measured by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) (see: paragraph [0025] where there is a determination of the BMD values using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry).
Chen et al. may not further, specifically teach:
1) --randomly scaling the chest X-ray images to generate processed chest X-ray images, wherein the processed chest X-ray images are taken as training data;
2) --a second positioning step, locating and retrieving second X-ray images of the specific bone positions from the certain chest X-ray image; and
3) --specific bone positions as 1st segment of lumbar vertebrae and a 12th thoracic vertebra; and
4) --network as a Self-Cure-Network (SCN).
Jiang et al. teaches:
2) --a second positioning step, locating and retrieving second X-ray images of the specific bone positions from the certain chest X-ray image; (see: paragraph [0040] where there is locating and retrieving of images of specific positions from within an X-ray image) and
3) --specific bone positions as 1st segment of lumbar vertebrae and a 12th thoracic vertebra (see: paragraph [0040] where there are such specific bone positions).
One of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to have 2) a second positioning step, locating and retrieving second X-ray images of the specific bone positions from the certain chest X-ray image as taught by Jiang et al. in the method as taught by Chen et al. with the motivation(s) of improving the quality and efficiency of analytical processing of source spinal images (see: paragraph [0030] of Jiang et al.).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute 3) 1st segment of lumbar vertebrae and a 12th thoracic vertebra as taught by Jiang et al. for the specific bone positions as disclosed by Jiang et al. since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, with the difference being the substitution of the elements. In the present case, Chen et al. already teaches of using specific bone positions thus one could replace these positions with other positions and achieve predictable results of evaluating these positions. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted the one known element for the other to produce a predictable result (MPEP 2143).
Mehanian et al. teaches:
1) --randomly scaling the chest X-ray images to generate processed chest X-ray images, wherein the processed chest X-ray images are taken as training data (see: paragraph [0119] where there is augmentation occurring to obtain additional images to train with. The augmentation includes random image scaling. Also see: paragraph [0002] where there is a chest x-ray which the medical images are comprised of).
One of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to 1) randomly scale the chest X-ray images to generate processed chest X-ray images, wherein the processed chest X-ray images are taken as training data as taught by Mehanian et al. in the method as taught by Chen et al. and Jiang et al. in combination with the motivation(s) of creating more data for the training of the model without requiring additional images (see: paragraph [0119] of Mehanian et al.).
Sahota et al. teaches:
4) --network as a Self-Cure-Network (SCN) (see: paragraph [0018] where there is a self-cure-network).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute 4) a Self-Cure-Network (SCN) as taught by Sahota et al. for the network as disclosed by Chen et al., Jiang et al., and Mehanian et al. in combination since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, with the difference being the substitution of the elements. In the present case, the combination of Chen et al., Jiang et al., and Mehanian et al. teaches of using a network thus one can substitute that network for another network and achieve predictable results of using a network. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted the one known element for the other to produce a predictable result (MPEP 2143).
As per claim 6, claim 6 is similar to claim 1 and is therefore rejected in a similar manner. Chen et al. further teaches a BMD abnormality risk learning system, comprising:
--a non-volatile memory, storing a BMD abnormality risk learning application and a BMD abnormality risk learning application; (see: 5 of FIG. 1 and paragraph [0023] where there is a computer which would include memory storing instructions (the BMD application))
--a display unit; (see: paragraph [0034] where there is a display unit) and
--a processing unit, executing a BMD abnormality risk learning application (see: paragraph [0023] and FIG. 1 where there is a processing unit 5 executing instructions (BMD application)) to implement features.
Additionally Relevant References
Examiner would also like to cite U.S. 2025/0217983 to Cota et al., U.S. 2019/0328461 to Kemp et al., and U.S. 2022/0054306 to Lee et al.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Steven G.S. Sanghera whose telephone number is (571)272-6873. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00 (alternating Fri).
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, Shahid Merchant can be reached at 571-270-1360. 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.
/STEVEN G.S. SANGHERA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3684