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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 05/15/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/15/2025 with respect to claims 1, 10 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 05/15/2025. These drawings are unacceptable.
The drawings are objected to because of the following informalities.
Appropriate correction is required.
The examiner notes that the following may not be an exhaustive list of informalities. It is suggested that the applicant thoroughly review the drawings.
Regarding Figures 1, 6, the drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “100” has been used to designate two separate and materially different “housing” features. The “housing” illustrated in Fig. 6 should be designated by a different reference character (e.g., —100'—) and the specification should be amended accordingly. However, per 35 U.S.C. 132(a), no new matter may be introduced into the disclosure.
Regarding Figure 2, the drawing is objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because it does not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: “second end 420” (see, e.g., ¶ 76).
Regarding Figures 7A, 2, the drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “400” has been used to designate two separate and materially different features. The element identified by “400” in Fig. 7A should be designated by a different reference character and the specification should be amended accordingly. However, per 35 U.S.C. 132(a), no new matter may be introduced into the disclosure.
Regarding Figures 7A, 1, the drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “120” has been used to designate two separate and materially different features. Furthermore, the element identified with reference character “120” in Fig. 7A does not at all appear to be a “lower housing end” as the specification labels reference character “120” to be.
Regarding Figure 7B, the drawing is objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because it does not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 400, 410, 411, 420, 421 (see, e.g., ¶ 67); 320 (see, e.g., ¶ 68); 900 (see, e.g., ¶ 88).
Regarding Figure 7B, the drawing is objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because it includes the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: “1200”.
Regarding Figure 7B, the drawing is objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because it does not include any reference sign(s) mentioned in the description.
N.B. – If the element(s) shown can be labeled without addition of new matter—e.g., via readily identifiable correspondence with appropriately labeled element(s) shown in one or more other Figure(s)—then they should be appropriately identified. If not, however, the drawing may simply be canceled.
Applicant is reminded of 35 U.S.C. 132(a), which states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention.
Regarding Figures 8A, 9, the drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “150A” has been used to designate two separate and materially different “first section” features. The “first section” illustrated in Fig. 9 should be designated by a different reference character and the specification should be amended accordingly. However, per 35 U.S.C. 132(a), no new matter may be introduced into the disclosure.
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
Claims 1, 10 are objected to because of the following informalities. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claims 1, 10, each element and/or step should be separated by a line indentation. See 37 CFR 1.75(i), MPEP 608.01(m).
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the disclosed invention would appear to be inoperative and therefore lacks utility; furthermore, what appears to be Applicant’s assertion of specific and substantial utility for the invention is not credible.
Applicant appears to assert specific utility of the claimed invention (see, e.g., paragraph [0003] of the Specification filed 07/14/2022) as follows:
“[0003] The present disclosure relates generally to an exhaust system for generating electricity. More particularly, the present disclosure relates to an exhaust system for generating electricity that uses a specially configured housing, a plurality of static velocity increasing devices, a turbine, and a fan to generate electricity.”
Thus, it appears Applicant’s asserted utility is a system for generating “electricity” using “a turbine” and “a fan”.
Applicant further alleges that “the turbine 300 produces power which may in turn power the fan 500 and other equipment” (see, e.g., [0083]).
However, after careful and considered examination of the above asserted utility and the claimed structure, the device, as disclosed and claimed, would appear to be inoperative and a person skilled in the art would not consider the asserted utility as credible. See MPEP § 2164.
As best can be deciphered, the invention is understood to allegedly function as follows. With specific attention to, e.g., Figs. 2 and 3, air is “pulled by” the “fan” (e.g., “fan 500”) into and through the “housing 100”. The air passes through “first static velocity increasing device 200” and then into “turbine 300,” to then exit via “second velocity increasing device 400”. The “power” produced by “turbine 300” is then used to “power the fan 500 and other equipment” (see, e.g., [0083]).
Thus, as disclosed and as claimed in at least claim 1, the “electrical generation system” uses the power allegedly produced by the “turbine 300” to, “in turn power the fan 500” as well as “other equipment”.
No other source of input power to the “fan 500” is disclosed, so, it appears, Applicant alleges that the only source of input power to the “fan 500” is provided by the “turbine 300,” which itself is powered by airflow created by the “fan 500”. This describes a system which, prima facie, violates the Law of Conservation of Energy. Specifically, no energy would be “generated,” as alleged—rather, the system, if even operable at all, would simply output a smaller amount of energy than would be required to operate it—i.e., the amount of output energy would be smaller than any amount of input energy provided. However, since the fan would require energy to operate initially, and, initially, the turbine would not be operating (without any airflow from the fan to drive it), Applicant’s invention would appear to be inoperative, and thus lacks credible utility.
There is no system or machine known in the art, which would operate without an input of power or fuel. Such a device teaches against the Law of Conservation of Energy. The attempts to create such a device have received the name of “perpetual motion” machines. The instant case is a similar attempt to claim a structure, which can be considered only as a “perpetual motion machine” because the asserted utility of the claimed invention is an attempt to generate a mechanical power without any initial source of power.
The principle of the Conservation of Energy denies the possibility of “perpetual motion” devices. The term “perpetual motion device” is understood by the examiner as:
(i) a device having an arrangement in which energy, in any one form, can be produced without energy, in some other form, being provided to and used by the device;
(ii) a device which could be made to perform work for an indefinite time (thus giving out energy) without being supplied with or consuming external energy; and/or
(iii) a device capable of producing more energy than what it requires to operate.
In this particular case, the claimed invention alleges, at least, to be capable of operating without an energy input (i.e., i above) and of producing more energy than what it requires to operate (i.e., iii above).
A person skilled in the art must consider the utility of this type of structure only as “incredible in view of contemporary knowledge” since it contradicts the laws of thermodynamics. In re Gazzve, 379 F.2d 973, 978, 154 USPQ 92, 96 (CCPA 1967).
Applicant has not provided any evidence that the claimed structure will perform as stated, i.e., that the device will be able to generate electrical power on a sustained basis or even at all.
When a patent applicant presents an application describing an invention that contradicts known scientific principles, or relies on previously undiscovered scientific phenomenon, the burden is on the examiner simply to point out this fact to the applicant. The burden shifts to applicant to demonstrate that his invention, as claimed, is either operable or does not violate said basic scientific principles, or those basic scientific principles are incorrect. As stated by the Patent Office Board of Appeals, Newman v. Quigg 681 F. Supp. 16, at 18, 5 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1880 (1988).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation 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 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph:
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.
Claims 2, 7-8, 10 are 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.
Regarding claim 2, the limitation “a set of extendible slide rails attached to the interior of the second section, such that the turbine, the second funnel, and the fan rest upon and are attached to the set of extendible slide rails, and such that the extendible slide rails may be extended past the upper housing end and outside of the housing so as to move the turbine, the second funnel, and the fan outside of the housing when extended” appears to comprise subject matter which was not described in the specification as originally filed.
Notably, the specification fails to make clear how such a “set of extendible slide rails” may be “attached to the interior of the second section,” including what structure(s) may allow the “extendible slide rails” to “be extended past the upper housing end and outside of the housing so as to move the turbine, the second funnel, and the fan outside of the housing”. The specification discusses this feature in, e.g., paragraphs ¶¶ 21 and 77 but, though the feature is named, the specification essentially repeats language similar to the claim language above.
In para. 21, the specification indicates that “a set of extendible slide rails” are indicated by numeral “600”. However, the element identified by numeral “600” is only illustrated as a rectangular box—no “rail”-type element is shown, nor is any related element which would allow for the “extendible slide rails” to be “extended past the upper housing end and outside of the housing so as to move the turbine, the second funnel, and the fan outside of the housing when extended” as currently claimed.
Thus, it is found that the subject matter noted above was not described in the specification as originally filed in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 7, the limitation “a maximum power point tracker in electronic communication with the turbine, the inverter, and the battery” appears to comprise subject matter which was not described in the specification as originally filed.
Notably, the specification fails to make clear what a “maximum power point tracker” may comprise, including what structure(s) may allow the “tracker” to, presumably, “track[]” a “power” or “power point”. The specification discusses this feature in, e.g., paragraphs ¶¶ 25 and 83 but, though the feature is named, the specification does not provide a written description of what the feature may be or what structure(s) it may comprise.
The specification, at ¶ 83, indicates that the “Maximum Power Point Tracker ("MPPT")” functions to “maximize[] and control[] current” and also “acts as a safeguard so that the battery 300 is not overcharged”. However, the specification only describes the functionality of the “MPPT” without providing any written description of what actual component(s) the “MPPT” may comprise to allow it to perform the claimed functionality.
Thus, it is found that the subject matter noted above was not described in the specification as originally filed in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 8, the limitation “a fan speed controller” appears to comprise subject matter which was not described in the specification as originally filed.
Notably, the specification fails to make clear what a “fan speed controller” may comprise, including what structure(s) may allow it to, presumably, “control[]” a “fan”. Though the specification mentions this feature in, e.g., paragraphs ¶¶ 26 and 88, the specification does not provide a written description of what the feature may be or what structure(s) it may comprise, including how the “fan speed controller” may be implemented—e.g., whether it is software-, hardware-, or firmware-based or whether it is simply a mechanical-type “controller”.
The specification, at ¶ 88, indicates that “FIG. 7B” illustrates “the fan speed controller 900” but no such element is shown in the drawing, and, as discussed above, no further written description regarding what actual structure the “fan speed controller 900” may comprise is given in the specification.
Thus, it is found that the subject matter noted above was not described in the specification as originally filed in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 10, the limitation “the housing is shaped to approximate the shape of the number "7" without serifs when viewed from a side” appears to comprise subject matter which was not described in the specification as originally filed.
Notably, the specification fails to make clear what a “shape of the number "7" without serifs” may comprise or how such a “shape” may be different than one with “serifs”. The specification discusses this feature in, e.g., paragraphs ¶¶ 46 and 49 but essentially repeats the claim language without providing any further written description of what is meant by “the shape of the number "7" without serifs” and what “side” is intended to be used for “view[ing]”.
Thus, it is found that the subject matter noted above was not described in the specification as originally filed in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
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 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1-10, the claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. The structure which goes to make up the claimed apparatus must be clearly and positively specified in such a manner as to present a complete operative device.
The following examples of language failing to meet the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, are given for Applicant’s benefit. The following, however, may not constitute a complete listing of ambiguous language present in the pending claim(s).
Regarding claim 1, line 2; and similarly in claim 10; the limitations “upper housing end,” “lower housing end” are vague and indefinite. The terms “upper” and “lower” are relative terms which render the limitation indefinite. The claim fails to clearly set forth a point or plane of reference by which to define these terms.
Regarding claim 1, lines 4-6, the limitation “a first section that extends from the lower housing end, a second section that extends from the upper housing end” (emphasis added) is vague and indefinite. Though the claim indicates from where each “section” may “extend[],” it fails to indicate to where each “section” may “extend[]”—thereby failing to clearly indicate how or in what direction(s) each “section” may “extend[]”. As currently written, the limitation—at best—would appear to indicate that the “first section” is connected to “the lower housing end” and the “second section” is connected to “the upper housing end”.
Regarding claim 1, lines 7-8, the limitation “wherein the first section and the second section each are perpendicular to each other” (emphasis added) is not idiomatic and is, consequently, unclear.
Regarding claim 1, lines 11 and 19, the limitation “the interior space at the second section” is recited. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, thereby rendering the claimed invention vague and indefinite. Use of the preposition “at” further renders the limitation unclear.
Regarding claim 1, lines 13-14, the limitation “ that is greater than the first size” (markings showing amendment) is vague and indefinite.
First, the claim fails to make clear what element(s) has/have the “first end” and the “second end”. Note Applicant’s amendment by express deletion of the “first velocity increasing device” has introduced this additional ambiguity into the claim.
Second, the claim fails to make clear what is meant by “size”—could this be, e.g., simply a length or a volume or a circumference? A clearer, more definite term, should be employed.
Regarding claim 1, lines 20-23, the limitation “ that is greater than the first size of the first end of the second funnel” (markings showing amendment) is vague and indefinite.
First, the claim fails to make clear what element(s) has/have the “first end” and the “second end”. Note Applicant’s amendment by express deletion of the “second velocity increasing device” has introduced this additional ambiguity into the claim.
Second, the claim fails to make clear what is meant by “size”—could this be, e.g., simply a length or a volume or a circumference? A clearer, more definite term, should be employed.
Third, the limitation “the first end of the second funnel” is recited. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, thereby rendering the claimed invention vague and indefinite.
Regarding claim 1, lines 22-23, the limitation “the first end of the second funnel faces the turbine the turbine” (markings showing amendment, emphasis added) is vague and indefinite.
First, the limitation “the first end of the second funnel” is recited. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, thereby rendering the claimed invention vague and indefinite.
Second, the repeated phrase “the turbine the turbine” is unclear. Applicant’s Representative is respectfully encouraged to review amendments prior to filing to avoid typographical mistakes.
Regarding claim 1, lines 26-31, the limitation “a fan situated in line with and directly coupled to the second end of the second funnel, wherein the turbine, the first funnel, and the second funnel and the fan are situated in-line in an interior of the second section of the housing so that air pulled by the fan passes through the first funnel, the turbine, and the second funnel so that the turbine produces energy” is vague and indefinite.
First, the limitation “the second end of the second funnel” is recited. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, thereby rendering the claimed invention vague and indefinite.
Second, the dual use of “situated in line with” and “situated in-line in” is both repetitive and unclear.
Third, the claim fails to make clear whether the newly-introduced “an interior of the second section” may be the same as, or is separate and distinct from, the previously-recited “an interior” (at line 3).
Fourth, the limitation “so that the turbine produces energy” is unclear. The claim fails to make clear how the “turbine” may “produce[] energy,” specifically what type of “energy” is produced. Furthermore, the claim fails to make clear whether the “energy” recited here is the same as, or separate and distinct from, the “energy” recited previously (at line 10).
Regarding claim 2, the limitation “the interior of the second section” is recited. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, thereby rendering the claimed invention vague and indefinite.
Regarding claim 2, the limitation “a set of extendible slide rails attached to the interior of the second section, such that the turbine, the second funnel, and the fan rest upon and are attached to the set of extendible slide rails, and such that the extendible slide rails may be extended past the upper housing end and outside of the housing so as to move the turbine, the second funnel, and the fan outside of the housing when extended” is vague and indefinite. In light of the lack of adequate written description (see corresponding rejection above), the claim fails to make clear how a “set of extendible slide rails” may be “attached to the interior of the second section” to allow performance of the claimed functionality.
Regarding claim 3, the limitations “the weight of the housing and its contents,” “its contents” are recited. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim, thereby rendering the claimed invention vague and indefinite. Additionally, the claim fails to make clear what the “contents” may comprise.
Regarding claim 7, the limitation “a maximum power point tracker in electronic communication with the turbine, the inverter, and the battery” is vague and indefinite. The claim fails to make clear what the “maximum power point tracker” may comprise, including what “power” or “power point” is intended to be “tracke[d]” and how such may be achieved. See associated rejection under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) above for further discussion.
Regarding claim 8, the limitation “a fan speed controller” is vague and indefinite. The claim fails to make clear what the “fan speed controller” may comprise and how the “fan speed” may be “controlle[d]”. See associated rejection under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) above for further discussion.
Regarding claim 10, lines 4-5, the limitation “the housing is shaped to approximate the shape of the number "7" without serifs when viewed from a side” is vague and indefinite.
First, the limitation is generally narrative and does not clearly and specifically set forth what “shape[]” the “housing” structure is intended to comprise.
Second, and relatedly, the limitation “shape of the number "7"” is unclear. As an example, using different fonts and/or handwriting styles, the number “7” may have different shapes. As such, this limitation fails to clearly and definitely set forth what the intended “shape” of the “housing” may be.
Third, and also relatedly, it is unclear what is meant by “number "7"” specifically “without serifs” (emphasis added). The specification fails to provide any discussion or comparison of shapes of the “number "7"” whether they be with or “without serifs”. It would be clearer to define the shape of the “housing” using, e.g., actual geometries.
Regarding claim 10, lines 9-10, the limitation “a first end with a first size, and a second end with a second size that is greater than the first size” (markings showing amendment) is vague and indefinite.
As discussed previously with respect to claim 1, the limitation fails to make clear what is meant by “size”—could this be, e.g., simply a length or a volume or a circumference? A clearer, more definite term, should be employed.
Regarding claim 10, lines 20-23, the limitation “a fan situated in line with and coupled to the second end of the second funnel, wherein the turbine, the first funnel, the second funnel, and the fan are situated in-line in an interior of the upper housing end” is vague and indefinite.
First, the dual use of “situated in line with” and “situated in-line in” is both repetitive and unclear.
Second, the claim fails to make clear how the “electrical generation system” is intended to generate electricity. Presumably, such “electrical generation” occurs in a manner similar to that set forth in claim 1 (i.e., “air pulled by the fan passes through the first funnel, the turbine, and the second funnel so that the turbine produces [electrical] energy”) but such has not been clearly set forth in this claim.
Third, it is unclear what “an interior of the upper housing end” may comprise. Specifically, how does an “end” of some element have “an interior”? Clarification is requested.
Regarding claims 2-9, they are dependent on claim 1 and thereby inherit the deficiencies thereof.
Models - 37 CFR § 1.91
The following is a quotation of paragraph(s) (a) and (b) of 37 C.F.R. 1.91:
(a) A model or exhibit will not be admitted as part of the record of an application unless it:
(1) Substantially conforms to the requirements of § 1.52 or § 1.84; or
(2) Is specifically required by the Office.
(b) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (a) of this section, a model, working model, or other physical exhibit may be required by the Office if deemed necessary for any purpose in examination of the application.
The applicant is requested to furnish a working model of the claimed invention for the purpose of demonstrating operability, utility and patentability.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following references all teach electrical power generation systems and/or exhaust systems. They teach and/or render obvious, either partially or substantially, various aspects of the claimed invention—as best as it may be understood.
Applicant, in preparing a response, should fully consider each of the references in its entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention.
Conclusion
The Examiner requests, in response to this Office Action, that support be shown for all language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, to specifically note the page(s) and line number(s) in the original specification and/or drawing figure(s) where support for newly added claim language may be found. No new matter may be added.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to S. MIKAILOFF whose telephone number is (571) 270-7894. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Thurs. 10am - 6pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, T.C. PATEL can be reached at (571) 272-2098. 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.
/S. MIKAILOFF/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
July 25, 2025
/CHRISTOPHER M KOEHLER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834