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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11 December 2025 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
This office action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed on 11 December 2025:
Claims 41-43 and 45-59 are pending
Claim 1-40 and 44 is cancelled
Claims 41 and 59 are amended
Response to Amendment
Applicant's amendments to the claims filed 11 December 2025 have been acknowledged. The rejection to Claims 41 and 59 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is withdrawn due to amendments to the claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On Pages 7-8 of Applicant’s Remarks, Applicant argues that Simpson does not teach a second portion of a sealing member being adjacent to a second end of an electrode because the resilient plug 44 which is identified as the sealing member is offset from the electrode by the spacers 116 which means that the second portion (i.e., the base part 100) is not in contact with the electrode.
Examiner respectfully disagrees because Simpson specifically states that the “bottom of the base part of the resilient plug includes spacers 116” (Pg. 10, Lines 31-32) which indicates that the spacers themselves are a part of the base 100 and is further supported by Figure 2 which shows the spacers 116 as a part of the base and resilient plug.
Therefore, one ordinarily skilled in the art would make the reasonably interpretation that the resilient plug’s second portion base, which includes the spacers, will be in contact with (i.e., adjacent) to the second end of the electrode which Examiner identified as the end of the electrode which is in contact with the upper surface of the end cap base section 124 in annotated Figure 6A:
PNG
media_image1.png
849
1008
media_image1.png
Greyscale
On Page 8 of Applicant’s Remarks, Applicant argues that the electrode extends beyond the second portion of the resilient plug 44 and therefore its second end would not be adjacent to the second portion of the resilient plug seal.
Examiner respectfully disagrees, noting that while Applicant appears to be arguing that the second end of the electrode is the end which the electrode extends through the interface, the Examiner did not originally identify that as the second end. As shown in annotated Figure 6A above, the “second end” of the electrode was identified as the end of the electrode which meets the interface (54) on the upper surface that faces the resilient plug’s base and its spacers.
This is a reasonable interpretation of the term “second end” for one ordinarily skilled in the art as the electrode extends lengthwise between the first and second end as identified in annotated Figure 6A, meeting the limitation recited in amended Claims 41 and 59; the amended claims do not provide any further limitations or descriptions that would require the second end to have to be on the specific end of the electrode which extends through the interface to the other side of said interface said opposite to the surface facing the resilient plug base.
In fact, Examiner further notes that Claim 41 and 59 specifically recites that the sealing member “extends and partially along a length of the electrode” which indicates that the first and/or second portion of the sealing member may be constructed such that either portion may not necessarily be absolutely flushed and adjacent to an absolute end of an extending electrode. Instead, one ordinarily skilled in the art could reasonably interpret that any part along the electrode adjacent to either the first or second portion of the seal to be a “second end” so long as it meets the other stated requirements like the second end being more proximal to a surface of the cartridge interfacing with a control unit than the first portion.
Therefore, based on interpreting the limitations recited in Claims 41 and 56 as a whole, one ordinarily skilled in the art could reasonably interpret the end of the electrode which ends on the upper surface of the interfacing part (54) that is facing directly to the sealing base (100) to be a “second end”, as it is an end of the electrode that is less proximal to the vaporizer as a first end, adjacent to a second portion (100/116) of the sealing member, more proximal to a surface of the cartridge interface (54) than a first portion of the sealing member (102), and has the electrode extending between the first and second ends.
The following is a modified rejection based on amendments to the claims and the newly found prior art.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 41, 47, and 52-59 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Simpson et al (Publication No. WO2019116004A1).
Regarding Claim 41, Simpson discloses a vapor (i.e., aerosol) provision system comprising:
a cartridge (2) and a control unit (4) (Figs. 1; [Abstract]);
wherein the cartridge (2) further comprises:
a vaporizer (40) for generating a vapor from an aerosolisable material (i.e., liquid) (Figs. 1-2; [Abstract]; Pg. 7, Lines 28-32);
an electrode post (46) for receiving electrical power (Figs. 1-2; Pg. 7, Lines 28-32; Pg. 9, Lines 24-27);
and a sealing member (Resilient plug 44) that extends around and partially along a length of the electrode (see Fig. 2; Pg. 11, Lines 3-12; seal/plug has holes for inserting the electrodes, implying that the seal extends and form around the electrode length when inserted);
wherein the electrode (46) extends between a first end and a second end, and the first end is located more proximal to the vaporizer (40) than the second end (see Fig. 2, annotated Fig. 6A; first end is shown to be closer to the vaporizer than the second end);
PNG
media_image1.png
849
1008
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein the sealing member (44) has a first portion (Wall 102) and second portion (Base 100) (see Figs. 1-2, 6A; Pg. 10, Lines 6-10);
the first portion (102) being more proximal to the vaporizer (40) than the second portion (100) (see Figs 1-2; Pg. 10, Lines 6-10; the first portion/wall of the sealing plug is shown to be closer/more proximal to the vaporizer than the base which is below the wall/first portion);
and the second portion being more proximal to a surface of the cartridge (Interface end 54) interfacing with the control unit (4) than the first portion (102) (see Figs. 1-2, 6A; Pg. 10, Lines 6-10; the base of the sealing plug is shown to be next to the interface surface whereas the first portion/wall is further away/less proximal as it is above the base);
and adjacent to the second end of the electrode (46) (see Figs. 1-2, 5B and 6A; Pg. 10, Lines 6-10 and 29-34; Pg. 11, Lines 3-12; the base additionally forms spacers 116 with holes 114 that allow insertion of the electrode posts; inserting the electrodes implies that sealing plug portion with the spacers will be adjacent to the electrode post second end located on the surface of the interface end 52 that directly faces the sealing plug member base/spacer portion).
Regarding Claim 47, Simpson further discloses the aerosol provision system comprises a plurality of electrodes for receiving electrical power and a plurality of sealing members (see Fig. 2; Pg. 11, Lines 3-12; figures illustrate two electrode posts; sealing plug spacers 116 are considered equivalent to individual sealing members).
wherein each of the plurality of sealing members is electrically connected to the vaporizer and a respective one of the plurality of electrodes for transferring electrical power between the respective one of the plurality of electrodes and the vaporizer (Figs. 1-2; Pg. 9, Lines 22-27; discloses all electrodes are electrically connected to transfer power).
Regarding Claim 52, Simpson further discloses the sealing member is in the form of a jacket that extends at least partially around the electrode (Figs. 1-2; Pg. 11, Lines 6-12; electrodes are inserted into the sealing plug, which implies the sealing member is a jacketing the electrode posts).
Regarding Claim 53, Simpson further discloses the electrodes (46) are located in a primary recess (Holes 114) in the jacket/plug (Figs. 1-2; [0032]; Pg. 11, Lines 6-12; electrodes are inserted into the sealing plug holes).
Regarding Claim 54, Simpson further discloses the jacket extends around and along at least a length of the electrode (Figs. 1-2; Pg. 11, Lines 6-12; electrodes are inserted into the sealing plug, which implies the jacket/plug extends around at least the length of the inserted portion of the electrode posts).
Regarding Claim 55, Simpson further discloses a porous member (Wick 42) for use in holding aerosolisable material to be vaporized using the vaporizer (Pg. 9, Lines 22-36; discloses a liquid transport wick which can be implemented as a porous and resistive material, implying that said wick is a porous member).
Regarding Claim 56, Simpson further discloses the vaporizer (40) comprises a heating element (Fig. 2; Pg. 9, Lines 22-27; heating element is a wire).
Regarding Claim 57, Simpson further discloses a reservoir for aerosolisable material (i.e., liquid) (Fig. 1; [Abstract]);
wherein the vaporizer is configured to receive the aerosolisable material from the reservoir (Pg. 12, Lines 24-36; Pg. 13, Lines 1-2; vaporizer receives liquid from the reservoir via capillary wick).
Regarding Claim 58, Simpson further discloses the control unit comprises a cartridge (2) receiving section (End cap 48) that includes an interface (54) arranged to cooperatively engage with the cartridge so as to releasably couple the cartridge to the control unit (see Figs. 1-2; Pg. 2, Lines 29-34; Pg. 7, Lines 28-32; Pg. 13, Lines 3-5; cartridge is releasably coupled to the control unit via latching element 40 that slots into the surface of the foot part).
and wherein the control unit (4) further comprises a power supply for delivering electrical power to the electrode (46) for powering the vaporizer ([Abstract]; Pg. 2, Lines 33-34; Pg. 3, Lines 1-2; Pg. 9, Lines 24-27; electrode posts establish an electrical connection to the power supply and control unit to receive power).
Regarding Claim 59, Simpson further discloses a cartridge (2) for a vapor (i.e., aerosol) provision system comprising the cartridge (2) and a control unit (4) (Figs. 1, 4; [0004, 0027]; cartridge and cartomizer are equivalent);
the cartridge comprising:
a vaporizer (40) for generating a vapor from an aerosolisable material (i.e., liquid) (Figs. 1-2; [Abstract]; Pg. 7, Lines 28-32);
an electrode post (46) for receiving electrical power (Figs. 1-2; Pg. 7, Lines 28-32; Pg. 9, Lines 24-27);
and a sealing member (Resilient plug 44) that extends around and partially along a length of the electrode (see Fig. 2; Pg. 11, Lines 3-12; seal/plug has holes for inserting the electrodes, implying that the seal extends and form around the electrode length when inserted);
wherein the electrode (46) extends between a first end and a second end, and the first end is located more proximal to the vaporizer (40) than the second end (see Fig. 2, annotated Fig. 6A; first end is shown to be closer to the vaporizer than the second end);
PNG
media_image1.png
849
1008
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein the sealing member (44) has a first portion (Wall 102) and second portion (Base 100) (see Figs. 1-2, 6A; Pg. 10, Lines 6-10);
the first portion (102) being more proximal to the vaporizer (40) than the second portion (100) (see Figs 1-2; Pg. 10, Lines 6-10; the first portion/wall of the sealing plug is shown to be closer/more proximal to the vaporizer than the base which is below the wall/first portion);
and the second portion being more proximal to a surface of the cartridge (Interface end 54) interfacing with the control unit (4) than the first portion (102) (see Figs. 1-2, 6A; Pg. 10, Lines 6-10; the base of the sealing plug is shown to be next to the interface surface whereas the first portion/wall is further away/less proximal as it is above the base);
and adjacent to the second end of the electrode (46) (see Figs. 1-2, 5B and 6A; Pg. 10, Lines 6-10 and 29-34; Pg. 11, Lines 3-12; the base additionally forms spacers 116 with holes 114 that allow insertion of the electrode posts; inserting the electrodes implies that sealing plug portion with the spacers will be adjacent to the electrode post second end located on the surface of the interface end 52 that directly faces the sealing plug member base/spacer portion).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 42, 43, and 48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simpson et al (Publication No. WO2019116004A1) as applied to Claim 41 above, and further in view of Althorpe et al (Publication No. US20200107586A1).
Regarding Claim 42, Simpson further discloses that the sealing member (44) is made of silicone material (Pg. 10, Lines 6-10; silicone is considered heat resistant).
Simpson does not disclose the sealing member is at least partially composed of a heat-resistant and electrically conductive composite material.
However, Althorpe, directed to a nicotine-delivery (i.e., aerosol) system, discloses a base plate (36) (i.e., sealing member) with passageways for electrical conductors (i.e., electrodes) to connect the electric heater (14) (i.e., vaporizer) to an internal power source (12) (Fig. 5A; [0055]). The base plate acts as a thermal barrier (i.e., is heat resistant) between the vaporization chamber (26) and other components within the device, wherein said plate can be formed from heat resistant materials such as metals, alloys, ceramics, thermoplastics, or composite materials containing such materials ([0049, 0056, 0059]; discloses that metal and/or metal-doped ceramic composites are considered electrically conductive).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the sealing plug member disclosed by Simpson to further comprise a heat-resistant and electrically conductive composite material as disclosed by Althorpe, as both are directed to an aerosol system, where Althorpe teaches the advantage of using a heat-resistant and electrically-conductive composite material to construct a thermal barrier that protects other components within the device from high temperatures from the vaporization chamber [0056].
Regarding Claim 43, Simpson discloses the sealing member has holes (114) which the electrode (46) extends through and establishes an electrical connection between the vaporizer and power supply (see Figs. 1-2, 5B and 6A; Pg. 9, Lines 24-27; Pg. 10, Lines 6-10 and 29-34; Pg. 11, Lines 3-12; electrode posts establish an electrical connection to the power supply and control unit to receive power; the base 100 forms spacers 116 with holes 114 that allow insertion of the electrode posts).
Simpson also discloses that the electrodes (46) are slightly over-sized relatively to the sealing plug holes (114) to achieve a pressed fit/contact which implies that the two parts are connected to each other (Pg. 11, Lines 3-12).
Simpson does not explicitly disclose that the sealing member is in electrical connection with the electrode.
However, Althorpe, directed to a nicotine-delivery (i.e., aerosol) system, discloses a base plate (36) (i.e., sealing member) with passageways for electrical conductors (i.e., electrodes) to connect the electric heater (14) (i.e., vaporizer) to an internal power source (12) (Fig. 5A; [0055]). The base plate/sealing member acts as a thermal barrier (i.e., is heat resistant) between the vaporization chamber (26) and other components within the device, wherein said plate can be formed from heat resistant materials such as metals, alloys, ceramics, thermoplastics, or composite materials containing such materials ([0049, 0056, 0059]; discloses that metal and/or metal-doped ceramic composites are considered electrically conductive).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the sealing member disclosed by Simpson to be electrically connected to the electrode by constructing it out of a heat-resistant and electrically conductive composite material as disclosed by Althorpe, as both are directed to an aerosol system, where Althorpe teaches the advantage of using a heat-resistant and electrically conductive composite material to construct a thermal barrier that protects other components within the device from high temperatures from the vaporization chamber [0056]; additionally, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use (i.e., electrical conductivity to establish an electrical connection) supports prima facie obviousness (see MPEP § 2144.07).
Regarding Claim 48, Althorpe further discloses the composite material of the sealing member comprises at least one of ceramic, polymer (i.e., thermoplastic), metal, metal alloy, or a combination thereof (Althorpe, [0049, 0056, 0059]).
Claims 45 and 46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simpson et al (Publication No. WO2019116004A1) as applied to Claim 41 above, and further in view of Yu et al (Publication No. US20220338541A1).
Regarding Claim 45, Simpson discloses that the electrodes (46) are slightly oversized compared to the holes of the sealing plug (44) in which said electrodes are inserted into, providing a tight pressed contact fit (Pg. 11, Lines 6-12). This disclosed configuration implies that the width of the sealing plug at the holes are slightly smaller than the width of the electrodes.
Simpson does not explicitly disclose that the sealing plug member (44) has a maximum width of no more than 2.5 mm.
However, the prior art discloses several known widths for an electrode. For example, Yu, directed to a smoking device, discloses an electrode with a width ranging from 0.2 millimeters to 3 millimeters. Since Simpson discloses that the sealing plug member has a slightly smaller hole dimension (i.e., width) than the dimensions of the electrodes, and Yu discloses a known electrode width of 0.2 mm to 3 mm, one ordinarily skilled in the art could routinely experiment with the electrode width such that when the sealing plug member’s hole is constructed around the electrode for insertion, said sealing member will have a slightly smaller width to the electrode such that the sealing plug’s maximum hole width is no more than 2.5 mm (see MPEP § 2144.05.II).
Therefore, one ordinarily skilled in the art could take the known electrode width range disclosed by Yu, and the teaching of a sealing member hole having a press fit around an electrode as disclosed by Simpson, to construct and predictably yield a sealing member portion that encloses the electrode with no gap and has a maximum width of 2.5 mm (i.e., have a matching or similar width to the electrode) through routine experimentation.
Regarding Claim 46, Simpson discloses that the electrodes (46) are slightly oversized compared to the holes of the sealing plug (44) in which said electrodes are inserted into, providing a tight pressed contact fit (Pg. 11, Lines 6-12). This disclosed configuration implies that the width of the sealing plug at the holes are slightly smaller than the width of the electrodes.
Simpson does not explicitly disclose that the sealing member has a maximum width is between 1.5 mm and 2.5 mm.
However, the prior art discloses several known widths for an electrode. For example, Yu, directed to a smoking device, discloses an electrode with a width ranging from 0.2 millimeters to 3 millimeters. Since Simpson discloses that the sealing plug member has a slightly smaller hole dimension (i.e., width) than the dimensions of the electrodes, and Yu discloses a known electrode width of 0.2 mm to 3 mm, one ordinarily skilled in the art could routinely experiment with the electrode width such that when the sealing plug member’s hole is constructed around the electrode for insertion, said sealing member will have a slightly smaller width to the electrode such that the sealing plug’s maximum hole width is between 1.5 mm and 2.5 mm (see MPEP § 2144.05.II).
Therefore, one ordinarily skilled in the art could take the known electrode width range disclosed by Yu, and the teaching of a sealing member hole having a press fit around an electrode as disclosed by Simpson, to construct and predictably yield a sealing member portion that encloses the electrode with no gap and have a maximum width between 1.5 mm and 2.5 mm through routine experimentation.
Claims 49 and 50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simpson et al (Publication No. WO2019116004A1) and Althorpe et al (Publication No. US20200107586A1) as applied to Claim 42 above, and further in view of Hong et al (Publication No. WO2018159870A1, see provided English Translation).
Regarding Claim 49, Althorpe discloses that the composite material can be a metal, ceramic, and/or metal-alloy composite material (i.e., thermoplastic), metal, or metal alloy (Althorpe, [0049, 0056, 0059]). Althorpe does not explicitly disclose that metal and/or ceramic composite is a matrix composite.
However, Hong, directed to an electrode active (i.e., electrically conductive) material, discloses that metal alloys such as a silicon-metal alloy, can be constructed as a matrix (i.e., metal matrix) by uniformly distributing the silicon on a microscopic scale within the alloy phase, to create a buffer layer that can prevent cracks and damage to the conductive material cause by changes in volume ([0038]; alloys are considered the same as a composite).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to take the metal composite (i.e., metal alloy) material disclosed by Althorpe and construct it as a matrix (i.e., metal matrix composite) as disclosed by Hong, as both are directed to electrically conductive materials, where Hong teaches the advantage of constructing the metal composite as a matrix to create a buffer layer that can prevent cracks and damage to the conductive material cause by changes in volume [0038]; this also involves applying a known technique/teaching to a similar device/product to yield predictable results.
Regarding Claim 50, Hong further discloses the composite material is a metal matrix composite ([0038]; discloses a silicon-metal alloy constructed as a matrix; alloys are considered equivalent to composites).
Claims 49 and 50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simpson et al (Publication No. WO2019116004A1) and Althorpe et al (Publication No. US20200107586A1) as applied to Claim 42 above, and further in view of Hong et al (Publication No. WO2018159870A1, see provided English Translation).
Regarding Claim 51, Althorpe discloses that a composite can comprise of metals, metal alloys, ceramics, or thermoplastics wherein suitable metals can be titanium, zirconium, tantalum, steel, nickel, cobalt, aluminum, and/or iron which are electrically conductive materials [0049, 0056, 0059]. Althorpe does not disclose the composite further comprising of silicone.
However, it is known in the prior art that metal composite materials can contain silicone. For example, Fingerhut, directed to a thermoformable material, discloses metal matrix material (i.e., metal composite material) may contain silicone such as a silicone carbide-reinforced aluminum ([0009]; composites are considered any material containing one or more metal, alloy, ceramic, or plastic material).
Since Althorpe discloses that metal composites are electrically conductive materials that can be used to construct a sealing member, and Fingerhut discloses that metal composites such as metal matrixes can contain silicon, it would be obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art to select a metal composite containing silicone for constructing the sealing member as selection of a known material (i.e., metal composites with silicone) based on its suitability for its intended use (i.e., construct a sealing member that is electrically conductive) supports prima facie obviousness (see MPEP § 2144.07).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one ordinarily skilled in the art to select a metal composite material containing silicone as disclosed by Fingerhut to construct the sealing member disclosed by Simpson in view of Althorpe, as both are directed to a metal composite material, where one ordinarily skilled in the art could reasonably construct the sealing member from the metal-silicone composite will have predictably expect that the sealing member will have electrically conductive properties from said composite material.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Vu P Pham whose telephone number is (703)756-4515. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th (7:30AM-4:00PM EST).
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, Philip Louie can be reached at (571) 270-1241. 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.
/V.P./Examiner, Art Unit 1755 /PHILIP Y LOUIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1755