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 .
Status of the Claims
This office action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed on 11 March 2026:
Claims 1-28 are pending
Claims 18-28 are withdrawn
Claims 1-2, 4-6 and 8-11 are amended
Response to Amendment
Applicant's amendments to the claims filed 11 March 2026 have been acknowledged. The objection to Claim 2 is withdrawn due to amendments to the claim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 11 March 2026, have been fully considered and are persuasive.
On Pages 8-10 of Applicant’s Remarks, Applicant has amended the claims to specifically recite the recorded puff profile is selected by the user, wherein the output control component is configured to adjust the power supplied to the heating element so that during a puff subsequent to the selected puff, electrical resistance of the heating element during the puff is similar to that recorded by the selected puff profile.
Applicant argues that Bilat does not disclose power adjustment as it only stops or reduces power to match a threshold, wherein that matching of the threshold is not aligned to a user selection of a profile. Though Examiner disagrees with Applicant’s argument regarding the power adjustment as Bilat does note that only stopping/reducing power is a preference and not a requirement, Applicant agrees that there is no explicit disclosure of a user actively selecting the puff profile and therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.
However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Bowen et al (Publication No. US20180043114A1).
Below is a modified rejection based on amendments to the claims.
Claim Interpretation
An Interpretation of Claims 1-17 will be made for the following claim limitation(s): “model puff”.
Applicant’s specification does not disclose the term “model puff” which has been amended into the claims. According to Applicant’s specification, a “desired puff” can be selected to be recorded or playback which seems close to what the Applicant wants in a “model puff” as the claims were amended to require the “model puff” to be selected.
For examination purposes, the term “model puff” is interpreted as “desired puff”.
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 1, 4-9, 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Flick (Publication No. US20140321837A1) in view of Bowen et al (Publication No. US20180043114A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Flick discloses an electrically operated aerosol-generating system for elevating a temperature of a heating element having an electrical resistance that changes with changes in temperature of the heating element ([0014, 0023, 0025-0028, 0035]; Power is adjusted to keep temperature constant which implies that temperature can be elevated by providing more power to keep constant temperature and is not required to simply lower or stop power output; Flick explicitly notes that temperature is dependent on resistance), the vaporizer comprising:
a control circuit/system (hardware 109 and puff detection system 111) for an electronic vaporizer (smoking device 100) (Fig. 1; [0025, 0070]; circuitry and detection system are in cooperation with the power supply to operate the heater);
wherein the control circuit (109/111) controls the power (i.e., adjusts an output power) supplied to a heating element (heater 119) in thermal proximity (i.e., communication) with a media (Liquid 115) (Fig. 1; [0070-0071]; liquid medium is in proximity to the heater via capillary wick 117);
and convert a portion of the medium (115) into a vapor to be inhaled by a user (Fig. 7; [0071]; liquid is vaporized by the heater to generate supersaturated vapor);
an electrical connector (Connections 121) that establishes a conductive pathway between the heating element (119) and the control system (109/111) (Fig. 1; [0070]; conductive pathway is implied as the circuitry and heater are connected via the connectors);
a resistance measurement circuit (i.e., electric circuitry) that determines an electrical resistance of a portion of an electric path including the heating element continuously over time for a puff (Fig. 1; [0024, 0037, 0073-0075, 0087]; the electrical circuitry comprising the hardware and sensor is capable of being programmed for operable functions such as calculating resistance/temperature values for the heating element from airflow rate values; note that it is explicitly stated the heater temperature can instead be directly measured in terms of resistance values and therefore, the circuitry being configured to measure temperature is implied to also be a resistance measurement circuit);
and a non-transitory computer-readable medium that stores the threshold value preset for controlling the power of the heater ([0062, 0083]);
Flick further discloses that the threshold value can be used as a comparative value against a first parameter (i.e., resistance values) changes during a user puff to change the power supplied to aerosol generating/heating element ([0012, 0016, 0034]; note that while temperature is stated as a potential parameter, temperature can be measured from resistance values and therefore, resistance is implicitly understood to be a potential parameter).
Flick does not explicitly disclose the following:
the puff is selected by the user to be a desired puff and generates a recorded profile for the desired puff;
the recorded profile comprising data indicative of the electrical resistance of the heating element at each of the series of times during the desired puff;
an output control component that accesses the recorded profile and adjusts the output power supplied to the heating element during a puff subsequent to the selection of the desired puff based, at least in part, on the recorded profile, to cause the electrical resistance of the heating element during the subsequent puff to approach the electrical resistance of the heating element during the desired puff at each of a series of times during the subsequent puff that each respectively correspond to the series of times during the desired puff;
and non-transitory computer-readable medium that stores the recorded profile for the desired puff;
Regarding (I-IV), it should be noted that while Flick discusses a preset threshold, which is compared against a temperature profile (Fig. 2, [0078]), Flick also states that the threshold is not limited to a preset and can be a dynamic value that changes over time based on a user behavior; this implies that it is possible for the comparison for adjusting power to the heater is being conducted between dynamic resistance values of the heating element instead of a static threshold value against temperature/resistance values of a heating element during a puff (see Fig. 2, [0078]).
In that regard, Bowen, directed to an electronic vaporization (i.e., aerosol generating) device, discloses the vaporizer comprises electronic circuitry and machine-readable memory components that are configured to store and execute programmable instructions based off of signals ([0261-0262]; electronic circuitry components are considered equivalent to a control component as they both serve to control operations of a device). One of these programmable functions is to record and store a user’s use profile (i.e., puff profile) which can capture various parameters such as temperature, so that the user can set and select a user profile so that the same profile can be used again ([0172-0173]; a user selected use profile is considered equivalent to a desired profile).
This is achieved by controlling the heater so that when operational parameter exceeds or matches with the desired selected recorded profile, the vaporizer’s heater operation is adjusted to match said selected recorded profile ([0173]; profile playback implies using the profile on subsequent puffs). This is similar to Flick wherein control of a heater is based off of deviations from a desired value, wherein the difference is that Bowen is a profile instead of a fixed threshold as disclosed in Flick. However, since the overall control scheme are similar, it would be apparent to one ordinarily skilled in the art that since Flick notes that a threshold value does not have to be a static value but one based on user behavior, one could modify Flick’s threshold to be a user selected puff profile based on real user behavior data such as the one disclosed by Bowen.
Examiner notes that while Bowen does not explicitly disclose that the desired user/puff profile is being stored into the memory component, one ordinarily skilled in the art familiar with how programmable computer functions are stored in electronic components would be aware that it is implied that all electronic/control operations are stored in said memory component.
Examiner also further notes that while Bowen does not explicitly state that the profile is a time series of resistance values recorded during a puff, this would be implicitly apparent to one ordinarily skilled in the art as Bowen notes that the user profile compiles data such as temperature or puff parameters over time, wherein temperature is well known to being capable of being expressed in resistance values as disclosed in Flick.
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 electronic circuitry/control and components disclosed by Flick to record a user selectable puff/use profile based on a user’s real puff data associated with temperature so that said desired selected profile can be used as a threshold comparison against subsequent user puff/temperature operation profiles for adjusting the temperature (and subsequently resistance) values of the heater by adjusting the power supplied to said heater, as both are directed to an aerosolizing/vaporizing device, where Bowen teaches the advantage of utilizing a power adjustment control system based on real user puff data profiles as it allows a user to adjust operational parameters such as power so that the device will operate in a similar manner as the selected profile.
Regarding Claim 4, Modified Flick further discloses the output control component (i.e., electrical circuitry) controls the output power to cause the heating element to exhibit resistances during the subsequent puff at times when the heating element exhibited similar resistances during the first puff, to mimic operation of the heating element during the first puff from a resistance standpoint (see Bowen, [0173]; see Claim 1 rejection for full modification of Flick’s circuitry configuration for replaying a selected user profile; note that the modification has been made such that the recorded profile is that of temperature which is being directly read from measured resistance values, wherein the goal of the replay is to replay the operational parameters during future operation akin to subsequent puffs).
Regarding Claim 5, Modified Flick further discloses the recorded profile for the desired puff further comprises a value related to the output power supplied to the heating element during the first puff (see Bowen, [0173]; the recorded profile for the user puff can further comprise additional parameters such as the energy applied to the heater for vaporizing material).
Regarding Claim 6, Modified Flick further discloses the control system limits the maximum output power supplied to the heating element to a level that is functionally dependent on the power level for the first puff stored in the recorded profile (see Claim 1 rejection for modifying Flick’s control system with Bowen’s configurations; Bowen, [0173]; when the profile further includes applied power in its recorded parameters, the device is configured to control the heater’s power output when said operational parameter matches or exceeds the recorded profile value; this implies a limitation to the power output to align with the recorded values in the profile).
Regarding Claim 7, Modified Flick further discloses that the electric circuitry control system can be configured such the maximum output power supplied to the heating element to a power level that is equal to the power level stored in the recorded profile (i.e., desired puff) (see Claim 1 rejection for modifying Flick’s electrical circuitry components with Bowen’s configurations; Bowen, [0173]; the device operation is configured so that operational parameters are adjusted to match the recorded use/puff profile; matching implies that maximum power output is equal to the power output values stored in the profile).
Regarding Claims 8-9, Modified Flick does not explicitly disclose the maximum power level of the output power supplied to the heating element during the subsequent puff is limited by the control system to no greater than 200% of either the average or instantaneous power level of the output power supplied to the heating element during the first puff.
However, it should be noted that Bowen discloses that the recorded profile includes additional parameters such as applied power (i.e., output power) and that the device is configured such that when the same or similar parameter is detected to matched or exceeded, said device is configured to control the heater to adjust the operational parameter to match the use profile. As such, one ordinarily skilled in the art would reasonably interpret Bowen’s disclosure implies that where power output of the recorded profile is considered 100% and the heater is controlled to forcibly adjust the output back down to the recorded profile’s recorded power parameter output of 100% when it detects the heater exceeding it or other similar operational parameters such as resistance, then it would never exceed an average power output of 200% because the system is constantly adjusting the heater power output back to 100% of that of the recorded profile.
Therefore, when one ordinarily skilled in the art modifies Flick with Bowen’s control system configurations, there is a reasonably expectation that the power output will not exceed on average a 200% power output due to the circuitry begin configured to adjust power output parameters back to the initial (i.e., 100% power) output of the recorded profile.
Regarding Claim 13, Modified Flick does not explicitly disclose the tank is fixedly installed as part of the vaporizer, and the heating element is hardwired with a fixed connection to the electrical connector.
However, it should be noted that the use of a one-piece, integrated construction instead of the structure disclosed or taught in the prior art would have been within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP § 2144.04.II.A). In this case, Modified Flick illustrates the tank attached to the overall vaporizer in a manner that seems to imply an integral structure (see Fig. 1).
Therefore, one ordinarily skilled in the art could take the connections disclosed by Bilat and design a system with a fixed device and cartridge with a reasonable expectation that the resulting system would still be capable of measuring resistances and adjusting power supplied to the heater based on puffs detected by the detection system.
Regarding Claim 15, Flick further discloses the resistance measuring component (i.e., electric circuitry) determines the electrical resistance of the heating element (119) independently of an actual, measured temperature of the heating element ([0087]; the device can measure resistance directly and does not need to measure temperature).
Regarding Claim 16, Modified Flick further discloses that the output control component adjusts the output power supplied to the heating element during the subsequent puff by adjusting a pulse-width of a voltage of the output power (Flick, [0089]; power adjustment is performed by modulating voltage via width pulse changes; see Claim 1 rejection for modification of Flick’s control component to do profile comparisons as disclosed by Bowen; note that replay of a recorded profile implies that changes are being applied to subsequent puffs).
Regarding Claim 17, Modified Flick does not explicitly disclose that the control system (109/111) is configured to automatically generate, store and replay the recorded profile without receiving a manually-input instruction from the user.
However, Modified Flick does disclose that the system is capable of generating, storing, and operating the profile (see Claim 1 rejection for modifying Flick with Bowen’s control), and also states that system’s circuit can automatically make adjustments to the actual operational parameter with the recorded operational parameter [0172], implying that the system’s control function related to the profile can also be automatically handled by said system.
Claims 3, 11-12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Flick (Publication No. US20140321837A1) in view of Bowen et al (Publication No. US20180043114A1) as applied to Claim 1, and further in view of Bilat (Publication No. US20180020735A1 cited in IDS dated 05 April 2025).
Regarding Claim 3, Flick further discloses a tank (Cartridge 113) comprising the heating element (119) in thermal communication with a wicking material (Capillary Wick 117) (Fig. 1; [070]);
Flick does not explicitly disclose the tank (113) comprises a portion of a releasable connector that cooperates with the electrical connector to establish the conductive pathway between the heating element (119) and the control system (109/111).
However, Bilat, directed to an aerosol generating system, discloses a cartridge tank (113) that is removably coupled to the device (100) which contains the control system (109/111) [0051], and notes that the connections (121) can pass along outside of the cartridge; ordinarily skilled in the art would implicitly understand that the electrical connection (121) has a portion attached to the cartridge (113) and another portion that is releasably couplable to the control system (109/111) similar to the cartridge (113) itself which is also releasably couplable to the control system (109/111) (see Fig. 7; [0181].
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 tank disclosed by Flick to comprise a portion of a releasable connector that cooperates with the electrical connector as disclosed by Bilat, as both are directed to an aerosol generating device/system, where one ordinarily skilled in the art can apply a known teaching of arranging connectors with a tank to be releasable as disclosed by Bilat to a similar device disclosed by Flick, and predictable yield a device capable of establishing a conductive pathway between the heating element and the control system via releasably connectors.
Regarding Claim 11, Modified Flick discloses that secondary parameters such as puff duration can be recorded in the use profile of a desired puff (see Claim 1 rejection for full modification; Bowen, [0173]). Modified Flick does not explicitly disclose that if a duration of the subsequent puff is longer than a duration of the desired puff, a resistance value based on a value stored in the recorded profile for the desired puff is maintained by the control system until the subsequent puff is completed.
However, Bilat, directed to an aerosol generating system, discloses an electric circuitry configured to measure initial resistance values (i.e., selected profile values) from a heater and compare it to subsequent resistance values to control the power to said heater (Abstract).
Bilat further discloses if a duration of the subsequent puff is longer than a duration of the a puff, a resistance value based on a value stored in the recorded profile for a puff is maintained by the control system until the subsequent puff is completed (see Fig. 6; [0012-0013, 0153-0154, 0158, 0166-0169]; when puffs are very long, it can exceed the threshold; in the case where the first puff is normal and subsequent puffs exceed the threshold, the device is programmed to adjust the power supply until the resistance values fall within the stored threshold values; this is equivalent to maintaining the resistance value of the desired puff as the system as attempting to adjust heating so that the measured resistance values of the subsequent puffs with adverse events will match with the first puff’s normal puff resistance value thresholds).
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 circuitry disclosed by Modified Flick to continue adjusting the operating parameter (i.e., resistance value) to match that of the selected recorded profile should the puff exceed the duration of the desired puff as disclosed by Bilat, as both are directed to a circuitry configured to adjust power based on measured resistance values of a heater, where this involves applying a known teaching of power control via resistance value comparison, to another control component disclosed by Modified Flick, to predictably yield a device that can continue to adjust parameters to match the recorded profile if one of the operational parameters of the profile such as puff duration is exceeded.
Regarding Claim 12, Modified Flick does not explicitly disclose the control system's reactivity to a resistance change or error decreases with an increase to the range of resistances included in the recorded profile.
However, Bilat, directed to an aerosol generating system, discloses an electric circuitry configured to measure initial resistance values (i.e., selected profile values) from a heater and compare it to subsequent resistance values to control the power to said heater (Abstract). Bilat further discloses that the system’s resistance variation is considerable so instead of storing a maximum threshold value, the system instead uses resistance relative to an initial measured resistance value collected via multiple measurements over a period of time ([0187, 0197]; implies that using this relative change value range will reduce variance/error when determining/reacting to adverse events).
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 circuitry disclosed by Modified Flick to take multiple resistance value inputs over a range to reduce potential error as disclosed by Bilat, as both are directed to a circuitry configured to adjust power based on measured resistance values of a heater, where this involves applying a known teaching of power control via resistance value comparison, to another control component disclosed by Modified Flick, to predictably yield a device that can reduce errors in resistance measurements by taking multiple measurements over a range and still result in a device that can take those values to adjust power to a heater.
Regarding Claim 14, Modified Flick does not explicitly disclose the electrical resistance determined by the resistance measuring component comprises a resistance contribution by the heating element, and a resistance contribution by an electrical path utilized to supply the output power to the heating element.
However, Bilat, directed to an aerosol generating system, discloses an electric circuitry configured to measure initial resistance values (i.e., selected profile values) from a heater and compare it to subsequent resistance values to control the power to said heater (Abstract). Bilat further discloses that the electric circuitry measures resistance contributions from both the heating element and other electrical components/contacts, wherein the electrical contacts are considered equivalent to an electrical path between said components [0049-0050].
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 circuitry disclosed by Modified Flick to account for both the heater and electrical path resistance contributions as disclosed Bilat, as both are directed to a circuitry configured to adjust power based on measured resistance values of a heater, where this involves applying a known teaching of power control via resistance value comparison, to another control component disclosed by Modified Flick, to predictably yield a device that can account for resistance value contributions from both the heater and connecting components and still result in a device that can take those values to adjust power to a heater.
Claims 2 and 10, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Flick (Publication No. US20140321837A1) in view of Bowen et al (Publication No. US20180043114A1) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Kerdemelidis (Publication No. US20160338407A1).
Regarding Claim 2, Modified Flick does not explicitly disclose the recorded profile is stored by the non-transitory computer-readable medium in response to entry of a save command [on] a user interface.
However, it should be noted that known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP § 2143.F).
In this case, Modified Flick notes that the electric circuitry compares operational parameters such as temperature/resistance to similar resistance/temperature parameters from a recorded use profile to make adjustments to the power output to match the current/subsequent puff parameters to that of the selected recorded profile value (see Claim 1 rejection for full modification).
Kerdemelidis, directed to a vaporizer device, discloses a controller with a user interface that allows a user to create, modify and save flavor profiles for different substrates based on external reference parameters such as input from a resistivity sensor [0073, 0095].
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 device disclosed by Modified Flick to have a user interface that allows a user to save a profile as disclosed by Kerdemelidis, as it allows Modified Flick’s device to adjust, tailor, and save initial resistance readings (i.e., recorded profile) for determining an adverse event based on the type of substrate being used, similar to how Kerdemelidis’ device can adjust their operating flavor profile based on the substrate.
Regarding Claim 10, Modified Flick further discloses the resistance measurement component determines the electrical resistance of the heating element and generates the recorded profile for a plurality of puffs (see Claim 1 rejection for full modification; Bilat, [0187]; discloses the vaporizer can prompt the user with more than one use profile which implies that multiple profiles for a plurality of puffs can be recorded).
Bilat does not disclose the control system is operatively connected to a user interface that comprises an input device that, in response to being manipulated following select puffs included among the plurality of puffs that the user desires to replay, causes a recorded profile for the select puffs to be generated and stored in the non-transitory computer-readable medium.
However, it should be noted that known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP § 2143.F).
In this case, Modified Flick notes that the electric circuitry compares operational parameters such as temperature/resistance to similar resistance/temperature parameters from a recorded use profile to make adjustments to the power output to match the current/subsequent puff parameters to that of the selected recorded profile value (see Claim 1 rejection for full modification)
Kerdemelidis, directed to a vaporizer device, discloses a controller with a user interface that allows a user to create, modify and save flavor profiles for different substrates based on external reference parameters such as input from a resistivity sensor [0073, 0095].
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 device disclosed by Modified Flick to have a user interface that allows a user to save a profile as disclosed by Kerdemelidis, as it allows Modified Flick’s device to manually save resistance values and data for each puff (i.e., profile) in the device’s memory storage, which in turn can be used by the controller for determining an adverse event based on the user-input manually stored data.
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 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
Prosecution Insights