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 06/25/2025.
Claims 1-17 are pending and are subject to this Office Action.
Claims 1, 11, 15 and 17 are amended.
Response to Amendment
The Examiner notes that the amendment filed 06/25/2025 does not appear to be fully compliant due to amendments to the claims not indicated with appropriate strikethrough or underline formatting. For example, claim 1, line 2, “A main body, configured to retain liquid;” should be presented as “A main body, bona fide attempt at a proper amendment, the Examiner is fully considering the claim amendments. The applicant is reminded that the proper manner of making an amendment is outlined in MPEP § 714.
The Examiner withdraws the 112(d) rejection of claims 11, 15 and 17 for being of improper dependent form due to amendments to the claims filed 06/25/2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 5-14, filed 06/25/2025, with respect to the rejections of claim 1 as anticipated by Ashton, or in the alternative, as obvious over Ashton in view of Rogan have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Applicant has amended claim 1 to include subject matter not previously presented, including a magnetic swivel joint detachably coupling the vapor mouthpiece to the lid body, a vertical partition, and one-way air inlet valves. Prior art references Ashton and Rogan do not teach the magnetic swivel joint or the one-way air inlet valves of the amended claim. Therefore, the rejections of claim 1 have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new obviousness ground of rejection is made in further view of Hejazi et al. (US 20200060340 A1) and Lei et al. (US 20230063069 A1).
On page 5, the applicant argues that Ashton does not teach a detachable magnetic vapor mouthpiece. The Examiner agrees. However, upon further search and consideration, the Examiner notes that a modification to comprise a detachable magnetic vapor mouthpiece would be obvious in view of Hejazi, which teaches a vape device (aerosol source member 508; Fig. 11; [0135]) comprising a vapor mouthpiece (mouthpiece 506; [0135]) that is magnetic such that it detachably couples the vapor mouthpiece to the lid body, configured to permit removal of the vapor mouthpiece from the lid body for loading the heating chamber ([0138]).
On page 6, the applicant further argues that Ashton does not appropriately teach the swivel joints as claimed in claims 5-6 and amended claims 11-15, as they do not operate independently. The Examiner disagrees. Each mouthpiece taught by Ashton (liquid mouthpiece 107 and vapor mouthpiece 106) is provided on its own swivel (see Ashton Fig. 2; mouthpiece 107 has swivel 502 (col. 5, lines 3-6; Fig. 5) and mouthpiece 106 has swivel 302 (col. 4, lines 20-23; Fig. 3)). Ashton thus teaches each component separately, allowing both mouthpieces to operate independently. Furthermore, the applicant fails to point to evidence in Ashton that indicates otherwise. The Examiner further notes that the indicated claims (amended claims 1, 5, 6 and 11 (claim 15 is mentioned in the argument but is not directed towards the mouthpieces)) do not explicitly recite a limitation that would require the two mouthpieces to fold or swivel independently.
On pages 6-7, the applicant further argues that prior art Ashton does not appropriately teach a vertical partition as claimed in amended claim 1. The Examiner disagrees. Ashton teaches that sealed, elongated enclosure 201 wall acts as a vertical partition (col 3, lines 61-63; Fig. 2, Fig. 4). This vertical partition does in fact divide the electrical section from the liquid section such that it completely separates the two compartments (col. 3, line 67-col. 4, line 3 teaches that the partition completely encloses and seals the electrical section from the liquid section). The Examiner notes that it is not required that the partition be any particular configuration other than a vertical separation between two sections of the device.
On page 7, the applicant argues that Ashton does not teach one-way air inlet valves as claimed in amended claim 1. The Examiner agrees. Although Ashton does teach appropriate air inlet vents (liquid air inlet 508 (col. 3, lines 57-58; col. 4, lines 63-66) and vapor air inlet 311 (col. 4, lines 29-34; col. 2, line 66-col. 3, line 5). Each inlet would be expected to manage airflow separately for the liquid and vapor sections.), Ashton does not specify that they are one-way valves. However, upon further search and consideration, the Examiner notes that modifying the valves of Ashton to be one-way valves would be obvious, in view of Lei, which teaches that one-way valves are known in the vape device art and may be used to prevent liquid inside a chamber from leaking through an air vent ([0088]).
On pages 9-12, the applicant further argues that the combination of prior art references Ashton and Rogan is improper. The Examiner disagrees.
Ashton teaches a device that includes a vapor-producing apparatus/vape pen (col. 4, lines 52-54). Rogan is directed to a vapor producing apparatus/vape pen (vapor generating device; Abstract). In this regard, the prior art references are both in the field of endeavor of vapor-producing apparatus for smoking and are analogous. The Examiner notes that prior art references are considered analogous if they are from the same field of endeavor even if they address a different problem. See MPEP § 2141.01(a)(I).
The Examiner further notes that the combination of Ashton and Rogan does not require that Ashton be modified to comprise Rogan’s device and its associated specialized functions (though the Examiner holds that the combination of Ashton and Rogan would indeed be possible and obvious), but merely provides evidence that it is known in the art for a vape pen to comprise a heating chamber.
The Examiner argues that there would in fact be reasonable motivation to combine references. Ashton is silent as to the specific components within the vapor-producing apparatus. Thus, one having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to look to prior art containing a description of a typical vapor-producing apparatus to better understand the components of Ashton. Rogan, which includes a description of typical vapor-producing apparatus at the time of filing, teaches that most vapor producing apparatus are known to include a heating chamber ([0002]). It would follow that the vapor-producing apparatus of Ashton would be expected to comprise a heating chamber. This argument takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made.
The following is a modified rejection based on Applicant’s amendments to the claims.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 9, "a straw gasket mounted to the lid body, and receives the straw tubing" should read "a straw gasket mounted to the lid body, .
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 4, 11 and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 4, the claim recites “further comprising a vertical partition formed between the electrical section and the liquid section”. It is unclear as to whether this is a separate vertical partition from the vertical partition of claim 1, or if the claim is merely referencing the structure from claim 1. It is therefore unclear as to how many vertical partitions the device comprises. For Examination purposes, the device will be interpreted as only comprising one vertical partition positioned/formed between the electrical section and the liquid section.
Regarding claim 11, the claim recites “the lid body further including a magnetic swivel joint attaching the vapor mouthpiece to the lid body…”. It is unclear as to whether this is a separate magnetic swivel joint separate from the magnetic swivel joint of claim 1, or if the claim is merely referencing the structure from claim 1. It is therefore unclear as to how many magnetic swivels joints the lid body comprises. For Examination purposes, the lid body will be interpreted as only comprising one magnetic swivel joint attaching the vapor mouthpiece to the lid body.
Regarding claim 14, the claim recites “further comprising a vertical partition formed between the electrical section and the liquid section”. It is unclear as to whether this is a separate vertical partition from the vertical partition of claim 1, or if the claim is merely referencing the structure from claim 1. It is therefore unclear as to how many vertical partitions the device comprises. For Examination purposes, the device will be interpreted as only comprising one vertical partition positioned/formed between the electrical section and the liquid section.
Claims 15-17 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 14.
Regarding claim 17, the claim contains the trademark/trade name “Bluetooth”. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe a configuration to enable wireless communication with an external device and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
Claims 1-14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ashton in view of Hejazi et al. (US 20200060340 A1) and Lei et al. (US 20230063069 A1), or in the alternative, over Ashton in view of Rogan (US 20210204610 A1), Hejazi, and Lei.
Regarding claim 1, Ashton teaches a flask and vape device comprising:
A main body (container 102) configured to retain liquid (col. 3, lines 51-55);
A lid body (container closure 101 comprising enclosure 201 and tubing 202; Fig. 2; col. 3, lines 29-30) mounted over the main body (Fig. 1);
An electrical section (vapor-producing apparatus or vapor pen 402), wherein the electrical section is formed in the lid body (vapor pen 402 is housed within enclosure 201, which is considered to be part of the lid body. Thus, the electrical section (vapor pen 402) is formed in the lid body. See Fig. 4);
A heating chamber gasket (adapter 401) adapted to the electrical section and fluidly connecting the electrical section to a vapor mouthpiece (pivoted access element 106 with opening 304a);
A straw tubing extending into the main body (tubing 202; Fig. 2; col 3, line 63);
A straw gasket (seal element 505) mounted to the lid body, wherein the straw gasket receives the straw tubing;
A liquid mouthpiece (pivoted access element 107; Fig. 1) connected to the main body, wherein the liquid mouthpiece is in fluid communication with the straw tubing (col. 3, lines 51-57);
A vertical partition (sealed, elongated enclosure 201 wall acts as a vertical partition; col 3, lines 61-63) within the liquid body positioned between the electrical section and a liquid section formed adjacent thereto, wherein the vertical partition isolates the electrical section from contact with liquid retained in the liquid section;
And separate air inlet valves including a liquid air inlet valve (vent opening 508; Fig. 5) configured to regulate airflow into the liquid section during liquid dispensing (col. 3, lines 57-58; col. 4, lines 63-66), and a vapor air inlet valve (vent 311; Fig. 3) configured to independently regulate airflow into the heating chamber during vapor dispensing (col. 4, lines 29-34; col. 2, line 66-col. 3, line 5).
Ashton teaches that the electrical section (vapor pen 402) is configured to produce a vapor (col. 4, lines 52-54). As such, the electrical section would be expected to inherently comprise a heating chamber mounted therein in order to produce a vapor. Furthermore, it is known in the art that vapor pens comprise heating chambers to produce vapor.
Ashton does not explicitly teach (I) a magnetic swivel joint detachably coupling the vapor mouthpiece to the lid body, configured to permit removal of the vapor mouthpiece from the lid body for cleaning or loading the heating chamber or (II) that the air inlet valves are one-way valves.
Regarding (I), Hejazi, directed to a vape device (aerosol source member 508; Fig. 11; [0135]) comprising a body (second housing portion 504; [0135]) and a vapor mouthpiece (mouthpiece 506; [0135]), teaches that the mouthpiece may be magnetic such that it detachably couples the vapor mouthpiece to the lid body, configured to permit removal of the vapor mouthpiece from the lid body for loading the heating chamber ([0138]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Ashton by making the vapor mouthpiece be magnetically detachable from the lid body as taught by Hejazi because both Ashton and Hejazi are directed to vape devices with vapor mouthpieces, Hejazi teaches that magnetically detachable mouthpieces are known in the art, and one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that this would make cleaning and assembly easier, and this involves applying a known teaching to improve a similar device in the same way.
Regarding (II), Lei, directed to a vape device (electronic vaporization device 100; [0065]), teaches that one-way valves are known in the art and may be used to prevent liquid inside a chamber from leaking through an air vent ([0088]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Ashton by using one-way valves for the air inlets as taught by Lei because both Ashton and Lei are directed to vape devices using air inlet valves, Lei teaches that using one-way air valves can prevent liquid leaks from the device, and this involves applying a known teaching to improve a similar device in the same way.
In the alternative, Ashton does not specify that the electrical section 402 comprises a heating chamber.
Rogan, directed to an electrical vapor pen (vapor generating device 1; Fig. 1; [0040]), teaches that vapor pens are known to comprise a heating chamber (chamber 3) mounted therein to produce a vapor ([0002]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art that the vapor pen (electrical section) of Ashton would have a heating chamber mounted therein as taught by Rogan and such that such that the heating chamber would be in fluid connection with the vapor mouthpiece because Ashton is directed to a device comprising a vapor pen but is silent to the features of the vapor pen, and one with ordinary skill would be motivated to look to prior art for known and suitable vapor pen features, and this involves applying a known teaching to a similar product to yield predictable results
Regarding claim 2, Ashton teaches that the electrical section 402 of the lid body extends downwardly and at an electrical section extension (Fig. 2, Fig. 4), wherein a liquid gap is formed between a main body 102 sidewall and the electrical section 402 (main body 102 is configured to retain liquid (col. 3, lines 51-55), thus the liquid gap is the space between the electrical section 402/inner enclosure 201 and the main body sidewall; see Fig. 2, Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 3, Ashton teaches that the flask and vape device further includes a liquid section (main body 102 is configured to retain liquid (col. 3, lines 51-55), thus the liquid section is the space between the electrical section 402/inner enclosure 201 and the main body sidewall; see Fig. 2, Fig. 4), wherein the liquid section is formed in the lid body and is adjacent to the electrical section 402.
Regarding claim 4, Ashton teaches that the flask and vape device further includes a vertical partition (sealed, elongated enclosure 201 wall acts as a vertical partition; col 3, lines 61-63) formed between the electrical section 402 and the liquid section, wherein the liquid section is open to and in fluid communication with the main body 102.
Regarding claim 5, Ashton teaches that the flask and vape device further includes a handle (handle 108; col. 3, line 58) formed on the lid body; and wherein the vapor mouthpiece 106 is formed as a tube (passage 303; col. 4, lines 10-15) that folds downwardly to fit into a handle slot (access well 104; Fig. 3; col. 4, lines 8-9) formed on the handle at a handle extension that extends outwardly (Fig. 1), wherein the vapor mouthpiece has an open position when the vapor mouthpiece is extended (col. 4, lines 23-27), and wherein the vapor mouthpiece has a closed position when the vapor mouthpiece is folded down (col. 4, lines 32-34).
Regarding claim 6, Ashton teaches that the flask and vape device further includes a liquid mouthpiece swivel (spherically shaped end 502; col. 5, lines 3-6) formed on the liquid mouthpiece, wherein the liquid mouthpiece folds downwardly into a liquid ball swivel slot (access well 105 Fig. 5; col. 4, lines 8-9) in a closed position (col. 3, lines 61-67) and folds upwardly in an open position (col. 5, lines 5-6), wherein the liquid ball swivel slot is formed on the lid body (Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 7, Ashton teaches that the electrical section 402 of the lid body extends downwardly and at an electrical section extension (Fig. 2, Fig. 4), wherein a liquid gap is formed between a main body 102 sidewall and the electrical section 402 (main body 102 is configured to retain liquid (col. 3, lines 51-55), thus the liquid gap is the space between the electrical section 402/inner enclosure 201 and the main body sidewall; see Fig. 2, Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 8, Ashton teaches that the flask and vape device further includes a liquid section (main body 102 is configured to retain liquid (col. 3, lines 51-55), thus the liquid section is the space between the electrical section 402/inner enclosure 201 and the main body sidewall; see Fig. 2, Fig. 4), wherein the liquid section is formed in the lid body and is adjacent to the electrical section 402.
Regarding claim 9, Ashton teaches that the flask and vape device further includes a vertical partition (sealed, elongated enclosure 201 wall acts as a vertical partition; col 3, lines 61-63) formed between the electrical section 402 and the liquid section, wherein the liquid section is open to and in fluid communication with the main body 102.
Regarding claim 10, Ashton teaches that the flask and vape device further includes a handle (handle 108; col. 3, line 58) formed on the lid body; and wherein the vapor mouthpiece 106 is formed as a tube (passage 303; col. 4, lines 10-15) that folds downwardly to fit into a handle slot (access well 104; Fig. 3; col. 4, lines 8-9) formed on the handle at a handle extension that extends outwardly (Fig. 1), wherein the vapor mouthpiece has an open position when the vapor mouthpiece is extended (col. 4, lines 23-27), and wherein the vapor mouthpiece has a closed position when the vapor mouthpiece is folded down (col. 4, lines 32-34).
Regarding claim 11, Ashton teaches that the flask and vape device further includes a liquid mouthpiece swivel (spherically shaped end 502; col. 5, lines 3-6) formed on the liquid mouthpiece, wherein the liquid mouthpiece folds downwardly into a liquid ball swivel slot (access well 105 Fig. 5; col. 4, lines 8-9) in a closed position (col. 3, lines 61-67) and folds upwardly in an open position (col. 5, lines 5-6), wherein the liquid ball swivel slot is formed on the lid body (Fig. 5).
Hejazi teaches that the vapor mouthpiece may be magnetic such that it detachably couples the vapor mouthpiece to the lid body, configured to permit removal of the vapor mouthpiece from the lid body for loading the heating chamber (Hejazi [0138]).
Regarding claim 12, Ashton teaches that the electrical section 402 of the lid body extends downwardly and at an electrical section extension (Fig. 2, Fig. 4), wherein a liquid gap is formed between a main body 102 sidewall and the electrical section 402 (main body 102 is configured to retain liquid (col. 3, lines 51-55), thus the liquid gap is the space between the electrical section 402/inner enclosure 201 and the main body sidewall; see Fig. 2, Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 13, Ashton teaches that the flask and vape device further includes a liquid section (main body 102 is configured to retain liquid (col. 3, lines 51-55), thus the liquid section is the space between the electrical section 402/inner enclosure 201 and the main body sidewall; see Fig. 2, Fig. 4), wherein the liquid section is formed in the lid body and is adjacent to the electrical section 402.
Regarding claim 14, Ashton teaches that the flask and vape device further includes a vertical partition (sealed, elongated enclosure 201 wall acts as a vertical partition; col 3, lines 61-63) formed between the electrical section 402 and the liquid section, wherein the liquid section is open to and in fluid communication with the main body 102.
Regarding claim 16, Ashton teaches that the electrical section 402 of the lid body extends downwardly and at an electrical section extension (Fig. 2, Fig. 4), wherein a liquid gap is formed between a main body 102 sidewall and the electrical section 402 (main body 102 is configured to retain liquid (col. 3, lines 51-55), thus the liquid gap is the space between the electrical section 402/inner enclosure 201 and the main body sidewall; see Fig. 2, Fig. 4).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ashton, Rogan, Hejazi and Lei as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Shotey et al. (US 9936735 B1).
Regarding claim 15, Ashton does not teach a temperature control system comprising a power button and an LED array, wherein the LED array is configured to indicate a plurality of temperature levels of the heating chamber.
Shotey, directed to a vape device (electronic cigarette 50), teaches a temperature control system comprising a power button and an LED array, wherein the LED array is configured to indicate a plurality of temperature levels of the heating chamber (col. 11, line 17-21).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Ashton by using the temperature control system comprising a power button and LED array to indicate a plurality of temperature levels of the heating chamber as taught by Shotey because both Ashton and Shotley are directed to vape devices, Shotey teaches that temperature control systems comprising a power button and an LED array are known in the art, one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the addition of this system would improve user customization and control, and this involves applying a known teaching to a similar product to yield predictable results.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ashton, Rogan, Hejazi and Lei as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Perrins et al. (US 20210145063 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Ashton does not teach a wireless communication module configured to pair with an external device via Bluetooth to allow remote control of one or more vaporizer operating parameters.
Perrins, directed to a vape device (vaporizing article 1; [0043]), teaches a wireless communication module ([0068]) configured to pair with an external device via Bluetooth to allow remote control of one or more vaporizer operating parameters ([0064-0065], [0068-0069]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Ashton by adding a wireless communication module to pair with an external device and allow remote control of one or more vaporizer operating parameters as taught by Perring because both Ashton and Perrins are directed to vape devices, Perrins teaches that wireless modules to enable wireless connection and remote control are known in the art, one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the addition of this module would improve user customization and ease of use, and this involves applying a known teaching to a similar product to yield predictable results.
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 Charlotte Davison whose telephone number is (703)756-5484. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00AM-5:00PM.
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.
/C.D./ Examiner, Art Unit 1755
/PHILIP Y LOUIE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1755