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
Claims 1-15 are pending and are subject to this Office Action. This is the first Office Action on the merits of the claims.
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.
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 7 and 9-11 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. In Claims 7 and 9-11, the phrase “and/or” renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation requires one or both of the respective elements, thereby rendering the scope of the claims unclear. The specification appears to suggest that each of the respective elements are not mutually dependent on one another. (Claim 7, see [0070]-[0071]; Claim 9, see [0072] & [0077]; Claim 10, see [0074] & [0078]; Claim 11, see [0075]-[0076]). Therefore, for purposes of examination, the claim or phrase will be interpreted as: “or.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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, 2, 4, 5, and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US 20220346446 A1) in view of Davis (US 20180279672 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Chen discloses an atomization core ([0003]-[0005]), comprising:
a support member comprising a liquid guiding channel and a liquid guiding hole (The atomization unit comprises a supporting tube 30 comprising a liquid guiding channel and at least one liquid outlet hole. [0007]-[0008], [0033], Fig 3),
the liquid guiding channel running through two ends of the support member in an axial direction of the support member (Supporting tube 30 comprises a channel running through two ends of the tube in an axial direction of the support tube for guiding liquid. [0019], [0033], Fig 3),
the liquid guiding hole running through a side wall of the liquid guiding channel in a radial direction of the support member (Liquid outlet hole 31 is positioned in the side wall of the supporting tube 30, in a radial direction. [0019], [0039], Fig 3);
a liquid guiding core sleeved on an outer periphery of the support member (The supporting tube is inserted into liquid conducting cotton 20, parallel to an axial direction of the liquid conducting cotton. [0007], [0033], Fig 2),
an aerosol-forming medium in the liquid guiding channel being guidable to the liquid guiding core through the liquid guiding hole (The supporting tube is configured to conduct aerosol-forming liquid through the liquid outlet hole to the liquid conducting cotton. [0019], [0033]); and
a heating member arranged on an outer periphery of the liquid guiding core and configured to heat and atomize the aerosol-forming medium (Heating member 10 is position around liquid conducting cotton 20 and configured to heat and atomize aerosol-forming liquid. [0033]-[0034], Figs 8-10).
Chen discloses that the heating member may be a heating tube comprising a plurality of through holes distributed in the heating tube side wall (heating member 10, [0017], [0054], Figs 8-10), but does not explicitly disclose wherein the heating member is a mesh material.
However, Davis teaches an aerosol-generating device ([0005]) comprising:
a liquid guiding core (Porous fluid transport element 336 is configured to transport liquid by capillary action. [0041], [0068], Fig 6),
a heating mesh arranged on an outer periphery of the liquid guiding core (Mesh or screen heater 334 may be used as an alternative to a heating wire. [0066]-[0068], Fig 6),
the heating mesh being configured to heat and atomize the aerosol-forming medium (Mesh heater 334 may be used to heat the liquid in the fluid transport element 336. [0068], Fig 6).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the heating tube of Chen to comprise mesh material as taught by Davis because Chen and Davis are both directed to aerosol-generating devices comprising tubular heating elements wrapped around a liquid guiding element, Davis teaches that a mesh heater may be used to increase the heater surface area coverage over a fluid transport element as an alternative to a heating wire ([0066]-[0068]), and this merely involves applying a known component to a similar heating element to yield predictable results.
Regarding Claim 2, Davis further discloses wherein the mesh heater may be formed from a network of interlaced conductive filaments ([0068]), but does not explicitly disclose wherein the heating mesh is formed by 4 to 64 heating wires. However, given that the number of heating wires used to form the mesh directly effects the size, coverage, and surface area of the heating element over the liquid guide core, a person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to perform routine optimization. Moreover, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success through experimentation of determining a preferred range of number of heating wires. Therefore, it follows that a person having ordinary skill in the art, through routine optimization of the size and pattern of the mesh heating element as disclosed in Davis ([0014]-[0018]), would arrive at a heating mesh formed by 4 to 64 heating wires as claimed, absent evidence to the contrary. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
Regarding Claim 4, Davis further discloses wherein a material of the heating wires comprises iron chromium aluminum, nickel chromium, a titanium wire, or a nickel wire (The conductive filaments may be formed from an electrically conductive material, such as: iron chromium aluminum, nickel chromium, or titanium. [0041], [0068]).
Regarding Claim 5, Chen further discloses wherein the liquid guiding core comprises a cotton core (Liquid conducting cotton 20 comprises cotton material. [0007], [0019]).
Regarding Claim 9, Chen further discloses wherein the overall length of the supporting tube is longer than the heating member but may be shorter or longer than the liquid conducting cotton ([0037]-[0039], [0049], Figs 2 & 6), but does not explicitly disclose wherein a thickness of the liquid guiding core ranges from 0.2 mm to 2 mm or wherein a length of the support member ranges from 3 mm to 30 mm. However, given that the length of the support member directly effects the support of the liquid guiding core and thus, the improved strength of the atomization unit ([0037]-[0039], [0049]), a person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to perform routine optimization. Moreover, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success through experimentation of determining a preferred range of lengths of the support member. Therefore, it follows that a person having ordinary skill in the art, through routine optimization of the strength of the atomization unit and length of the support member as disclosed in Chen ([0037]-[0039]), would arrive at a length of the support member ranging from 3 mm to 30 mm, absent evidence to the contrary. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
Examiner’s note: where Claim 9 comprises the phrase “and/or” which is interpreted as “or” for purposes of examination (see rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above), only one of the limitations needs to be obvious for the claim as a whole to be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable.
Regarding Claim 10, Chen discloses the liquid guiding hole running through a side wall of the liquid guiding channel in a radial direction of the support member (Liquid outlet hole 31 positioned in the side wall of the supporting tube 30, in a radial direction. [0019], [0039], Fig 3), but does not explicitly disclose wherein a hole diameter of the liquid guiding hole is less than an inner diameter of the support member and is greater than an effective capillary diameter of the liquid guiding core, or wherein a hole diameter of the liquid guiding hole ranges from 0.2 mm to 0.5 mm. However, given that the diameter of the liquid guiding hole would directly affect the liquid transporting capabilities of the support member ([0039]-[0041]), a person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to perform routine optimization. Moreover, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success through experimentation of determining a preferred diameter of the liquid guiding hole relative to the support member and liquid guiding core, or a preferred range of diameters of the liquid guiding hole. Therefore, it follows that a person having ordinary skill in the art, through routine optimization of the liquid transporting capabilities of the support member disclosed in Chen ([0039]-[0041]), would arrive at a hole diameter of the liquid guiding hole less than an inner diameter of the support member and greater than an effective capillary diameter of the liquid guiding core, or a hole diameter of the liquid guiding hole ranging from 0.2 mm to 0.5 mm, absent evidence to the contrary. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
Regarding Claim 11, Chen further discloses the relative diameters of the supporting tube, liquid conducting cotton, and heating member ("an outer diameter of the liquid conducting cotton is smaller than an inner diameter of the heating member; and the supporting tube extends in the liquid conducting cotton and expands the liquid conducting cotton to be fully contacted with the heating member" [0014]), but does not explicitly disclose wherein an inner diameter of the support member ranges from 0.5 mm to 2.0 mm or wherein a wall thickness of the support member ranges from 0.1 mm to 0.2 mm. However, given that the inner diameter of the support member would directly affect the liquid transporting capabilities of the support member ([0039]-[0041]), a person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to perform routine optimization. Moreover, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success through experimentation of determining a preferred range of the inner diameter of the support member. Therefore, it follows that a person having ordinary skill in the art, through routine optimization of the liquid transporting capabilities of the support member disclosed in Chen, would arrive at an inner diameter of the support member ranging from 0.5 mm to 2.0 mm, absent evidence to the contrary. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
Examiner’s note: where Claim 11 comprises the phrase “and/or” which is interpreted as “or” for purposes of examination (see rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above), only one of the limitations needs to be obvious for the claim as a whole to be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Davis, as discussed above in Claim 2, and in further view of Tucker (US 20140238423 A1).
Regarding Claim 3, Davis discloses that the mesh heater may be formed from a network of interlaced conductive filaments ([0068]), but does not explicitly disclose wherein a diameter of each heating wire of the heating wires ranges from 0.01 mm to 0.5 mm.
However, Tucker teaches an aerosol-generating device ([0009]) comprising:
a heater-wick element comprising a mesh material ([0002]),
wherein the mesh material is formed from electrically conductive wires formed in a crisscross pattern (The mesh material may be formed from an electrically conductive material, such as a nickel chromium alloy. [0032]. “the mesh material of the heater-wick element 14 has a criss-cross, checkerboard type pattern with interstices…” [0035]) and
the diameter of each conductive wire ranges from 0.001 inch to 0.0016 inch (The mesh material may be formed with 0.001 inch or greater diameter wire, and/or the wire comprising the mesh may be a solid wire of about 0.0014 inch to about 0.0016 inch diameter. [0034]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the mesh heater of Davis such that the mesh heater is formed from conductive wires where the diameter of each wire ranges from 0.001 inch to 0.0016 inch as taught by Tucker because Chen, Davis, and Tucker are all directed to aerosol-generating devices comprising tubular heating elements, Davis is silent on the diameters of the wires used in the mesh heater, Tucker teaches that a mesh heater formed according to the specifications therein allow for increased capillary action and a reduction in hot-spots ([0030]-[0037]), and this merely involves applying a known component to a similar heating element to yield predictable results.
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Chen in view of Davis, as discussed above in Claim 5, and in further view of Chapman (US 20140261487 A1).
Regarding Claim 6, Chen discloses wherein the liquid guiding core comprises a cotton core ([0007], [0019]), but does not explicitly disclose wherein the cotton core comprises 8 to 64 strands of yarn.
However, Chapman teaches an aerosol-generating device ([0005]), comprising:
a liquid guiding wick comprising cotton ([0081]),
wherein the cotton wick may comprise 8 to 16 separate yarns ([0087]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the cotton wick of Chen such that the cotton wick comprises 8 to 16 separate yarns as taught by Chapman because Chen, Davis, and Chapman are all directed to aerosol-generating devices comprising tubular heating elements wrapped around a liquid guiding element, Chen is silent on the number of fibers in the cotton core, Chapman teaches that a wick useful as a liquid transport component can be formed from 8 to 16 separate yarns ([0087]), and this merely involves applying a known component to a similar aerosol-generating wick component to yield predictable results.
Regarding Claim 7, Chapman discloses the cotton wick as discussed above, but does not explicitly disclose wherein a diameter of each strand of yarn ranges from 0.05 mm to 0.2 mm or wherein a fineness of each strand of yarn ranges from 10 to 60. However, given that the diameter and fineness of the fibers in the liquid guiding core directly effects the liquid transporting capabilities of the liquid guiding core ("Wicking also can be customized through choice of the dimensions of the fibers used in the wicks and the overall dimensions of the wick" [0082]), a person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to perform routine optimization. Moreover, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success through experimentation of determining a preferred user range of fiber diameter or strand fineness. Therefore, it follows that a person having ordinary skill in the art, through routine optimization of the liquid transporting capabilities of the liquid guiding core fibers as disclosed in Chapman ([0082]), would arrive at a diameter of each strand of yarn ranging from 0.05 mm to 0.2 mm or a fineness of each strand of yarn ranging from 10 to 60, absent evidence to the contrary. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
Regarding Claim 8, Chen discloses wherein the liquid guiding core comprises a cotton core ([0007], [0019]), but does not explicitly disclose wherein a porosity of the cotton core ranges from 0.45 to 0.99 or wherein a permeability of the cotton core ranges from 1x10-11 m2 to 1x10-9 m2. However, Chapman teaches that the porosity and permeability of the fibers in the liquid guiding core directly effects the liquid transporting capabilities of the liquid guiding core ("Porosity of the filaments used in the wick also can be controlled to alter the capillary action and can include controlling average pore size and total porosity, controlling filament geometry, controlling overall wick shape, and controlling surface characteristics." [0085]); and thus, a person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to perform routine optimization. Moreover, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success through experimentation of determining a preferred user range of fiber porosity and permeability. Therefore, it follows that a person having ordinary skill in the art, through routine optimization of the liquid transporting capabilities of the liquid guiding core as disclosed in Chapman ([0085]), would arrive at a porosity of the cotton core ranging from 0.45 to 0.99 and a permeability of the cotton core ranging from 1x10-11 m2 to 1x10-9 m2, absent evidence to the contrary. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis in view of Chen.
Regarding Claim 14, Davis discloses an atomizer ([0005]), comprising:
a housing (The device may comprise a housing such as an outer body or shell. [0034]); and
an atomization core (The atomizer may include at least a fluid transport element and a heater. [0005]),
wherein a liquid storage cavity (The device comprises a reservoir including a liquid aerosol precursor composition. [0019], [0048]) and
an aerosol outlet channel are provided in the housing (The device comprises a mouthpiece or mouth region for allowing draw upon the aerosol delivery device for aerosol inhalation. [0036]),
wherein the liquid storage cavity is configured to store an aerosol-forming medium (A liquid aerosol precursor composition can be retained in the reservoir. [0035], [0048]),
wherein the aerosol outlet channel is configured for an aerosol to flow out of the atomizer (The mouthpiece is configured for an aerosol to flow out of the atomizer. [0036]), and
wherein the aerosol-forming medium is flowable into the liquid guiding channel through the liquid storage cavity (Porous fluid transport element 336 is configured to transport liquid by capillary action and may comprise cotton. [0041], [0068], Fig 6).
Davis does not explicitly disclose wherein the atomizing core comprises the core of Claim 1. However, the atomizing core of Claim 1 is obvious in view of Chen and Davis (see rejection of Claim 1 above). Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the heating element of Davis with the atomizing core of Claim 1 according to Chen in view of Davis because Davis and Chen are both directed to aerosol-generating devices comprising tubular heating elements wrapped around a liquid guiding element, Chen teaches the atomizing core comprising the support member improves the heating capability of the heating member ([0006], [0065]), Davis teaches that a mesh heater may be used for the atomization core to increase the heater surface area coverage over a fluid transport element ([0068]), and this merely involves applying a known component to a similar aerosol-generating device to yield predictable results.
Regarding Claim 15, Davis further discloses an aerosol-forming apparatus ([0034]), comprising:
a power supply assembly (The device may comprise a battery. [0034]); and
the atomizer of claim 14 (see rejection of Claim 14 above),
wherein the power supply assembly is electrically connected to the atomizer (The battery is used to supply power to the heater. [0072]).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Rejection 1
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1, 4, 10, and 11 of copending Application No. 19/176,826. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims are directed to an atomization core comprising:
a support member comprising a liquid guiding channel and a liquid guiding hole, the liquid guiding channel running through two ends of the support member in an axial direction of the support member, the liquid guiding hole running through a side wall of the liquid guiding channel in a radial direction of the support member;
a liquid guiding core sleeved on an outer periphery of the support member, an aerosol-forming medium in the liquid guiding channel being guidable to the liquid guiding core through the liquid guiding hole; and
a heating mesh arranged on an outer periphery of the liquid guiding core, the heating mesh being configured to heat and atomize the aerosol-forming medium.
The claims differ in that rejected Claim 1 recites the support member, the liquid guiding core, and the heating mesh whereas conflicting Claims 1, 10, and 11 disclosed the support element, the liquid guiding element, and a heating element. However, Claim 4 of copending Application No. 19/176,826 discloses that the heating element may comprise a metal mesh. Therefore, all the elements of rejected Claim 1 are present and obvious over the conflicting claims. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Rejection 2
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1, 5, 8, and 10 of copending Application No. 19/005,280. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims are directed to an atomization core comprising:
a support member comprising a liquid guiding channel and a liquid guiding hole, the liquid guiding channel running through two ends of the support member in an axial direction of the support member, the liquid guiding hole running through a side wall of the liquid guiding channel in a radial direction of the support member;
a liquid guiding core sleeved on an outer periphery of the support member, an aerosol-forming medium in the liquid guiding channel being guidable to the liquid guiding core through the liquid guiding hole; and
a heating mesh arranged on an outer periphery of the liquid guiding core, the heating mesh being configured to heat and atomize the aerosol-forming medium.
The claims differ in that rejected Claim 1 recites the support member, the liquid guiding core, and the heating mesh whereas conflicting Claim 1 disclosed the liquid guiding element and a heating element. However, Claims 5 and 8 of copending Application No. 19/005,280 discloses the support member and Claim 10 discloses that the heating element may comprise a heating mesh. Therefore, all the elements of rejected Claim 1 are present and obvious over the conflicting claims. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jeffrey Buckman whose telephone number is (571)270-0888. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-4:00.
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.
/JEFFREY A. BUCKMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1755 /PHILIP Y LOUIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1755
