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 .
PROSECUTION REOPENED
In view of the Appeal Brief filed on 12/03/2025, PROSECUTION IS HEREBY REOPENED. A new rejection is set forth below.
To avoid abandonment of the application, appellant must exercise one of the following two options:
(1) file a reply under 37 CFR 1.111 (if this Office action is non-final) or a reply under 37 CFR 1.113 (if this Office action is final); or,
(2) initiate a new appeal by filing a notice of appeal under 37 CFR 41.31 followed by an appeal brief under 37 CFR 41.37. The previously paid notice of appeal fee and appeal brief fee can be applied to the new appeal. If, however, the appeal fees set forth in 37 CFR 41.20 have been increased since they were previously paid, then appellant must pay the difference between the increased fees and the amount previously paid.
A Supervisory Patent Examiner (SPE) has approved of reopening prosecution by signing below:
/PARVIZ HASSANZADEH/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1/a2) as being anticipated by United States Patent Application No. 2007/0089672 to Shimamura.
In regards to Claim 1, Shimamura teaches a wafer transfer device Fig. 1-5B configured to transfer a silicon wafer onto a susceptor 41 of a vapor deposition apparatus Fig. 1 configured to form an epitaxial film on the silicon wafer [0002, CVD], the wafer transfer device comprising: a transporter (conveying mechanism not shown, [0052]) configured to hold the silicon wafer and transfer the silicon wafer to a position above the susceptor [0051-0055]; and a placement unit (lifter pins 61) configured to place, onto the susceptor, the silicon wafer transferred by the transporter to the position above the susceptor (see Fig. 5B), wherein the placement unit comprises: a plurality of lift pins 61 that are received correspondingly one-to-one in a plurality of through holes provided in the susceptor (as shown in Fig. 1) and that are configured to move vertically (as shown in Fig. 5A, 5B), each lift pin of the plurality of lift pins being configured to incline relative to a corresponding through hole of the plurality of through holes due to a clearance therebetween (as shown in Fig. 5B, 8B which shows gaps between the lift pin and the holes 51); and a relative movement mechanism (lift pin support 64, 65, 68, 67) configured to relatively move the plurality of lift pins and the susceptor, the relative movement mechanism comprises a lift-pin support comprising a plurality of abutments 64 contacting respective lower ends of the plurality of lift pins (see Fig. 1, 2, 5A, 5B), the lift-pin support being configured to move relative to the susceptor (see arrows Fig. 1, 2), the relative movement mechanism being configured to raise the plurality of lift pins relative to the susceptor to support a lower side of the silicon wafer transferred to the position above the susceptor with the plurality of lift pins, and to lower the plurality of lift pins relative to the susceptor to place the silicon wafer onto the susceptor after the silicon wafer is released from the transporter [0051-0055], and at least one of the transporter or the placement unit is configured to bring a predetermined lift pin (interpreted as broadly claimed as any of the lift pins) of the plurality of lift pins into a contact with the lower side of the silicon wafer when the silicon wafer transferred to the position above the susceptor is to be supported by the plurality of lift pins (as shown in Fig. 5A, 5B), as any of the lift pins goes in contact with a bottom surface of the wafer [0034-0067].
Shimamura does not expressly teach such that the predetermined lift pin lifted to a first contact or that it is inclined in a specific direction until the predetermined lift pin contacts an inner wall of a corresponding through hole of the plurality of through holes.
To clarify, Shimamura does expressly teach inclination and lift pin contact, but does not expressly teach that that this is in a specific direction or that this is a first contact. However, this limitation is considered a functional limitation, as there is no specific apparatus structure that determines said specific direction, nor is there a controller configured to determine and perform said functionality. As such, the apparatus as claimed need only be capable of performing said function.
It has been held that claims directed to apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959). Also, a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). MPEP 2115. As the apparatus of Shimamura is substantially the same as the claimed apparatus and also teaches an intended incline and wall contact, the apparatus of Shimamura would be capable of fulfilling the limitations of the claim and thus be able to incline the lift pin in a specific direction until the predetermined lift pin contacts an inner wall of a corresponding through hole of the plurality of through holes, there being no structural difference between the apparatus of Shimamura and that of the claim.
In regards to Claim 8, Shimamura teaches a vapor deposition apparatus Fig. 1 configured to form an epitaxial [0002] film on a silicon wafer, the vapor deposition apparatus comprising: a susceptor 41, on which the silicon wafer W is configured to be placed; and the wafer transfer device according to claim 1, as per the rejection of Claim 1 above, and the wafer transfer device being configured to transfer the silicon wafer onto the susceptor [0034-0067].
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application No. 2007/0089672 to Shimamura in view of United States Patent No. 6389677 to Lenz.
In regards to Claim 1, Shimamura teaches a wafer transfer device Fig. 1-5B configured to transfer a silicon wafer onto a susceptor 41 of a vapor deposition apparatus Fig. 1 configured to form an epitaxial film on the silicon wafer [0002, CVD], the wafer transfer device comprising: a transporter (conveying mechanism not shown, [0052]) configured to hold the silicon wafer and transfer the silicon wafer to a position above the susceptor [0051-0055]; and a placement unit (lifter pins 61) configured to place, onto the susceptor, the silicon wafer transferred by the transporter to the position above the susceptor (see Fig. 5B), wherein the placement unit comprises: a plurality of lift pins 61 that are received correspondingly one-to-one in a plurality of through holes provided in the susceptor (as shown in Fig. 1) and that are configured to move vertically (as shown in Fig. 5A, 5B), each lift pin of the plurality of lift pins being configured to incline relative to a corresponding through hole of the plurality of through holes due to a clearance therebetween (as shown in Fig. 5B, 8B which shows gaps between the lift pin and the holes 51); and a relative movement mechanism (lift pin support 64, 65, 68, 67) configured to relatively move the plurality of lift pins and the susceptor, the relative movement mechanism comprises a lift-pin support comprising a plurality of abutments 64 contacting respective lower ends of the plurality of lift pins (see Fig. 1, 2, 5A, 5B), the lift-pin support being configured to move relative to the susceptor (see arrows Fig. 1, 2), the relative movement mechanism being configured to raise the plurality of lift pins relative to the susceptor to support a lower side of the silicon wafer transferred to the position above the susceptor with the plurality of lift pins, and to lower the plurality of lift pins relative to the susceptor to place the silicon wafer onto the susceptor after the silicon wafer is released from the transporter [0051-0055], and at least one of the transporter or the placement unit is configured to bring a predetermined lift pin (interpreted as broadly claimed as any of the lift pins) of the plurality of lift pins into a contact with the lower side of the silicon wafer when the silicon wafer transferred to the position above the susceptor is to be supported by the plurality of lift pins (as shown in Fig. 5A, 5B), as any of the lift pins goes in contact with a bottom surface of the wafer [0034-0067].
Shimamura does not expressly teach such that the predetermined lift pin lifted to a first contact or that it is inclined in a specific direction until the predetermined lift pin contacts an inner wall of a corresponding through hole of the plurality of through holes.
To clarify, Shimamura does expressly teach inclination and lift pin contact, but does not expressly teach that that this is in a specific direction or that this is a first contact. However, this limitation is considered a functional limitation, as there is no specific apparatus structure that determines said specific direction, nor is there a controller configured to determine and perform said functionality. As such, the apparatus as claimed need only be capable of performing said function.
It has been held that claims directed to apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959). Also, a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). MPEP 2115. As the apparatus of Shimamura is substantially the same as the claimed apparatus and also teaches an intended incline and wall contact, the apparatus of Shimamura would be capable of fulfilling the limitations of the claim and thus be able to incline the lift pin in a specific direction until the predetermined lift pin contacts an inner wall of a corresponding through hole of the plurality of through holes, there being no structural difference between the apparatus of Shimamura and that of the claim.
However, for the purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner notes that the even if Shimamura does not expressly teach predetermining a lift pin, the teachings of Lenz teaches a specific, predetermined lift pin.
Specifically, the teachings of Lenz in Fig. 5I, which expressly teaches a central pin 320 which is lifted before other pins 330 to load a wafer from a wafer transport arm and the pins can be moved to lift independently of each other or move together (Col. 7 lines 50-67), such that predetermined pins can be chosen for taking the wafer from the transporter (Col. 3 line 35-Col. 9 line 37).
It has been held that an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982). See MPEP 2144.06 II. As it is known in the prior art for art analogous equivalents of lift pins to move a predetermined lift pins independently and having one first for the lowering of the substrate down from the transporter to the susceptor, it would be obvious to expressly modify the apparatus lift pins of Shimamura by applying the lift pin functionality of Lenz, which has predetermined lift pins that move independently of each other and have a first contact to the wafer from the transporter for loading the substrate. See MPEP 2143 Motivation A.
The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claim.
In regards to Claim 2, Shimamura in view of Lenz teaches the relative movement mechanism is configured to raise the plurality of lift pins relative to the susceptor when an upper end of the predetermined lift pin is located at a position higher than upper ends of other lift pins, as shown in Fig. 5I of Lenz, and as per the 103 rejection of Claim 1 above.
In regards to Claim 8, Shimamura teaches a vapor deposition apparatus Fig. 1 configured to form an epitaxial [0002] film on a silicon wafer, the vapor deposition apparatus comprising: a susceptor 41, on which the silicon wafer W is configured to be placed; and the wafer transfer device according to claim 1, as per the rejection of Claim 1 above, and the wafer transfer device being configured to transfer the silicon wafer onto the susceptor [0034-0067].
Claim(s) 3-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application No. 2007/0089672 to Shimamura in view of United States Patent No. 6389677 to Lenz, as per the rejection of Claims 1 and 2 above, and in further view of United States Patent Application No. 2006/0017893 to Mertens et al.
The teachings of Shimamura in view of Lenz are relied upon as set forth in the above 103 rejection.
In regards to Claim 3, Shimamura in view of Lenz teaches the relative movement mechanism is configured to raise the plurality of lift pins relative to the susceptor but does not expressly teach the upper end of the predetermined lift pin is located at the position higher than the upper ends of the other lift pins by a height ranging from 0.5 mm to 5 mm.
Mertens teaches a wafer transfer device Fig. 6, 7, 9, 10 configured to transfer a silicon wafer W onto a susceptor 101 of an apparatus configured to form lithography on the silicon wafer [0002-0005], the wafer transfer device comprising: a transport unit/transporter (in the form of fork blades 220a, 220b, with a linear actuator driven by a motor/robotic arm [0061-0062]) configured to hold the silicon wafer and transfer the silicon wafer to a position above the susceptor [0060-0065]; and a placement unit (in the form of lifting pins 108, 208) configured to place onto the susceptor the silicon wafer W transferred by the transport unit transporter above the susceptor [0061(see above pin fork transfer); 0051-0071] and also a position above the susceptor, wherein the placement unit comprises: a plurality of lift pins 108, 208 that are received correspondingly one-to-one in a plurality of through holes 103, 203 provided in the susceptor and that are configured to move vertically (through motor actuators 210, 211, [0060]); and a relative movement mechanism configured to relatively move the plurality of lift pins and the susceptor (in the form of 109 and the support portion for 208 that is analogous to 109, as shown in Fig. 7, supported by motors 210, 211), the relative movement mechanism is configured to raise the plurality of lift pins relative to the susceptor to support a lower side of the silicon wafer [0061 (see above pin fork transfer); 0051-0071] with the plurality of lift pins [0060-0065] , and to lower the plurality of lift pins relative to the susceptor to place the silicon wafer onto the susceptor after the silicon wafer is released from the transport unit/ transporter [0060-0065], and at least one of the transport unit/ transporter or the placement unit is configured to bring a predetermined lift pin 208 of the plurality of lift pins into a first contact with the lower side of the silicon wafer when the silicon wafer is to be supported by the plurality of lift pins (as 208 pushes against W to overcome the sticking effect and then 108 rises to be support the substrate [0038-0070]).
Mertens teaches the relative movement mechanism is configured to raise the plurality of lift pins relative to the susceptor while the upper end of the predetermined lift pin is located at the position higher than the upper ends of the other lift pins by a height ranging from 0.5 mm to 5 mm (which is expressly taught in the difference of length in [0063] Fig. 8 of the pins to prevent sticking, a different embodiment with different lengths, the lengths having 0.01mm to 5 mm, a range that sufficiently overlaps the claimed range of height, which can be applied to the height of Fig. 7 for 108 to 208, as the heights are specific for the preventing of sticking).
It has been held that an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982). See MPEP 2144.06 II. Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the apparatus of Shimamura in view of Lenz with the teachings of Mertens and have applied the height differences for the lift pins in independent control, as per the teachings of Mertens, such that the upper end of the predetermined lift pin is located at the position higher than the upper ends of the other lift pins by a height ranging from 0.5 mm to 5 mm. See MPEP 2143 Motivation A. The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claim.
In regards to Claim 4, Shimamura teaches the plurality of lift pins are of the same lengths, the relative movement mechanism comprises a lift-pin support member comprising a plurality of abutment portions 64 contacting respective lower ends of the plurality of lift pins, the lift-pin support member being configured to move relative to the susceptor, as per the teachings of Claims 1, 2 and 8 above but does not expressly teach an upper end of one of the abutment portions contacting the predetermined lift pin is located at a position higher than upper ends of the other abutment portions.
Mertens teaches the plurality of lift pins are of the same lengths, as per the embodiment of Fig. 7), an upper end of one of the abutment portions contacting the predetermined lift pin is located at a position higher than upper ends of the other abutment portions [0060-0065], as the predetermined pin is used to lift first.
It has been held that an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982). See MPEP 2144.06 II. Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the apparatus of Shimamura in view of Lenz with the teachings of Mertens and have applied the height differences for the lift pins and thus also the abutments in independent control, as per the teachings of Mertens, such that an upper end of one of the abutment portions contacting the predetermined lift pin is located at a position higher than upper ends of the other abutment portions. See MPEP 2143 Motivation A. The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claim.
In regards to Claim 5, Shimamura in view of Lenz does not expressly teach wherein the predetermined lift pin is longer than the other lift pins, the relative movement mechanism comprises a lift-pin support member comprising a plurality of abutment portions contacting respective lower ends of the plurality of lift pins, the lift-pin support member being configured to move relative to the susceptor, and the upper ends of the plurality of abutment portions are located at the same height position.
Mertens teaches the predetermined lift pin is longer than the other lift pins, the upper ends of the plurality of abutment portions are located at the same height position (as per the teachings of Fig. 8, [0060-0065]), as the predetermined lift pin eventually waits to lift with the other lift pins.
It has been held that an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982). See MPEP 2144.06 II. Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the apparatus of Shimamura in view of Lenz with the teachings of Mertens and have applied the height differences for the lift pins and thus also the abutments in independent control, as per the teachings of Mertens, such that the predetermined lift pin is longer than the other lift pins, the relative movement mechanism comprises a lift-pin support member comprising a plurality of abutment portions contacting respective lower ends of the plurality of lift pins, the lift-pin support member being configured to move relative to the susceptor, and the upper ends of the plurality of abutment portions are located at the same height position. See MPEP 2143 Motivation A. The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claim.
In regards to Claim 6, Shimamura teaches the position above the susceptor, the transporter is configured to transfer the silicon wafer so that a part of the silicon wafer supported by the predetermined lift pin is located at a different part than the other part of the silicon wafer, as shown in the tilting of the wafer in Fig. 1.
Furthermore, Mertens teaches that at the position above the susceptor, the transport unit/transporter is configured to transfer the silicon wafer so that a part of the silicon wafer supported by the predetermined lift pin (the bottom surface) is located lower than the other part of the silicon wafer (the top surface, as broadly recited, [0060-0065]).
It has been held that an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982). See MPEP 2144.06 II. Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the apparatus of Shimamura in view of Lenz with the teachings of Mertens and have applied the height differences for the lift pins and tilting of the substrate, as per the teachings of Mertens, such that the position above the susceptor, the transport unit/transporter is configured to transfer the silicon wafer so that a part of the silicon wafer supported by the predetermined lift pin (the bottom surface) is located lower than the other part of the silicon wafer. See MPEP 2143 Motivation A. The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claim.
Furthermore, this is also considered a functional limitation.
It has been held that claims directed to apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959). Also, a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). MPEP 2115. As the apparatus of Shimamura in view of Lenz and Mertens is substantially the same as the claimed apparatus and also teaches an intended incline and wall contact, the apparatus of Shimamura in view of Lenz and Mertens would be capable of fulfilling the limitations of the claim and thus be able to transfer the substrate as claimed, there being no structural difference between the apparatus of Shimamura in view of Lenz and Mertens and that of the claim.
The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claim.
In regards to Claim 7, Shimamura in view of Lenz does not expressly teach wherein the transporter comprises an elongated support member and is configured to transfer the silicon wafer at the position above the susceptor by moving the support member, on which the silicon wafer is mounted, in a longitudinal direction of the support member, the support member comprises a pair of extensions extending from mutually remote positions in the longitudinal direction of the support member, and the relative movement mechanism is configured to bring, as the predetermined lift pin, one of the plurality of lift pins located between the pair of extensions into the first contact with the lower side of the silicon wafer.
Mertens teaches the transport unit/ transporter comprises an elongated support member (bar connecting 220a, 220b) and is configured to transfer the silicon wafer at the position above the susceptor by moving the support member (as it is actuated), on which the silicon wafer is mounted, in a longitudinal direction of the support member (as it is linearly actuated [0060-0063]), the support member comprises a pair of extensions (220a, 220b) extending from mutually remote positions in the longitudinal direction of the support member (as they form fork tines/blades), and the relative movement mechanism is configured to bring, as the predetermined lift pin, one of the plurality of lift pins located between the pair of extensions into the first contact with the lower side of the silicon wafer [0060-0065].
It has been held that an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982). See MPEP 2144.06 II. As it is known in the prior art for art analogous equivalents of lift pins to move a predetermined lift pins independently and having one first for the lowering of the substrate down from the transporter to the susceptor, it would be obvious to expressly modify the apparatus lift pins of Shimamura in view of Lenz with the transporter and susceptor as per the teachings of Mertens. See MPEP 2143 Motivation A. The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIFFANY Z NUCKOLS whose telephone number is (571)270-7377. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10AM-7PM.
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, PARVIZ HASSANZADEH can be reached at (571)272-1435. 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.
/TIFFANY Z NUCKOLS/Examiner, Art Unit 1716
/PARVIZ HASSANZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights