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/Amendments
This Office Action Correspondence is in response to Applicant’s amendments filed 04 Feb 2026.
Claims 1, 3-17 are pending. Claims 1 is amended. Claim 2, 18-20 are canceled. Claims 12-17 are withdrawn.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because claim 1 limitation "pedestal" is disclosed in para [0004]-[0006] but not clearly indicated in the drawings. Applicant can overcome this objection by indicating the pedestal in figures 1A-1C and adding reference numeral referring to the pedestal in para. [0004]-[0006] or anywhere appropriate in the specification.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
Claim limitation “probe” (claim 1-4, 11, 18, 19) is interpreted under broadest reasonable interpretation in view of Merriam-Webster dictionary definition as a usually small object that is inserted into something so as to test conditions at a given point. Thus, the examiner interprets any prior art reference that teaches an object such as an arm, rod, or extending/inserting body capable of testing, as reading on “probe.”
Claim limitation “sensor” (claim 1, 11, 18) is interpreted under broadest reasonable interpretation in view of Merriam-Webster dictionary definition as comprising a device that responds to a physical stimulus (such as heat, light, sound, pressure, magnetism, or a particular motion) and transmits a resulting impulse (as for measurement or operating control).
Claim limitation “over” (claim 1) is interpreted under broadest reasonable interpretation in view of Merriam-Webster dictionary definition as “above” or “used as a function word to indicate motion or situation in a position higher than or above another.”
Claim 3 limitation “telescoping probe” is interpreted under broadest reasonable interpretation in view of Merriam-Webster dictionary definition as comprising a compressible or a condensable probe or a probe configured to be made into a smaller size.
Claim 8 limitation “Pirani gauge sensor” shall be interpreted in light of NPL references {Patience, Gregory (Experimental Methods and Instrumentation for Chemical Engineers 2nd edition-5-.4.8 Pirani Gauge (2018) pp. 145-146); Lipták , Béla. (2003).Instrument Engineers' Handbook (4th Edition) - Process Measurement and Analysis, Volume 1 - 5.14.4.2 Thermocouple Vacuum Gauge. (pp. 800). Taylor & Francis.} and Specification Fig. 2, para. [0040] as “a Pirani type sensor” comprising a sensor that is based on heat transfer and thermal conductivity and including a Wheatstone bridge circuit and not limited to specifically a Pirani vacuum pressure gauge.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gosselin (US 2014/0124138 A1).
Regarding independent claim 1, Gosselin teaches a plasma processing tool (comprising plasma processing chamber 100, Fig. 2, para. [0010]-[0012]), comprising:
a chamber (comprising 100, Fig. 2, para. [0010]-[0012]) having a chamber wall (comprising wall of 100, Fig. 1 and 2);
a pedestal (comprising wafer processing stage 170, Fig. 1, para. [0010]-[0012]) having a region (comprising wafer mounting portion 172, Fig. 3, para. [0012]) for supporting a substrate (comprising wafer, not indicated in the drawings, para. [0012]);
an edge ring (comprising silicon edge ring 180, Fig. 2, para. [0014]) around a perimeter of the pedestal (comprising 170, Fig. 2); and
a sensor (comprising sensing surface 22, Fig. 3, para. [0013]) at an end of a probe (comprising plasma monitoring probe assembly 10 including insulator sleeve assembly 30 and probe 20, Fig. 3, para. [0013]), wherein the probe (comprising 10 including 30, Fig. 3) is configured to extend over (i.e. above or to a higher level) the region for supporting the substrate (comprising 172, Fig. 3 and 4; examiner further explains that the probe comprising 30 has a portion that extends vertically above pedestal portion 174 and 172 as understood from Fig. 3 and 4; see annotated Fig. 4 below), and wherein the probe (comprising 10 including 30 and 20, Fig. 3 and 4) is attached directly to the edge ring (comprising 180, Fig. 3 and 4) (para. [0013]-[0022]){Examiner explains that at least part 30 of the probe assembly 10 is directly attached to the edge ring 180 as understood from Fig. 3 and 4 and para. [0014]}, and wherein the probe (comprising plasma monitoring probe assembly 10 including insulator sleeve assembly 30 and probe 20, Fig. 3, para. [0013]) does not extend through the chamber wall.
PNG
media_image1.png
904
1283
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Additionally, examiner notes, in light of instant application para. [0019] reciting “While the probe 162 is shown as being attached to the edge ring 163, it is to be appreciated that the probe 162 may be coupled to any surface within the plasma chamber 160,” the location of where the probe is coupled does not have any apparent criticality.
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.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gosselin (US 2014/0124138 A1) in view of Yamamuka (JP2011060852A hereinafter referring to English Machine Translation).
Regarding claim 3, Gosselin teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) 1 above but does not explicitly teach wherein the probe is a telescoping probe.
However, Yamamuka teaches a plasma processing tool (para. [0014]-[0016]) including a telescoping probe (comprising extendable and retractable arm 7, Fig. 1-3, para. [0047]) and a sensor (comprising Langmuir probe 8, Fig. 1-3) at the end of the probe (comprising 7, Fig. 1-3) (para. [0021]). Yamamuka teaches that such a configuration enables sensing plasma properties/parameters such as electron temperature at multiple locations along a substrate surface (para. [0021]).
Additionally, Gosselin teaches the sensor and probe can be configured to function as any of a variety of alternative probe types designed to measure a parameter of the plasma (para. [0015]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the probe to be a telescoping probe because Yamamuka teaches that such a configuration enables sensing plasma parameters at multiple locations long the substrate surface and because Gosselin teaches/suggest the sensor and probe can be configured to function as any of a variety of alternative probe types designed to measure a parameter of the plasma.
Claim(s) 4, 6, 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gosselin (US 2014/0124138 A1) in view of Yamamuka (JP2011060852A hereinafter referring to English Machine Translation) and Mahoney et al. (US 2005/0034811 A1 hereinafter “Mahoney”).
Regarding claim 4, Gosselin teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) 1 as applied above but does not explicitly teach wherein the probe is configured to be scanned in order to provide a two dimensional map of a parameter being detected by the sensor.
However, Yamamuka teaches a plasma processing tool (para. [0014]-[0016]) including a plurality of scannable and telescoping probes (comprising extendable and retractable arm 7, Fig. 1-3) and respective sensors (comprising Langmuir probe 8, Fig. 1-3) at the end of the respective probe (comprising 7, Fig. 1-3) (para. [0021]). Yamamuka teaches that such a configuration enables sensing plasma properties/parameters such as electron temperature at multiple locations along a substrate surface (para. [0021]).
Additionally, Mahoney teaches providing an array of sensors disposed in multiple locations inside the plasma processing tool to deduce global or spatial properties of the plasma in order to monitor and control the process (para. [0010], [0014]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the probe to scan such that a two-dimensional map of a parameter being detected by the sensor can be obtained (i.e. configure the probe to be scannable and to duplicate the scannable probe to scan along different and multiple radial lines across the substrate), because Yamamuka teaches a plurality of scannable probes enables measuring plasma properties such as electron temperatures at multiple locations across a substrate surface and because Mahoney teaches that having a plurality of sensors disposed in multiple locations inside the plasma processing tool enables deducing global or spatial properties of the plasma in order to monitor and control the process (para. [0010], [0014]), wherein one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that duplication of the scannable probe and sensor configuration of would enable providing additional data for improved plasma monitoring and control, and the resulting apparatus would obviously meet limitation “provide a two dimensional map of a parameter being detected by the sensor.”
Furthermore, the courts have ruled that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. (In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). See MPEP 2144.04 VI. B.)
Examiner notes that “in order to provide a two dimensional map of a parameter being detected by the sensor” is an intended use limitation. Since Gosselin in view of Yamamuka and Mahoney teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim, the apparatus of the same is considered capable of meeting the intended use/functional limitations. Furthermore, the courts have ruled the following: 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 §2114. II
Regarding claim 6, Gosselin in view of Yamamuka and Mahoney teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) 4 above including a plasma processing tool and a two dimensional map as discussed in detail above. Limitation “wherein the two dimensional map is used to train a digital twin of the plasma processing tool” is an intended use limitation. Since Gosselin in view of Yamamuka and Mahoney teaches all of the structural limitations of claim 4 as applied above, the apparatus of the same is considered capable of meeting the intended use limitations. Furthermore, the courts have ruled the following: 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 §2114. II
Regarding claim 7, Gosselin in view of Yamamuka and Mahoney teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) 4, 6 as applied above including a plasma processing tool. Limitation “wherein the digital twin of the plasma processing tool is used to control processing parameters within the plasma processing tool” is an intended use limitation. Since Gosselin in view of Yamamuka and Mahoney teaches all of the structural limitations of claim 4, 6 as applied above and Mahoney further teaches using the data collected from the sensors to deduce global or spatial properties of the plasma in order to monitor and control the process (para. [0010], [0014]), the apparatus of the same is considered capable of meeting the intended use limitations. Furthermore, the courts have ruled the following: 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 §2114. II
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gosselin (US 2014/0124138 A1) in view of Yamamuka (JP2011060852A hereinafter referring to English Machine Translation) and Mahoney et al. (US 2005/0034811 A1 hereinafter “Mahoney”) as applied to claim 4 above and further in view of Matsumoto et al. (US 2005/0009347 A1 hereafter “Matsumoto”).
Regarding claim 5, Gosselin in view of Yamamuka and Mahoney teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) 4 as applied above but does not explicitly teach wherein the parameter being detected is a radical concentration.
However, Gosselin teaches the sensor and probe can be configured to function as any of a variety of alternative probe types designed to measure a parameter of the plasma, which measurement may be indicative of a condition of the plasma (para. [0015]).
Additionally, Matsumoto teaches: a plasma processing tool (comprising plasma processing apparatus Fig. 1 and 32, para. [0070], [0208]), comprising a sensor (antenna probe embodiment: comprising probe end 52a, Fig. 1 and 2, para. [0076]-[0079]; plasma light emission embodiments: comprising light receiving surface 130a, Fig. 32, comprising light shielding type cylindrical cap 136, cylindrical body 138, window 142, mirror 140, light collecting unit 144, Fig. 33, para. [00208]-[0215], specifically [0211]; variation of plasma light emission embodiments: comprising light receiving surface 164c, Fig. 41-42, para. [0233]-[0234]) at an end of a probe (comprising coaxial cable 52, Fig. 1, para. [0076]-[0079]; comprising probe 130, Fig. 32 and 33, para. [0208]-[0215]; comprising optical transmission probe 164, Fig. 41- 43, para. [0233]-[0234]), wherein the sensor and probe configuration is configured to detect is a radical concentration (Matsumoto: i.e. density of emission species including radicals para. [0241]-[0244]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the sensor and probe assembly to detect a radical concentration because Gosselin teaches/suggests the probe and sensor assembly can be configured to measure any parameter of a plasma which may be indicative of a condition of the plasma and because Matsumoto teaches/suggests a sensor and probe assembly configured to measure a radical concentration which suggests that radical concentration is a desirable parameter to measure in a plasma processing apparatus.
Claim(s) 8, 9, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gosselin (US 2014/0124138 A1) in view of Wang (US 2003/0180445 A1) and Mahoney et al. (US 2005/0034811 A1 hereinafter “Mahoney”) and further substantiated by Patience (2018. Experimental Methods and Instrumentation for Chemical Engineers (2nd Edition) - 5.4.8 Pirani Gauge pp. 145-146) and Liptak (Lipták , Béla. (2003). Instrument Engineers' Handbook (4th Edition) - Process Measurement and Analysis, Volume 1 - 5.14.4.2 Thermocouple Vacuum Gauge. (pp. 800). Taylor & Francis).
Regarding claim 8, Gosselin teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as applied above but does not explicitly teach wherein the sensor is a Pirani gauge sensor. See claim interpretation section above regarding Examiner’s interpretation of “Pirani gauge sensor.”
However, Gosselin teaches that the sensor (i.e. comprising a part of the plasma monitoring probe assembly having sensing surface 22) may be configured to function as any of a variety of alternative probe/sensor types designed to measure a parameter of the plasma, which measurement may be indicative of a condition of the plasma, one or more components of the chamber, or the object subject to the plasma processing (para. [0015]). In other words, the sensor can be configured to measure any of a number of relevant plasma processing parameters in the chamber.
Additionally, Wang teaches a sensor (i.e. thermal conductivity gas sensors or catalytic sensors, para. [0097]-[0106])) comprising platinum filaments and including a Wheatstone bridge circuit (see Fig. 2, para. [0049]-[0050],[0099]-[0100]) that senses the temperature change of a gas wherein the ratio of a particular gas in a two-gas mixture is determined according to the output voltage difference in the Wheatstone bridge (para. [0099]). Wang teaches that such a sensor is useful for measuring a gas concentration (para. [0097]-[00106]).
Patience substantiates that a Pirani gauge is based on heat transfer and thermal conductivity and includes a platinum filament and a Wheatstone bridge circuit (bottom page 145). Liptak further substantiates and shows the configuration of a Wheatstone bridge (see Fig. 5.14d) and explains that the amount of heat transferred from a gas changes with the number of molecules, the equilibrium temperature, which is detected as the resistance of the metal wire, is a function of gas pressure near the wire and the gauge is gas dependent since different gases have different thermal conductivity.
Therefore, Wang teaches a “Pirani type” gauge.
Further, Mahoney teaches a plasma processing apparatus (comprising processing system 14, Fig. 1, para. [0032]-[0033]) including an array of sensors (abstract) wherein the sensors can comprise thermal sensors/thermal catalytic sensors which are useful for monitoring gas concentrations (para. [0063]-[0064]) to enable sensory feedback for control of the plasma processing apparatus (para. [0014]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a Pirani type gauge sensor (i.e. a thermal conductivity gauge including a Wheatstone bridge circuit), in view of teachings of Wang and Mahoney and further substantiated by Patience and Liptak, in the apparatus of Gosselin because Gosselin teaches that the sensor can be configured to function as any of a variety of sensors/probe assembly configurations used to measure a parameter indicative of a condition of the plasma, and because Wang teaches that a Pirani type gauge such as a thermal conductivity sensor or catalytic sensor is useful as a gas sensor and because Mahoney teaches that thermal sensors/catalytic sensors are known to be useful for monitoring gas concentrations in a plasma apparatus to enable sensory feedback for control of the plasma processing apparatus (Mahoney: para. [0014], [0032]-[0033]).
Regarding claim 9, Gosselin in view of Wang and Mahoney and further substantiated by Patience and Liptak {hereinafter “modified Gosselin”}, teaches all of the limitations of claim 8 as applied above including a Pirani gauge sensor (see teachings of Wang as substantiated by Patience and Liptak). Wang further teaches the Pirani gauge senso (i.e. thermal conductivity gas sensors or catalytic sensors, para. [0097]-[0106])) comprises a first catalytic wire (i.e. sensing bead) and a second catalytic wire (comprising compensating bead) (para. [0051] and [0099] of Wang discloses a pair of electrically heated elements such as platinum wire; Examiner notes that instant application para. [0026] discloses platinum as a suitable catalytic wire material, thus Wang teaches “catalytic wire”), wherein the second catalytic wire (i.e. compensating bed) is coated with a non-catalytic material (i.e. alumina coating that has been treated to inhibit catalytic activity and/or a silica coating that is a catalyst poison to inhibit the catalytic activity, para. [0077], [0090], [0099]).
Regarding claim 10, modified Gosselin teaches all of the limitations of claim 8 and 9 as applied above including a Pirani gauge sensor (see teachings of Wang as substantiated by Patience and Liptak). Wang further teaches wherein the first catalytic wire and the second catalytic wire comprise platinum (para. [0051],[0099]) and wherein the non-catalytic material comprises silicon and oxygen (i.e. silica, claim 22-23, para. [0077],[0090]) or aluminum and oxygen (i.e. alumina, para. [0077], [0099]).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gosselin (US 2014/0124138 A1) in view of Mahoney et al. (US 2005/0034811 A1 hereinafter “Mahoney”).
Regarding claim 11, Gosselin teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as applied above including a sensor (comprising sensing surface 22, Fig. 3 and 4) at an end of a probe (comprising probe assembly 10 including 30 and 20, Fig. 3 and 4) that extends over a pedestal (comprising 170, Fig. 3 and 4).
Gosselin does not explicitly teach a plurality of sensors at ends of a plurality of probes, wherein each of the plurality of probes are configured to extend over the pedestal.
However, Mahoney teaches providing an array/plurality of sensors disposed in multiple locations inside the plasma processing tool to deduce global or spatial properties of the plasma in order to monitor and control the process (para. [0010], [0014]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to duplicate the sensor and probe configuration of Gosselin such that there are a plurality of sensors at ends of a plurality of probes, wherein each of the plurality of probes are configured to extend over the pedestal because Mahoney teaches that having a plurality of sensors disposed in multiple locations inside the plasma processing tool enables deducing global or spatial properties of the plasma in order to monitor and control the process (para. [0010], [0014]), wherein one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that duplication of the scannable probe and sensor configuration of modified Gosselin would enable providing additional data for improved plasma monitoring and control.
Furthermore, the courts have ruled that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. (In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). See MPEP 2144.04 VI. B.)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04 Feb 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive as further discussed below.
Applicant argues (remarks page 8-9) regarding U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejection of independent claim 1, Gosselin teaches the probe is entirely outside of a wafer region 172 of the processing stage 170 and thus does not disclose at least amended claim 1 limitation "wherein the probe is configured to extend over the region for supporting the substrate." Applicant further argues the other cited references do not cure the deficiencies of Gosselin.
Examiner responds, the probe being inside or outside of the wafer/substrate supporting region is not commensurate with the claims. The claims require the probe to “extend over the region for supporting the substrate.” Examiner interprets “extend over the region for supporting the substrate” under broadest reasonable interpretation as the probe extends to a higher level or height above the region for supporting the substrate in light of Merriam-Webster’s dictionary definition of “over” (see attached definition NPL reference of Merriam-Webster’s dictionary definition of over – “used as a function word to indicate motion or situation in apposition higher than or above another” or “above”). Examiner explains that the probe extending over the region for supporting the substrate does not limit the probe to overlapping or extending across an upper surface of the substrate or substrate supporting region and does not preclude the probe from extending above in a vertical direction over the substrate supporting region. Thus, Gosselin still teaches claim 1 limitations as explained in detail in claims rejections above.
In light of the above, independent claim 1 is rejected. Additionally, in view of Examiner’s remarks regarding independent claims 1, the dependent claims 3-11 are also rejected, as detailed above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 LAUREEN CHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3778. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30AM-5:30PM 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, 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.
/LAUREEN CHAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1716 /RAM N KACKAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights