DETAILED ACTION
This correspondence is in response to the communications received 08/14/2025. Claim 21 has been added. Claims 1, 12, and 13 have been amended. Claims 2, 3, and 7 have been canceled. Claims 15-20 have been withdrawn. Claims 1, 4-6, and 8-21 are pending.
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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s cancelation of claim 7 renders moot the claim objection outlined in the previous Office Action. The claim objection is withdrawn.
Applicant’s cancelation of claim 7 renders moot the 112(b) rejection outlined in the previous Office Action. The 112(b) rejection is withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/14/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts that the combination of Bartley et al. (US 8,293,578 B2, hereinafter "Bartley") and Yu et al. (US 11,769,731 B2, hereinafter “Yu”) does not disclose all the features of claim 1. Specifically, that Bartley does not disclose or suggest the “overall physical construction with alternating types of bonds between dies” as stated in the prior Office Action.
As outlined in the previous office Action, Fig. 17 of Bartley shows alternating densities of bonds between a first die 610, a second die 608, and a third die 606. While Fig. 4 of Bartley shows a homogeneous bond type, Fig. 4 is merely an alternative arrangement of a chip stack that refers to the same inventive concept of the “multi-layer semiconductor stack” as Fig. 17.
Furthermore, Bartley states “dies 604 and 606 are wafer-wafer bonded with one another to form a first sub-assembly 614 having a high density electrical/physical interconnect 616, and dies 608 and 610 are wafer-wafer bonded with one another to form a second sub-assembly 618 having a high density electrical/physical interconnect 620” (col. 20, lines, 19-24), and “Sub-assemblies 614, [618] are then bonded together along with dies 602 and 612 to form lower density electrical/physical interconnects 622, 624, 626 using one or both of chip-chip bonding and chip-wafer bonding.” (emphasis added, col. 20, line 33-36). Thus 616, 620, and 624 represent alternating types of bonds between dies. Therefore, Bartley discloses the “overall physical construction with alternating types of bonds between dies” and Yu is then only used to teach the specific types of bonds to be substituted into Bartley.
Applicant asserts that the combination of Bartley et al. (US 8,293,578 B2, hereinafter "Bartley") and Yu et al. (US 11,769,731 B2, hereinafter “Yu”) does not disclose all the features of newly amended claim 1. Specifically, that neither of the references disclose or suggest “wherein the first die is coupled to the second die through a hybrid bond;
first solder bonds coupled with the first conductive contacts; and
a second die stack coupled to the first die stack, the second die stack comprising a third die, wherein the third die comprises third conductive contacts coupled to the second conductive contacts by second solder bonds, each die of the second die stack is coupled to each of a respective one or more other dies of the second die stack via respective hybrid bonds” as recited in newly amended claim 1.
As outlined in the previous Office Action and above, Bartley discloses a first die stack (618) comprising a first die (610) bonded to a second die (608) via a first bond type (“dies 608 and 610 are wafer-wafer bonded with one another to form a second sub-assembly 618” col. 20, lines 22-23), a third die (606) bonded to other dies (“a die 604”) in a second stack (“first sub-assembly 614”) via the first bond type (“dies 604 and 606 are wafer-wafer bonded with one another to form a first sub-assembly 614”, col. 20, lines 19-20), and conductive contacts of the third die (22e) bonded to conductive contacts of the second die (22d) via a second type of bonding (“Sub-assemblies 614, 616 are then bonded together along with dies 602 and 612 to form lower density electrical/physical interconnects 622, 624, 626 using one or both of chip-chip bonding and chip-wafer bonding.” col. 20, lines 33-36). Yu then discloses the first bond type (“direct metal-to-metal bonding”, col. 4, line 22) and the second bond type (“solder bonding”, col. 4, line 22).
Applicant further asserts that the definition of hybrid bonding as stated in paragraph [0031] of the specification is not limited to metal-to-metal bonding. However, Yu also teaches hybrid bonding including “dielectric-to-dielectric bonding (also known as fusion bonding, in which Si—O—Si bonds may be formed between two bonded dielectric layers)” (col. 4, lines 23-26). However, paragraph [0031] of the specification states “metal features embedded within an insulator of one IC die are directly fused to metal features embedded within an insulator of another die” (emphasis added), therefore, metal-to-metal bonding was chosen as the most analogous bonding technique from the prior art of Yu as it preserved the signal transfer functionality of the bond which the dielectric-to-dielectric bonding does not. Furthermore, Yu teaches “neighboring tiers are bonded to each other, either through direct metal-to-metal bonding, solder bonding, or hybrid bonding” (col. 4, lines 20-23) indicating that these different bonding types are interchangeable, and that while some methods may be more labor and/or cost intensive, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize them as equivalent.
Applicant further asserts that the dimensions of the claimed die stacks permit a stacking density twice that of Bartley or other traditional stacking techniques due to the claimed die stacks having an equivalent thickness to single monolithic dies. However, the thickness of the die stacks is not required in the claim language and thus moot with regards to the rejection of newly amended claim 1.
Newly amended claim 12 stands rejected for the reasons discussed above.
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.
Claims 1, 6, and 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bartley et al. (US 8,293,578 B2, hereinafter "Bartley") in view of Yu et al. (US 11,769,731 B2, hereinafter “Yu”).
PNG
media_image1.png
446
488
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
581
861
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, the prior art of Bartley discloses in Fig. 17 with additional bonding details disclosed in Fig 4. (it is understood that Fig. 4 is a detailed view of a stack of four chips which can be further packaged in an arrangement as shown in Fig. 17, and that both figures refer back to the same inventive concept of the “multi-layer semiconductor stack”, which is consistent with the same invention), a packaged device (600) comprising:
a first die stack (“a second sub-assembly 618”) comprising:
a first die (“a die 610”, equivalent to lower most 40 in Fig. 4) comprising first conductive contacts (col. 6, lines 45-56 “a contact pad 22”, different instances of 22 in Fig. 4 have been labeled for clarity, the first conductive contacts specifically correspond to 22a) at a first side of the first die (22a is on the lower surface side of 610)
a second die (“a die 608”, equivalent to second from lower most 40 in Fig. 4) comprising second conductive contacts (22d in Fig.4) at a second side of the second die (22d is on the upper surface side of 608), wherein the first die is coupled to the second die (610 is bonded to 608);
first bonds (“a regular array of physical/electrical interconnects 50”) coupled with the first conductive contacts (“physical/electrical interconnects 50 joining contact pads 22 on adjacent surfaces 42, 44”, different instances of 50 in Fig. 4 have been labeled for clarity, the first bond specifically corresponds to 50a); and
a second die stack (“a first sub-assembly 614”) coupled to the first die stack (as seen in Fig. 17, 614 is coupled to 618), the second die stack comprising a third die (“a die 606”, equivalent to second from upper most 40 in Fig. 4), wherein the third die comprises third conductive contacts (22e in Fig.4) coupled to the second conductive contacts by second bonds (50b in Fig. 4), each die of the second die stack is coupled to each of a respective one or more other dies of the second die stack via respective bonds (as seen in Fig. 17, 606 is bonded to a die 604, both 606 and 604 are of 614).
Bartley discloses the overall physical construction with alternating types of bonds between dies which is similar to the Applicant’s structure. Bartley does not disclose the same type of hybrid bonding which the secondary reference is utilized to disclose. The direct metal-to-metal bond is known in the art as an obvious variant to other types of bonding such as solder bonding, or dielectric-to-dielectric bonding. Therefore, the following bonding types are to be substituted to create a packaged device in the physical construction as shown in the prior art of Bartley.
Bartley fails to disclose “wherein the first die is coupled to the second die through a hybrid bond;
first solder bonds coupled with the first conductive contacts; and
a third die comprising third conductive contacts coupled to the second conductive contacts by second solder bonds, each die of the second die stack is coupled to each of a respective one or more other dies of the second die stack via respective hybrid bonds” (italicized elements not disclosed).
Yu is then utilized to disclose the bond type to be substituted into the Bartley construction.
Yu teaches a similar packaged device in Figs. 1A and 1B wherein the first die is coupled to the second die through a hybrid bond (“direct metal-to-metal bonding”, col. 4, line 22);
first solder bonds (“solder bonding”, col. 4, line 22) coupled with the first conductive contacts; and
a third die comprising third conductive contacts coupled to the second conductive contacts by second solder bonds (“solder bonding”, col. 4, line 22), each die of the second die stack is coupled to each of a respective one or more other dies of the second die stack via respective hybrid bonds (“direct metal-to-metal bonding”, col. 4, line 22).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to implement “wherein the first die is coupled to the second die through a hybrid bond; first solder bonds coupled with the first conductive contacts;
and a third die comprising third conductive contacts coupled to the second conductive contacts by second solder bonds, each die of the second die stack is coupled to each of a respective one or more other dies of the second die stack via respective hybrid bonds” as taught by Yu in the system disclosed by Bartley for the for the purpose of reducing the likelihood of adjacent contact short circuiting connections.
Regarding claim 6, the prior art of Bartley in combination with Yu discloses the packaged device of claim 1, Yu further discloses wherein a first cross-sectional profile of the second die is substantially larger than a second cross-sectional profile of the third die (MD3 and LD disclosed by Yu are equivalent in structure to 608 and 606 disclosed by Bartley, the cross-sectional profile of LD is substantially larger than the cross-sectional profile of MD3); and
wherein the first cross-sectional profile and the second cross-sectional profile are each in a respective plane which is parallel to a plane in which the second side extends (as shown in Fig. 1B, the cross-sectional profile of LD and the cross-sectional profile of MD3 are in planes parallel to the plane in which the second side extends).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to implement “wherein a first cross-sectional profile of the second die is substantially larger than a second cross-sectional profile of the third die; and
wherein the first cross-sectional profile and the second cross-sectional profile are each in a respective plane which is parallel to a plane in which the second side extends” as taught by Yu in the system disclosed by Bartley for the purpose of integrating dies of varying sizes and functions into a single device.
Regarding claim 8, the prior art of Bartley in combination with Yu discloses the packaged device of claim 1, Yu teaches wherein each die of the first die stack is bonded in a respective front-to-back configuration to another die of the first die stack (“depending on which sides of the dies are bonded to each other, the bonding may be face-to-back bonding”, col. 4, lines 16-18).
While Yu does not explicitly disclose die orientations in a first die stack, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to implement “wherein each die of the first die stack is bonded in a respective front-to-back configuration to another die of the first die stack” as taught by Yu in the packaged device disclosed by Bartley in combination with Yu to orient each die of 618 such that each die is bonded “front-to-back” for the purpose of balancing heat dissipation among the stacked dies.
Regarding claim 9, the prior art of Bartley in combination with Yu discloses the packaged device of claim 1, Yu teaches wherein each die of the first die stack is bonded to another die of the first die stack in a respective one of a front-to-front configuration, or a back-to-back configuration (“depending on which sides of the dies are bonded to each other, the bonding may be … face-to-face bonding, back-to-back bonding”, col. 4, lines 16-18).
While Yu does not explicitly disclose die orientations in a first die stack, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to implement “wherein each die of the first die stack is bonded to another die of the first die stack in a respective one of a front-to-front configuration, or a back-to-back configuration” as taught by Yu in the packaged device disclosed by Bartley in combination with Yu to orient each die of 618 such that each die is bonded “front-to-front” or “back-to-back” for the purpose of minimizing wiring distances between active devices in the facing active regions to reduce RC delay (for front-to-front configuration), or for balancing heat dissipation among the stacked dies (for back-to-back configuration.
Regarding claim 10, the prior art of Bartley in combination with Yu discloses the packaged device of claim 1, Bartley further discloses further comprising a package substrate coupled to the first die stack via the first solder bonds (“FIG. 17 also illustrates stack 600 bonded via an electrical/physical interconnect 628 to a carrier 630”, col. 20, lines 43-44).
Regarding claim 11, the prior art of Bartley in combination with Yu discloses the packaged device of claim 1, Bartley further discloses further comprising a fourth die (“a die 612”) coupled to the first die stack via the first solder bonds (612 is coupled to 618).
Regarding claim 12, the prior art of Bartley discloses in Fig. 17 with additional bonding details disclosed in Fig 4. (it is understood that Fig. 4 is a detailed view of a stack of four chips which can be further packaged in an arrangement as shown in Fig. 17, and that both figures refer back to the same inventive concept of the “multi-layer semiconductor stack”, which is consistent with the same invention), a packaged device (600) comprising:
a first die stack (“a second sub-assembly 618”) comprising:
a first die (“a die 610”, equivalent to lower most 40 in Fig. 4) comprising first conductive contacts (col. 6, lines 45-56 “a contact pad 22”, different instances of 22 in Fig. 4 have been labeled for clarity, the first conductive contacts specifically correspond to 22a) at a first side of the first die (22a is on the lower surface side of 610)
a second die (“a die 608”, equivalent to second from lower most 40 in Fig. 4) comprising second conductive contacts (22d in Fig.4) at a second side of the second die (22d is on the upper surface side of 608), wherein the first die is coupled to the second die (610 is bonded to 608);
first bonds (“a regular array of physical/electrical interconnects 50”) coupled with the first conductive contacts (“physical/electrical interconnects 50 joining contact pads 22 on adjacent surfaces 42, 44”, different instances of 50 in Fig. 4 have been labeled for clarity, the first bond specifically corresponds to 50a); and
a second die stack (“a first sub-assembly 614”) coupled to the first die stack (as seen in Fig. 17, 614 is coupled to 618), the second die stack comprising a third die (“a die 606”, equivalent to second from upper most 40 in Fig. 4), wherein the third die comprises third conductive contacts (22e in Fig.4) coupled to the second conductive contacts by second bonds (50b in Fig. 4), each die of the second die stack is coupled to each of a respective one or more other dies of the second die stack via respective bonds (as seen in Fig. 17, 606 is bonded to a die 604, both 606 and 604 are of 614); and
a package substrate (“a carrier 630”) coupled to the first die stack via the first bonds (50a connects 618 and 630).
Bartley discloses the overall physical construction with alternating types of bonds between dies which is similar to the Applicant’s structure. Bartley does not disclose the same type of hybrid bonding which the secondary reference is utilized to disclose. The direct metal-to-metal bond is known in the art as an obvious variant to other types of bonding such as solder bonding, or dielectric-to-dielectric bonding. Therefore, the following bonding types are to be substituted to create a packaged device in the physical construction as shown in the prior art of Bartley.
Bartley fails to disclose “wherein the first die is coupled to the second die through a hybrid bond;
first solder bonds coupled with the first conductive contacts; and
a third die comprising third conductive contacts coupled to the second conductive contacts by second solder bonds, each die of the second die stack is coupled to each of a respective one or more other dies of the second die stack via respective hybrid bonds” (italicized elements not disclosed).
Yu is then utilized to disclose the bond type to be substituted into the Bartley construction.
Yu teaches a similar packaged device in Figs. 1A and 1B wherein the first die is coupled to the second die through a hybrid bond (“direct metal-to-metal bonding”, col. 4, line 22);
first solder bonds (“solder bonding”, col. 4, line 22) coupled with the first conductive contacts; and
a third die comprising third conductive contacts coupled to the second conductive contacts by second solder bonds (“solder bonding”, col. 4, line 22), each die of the second die stack is coupled to each of a respective one or more other dies of the second die stack via respective hybrid bonds (“direct metal-to-metal bonding”, col. 4, line 22).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to implement “wherein the first die is coupled to the second die through a hybrid bond; first solder bonds coupled with the first conductive contacts;
and a third die comprising third conductive contacts coupled to the second conductive contacts by second solder bonds, each die of the second die stack is coupled to each of a respective one or more other dies of the second die stack via respective hybrid bonds” as taught by Yu in the system disclosed by Bartley for the for the purpose of reducing the likelihood of adjacent contact short circuiting connections.
Claims 4, 5, 13, 14, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bartley et al. (US 8,293,578 B2, hereinafter "Bartley") in view of Yu et al. (US 11,769,731 B2, hereinafter “Yu”) in view of Choi et al. (US 2021/0143126 A1, hereinafter “Choi”).
Regarding claim 4, the prior art of Bartley in combination with Yu further discloses the packaged device of claim 1.
Bartley fails to disclose “further comprising:
a first body of a first mold compound wherein the first body extends along and adjoins a sidewall structure of the third die;
a second body of a second mold compound wherein the second body extends along and adjoins a sidewall structure of one of the first die or the second die.”
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Yu further discloses further comprising:
a first body of a first mold compound (”encapsulant 134”), wherein the first body extends along and adjoins a sidewall structure of the third die (134 extends along and adjoins the substituted third die from the primary reference);
a second body of a second mold compound (“encapsulant 130”) wherein the second body extends along and adjoins a sidewall structure of one of the first die or the second die (130 extends along and adjoins and adjoins the substituted first die from the secondary reference).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to implement “further comprising:
a first body of a first mold compound wherein the first body extends along and adjoins a sidewall structure of the third die;
a second body of a second mold compound wherein the second body extends along and adjoins a sidewall structure of one of the first die or the second die.” as taught by Yu in the structure of Bartley in combination with Yu for the purpose of improving device yield and protecting the die stacks during manufacturing.
Yu does not disclose “wherein the second body extends around the first body.”
PNG
media_image3.png
536
774
media_image3.png
Greyscale
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Choi teaches in Fig. 1 wherein the second body extends around the first body (Choi discloses “a second mold layer 600” extending around “a first mold layer 330”, these are equivalent to 130 and 134 disclosed by Yu).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to implement “wherein the second body extends around the first body” as taught by Choi in the structure of Bartley in combination with Yu for the purpose of improving device yield and protecting the die stacks during manufacturing.
Regarding claim 5, the prior art of Bartley in combination with Yu and Choi discloses the packaged device of claim 4. Bartley does not directly disclose “further comprising:
a first underfill structure which extends between the second die and the third die; and
a second underfill structure which extends to the first side.”
However, Fig. 16 of Bartley teaches “a first underfill structure which extends between the second die and the third die (block 514 specifies optionally using underfill); and
a second underfill structure which extends to the first side (block 530 specifies optionally using underfill).”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to implement “further comprising: a first underfill structure which extends between the second die and the third die; and
a second underfill structure which extends to the first side.” taught by Fig. 16 of Bartley in the system disclosed by Bartley, in combination with Yu and Choi for the purpose of improving device yield and protecting the die stacks during manufacturing.
Regarding claim 13, the prior art of Bartley in combination with Yu discloses the packaged device of claim 12, Yu further discloses further comprising:
a first body of a first mold compound (”encapsulant 134”), wherein the first body extends along and adjoins a sidewall structure of the third die (134 extends along and adjoins the substituted third die from the primary reference);
a second body of a second mold compound (“encapsulant 130”) wherein the second body extends along and adjoins a sidewall structure of one of the first die or the second die (130 extends along and adjoins and adjoins the substituted first die from the secondary reference).
Regarding claim 14, the prior art of Bartley in combination with Yu and Choi discloses the packaged device of claim 13, Yu further discloses wherein a first cross-sectional profile of the second die is substantially larger than a second cross-sectional profile of the third die (MD3 and LD disclosed by Yu are equivalent in structure to 608 and 606 disclosed by Bartley, the cross-sectional profile of LD is substantially larger than the cross-sectional profile of MD3); and
wherein the first cross-sectional profile and the second cross-sectional profile are each in a respective plane which is parallel to a plane in which the second side extends (as shown in Fig. 1B, the cross-sectional profile of LD and the cross-sectional profile of MD3 are in planes parallel to the plane in which the second side extends).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to implement “wherein a first cross-sectional profile of the second die is substantially larger than a second cross-sectional profile of the third die; and
wherein the first cross-sectional profile and the second cross-sectional profile are each in a respective plane which is parallel to a plane in which the second side extends” as taught by Yu in the system disclosed by Bartley for the purpose of integrating dies of varying sizes and functions into a single device.
Yu does not disclose “wherein the second body extends around the first body”.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Choi teaches in Fig. 1 wherein the second body extends around the first body (Choi discloses “a second mold layer 600” extending around “a first mold layer 330”, these are equivalent to 130 and 134 disclosed by Yu).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to implement “wherein the second body extends around the first body” as taught by Choi in the structure of Bartley in combination with Yu for the purpose of improving device yield and protecting the die stacks during manufacturing.
Regarding claim 21, the prior art of Bartley in combination with Yu and Choi discloses the packaged device of claim 13. Bartley does not directly disclose “further comprising:
a first underfill structure which extends between the second die and the third die; and
a second underfill structure which extends to the first side.”
However, Fig. 16 of Bartley teaches “a first underfill structure which extends between the second die and the third die (block 514 specifies optionally using underfill); and
a second underfill structure which extends to the first side (block 530 specifies optionally using underfill).”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to implement “further comprising: a first underfill structure which extends between the second die and the third die; and
a second underfill structure which extends to the first side.” taught by Fig. 16 of Bartley in the system disclosed by Bartley, in combination with Yu and Choi for the purpose of improving device yield and protecting the die stacks during manufacturing.
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 BENJAMIN M KUPP whose telephone number is (571)272-5608. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:00 am - 4:00 pm PT.
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, Yara Green can be reached at (571) 270-3035. 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.
/BENJAMIN MICHAEL KUPP/Examiner, Art Unit 2893
/YARA B GREEN/Supervisor Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights