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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 16 March 2026 has been entered. Claims 1 – 3 and 5 – 21 remain pending in the application. Claims 12 – 18 were previously withdrawn from consideration.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1 – 3, 5, 6, 9, 11, and 19 – 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirai (US 2012/0204459 A1) in view of Doo (US 2017/0210104 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Hirai discloses a cover window (“cover window”, e.g. “cover window” 20, 20’: e.g. Fig. 1 – 4B, 6 – 9; ¶¶ [0009] – [0077]), comprising:
a polymer film (“cover window main body” comprised of “synthetic resin”, e.g. “cover window main body” 21: e.g. Fig. 2, 3, 4B, 6, 7; ¶¶ [0010], [0015] – [0018], [0048], [0051] – [0054], [0056], [0062], [0065] – [0067], [0069] – [0072], [0075]);
a printing layer disposed below the polymer film in a first direction (“masking layer” disposed below the “cover window main body” in a z-axis direction, e.g. “masking layer” 213: e.g. Fig. 2, 3, 4B, 6; ¶¶ [0015], [0052], [0053], [0056], [0065]); and
a hard coating layer (“transparent protection layer”, e.g. “transparent protection layer” 22: e.g. Fig. 2, 3, 4B, 6, 7; ¶¶ [0009] – [0013], [0015] – [0018], [0020], [0048], [0051], [0053], [0054], [0056], [0060] – [0062], [0066] – [0070], [0072], [0076], [0077]) including:
a first portion disposed on a top surface of the polymer film and covering the polymer film (e.g. Fig. 2, 3, 6);
a second portion directly contacting a bottom surface of the printing layer and extending over the bottom surface of the printing layer in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction (extending in an x-axis direction to form an “extension”, e.g. “extension” 222: e.g. Fig. 2, 3, 6; ¶¶ [0010], [0015], [0034], [0053]); and
a third portion disposed between the first portion and the second portion in the first direction (along the z-axis direction, the portion of the “transparent protection layer” which is not above or below the “cover window main body” or the “masking layer”: e.g. Fig. 2, 3, 6),
wherein an area of the second portion is smaller than an area of the printing layer in cross-sectional view (e.g. Fig. 2, 3, 6), and
wherein, in the second direction, an edge of the third portion is aligned with an edge of the first portion, an edge of the second portion, an edge of the polymer film, and an edge of the printing layer (e.g. Fig. 2, 3, 6).
For purposes of clarity, Hirai notes the following regarding the position of the printing layer relative to the polymer film:
[0052] The cover window may be a synthetic resin, glass, or a ceramic material. As shown in Fig. 2, the non-transparent area 212 may be obtained by forming a masking layer 213 through printing or decoration molding at the relevant portions of the transparent cover window main body 21 (i.e. except for the transparent area 211). As shown in Fig. 2, the masking layer 213 may be formed at the front surface of the cover window main body 21 or the rear surface of the cover window main body 21.
Thus, while Hirai’s Fig. 2, 3, 4B, and 6 depict a printing layer above the polymer film in the first direction, the highlighted passage also describes alternative embodiments where the printing layer is below the polymer film.
Moreover, while Hirai’s ¶ [0052] above describes embodiments in accordance with Fig. 2, it should also be noted Hirai more generally discloses the following:
[0015] The cover window main body may further include a masking layer corresponding to the non-transparent area between the cover window main body and the transparent protection layer.
Noting the correspondences as outlined above, Hirai’s cross-sectional views in Fig. 2, 3, 4B, and 6 depicts elevational views such that the printing layer is “between” the polymer film and the hard coating layer because the hard coating layer is also “on” the printing layer.
Applying this same reasoning to the alternative embodiment Hirai discloses in ¶ [0052] wherein the printing layer is at the rear surface results in a printing layer “between” the polymer film and the hard coating layer. Accordingly, the hard coating layer is also “on” the printing layer”.
This is especially noteworthy since Hirai explicitly states “on” includes embodiments where an element is “directly on” with no intervening element (e.g. ¶ [0034]). Accordingly, given the relevant disclosures highlighted above, the examiner observes Hirai discloses embodiments wherein the second portion of the hard coating directly contacts a bottom surface of the printing layer.
Although Hirai is not explicit as to the polymer film comprising a first polymer film and a second polymer film disposed directly on the first polymer film, and a thickness of the second polymer film is smaller than a thickness of the first polymer film, these features would have been obvious in view of Doo.
Doo discloses a cover window (“cover sheet”: e.g. ¶ [0001], [0014], [0036], [0037]), comprising:
a polymer film (“transparent plastic sheet” for a “cover sheet”: e.g. Fig. 1, 2; ¶¶ [0001], [0007] – [0041]), wherein the polymer film comprising a first polymer film (“polycarbonate-based resin layer”, “PC layer”: e.g. Fig. 1, 2; ¶¶ [0008], [0009], [0015] – [0017], [0019], [0020], [0029] – [0032], [0035], [0039]) and a second polymer film disposed directly on the first polymer film (“polymethylmethacrylate-based resin layer”, “PMMA layer”: respectively: e.g. Fig. 1, 2; ¶¶ [0008], [0009], [0011], [0016], [0017], [0021], [0023] – [0033], [0035], [0037], [0039], [0041]),
wherein a modulus of the second polymer film is greater than a modulus of the first polymer film (e.g. ¶¶ [0034], [0035]), and a thickness of the second polymer film is smaller than a thickness of the first polymer film (e.g. Fig. 1, 2; ¶¶ [0008], [0009], [0017], [0028], [0032], [0041]).
Doo discloses the relative moduli of the first and second polymer films in that a modulus is given for the first polymer film (1 to 1.6 GPa: e.g. ¶ [0035]) and the addition of the second polymer film increases the modulus of the overall polymer film (1.6 to 2.3 GPa: e.g. ¶¶ [0012], [0034], [0035]).
Doo’s polymer film minimally deforms under high temperature and high humidity conditions, thus minimizing warpage that negatively impacts of a display device comprising the cover window (e.g. ¶¶ [0007], [0014], [0021], [0022], [0037]).
Given Hirai discloses a display device (“display device”, e.g. “display device” 100: e.g. Fig. 1 – 4B, 6 – 9; ¶¶ [0009] – [0077]), it would have been obvious to modify Hirai’s polymer film to comprise a first polymer film and a second polymer film disposed directly on the first polymer film, and a thickness of the second polymer film is smaller than a thickness of the first polymer film as Doo suggests. One of ordinary skill in the art would have made this modification to provide minimal deformation under high temperature and high humidity, thus minimizing warpage that can negatively impact Hirai’s display device.
Regarding claim 2, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Hirai discloses the third portion contacts a side surface of the polymer film and a side surface of the printing layer (e.g. Fig. 2, 3, 6).
Regarding claim 3, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Hirai discloses the third portion extends from an end of the first portion (e.g. Fig. 2, 3, 6).
Regarding claim 5, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Doo discloses the first polymer film has a first hardness (B to 2B: e.g. ¶ [0035]), and the second polymer film has a second hardness greater than the first hardness (H to 2H: e.g. ¶¶ [0011], [0033], [0035]).
Regarding claim 6, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, as noted in the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 1, Doo discloses the first polymer film comprises polycarbonate (“polycarbonate-based resin layer”, “PC layer”: e.g. Fig. 1, 2; ¶¶ [0008], [0009], [0015] – [0017], [0019], [0020], [0029] – [0032], [0035], [0039]), and the second polymer film comprises poly methyl methacrylate (“polymethylmethacrylate-based resin layer”, “PMMA layer”: respectively: e.g. Fig. 1, 2; ¶¶ [0008], [0009], [0011], [0016], [0017], [0021], [0023] – [0033], [0035], [0037], [0039], [0041]).
Regarding claim 9, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Hirai discloses a thickness of the hard coating layer is in a range from 1 µm to 100 µm (e.g. ¶ [0060]).
Hirai’s range for the thickness of the hard coating layer encompass the claimed range. “[A] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness.” In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). See MPEP § 2144.05, I.
Regarding claim 11, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, embodiments of the cover window Doo discloses for modifying Hirai’s cover window can include additional layers beyond the first and second polymer films discussed in the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 1, namely an additional “polycarbonate-based resin layer”/“PC layer”: (e.g. Fig. 1, 2; ¶¶ [0008], [0009], [0015] – [0017], [0019], [0020], [0029] – [0032], [0035], [0039]) and an additional “polymethylmethacrylate-based resin layer”/“PMMA layer” (e.g. Fig. 1, 2; ¶¶ [0008], [0009], [0011], [0016], [0017], [0021], [0023] – [0033], [0035], [0037], [0039], [0041]). Either can be considered a sub-coating layer disposed between the polymer film and the printing layer relative to the first and second polymer films in the polymer film.
As to the additional “PMMA layer” forming a sub-coating layer, it has a thickness of 5 to 20% of the overall thickness (e.g. ¶¶ [0008], [0009], [0017], [0028], [0032], [0041]). For a thickness equal to the examples, i.e. 1 mm (e.g. ¶¶ [0044], [0046]), this means a sub-coating layer with a thickness of 50 to 200 µm.
Hirai discloses a thickness of the hard coating layer is in a range from 1 µm to 100 µm (e.g. ¶ [0060]). Doo’s lower endpoint and Hirai’s upper endpoint indicate embodiments where a thickness of the sub-coating layer is less than or equal to a thickness of the hard coating layer.
Regarding claim 19, Hirai discloses a display device (“display device”, e.g. “display device” 100: e.g. Fig. 1 – 4B, 6 – 9; ¶¶ [0009] – [0077]), comprising:
a display panel (“display panel”, e.g. “display panel” 10: e.g. Fig. 1; ¶¶ [0010], [0014], [0018], [0038] – [0048]); and
a cover window (“cover window”, e.g. “cover window” 20, 20’: e.g. Fig. 1 – 4B, 6 – 9; ¶¶ [0009] – [0077]), comprising:
a polymer film (“cover window main body” comprised of “synthetic resin”, e.g. “cover window main body” 21: e.g. Fig. 2, 3, 4B, 6, 7; ¶¶ [0010], [0015] – [0018], [0048], [0051] – [0054], [0056], [0062], [0065] – [0067], [0069] – [0072], [0075]);
a printing layer disposed below the polymer film in a first direction (“masking layer” disposed below the “cover window main body” in a z-axis direction, e.g. “masking layer” 213: e.g. Fig. 2, 3, 4B, 6; ¶¶ [0015], [0052], [0053], [0056], [0065]); and
a hard coating layer (“transparent protection layer”, e.g. “transparent protection layer” 22: e.g. Fig. 2, 3, 4B, 6, 7; ¶¶ [0009] – [0013], [0015] – [0018], [0020], [0048], [0051], [0053], [0054], [0056], [0060] – [0062], [0066] – [0070], [0072], [0076], [0077]) including:
a first portion disposed on a top surface of the polymer film and covering the polymer film (e.g. Fig. 2, 3, 6);
a second portion directly contacting a bottom surface of the printing layer and extending over the bottom surface of the printing layer in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction (extending in an x-axis direction to form an “extension”, e.g. “extension” 222: e.g. Fig. 2, 3, 6; ¶¶ [0010], [0053]); and
a third portion disposed between the first portion and the second portion in the first direction (along the z-axis direction, the portion of the “transparent protection layer” which is not above or below the “cover window main body” or the “masking layer”: e.g. Fig. 2, 3, 6),
wherein an area of the second portion is smaller than an area of the printing layer in cross-sectional view (e.g. Fig. 2, 3, 6), and
wherein, in the second direction, an edge of the third portion is aligned with an edge of the first portion, an edge of the second portion, an edge of the polymer film, and an edge of the printing layer (e.g. Fig. 2, 3, 6).
For purposes of clarity, Hirai notes the following regarding the position of the printing layer relative to the polymer film:
[0052] The cover window may be a synthetic resin, glass, or a ceramic material. As shown in Fig. 2, the non-transparent area 212 may be obtained by forming a masking layer 213 through printing or decoration molding at the relevant portions of the transparent cover window main body 21 (i.e. except for the transparent area 211). As shown in Fig. 2, the masking layer 213 may be formed at the front surface of the cover window main body 21 or the rear surface of the cover window main body 21.
Thus, while Hirai’s Fig. 2, 3, 4B, and 6 depict a printing layer above the polymer film in the first direction, the highlighted passage also describes alternative embodiments where the printing layer is below the polymer film.
Moreover, while Hirai’s ¶ [0052] above describes embodiments in accordance with Fig. 2, it should also be noted Hirai more generally discloses the following:
[0015] The cover window main body may further include a masking layer corresponding to the non-transparent area between the cover window main body and the transparent protection layer.
Noting the correspondences as outlined above, Hirai’s cross-sectional views in Fig. 2, 3, 4B, and 6 depicts elevational views such that the printing layer is “between” the polymer film and the hard coating layer because the hard coating layer is also “on” the printing layer.
Applying this same reasoning to the alternative embodiment Hirai discloses in ¶ [0052] wherein the printing layer is at the rear surface results in a printing layer “between” the polymer film and the hard coating layer. Accordingly, the hard coating layer is also “on” the printing layer”.
This is especially noteworthy since Hirai explicitly states “on” includes embodiments where an element is “directly on” with no intervening element (e.g. ¶ [0034]). Accordingly, given the relevant disclosures highlighted above, the examiner observes Hirai discloses embodiments wherein the second portion of the hard coating directly contacts a bottom surface of the printing layer.
Although Hirai is not explicit as to the polymer film comprising a first polymer film and a second polymer film disposed directly on the first polymer film, and a thickness of the second polymer film is smaller than a thickness of the first polymer film, these features would have been obvious in view of Doo.
Doo discloses a cover window (“cover sheet”: e.g. ¶ [0001], [0014], [0036], [0037]), comprising:
a polymer film (“transparent plastic sheet” for a “cover sheet”: e.g. Fig. 1, 2; ¶¶ [0001], [0007] – [0041]), wherein the polymer film comprising a first polymer film (“polycarbonate-based resin layer”, “PC layer”: e.g. Fig. 1, 2; ¶¶ [0008], [0009], [0015] – [0017], [0019], [0020], [0029] – [0032], [0035], [0039]) and a second polymer film disposed directly on the first polymer film (“polymethylmethacrylate-based resin layer”, “PMMA layer”: respectively: e.g. Fig. 1, 2; ¶¶ [0008], [0009], [0011], [0016], [0017], [0021], [0023] – [0033], [0035], [0037], [0039], [0041]),
wherein a modulus of the second polymer film is greater than a modulus of the first polymer film (e.g. ¶¶ [0034], [0035]), and a thickness of the second polymer film is smaller than a thickness of the first polymer film (e.g. Fig. 1, 2; ¶¶ [0008], [0009], [0017], [0028], [0032], [0041]).
Doo discloses the relative moduli of the first and second polymer films in that a modulus is given for the first polymer film (1 to 1.6 GPa: e.g. ¶ [0035]) and the addition of the second polymer film increases the modulus of the overall polymer film (1.6 to 2.3 GPa: e.g. ¶¶ [0012], [0034], [0035]).
Doo’s polymer film minimally deforms under high temperature and high humidity conditions, thus minimizing warpage that negatively impacts of a display device comprising the cover window (e.g. ¶¶ [0007], [0014], [0021], [0022], [0037]).
Given Hirai discloses a display device (“display device”, e.g. “display device” 100: e.g. Fig. 1 – 4B, 6 – 9; ¶¶ [0009] – [0077]), it would have been obvious to modify Hirai’s polymer film to comprise a first polymer film and a second polymer film disposed directly on the first polymer film, and a thickness of the second polymer film is smaller than a thickness of the first polymer film as Doo suggests. One of ordinary skill in the art would have made this modification to provide minimal deformation under high temperature and high humidity, thus minimizing warpage that can negatively impact Hirai’s display device.
Regarding claim 20, in addition to the limitations of claim 19, Hirai discloses the third portion contacts a side surface of the polymer film and a side surface of the printing layer (e.g. Fig. 2, 3, 6).
Regarding claim 21, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Hirai discloses the display device is, e.g., a cellular phone (“portable telephones” which Hirai intends to improve: e.g. ¶¶ [0005] – [0007]). Doo also discloses their cover window is for a display device which is a cellular phone (“mobile phones” which Doo intends to improve: e.g. ¶ [0003]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirai and Doo as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Seo (US 2019/0138127 A1).
Regarding claim 7, although Doo is not explicit as to the second polymer film comprising a compound including fluorine, this feature would have been obvious in view of Seo.
Seo discloses polymer films for cover windows, wherein the polymer film comprises a first polymer film having a first hardness (“soft layer” 601A, 601A1, 601A2) and a second polymer film having a second hardness greater than the first hardness (“hard layer” 601B, 601B1, 601B2), the second polymer film being disposed directly on the first polymer film (e.g. Fig. 3 – 5; ¶¶ [0002], [0006] – [0197]), wherein the second polymer film comprises a compound including fluorine in order to, e.g., improve hardness and anti-fingerprint characteristics of the second polymer film (e.g. ¶¶ [0016], [0029], [0091] – [0096]).
Accordingly, to improve hardness and anti-fingerprint characteristics of the second polymer film Doo discloses for modifying Hirai’s cover window, it would have been obvious for the second polymer film to comprise a compound including fluorine.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirai and Doo as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim (US 2019/0353955 A1).
Regarding claim 10, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Hirai discloses the printing layer includes a light blocking material (emphasized by Hirai’s description as “masking” layer in an “non-transparent area” e.g. ¶¶ [0052], [0053], [0065]) but does not specify providing coloration thereto.
Embodiments of the cover window Doo discloses for modifying Hirai’s cover window can include additional layers beyond the first and second polymer films discussed in the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 1. Doo discloses two layers having a first hardness (B to 2B: e.g. ¶ [0035]), alternating with two layers of a second hardness greater than the first hardness (H to 2H: e.g. ¶¶ [0011], [0033], [0035]) in a PC/PMMA/PC/PMMA pattern (e.g. Fig. 2). Given the purpose of a hard coating layer is to improve scratch resistance (Doo: e.g. ¶ [0038]), it is understood a hard coating layer should have a hardness should be higher than layers thereunder, i.e. a hardness of the sub-coating layer is less than a hardness of the hard coating layer.
Hirai is not explicit as to the printing layer including a light blocking material that includes black pigment or dye.
However, Kim discloses black pigment such as carbon black can be combined with a photosensitive resin composition to form a printing layer (e.g. ¶¶ [0044] – [0055]). Kim further discloses such a composition is useful for forming a printing layer with good light blocking properties (e.g. ¶¶ [0044], [0054]).
Additionally, it would have been obvious for the printing layer Hirai discloses to include a light blocking material that includes a black pigment as Kim suggests, the motivation being to provide a printing layer with the appropriate light blocking properties.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirai and Doo as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Seo. This rejection of claim 21 is presented as an alternative to the rejection above under 35 U.S.C. 103 in view of Hirai and Doo.
Regarding claim 21, although Hirai and Doo do not directly state the display device is a cellular phone, a tablet, a car navigation system, a gaming machine or a wearable device, Hirai discloses their invention generally applies to improving displays in general (e.g. ¶ [0003]) with a view on good impact resistance (e.g. ¶¶ [0009], [0019], [0047], [0054], [0069]).
Seo notes smart phones and tablet personal computers, i.e. cellular phones and tablets, are generally understood as mobile devices needing a cover window for protection from impacts (e.g. ¶¶ [0003] – [0005]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious for Hirai’s display device to be, e.g., a cellular phone, the motivation being to protect such from impacts.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pp. 8 – 11, filed 16 March 2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1 – 3, 5 – 11, and 19 – 21 under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 35 U.S.C. 103 (as appropriate) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, these rejection have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of Hirai and Doo as the new primary combination.
Applicant asserts patentability on the basis of the new limitations (1) a polymer film comprising a first polymer film and a second polymer film directly on the first polymer film, wherein a modulus of the second polymer film is greater than a modulus of the first polymer film, and a thickness of the second polymer film is smaller than a thickness of the first polymer film, and (2) a second portion of the hard coating layer directly contacting a bottom surface of the printing layer.
The examiner observes Hirai teaches (2), albeit indirectly, for the reasons outlined in the rejections above.
The examiner cites Doo for a polymer film comprising first and second polymer films as required of claim 1, said polymer film having usefulness for minimizing warp the negatively impacts display devices.
Accordingly, new grounds of rejection are presented herein.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ETHAN A UTT whose telephone number is (571)270-0356. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 7:30 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. Central.
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, Veronica Ewald can be reached at 571-272-8519. 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.
/ETHAN A. UTT/Examiner, Art Unit 1783
/MARIA V EWALD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights