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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 07/16/2026 has been entered.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
Acknowledgement is made of receipt of Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO-1449) filed 07/16/2026. An initialed copy is attached to this Office Action.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 721-1, Figure 7. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 2-3, filed 07/16/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-3,13-14,16,18,20-21,23-24,28,30 and 38, have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection provided below.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 16, 20, 22-24, 28, and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wax et al., (Wax hereafter) (US 2011/0242543 A1) in further in view of Van Peski et al., (Van Peski hereafter) (US 2006/0098297 A1).
With respect to Claim 1, Wax teaches an imaging apparatus (100, Figure 1) comprising: a mirror (124, Figure 1) positioned along an imaging axis (dashed line, Figure 1) on a first side (see annotated Figure 1) of a sample location (128, Figure 1) within an interrogation volume (immersion medium between 116 and 128, Figure 1; see also ¶[0030]), the imaging axis (dashed line, Figure 1) passing through the sample location (128, Figure 1); an optical lens system (114, Figure 1) comprising a plurality of optical lenses (L1116 and L2118, Figure 1) arranged along the imaging axis (dashed line, Figure 1), the optical lens system (114, Figure 1) including one or more optical lenses (L1116 and L2118, Figure 1) located on both the first side (see annotated Figure 1) and a second side (see annotated Figure 1) (see annotated Figure 1) of the sample location (128, Figure 1) within the interrogation volume (immersion medium between 116 and 128, Figure 1), the second side (see annotated Figure 1) opposite the first side (see annotated Figure 1); and a detection system (110, Figure 1) external to the interrogation volume (immersion medium between 116 and 128, Figure 1) and configured to detect light (110, Figure 1; see also ¶[0032]) emitted from the sample location (128, Figure 1) and collected by the mirror (124, Figure 1) and the optical lens system (114, Figure 1).
Wax fails to teach at least one of the optical lenses being a multiplet optical lens.
Wax teaches an interferometric system and Van Peski teaches an apparatus for fluid handling in lithography which can be used with the interferometric system.
Van Peski teaches one of the optical lenses being a multiplet optical lens (204 is a doublet lens, Figure 3B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective date of the invention to modify the teachings of Wax having the imaging apparatus with the teachings of Van Peski having the multiplet lenses for the purpose of aberration correction.
PNG
media_image1.png
595
1067
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to Claim 2, Wax teaches wherein the optical lenses of the optical lens system (114, Figure 1) are arranged so that, over every optical surface, light rays (114, Figure 1) have a maximum exit angle in air (¶[0033]).
Wax discloses the claimed invention except for light rays have a maximum exit angle in air, with respect to the lens surface normals, within a range of 35°- 40°. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to since the claimed ranges and the prior art ranges are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties and further being motivated to have light rays have a maximum exit angle in air, with respect to the lens surface normals, within a range of 35°- 40° for the purpose of ensure collection of the inclined reference beam, ¶[0033] for sample illumination.
With respect to Claim 3, Wax further teaches wherein the detection system (110, Figure 1) images the light emitted from the sample location (128, Figure 1) at the diffraction limit of the numerical aperture of the detection system (110, Figure 1).
With respect to Claim 16, Wax teaches the imaging apparatus of claim 1, wherein the optical lens system (114, Figure 1) comprises a plurality of lenses (L1116 and L2118, Figure 1) on the second side (see annotated Figure 1) of the sample location (128, Figure 1) opposite the mirror (124, Figure 1) and at least one singlet lens (one of L1116 and L2118, Figure 1) on the first side (see annotated Figure 1) of the sample location (128, Figure 1) between the sample location (128, Figure 1) and the mirror (124, Figure 1).
Wax fails to teach a plurality of multiplet lenses.
Van Peski teaches a multiplet lens (204 is a doublet lens, Figure 3B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective date of the invention to modify the teachings of Wax having the imaging apparatus with the teachings of Van Peski having the multiplet lenses for the purpose of aberration correction.
Wax in view of Van Peski disclose the claimed invention except for the duplication of multiplet lenses. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to duplicate multiplet lenses, since it have been held that a mere duplication of working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to duplicate multiplet lenses for the purpose of aberration correction. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
With respect to Claim 20, Wax further teaches the imaging apparatus of claim 1, wherein: the mirror (124, Figure 1) and the optical lens system (114, Figure 1) make up a light collection apparatus (114 and 124, Figure 1) configured to provide an optically accessible sample location (128, Figure 1) along a direction perpendicular (see Figure 1) to the imaging axis (dashed line, Figure 1); and the light collection apparatus (114 and 124, Figure 1) has a working distance (space between the front lens of a microscope objective and the specimen, Figure 1) and a curvature of each of the optical lenses (L1116 and L2118, Figure 1) located on either side of a sample at the sample location (128, Figure 1) that provides optical access (see Figure 1) to the sample location (128, Figure 1) at a numerical aperture of at least 0.4, at least 0.5, or at least 0.6 (0.66, ¶[0051]) to a surface of the sample at the sample location (128, Figure 1).
With respect to Claim 22, Wax teaches an imaging apparatus (100, Figure 1) for imaging a sample (128, Figure 1), the imaging apparatus comprising: a mirror (124, Figure 1) positioned along an imaging axis (dashed line, Figure 1) on a first side (see annotated Figure 1) of a sample location (128, Figure 1) within an interrogation volume (immersion medium between 116 and 128, Figure 1; see also ¶[0030]), the imaging axis dashed line, Figure 1) passing through the sample location (128, Figure 1); and an optical lens system (114, Figure 1) comprising a plurality of optical lenses (L1116 and L2118, Figure 1) arranged along the imaging axis (dashed line, Figure 1); wherein the mirror (124, Figure 1) and the optical lens system (114, Figure 1) comprises one or more optical lenses (L1116 and L2118, Figure 1) are located on both the first side (see annotated Figure 1) and a second side (see annotated Figure 1) of the sample location (128, Figure 1) along the imaging axis dashed line, Figure 1) and within the interrogation volume (immersion medium between 116 and 128, Figure 1; see also ¶[0030]), the second side (see annotated Figure 1) opposite the first side (see annotated Figure 1).
Wax fails to teach at least one of the optical lenses being a multiplet optical lens.
Van Peski teaches one of the optical lenses being a multiplet optical lens (204 is a doublet lens, Figure 3B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective date of the invention to modify the teachings of Wax having the imaging apparatus with the teachings of Van Peski having the multiplet lenses for the purpose of aberration correction.
With respect to Claim 23, Wax in view of Van Peski teach the imaging apparatus of claim 22, wherein the optical lenses (L1116 and L2118, Figure 1) of the optical lens system (114, Figure 1).
Wax in view of Van Peski disclose the claimed invention except for light rays have a maximum exit angle in air, with respect to the lens surface normals, within a range of 35°- 40°. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to since the claimed ranges and the prior art ranges are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties and further being motivated to have light rays have a maximum exit angle in air, with respect to the lens surface normals, within a range of 35°- 40° for the purpose of ensure collection of the inclined reference beam, ¶[0033] for sample illumination.
With respect to Claim 24, Wax teaches a detection apparatus for imaging a sample (128, Figure 1), the detection apparatus comprising: a mirror (124, Figure 1) positioned along an imaging axis (dashed line, Figure 1) through on a first side (see annotated Figure 1) of a sample location (128, Figure 1) within an interrogation volume (immersion medium between 116 and 128, Figure 1; see also ¶[0030]), the imaging axis (dashed line, Figure 1) passing through the sample location (128, Figure 1); an optical lens system (114 which includes L1116 and L2118, Figure 1) comprising a plurality of optical lenses (L1116 and L2118, Figure 1) arranged along the imaging axis (dashed line, Figure 1), the optical lens system (114, Figure 1) including one or more optical lenses (L1116 and L2118, Figure 1) located on both the first side (see annotated Figure 1) and a second side (see annotated Figure 1) of the sample location (128, Figure 1) within the interrogation volume (immersion medium between 116 and 128, Figure 1; see also ¶[0030]), the second side (see annotated Figure 1) opposite the first side (see annotated Figure 1); and a sample apparatus (120, Figure 1) configured to define the interrogation volume (immersion medium between 116 and 128, Figure 1; see also ¶[0030]) and receive the sample at the sample location (128, Figure 1) within the interrogation volume (immersion medium between 116 and 128, Figure 1; see also ¶[0030]), the sample apparatus including an immersion fluid (immersion medium, ¶[0030]) at least partly contained by one or more optical lenses of the optical lens system (114, Figure 1).
Wax fails to teach at least one of the optical lenses being a multiplet optical lens.
Van Peski teaches one of the optical lenses being a multiplet optical lens (204 is a doublet lens, Figure 3B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective date of the invention to modify the teachings of Wax having the imaging apparatus with the teachings of Van Peski having the multiplet lenses for the purpose of aberration correction.
With respect to Claim 28, Wax teaches an optical microscope apparatus (¶[0051]) comprising: an optical interrogation system configured to probe a sample location (128, Figure 1) including producing one or more light beams (multiples of 104, Figure 1) directed toward the sample location (128, Figure 1); and a light collection system (122, 124, L1116 and L2118, Figure 1) configured to collect light (collection of the inclined reference beams, ¶[0033]) output from a sample (128, Figure 1) due to being probed by the optical interrogation system, the light collection system (122, 124, L1116 and L2118, Figure 1) comprising: a mirror (124, Figure 1) positioned along an imaging axis (dashed line, Figure 1) that passes on a first side (see annotated Figure 1) of the sample location (128, Figure 1) within an interrogation volume, the imaging axis (dashed line, Figure 1) passing through the sample location (128, Figure 1); and an optical lens system (114, Figure 1) comprising a plurality of optical lenses (L1116 and L2118, Figure 1) arranged along the imaging axis (dashed line, Figure 1), the optical lens system (114, Figure 1) including one or more optical lenses (L1116 and L2118, Figure 1) located on both the first side (see annotated Figure 1) and a second side (see annotated Figure 1) of the sample location (128, Figure 1) within the interrogation volume, the second side (see annotated Figure 1) opposite the first side (see annotated Figure 1).
Wax fails to teach at least one of the lenses being a multiplet optical lens.
Van Peski teaches one of the optical lenses being a multiplet optical lens (204 is a doublet lens, Figure 3B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective date of the invention to modify the teachings of Wax having the imaging apparatus with the teachings of Van Peski having the multiplet lenses for the purpose of aberration correction.
With respect to Claim 30, the optical microscope apparatus of claim 28, wherein the one or more light beams (multiples of 104, Figure 1) produced by the optical interrogation system are directed toward the sample location (128, Figure 1) by way of the mirror (124, Figure 1); or the one or more light beams (multiples of 104, Figure 1) produced by the optical interrogation system are directed toward the sample location (128, Figure 1) along a direction perpendicular to the imaging axis (dashed line, Figure 1) without interaction with the mirror (124, Figure 1).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wax (US 2011/0242543 A1) in view of Van Peski (US 2006/0098297 A1) in further view of Kemp (US 2008/0180683 A1), of record.
With respect to Claim 13, the imaging apparatus of claim 1, wherein the optical lens system (114, Figure 1) comprises a plurality of singlet optical lenses (L1116 and L2118, Figure 1),
Wax fails to teach a doublet optical lenses, and at least one triplet optical lens.
Van Peski teaches a multiplet lenses (204 is a doublet lens, Figure 3B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective date of the invention to modify the teachings of Wax having the imaging apparatus with the teachings of Van Peski having the multiplet lenses for the purpose of aberration correction.
Wax in view of Van Peski disclose the claimed invention except for the duplication of multiplet lenses. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to duplicate multiplet lenses, since it have been held that a mere duplication of working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to duplicate multiplet lenses for the purpose of aberration correction. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Wax in view of Van fail to teach at least one triplet optical lens.
Wax in view of Van Peski teach the imaging apparatus and Kemp teaches optical coherence tomography implementation which can be used with the imaging apparatus.
Kemp teaches at least one triplet optical lens (two triplet lenses 144, Figure 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective date of the invention to modify the teachings of Wax in view of Van Peski having the imaging apparatus with the teachings of Kemp having at least one triplet optical lens for the purpose of focusing the light and aberration correction.
Claim(s) 14 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wax (US 2011/0242543 A1) in view of Van Peski (US 2006/0098297 A1) in further view of Chen (EP3206010), of record.
With respect to Claim 14, Wax in view of Van Peski teach the imaging apparatus of claim 1, the mirror (124, Figure 1, of Wax) and the sample location (128, Figure 1, of Wax).
Wax in view of Van Peski fail to teach wherein the mirror is a mirror that is monocentric with an image of a surface of the sample location, and a maximum angle of incidence of a chief ray of light onto the optical surface of the mirror at a full field of view is 20,30, or 4°.
Wax in view of Van Peski teach the imaging apparatus and Chen teaches a flow cytometer which can be used with the imaging apparatus.
Chen teaches wherein the mirror (601, Figure 8) is a mirror (601, Figure 8) that is monocentric (piano-concave back-surface mirror ¶[0051]) with an image of a surface of the sample location (604, Figure 9), and a maximum angle of incidence of a chief ray of light (Figure 2) onto the optical surface of the mirror (601, Figure 8) at a full field of view is 2°, 3°, or 4°(¶[0053]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective date of the invention to modify the teachings of Wax in view of Van Peski having the imaging apparatus with the teachings of Chen having the mirror is a mirror that is monocentric with an image of a surface of the sample location, and a maximum angle of incidence of a chief ray of light onto the optical surface of the mirror at a full field of view is 2°, 3°, or 4° for the purpose of lower chromatic dispersion in light emitted, ¶[0053].
With respect to Claim 18, Wax in view of Van Peski teach the imaging apparatus of claim 1, wherein each of the optical lenses (L1116 and L2118, Figure 1, of Wax) of the optical lens system (114, Figure 1, of Wax) and the mirror (124, Figure 1), and the axial positions of one or more of the optical lenses (L1116 and L2118, Figure 1, of Wax) of the optical lens system (114, Figure 1, of Wax) are offset to thereby adjust for aberrations caused by variations in a refractive index of a sample (128, Figure 1, of Wax) at the sample location (128, Figure 1, of Wax).
Wax in view of Van Peski fail to teach wherein each of the optical lenses and the mirror are spherical.
Chen teaches wherein each of the optical lenses (Figure 10) of the optical lens system (Figure 10) and the mirror (601, Figure 8) is spherical (plano-concave back-surface mirror 601, ¶[0051]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective date of the invention to modify the teachings of Wax in view of Van Peski having the imaging apparatus with the teachings of Chen having each of the optical lenses of the optical lens system and the mirror is spherical for the purpose of cost-effectiveness and better light focus.
Claim(s) 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wax (US 2011/0242543 A1) in view of Van Peski (US 2006/0098297 A1) and in further view of Liu et al., (hereafter Liu) (CN106950195A), of record.
With respect to Claim 38, Wax in view of Van Peski teach the optical microscope apparatus of claim 28 and the light collection system (122, 124, L1116 and L2118, Figure 1, of Wax), a detection system (110, Figure 1, of Wax) that is configured to receive the light (110, Figure 1, detects and collects light, ¶[0032], and receive the reference beam 126 and the sample beam 130, ¶[0034]) collected from the light collection system (122, 124, L1116 and L2118, Figure 1, of Wax).
Wax in view of Van Peski fail to teach a control system in communication with the optical interrogation system and the light collection system, and configured to coordinate electrical and optical properties of the optical interrogation system and the light collection system; wherein the control system is in communication with the detection system and is configured to form an image of a sample from the light collected from the light collection system due to the sample being probed by the optical interrogation system.
Wax in view of Van Peski teach the optical microscope and Liu teaches a programmable optical component based on a scattering medium which can be used in the microscope.
Liu teaches a control system (control system, ¶[0042]) in communication with the optical interrogation system (controllable optical components, ¶[0042]) and the light collection system (light field regulation system, ¶[0043]), and configured to coordinate electrical and optical properties (¶[0042]-[0043]) of the optical interrogation system (controllable optical components, ¶[0042]) and the light collection system (light field regulation system, ¶[0043]); and a detection system (detection module, ¶[0043]) that is configured to receive the light (light beam, ¶[0042]) collected from the light collection system (light field regulation system, ¶[0043]), wherein the control system (control system, ¶[0042]) is in communication with the detection system (detection module, ¶[0043]) and is configured to form an image (images, ¶[0043]) of a sample from the light collected (light beam, ¶[0042]) from the light collection system (light field regulation system, ¶[0043]) by the optical interrogation system (controllable optical components, ¶[0042]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective date of the invention to modify the teachings of Wax in view of Van Peski having the imaging apparatus with the teachings of Liu having a control system in communication with the optical interrogation system and the light collection system, and configured to coordinate electrical and optical properties of the optical interrogation system and the light collection system; and a detection system that is configured to receive the light collected from the light collection system, for the purpose of modulating light and control optical system structures, ¶[0042].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15 and 40 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
With respect to Claim 15, the prior art fails to teach “wherein the mirror and the optical lens system make up a light collection apparatus configured to reduce field dependent aberrations to below a root mean square wavefront error of 0.09 waves.”
With respect to Claim 40, the prior art fails to teach “wherein: the mirror and the optical lens system make up a light collection apparatus that is diffraction-limited and has a field of view of at least 8 millimeters, at least 10 millimeters, or at least 12 millimeters in diameter; and the mirror and the optical lens system make up a light collection apparatus that is diffraction-limited and has an etendue of at least 100 square millimeters.”
Claims 7-11, and 33, are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
With respect to Claim 7, the prior art fails to teach “wherein the mirror and the optical lens system make up a light collection apparatus that is diffraction limited and has a field of view of at least 8 millimeters, at least 10 millimeters, or at least 12 millimeters in diameter; and/or the mirror and the optical lens system make up a light collection apparatus that is diffraction-limited and has an etendue of at least 100 square millimeters.”
With respect to Claim 8, the prior art fails to teach “wherein the mirror and the optical lens system make up a light collection apparatus that is diffraction limited; a working distance between the sample location and an element of the optical lens system or the mirror is at least 20 millimeters; and each of the mirror and the optical lenses in the optical lens system is spherical.”
With respect to Claim 9, the prior art fails to teach “wherein the mirror and the optical lens system make up a light collection apparatus having a numerical aperture of at least 0.8, at least 0.9, or at least 1.0 for a field of view of at least 8 millimeters, at least 10 millimeters, or at least 12 millimeters in diameter for light emitted from the sample location having a wavelength within the range of 400-800 nanometers.”
With respect to Claim 10, the prior art fails to teach “wherein the mirror and the optical lens system make up a light collection apparatus that is diffraction-limited for light having a wavelength within the range of 500-800 nanometers at 81-90% light transmission efficiency.”
With respect to Claim 11, the prior art fails to teach “wherein the mirror and the optical lens system make up a light collection apparatus that is simultaneously achromatic across a range of wavelengths of 500-700 nanometers, a range of wavelengths of 700-800 nanometers, or a range of wavelengths of 450-500 nanometers.”
With respect to Claim 33, the prior art fails to teach “the speed at which the detection system acquires data is at least 1.0 x 1010 voxels per second.”
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAMARA Y WASHINGTON whose telephone number is (571)270-3887. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thur 730-530 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, Stephone Allen can be reached at 571-272-2434. 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.
/TYW/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/STEPHONE B ALLEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
