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
Receipt is acknowledged of the amendment filed 4/10/2025. Claims 1, 9-10, and 19 are amended, claims 15 and 20 are canceled, and claims 1-14, 16-19, and 21-31 are currently pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Pat. No. 5,161,058 to Matsui (hereinafter Matsui).
Regarding claim 1, Matsui discloses a substrate for a display article (Figs. 4-6), the substrate comprising: a primary surface (top of base plate 1, Figs. 4-6); and a textured region (minute patterns 43, 53, 60, Figs. 4-6) defined on the primary surface, the textured region comprising: one or more higher surfaces (surface of rises 42, 52, 60c, Figs. 4-6) residing at a higher mean elevation parallel to a base-plane (bottom of base plate 1, Figs. 4-6) disposed below the textured region extending through the substrate; one or more lower surfaces (surfaces of rise 41, 51, 60b, Figs. 4-6)) residing at a lower mean elevation parallel to the base- plane, wherein the lower mean elevation is less than the higher mean elevation; and specifically placed but randomly distributed surface features (“the minute patterns of protrudent parts are irregularly formed on the base plate in the case of the first embodiment, the irregular array of protrudent parts or rises may be replaced with an irregular array of recesses. It is also possible either to have these rises and recesses formed in a commingled state or to have them formed in different sizes in a commingled state”; col. 4, ll. 16-22 & Claim 8) providing at least a portion of either the one or more higher surfaces residing at the higher mean elevation or the one or more lower surfaces residing at the lower mean elevation, each surface feature comprising a perimeter that is parallel to the base-plane and that has a longest dimension (Figs. 4-6), wherein, the one or more higher surfaces and the one or more lower surfaces are planar (Figs. 4-6), and wherein, the textured region further comprises sidewalls extending from the one or more lower surfaces away from the base-plane (Figs. 4-6), the sidewalls forming an angle relative to the one or more lower surfaces that is within a range of from 80 degrees to 90 degrees (Figs. 4-6).
Regarding claim 19, Matsui discloses a substrate for a display article (Figs. 4-6), the substrate comprising: a primary surface (top of base plate 1, Figs. 4-6); and a textured region (minute patterns 43, 53, 60, Figs. 4-6) defined on the primary surface, the textured region comprising: one or more higher surfaces (surface of rises 42, 52, 60c, Figs. 4-6) residing at a higher mean elevation parallel to a base-plane (bottom of base plate 1, Figs. 4-6) disposed below the textured region extending through the substrate; one or more lower surfaces (top of base plate 1, Figs. 4-6) residing at a lower mean elevation parallel to the base-plane, wherein the lower mean elevation is less than the higher mean elevation; one or more surfaces (surfaces of rise 41, 51, 60b, Figs. 4-6) of the substrate residing at one or more intermediate mean elevations parallel to the base-plane, wherein the one or more intermediate mean elevations are less than the higher mean elevation but greater than the lower mean elevation; and specifically placed but randomly distributed surface features (“the minute patterns of protrudent parts are irregularly formed on the base plate in the case of the first embodiment, the irregular array of protrudent parts or rises may be replaced with an irregular array of recesses. It is also possible either to have these rises and recesses formed in a commingled state or to have them formed in different sizes in a commingled state”; col. 4, ll. 16-22 & Claim 8) providing at least a portion of either the one or more higher surfaces residing at the higher mean elevation or the one or more lower surfaces residing at the lower mean elevation, each surface feature comprising a perimeter that is parallel to the base-plane and that has a longest dimension (Figs. 4-6), wherein, the one or more higher surfaces and the one or more lower surfaces are planar (Figs. 4-6), and wherein, the textured region further comprises sidewalls extending from the one or more lower surfaces away from the base-plane (Figs. 4-6), the sidewalls forming an angle relative to the one or more lower surfaces that is within a range of from 80 degrees to 90 degrees (Figs. 4-6).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-14, 16-17, 19, 22-26, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PG Pub. 2010/0177398 to Watanabe et al. (hereinafter Watanabe; cited by Applicant) in view of US Pat. No. 8,559,110 to Tanikawa (hereinafter Tanikawa).
Regarding claim 1, Watanabe discloses a substrate for a display article (display structure shown in Fig. 1 with optical film 1 embodied specifically as Example 20, Fig. 44B; [0564]-[0570]), the substrate comprising: a primary surface (the lowest elevations of topography of Fig. 44B, shown alternatively as gaps 11d in Fig. 34B); and a textured region (Fig. 44B) defined on the primary surface, the textured region comprising: one or more higher surfaces (higher surfaces of Fig. 44B) residing at a higher mean elevation parallel to a base-plane (lower plane of Fig. 44B) disposed below the textured region extending through the substrate; one or more lower surfaces (lower surfaces of Fig. 44B) residing at a lower mean elevation parallel to the base-plane, wherein the lower mean elevation is less than the higher mean elevation; specifically placed but randomly distributed (“size of bottoms of the structures changes at random within the range of the minimum distance Rm to the maximum distance RM”; Abstract & [0546]) surface features (convex structures protruding from lowest planes in Fig. 44B, shown as structures 11a in Fig. 34B, or gaps between convex structures recessed from highest planes in Fig. 44B, shown as gaps 11d in Fig. 34B) providing at a least a portion of either the one or more higher surfaces residing at the higher mean elevation or the one or more lower surfaces residing at the lower mean elevation, each surface feature comprising a perimeter that is parallel to the base-plane and that has a longest dimension (Fig. 44B).
Watanabe discloses “to achieve the desired diffuse reflection angle characteristics, the etch depth of the die, the overall etching time after the resist stripping, and the like are preferably adjusted” ([0333]) and “forming the base pattern (irregular pattern of the substrate 11) is not limited to the above-described method and may be any method as long as the method has the protrusion radius distribution selectivity, random arrangement, height controllability, protrusion shape (slope) controllability, and the like” ([0331]).
Watanabe discloses the claimed invention as cited above though does not explicitly disclose the one or more higher surfaces and the one or more lower surfaces are planar, and wherein, the textured region further comprises sidewalls extending from the one or more lower surfaces away from the base-plane, the sidewalls forming an angle relative to the one or more lower surfaces that is within a range of from 80 degrees to 90 degrees.
Tanikawa discloses the one or more higher surfaces and the one or more lower surfaces are planar (steps 3a, Fig. 1), and wherein, the textured region further comprises sidewalls (step portions 3b, Fig. 1) extending from the one or more lower surfaces away from the base-plane (bottom surface of substrate 2, Fig. 1), the sidewalls forming an angle relative to the one or more lower surfaces that is within a range of from 80 degrees to 90 degrees (Fig. 1).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide planar surfaces and orthogonal sidewalls as taught by Tanikawa with the system as disclosed by Watanabe. The motivation would have been to accurately control the reflectance of incident light (col. 2, ll. 4-11).
Regarding claim 2, Watanabe discloses the lower mean elevation differs from the higher mean elevation by a distance within a range of 50 nm to 700 nm (Z Range of Fig. 44B and roughness of Table 5; [0564]-[0570]).
Regarding claim 3, Watanabe discloses the longest dimensions of the surface features are within a range of 0.5 µm to 120 µm (Fig. 44B).
Regarding claim 4, Watanabe discloses the surface features are not arranged in a pattern (Fig. 44B & Claim 1).
Regarding claim 5, Watanabe discloses the textured region further comprises: a surrounding portion (portion around large convexities, Fig. 44B) providing either (i) the one or more higher surfaces (highest elevation of large convex structures are definitionally higher in elevation than surrounding recessed portions, Fig. 44B)or (ii) the one or more lower surfaces (portion surrounding highest elevation of large convex structures are definitionally lower in elevation, Fig. 44B); wherein, the surface features provide the other of the (i) the one or more higher surfaces and (ii) the one or more lower surfaces, whichever the surrounding portion is not providing.
Note: The exact same teachings of Watanabe anticipate each claimed alternative based on matching different structures to respective claim terms, respectively.
Regarding claim 6, Watanabe discloses the surface features are disposed within the surrounding portion, and provide the one or more lower surfaces; and the surrounding portion provides the one or more higher surfaces (Fig. 44B).
Regarding claim 7, Watanabe discloses the surface features project from the surrounding portion, and provide the one or more higher surfaces of the substrate residing at the higher mean elevation; and the surrounding portion provides the one or more lower surfaces of the substrate residing at the lower mean elevation (Fig. 44B).
Regarding claim 8, Watanabe discloses a fill-fraction of the surface features is within a range of 40% to 60% (Fig. 44B).
The Specifications provide a special definition for “fill-fraction” in [0093]: “the percentage of the area of the cross-section that the surface features 38 collectively occupy”. Additional context includes “[w]hen viewing a cross-section of the substrate 12 parallel with the base-plane 30 that extends through the textured region 20 and having perimeter bounded by the textured region 20, the surface features 38 each occupy a percentage of the area of the cross-section”. For surface features having sidewalls perpendicular to the base-plane, as disclosed by Applicant in at least Fig. 3, there is a consistent cross-section and thus a singular fill-fraction within a region. For a conical convexity, such as Watanabe, the sidewalls are not parallel to the base-plane and the fill-fraction varies by Applicant’s definition. For a perfect, mathematical cone in which the apex is 0-dimensional, the fill-fraction under Applicant’s definition is 0%. For conical bases with complete overlap and no adjoining gaps, the fill-fraction under Applicant’s definition is 100%. In Watanabe’s topography shown in Fig. 44B, the fill-fraction varies in regions from nearly 0% and nearly 100% based on the elevation of the sampling and thus anticipates the claimed range of 40% to 60% as the fill-fraction varies continuously and smoothly for the shown geometries.
Regarding claim 9, Watanabe discloses the surface features comprise larger surface features and smaller surface features, the longest dimension of the larger surface features are all about the same and are within a range of 30 µm to 120 µm (large convex structures, Fig. 44B), the longest dimension of the smaller surface features are all about the same, are smaller than the longest dimension of the larger surface features, and are within a range of 0.5 µm to 30 µm (fine structures, Fig. 44B; [0564]-[0570]), and the smaller surface features are more numerous than the larger surface features (Fig. 44B; [0564]-[0570]).
Regarding claim 10, Watanabe discloses each of the larger surface features is separated from each other by a minimum center- to-center distance that (i) is larger than the longest dimension of the larger surface features (gaps between convexities, Fig. 44B) and (ii) within a range of 30 µm to 125 µm (Fig. 44B; [0564]-[0570]); and each of the smaller surface features is separated by a minimum center-to-center distance that (i) is larger than the longest dimension of the smaller surface features (gaps between fine structures, Fig. 44B) and (ii) within a range of 1 µm to 30 µm (Fig. 44B; [0564]-[0570]).
Regarding claim 11, Watanabe discloses the smaller surface features provide a portion of both (i) the one or more higher surfaces (Fig. 44B) and (ii) the one or more lower surfaces (Fig. 44B).
Regarding claim 12, Watanabe discloses the perimeters of the larger surface features do not overlap with the perimeters of the smaller surface features (fine structure perimeters at the top of convex structures in Fig. 44B do not overlap with the lowest perimeters of the convex structures).
Regarding claim 13, Watanabe discloses the perimeters of the larger surface features overlap with the perimeters of the smaller surface features (an arbitrary cross-section of any larger convexity of Fig. 44B will include cross-sectional perimeters of fine structure elements).
Regarding claim 14, Watanabe discloses a fill-fraction of the larger surface features is 20% to 70% (Fig. 44B); and a fill-fraction of the smaller surface features is within a range of 20% to 70% (Fig. 44B). See discussion of fill-fraction as in Claim 8 rejection above.
Regarding claim 16, Watanabe discloses one or more sections comprising secondary surface features imparting a surface roughness (Ra) within a range of5 nm to 100 nm (Fig. 44B; [0564]-[0570]).
Regarding claim 17, Watanabe discloses the perimeter of each of the surface features is circular, and the longest dimension is the diameter (Fig. 44B; [0564]-[0570]).
Regarding claim 19, Watanabe discloses a substrate for a display article (display structure shown in Fig. 1 with optical film 1 embodied specifically as Example 20, Fig. 44B; [0564]-[0570]), the substrate comprising: a primary surface (the lowest elevations of topography of Fig. 44B, shown alternatively as gaps 11d in Fig. 34B); and a textured region (Fig. 44B) defined on the primary surface, the textured region comprising: one or more higher surfaces (higher surfaces of Fig. 44B) residing at a higher mean elevation parallel to a base-plane (lower plane of Fig. 44B) disposed below the textured region extending through the substrate; one or more lower surfaces (lower surfaces of Fig. 44B) residing at a lower mean elevation parallel to the base-plane, wherein the lower mean elevation is less than the higher mean elevation; one or more surfaces (slopes between high and low surfaces, Fig. 44B) of the substrate residing at one or more intermediate mean elevations parallel to the base-plane, wherein the one or more intermediate mean elevations are less than the higher mean elevation but greater than the lower mean elevation (Fig. 44B); and surface features (convex structures protruding from lowest planes in Fig. 44B, shown as structures 11a in Fig. 34B, or gaps between convex structures recessed from highest planes in Fig. 44B, shown as gaps 11d in Fig. 34B) providing at a least a portion of either the one or more higher surfaces residing at the higher mean elevation or the one or more lower surfaces residing at the lower mean elevation.
Watanabe discloses “to achieve the desired diffuse reflection angle characteristics, the etch depth of the die, the overall etching time after the resist stripping, and the like are preferably adjusted” ([0333]) and “forming the base pattern (irregular pattern of the substrate 11) is not limited to the above-described method and may be any method as long as the method has the protrusion radius distribution selectivity, random arrangement, height controllability, protrusion shape (slope) controllability, and the like” ([0331]).
Watanabe discloses the claimed invention as cited above though does not explicitly disclose the one or more higher surfaces and the one or more lower surfaces are planar, and wherein, the textured region further comprises sidewalls extending from the one or more lower surfaces away from the base-plane, the sidewalls forming an angle relative to the one or more lower surfaces that is within a range of from 80 degrees to 90 degrees.
Iwasaki discloses the one or more higher surfaces and the one or more lower surfaces are planar (Figs. 9, 10, 12), and wherein, the textured region further comprises sidewalls extending from the one or more lower surfaces away from the base-plane, the sidewalls forming an angle relative to the one or more lower surfaces that is within a range of from 80 degrees to 90 degrees (Figs. 9, 10, 12; col. 4, ln. 58-col. 5, ln. 5).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide the claimed structure shapes as taught by Iwasaki with the system as disclosed by Watanabe. The motivation would have been to improve antireflection layers in terms of reliability and wavelength response while permitting mass production (col. 1, ln. 16-col. 2, ln. 67).
Regarding claim 22, Watanabe discloses wherein, each surface feature comprises a perimeter and has a longest dimension parallel to the base-plane (Fig. 44B; [0564]-[0570]), wherein, the surface features comprise larger surface features and smaller surface features (Fig. 44B; [0564]-[0570]), and wherein, the longest dimensions of the smaller surface features are smaller than the longest dimensions of the larger surface features (Fig. 44B; [0564]-[0570]).
Regarding claim 23, Watanabe discloses one or more surfaces (slopes between high and low surfaces, Fig. 44B) of the substrate residing at one or more intermediate mean elevations parallel to the base-plane, wherein the one or more intermediate mean elevations are less than the higher mean elevation but greater than the lower mean elevation (Fig. 44B); and surface features (convex structures protruding from lowest planes in Fig. 44B, shown as structures 11a in Fig. 34B, or gaps between convex structures recessed from highest planes in Fig. 44B, shown as gaps 11d in Fig. 34B) providing at a least a portion of either the one or more higher surfaces residing at the higher mean elevation or the one or more lower surfaces residing at the lower mean elevation.
Regarding claim 24, Watanabe discloses continuous intermediate elevations and does not explicitly disclose only one intermediate mean elevation.
Iwasaki discloses only one intermediate mean elevation (Figs. 9-10).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide the claimed structure shapes as taught by Iwasaki with the system as disclosed by Watanabe. The motivation would have been to improve antireflection layers in terms of reliability and wavelength response while permitting mass production (col. 1, ln. 16-col. 2, ln. 67).
Regarding claim 25, Watanabe discloses continuous intermediate elevations and thus to intermediate mean elevations (Fig. 44B).
Regarding claim 26, Watanabe discloses the longest dimension of the surface features is within a range of from 0.5micron to 30 micron (~20micron, Fig. 44B), the longest dimension of the larger surface features are all about the same (Fig. 44B), and the longest dimension of the smaller surfaces are all about the same (Fig. 44B). It is noted that the uniformity shown in Fig. 44B would read on “about the same” to a person having ordinary skill in the art as the structures have uniform optical performance.
Regarding claim 31, Watanabe discloses continuous intermediate elevations and does not explicitly disclose the textured region further comprises secondary surface features that impart a surface roughness (Ra) at either the surface features or the surrounding portion but not both the surface features and the surrounding portion.
Iwasaki discloses the textured region further comprises secondary surface features that impart a surface roughness (Ra) at either the surface features or the surrounding portion but not both the surface features and the surrounding portion (Fig. 12).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide the claimed structure shapes as taught by Iwasaki with the system as disclosed by Watanabe. The motivation would have been to improve antireflection layers in terms of reliability and wavelength response while permitting mass production (col. 1, ln. 16-col. 2, ln. 67).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe in view of Tanikawa as applied to Claim 1, and further in view of US Pat. No. 9,581,731 to Bookbinder et al. (hereinafter Bookbinder; cited by Applicant).
Regarding claim 18, Watanabe discloses the claimed invention as cited above though does not explicitly disclose the substrate comprises a glass substrate or a glass-ceramic substrate.
Bookbinder discloses the substrate comprises a glass substrate or a glass-ceramic substrate (Table 2; col. 25).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide a glass substrate as taught by Bookbinder with the system as disclosed by Watanabe. The motivation would have been to use a substrate exhibiting flexible manufacturing techniques and ubiquity in optical manufacturing processes (col. 22, ln. 63-col. 23, ln. 14).
Claims 27-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe in view of Tanikawa as applied to Claim 1, and further in view of US Pat. No. 8,992,786 to Kohli, et al. (hereinafter Kohli).
Regarding claims 27 and 28, Watanabe discloses the claimed invention as cited above though does not explicitly disclose particular values of transmission haze and distinctness of image.
Kohli discloses the textured region exhibits a transmission haze within a range of from 10% to 30% and the textured region exhibits a distinctiveness-of-image within a range of from 10% to 40% (“a glass panel having at least one roughened surface including a haze of less than about 25%; a distinctness-of-image (DOI 20.degree.) of about 25 to about 90; and a surface roughness (Ra) of about 100 to about 300 nm, which properties provide an anti-glare surface”; col. 10, ll. 29-34).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide the claimed transmission haze and dictinctness-of-image values as taught by Kohli with the system as disclosed by Watanabe. The motivation would have been to prevent display glare and/or sparkle (Abstract).
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe in view of Tanikawa as applied to Claim 5, and further in view of US Pat. No. 7,070,849 to Mori et al. (hereinafter Mori).
Watanabe discloses the claimed invention as cited above though does not explicitly disclose the textured region further comprises secondary surface features that impart a surface roughness (Ra) at both the surface features and the surrounding portion, and the surface roughness (Ra) imparted by the second surface features at the surface features is less than the surface roughness (Ra) imparted by the second surface features at the surrounding portion.
Mori discloses the textured region further comprises secondary surface features that impart a surface roughness (Ra) at both the surface features and the surrounding portion, andthe surface roughness (Ra) imparted by the second surface features at the surface features is less than the surface roughness (Ra) imparted by the second surface features at the surrounding portion (“an average surface roughness Ra of the substrate sheet in the central area a may be set at 5 nm that is as small as possible, and a surface roughness Ra of the substrate sheet in the marginal area CB may be set on the order of 110 to 140 nm”).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to vary surface roughness in central and surrounding regions as taught by Mori with the system as disclosed by Watanabe. The motivation would have been to ensure anti-reflectivity functionality while allowing release and transfer of AR sheets (col. 26, ln. 16-42).
Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US PG Pub. 2017/0014111 discloses textured surface with planar higher and lower surfaces and vertical sidewalls, US Pat. No. 7,804,554 to Obata et al. discloses textured surface with planar lower surfaces and vertical sidewalls, US Pat. No. 5,161,058 discloses textured surface with planar higher and lower surfaces and vertical sidewalls.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 21 is allowed.
The examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance was presented in the previous Office Action.
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.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER J STANFORD whose telephone number is (571)270-3337. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-4PM PST M-F.
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, Ricky Mack can be reached at (571)272-2333. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER STANFORD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights