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 .
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.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 8/14/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant's arguments filed 8/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments against the prior art, where applicant states that Kim does not teach the claim as written because the coating layer is formed “only on a part of a lens surface”, examiner respectfully provides annotated figure 10 of Kim below, as well as paragraph 0116 of Kim.
PNG
media_image1.png
726
693
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 10 of Kim shows the anti-reflection coating layer 610 formed on a part of the lens 600, where 610 corresponds to 4311 per paragraph 0116. Further, paragraph 0116 states directly that the anti-reflection coating layer 610 may be formed on parts of the first area A1 and the second area A2, and also states that the anti-reflection coating layer 610 may be formed only on the first area A1.
Based on the filed claim language, Kim teaches the coating layer formed only on a part of a lens surface. The surface of the lens would meet at least the first coating condition due to the angle of slope of the convex surface of the lens being 0◦ when light is incident on the lens with the coating on it, and 0◦ is included in both of the ranges of the first coating condition. Therefore, the coating layer would be placed only on a part of a lens surface of the plurality of lenses satisfying at least one of a first coating condition or a second coating condition, as the first coating condition would be satisfied in this instance.
As to the second lens surface being flat, Kim does teach an embodiment in Figure 11 with a first lens surface having a convex object side surface and a flat image side surface and provides paragraphs 0122-0123 which state that the lenses 830 of Figure 11 correspond to the lenses 430 of Figure 4, which was utilized in the rejection. Further, US 425 does teach a first lens having a convex first lens surface and a second lens surface which is flat and has no coating layer as shown in Figure 5A.
Pertaining to the argument that Kim explicitly requires coating on the second surface, and would therefore not teach a coating layer only on one surface of the lens, examiner respectfully requests applicant to provide clarity to the metes and bounds of the first coating condition which provides two reference areas and two slope angles of a partial area of a lens surface, where both ranges for the slope angle include 0◦. If one of the coating conditions that a lens surface must satisfy to have a coating placed on it includes having two areas, including the center of the lens which light passes through, have an angle of slope including 0◦, how does the coating only apply to the first lens surface and not the second lens surface of the first lens of the instant application, which would have a slope angle of 0◦ due to the flat shape?
In response to applicant's argument that the prior art of record does not recognize the pixel-pattern flare problem, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 4-8, 10-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, claims state the limitations “a coating layer to reduce a flare having a pixel pattern shape by lowering reflectance is formed only on a part of a lens surface of the plurality of lenses satisfying at least one of a first coating condition or a second coating condition” in lines 13-15 of the claim and then lists the first coating condition and the second coating conditions in lines 38-39 of the claim. These limitations are unclear as the metes and bounds of the claimed ranges are not clear from the claims. Do these have some unspecified condition which allows for the surfaces having the coating layer to have an angle of slope including 0◦ while also not having a coating on the second surface of the first lens which is flat, therefore would have an angle of slope of 0◦ for both AS1 and AS2? Further, if the first coating condition is met, what does that mean for the surface which meets the conditions? Is it specifically covered from -10◦ to 10◦ in the first reference area, from -5◦ to 5◦ in the second reference area, is it both reference areas, or is there some other area on the lens which would have the coating placed on it? Similarly, for the second and third coating conditions which meet the claimed ranges, where is the area on the lens surface which the coating will be placed on? Finally, pertaining specifically to the first lens of the instant application, would the second lens surface of the first lens not meet the first coating conditions by having a flat shape with an angle of slope of 0◦ in the first and second reference areas? Why is the coating only applied to the first lens surface of the first lens and not the second lens surface of the first lens if only one of the first or second coating conditions needs to be met? Without knowing where on the lens surface the coating layer is placed based on the coating conditions, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be apprised as to the scope of the invention (MPEP §2173.05(b)). For purposes of compact prosecution, so long as one of the coating conditions may be met, and the surface has a coating on it, this limitation will be considered met.
Also, claims 4-8, 10-17 are rejected by virtue of their dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 4-7, 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et. al US 20210151425 (hereinafter “US 425” of record) in view of Kim et. al US 20210149157 (hereinafter “Kim” of record).
Regarding claim 1, US 425 teaches an electronic device comprising:
a display (US 425 fig. 5a - 400) including a panel layer in which a plurality of pixels are disposed (US 425 fig. 5a – 431, see also para. 0059); and
a camera module (US 425 fig. 5a - 500) disposed under the display (400), wherein the display (400) includes a first area overlapping a field of view of the camera module (US 425 fig. 5b – A1) and a second area around the first area (US 425 fig. 5b – A2), and
wherein an arrangement density of the plurality of first pixels in the first area (US 425 fig. 6 – A1) is lower than an arrangement density of the plurality of second pixels in the second area (US 425 fig. 6 – A2, see also para. 0059 – the transmission area may be formed to have pixels and/or wirings arranged at a lower density than the surrounding active area, where the transmission area resides within the display panel; see the annotated US 425 fig. 6 below)
PNG
media_image2.png
550
813
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein the camera module (500) includes an image sensor (US 425 fig. 5a - 540) and a plurality of lenses (US 425 fig. 5a - 530), and an optical axis of the plurality of lenses passes through the first area of the panel layer (US 425 fig. 5b),
wherein each of the plurality of lenses (530) includes lens surfaces disposed to face toward the display (400) and the image sensor (540, US 425 fig. 5a), respectively,
wherein the first lens (US 425 fig. 5a-b - 531) includes a first lens surface that is convex in a direction facing the display (US 524 fig. 5a-b – 531 is convex on the side facing 400),
wherein the first lens (531) includes a second lens surface that is flat and has no coating layer formed thereon (US 425 fig. 5a-b – 531 has a flat second lens surface with no coating layer),
wherein the second lens (US 425 fig. 5a - 534) includes a third lens surface and a fourth lens surface (US 425 fig. 5a – one surface faces 400 and the other faces 540).
US 425 does not teach a coating layer.
In the same field of endeavor, Kim teaches wherein a coating layer (Kim fig. 5 - 4311) to reduce a flare having a pixel pattern shape by lowering reflectance (Kim para. 0083, see also MPEP §2112.01 – since the claimed antireflective coating structure is taught, it should perform the same function of flare reduction), is formed only on a part of a lens surface (Kim fig. 5 - 4301 and 4302 of 431, see also fig. 10a-d – 610 is formed only on a part of the lens 600) of the plurality of lenses (Kim fig. 4 - 430 including 431-434, fig. 11 – 830 including 831-835, see also para. 0123) satisfying at least one of a first coating condition or a second coating condition regarding whether an angle of slope of a partial area of the lens surface is within a specified range (Kim fig. 5 – 431 is sloped on either side of the lens, and fig. 11 – 831 is sloped on one side of the lens),
wherein the angle of slope is an angle formed by the lens surface (4301) with a normal line perpendicular to the optical axis (see annotated Kim fig. 5 below - the angle of slope and normal line are shown),
PNG
media_image3.png
528
581
media_image3.png
Greyscale
wherein the plurality of lenses (430, 830) include a first lens located closest to the display (Kim fig. 4 – 431, fig. 11 - 831), a second lens located closest to the image sensor (Kim fig. 4 – 434, fig. 11 - 835), and a third lens positioned between the first lens (431, 831) and the second lens (Kim fig. 4 – 432 is disposed between 431 and 434, fig. 11 – 832 is disposed between 831 and 835),
wherein the first lens includes a first lens surface (Kim fig. 4 – 431 with 4301) that is convex in a direction facing the display (Kim fig. 4 – 431 has convex side facing display 330, 331) and has a coating layer formed on a portion centered on the optical axis (Kim fig. 5 – 4311, see also para. 0083),
wherein the third surface and the fourth surface have different areas where the coating layer is formed (Kim para. 0128-0129),
wherein the third lens (432, 832) has a minimum effective diameter among the plurality of lenses (Kim fig. 11 – 832 has a minimum effective diameter),
wherein a first reference area (see annotated Kim fig. 4 and 11 below) is defined by an area overlapping the minimum effective diameter in a direction of the optical axis (see below Kim fig. 4 and 11, in which the first reference area between the two black lines in fig. 4 and is labeled in fig. 11) and a second reference area is defined by an area having a same center as the first reference area and having a diameter 0.5 times a diameter of the first reference area (see annotated Kim fig. 4 and 11 below – the second reference area is between the two grey lines of fig. 4 and the second reference area is indicated in fig. 11),
PNG
media_image4.png
562
810
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
483
541
media_image5.png
Greyscale
wherein a first coating condition is defined by the following conditional expressions:
−10°≤AS1≤10° (Kim fig. 5 - where light passes through A1 at the center of AS1 has a coating, AS1 will be at 0◦ at that point, see also the annotated fig. 4 and 11 above showing the reference areas, where the center of each overlap); and
−5°≤AS2≤5° (Kim fig. 5 - where light passes through A1 at the center of AS2 has a coating, AS2 at this point will be at 0◦, see also the annotated fig. 4 and 11 above showing the reference areas, where the center of each overlap),
wherein “AS1” represents the angle of slope of a partial area of the lens surface located in the first reference area, and “AS2” represents the angle of slope of a partial area of the lens surface located in the second reference area,
wherein the second coating condition is defined by the following conditional expressions:
ED≥1.5×RaD; and
15°≤AS3≤40°,
wherein “ED” represents an effective diameter of the lens surface, “RaD” represents the diameter of the first reference area, and “AS3” represents the angle of slope of a partial area of the lens surface located between an area whose diameter is 0.7 times the effective diameter and an area whose diameter is 0.85 times the effective diameter for the purpose of maintaining permeation performance without degrading the permeability of the lens in the first area of the lens (Kim para. 0083). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a coating meeting the specific conditions as taught by Kim in the electronic device of US 425 in order to maintain permeation performance without degrading the permeability of the lens in the first area of the lens (Kim para. 0083).
Regarding claim 4, US 425 and Kim teach the electronic device of claim 1, and Kim further teaches wherein the angle of slope is defined as an angle defined to face the optical axis and formed by a tangent line defined to pass through a first point of the lens surface and a normal line defined to extend perpendicular to the optical axis while passing through the first point (see annotated Kim fig. 5 below, the first point – labeled as one point below but is the same point, tangent line passing through it, the normal line perpendicular to the optical axis, and the optical axis are all labeled in relation to each other and circled – and the slope between the tangent line and the normal line faces the optical axis).
PNG
media_image6.png
646
809
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, US 425 and Kim teach the electronic device of claim 4, and Kim further teaches wherein the tangent line defined to pass through the first point of the lens surface passes through a first intersection on the optical axis, and the normal line perpendicular to the optical axis passes through a second intersection on the optical axis (see annotated Kim fig. 5 below, where the first point and first and second intersections made when the tangent line and the normal line respectively cross the optical axis are labeled), and
PNG
media_image7.png
646
865
media_image7.png
Greyscale
wherein the angle of slope corresponding to the first point is an included angle between a first line segment defined to connect the first point and the first intersection and a second line segment defined to connect the first point and the second intersection in a triangle having the first point, the first intersection, and the second intersection as vertexes thereof (see annotated Kim fig. 5 below, where the triangle made of vertices including the first point, the first intersection, and the second intersection is circled and each vertex labeled).
PNG
media_image8.png
646
984
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, US 425 and Kim teach the electronic device of claim 4, and Kim further teaches wherein the angle of slope formed in a direction toward the image sensor with respect to the normal line has a positive (+) sign (see annotated Kim fig. 5 below, point 2 has a positive angle of slope formed in a direction toward the image sensor with respect to the normal line), and
wherein the angle of slope formed in a direction toward the display or an object with respect to the normal line has a negative (−) sign (see annotated Kim fig. 5 below, point 1 has a negative angle of slope formed in a direction toward the display or object with respect to the normal line).
PNG
media_image9.png
646
691
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, US 425 and Kim teach the electronic device of claim 1, and US 425 further teaches wherein the plurality of lenses (530) include at least three lenses (531-534) sequentially disposed one on another along the optical axis in a direction from the display (400) to the image sensor (540, US 425 fig. 5a).
Regarding claim 10, US 425 and Kim teach the electronic device of claim 1, and US 425 further teach wherein the first area (US 425 figs. 5a-b – the area labeled as 5b in fig. 5a and shown in fig. 5b), when the display (400) is viewed from above, includes a plurality of pixel areas corresponding to the plurality of pixels (US 425 fig. 6 – P disposed within A1 and A2, see also fig. 7A and para. 0059) and a plurality of opening areas (US 425 fig. 7A – 461, see also para. 0060) between the plurality of pixel areas (US 425 fig. 7A – 461 is disposed between P), and
wherein a first transmittance of the plurality of pixel areas (P) and a second transmittance of the plurality of opening areas (461) differ from each other (US 425 para. 0069 and 0076 – the transmittance of A1 depends on the placement/adjustment of 461).
Regarding claim 11, US 425 and Kim teach the electronic device of claim 10, and US 425 further teaches wherein a difference between the first transmittance and the second transmittance is 15% or more for light having a wavelength of 550 nm (US 425 para. 0076 – display panel includes 460 which is opaque and transmits 0% of visible light including at 550 nm, and A1 which is transparent and transmits 100% of visible light including at 55nm, which would result in a difference of at least 15% or above).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 425 and Kim as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Ning US 20050162757 (hereinafter “Ning” of record).
Regarding claim 8, US 425 and Kim teach the electronic device of claim 1, and Kim further teaches the first lens (Kim fig. 4 - 431) is located closest to the display (Kim fig. 4 - 330, 331) or an object,
wherein the first lens (431) includes the first lens surface facing toward the display or the object and the second lens surface facing toward the image sensor (Kim fig. 4 – 431 has a side facing 330, 331 and a side facing 440), and
the coating layer (4311) is disposed on an entire area or a partial area of the first lens surface (Kim figs. 4-5 – 4311 is disposed on a surface of at least 431, see also para. 0128-0129 and figs. 12a-g – the coating may be disposed on at least part of one or all the lenses in a lens assembly).
US 425 and Kim do not teach the distance between the center of the first lens surface and the image sensor (TTL) and the length of a diagonal line of the image sensor (ImgD).
In a similar field of endeavor, Ning teaches wherein the coating layer is disposed on an entire area or a partial area of the first lens surface with respect to the first lens surface satisfying a third coating condition defined by the following conditional expression:
TTL/ImgD≤0.65 (Ning para. 0043 - TT/DI<1.5),
wherein “TTL” represents a distance between a center of the first lens surface and the image sensor, which is measured in a direction of the optical axis, and “ImgD” represents a length of a diagonal line of the image sensor for the purpose of allowing the camera to be a low profile optical imager making it suitable for compact digital camera modules (Ning para. 0043). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the claimed range of TTL/ImgD≤0.65 as taught by Ning in the electronic device of US 425 and Kim in order to allow the camera to be used in compact digital camera modules (Ning para. 0043).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 425 and Kim as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Seto et. al US 20040043210 (hereinafter “Seto” of record).
Regarding claim 12, US 425 and Kim teach the electronic device of claim 1, and Kim further teaches the coating layer (4311).
US 425 and Kim do not teach wherein the coating layer includes a porous layer in which a plurality of pores are defined.
In a similar field of endeavor, Seto teaches wherein the coating layer includes a porous layer in which a plurality of pores are defined (Seto para. 0014) for the purpose of lowering the apparent refractive index of the antireflection film. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a porous coating as taught by Seto in the electronic device of US 425 and Kim in order to lower the refractive index of it (Seto para. 0014).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 425 and Kim as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tanaka et. al US 20080055728 (hereinafter “Tanaka” of record).
Regarding claim 13, US 425 and Kim teach the electronic device of claim 1, and Kim further teaches the coating layer (4311).
US 425 and Kim do not teach wherein the coating layer includes a bumpy structure in which a plurality of protrusions are defined.
In a similar field of endeavor, Tanaka teaches wherein the coating layer includes a bumpy structure in which a plurality of protrusions are defined (Tanaka para. 0039) for the purpose of eliminating unwanted reflectance and allowing a high level of sensitivity for a sensor (Tanaka para. 0010). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a coating with a bumpy structure as taught by Tanaka in the electronic device of US 425 and Kim in order to provide a high level of sensitivity for a sensor (Tanaka para. 0010).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 425 and Kim as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Takahashi et. al US 20150103226 (hereinafter “Takahashi” of record).
Regarding claim 14, US 425 and Kim teach the electronic device of claim 1, and Kim further teaches
a coating layer (4311).
US 425 and Kim do not teach wherein a refractive index of the coating layer formed on the lens surface gradually increases as being closer to the lens surface.
In the same field of endeavor, Takahashi teaches wherein a refractive index of the coating layer (Takahashi fig. 2 - 16) formed on the lens surface (Takahashi fig. 2) gradually increases as being closer to the lens surface (Takahashi para. 0050-0051 – the refractive index of the light blocking portion gradually increases from the surface of the air layer toward the adhesion surface of the lens) for the purpose of enhancing an antireflection effect (Takahashi para. 0050). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a coating layer gradually changing from air to lens surface as taught by Takahashi in the electronic device of US 425 and Kim in order to enhance an antireflection effect (Takahashi para. 0050).
Claims 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 425 and Kim as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Ito et. al US 20030011315 (hereinafter “Ito” of record).
Regarding claim 15, US 425 and Kim teach the electronic device of claim 1, and Kim further teaches a coating layer (4311).
US 425 and Kim do not specifically teach wherein an average reflectance on the lens surface with the coating layer formed thereon is 0.25% or less for light having a wavelength range of 480 nm to 630 nm.
In the same field of endeavor, Ito teaches wherein an average reflectance on the lens surface with the coating layer formed thereon is 0.25% or less for light having a wavelength range of 480 nm to 630 nm (Ito para. 0112 – the measured reflectance of the coating is in a range of 0.1 to 1% for light having a wavelength range of 380 to 640 nm, which includes all reflectance value being 0.1%, which is lesser than 0.25%) for the purpose of enhancing the clearness of images on a display (Ito para. 0113). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have an average reflectance of 0.25% or less as taught by Ito in the electronic device of US 425 and Kim in order to enhance the clarity of images (Ito para. 0113).
Regarding claim 16, US 425 and Kim teach the electronic device of claim 1, and Kim further teaches a coating layer (4311).
US 425 and Kim do not specifically teach wherein a maximum reflectance on the lens surface with the coating layer formed thereon is 0.35% or less for light having a wavelength range of 480 nm to 630 nm.
In the same field of endeavor, Ito teaches wherein a maximum reflectance on the lens surface with the coating layer formed thereon is 0.35% or less for light having a wavelength range of 480 nm to 630 nm (Ito para. 0112 - the measured reflectance of the coating is in a range of 0.1 to 1% for light having a wavelength range of 380 to 640 nm, which includes all reflectance value being 0.1%, which is lesser than 0.25%) for the purpose of enhancing the clearness of images on a display (Ito para. 0113). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a maximum reflectance of 0.25% or less as taught by Ito in the electronic device of US 425 and Kim in order to enhance the clarity of images (Ito para. 0113).
Regarding claim 17, US 425 and Kim teach the electronic device of claim 1, and Kim further teaches a coating layer (4311).
US 425 and Kim do not specifically teach wherein a reflectance deviation on the lens surface with the coating layer formed thereon is 0.25% or less for light having a wavelength range of 450 nm to 630 nm.
In the same field of endeavor, Ito teaches wherein a reflectance deviation on the lens surface with the coating layer formed thereon is 0.25% or less for light having a wavelength range of 450 nm to 630 nm (Ito para. 0112 - the measured reflectance of the coating is in a range of 0.1 to 1% for light having a wavelength range of 380 to 640 nm, which includes all reflectance value being 0.1%, which would give a deviation value of 0%, which is lesser than 0.25%) for the purpose of enhancing the clearness of images on a display (Ito para. 0113). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a reflectance deviation of 0.25% or less as taught by Ito in the electronic device of US 425 and Kim in order to enhance the clarity of images (Ito para. 0113).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH M HALL whose telephone number is (703)756-5795. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-5:30 pm PST.
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.
/ELIZABETH M HALL/Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/ZACHARY W WILKES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights