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 06/22/2026 presents claims 1, 2, and 4 as amended. Claims 1-5 are, therefore, pending examination.
Further grounds of rejection, necessitated by the amendment, are detailed below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC 112
Applicant traverses the rejection of claims 2-3 in that:
The apparatus of claim 1 has "a flash lamp that irradiates said substrate held by said susceptor with flash light having a pulse width". The pulse width of the flash lamp DEFINES the permitted locations of the support pins 77 shown in Fig. 9. Thus, if the flash light has a pulse width value of "x", the corresponding radial distance of the support pins 77 must be on the curve shown in Fig. 10, and vice versa. This limitation is purely "structural." The criticality of the "correlation" between the physical aspects of the lamp (its "pulse width") and the radial distance of the support pins (a physical constraint) are physical.
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees as such traversal does not sufficiently address the basis of the rejection.
The Remarks filed 02/26/2026 explain that “[a]l that is required in the first embodiment (claim 1) is that the support pins positions…are related to the ‘pulse width’ of the flash lamp” and that “the support pins are not mounted to be “movable”…their mounted positions are fixed.” In this case, claim 1 appears to address a fixed relationship between the support pins and the susceptor and it is unclear if claim 2 also only requires the same. If so, it is unclear in what way the setting circle changes with the pulse width. In other words, it is unclear if the claim language should be understood to require mechanical structure for moving the support pins or if the claim should be understood to refer to arrangements in which the setting circle changes by some other means (e.g., thermal expansion as explained above or by a user selecting a susceptor having a pin arrangement with a setting circle that corresponds to the pulse width, as suggested in the Remarks filed 11/24/2026, page 7).
Additionally, it is unclear in what way the setting circle increases as the pulse width decreases. For instance, does the heat treatment apparatus require feedback from a sensor to determine the pulse width so that the setting circle can increase? Or, conversely, is the intention that there be a plurality of susceptors with unique support pin locations that correspond with a particular pulse width and that the susceptor with the desired pin locations is selected that correspond with the pulse width, as explained in the Remarks filed 11/24/2026?
Furthermore, in the accompanying Remarks, filed 06/22/2026, Applicant disagrees with the assertion that “the language of claim 2 means that the support pins or either moving or even capable of being moved” and that the “claim does not say so.” It appears, as best understood, from Applicant’s Remarks that the scope of claim 2 does not require movement. If so, then it is unclear as to what is meant by the setting circle radius being inversely proportional to the pulse width such that the smaller the pulse width the larger the radius. It is unclear, if the pins do not move, in what way the setting circle radius is considered to meet the claim language.
More succinctly, the claim language, as it would be understood by those of ordinary skill in the art, implies that the locations of the support pins on the susceptor changes based on the applied pulse width from the flash lamp. While Applicant may disagree with this contention, the scope of the claim languages does suggest this. If this contention is true, it is unclear in what way the apparatus functions to achieve this function. As detailed above, there are multiple, mutually exclusive, ways in which the setting circle radius could be altered to achieve the claimed function. As a result of Applicant’s contention that the claim language is not limited to the support pin locations being movable, the intended meaning, and thus, the scope of the claims remains unclear.
Applicant further traverses in that:
Applicant disagrees with the Office Action assertion that the language of claim 2 means that the support pins are either "moving" or even capable of being moved. The claim does not say so.
Moreover, the specification text quoted above is very clear that the pins are mounted at a specific location that is subject to certain criteria defined by the pulse width.
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees for much of the same reasons detailed above. As detailed herein, it appears, as best understood, from Applicant’s Remarks that the scope of claim 2 does not require movement. If so, then it is unclear as to what is meant by the setting circle radius being inversely proportional to the pulse width such that the smaller the pulse width the larger the radius. It is unclear, if the pins do not move, in what way the setting circle radius is considered to meet the claim language. Applicant’s contention that the specification is “very clear” in that the pins are mounted at specific location that is subject to certain criteria defined by the pulse width is vague and confusing, and does not address the questions raised in the rejection (that highlight the lack of clarity owing to multiple mutually exclusive interpretations).
Claim Rejections – 35 USC 102/103
Applicant traverses the rejection of claims 1-2 in view of the Nishide reference in that:
Respectfully, the relationship between the location of the support pins and the pulse width of the flash lamps are physical aspects. The locations are dictated by Fig. 10 for example, as in claim 2. But in claim 1 as well, the claimed apparatus structure is such that there exists a "correlation".
In the cited art there is no disclosure of such correlation, none whatsoever. As regards the cited art, Applicant repeats that the prior art cited in the Office Action does not suggest, not even remotely, that the positions of the support pins are correlated with the pulse-width of the flash lamps, as recited in the instant patent claims. Therefore, claim 1 distinguishes over the cited art. The same is true of claim 4. This claim too requires a relationship between the positions of the support pins and the pulse-width, which is nowhere even hinted at in the art of record.
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. As explained herein, the term “correlated,” based on the plain and ordinary meaning consistent with the specification, is defined as “to be related by a correlation” (See freedictionary.com/correlated, viewed on 07/01/2026). “Correlation” is similarly defined as “a relationship or connection between two things bases on a co-occurrence or pattern of change” (See freedictionary.com/correlation). Nishide teaches that the locations of the support pins on the susceptor are connected, or related, to the pulse width of flash light emitted from said flash lamp as such locations allow for the proper support of the wafer as the wafer warps/deforms upon the application of the energy from the flash lamp. In this case, the position of the support pins is a co-occurrence with the pulse width of the flash lamps as the two occur at the same, or similar, time. Applicant’s traversal does not explicitly explain any structural differences between the Nishide reference and that of the claimed invention. Referring back to Figure 10 is, by itself, insufficient in explaining any intended structure differences believed to render the claimed invention distinct from that of the Nishide reference.
Applicant further traverses the Nishide reference in that:
The Examiner quotes from Nishide extensively to show various ones of the claimed elements. But there is no quote or reference to anywhere in Nishide suggesting that the locations of the support pins is "correlated" to pulse width, in the sense that the locations and the pulse width are inter-dependent. Rather, as a matter of language interpretation, the Office Action argues that "related" is word so broad that it could mean anything. But applicant submits that claims are read in light of the specification and here related means "correlated" by a specific relationship. That concept does not exist and is not disclosed in either reference.
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. "The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain." In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art, including nonpreferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc. 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989). See also Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323, 75 USPQ2d 1213, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (reference disclosing optional inclusion of a particular component teaches compositions that both do and do not contain that component); Celeritas Technologies Ltd. v. Rockwell International Corp., 150 F.3d 1354, 1361, 47 USPQ2d 1516, 1522-23 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (The court held that the prior art anticipated the claims even though it taught away from the claimed invention. "The fact that a modem with a single carrier data signal is shown to be less than optimal does not vitiate the fact that it is disclosed.").
In this case, Nishide need not explicitly teach each limitation using the same, or similar wording. Rather, the entire contents of the prior art is relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. More specifically, the claim language being contested (i.e., the support pin locations being “correlated” with the pulse width) is overly broad. The Examiner provided a dictionary definition, that is understood to be consistent with the specification, in order to reasonably construe the claim language as it would be understood by those of ordinary skill in the art and explained how one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the Nishide reference as meeting the claim construction.
Lastly, the Examiner respectfully traverses Applicant’s position that the Office action argues that the term “related” is a “word so broad that it could mean anything.” The Examiner made no such statement. Rather, the Examiner provided a dictionary definition of the term “related,” which is uncontested by the Applicant, and explained how the prior art met the claim interpretation. Applicant’s traversal is considered a gross mischaracterization of the articulated rejection.
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.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 2 requires the heat treatment apparatus in which the support pins are set in a ring shape on the susceptor along a “setting circle” and that “a radius of said setting circle in which said plurality of support pins are set is such that the smaller the pulse width the larger the radius, whereby the size of the radius is inversely proportional to a magnitude of said pulse width” which creates confusion as it is unclear if the setting circle of the support pins change as a result of the support pins being mechanically moved (i.e., as in the case of claims 4-5) or if the setting circle changes by some other mechanism (for instance, thermal expansion of the susceptor and/or pins).
The Remarks filed 02/26/2026 explain that “[a]l that is required in the first embodiment (claim 1) is that the support pins positions…are related to the ‘pulse width’ of the flash lamp” and that “the support pins are not mounted to be “movable”…their mounted positions are fixed.” In this case, claim 1 appears to address a fixed relationship between the support pins and the susceptor and it is unclear if claim 2 also only requires the same. If so, it is unclear in what way the setting circle changes with the pulse width. In other words, it is unclear if the claim language should be understood to require mechanical structure for moving the support pins or if the claim should be understood to refer to arrangements in which the setting circle changes by some other means (e.g., thermal expansion as explained above or by a user selecting a susceptor having a pin arrangement with a setting circle that corresponds to the pulse width, as suggested in the Remarks filed 11/24/2026, page 7).
Additionally, it is unclear in what way the setting circle increases as the pulse width decreases. For instance, does the heat treatment apparatus require feedback from a sensor to determine the pulse width so that the setting circle can increase?
Furthermore, in the accompanying Remarks, filed 06/22/2026, Applicant disagrees with the assertion that “the language of claim 2 means that the support pins or either moving or even capable of being moved” and that the “claim does not say so.” It appears, as best understood, from Applicant’s Remarks that the scope of claim 2 does not require movement. If so, then it is unclear as to what is meant by the setting circle radius being inversely proportional to the pulse width such that the smaller the pulse width the larger the radius. It is unclear, if the pins do not move, in what way the setting circle radius is considered to meet the claim language.
Claim 3 inherits the above deficiency as a result of its dependency from claim 2.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nishide (US20190393055).
Regarding claim 1, Nishide teaches a heat treatment apparatus (Title; Fig. 1, apparatus 1) that irradiates a substrate (W) with flash light (flash heater 5 with flash lamps FL-para. 0028) to heat the substrate, comprising:
a chamber (6) that accommodates a substrate (W);
a susceptor (holder 7 includes susceptor 74-para. 0037 and Fig. 2) that holds said substrate in said chamber (para. 0028; holder 7 holds the wafer W within chamber 6); and
a plurality of support pins (support parts 77) provided on said susceptor (74) to support said substrate (W) (Fig. 2-4); and
a flash lamp (FL) that irradiates said substrate (W) held by said susceptor (W) with flash light having a pulse width (para. 0051; “The xenon flash lamps FL have the characteristics of being able to apply extremely intense light as compared with continuous lighting sources such as halogen lamps HL because the electrostatic energy previously stored in the capacitor is converted into an extremely short optical pulse of 0.1 to 100 milliseconds. In other words, the flash lamps FL are pulsed light-emitting lamps that instantaneously emit light in an extremely short time of less than a second. In addition, light emission time of the flash lamps FL can be adjusted by a coil constant of a lamp power supply that supplies power to the flash lamps FL.”) (para. 0071; “Flash heating is performed with the flash lamps FL emitting the flash light, allowing for an increase in temperature of the front surface of the semiconductor wafer W in a short time. More specifically, the flash light emitted from the flash lamps FL is extremely short intense flash light that results from the conversion of the electrostatic energy previously stored in the capacitor into an extremely short optical pulse and whose irradiation time is approximately longer than or equal to 0.1 millisecond and shorter than or equal to 100 milliseconds”), wherein
said plurality of support pins are located on said susceptor at radial positions (Figs. 2-4 show radial positions of the support pins 77 on the susceptor 74) (See also paragraph 0041; ““The plurality of substrate support parts 77 are provided upright on the holding surface 75a of the holding plate 75. In this preferred embodiment, a total of 12 substrate support parts 77 are provided upright every 30 degrees along the circumference of a circle concentric with the outer circumferential circle of the holding surface 75a (the inner circumferential circle of the guide ring 76). The diameter (the distance between opposed substrate support parts 77) of the circle along which the 12 substrate support parts 77 are disposed is smaller than the diameter of the semiconductor wafer W, and is 270 to 280 mm (in the present embodiment, 280 mm). All the substrate support parts 77 are made of quartz. The plurality of substrate support parts 77 may be provided upright by being welded to the upper surface of the holding plate 75, or may be processed together with the holding plate 75.”) that are correlated to a pulse width of flash light being emitted from said flash lamp (FL) [(para. 0072; “During the application of the flash light, the temperature of the front surface of the semiconductor wafer W instantaneously increases to the treatment temperature T2 of greater than or equal to 1000° C., whereas the temperature of the back surface of the semiconductor wafer W at that time does not increase so much from the preheating temperature T1. In other words, a difference in temperature instantaneously occurs between the front and back surfaces of the semiconductor wafer W. As a result, abrupt thermal expansion occurs only in the front surface of the semiconductor wafer W, whereas the back surface hardly undergoes thermal expansion. Thus, the semiconductor wafer W instantaneously warps such that the front surface thereof becomes raised. Even if the instantaneous warpage occurs in the front surface that becomes raised, each of the plurality of substrate support parts 77 that supports the back surface of the semiconductor wafer W has the outer circumferential surface such that the support surface 77a, which is the plane parallel to the holding surface 75a, is formed on the top portion of the spherical surface, and thus the back surface of the semiconductor wafer W can smoothly rub against the plurality of substrate support parts 77. This can prevent chipping and breakage of the substrate support parts 77. This can also prevent scratches on the back surface of the semiconductor wafer W.”) (para. 0075; “The substrate support part 77 having the outer circumferential surface of the above-mentioned shape can be provided upright in any directions on the holding plate 75 of the susceptor 74 (arrangements in any directions would be the same since the substrate support part 77 has line symmetry), thereby facilitating manufacturing, inspection, and management of the susceptor 74 relating to the substrate support part 77. In other words, if the substrate support part 77 has the configuration as in the preferred embodiment above, breakage of the substrate support part 77 can be prevented with the simple configuration.”) (Here, the term “correlated,” based on the plain and ordinary meaning consistent with the specification, is defined as “to be related by a correlation.” See freedictionary.com/correlated, viewed on 07/01/2026. “Correlation” is similarly defined as “a relationship or connection between two things bases on a co-occurrence or pattern of change.” See freedictionary.com/correlation. Nishide teaches that the locations of the support pins on the susceptor are connected or related to the pulse width of flash light emitted from said flash lamp as such locations allow for the proper support of the wafer as the wafer warps/deforms upon the application of the energy from the flash lamp. In this case, the position of the support pins is a co-occurrence with the pulse width of the flash lamps as the two occur at the same, or similar, time.)].
Regarding claim 2, the primary combination teaches each claimed limitation, as applied in claim 1, and further teaches wherein said plurality of support pins are set in a ring shape on said susceptor along a setting circle(Nishide, support pins 77 arranged in a ring, or circular, shape. See Fig. 3), and a radius of said setting circle in which said plurality of support pins are set is such that the smaller the pulse width the larger the radius, whereby the size of the radius is inversely proportional to a magnitude of said pulse width [Note: the claim does not recite any additional structure. Accordingly, it would be reasonable to suggest that Nishide would be structurally capable of performing the claimed function as Nishide teaches each structural limitation being claimed. See MPEP 2112 and 2114).
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 for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 2 is, alternatively, rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishide (US 20190393055) in view of Chen (US 2020/0057037).
Regarding claim 2, Nishide teaches each claimed limitation, as applied in claim 1, and further teaches wherein said plurality of support pins are set in a ring shape on said susceptor in a setting circle (Nishide, support pins 77 arranged in a ring, or circular, shape. See Fig. 3).
Nishide is silent on a radius of said setting circle in which said plurality of support pins are set is such that the smaller the pulse width the larger the radius, whereby the size of the radius is inversely proportional to a magnitude of said pulse width.
Chen relates to a substrate holding mechanism for manufacturing or inspection (para. 0001) and teaches a holder for holding a substate (Figs. 2-4; substrate SC held on plate 2).
Chen further teaches using a plurality of support elements (4) to support the substrate (SC). Chen states that the support pins (4) can move along a path defined by slots 21 (see paragraphs 0027, 0029, and 0033) (see also Figure 7C and paragraph 0037). Here, Chen teaches that the positions of the support pins differ as dictated by the size and/or shape of the substrate.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Nishide with Chen, by replacing the static positioning of the support pins of Nishide, with the movable positioning of the support pins taught by Chen, for in doing so would provide support pins that allow for supporting differing sizes and/or shapes of substrates, which would be beneficial in supporting substrates that undergo thermal expansion as a result of rapid heating.
Claim(s) 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishide (US 20190393055) in view of Chen (US 2020/0057037).
Regarding claim 3, the primary combination teaches each claimed limitation, as applied in claim 2, except explicitly for wherein when said pulse width is less than 0.8 milliseconds, the radius of said setting circle is larger than 93% of a radius of said substrate, when said pulse width is equal to or more than 0.8 milliseconds and is less than 5 milliseconds, the radius of said setting circle is larger than 83% of the radius of said substrate and is equal to or smaller than 93% of the radius of said substrate, when said pulse width is equal to or more than 5 milliseconds and is less than 10 milliseconds, the radius of said setting circle is larger than 77% of the radius of said substrate and is equal to or smaller than 83% of the radius of said substrate, when said pulse width is equal to or more than 10 milliseconds and is less than 20 milliseconds, the radius of said setting circle is larger than 73% of the radius of said substrate and is equal to or smaller than 77% of the radius of said substrate, and when said pulse width is equal to or more than 20 milliseconds, the radius of said setting circle is equal to or smaller than 73% of the radius of said substrate.
The above limitations are considered contingent limitations. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a system (or apparatus or product) claim having structure that performs a function, which only needs to occur if a condition precedent is met, requires structure for performing the function should the condition occur. The system claim interpretation differs from a method claim interpretation because the claimed structure must be present in the system regardless of whether the condition is met and the function is actually performed. See MPEP 2111.04-II.
In this case, Nishide, as modified by Chen, teaches each structural limitation being claimed. The claims do not recite any additional structure for carrying out the contingent limitations. Accordingly, the combination of Nishide and Chen satisfies the claim language, under broadest reasonable interpretation, since all of the claimed structure is disclosed. Additionally, it would be reasonable to conclude that, since all the claimed structure is present, the combination of Nishide and Chen is structurally capable of performing the claimed functions.
Regarding claim 4, the Nishide teaches each claimed limitation, as applied in claim 1, except for wherein said plurality of support pins are movably mounted at said susceptor and further comprising a pin mover that is coupled to said plurality of support pins and configured to enable moving said plurality of support pins in accordance with and based on said pulse width to said radial positions.
Chen relates to a substrate holding mechanism for manufacturing or inspection (para. 0001) and teaches a holder for holding a substate (Figs. 2-4; substrate SC held on plate 2).
Chen further teaches using a plurality of support elements (4) to support the substrate (SC). Chen states that the support pins (4) can move along a path defined by slots 21 (see paragraphs 0027, 0029, and 0033) (see also Figure 7C and paragraph 0037). Here, Chen teaches that the positions of the support pins differ as dictated by the size and/or shape of the substrate.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Nishide with Chen, by replacing the static positioning of the support pins of Nishide, with the movable positioning of the support pins taught by Chen, for in doing so would provide support pins that allow for supporting differing sizes and/or shapes of substrates, which would be beneficial in supporting substrates that undergo thermal expansion as a result of rapid heating.
Regarding claim 5, the primary combination teaches each claimed limitation, as applied in claim 4, and further teaches wherein a plurality of slits are formed along a radial direction in said susceptor, and said pin mover slides said plurality of support pins along said plurality of slits (See Chen, as detailed above. Slits 21 formed along a radial direction of the holder. See figures 2, 3, and 7C. Support elements 4 slide along the slits 21).
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 JUSTIN C DODSON whose telephone number is (571)270-0529. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 12:00-8:00 PM (ET).
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, Steven Crabb can be reached at (571)270-5095. 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.
/JUSTIN C DODSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights