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 .
Claim 1 is amended. Claims 16-18 and 20 are canceled. Claims 21-24 added.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04/15/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 1-5, filed 04/15/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of amended claim(s) 1 under U.S.C 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Jung (US 20180356147) in view of Okubo (US 20200094461) and LAMBAEK (US 20230001612) .
Further, Applicant states that a person of reasonable skill in technical fields related to manufacturing a device having a vacuum adiabatic body would not modify the injection molding apparatus Jung with that of OKUBO et al., since OKUBO et al. does not relate to solving technical problems that arise when components are disposed within a vacuum space.
Examiner states that as argued by applicant that Okubo didn't particularly disclose that structural design of the components, which are fundamentally different from those encountered in non-vacuum conditions. However, it does not intrinsically change the theory that injection molding machine can shape complex plastic products, as, the injection molding machine disclosed in Okubo has the sprue, mold and the pressing device (Figure 1), the machine could be capable of shaping various objects in this case a support structure is prepared by an injection molding machine. The main ability for molding various shapes stems from the injection molding process itself, which involves injecting material into a cavity.
Hence, both references combined teach the limitation "a support structure is prepared by an injection molding machine includes a sprue, and a pressing device", as the complexity and final shape of the product are determined by the design of the mold and the obviousness of combining these features is discussed in the rejections. It is well-settled that one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant argues that addressing claim 5, the Office Admits that over JUNG et al. and OKUBO et al. do not teach or suggest, wherein the mixture of PPS and GF includes a hydrolysis inhibitor, and does not include an injection lubricant, and the Office Action applies YAMADA et al. at paragraphs 0002, 0004, and 0117 teaching adding a hydrolysis inhibitor as an additive. YAMADA et al. at paragraph 0117 discloses that a PAS resin may be surface-treated with a sizing agent that contains various additives, such as a lubricant and hydrolysis inhibitor.
Examiner states that YAMADA et al. at in paragraph 0117 teaches that the mixture may contain optionally lubricant. Hence the mixture doesn’t necessarily have to contain the lubricant and only could contain hydrolysis inhibitor as in the claim limitation
YAMADA et al. at paragraphs 0002-0004 states that polyarylene sulfide (PAS) resins such as polyphenylene sulfide (PPS) resins are widely used for injection molding and may be combined with glassfiber. Therefore, it’s common in the art that the resin mixture can be added with additive like hydrolysis inhibitor for the desired properties required by the product
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.
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.
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) 1,2, 6-9, 11,23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung (US 20180356147) in view of Okubo (US 20200094461) and LAMBAEK (US 20230001612).
Regarding Claim 1 Jung discloses method for manufacturing a device having a vacuum adiabatic body, the method comprising: a first plate, a second plate and a vacuum space defined between the first and the second plate (Figure 2, first plate-10, second plate-20, [0036]) ;preparing a plurality of components to be used to form the vacuum adiabatic body and exposed to the vacuum space, the plurality of components including a first plate, a second plate and a vacuum space defined between the first and the second plate (Figure 2, first plate-10, second plate-20, [0036]; Figure 3A-3B, support-30, [0042]), wherein the support is prepared by using an injection molding machine ([0044]); assembling the plurality of components such that the support is between the first plate and the second plate (Figure 3A-3B, support-30); sealing the first plate and the second plate to form a space (Figure 10A, sealing part-61, [0036], vacuum space-50); discharging internal air from the vacuum space between the first plate and the second plate (Figure 2, discharge port-40, vacuum space-50, [0036]); and providing the device using by assembling the vacuum adiabatic body on the device, and wherein the preparing of the support by using the injection molding machine comprises: introducing a liquid resin into the ..([0045], [0047 ); wherein the liquid resin uses includes a mixture of polyphenylenesulfide (PPS) and glassfiber (GF) ([0047])
Jung discloses support is prepared by injection molding machine but didn’t disclose that that includes a sprue, a mold and a pressing device. In the field of endeavor pertaining to the art, Okubo discloses an injection molding machine that has a sprue, a mold and a pressing device (Figure1, sprue-6c, mold-6, pressing device-) providing the introduced liquid resin into a cavity of the mold; and pressing, by the pressing device, the liquid resin and into an accommodation device configured to accommodating the liquid resin (Figure1, [0036]).
It would be obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art to combine the teaching of Jung with that of Okubo’s teaching of injection molding machine with a sprue, mold and pressing device for the purpose of adjusting the molding conditions to improve the quality element of the molded article ([0011]).
Further, Jung/Okubo didn’t teach that mold includes a runner that provides a branched path through which the liquid resin flows and a gate through which the runner and cavity meet each other. In the related field of endeavor pertaining to the art, LAMBAEK discloses mold includes a runner that provides a branched path through which the liquid resin flows and a gate through which the runner and cavity meet each other (figure 1, [0018], runner branch-10 into runner branched channels-11).
It would be obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art to combine the teaching of Jung/Okubo with that of LAMBAEK”s branched path for the purpose of homogeneous distribution of and balanced flow of the resin.
Regarding Claim 2 Okubo discloses , wherein a temperature of the cavity is within a range of 120°C to about 140°C ([0041], for articles to be molded that are input as command values to the control device 5 are stored in molding condition database).
Regarding Claim 6 Okubo discloses a control device wherein an injection pressure molding condition like pressure are input as command values to the control device-5 and are stored ([0041], [0045],). However Okubo didn’t disclose that the injection molding machine is within a range of 80 Mpa to about 150 MPa. Although , where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) See MPEP 2144.05. Here the range of pressure will not support the support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating the pressure range is critical.
Regarding Claim 7 Okubo discloses a control device wherein an injection pressure molding condition like injection speed are input as command values to the control device-5 and are stored ([0041], [0045],). However Okubo didn’t disclose that the injection molding machine speed is within a range of 25 mm/s to about 100 mm/s. Although , where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) See MPEP 2144.05. Here the range of pressure will not support the support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating the pressure range is critical.
Regarding Claim 8 Okubo discloses, a control device wherein an injection pressure molding condition like injection speed are input as command values to the control device-5 and are stored ([0041], [0045],). However Okubo didn’t disclose that the injection molding machine speed is within a range of 40 mm/s to about 60 mm/s. Although , where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) See MPEP 2144.05. Here the range of pressure will not support the support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating the pressure range is critical.
Regarding Claim 9 Okubo discloses, a control device wherein an injection pressure molding condition like injection speed are input as command values to the control device-5 and are stored ([0041], [0045]). However Okubo didn’t disclose that the injection molding machine speed is within a range of 45 mm/s to about 55 mm/s. Although, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) See MPEP 2144.05. Here the range of pressure will not support the support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating the pressure range is critical.
Regarding Claim 11, Jung discloses wherein the support is configured to maintain the vacuum space between the first plate and the second plate ([0042]).
Regarding Claim 23, Jung/Okubo/Lambaek disclose an appliance comprising a vacuum adiabatic body manufactured by the method of claim 1 ( as discussed in Claim 1).
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung (US 20180356147) in view of Okubo (US 20200094461) and LAMBAEK (US 20230001612) as applied in Claim 1 further in view of WO 2012085212 (WALTER).
Regarding Claim 3-4, JUNG discloses that the liquid resin uses includes a mixture of polyphenylenesulfide (PPS) and glassfiber (GF) ([0047]) but did not disclose a specific weight ratio of PPS and GF in the mixture. In the related field of endeavor pertaining to the art, WALTER discloses that wherein a weight ratio of GF in the mixture of PPS and GF is within a range of 50% (Walter, [0044]).
MPEP § 2144.05 (|) states that where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. A prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish obviousness. Each claimed ranges overlaps or lies inside the 0% to 50% range disclosed by the prior art of Walter, and is therefore obvious.
Walter paragraphs [0039], [0042], and [0052] disclose injection molding polymers. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to injection mold the supporting unit 30 (using the PPS containing glass fiber), because Walter shows that is a known process for forming parts of polymer materials and because Jung paragraph] discloses molding for excellent machinability and low cost ([0044]).
Claim(s) 5, 19, 21,22, 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung (US 20180356147) in view of Okubo (US 20200094461) and LAMBAEK (US 20230001612) further in view of Yamada (US 20200115552).
Regarding Claim 5, Jung discloses the liquid resin uses includes a mixture of polyphenylenesulfide (PPS) and glassfiber (GF) ([0047]) but didn’t disclose that the mixture of PPS and GF includes a hydrolysis inhibitor, and does not include an injection lubricant. In the related field of endeavor pertaining to the art of mixture of PPS and glass fiber Yamada discloses ([0002], [0004], ) that hydrolysis inhibitors are added as an additive ([0117]).
It would be obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art to combine Jung/Okubo teaching with that of Yamada’s teaching of hydrolysis inhibitor as sizing agent for the purpose of durability of the overall composite by optimizing the interface of the polymer and the reinforced fiber.
Regarding Claim 19 Jung discloses method for manufacturing a device having a vacuum adiabatic body having a vacuum space, the method comprising: preparing a plurality of components to be used to form the vacuum adiabatic body and provided to an inside of vacuum space, the plurality of components including a first plate, a second plate and a support (Figure 2, first plate-10, second plate-20, [0036]; Figure 3A-3B, support-30, [0042]), wherein in order to prepare the support by using a resin inject a mixture of polvphenvlenesulfide (PPS) and glassfiber (GF), ([0045], [0047]); assembling the plurality of components such that the support is between the first plate and the second plate (Figure 3A-3B, support-30); sealing the first plate and the second plate to form a space (Figure 10A, sealing part-61, [0036], vacuum space-50); discharging internal air from the vacuum space between the first plate and the second plate (Figure 2, discharge port-40, vacuum space-50, [0036])); providing the device by assembling the vacuum adiabatic body on the device (Figure 2).
Jung discloses support is prepared by injection molding machine but didn’t disclose that that includes a sprue, a mold and a pressing device. In the field of endeavor pertaining to the art, Okubo discloses an injection molding machine that has a sprue, a mold and a pressing device (Figure1, sprue-6c, mold-6, pressing device-) providing the introduced liquid resin into a cavity of the mold; and pressing, by the pressing device, the liquid resin and into an accommodation device configured to accommodating the liquid resin (Figure1, [0036]).
It would be obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art to combine the teaching of Jung with that of Okubo’s teaching of injection molding machine with a sprue, mold and pressing device for the purpose of adjusting the molding conditions to improve the quality element of the molded article ([0011]).
Jung discloses the liquid resin uses includes a mixture of polyphenylenesulfide (PPS) and glassfiber (GF) ([0047]) but didn’t disclose that the mixture of PPS and GF does not include an injection lubricant. In the related field of endeavor pertaining to the art of mixture of PPS and glass fiber Yamada discloses ([0002], [0004], ) addititives are added to the mixture as discussed above mixture may contain optionally lubricant. Hence the mixture doesn’t necessarily have to contain the lubricant as in the claim limitation ([0117]).
It would be obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art to combine Jung/Okubo teaching with that of Yamada’s teaching of additive for the purpose of durability of the overall composite by optimizing the interface of the polymer and the reinforced fiber.
Regarding Claim 21 Jung discloses that support unit-30 to have a low outgassing rate ([0044] ). Yamada discloses additives are added to the mixture as discussed above mixture may contain hydrolysis inhibitor ([0117]).
Regarding Claim 22 Jung discloses the support includes a plurality of outgassing particles ([0042], [0044] support-30).
Regarding Claim 24, Jung/Okubo/LAmbaek disclose an appliance comprising a vacuum adiabatic body manufactured by the method of claim 1 ( as discussed in Claim 1).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung (US 20180356147) in view of Okubo (US 20200094461) and LAMBAEK (US 20230001612) as applied in Claim 1 further in view of JP 2002292695 hereinafter JP’695 translation attached .
Regarding Claim 10, Jung/ Okubo discloses an injection molding machine that has a sprue, a mold and a pressing device (Figure1, sprue-6c, mold-6, pressing device-OKubo) providing the introduced liquid resin into a cavity of the mold but didn’t disclose a flow leader to prevent voids in the support. In the related field of endeavor pertaining to the art, JP’ 695 discloses wherein the mold includes a flow leader configured to prevent voids from occurring at the component support (Figure 4 ,flow leader-41, [0031]-[0032], translated).
It would be obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art to combine Jung/Okubo’s teaching with that of JP’695 flow leader teaching for the purpose of accurate filling can be performed ([0033]).
Claim(s) 12, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung (US 20180356147) in view of Okubo (US 20200094461) and LAMBAEK (US 20230001612) as applied in claim1 further in view of Shimada (US 20220088844)
Regarding claim 12 , Jung/ Okubo discloses an injection molding machine that has a sprue, a mold and a pressing device (Figure1, sprue-6c, mold-6, pressing device, OKubo) providing the introduced liquid resin into a cavity of the mold, Further, Okubo discloses a control device wherein an injection pressure molding condition like injection speed are input as command values to the control device-5 and are stored ([0041], [0045]). but didn’t disclose a holding and back press speed are set. In the same field of endeavor pertaining to the art of injection molding machine Shimada, wherein a holding and back press speed as the input parameters. However, in the related field of endeavor pertaining to the art, Shimada discloses that holding and back press speed as one of the user input parameters ([0107]) However, the prior arts did not disclose that holding and back press speed of the injection molding machine the injection molding machine is within a range of 10 mm/s to about 20 mm/s, and the holding and back press speed of the injection molding machine is within a range of 1/6 times to about 1/2 times the injection speed. Shimada discloses that parameters corresponding to each process of the injection molding process are set as the molding conditions. Although , where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) See MPEP 2144.05. Here the range of back press speed as claimed, will not support the support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating the pressure range is critical.
Regarding Claim 15, Jung/ Okubo discloses an injection molding machine that has a sprue, a mold and a pressing device (Figure1, sprue-6c, mold-6, pressing device, OKubo) providing the introduced liquid resin into a cavity of the mold, Further, Okubo discloses a control device wherein an injection pressure molding condition like injection speed are input as command values to the control device-5 and are stored ([0041], [0045]) but didn’t disclose a holding time is set. In the same field of endeavor pertaining to the art of injection molding machine, Shimada, wherein a holding and back press speed as the input parameters. However, in the related field of endeavor pertaining to the art, Shimada discloses that holding time as one of the user input parameters ([0107]) However, the prior arts did not disclose that holding time of the injection molding machine the injection molding machine is within a range of 0.1 seconds to 0.3 seconds. Shimada discloses that parameters corresponding to each process of the injection molding process are set as the molding conditions. Although , where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) See MPEP 2144.05. Here the range of holding time as claimed, will not support the support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating the pressure range is critical.
Claim(s) 13,14, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung (US 20180356147) in view of Okubo (US 20200094461) and LAMBAEK (US 20230001612) further in view of Shimada (US 20220088844) and Young et. al. The influence of processing variables on injection molded in situ composites based on polyphenylene sulfide and a melt processable glass
Regarding Claim 13 , Jung/ Okubo discloses an injection molding machine that has a sprue, a mold and a pressing device (Figure1, sprue-6c, mold-6, pressing device,Okubo) providing the introduced liquid resin into a cavity of the mold, Further, Okubo discloses a control device wherein an injection pressure molding condition like injection speed are input as command values to the control device-5 and are stored ([0041], [0045]) but didn’t disclose a holding and back press pressure of the injection molding machine is within a range of 150 kgf/cm^2 to about 300 kgf/cm^2. However, in the related field of endeavor pertaining to the art, Shimada discloses that back pressure as one of the user input parameters ([0107]) However, the prior arts did not disclose that holding time of the injection molding machine the injection molding machine is within a range of 150 kgf/cm^2 to about 300 kgf/cm^2. Shimada discloses that parameters corresponding to each process of the injection molding process are set as the molding conditions. Although , where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) See MPEP 2144.05. Here the range of back pressure as claimed, will not support the support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating the pressure range is critical.
Further, in the related field of endeavor pertaining to the art of composites based on polyphenylene sulfide and a melt processable glass , Young et. al. discloses that the holding pressure is 10 Mpa (page 212) which is close to the claimed range.
MPEP § 2144.05 (|) states that where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. A prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish obviousness.
It would be obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art to combine Jung/Okubo’s teaching with that of Young’s for the purpose of material to flow freely from the nozzle of the barrel.
Regarding Claim 14 , Jung/ Okubo discloses an injection molding machine that has a sprue, a mold and a pressing device (Figure1, sprue-6c, mold-6, pressing device,Okubo) providing the introduced liquid resin into a cavity of the mold, Further, Okubo discloses a control device wherein an injection pressure molding condition like injection speed are input as command values to the control device-5 and are stored ([0041], [0045]) but didn’t disclose a wherein a holding and back press pressure of the injection molding machine is within a range of 180 kgf/cm^2 to about 190 kgf/cm^2. However, in the related field of endeavor pertaining to the art, Shimada discloses that back pressure as one of the user input parameters ([0107]) However, the prior arts did not disclose that holding time of the injection molding machine the injection molding machine is within a range of 150 kgf/cm^2 to about 300 kgf/cm^2. Shimada discloses that parameters corresponding to each process of the injection molding process are set as the molding conditions. Although , where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) See MPEP 2144.05. Here the range of back pressure as claimed, will not support the support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating the pressure range is critical.
Further, in the related field of endeavor pertaining to the art of composites based on polyphenylene sulfide and a melt processable glass , Young et. al. discloses that the holding pressure is 10 Mpa (page 212) which is close to the claimed range.
MPEP § 2144.05 (|) states that where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. A prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish obviousness.
It would be obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art to combine Jung/Okubo’s teaching with that of Young’s for the purpose of material to flow freely from the nozzle of the barrel.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEBJANI ROY whose telephone number is (571)272-8019. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-5:30 pm.
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, Alison Hindenlang can be reached at 571-270-7001. 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.
/DEBJANI ROY/Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/ALISON L HINDENLANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1741
Prosecution Insights