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 .
Remarks
This Office Action fully acknowledges applicant’s remarks filed 06/03/2026. Claims 1, 3, 5-7, 9-12 and 46 are pending. Claims 1, 12 and 46 have been amended.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
1. Claims 1, 3, 5-7, 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over International Patent Publication No. WO2020/187617 to Govindaraju et al. (cited by applicant) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No 2020/0108382 to Cox-Muranami et al.
Govindaraju et al. discloses an apparatus for supplying a target material ([0002]) that includes an inert gas pressurized reservoir 1193 that supplies pressure to a plurality of liquid containing reservoirs 112 and 113 as shown in Fig. 11. [0149]
Govindaraju et al. teaches that the flow rate of the fluid target material 120 from the second fluid reservoir 113 to the first fluid reservoir 112 is controlled by the flow rate of the inert gas transferred from the pressurized reservoir 1193 to the first fluid reservoir. [0149]
Govindaraju et al. teaches that flow regulation apparatuses can be included ([0057]) but does not teach controller coupled to a gas flow rate sensor that measures the rate of flow of pressurized gas to the reservoirs.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to use a volume of the gas that has been transferred from the pressurized reservoir 1193 to determine a volume of the fluid target material that remains in the first fluid reservoir 112 and the second fluid reservoir 113, and that modifying Govindaraju et al. to include a gas flow rate sensor would be an obvious means to monitor the volume of gas as it is transferred to the reservoirs 112 and 113 for purposes of calculating the volume of liquid displaced by the gas.
Govindaraju et al. does not teach a cartridge in which the plurality of reservoirs are located, which cartridge is removably coupled to the instrument.
Cox-Muranami et al. teaches a fluid cartridge 52 that can be used in an instrument 50, which fluid cartridge includes a plurality of reservoirs 110 and a flow control valve 104. (Fig. 21, [0109]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Govindaraju to be configured to receive the plurality of reservoirs in a removable cartridge as taught by Cox-Muranami et al. for purposes of supplying liquids to an instrument and being able to switch out different fluids in reservoirs provided in different cartridges.
As to the newly added limitation that the cartridge lacks a sensor for measuring flow of respective liquids, Govindaraju et al. does not teach a sensor for measuring the flow of liquids.
Applicant notes on page 6 of the remarks filed 06/03/2026 that Govindaraju et al. teaches a level sensing apparatus 1035 located in the second reservoir. Govindaraju et al.’s level sensing apparatus is not a sensor that measures the “flow” of liquids. Therefore, Govindaraju et al. does not teach a sensor for measuring the flow of liquids.
As to the newly added limitation that the cartridge lacks a syringe pump for pulling the respective liquids, Govindaraju et al, does not teach a syringe pump.
While Cox-Muranami et al. teaches a pump, Cox-Muranami et al. has been relied upon as rendering it obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Govindaraju to be configured to receive the plurality of reservoirs in a removable cartridge as taught by Cox-Muranami et al. for purposes of being able to switch out different fluids in reservoirs provided in different cartridges.
Govindaraju et al. teaches using gas pressure to produce flow of liquids and the use of pressurized reservoir 1193 that contains inert gas. [0145].
Liquid flow is caused by differences in pressure in a well-known manner. [0149]
In modifying Govindaraju to be configured to receive the plurality of reservoirs in a removable cartridge as taught by Cox-Muranami et al. for purposes of being able to switch out different fluids in reservoirs provided in different cartridges, gas pressure(s) as taught by Govindaraju et al. would be an obvious means to cause fluid flow from the cartridge.
Cox-Muranami et al. teaches using the cartridge in conjunction with a processing instrument. [0029
Cox-Muranami et al. further teaches a system 100 that includes a fluidic device 102 (“flow cell”), which system 100 is part of a fluid cartridge. [0048] and [0049]
Modifying Govindaraju to be configured to receive the plurality of reservoirs in a removable cartridge as taught by Cox-Muranami et al. and use the same in conjunction with a processing instrument including a flow cell would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for purposes of providing liquids to a processing instrument.
I.) Regarding applicant’s claim 1, as noted above Govindaraju et al. in view of Cox-Muranami et al. renders all the limitations of claim 1 obvious.
Therefore, Govindaraju et al. in view of Cox-Muranami et al. renders claim 1 obvious.
II.) Regarding applicant’s claim 3, as noted above Govindaraju et al. in view of Cox-Muranami et al. renders claim 1 obvious from which claim 3 depends.
Claim 3 recites that the respective liquids comprise reagents.
The liquids in the reservoirs do not structurally limit the instrument of claim 1 and therefore are not afforded patentable weight.
Accordingly, Govindaraju et al. in view of Cox-Muranami et al. renders claim 3 obvious as noted above in reference to claim 1.
III.) Regarding applicant’s claim 5, as noted above Govindaraju et al. in view of Cox-Muranami et al. renders claim 1 obvious from which claim 5 depends.
Claim 5 recites the controller actuates a plurality of actuators to selectively control the displacement of the liquids.
Govindaraju et al. in view of Cox-Muranami et al. does not teach that the controller actuates a plurality of actuators to selectively control the displacement of the liquids.
Applicant discloses that the claimed actuators are valves. [0061]
Cox-Muranami et al. teaches a valve 104 that is provided on cartridge 52.
Modifying Govindaraju et al. in view of Cox-Muranami et al. to include a plurality of valves to control the gas flow to each of the reservoirs 112 and 113 separately and providing a controller to actuate the valves would have been obvious since duplication of parts is deemed obvious unless a new and unexpected result is produced. (MPEP 2144.04 (VI)(B)).
Therefore, Govindaraju et al. in view of Cox-Muranami et al. renders claim 5 obvious.
IV.) Regarding applicant’s claim 6, as noted above Govindaraju et al. in view of Cox-Muranami et al. renders claim 5 obvious from which claim 6 depends.
Claim 6 recites that actuators comprise valves.
As noted above, Cox-Muranami et al. teaches a valve 104 that is provided on cartridge 52.
Therefore, Govindaraju et al. in view of Cox-Muranami et al. renders claim 6 obvious.
V.) Regarding applicant’s claim 7, as noted above Govindaraju et al. in view of Cox-Muranami et al. renders claim 5 obvious from which claim 7 depends.
Claim 7 recites that the actuators are located on the cartridge.
As noted above, Cox-Muranami et al. teaches a valve 104 that is provided on cartridge 52.
Modifying Govindaraju et al. in view of Cox-Muranami et al. to include a plurality of valves on the cartridge to control the gas flow to each of the reservoirs 112 and 113 separately would have been obvious since duplication of parts is deem obvious unless a new and unexpected result is produced. (MPEP 2144.04 (VI)(B)).
Therefore, Govindaraju et al. in view of Cox-Muranami et al. renders claim 7 obvious.
VI.) Regarding applicant’s claim 10, as noted above Govindaraju et al. in view of Cox-Muranami et al. renders claim 1 obvious from which claim 10 depends.
Claim 10 recites that the gas comprises nitrogen.
The type of gas used in the instrument system of claim 1 does not encompass any structural limitations to claim 1 and is not afforded patentable weight.
In any event, Govindaraju et al. teaches the use of an inert gas rendering obvious the use of any inert gas including nitrogen gas.
Therefore, Govindaraju et al. in view of Cox-Muranami et al. renders claim 10 obvious.
VII.) Regarding applicant’s claim 11, as noted above Govindaraju et al. in view of Cox-Muranami et al. renders claim 1 obvious from which claim 11 depends.
Claim 11 recites a pressure regulator coupled upstream of the gas flow rate sensor.
Govindaraju et al. teaches that the flow rate of the fluid target material 120 from the second fluid reservoir 113 to the first fluid reservoir 112 is controlled by the flow rate of the inert gas transferred from the pressurized reservoir 1193 to the first fluid reservoir 112. [0149]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill that a volume of the gas that has been transferred from the pressurized reservoir 1193 can be used to determine a volume of the fluid target material that remains in the first fluid reservoir 112 and the second fluid reservoir 113, and that modifying Govindaraju et al. in view of Cox-Muranami et al. to include a gas flow rate sensor would be an obvious means to monitor the volume of gas transferred to the reservoirs 112 and 113 for purposes of calculating the volume of liquid displaced by the gas.
It would have further been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Govindaraju et al. to include a pressure regulator upstream of the gas flow rate sensor to control the gas flow rate based on Govindaraju et al. teaching controlling the gas flow rate.
Therefore, Govindaraju et al. in view of Cox-Muranami et al. renders claim 11 obvious.
2. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Govindaraju et al.
As noted above, Govindaraju et al. discloses an apparatus for supplying a target material ([0002]) that includes an inert gas pressurized reservoir 1193 that supplies pressure to a plurality of liquid containing reservoirs 112 and 113 as shown in Fig. 11. [0149]
Govindaraju et al. teaches that the flow rate of the fluid target material 120 from the second fluid reservoir 113 to the first fluid reservoir 112 is controlled by the flow rate of the inert gas transferred from the pressurized reservoir 1193 to the first fluid reservoir 112 (as this controls the pressure of the gas inside the first fluid reservoir 112). [0149]
Govindaraju et al. teaches that flow regulation apparatuses can be included ([0057]) but does not teach controller coupled to a gas flow rate sensor that measures the rate of flow of pressurized gas to the reservoirs.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to use a volume of the gas that has been transferred from the pressurized reservoir 1193 to determine a volume of the fluid target material that remains in the first fluid reservoir 112 and the second fluid reservoir 113, and that modifying Govindaraju et al. to include a gas flow rate sensor would be an obvious means to monitor the volume of gas transferred to the reservoirs 112 and 113 for purposes of calculating the volume of liquid displaced by the gas.
Govindaraju et al. teaches that apparatus 100 includes a first reservoir system 102, a second reservoir system 103, a priming system 104, and a fluid control system 190. The fluid control system 190 is fluidly connected to the priming system 104, the first reservoir system 102, the second reservoir system 103, and the nozzle supply system 140. [0052]
As shown in Fig. 11, the fluid control system 190 is separate and attached to the reservoir system could be provided as a flow cell with channels as shown, rendering it obvious to provide or configure the fluid control system as a flow cell for purposes of being able to switch out the fluid control system.
I.) Regarding applicant’s claim 9, as noted above, Govindaraju et al. teaches or renders all of the elements of claim 9 obvious.
Therefore, Govindaraju et al. renders claim 9 obvious.
3. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Govindaraju et al. as applied to claim 9 and further in view of Cox-Muranami et al
I.) Regarding applicant’s claim 12, as noted above, Govindaraju et al. renders claim 9 obvious from which claim 12 depends.
Claim 12 recites a cartridge that is removably coupled to the instrument, wherein: the flow of pressurized gas displaces a plurality of fluids from a plurality of reservoirs storing respective liquids, and the reservoirs are located within the cartridge, and wherein the cartridge lacks a sensor for measuring flow of the respective liquids and wherein the cartridge lacks a syringe pump for pulling the respective liquids.
Govindaraju et al does not teach a cartridge in which the plurality of reservoirs are located, which cartridge is removably coupled to the instrument.
Cox-Muranami et al. teaches a fluid cartridge 52 that can be used in an instrument 50, which fluid cartridge includes a plurality of reservoirs 110, a flow control valve 104. (Fig. 21, [0109]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Govindaraju to be configured to receive the plurality of reservoirs in a removable cartridge as taught by Cox-Muranami et al. for purposes of being able to switch out different fluids in reservoirs provided in different cartridges.
As to the newly added limitation that the cartridge lacks a sensor for measuring flow of respective liquids, Govindaraju et al. does not teach a sensor for measuring the flow of liquids.
Applicant notes on page 6 of the remarks filed 06/03/2026 that Govindaraju et al. teaches a level sensing apparatus 1035 located in the second reservoir. Govindaraju et al.’s level sensing apparatus is not a sensor that measures the “flow” of liquids. Therefore, Govindaraju et al. does not teach a sensor for measuring the flow of liquids.
As to the newly added limitation that the cartridge lacks a sensor for measuring flow of respective liquids, Govindaraju et al. does not teach a sensor for measuring the flow of liquids.
Applicant notes on page 6 of the remarks filed 06/03/2026 that Govindaraju et al. teaches a level sensing apparatus 1035 located in the second reservoir. Govindaraju et al.’s level sensing apparatus is not a sensor that measures the “flow” of liquids. Therefore, Govindaraju et al. does not teach a sensor for measuring the flow of liquids.
As to the newly added limitation that the cartridge lacks a syringe pump for pulling the respective liquids, Govindaraju et al, does not teach a syringe pump.
While Cox-Muranami et al. teaches a pump, Cox-Muranami et al. has been relied upon as rendering it obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Govindaraju to be configured to receive the plurality of reservoirs in a removable cartridge as taught by Cox-Muranami et al. for purposes of being able to switch out different fluids in reservoirs provided in different cartridges.
Govindaraju et al. teaches using gas pressure to produce flow of liquids and the use of pressurized reservoir 1193 that contains inert gas. [0145].
Liquid flow is caused by differences in pressure in a well-known manner. [0149]
In modifying Govindaraju to be configured to receive the plurality of reservoirs in a removable cartridge as taught by Cox-Muranami et al. for purposes of being able to switch out different fluids in reservoirs provided in different cartridges, gas pressure(s) as taught by Govindaraju et al. would be an obvious means to cause fluid flow from the cartridge.
Cox-Muranami et al. teaches using the cartridge in conjunction with a processing instrument. [0029
Cox-Muranami et al. further teaches a system 100 that includes a fluidic device 102 (“flow cell”), which system 100 is part of a fluid cartridge. [0048] and [0049]
Modifying Govindaraju to be configured to receive the plurality of reservoirs in a removable cartridge as taught by Cox-Muranami et al. and use the same in conjunction with a processing instrument including a flow cell would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for purposes of providing liquids to a processing instrument.
I.) Regarding applicant’s claim 12, as noted above Govindaraju et al. in view of Cox-Muranami et al. renders all the limitations of claim 12 obvious.
Therefore, Govindaraju et al. in view of Cox-Muranami et al. renders claim 12 obvious.
4. Claim 46 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Govindaraju et al. in view of Cox-Muranami et al.
As noted above, Govindaraju et al. discloses an apparatus for supplying a target material ([0002]) that includes an inert gas pressurized reservoir 1193 that supplies pressure to a plurality of liquid containing reservoirs 112 and 113 as shown in Fig. 11. [0149]
Govindaraju et al. teaches that the flow rate of the fluid target material 120 from the second fluid reservoir 113 to the first fluid reservoir 112 is controlled by the flow rate of the inert gas transferred from the pressurized reservoir 1193 to the first fluid reservoir 112). [0149]
Govindaraju et al. teaches that flow regulation apparatuses can be included ([0057]) but does not teach controller coupled to a gas flow rate sensor that measures the rate of flow of pressurized gas to the reservoirs.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to use a volume of the gas that has been transferred from the pressurized reservoir 1193 to determine a volume of the fluid target material that remains in the first fluid reservoir 112 and the second fluid reservoir 113, and that modifying Govindaraju et al. to include a gas flow rate sensor would be an obvious means to monitor the volume of gas transferred to the reservoirs 112 and 113 for purposes of calculating the volume of liquid displaced by the gas.
As to the newly added limitation that the cartridge lacks a sensor for measuring flow of respective liquids, Govindaraju et al. does not teach a sensor for measuring the flow of liquids.
Applicant notes on page 6 of the remarks filed 06/03/2026 that Govindaraju et al. teaches a level sensing apparatus 1035 located in the second reservoir. Govindaraju et al.’s level sensing apparatus is not a sensor that measures the “flow” of liquids. Therefore, Govindaraju et al. does not teach a sensor for measuring the flow of liquids.
As to the newly added limitation that the cartridge lacks a syringe pump for pulling the respective liquids, Govindaraju et al, does not teach a syringe pump.
While Cox-Muranami et al. teaches a pump, Cox-Muranami et al. has only been relied upon as rendering it obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Govindaraju to be configured to receive the plurality of reservoirs in a removable cartridge as taught by Cox-Muranami et al. for purposes of being able to switch out different fluids in reservoirs provided in different cartridges.
Govindaraju et al. teaches using gas pressure to produce flow of liquids and the use of pressurized reservoir 1193 that contains inert gas. [0145].
Liquid flow is caused by differences in pressure in a well-known manner. [0149]
In modifying Govindaraju to be configured to receive the plurality of reservoirs in a removable cartridge as taught by Cox-Muranami et al. for purposes of being able to switch out different fluids in reservoirs provided in different cartridges, gas pressure(s) as taught by Govindaraju et al. would be an obvious means to cause fluid flow from the cartridge.
Cox-Muranami et al. teaches using the cartridge in conjunction with a processing instrument. [0029
Cox-Muranami et al. further teaches a system 100 that includes a fluidic device 102 (“flow cell”), which system 100 is part of a fluid cartridge. [0048] and [0049]
Modifying Govindaraju to be configured to receive the plurality of reservoirs in a removable cartridge as taught by Cox-Muranami et al. and use the same in conjunction with a processing instrument including a flow cell would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
I.) regarding applicant’s claim 46, as noted above Govindaraju et al. teaches or renders obvious all the elements of claim 46.
Therefore, Govindaraju et al. renders claim 46 obvious.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/03/2-26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 6 of applicant’s response applicant argues that the examiner has not provided any rationale as to why one of ordinary skill would be motivated to modify the apparatus of Govindaraju to include a gas flow rate sensor, when Govindaraju clearly teaches a different means of calculating the volume of liquid in the apparatus.
Calculating the volume of liquid and measuring/monitoring flow rate are different in several ways one of which is flow rate can determine volume over time periods .
As noted above, Govindaraju et al. teaches that the flow rate of the fluid target material 120 from the second fluid reservoir 113 to the first fluid reservoir 112 is controlled by the flow rate of the inert gas transferred from the pressurized reservoir 1193 to the first fluid reservoir 112 (as this controls the pressure of the gas inside the first fluid reservoir 112). [0149]
Govindaraju et al. teaches that flow regulation apparatuses can be included ([0057]) but does not teach controller coupled to a gas flow rate sensor that measures the rate of flow of pressurized gas to the reservoirs that controls the flow rate of liquids.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to use a volume of the gas that has been transferred from the pressurized reservoir 1193 to determine a volume of the fluid target material that remains in the first fluid reservoir 112 and the second fluid reservoir 113, and that modifying Govindaraju et al. to include a gas flow rate sensor would be an obvious means to monitor the volume of gas as it is transferred to the reservoirs 112 and 113 for purposes of calculating the volume of liquid displaced by the gas during liquid flow.
Applicant argues that amended claim 1 explicitly recites that the system "lacks a sensor for measuring flow of the respective liquids", i.e., and lacks the sensing apparatus as described in Govindaraju.
The “sensing apparatus of Govindaraju et al. that applicant describes on page 6 is a level sensing apparatus and not a sensor that measures flow.
Applicant’s claim 1 recites a gas flow rates sensor to measure a rate of flow of pressurized gas.
As noted above, it would have been obvious to modify Govindaraju et al. to include a gas flow rate sensor to monitor the volume of gas as it is transferred to the reservoirs 112 and 113 for purposes of measuring/monitoring the volume of liquid displaced by the gas during liquid flow.
On page 6 of applicant’s response applicant argues that Cox-Muranami et al. teaches a “pump 106” and that claim 1 excludes a syringe pump.
Cox-Muranami et al. does not specifically disclose a syringe pump and does not limit the pump to a syringe pump.
In any event, Cox-Muranami et al. has been relied upon as rendering it obvious to modify Govindaraju (that uses inert gas pressure to flow liquids) to be configured to receive the plurality of reservoirs in a removable cartridge as taught by Cox-Muranami et al. for purposes of being able to switch out different fluids in reservoirs provided in different cartridges.
On page 7 of applicant’s response applicant argues that the Examiner has not pointed to any disclosure, teaching, or suggestion that would have motivated one of ordinary skill to modify the apparatus of Govindaraju to be used in combination with a flow cell since Govindaraju teaches an apparatus configured to supply a nozzle supply system 140, configured to emit fluid target material that is irradiated with extreme ultraviolet light to form plasma for lithography (see para. [0061] and claims 29 and 31 of Govindaraju).
Cox-Muranami et al. teaches a system 100 that includes a fluidic device 102 (“flow cell”), which system 100 is part of a fluid cartridge. [0048] and [0049]
Modifying Govindaraju to be configured to receive the plurality of reservoirs in a removable cartridge as taught by Cox-Muranami et al. and use the same in conjunction with a processing instrument including a flow cell for purposes of being able to supply and switch out different fluids in reservoirs provided in different cartridges would have been obvious.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MICHAEL S. GZYBOWSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-3487. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00.
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, Charles Capozzi can be reached at 571-270-3638. 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.
/M.S.G./Examiner, Art Unit 1798
/CHARLES CAPOZZI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1798
Prosecution Insights