DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to applicant's amendment and remarks filed on 07/29/2026 (“the Response”), responding to the Non-Final Office Action mailed 05/05/2026.
Claims 1–14 and 21–26 are pending in the application. By the Response, claims 9 and 11 have been amended; claims 15–20 were previously cancelled. No new subject matter has been added by the amendment. Claims 1–14 and 21–26 have been reconsidered in light of applicant's remarks and remain rejected as set forth below. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/29/2026 have been fully considered. The rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) is withdrawn in view of the amendment, as explained in Part A below. Applicant's arguments directed to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are not persuasive, for the reasons set forth in Part B below; those rejections are maintained.
A. Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) — Withdrawn
The Non-Final Office Action rejected claims 11–13 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) because it was unclear, in claim 11, whether “a roughened surface” recalled the “one roughened surface” of claim 9 or introduced a new roughened surface (insufficient antecedent basis). Claim 11 has been amended to recite that the metal via is in contact with “the roughened surface” of the glass layer. The amendment cures the antecedent-basis defect. Accordingly, the § 112(b) rejection of claims 11–13 is withdrawn.
B. Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 — Maintained
Applicant traverses the § 103 rejections principally on the ground that independent claim 1's limitation “at least one surface of the core layer having a roughened surface” is not taught, arguing that the roughened exposed surfaces 213 and 214 relied upon in Kong are surfaces of “conductive features (e.g., traces 206 …)” — part of Kong's “metallization planes” or “metallization levels” — which, in applicant's view, are “not analogous to the recited core layer.” Applicant advances the remaining independent claims 9 and 21 (and their dependents) “for the same reasons.” The examiner respectfully disagrees.
(1) The argument improperly attacks Kong individually where the rejection is based on the combined teachings of Ma and Kong. It is Ma, not Kong, that is relied upon for the recited core layer — specifically Ma's core 150 comprising Silicon and Oxygen (SiO₂) (Ma Fig. 1E; [0029], [0035]). Kong is relied upon solely for its teaching that a roughened surface at a metal interface increases the adhesion strength of the contacting material and reduces the propensity to delaminate. The examiner does not equate Kong's conductive traces 206/207 with the claimed core layer; rather, Kong's roughening teaching is applied to the surface of Ma's core layer 150. It is well settled that nonobviousness cannot be established by attacking references individually where the rejection is predicated upon a combination of prior art 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); MPEP 2145(IV).
(2) The controlling test is what the combined teachings would have suggested, not bodily incorporation of Kong's structure. Applicant's contention that Kong's traces are “not analogous to the recited core layer” would require Kong's specific metal feature to be bodily transplanted into Ma and then equated, element-for-element, with the claimed core — which is not the standard. “The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference … Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d at 425. Kong teaches, as a transferable principle, that increasing surface roughness at a metal interface “increase[s] adhesion strength of adjacent … material” and that a surface with “average surface roughness Ra … too low” has a “propensity to delaminate” (Kong [0050], [0056]). Kong's very title — “Selectively roughened … architectures” — confirms that the roughening is disclosed as a technique for strengthening a metal-to-adjacent-material bond, independent of which specific member carries the roughened surface.
(3) Ma itself recognizes the core-to-metal adhesion interface, supplying the motivation to combine. Ma expressly addresses adhesion at the interface between its core and the metal by disposing a wetting layer 170 on the surface of the hole in core 150 (Ma Fig. 1F; [0051]). A person of ordinary skill seeking to improve adhesion of the metal vias and interconnect structures to Ma's glass core would have been motivated to roughen that core surface as Kong teaches. The result — improved metal-to-core adhesion and reduced delamination — is entirely predictable, and there is a reasonable expectation of success, because surface roughening to promote adhesion is a conventional and well-understood technique in the art. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007); MPEP 2143(I)(A) (combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is obvious).
(4) Kong is analogous art, and a prima facie case of obviousness has been established. Kong is directed to the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention — metallization of integrated-circuit package substrates — and to the same problem the applicant addresses, namely metal-to-adjacent-material adhesion and delamination. Applicant does not dispute that Kong is analogous art; applicant instead conflates the reference's roughened element (a metal feature) with the claimed roughened element (a surface of the core). That conflation is not the basis of the rejection. Ma teaches every structural limitation of claim 1 — the SiO₂ core 150; the metal vias 160 in holes 165 electrically connecting the top side 152 and bottom side 154; and the build-up layers 130/140 having interconnect structures 139a/b/c and 149a/b/c connected to the vias (Ma Fig. 1E; [0035]–[0045]) — and Kong teaches the sole difference, the roughened surface for improved adhesion. Together with the articulated reasoning above, this establishes a prima facie case. MPEP 2142–43.
(5) The remaining independent claims 9 and 21 and their dependent claims. Applicant argues claims 9 and 21 (and their dependents) are allowable “for the same reasons” as claim 1. Because those arguments rise and fall with the claim 1 argument addressed above, they are unpersuasive for the same reasons. Ma supplies the “glass layer”/“glass core layer” recited in claims 9 and 21 (Ma core 150; Fig. 1E; [0035]), and Kong supplies the “roughened surface with an average roughness above 100nm” (Kong [0056], teaching roughness greater than 200nm). The dependent claims are not separately argued on their individual merits and therefore fall with their respective independent claims.
Applicant's remark that the absence of a reply to a specific point does not signify agreement is noted. For the foregoing reasons, the § 103 rejections are maintained and this action is made FINAL.
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 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-2 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2016/0284637 A1 (Ma) and further in view of US 2022/0102259 A1 (Kong).
Regarding claim 1, Ma discloses, an integrated circuit package substrate comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
474
592
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a core layer (150; core; Fig. 1E; [0035]) comprising Silicon and Oxygen (SiO2; [0029]), and
a plurality of metal vias (160; conductor; Fig. 1E; [0036]) in holes (165) of the core layer (150), the metal vias (160) electrically connecting a top side (152) of the core layer (150) and a bottom side (154) of the core layer (150) (Fig. 1C and 1E; [0036]); and
a plurality of build-up layers (130 and 140; first and second build-up layers; Fig. 1E; [0040]) on the core layer (150), the build-up layers (130 and 140) comprising interconnect structures (139a/b/c and 149a/b/c; vias; Fig. 1E; [0043] – [0045]) electrically connected to the metal vias (160) in the core layer (150).
PNG
media_image2.png
492
478
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Ma further teaches, in a slightly different embodiment of Fig. 1F, at least one surface (on the surface of the hole 160 in core 150; Fig. 1F; [0051]) of the core layer (150) having a wetting layer 170 (Fig. 1F; [0051]);
But Ma fails to teach explicitly, at least one surface of the core layer having a roughened surface;
However, in analogous art, Kong discloses, one surface (213/214; top roughened surfaces; Fig. 2B; [0050]) of the core layer (traces 206 and 207) having a roughened surface;
PNG
media_image3.png
304
502
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Ma and Kong before him/her, to modify the teachings of a package substrate as taught by Ma and to include the teachings of one surface of the core layer having a roughened surface as taught by Kong since the roughened surface improves the adhesiveness of conductive materials to the core and absent this important teaching in Ma, a person with ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to reach out to Kong while forming a package substrate of Ma.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Ma and Kong discloses, the integrated circuit package substrate of claim 1, wherein the roughened surface has an average roughness above 100nm ([0056]; Kong Ref.; Kong teaches roughness of > 200nm).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Ma and Kong discloses, the integrated circuit package substrate of claim 1, wherein surfaces of the holes in the core layer are roughened (Fig. 1F; Ma’s wetting layer 170 can be a roughened layer as modified by Kong).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Ma and Kong discloses, the integrated circuit package substrate of claim 1, wherein an outer edge (as annotated on Fig. 2B) of the top surface of the core layer (206/207; Fig. 2B; [0050]; Kong Ref.) is roughened.
PNG
media_image4.png
323
502
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claims 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma and Kong as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US 2020/0075470 A1 (Kuo).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Ma and Kong fails to teach explicitly, the integrated circuit package substrate of claim 1, wherein a first portion of the top surface of the core layer has a roughened surface, and a second portion of the top surface is smooth.
However, in analogous art, Kuo discloses, the integrated circuit package substrate of claim 1, wherein a first portion of the top surface of the core layer has a roughened surface, and a second portion of the top surface is smooth (Fig. 7; [0103]). Kuo teaches that the top of the center portion of the lining layer LL below the metal feature MF has a smooth surface, while the top of the protruding edge portion of the lining layer LL outside of the metal feature MF has a rough and uneven surface.
PNG
media_image5.png
514
414
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Ma, Kong and Kuo before him/her, to modify the teachings of a package substrate as taught by Ma and to include the teachings of top surface of the core layer having both roughened and smooth surfaces as taught by Kuo since in MPEP 2143 (I) (A), it is stated that Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is obvious. Absent this important teaching in Ma, a person with ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to reach out to Kuo while forming a package substrate of Ma.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Ma, Kong and Kuo discloses, the integrated circuit package substrate of claim 3, wherein surfaces of the core layer in contact with the metal vias are smooth ([0103]; Kuo Ref.).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Ma, Kong and Kuo fails to teach explicitly, the integrated circuit package substrate of claim 3, wherein surfaces of the core layer in contact with the metal vias are roughened.
However, in MPEP 2143 (I) (E), it is stated that it is "Obvious to try" – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success is obvious. In this instant case, the top surface of the core layer could be either smooth or roughened. Therefore, choosing surfaces of the core layer in contact with the metal vias being roughened is well within the purview of a person with ordinary skill in the art. Besides, since the applicant used both smooth and roughened surface in contact with the metal vias, therefore, using one over the other is not critical. Therefore, it can be considered that the limitation is taught by the prior art Kuo.
Regarding claim 6, Ma discloses, the integrated circuit package substrate of claim 5, wherein one or more surfaces of the core layer (150) not in contact with the metal interconnect structures are smooth (as annotated on Fig. 1E).
PNG
media_image6.png
487
592
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Claims 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2016/0284637 A1 (Ma) and further in view of US 2022/0102259 A1 (Kong).
Regarding claim 9, Ma discloses, a system comprising:
a package substrate comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
474
592
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a glass layer (150; core; Fig. 1E; [0035]); and
Ma further teaches, in a slightly different embodiment of Fig. 1F, at least one surface (on the surface of the hole 160 in core 150; Fig. 1F; [0051]) of the core layer (150) having a wetting layer 170 (Fig. 1F; [0051]);
PNG
media_image2.png
492
478
media_image2.png
Greyscale
an integrated circuit die (210; integrated circuit die; Fig. 2; [0052]) coupled to the package substrate (100).
PNG
media_image7.png
532
662
media_image7.png
Greyscale
But Ma fails to teach explicitly, the glass layer having at least one roughened surface with an average roughness above 100nm; a metal in contact with the roughened surface of the glass layer; and
However, in analogous art, Kong discloses, the glass layer (traces 206 and 207) having at least one roughened surface (213/214; top roughened surfaces; Fig. 2B; [0050]) with an average roughness above 100nm ([0056]; Kong teaches roughness of > 200nm);
PNG
media_image3.png
304
502
media_image3.png
Greyscale
a metal (metal material of via 219; via; Fig. 2E; [0054]) in contact with the roughened surface (213/214) of the glass layer (206/207); and
PNG
media_image8.png
466
588
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Ma and Kong before him/her, to modify the teachings of a package substrate as taught by Ma and to include the teachings of one surface of the core layer having a roughened surface as taught by Kong since the roughened surface improves the adhesiveness of conductive materials to the core and absent this important teaching in Ma, a person with ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to reach out to Kong while forming a package substrate of Ma.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Ma and Kong discloses, the system of claim 9, wherein an outer edge (as annotated on Fig. 2B) of a top surface or bottom surface (top surface) of the glass layer (206/207; Fig. 2B; [0050]) has a roughened surface (Kong Ref.).
PNG
media_image4.png
323
502
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Ma and Kong discloses, the system of claim 9, wherein the package substrate comprises a metal via (219) in the glass layer (206/207) and the metal via (219) is in contact with a roughened surface (213/214) of the glass layer (206/207) (Fig. 2E; [0054]; Kong Ref.).
PNG
media_image8.png
466
588
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Ma and Kong discloses, the system of claim 11, wherein the roughened surface (213/214) of the glass layer (206/207) in contact with the metal via (219) is a top surface of the glass layer (Fig. 2E; [0054]; Kong Ref.).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Ma and Kong discloses, the system of claim 11, wherein the roughened surface (Fig. 1F; Ma’s wetting layer 170 can be a roughened layer as modified by Kong) of the glass layer (150) in contact with the metal via (160) is a surface inside a hole (165) of the glass layer (150) in which the metal via (160) is disposed (Fig. 1C and 1E; [0036]; Ma Ref.).
PNG
media_image2.png
492
478
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Ma and Kong fails to teach explicitly, the system of claim 9, wherein the package substrate comprises a metal via in the glass layer and the metal via is in contact with a smooth surface of the glass layer.
However, in MPEP 2143 (I) (E), it is stated that it is "Obvious to try" – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success is obvious. In this instant case, the top surface of the glass layer could be either smooth or roughened. Therefore, choosing the metal via is in contact with a smooth surface of the glass layer is well within the purview of a person with ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, it can be considered that the limitation is taught by the prior art Ma.
Claims 21-23 and 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2016/0284637 A1 (Ma) and further in view of US 2022/0102259 A1 (Kong).
Regarding claim 21, Ma discloses, the integrated circuit device assembly comprising:
a package substrate comprising:
PNG
media_image9.png
487
592
media_image9.png
Greyscale
a glass core layer (150; core; Fig. 1E; [0035]);
build-up layers (130 and 140; first and second build-up layers; Fig. 1E; [0040]) on the glass core layer (150); and
metal interconnect structures (as annotated on Fig. 1E) in contact with the glass core layer (150);
PNG
media_image2.png
492
478
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Ma further teaches, in a slightly different embodiment of Fig. 1F, at least one surface (on the surface of the hole 160 in core 150; Fig. 1F; [0051]) of the core layer (150) having a wetting layer 170 (Fig. 1F; [0051]);
But Ma fails to teach explicitly, wherein one or more surfaces of the glass core layer in contact with the metal interconnect structures are roughened with an average roughness above 100nm;
However, in analogous art, Kong discloses, wherein one or more surfaces (213/214; top roughened surfaces; Fig. 2B; [0050]) of the glass core layer (traces 206 and 207) in contact with the metal interconnect structures (metal material of via 219; via; Fig. 2E; [0054]) are roughened with an average roughness above 100nm ([0056]; Kong teaches roughness of > 200nm);
PNG
media_image3.png
304
502
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
466
588
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Ma and Kong before him/her, to modify the teachings of a package substrate as taught by Ma and to include the teachings of one surface of the core layer having a roughened surface as taught by Kong since the roughened surface improves the adhesiveness of conductive materials to the core and absent this important teaching in Ma, a person with ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to reach out to Kong while forming a package substrate of Ma.
Regarding claim 22, Ma discloses, the integrated circuit device assembly of claim 21, wherein the metal interconnect structures include metal vias (165) in the core layer (150).
Regarding claim 23, Ma discloses, the integrated circuit device assembly of claim 21, wherein the metal interconnect structures include metal traces (as evident in Fig. 1E) on the core layer (150).
Regarding claim 25, the combination of Ma and Kong discloses, the integrated circuit device assembly of claim 21, wherein an outer edge (as annotated on Fig. 2B) of the top surface of the core layer (206/207; Fig. 2B; [0050]; Kong Ref.) is roughened.
PNG
media_image4.png
323
502
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 26, Ma discloses, the integrated circuit device assembly of claim 21, wherein one or more surfaces of the core layer (150) not in contact with the metal interconnect structures are smooth (as annotated on Fig. 1E).
PNG
media_image6.png
487
592
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma and Kong as applied to claim 21 and further in view of US 2020/0075470 A1 (Kuo).
Regarding claim 24, the combination of Ma and Kong fails to teach explicitly, the integrated circuit device assembly of claim 21, wherein a first portion of a top surface of the core layer has a roughened surface, and a second portion of the top surface is smooth.
However, in analogous art, Kuo discloses, the integrated circuit package substrate of claim 21, wherein a first portion of the top surface of the core layer has a roughened surface, and a second portion of the top surface is smooth (Fig. 7; [0103]). Kuo teaches that the top of the center portion of the lining layer LL below the metal feature MF has a smooth surface, while the top of the protruding edge portion of the lining layer LL outside of the metal feature MF has a rough and uneven surface.
PNG
media_image5.png
514
414
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Ma, Kong and Kuo before him/her, to modify the teachings of a package substrate as taught by Ma and to include the teachings of top surface of the core layer having both roughened and smooth surfaces as taught by Kuo since in MPEP 2143 (I) (A), it is stated that Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is obvious. Absent this important teaching in Ma, a person with ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to reach out to Kuo while forming a package substrate of Ma.
Examiner’s Note (Additional Prior Arts)
The examiner included a few prior arts which were not used in the rejection but are relevant to the disclosure.
US 2021/0257309 A1 (Pietambaram) - Structures are disclosed that include multi-layered adhesion promotion films over a conductive structure in a microelectronic package. The multi-layered aspect provides adhesion to surrounding dielectric material without a roughened surface of the conductive structure. Furthermore, the multi-layered aspect allows for materials with different dielectric constants to be used, the average of which can provide a closer match to the dielectric constant of the surrounding dielectric material. According to an embodiment, a first dielectric layer that includes at least one nitride material can provide good adhesion with the underlying conductive structure, while one or more subsequent dielectric layers that include at least one oxide material can provide different dielectric constant values (e.g., typically lower) compared to the first dielectric layer to bring the overall dielectric constant closer to that of a surrounding dielectric material. The first and second layers may be discrete layers or a single continuous layer with grading.
US 2021/0193544 A1 (Lin) - Three-dimensional integrated circuit (3DIC) structures are disclosed. A 3DIC structure includes a semiconductor package, a first package substrate, a molded underfill layer and a thermal interface material. The semiconductor package is disposed over and electrically connected to the first package substrate through a plurality of first bumps. The semiconductor package includes at least one semiconductor die and an encapsulation layer aside the semiconductor die. The molded underfill layer surrounds the plurality of first bumps and a sidewall of the semiconductor package, and has a substantially planar top surface. The CTE of the molded underfill layer is different from the CTE of the encapsulation layer of the semiconductor package. The thermal interface material is disposed over the semiconductor package.
US 2020/0058567 A1 (Kim) - An integrated circuit package is disclosed. The package includes a substrate having a glass core layer, where the glass core layer includes a first major surface, a second major surface, and a cavity disposed between the first major surface and the second major surface of the glass core layer. The package also includes a die disposed in the cavity of the glass core layer, an encapsulant disposed in the cavity between the die and a sidewall of the cavity, a first patterned conductive layer disposed adjacent the first major surface of the glass core layer, and a second patterned conductive layer disposed adjacent the second major surface of the glass core layer. The die is electrically connected to at least one of the first and second patterned conductive layers.
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 S M SOHEL IMTIAZ whose telephone number is (408) 918-7566. The examiner can normally be reached on 8AM-5PM, M-F, PST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christine S. Kim can be reached at 571-272-8458. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/S M SOHEL IMTIAZ/Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2812
08/12/2026
Prosecution Insights