DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 March 03, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s Amendment filed on March 03, 2026. Claims 1, 9 and 14 have been amended. No new claims have been added. No claims have been canceled. Claims 15-20 have been withdrawn. Currently, claims 1-14 are pending.
Applicant’s amendment to claim 14 successfully overcomes the 112(b) rejection of claim 14 set forth in the previous Office Action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 9 have been considered but are moot as applied to the newly added claim limitations because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 9-14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 9, the claim recites, “wherein the first oxide layer is located between the first metal oxide semiconductor and the second metal oxide semiconductor” however, the claim then contradicts this limitation by further reciting that, “the first metal oxide semiconductor is in contact with the first oxide layer and the second metal oxide semiconductor”. These recitations are inconsistent as it is unclear whether the first oxide layer separates the two metal oxide semiconductor layers or whether the first and second metal oxide semiconductor layers are in direct contact with each other. Accordingly, the claim is indefinite because its scope cannot be determined with reasonable certainty.
Claims 10-14 depend upon claim 9 an do not rectify the problem therefore, they are also rejected.
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.
Claims 1-2 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pradipta et al.; Highly stable thin film transistors using multilayer channel structure. Appl. Phys. Lett. 9 March 2015; 106 (10): 103505. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4914971; hereafter Pradipta) in view of Jeong et al. (US 2009/0321731 A1; hereafter Jeong).
Regarding claim 1, Pradipta teaches a semiconductor device (see e.g., TFT-C, Figure 1c), comprising:
a gate (see e.g., indium tin oxide film deposited on glass substrate used as gate electrode, Figure 1c), a semiconductor structure (see e.g., ZnO/hafnium oxide multilayer structure semiconducting channel layer, Figure 1c) and a gate insulating layer (see e.g., gate insulating layer disposed above the gate electrode, Figure 1c) located between the gate and the semiconductor structure (see e.g., the gate insulating layer is disposed between the ZnO/hafnium oxide multilayer structure semiconducting channel layer and the gate electrode, Figure 1c),
wherein the semiconductor structure comprises:
at least one first metal oxide layer (see e.g., bottom ZnO thin film, Figure 1c);
a first oxide layer, (see e.g., hafnium oxide thin film disposed on the bottom ZnO thin film, Figure 1c)
at least one second metal oxide layer (see e.g., ZnO thin film disposed on the hafnium oxide thin film, Figure 1c), wherein the first oxide layer is located between the at least one first metal oxide layer and the at least one second metal oxide layer; and (see e.g., the hafnium oxide thin film is disposed between two ZnO thin films, Figure 1c)
a first source/drain feature and a second source/drain feature (see e.g., bilayer of Ti and Au form the source and drain electrodes, Figure 1c), electrically connected with the semiconductor structure (see e.g., the source and drain electrodes are electrically connected with the ZnO/hafnium oxide multilayer structure, Figure 1c).
Pradipta does not explicitly teach
“wherein a material of the first oxide layer comprises silicon oxide”;
In a similar field of endeavor Jeong teaches an interfacial stability layer having a bandgap greater than the bandgap of the active layer specifically including materials such as SiO.sub.x, SiN, SiO.sub.xN.sub.y, SiO.sub.xC.sub.y, SiO.sub.xC.sub.yH.sub.z, SiO.sub.xF.sub.y, GeO.sub.x, GdO.sub.x, AlO.sub.x, GaO.sub.x, SbO, ZrO.sub.x, HfO.sub.x, TaO.sub.x, YO.sub.x, VO.sub.x, MgO.sub.x, CaO.sub.x, BaO.sub.x, SrO.sub.x, and spin on glass (SOG).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to substitute silicon oxide for Pradipta’s hafnium oxide thin film as a known functionally equivalent material to achieve predictable improvements in interface control and channel stability.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to implement a silicon oxide layer between the metal oxide layers as disclosed by Luo, using silicon oxide as a known alternative oxide material to achieve the expected and predictable result of improved thin-film transistor performance.
Regarding claim 2, Pradipta, as modified by Jeong, teaches the limitations of claim 1 as mentioned above. Pradipta further teaches
wherein a thickness of the first oxide layer is in a range between 1 A to 10 A (see e.g., The average thickness of the HfO2 layers in TFT-C were found to be 1.2 ± 0.3 nm, Figure 1c).
Regarding claim 7, Pradipta, as modified by Jeong, teaches the limitations of claim 1 as mentioned above. Pradipta further teaches
wherein a width of the first oxide layer is substantially equal to a width of the at least one first metal oxide layer and a width of the at least one second metal oxide layer (see e.g., The average thickness of the ZnO and HfO2 layers in TFT-C were found to be 7.2 ± 0.7 nm and 1.2 ± 0.3 nm, respectively, Figure 1c; Examiner’s interpretation: the specification does not disclose the width of the first and second metal oxide layers nor does it define the term “substantially”).
Regarding claim 8, Pradipta, as modified by Jeong, teaches the limitations of claim 1 as mentioned above. Pradipta further teaches
wherein the first oxide layer is a continuous film, a porous film or a discontinuous film (see e.g., the hafnium oxide film is continuous, Figure 1c).
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pradipta et al.; Highly stable thin film transistors using multilayer channel structure. Appl. Phys. Lett. 9 March 2015; 106 (10): 103505. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4914971; hereafter Pradipta) in view of Jeong et al. (US 2009/0321731 A1; hereafter Jeong) and further in view of Yu-Ran Luo, Bond Dissociation Energies, 2009. [online], [retrieved on 07-22-2025]. Retrieved from the Internet:<URL: http://staff.ustc.edu.cn/~luo971/2010-91-CRC-BDEs-Tables.pdf
Regarding claim 3, Pradipta, as modified by Jeong, teaches the limitations of claim 1 as mentioned above. Pradipta does not explicitly teach
“wherein an average bond energy between oxygen and other ions in the first oxide layer is greater than an average bond energy between oxygen and other ions in the at least one first metal oxide layer and an average bond energy between oxygen and other ions in the at least one second metal oxide layer”.
However, Pradipta teaches the first oxide layer to be hafnium oxide, the first metal oxide and the second metal oxide layers to be zinc oxide.
As explained in claim 1 Pradipta’s hafnium oxide is functionally equivalent to silicon oxide.
As taught by Yu-Ran Luo the bond dissociation energy of silicon oxide is 799.6 kJ/mol (hafnium oxide is 801 kJ/mol), and zinc oxide is 250 kJ/mol (see e.g., Table 1 Bond Atomic Energies in Diatomic Molecules).
Therefore, the bond energy between oxygen and silicon is greater than the bond energy between zinc and oxygen due to its high bond dissociation energy.
Regarding claim 4, Pradipta, as modified by Jeong and Yu-Ran Luo, teaches the limitations of claim 1 as mentioned above. Pradipta further teaches
wherein the semiconductor structure further comprises:
a second oxide layer; and (see e.g., ZnO/hafnium oxide multilayer structure semiconducting channel layer includes multiple hafnium oxide thin films. Within this stack the second hafnium oxide thin film, as counted from the bottom of the multilayer structure constitutes the second oxide layer, Figure 1c)
at least one third metal oxide layer, (see e.g., the ZnO thin film disposed on this second hafnium oxide thin film constitutes the third metal oxide layer, Figure 1c)
wherein the second oxide layer is located between the at least one second metal oxide layer and the at least one third metal oxide layer, (see e.g., the second hafnium oxide layer is disposed between the two ZnO thin films constituting the second and the third metal oxide layers, Figure 1c)
wherein oxygen in the second oxide layer is more stable than oxygen in the at least one second metal oxide layer and oxygen in the at least one third metal oxide layer.
The second oxide layer is a hafnium oxide layer and the third metal oxide layer is a zinc oxide layer.
As taught by Yu-Ran Luo the bond dissociation energy of hafnium oxide is 801 kJ/mol and zinc oxide is 250 kJ/mol (see e.g., Table 1 Bond Atomic Energies in Diatomic Molecules).
Therefore, the oxygen is more stable in hafnium oxide than in zinc oxide due to its high bond dissociation energy.
Regarding claim 5, Pradipta, as modified by Jeong and Yu-Ran Luo, teaches the limitations of claim 4 as mentioned above. Pradipta further teaches
wherein the semiconductor structure further comprises:
a third oxide layer; and (see e.g., ZnO/hafnium oxide multilayer structure semiconducting channel layer includes multiple hafnium oxide thin films. Within this stack the third hafnium oxide thin film, as counted from the bottom of the multilayer structure constitutes the third oxide layer, Figure 1c)
at least one fourth metal oxide layer, (see e.g., the ZnO thin film disposed on this third hafnium oxide thin film constitutes the fourth metal oxide layer, Figure 1c)
wherein the third oxide layer is located between the at least one third metal oxide layer and the at least one fourth metal oxide layer, (see e.g., the third hafnium oxide layer is disposed between the two ZnO thin films constituting the third and the fourth metal oxide layers, Figure 1c)
wherein oxygen in the third oxide layer is more stable than oxygen in the at least one third metal oxide layer and oxygen in the at least one fourth metal oxide layer”.
The third oxide layer is a hafnium oxide layer and the fourth metal oxide layer is a zinc oxide layer.
As taught by Yu-Ran Luo the bond dissociation energy of hafnium oxide is 801 kJ/mol and zinc oxide is 250 kJ/mol (see e.g., Table 1 Bond Atomic Energies in Diatomic Molecules).
Therefore, the oxygen is more stable in hafnium oxide than in zinc oxide due to its high bond dissociation energy.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pradipta et al.; Highly stable thin film transistors using multilayer channel structure. Appl. Phys. Lett. 9 March 2015; 106 (10): 103505. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4914971; hereafter Pradipta) in view of Jeong et al. (US 2009/0321731 A1; hereafter Jeong) and further in view of Amari (US 2015/0021572 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Pradipta, as modified by Jeong, teaches the limitations of claim 1 as mentioned above. Pradipta does not explicitly teach
“wherein the first source/drain feature and the second source/drain feature are extending into the semiconductor structure”.
In a similar field of endeavor Amari teaches
wherein the first source/drain feature and the second source/drain feature are extending into the semiconductor structure (see e.g., the source and drain electrodes 16A and 16B extend into the semiconductor layer 14, Para [0070], Figure 1B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was effectively field to implement Amari’s teachings of wherein the first source/drain feature and the second source/drain feature are extending into the semiconductor structure in the device of Pradipta in order to increase the contact area between the semiconductor layer and the source/drain electrodes, resulting in reduction in contact resistance.
Claim 9, 11 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pradipta et al.; Highly stable thin film transistors using multilayer channel structure. Appl. Phys. Lett. 9 March 2015; 106 (10): 103505. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4914971; hereafter Pradipta) in view of Yu-Ran Luo, Bond Dissociation Energies, 2009. [online], [retrieved on 07-22-2025]. Retrieved from the Internet:<URL: http://staff.ustc.edu.cn/~luo971/2010-91-CRC-BDEs-Tables.pdf and Nabatame et al. (US 2016/0118501 A1; hereafter Nabatame).
Regarding claim 9, Pradipta teaches a semiconductor device (see e.g., TFT-C, Figure 1c), comprising:
a gate (see e.g., indium tin oxide film deposited on glass substrate used as gate electrode, Figure 1c), a semiconductor structure (see e.g., ZnO/hafnium oxide multilayer structure semiconducting channel layer, Figure 1c) and a gate insulating layer (see e.g., gate insulating layer disposed above the gate electrode, Figure 1c) located between the gate and the semiconductor structure (see e.g., the gate insulating layer is disposed between the ZnO/hafnium oxide multilayer structure semiconducting channel layer and the gate electrode, Figure 1c),
wherein the semiconductor structure comprises:
a first metal oxide semiconductor (see e.g., bottom ZnO thin film, Figure 1c);
a first oxide layer, wherein a material of the first oxide layer comprises hafnium oxide, zirconium oxide, lanthanum oxide, silicon oxide, or aluminum oxide (see e.g., hafnium oxide thin film disposed on the bottom ZnO thin film, Figure 1c)
a second metal oxide semiconductor (see e.g., ZnO thin film disposed on the hafnium oxide thin film, Figure 1c), wherein the first oxide layer is located between the first metal oxide semiconductor and the second metal oxide semiconductor (see e.g., the hafnium oxide thin film is disposed between two ZnO thin films, Figure 1c), and
oxygen in the first oxide layer is more stable than oxygen in the first metal oxide semiconductor and oxygen in the second metal oxide semiconductor; and
Pradipta teaches the first oxide layer made of hafnium oxide and the first metal oxide semiconductor and the second metal oxide semiconductor made of zinc oxide.
As taught by Yu-Ran Luo the bond dissociation energy of hafnium oxide is 801 kJ/mol zinc oxide 250 kJ/mol (see e.g., Table 1 Bond Atomic Energies in Diatomic Molecules).
Therefore, the oxygen is more stable in hafnium oxide than in zinc oxide due to its high bond dissociation energy.
a first source/drain feature and a second source/drain feature (see e.g., bilayer of Ti and Au form the source and drain electrodes, Figure 1c), electrically connected with the semiconductor structure (see e.g., the source and drain electrodes are electrically connected with the ZnO/hafnium oxide multilayer structure semiconducting channel layer, Figure 1c).
Pradipta does not explicitly teach
“the first metal oxide semiconductor is in contact with the first oxide layer and the second metal oxide semiconductor,”
In a similar field of endeavor Nabatame teaches a semiconductor layer 105, composed of a composite metal oxide obtained by adding, to a first metal oxide 106, a second metal oxide 107.
For example, if the first metal oxide is indium oxide, the oxygen vacancy amount can be controlled by adding a second metal oxide or a nonmetallic element having oxygen dissociation energy greater than the oxygen dissociation energy of indium oxide, such as zirconium oxide (Zr—O), praseodymium oxide (Pr—O), lanthanum oxide (La—O), silicon oxide (Si—O), tantalum oxide (Ta—O) and hafnium oxide (Hf—O) (see e.g., Para [0080], Figure 1).
If such layers are stacked, portions of a first metal oxide semiconductor layer would reasonable be in physical contact with an oxide region (such as silicon oxide, hafnium oxide) and an adjacent metal oxide semiconductor layer.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to implement Nabatame’s teachings of forming a composite metal oxide as an active layer in a TFT to improve its electrical performance, such as enhancing stability and controlling oxygen vacancies.
Regarding claim 11, Pradipta, as modified by modified by Yu-Ran Luo and Nabatame, teaches the limitations of claim 9 as mentioned above. Pradipta further teaches
wherein the semiconductor structure further comprises:
a second oxide layer; and (see e.g., ZnO/hafnium oxide multilayer structure semiconducting channel layer includes multiple hafnium oxide thin films. Within this stack the second hafnium oxide thin film, as counted from the bottom of the multilayer structure constitutes the second oxide layer, Figure 1c)
a third metal oxide semiconductor (see e.g., the ZnO thin film disposed on this second hafnium oxide thin film constitutes the third metal oxide layer, Figure 1c), wherein the second oxide layer is located between the second metal oxide semiconductor and the third metal oxide semiconductor (see e.g., the second hafnium oxide layer is disposed between the two ZnO thin films constituting the second and the third metal oxide layers, Figure 1c),
wherein an average bond energy between oxygen and other ions in the second oxide layer is greater than an average bond energy between oxygen and other ions in the second metal oxide semiconductor and an average bond energy between oxygen and other ions in the third metal oxide semiconductor.
Pradipta’s second oxide layer is made of hafnium oxide and the second and third metal oxide semiconductor layers are made of zinc oxide.
As taught by Yu-Ran Luo the bond dissociation energy of hafnium oxide is 801 kJ/mol and zinc oxide is 250 kJ/mol (see e.g., Table 1 Bond Atomic Energies in Diatomic Molecules).
Therefore, the bond energy between oxygen and hafnium is greater than the bond energy between zinc and oxygen due to its high bond dissociation energy.
Regarding claim 13, Pradipta, as modified by modified by Yu-Ran Luo and Nabatame, teaches the limitations of claim 9 as mentioned above. Pradipta does not explicitly teach
“wherein A is an atom other than oxygen in the first oxide layer, and B is an atom other than oxygen in the first metal oxide semiconductor and the second metal oxide semiconductor, wherein the dissociation energy of A- O is larger than the dissociation energy of B-O”.
Pradipta’s first oxide layer is made of hafnium oxide and the first and second metal oxide semiconductor layers are made of zinc oxide.
As taught by Yu-Ran Luo the bond dissociation energy of hafnium oxide is 801 kJ/mol and zinc oxide is 250 kJ/mol (see e.g., Table 1 Bond Atomic Energies in Diatomic Molecules).
Therefore, the bond energy between oxygen and hafnium is greater than the bond energy between zinc and oxygen due to its high bond dissociation energy.
Regarding claim 14, Pradipta, as modified by Yu-Ran Luo and Nabatame, teaches the limitations of claim 9 as mentioned above. Pradipta further teaches
wherein the first metal oxide semiconductor is located between the first oxide layer and the gate insulating layer (see e.g., in the ZnO/hafnium oxide multilayer structure semiconducting channel layer the bottom ZnO thin film is located between the hafnium oxide thin film and the gate insulating layer as shown in Figure 1c).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pradipta et al.; Highly stable thin film transistors using multilayer channel structure. Appl. Phys. Lett. 9 March 2015; 106 (10): 103505. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4914971; hereafter Pradipta) in view of Yu-Ran Luo, Bond Dissociation Energies, 2009. [online], [retrieved on 07-22-2025]. Retrieved from the Internet:<URL: http://staff.ustc.edu.cn/~luo971/2010-91-CRC-BDEs-Tables.pdf, Nabatame et al. (US 2016/0118501 A1; hereafter Nabatame) and further in view of Gomes et al. (US 2021/0125990 A1; hereafter Gomes).
Regarding claim 10, Pradipta, as modified by modified by Yu-Ran Luo and Nabatame, teaches the limitations of claim 9 as mentioned above. Pradipta does not explicitly teach
“wherein a material of the first metal oxide semiconductor and a material of the second metal oxide semiconductor comprise at least one of indium zinc oxide, indium gallium oxide, indium gallium zinc oxide, indium tungsten oxide or indium tungsten zinc oxide”.
Pradipta’s first and second metal oxide semiconductor layers are made of zinc oxide which are functionally equivalent to indium zinc oxide, indium gallium zinc oxide, indium gallium zinc oxide, tungsten oxide as taught by Gomes (see e.g., In some embodiments, the channel layer 218 may include a high mobility oxide semiconductor material, such as tin oxide, antimony oxide, indium oxide, indium tin oxide, titanium oxide, zinc oxide, indium zinc oxide, indium gallium zinc oxide (IGZO), gallium oxide, titanium oxynitride, ruthenium oxide, or tungsten oxide, Para [0050]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to implement Gomes’ s teachings of wherein a material of the first metal oxide semiconductor and a material of the second metal oxide semiconductor comprise at least one of indium zinc oxide, indium gallium oxide, indium gallium zinc oxide, indium tungsten oxide or indium tungsten zinc oxide in the device of Pradipta in order to use any of the alternatively usable materials and arrive at the claimed invention.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pradipta et al.; Highly stable thin film transistors using multilayer channel structure. Appl. Phys. Lett. 9 March 2015; 106 (10): 103505. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4914971; hereafter Pradipta) in view of Yu-Ran Luo, Bond Dissociation Energies, 2009. [online], [retrieved on 07-22-2025]. Retrieved from the Internet:<URL: http://staff.ustc.edu.cn/~luo971/2010-91-CRC-BDEs-Tables.pdf , Nabatame et al. (US 2016/0118501 A1; hereafter Nabatame) and further in view of Amari (US 2015/0021572 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Pradipta, as modified by Yu-Ran Luo and Nabatame, teaches the limitations of claim 11 as mentioned above. Pradipta does not explicitly teach
“wherein the first source/drain feature and the second source/drain feature are penetrating through the second oxide layer”.
In a similar field of endeavor Amari teaches source and drain electrodes extending completely through the active layer (see e.g., the source and drain electrodes 16A and 16B extend into the semiconductor layer 14, Para [0070], Figure 1B).
Hence, if Amari’s active layer were to be replaced with Pradipta’s the source/drain electrodes would be penetrating the second oxide layer.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was effectively field to implement Amari’s teachings of wherein the first source/drain feature and the second source/drain feature are penetrating through the second oxide layer in the device of Pradipta in order to increase the contact area between the semiconductor layer and the source/drain electrodes, resulting in reduction in contact resistance.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FAKEHA SEHAR whose telephone number is (571)272-4033. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:00 am - 5:00 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, Yara J. Green can be reached on (571) 270-3035. 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.
/FAKEHA SEHAR/Examiner, Art Unit 2893
/YARA B GREEN/Supervisor Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights