DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-7, 9-10, 13-19, and 23-24 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over US 2001/0028083 A1 (“Onishi”) in view of US 2008/0001217 A1 (“Kawashima”).
Onishi teaches, for example:
PNG
media_image1.png
325
364
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
575
778
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Onishi teaches and/or would have suggested as obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention:
1. A semiconductor device (see e.g. Figs. 4A-4B and 5A-5D; see especially annotated Fig. 4B shown above), comprising:
a semiconductor substrate (e.g. 11, see para 55);
a blocking layer in an active region (e.g. region including the “drain drift region 22”, see e.g. para 55) including: a first pillar (e.g. see 1P1 label in annotated version of Fig. 4) of a first conductivity type (n-type) in contact with a first pillar (e.g. see 1P2 label in annotated version of Fig. 4) of a second conductivity type (p-type) electrically coupled to a source electrode 17 and extending along a vertical direction on the semiconductor substrate between the source electrode and the semiconductor substrate (see e.g. Figs. 4B); and
a termination region (e.g. region including the “breakdown withstanding region” 120, see e.g. Figs. 4A-4B) including: a second pillar (e.g. see 2P1 label in annotated version of Fig. 4) of the first conductivity type (n-type) in contact with a second pillar (e.g. see 2P2 label in annotated version of Fig. 4) of the second conductivity type (p-type) and in contact with the first pillar of the second conductivity type (Fig. 4B),
a third pillar (e.g. see 3P2 label in annotated version of Fig. 4) of the second conductivity type (p-type), in contact with a third pillar (e.g. see 3P1 label in annotated version of Fig. 4) of the first conductivity type (n-type),
the third pillar of the first conductivity type in contact with the second pillar of the second conductivity type (3P1 contacts 2P2 in Fig. 4B),
wherein a first distance between a centerline of the first pillar (1P2) of the second conductivity type and a centerline of the second pillar of the second conductivity type (2P2) is less than a second distance between the centerline of the second pillar (2P2) of the second conductivity type and a centerline of the third pillar (3P2) of the second conductivity type (Fig. 4B).
Onishi does not explicitly disclose: the first pillar of the first conductivity type and the second pillar of the first conductivity type each having a density profile uniform in a horizontal direction and varying in the vertical direction.
Regarding the “density profile uniform in a horizontal direction and varying in the vertical direction”: as discussed in the applicants' specification, see Figs. 9B-9H, these requirements of the density profile are accomplished by implanting N-type regions such as 110-N1 (Fig. 9B) in a continuous layer across the entire top of the layer that is to be doped (110-U1, see Fig. 9A), followed by implanting P-type implants into regions such as 110-P1 (Fig. 9C) that are spaced apart from each other. This process is then repeated many times vertically (see Figs. 9D-9G), with the same symmetry (e.g. the dopants in the upper layers directly overlie those in the lower layers). After annealing (which is shown as a progression from Fig. 9I-9K at various stages of the annealing), the pillars are of the form as shown in Fig. 9K. As shown in Fig. 9K, because the N-type implants are initially in layers across the entire region, they diffuse only vertically; whereas because the p-type implants are formed in localized regions that do not cover the entire region, they diffuse radially. As a result, the N-type regions grow vertically while the p-type regions grow radially, and thus the concentration of the n-type dopant will be uniform horizontally across all of the pillars while it will vary in the vertical direction.
Onishi teaches the formation of pillars in the same way. N-type implants 34 (see Fig. 5A and para 103) are formed in an entire active area in a single layer 34 (Figs. 11B). Then, P-type implants 35 are formed in spaced out, selected areas 36, in that layer (Fig. 11C). This process then repeats in multiple layers vertically (Fig. 11D). After this, the implants are diffused (Fig. 11E). Because the process is the same, it would result in the same structure with the same general properties, and would result in the same structure as in the applicants’ specification and claims (Fig. 11E) with the same uniformity of n-type implants across the N- and P- pillars and the same variation of the n-type implants vertically in the n-type pillar.
The methods that Onishi uses differ slightly (see Figs. 5A-5D vs. Figs. 11A-11E) but are both similar, both involve doping an thermal diffusion, and are both “much more easily” manufactured than the prior art that involves epitaxial layers in dug trenches (see e.g. para 138). Both may arrive at wavy sidewalls to various degrees, from being “almost flat” to “serpentine” (see e.g. para 107, 137). As it is noted that higher breakdown voltage is obtained for serpentine shape (para 107), it would have been obvious to substitute the method of Fig. 11A-11E for that of Fig. 5A-5D to form the structure shown in Fig. 4. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to provide for the claimed uniformities while providing for serpentine pillars for a higher breakdown voltage.
It has been established that “the [obviousness] analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim” because the Office or “a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR Int’ Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). It is also well settled that a reference stands for all of the specific teachings thereof as well as the inferences one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably been expected to draw therefrom. See In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264-65 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Onishi does not explicitly disclose: the first pillar of the first conductivity type and the second pillar of the first conductivity type each having a density profile uniform in a horizontal direction and varying in the vertical direction.
Kawashima teaches, for example:
PNG
media_image3.png
464
650
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Kawashima teaches and/or would have suggested as obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention, in combination with Onishi, that the first pillar of the first conductivity type and the second pillar of the first conductivity type each having a density profile uniform in a horizontal direction and varying in the vertical direction (In Kawashima, pillars in the active element region and in the peripheral region are both formed in the same way, by ion implantation processes, resulting in wavy profiles similar to Onishi’s pillars in the peripheral region, thus suggesting to use Onishi’s formation of pillars in both regions the same way as Onishi forms the pillars in the peripheral region 20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the invention of Kawashima to the invention of Onishi. The motivation to do so is that the combination produces the predictable results of forming the pillars having wavy sides in both the active region and in the peripheral breakdown region (see e.g. Figs. 2 and 3) in a way that improves the breakdown voltage of the device as a whole (see e.g. para 23, 26-29, 61, etc.).
Onishi and Kawashima together teach and/or would have suggested as obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention:
2. The semiconductor device of claim 1, wherein the density profile of the second pillar of the first conductivity type varies in the vertical direction according to a predetermined period (see Onishi, Figs. 10 and 11D, wherein the equal thickness of 30 would result in the same predetermined period).
3. The semiconductor device of claim 1, wherein a high-density portion and a low-density portion in the density profile of the second pillar of the first conductivity type are repeated along the vertical direction (see Onishi, Figs. 10 and 11D).
4. The semiconductor device of claim 1, wherein
the second pillar of the first conductivity type has a side surface that contacts a side surface of the second pillar of the second conductivity type,
the side surface of the second pillar of the first conductivity type has curves opposite curves of the side surface of the second pillar of the second conductivity type (see Onishi, Fig. 10).
5. The semiconductor device of claim 1, further comprising: a first conductivity type epi-layer formed on the semiconductor substrate (e.g. Onishi, 30, Fig. 11a, para 85).
6. The semiconductor device of claim 1, wherein
the semiconductor substrate includes a high density N-type substrate 11 (n+),
the second pillar of the first conductivity type is an N-type pillar (n-type, see discussion of claim 1), and
the second pillar of the second conductivity type is a P-type pillar (p-type, see discussion of claim 1).
7. The semiconductor device of claim 1, wherein the first pillar of the first conductivity type and the first pillar of the second conductivity type have a horizontal cross-section structure including a striped structure, a circular structure, or a cellular structure (see Onishi, e.g. Figs. 4B, 10, and 11e).
9. The semiconductor device of claim 1, wherein the first pillar of the second conductivity type (e.g. 22a in Fig. 4B or 22b in Fig. 10) is electrically coupled to the source electrode via a well (e.g. Onishi, 13a/14 in Fig. 4, or only 13a in Fig. 4; or e.g. 13a/26/14 or a part thereof in Fig. 10).
10. The semiconductor device of claim 9, wherein the well includes a high-density impurity region (e.g. Onishi, 13a, which is highly doped p-type as denoted by p+).
13. The semiconductor device of claim 1, further comprising: a field oxide layer 23, the second pillar of the second conductivity type is coupled to the field oxide layer via a well 20c (see e.g. Onishi, Fig. 18).
Re claim 14, Onishi teaches and/or would have suggested as obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention:
14. A semiconductor device (see e.g. Figs. 4A-4B and 5A-5D; see especially annotated Fig. 4B shown above), comprising:
a semiconductor substrate (e.g. 11, see para 55);
a blocking layer in an active region (e.g. region including the “drain drift region 22”, see e.g. para 55) including: a first pillar (e.g. see 1P1 label in annotated version of Fig. 4) of a first conductivity type (n-type) in contact with a first pillar (e.g. see 1P2 label in annotated version of Fig. 4) of a second conductivity type (p-type); and
a termination region (e.g. region including the “breakdown withstanding region” 120, see e.g. Figs. 4A-4B) including: a second pillar (e.g. see 2P1 label in annotated version of Fig. 4) of the first conductivity type (n-type) in contact with a second pillar (e.g. see 2P2 label in annotated version of Fig. 4) of the second conductivity type (p-type) and in contact with the first pillar of the second conductivity type (Fig. 4B),
a third pillar (e.g. see 3P2 label in annotated version of Fig. 4) of the second conductivity type (p-type), in contact with a third pillar (e.g. see 3P1 label in annotated version of Fig. 4) of the first conductivity type (n-type),
the third pillar of the first conductivity type in contact with the second pillar of the second conductivity type (3P1 contacts 2P2 in Fig. 4B),
wherein a first distance between a centerline of the first pillar (1P2) of the second conductivity type and a centerline of the second pillar of the second conductivity type (2P2) is less than a second distance between the centerline of the second pillar (2P2) of the second conductivity type and a centerline of the third pillar (3P2) of the second conductivity type (Fig. 4B).
Onishi does not explicitly disclose:
the first pillar of the first conductivity type and the second pillar of the first conductivity type each having a density profile uniform in a horizontal direction and varying in the vertical direction;
the first pillar of the first conductivity type having a side surface with curves opposite curves of a side surface of the first pillar of the second conductivity type; or
the second pillar of the first conductivity type has a side surface with curves opposite curves of a side surface of the second pillar of the second conductivity type.
Regarding the “density profile uniform in a horizontal direction and varying in the vertical direction”: as discussed in the applicants' specification, see Figs. 9B-9H, these requirements of the density profile are accomplished by implanting N-type regions such as 110-N1 (Fig. 9B) in a continuous layer across the entire top of the layer that is to be doped (110-U1, see Fig. 9A), followed by implanting P-type implants into regions such as 110-P1 (Fig. 9C) that are spaced apart from each other. This process is then repeated many times vertically (see Figs. 9D-9G), with the same symmetry (e.g. the dopants in the upper layers directly overlie those in the lower layers). After annealing (which is shown as a progression from Fig. 9I-9K at various stages of the annealing), the pillars are of the form as shown in Fig. 9K. As shown in Fig. 9K, because the N-type implants are initially in layers across the entire region, they diffuse only vertically; whereas because the p-type implants are formed in localized regions that do not cover the entire region, they diffuse radially. As a result, the N-type regions grow vertically while the p-type regions grow radially, and thus the concentration of the n-type dopant will be uniform horizontally across all of the pillars while it will vary in the vertical direction.
Onishi teaches the formation of pillars in the same way. N-type implants 34 (see Fig. 5A and para 103) are formed in an entire active area in a single layer 34 (Figs. 11B). Then, P-type implants 35 are formed in spaced out, selected areas 36, in that layer (Fig. 11C). This process then repeats in multiple layers vertically (Fig. 11D). After this, the implants are diffused (Fig. 11E). Because the process is the same, it would result in the same structure with the same general properties, and would result in the same structure as in the applicants’ specification and claims (Fig. 11E) with the same uniformity of n-type implants across the N- and P- pillars and the same variation of the n-type implants vertically in the n-type pillar.
The methods that Onishi uses differ slightly (see Figs. 5A-5D vs. Figs. 11A-11E) but are both similar, both involve doping an thermal diffusion, and are both “much more easily” manufactured than the prior art that involves epitaxial layers in dug trenches (see e.g. para 138). Both may arrive at wavy sidewalls to various degrees, from being “almost flat” to “serpentine” (see e.g. para 107, 137). As it is noted that higher breakdown voltage is obtained for serpentine shape (para 107), it would have been obvious to substitute the method of Fig. 11A-11E for that of Fig. 5A-5D to form the structure shown in Fig. 4. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to provide for the claimed uniformities while providing for serpentine pillars for a higher breakdown voltage.
It has been established that “the [obviousness] analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim” because the Office or “a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR Int’ Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). It is also well settled that a reference stands for all of the specific teachings thereof as well as the inferences one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably been expected to draw therefrom. See In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264-65 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Onishi does not explicitly disclose: the first pillar of the first conductivity type and the second pillar of the first conductivity type each having a density profile uniform in a horizontal direction and varying in the vertical direction.
Kawashima teaches, for example:
PNG
media_image3.png
464
650
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Kawashima teaches and/or would have suggested as obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention, in combination with Onishi, that the first pillar of the first conductivity type and the second pillar of the first conductivity type each having a density profile uniform in a horizontal direction and varying in the vertical direction (In Kawashima, pillars in the active element region and in the peripheral region are both formed in the same way, by ion implantation processes, resulting in wavy profiles similar to Onishi’s pillars in the peripheral region, thus suggesting to use Onishi’s formation of pillars in both regions the same way as Onishi forms the pillars in the peripheral region 20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the invention of Kawashima to the invention of Onishi. The motivation to do so is that the combination produces the predictable results of forming the pillars having wavy sides in both the active region and in the peripheral breakdown region (see e.g. Figs. 2 and 3) in a way that improves the breakdown voltage of the device as a whole (see e.g. para 23, 26-29, 61, etc.).
Onishi and Kawashima together further teach and/or would have suggested as obvious at the time of invention to one of ordinary skill in the art:
15. The semiconductor device of claim 14, wherein the first pillar of the second conductivity type is electrically coupled to a source electrode 17 and extends along a vertical direction on the semiconductor substrate between the source electrode and the semiconductor substrate (see e.g. Figs. 4, 10, 11e, and 18, etc.).
Re claim 16, Onishi and Kawashima teach the semiconductor device of claim 15 (see discussion above), but do not explicitly disclose: the second pillar of the first conductivity type has a density profile uniform in a horizontal direction orthogonal to the vertical direction, and the density profile of the first conductivity type varies in the vertical direction.
As discussed in the applicants' specification, see Figs. 9B-9H, these requirements of the density profile are accomplished by implanting N-type regions such as 110-N1 (Fig. 9B) in a continuous layer across the entire top of the layer that is to be doped (110-U1, see Fig. 9A), followed by implanting P-type implants into regions such as 110-P1 (Fig. 9C) that are spaced apart from each other. This process is then repeated many times vertically (see Figs. 9D-9G), with the same symmetry (e.g. the dopants in the upper layers directly overlie those in the lower layers). After annealing (which is shown as a progression from Fig. 9I-9K at various stages of the annealing), the pillars are of the form as shown in Fig. 9K. As shown in Fig. 9K, because the N-type implants are initially in layers across the entire region, they diffuse only vertically; whereas because the p-type implants are formed in localized regions that do not cover the entire region, they diffuse radially. As a result, the N-type regions grow vertically while the p-type regions grow radially, and thus the concentration of the n-type dopant will be uniform horizontally across all of the pillars while it will vary in the vertical direction.
Onishi forms the pillars in the same way. N-type implants 33 (mislabeled as “31” in Fig. 11B, but see para 87) are formed in an entire active area in a single layer 34 (Figs. 11B). Then, P-type implants 35 are formed in spaced out, selected areas 36, in that layer (Fig. 11C). This process then repeats in multiple layers vertically (Fig. 11D). After this, the implants are diffused (Fig. 11E). Because the process is the same, it will result in the same structure with the same general properties, and would result in the same structure as in the applicants’ specification and claims (Fig. 11E) with the same uniformity of n-type implants across the N- and P- pillars and the same variation of the n-type implants vertically in the n-type pillar.
Thus, while Onishi and Kawashima do not explicitly disclose the limitations by plotting impurity concentrations versus position, because the processes are the same, the results are the same, and the claimed limitations would result.
It has been established that “the [obviousness] analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim” because the Office or “a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR Int’ Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). It is also well settled that a reference stands for all of the specific teachings thereof as well as the inferences one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably been expected to draw therefrom. See In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264-65 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
17. The semiconductor device of claim 16, wherein the density profile of the second pillar of the first conductivity type varies in the vertical direction according to a predetermined period (see Figs. 4, 10, 11D, wherein the equal thickness of 30 would result in the same predetermined period).
18. The semiconductor device of claim 16, wherein a high-density portion and a low-density portion in the density profile of the second pillar of the first conductivity type are repeated along the vertical direction (see Figs. 4, 10, 11D).
19. The semiconductor device of claim 14, wherein the second pillar of the first conductivity type has a side surface that contacts a side surface of the second pillar of the second conductivity type (see e.g. Figs. 4, 10, 11e, and 18, etc.).
23. The semiconductor device of claim 1, further comprising an epitaxial layer having a first thickness and an epitaxial layer having a second thickness different from the first thickness (see e.g. lowermost 30 in e.g. Fig. 5C, which is epitaxial and has a first thickness; also see middle two 30s in e.g. Fig. 5C, which are epitaxial and result in a second epitaxial layer having a second thickness that is different from the first thickness).
24. The semiconductor device of claim 1, further comprising an edge pillar 24 of the second conductivity type having a quadrangular ring shape (see Fig. 4, wherein one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that only a portion of an entire wafer is shown, and that it is likely a quarter thereof; one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that 24 should surround the entire device, and thus have a quadrangular ring shape).
It has been established that “the [obviousness] analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim” because the Office or “a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR Int’ Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). It is also well settled that a reference stands for all of the specific teachings thereof as well as the inferences one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably been expected to draw therefrom. See In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264-65 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Claim(s) 11-12 and 21 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Onishi and Kawashima, as applied to claim 10, above, and further in view of US 2009/0079002 A1 (“Lee”) (cited in parent applications, and listed on the IDS filed 2/15/23).
Onishi and Kawashima teaches and/or suggests as obvious the limitations of claim 10, as discussed above, but do not further teach:
wherein the well is a first well, the second pillar of the second conductivity type is electrically coupled to a second well and is electrically floating (claim 10),
excludes any high-density impurity region (claim 11),
the second well is floating (claim 21).
Lee teaches:
PNG
media_image4.png
429
735
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Lee teaches and/or would have suggested as obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention, in combination with Onishi and Kawashima,
wherein the well is a first well 338 (Fig. 3), the second pillar 329 of the second conductivity type (p-type) is electrically coupled to a second well 342 and is electrically floating (see Fig. 3, wherein it is not connected to an electrically grounded element) (claim 10),
excludes any high-density impurity region (342 itself does not include the highly doped region of Onishi, and itself is not highly doped, designated as p+) (claim 11),
the second well is floating (see Fig. 3, wherein it is not connected to an electrically grounded element) (claim 21).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the invention of Lee to the invention of Onishi and Kawashima. The motivation to do so is that the combination produces the predictable results of using a transition region 304 to aid in the termination by bridging pillars together in a way that reduces the breakdown voltage in region 304 as compared to in the active region 301 (para 248).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 22 is/are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art does not explicitly teach, or reasonably suggest as obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, an invention having all of the limitations of claim 22, including all of the limitations of claims 1, 9, and 22, wherein the first pillar of the second conductivity type is electrically coupled to a first well, the second pillar of the second conductivity type is electrically coupled a second well and is electrically floating, the third pillar of the second conductivity type is electrically coupled a third well, the third well has a centerline separated by a distance from a centerline of the second well that is greater than a distance between the centerline of the second well and a centerline of the first well.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to the pending claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection (see rejection above, wherein the focus is on the newly-provided annotated version of Fig. 4B).
Conclusion
Conclusion / Finality
Applicant's amendment changed the scope of the claims and necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Conclusion / Prior Art
The prior art made of record, because it is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, but which is not relied upon specifically in the rejections above, is listed on the Notice of References Cited.
Conclusion / Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kevin Parendo who can be contacted by phone at (571) 270-5030 or by direct fax at (571) 270-6030. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 9 am to 4 pm ET.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Billy Kraig, can be reached at (571) 272-8660. The fax 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.
/Kevin Parendo/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896
Prosecution Insights