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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2013/0154780] in view of Kuribayashi et al. [JP 2012-174815].
Regarding Claim 1, Yamada et al. shows an inductor (Figs. 1-4) comprising:
a magnetic core (10) including a magnetic material (Paragraph [0035]) and having a three-dimensional shape (see Figs. 1-4) and a side face (10c);
a coil element (1) including a metallic material (Paragraph [0062]) and including an embedded portion (element 1 embedded in element 10) and an end portion (2), the embedded portion being embedded in the magnetic core (see Figs. 1-4), the end portion (2) exposed from the magnetic core (10) and extending along the side face (10c, see Figs. 1-4, element 2 exposed from element 10 and extending along element 10c); and
an electrode member (3) disposed opposite to the magnetic core (10) across the end portion (2) of the coil element (1, see Figs. 1-4), the electrode member including a metallic material and having flexibility (see Figs. 3-4, element 3 is conductive so therefore have a metallic material and having flexibility as shown in Figs. 3-4, Paragraphs [0033], [0039]), wherein
the electrode member (3) includes a side face portion (side face portion of element 3 at element 4) disposed along the side face (10c) of the magnetic core (10, see Figs. 1-4), the side face portion at least partially overlapping the end portion of the coil element as viewed in a thickness direction of the side face portion (see Figs. 1-4, side face portion of element 3 at element 4 at least partially overlapping element 2 of element 1 as viewed in a thickness direction of side face portion of element 3 at element 4), and
the electrode member (3) and the end portion (2) are welded together at least in a part of a region in which the side face portion (Paragraph [0065]) and the end portion overlap each other as viewed in the thickness direction of the side face portion (see Figs. 1-4, Paragraph [0065], element 3 and element 2 are welded together at least in part of a region in which side face portion of element 3 at element 4 and element 2 overlap each other as viewed in the thickness direction of side face portion of element 3 at element 4).
Yamada et al. does not explicitly show the electrode member and the magnetic core are adhered to each other via an adhesion layer including resin that is adhesive.
Kuribayashi et al. shows a coil component (Fig. 2) teaching and suggesting the electrode member (12) and the magnetic core (10) are adhered to each other via an adhesion layer (13) including resin that is adhesive (Paragraphs [0022]-[0023], [0035], [0037], [0039])
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the electrode member and the magnetic core are adhered to each other via an adhesion layer including resin that is adhesive as taught by Kuribayashi et al. for the inductor as disclosed by Yamada et al. to facilitate mechanical stability and reliability which serves as cushioning and prevent the occurrence of noise and improve bonding strength with excellent durability (Paragraphs [0038]-[0039], Abstract, Advantage).
Regarding Claim 2, Yamada et al. shows the side face portion of the electrode member and the end portion include a welded portion where the side face portion and the end portion are integrated with each other by welding (Paragraph [0065], side face portion of element 3 at element 4 and element 2 include a welded portion where side face portion of element 3 at element 4 and element 2 are integrated with each other by welding as disclosed in Paragraph [0065]).
Regarding Claim 3, Yamada et al. in view of Kuribayashi et al. does not explicitly show the welded portion formed in the end portion has a dimension equal to or less than 90% of a dimension of the end portion in an overlapping direction in which the side face portion and the end portion overlap each other.
However, having the welded portion formed in the end portion has a dimension equal to or less than 90% of a dimension of the end portion in an overlapping direction in which the side face portion and the end portion overlap each other would have been an obvious design choice based on design requirement to achieve desirable electrical connection and bonding strength without overuse of material and manufacturing process.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the welded portion formed in the end portion has a dimension equal to or less than 90% of a dimension of the end portion in an overlapping direction in which the side face portion and the end portion overlap each other, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art to achieve desirable electrical connection and bonding strength without overuse of material and manufacturing process, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding Claim 4, Yamada et al. in view of Kuribayashi et al. does not explicitly show the welded portion formed in the end portion has a dimension equal to or more than 10% of a dimension of the end portion in an overlapping direction in which the side face portion and the end portion overlap each other.
However, having the welded portion formed in the end portion has a dimension equal to or more than 10% of a dimension of the end portion in an overlapping direction in which the side face portion and the end portion overlap each other would have been an obvious design choice based on design requirement to achieve desirable electrical connection and bonding strength without overuse of material and manufacturing process.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the welded portion formed in the end portion has a dimension equal to or more than 10% of a dimension of the end portion in an overlapping direction in which the side face portion and the end portion overlap each other, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art to achieve desirable electrical connection and bonding strength without overuse of material and manufacturing process, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding Claim 5, Yamada et al. in view of Kuribayashi et al. does not explicitly show the side face portion of the electrode member and the end portion include a plurality of welded portions, the plurality of welded portions each being the welded portion.
However, the side face portion of the electrode member and the end portion include a plurality of welded portions, the plurality of welded portions each being the welded portion, would have been an obvious design choice based on design requirement to achieve desirable electrical connection and bonding strength based on design requirements.
In addition, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the side face portion of the electrode member and the end portion include a plurality of welded portions, the plurality of welded portions each being the welded portion, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art to achieve desirable electrical connection and bonding strength based on design requirements. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (Claims at issue were directed to a water-tight masonry structure wherein a water seal of flexible material fills the joints which form between adjacent pours of concrete. The claimed water seal has a "web" which lies in the joint, and a plurality of "ribs" projecting outwardly from each side of the web into one of the adjacent concrete slabs. The prior art disclosed a flexible water stop for preventing passage of water between masses of concrete in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.).
Regarding Claim 6, Yamada et al. shows the coil element (1) includes a wire covered with an insulation film (Paragraphs [0038], [0062]),
the end portion (2) of the coil element includes an uncovered portion that is not covered with the insulation film (insulating coating covering the conductive wire is removed and exposed, Paragraphs [0038], [0062]), and
the electrode member (3) and the end portion (2) are welded together in the uncovered portion (Paragraph [0065]).
Regarding Claim 9, Yamada et al. shows the end portion (2) includes a non-overlapping portion (portion of element 2 not overlapping element 3, see Fig. 2) in which the end portion does not overlap the side face portion of the electrode member as viewed in the thickness direction of the side face portion (see Fig. 2, element 2 does not overlap side face portion of element 3 at element 4 as viewed in the thickness direction of side face portion of element 3 at element 4).
Claim(s) 2-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada et al. in view of Kuribayashi et al. as applied to claims 1-2 above and further in view of Tanaka et al. [JP 2013-191726].
Regarding Claim 2, Yamada et al. in view of Kuribayashi et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above.
In addition, Tanaka et al. shows (Figs. 1-3) the side face portion of the electrode member (portion of element 16 with element 22a on element 11 and overlapping element 15, see Figs. 1-3) and the end portion (15) include a welded portion (21) where the side face portion and the end portion are integrated with each other by welding (see Figs. 1-3, Paragraphs [0015], [0018]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the side face portion of the electrode member and the end portion include a welded portion where the side face portion and the end portion are integrated with each other by welding as taught by Tanaka et al. for the inductor as disclosed by Yamada et al. in view of Kuribayashi et al. to facilitate mechanical stability and reliability and resistance at the joint portion can be reduced (Paragraph [0015]).
Regarding Claim 3, Tanaka et al. shows the welded portion (21) formed in the end portion has a dimension equal to or less than 90% of a dimension of the end portion in an overlapping direction in which the side face portion and the end portion overlap each other (see Figs. 1-3, taking a measurement of element 21 formed in element 15 has a dimension equal to or less than 90% of a dimension of element 15 in an overlapping direction in which the side face portion and the end portion overlap each other).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the welded portion formed in the end portion has a dimension equal to or less than 90% of a dimension of the end portion in an overlapping direction in which the side face portion and the end portion overlap each other, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art to achieve desirable electrical connection and bonding strength without overuse of material and manufacturing process, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding Claim 4, Tanaka et al. shows the welded portion (21) formed in the end portion has a dimension equal to or more than 10% of a dimension of the end portion in an overlapping direction in which the side face portion and the end portion overlap each other (see Figs. 1-3, taking a measurement of element 21 formed in element 15 has a dimension equal to or more than 10% of a dimension of element 15 in an overlapping direction in which the side face portion and the end portion overlap each other).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the welded portion formed in the end portion has a dimension equal to or more than 10% of a dimension of the end portion in an overlapping direction in which the side face portion and the end portion overlap each other, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art to achieve desirable electrical connection and bonding strength without overuse of material and manufacturing process, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding Claim 5, Tanaka et al. shows the side face portion of the electrode member (portion of element 16 with element 22a on element 11 and overlapping element 15, see Figs. 1-3) and the end portion (15) include a plurality of welded portions (upper half portion of element 21 and lower half portion of element 21 at element 22a, see Figs. 1-3), the plurality of welded portions each being the welded portion (see Figs. 1-3).
In addition, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the side face portion of the electrode member and the end portion include a plurality of welded portions, the plurality of welded portions each being the welded portion, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art to achieve desirable electrical connection and bonding strength based on design requirements. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (Claims at issue were directed to a water-tight masonry structure wherein a water seal of flexible material fills the joints which form between adjacent pours of concrete. The claimed water seal has a "web" which lies in the joint, and a plurality of "ribs" projecting outwardly from each side of the web into one of the adjacent concrete slabs. The prior art disclosed a flexible water stop for preventing passage of water between masses of concrete in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada et al. in view of Kuribayashi et al. OR Yamada et al. in view of Kuribayashi et al. and Tanaka et al. as applied to claims 1-2 above and further in view of Satou [WO 2019/004038].
Regarding Claim 5, Yamada et al. in view of Kuribayashi et al. OR Yamada et al. in view of Kuribayashi et al. and Tanaka et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above.
In addition, Satou shows (Figs. 1-5B) a plurality of welded portions (19, 20), the plurality of welded portions each being the welded portion (19, 20, see Figs. 1-5B, see English translation).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have a plurality of welded portions, the plurality of welded portions each being the welded portion as taught by Satou for the inductor as disclosed by Yamada et al. in view of Kuribayashi et al. OR Yamada et al. in view of Kuribayashi et al. and Tanaka et al. to facilitate mechanical stability and reliability by suppressing the deterioration of the connection reliability (Abstract, Advantage).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada et al. in view of Kuribayashi et al. as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Yu et al. [WO 2018/219367].
Regarding Claim 6, Yamada et al. in view of Kuribayashi et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above.
In addition, Yu et al. shows an inductive element (Figs. 1-2) teaching and suggesting the coil element (10) includes a wire covered with an insulation film (see Figs. 1-2, see English translation), the end portion (end portion of element 10) of the coil element includes an uncovered portion that is not covered with the insulation film (see Figs. 1-2, see English translation, film at both ends of element 10 is removed), and the electrode member (20) and the end portion (end portion of element 10) are welded (21) together in the uncovered portion (see Figs. 1-2, see English translation).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the coil element includes a wire covered with an insulation film, the end portion of the coil element includes an uncovered portion that is not covered with the insulation film, and the electrode member and the end portion are welded together in the uncovered portion as taught by Yu et al. for the inductor as disclosed by Yamada et al. in view of Kuribayashi et al. to facilitate electrical connection and improve bonding strength (see English translation).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada et al. in view of Kuribayashi et al. as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Kawamura [U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0198226].
Regarding Claim 7, Yamada et al. in view of Kuribayashi et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not show the electrode member is a foil material including copper or a copper alloy, and the foil material has a thickness of at least 20 µm and less than 100 µm.
Kawamura et al. shows a coil component (Fig. 3B) teaching and suggesting the electrode member (70a or 70b) is a foil material including copper or a copper alloy (copper, see Paragraph [0063]), and the foil material has a thickness of at least 20 µm and less than 100 µm (0.02 mm to 0.2 mm is 20 µm to 200 µm, Paragraph [0063]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the electrode member is a foil material including copper or a copper alloy, and the foil material has a thickness of at least 20 µm and less than 100 µm as taught by Kawamura et al. for the inductor as disclosed by Yamada et al. in view of Kuribayashi et al. to achieve high electrical conductivity and high mechanical rigidity (Paragraph [0063]).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have a thickness of at least 20 µm and less than 100 µm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art to achieve high electrical conductivity and high mechanical rigidity, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada et al. in view of Kuribayashi et al. as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Sato et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0312528] and Kitajima et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0091685] (for additional motivation).
Regarding Claim 8, Yamada et al. in view of Kuribayashi et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not show the electrode member includes a plating layer having a surface on which tin or solder is plated.
Sato et al. shows an inductor (Fig. 1B) teaching and suggesting the electrode member (18) includes a plating layer having a surface on which tin or solder is plated (Paragraphs [0062], [0130]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the electrode member includes a plating layer having a surface on which tin or solder is plated as taught by Sato et al. for the inductor as disclosed by Yamada et al. in view of Kuribayashi et al. to enhance the properties of base metals by providing corrosion resistance, improving solderability, and ensuring electrical conductivity. Additional motivation is to improve wettability (Paragraph [0076] of Kitajima et a.).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada et al. in view of Kuribayashi et al. as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Yoon et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0096568] and Kitajima et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0091685] (for additional motivation).
Regarding Claim 8, Yamada et al. in view of Kuribayashi et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not show the electrode member includes a plating layer having a surface on which tin or solder is plated.
Yoon et al. shows an electronic component (Fig. 3) teaching and suggesting the electrode member (42a or 42b) includes a plating layer having a surface on which tin or solder is plated (Paragraph [0040]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the electrode member includes a plating layer having a surface on which tin or solder is plated as taught by Yoon et al. for the inductor as disclosed by Yamada et al. in view of Kuribayashi et al. to enhance the properties of base metals by providing corrosion resistance, improving solderability, and ensuring electrical conductivity. Additional motivation is to improve wettability (Paragraph [0076] of Kitajima et a.).
Claim(s) 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada et al. in view of Kuribayashi et al. as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Sasamori et al. [JP 2005-142459].
Regarding Claim 13, Yamada et al. the three-dimensional shape of the magnetic core (10) includes a top face (10a) intersecting the side face (10c, see Figs. 1-4).
Yamada et al. in view of Kuribayashi et al. does not show the electrode member includes a top face portion that is disposed along the top face, connected to the side face portion, and adhered to the magnetic core via the adhesion layer.
Sasamori et al. shows an inductor (Fig. 1) teaching and suggesting the three-dimensional shape of the magnetic core (1, 2) includes a top face (top surface of element c1) intersecting the side face (side surface with element 4), and the electrode member (4) includes a top face portion (top portion of element 4) that is disposed along the top face (see Fig. 1), connected to the side face portion (see Fig. 1), and adhered to the magnetic core via the adhesion layer (8, Paragraph [0013], see Fig. 1).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the electrode member includes a top face portion that is disposed along the top face, connected to the side face portion, and adhered to the magnetic core via the adhesion layer as taught by Sasamori et al. for the inductor as disclosed by Yamada et al. in view of Kuribayashi et al. to engage and clamp the terminal to recesses of the magnetic core to facilitate mechanical stability and reliability to prevent displacement (Paragraph [0013]).
Regarding Claim 14, Yamada et al. shows the three-dimensional shape of the magnetic core (10) includes a bottom face (10b) intersecting the side face (10c) and parallel to the top face (10a, see Figs. 1-4), and
the electrode member (3) includes a bottom face portion (portion of element 3 at element 10b) disposed along the bottom face (10b) and connected to the side face portion (see Figs. 1-4).
Sasamori et al. shows the three-dimensional shape of the magnetic core (1, 2) includes a bottom face (bottom surface of element c1) intersecting the side face (side surface with element 4) and parallel to the top face (top surface of element c1, see Fig. 1), and the electrode member (4) includes a bottom face portion (bottom portion of element 4) disposed along the bottom face (see Fig. 1) and connected to the side face portion (side portion of element 4, see Fig. 1).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada et al. in view of Kuribayashi et al. and Sasamori et al. as applied to claims 13-14 above and further in view of Shibata et al. [JP 2007-273739].
Regarding Claim 15, Yamada et al. in view of Kuribayashi et al. and Sasamori et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not explicitly show a surface area of a principal face of the top face portion along the top face is smaller than a surface area of a principal face of the bottom face portion along the bottom face.
Shibata et al. shows a coil part (Figs. 1-3) teaching and suggesting a surface area of a principal face of the top face portion (surface area of element 303) along the top face (102) is smaller than a surface area of a principal face of the bottom face portion (surface area of element 304) along the bottom face (101, see Figs. 1-3, surface area of element 303 is smaller than surface area of element 304).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have a surface area of a principal face of the top face portion along the top face is smaller than a surface area of a principal face of the bottom face portion along the bottom face as taught by Shibata et al. for the inductor as disclosed by Yamada et al. in view of Kuribayashi et al. to facilitate mechanical stability and reliability where the width of the terminal can be ensured such that the electrode can be reliably attached to the magnetic core (Abstract, Advantage).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada et al. in view of Kuribayashi et al. and Sasamori et al. as applied to claims 13-14 above and further in view of Suzuki et al. [U.S. Patent No. 6,452,473].
Regarding Claim 15, Yamada et al. in view of Kuribayashi et al. and Sasamori et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not explicitly show a surface area of a principal face of the top face portion along the top face is smaller than a surface area of a principal face of the bottom face portion along the bottom face.
Suzuki et al. shows a coil part (Fig. 5) teaching and suggesting a surface area of a principal face of the top face portion (surface area of element 5a) along the top face (1a) is smaller than a surface area of a principal face of the bottom face portion (surface area of element 5b) along the bottom face (1b, see Fig. 5, surface area of element 5a is smaller than surface area of element 5b, Col. 7, Lines 61-67 to Col. 8, Lines 1-12).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have a surface area of a principal face of the top face portion along the top face is smaller than a surface area of a principal face of the bottom face portion along the bottom face as taught by Suzuki et al. for the inductor as disclosed by Yamada et al. in view of Kuribayashi et al. to restrict stray capacitance with the advantage of recognition of bonding nature of effect being held (Col. 7, Lines 61-67 to Col. 8, Lines 1-12).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-12 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TSZFUNG J CHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7981. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 8:00AM-6:00PM.
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, Shawki Ismail can be reached at (571)272-3985. 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.
/TSZFUNG J CHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights