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 .
The response of the applicant has been read and given careful consideration. Rejection of the previous action not repeated below are withdrawn based upon the amendments and arguments of the applicant. Responses to the arguments of the applicant are presented after the first rejection they are directed to. It is clear that for the claims requiring a larger roughness (which may be achieved by the presence of particles) on one surface of the substrate, the surface with the larger roughness is in contact with the photosensitive layer.
REQUIREMENT FOR UNITY OF INVENTION
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475(a), a national stage application shall relate to one invention only or to a group of inventions so linked as to form a single general inventive concept (“requirement of unity of invention”). Where a group of inventions is claimed in a national stage application, the requirement of unity of invention shall be fulfilled only when there is a technical relationship among those inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features. The expression “special technical features” shall mean those technical features that define a contribution which each of the claimed inventions, considered as a whole, makes over the prior art.
The determination whether a group of inventions is so linked as to form a single general inventive concept shall be made without regard to whether the inventions are claimed in separate claims or as alternatives within a single claim. See 37 CFR 1.475(e).
When Claims Are Directed to Multiple Categories of Inventions:
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475 (b), a national stage application containing claims to different categories of invention will be considered to have unity of invention if the claims are drawn only to one of the following combinations of categories:
(1) A product and a process specially adapted for the manufacture of said product; or
(2) A product and a process of use of said product; or
(3) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and a use of the said product; or
(4) A process and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process; or
(5) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process.
Otherwise, unity of invention might not be present. See 37 CFR 1.475 (c).
This application contains claims directed to more than one species of the generic invention. These species are deemed to lack unity of invention because they are not so linked as to form a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1.
The species are as follows:
The processes using the photosensitive element using etching processes (species 1) or plating (species II)
The groups of inventions listed above do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical features for the following reasons:
The groups and species lack unity of invention because even though the inventions of these groups require the technical feature of the photoresist with the recited development characteristics (development interfacial ratio) , this technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of the X refence JP 2016-0878544 citing in the search report of April 11, 2022
During a telephone conversation with Gerald M. Murphy Jr (28977) on March 30, 2026 a provisional election was made with traverse to prosecute the invention of group I (which does not require an election of species), claims 14-18,21-23,26,27,30-32. Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 19,20,24,25,28,29 and 33 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Applicant is required, in reply to this action, to elect a single species to which the claims shall be restricted if no generic claim is finally held to be allowable. The reply must also identify the claims readable on the elected species, including any claims subsequently added. An argument that a claim is allowable or that all claims are generic is considered non-responsive unless accompanied by an election.
The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
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.
Applicant’s election of group I in the reply filed on 8/14/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
The applicant states that the restriction had been made final in the previous communication. The previous action was the first and only communication from the examiner. As the claims are not allowable, the request for rejoinder is premature. The restriction is repeated above and made final.
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 26,27 and 30-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim 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.
Claims 26 and 27 are duplicates of claims 17 and 18 respectively.
Claim 30 is a duplicate of claim 21.
Claim 31 is a duplicate of claim 22
Claim 32 is a duplicate of claim 23
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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 14,17,18,21-23,26-27 and 30-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being fully anticipated by Fujimoto et al. WO 2022138246
Fujimoto et al. WO 2022138246 (machine translation attached) teaches a polyethylene support which is melt extruded onto a PET support where the surface of the polyethylene is roughened by contact with a matte roller with a roughness of 0.1 microns so that it has a roughness Ra of 50 nm The roughness of the PET is 1 nm. The support S-3 is similarly treated with a 0.2 microns matte roller so the roughness on the polyethylene surface is 130 nm. Substrates S-4 and S-5 are sand matte processed to have surface roughness on the rough sides of 360 nm and 620 nm respectively [0226-0231].
PNG
media_image1.png
99
337
media_image1.png
Greyscale
. The photosensitive layer is a 52% styrene/19% methacrylic acid/29% methylmethacrylate copolymer binder, acrylate monomer(s), 2- (2-chlorophenyl) -4,5-diphenylimidazole dimer (photoinitiator), (4,4'-bis (diethylamino) benzophenone (sensitizer), Leuco Crystal Violet, N-Phenylglycine, Carboxybenzotriazole, phenothiazine, phenidone, Megafuck F-552 (surfactant) and solvents. (see table 2 for exact amounts). The photosensitive composition is coated as a 3 microns dry film onto the polyethylene (rough) side of the support, dried and a polypropylene protective film applied to the opposite side. A 200nm Cu layer was formed on a PET substrate, the protective polypropylene layer was peeled and the photosensitive layer contacted with the copper layer on the PET support. The laminate was then evaluated. The line width roughness was evaluated after peeling the rough PET substrate, and contacting the rough surface of the photosensitive layer a photomask having a 10 micron line/spacing pattern having a 1:1 duty ratio and development and assigned valued of 1-5 in table 4. The roughness of the upper surface of the photosensitive layer after peeling is shown to be the same as the roughness of the rough side of the support. The larger the values of the criteria 1 to 5 shown below, the better the linearity of the wiring pattern. 5: Less than 150 nm 4: 150 nm or more and less than 200 nm 3: 200 nm or more and less than 300 nm 2: 300 nm or more and less than 500 nm 1: 500 nm or more.
PNG
media_image2.png
194
372
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[0232-0260]. The transparency of the temporary support is preferably high. The transmittance of the temporary support with respect to light having a wavelength of 365 nm is preferably 60% or more, and more preferably 70% or more. From the viewpoint of the transparency of the temporary support, the haze of the temporary support is preferably small. The haze value of the temporary support is preferably 2% or less, more preferably 0.5% or less, still more preferably 0.1% or less. From the viewpoint of the transparency of the temporary support, it is preferable that the number of coarse particles, foreign substances, and defects contained in the temporary support is small. The number of particles, foreign substances, and defects having a diameter of 1 μm or more in the temporary support is preferably 50/10 mm .sup.2 or less, more preferably 10/10 mm .sup.2 or less, and 3/10 mm .sup.2 or less. Is more preferable, and 0 pieces / 10 mm .sup.2 is particularly preferable [0019]. The roughness of the first surface of the temporary support can affect the roughness of the first surface of the photosensitive layer, which will be described later. For example, in the process of manufacturing a transfer material, when the roughness of the first surface of the temporary support becomes smaller, the roughness of the first surface of the photosensitive layer tends to become smaller. On the other hand, as the roughness of the first surface of the temporary support increases, the roughness of the first surface of the photosensitive layer also tends to increase. From the above viewpoint, the roughness Ra of the surface of the temporary support exposed when the temporary support is peeled from the photosensitive layer, that is, the roughness Ra of the first surface of the temporary support is preferably 1,000 nm or less. , 500 nm or less, more preferably 200 nm or less. The roughness Ra of the first surface of the temporary support is preferably 2 nm or more, more preferably 50 nm or more, and further preferably 100 nm or more. When the roughness Ra of the first surface of the temporary support is 1,000 nm or less, for example, the linearity of the wiring pattern formed by using the transfer material is improved. The roughness Ra of the first surface of the temporary support is preferably 2 nm to 1,000 nm, more preferably 50 nm to 500 nm, and even more preferably 100 nm to 200 nm. The method of adjusting the roughness of the first surface of the temporary support is not limited. As a method for adjusting the roughness Ra of the first surface of the temporary support, for example, a method of bringing a matted roll (hereinafter, may be referred to as “matted roll”) into contact with the first surface of the temporary support. Can be mentioned. In the above method, the roughness Ra of the first surface of the temporary support is adjusted according to the surface roughness of the matted roll. Further, as a method of adjusting the roughness Ra of the first surface of the temporary support, for example, a method of projecting fine sand on the first surface of the temporary support to make the first surface of the temporary support uneven (for example,). Sandblast method) can be mentioned. In the above method, the roughness Ra of the first surface of the temporary support is adjusted according to the size of the projected sand and the projected strength [0025]. The haze is preferably 2% or less, 0.5% or less or 0.1% or less [0019]
The laminate where a roughened (polyethylene) surface of the substrate (50 nm, 130 nm, 360 nm, 620 nm) is in contact with the photosensitive layer and the smooth (Ra=1 nm, Sdr~0) PET portion of the substrate is outward facing and the opposite surface of the 3 microns photosensitive layer is in contact with polypropylene film meets claims as this film can be peeled to allow lamination with a copper film formed on a substrate .
Alternatively, the laminate where a roughened (polyethylene) surface of the substrate (50 nm, 130 nm, 360 nm, 620 nm) is in contact with the photosensitive layer and the smooth (Ra=1 nm, Sdr~0) PET portion of the substrate is outward facing and the opposite surface of the 3 microns photosensitive layer is in contact with the 200 nm copper film on a PET substrate meets claims
The compositional limitation of claims 17,18,26 and 27 are met by the cited example. The limitations on the variation of the line width or pattern width in examples 22,23 and 30-32 are considers met by the composition and laminate, although the claims does not preclude the peeling of the substrate, recite the exposure conditions beyond the mask pitch (e.g., no wavelength for the exposure, no exposure dosage, and the location of the mask is not recited) and no development step or conditions are recited. The position of the examiner is that for some exposure and development conditions, the variation in the 10 micron pattern is within the limitation recited in the claims by the laminate.
The applicant argues that the Sdr is a measure of the increased surface area of a surface having fine pitch irregularities. This is not exactly correct. The Sdr is a measure of the increase in the surface area due to texture, in particular a sloped surface. The formula is
PNG
media_image3.png
106
347
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(from https://www.keyence.eu/ss/products/microscope/roughness/surface/tab03_b.jsp)
The size of the features is not critical for the formula
SdrA1/SdrA2 is be less than 0.75 when SdrA1 is approximately 0 (for a smooth surface) and the surface A2 is textured.
The claims rejected under this heading do not require the presence of surface particles.
Claims 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being fully anticipated by Etori et al. WO 2019221012.
Etori et al. WO 2019221012 (machine translation attached) describes in experimental example 1, coating a PET substrate with a thermosetting acrylic resin having 4.5 microns silica particles to form a 4 microns thick layer, where the average (projecting/exposed?) particle diameter is 2.7 microns. Example 2 is similar, but the settling time before curing was longer, so the particle diameter (protruding) is 1.2 microns. Example 3 is similar, but the settling time before curing was longer, so the particle diameter (protruding) is 12.5 microns. Example 4 is similar, but the settling time before curing was longer, so the particle diameter (protruding) is 0.8 microns. Experimental example 5 uses a substrate with an uneven surface. The surface roughness, light transmittance, haze and spectral haze of the first surface (with the acrylic resin) are shown in table 1.
PNG
media_image4.png
123
455
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Example 1 coats a 25 micron thick photosensitive layer on the acrylic/silica surface of the substrate. Example 2 is similar but uses the carrier of experimental example 2. The compsrtative example 1-3 used carriers 3-5 These are then laminated onto a substrate an exposed through a photomask, the carrier was peeled off and the resist pattern evaluated [0058-0075].
PNG
media_image5.png
102
439
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
194
327
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
110
298
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Claims 14,21-23 and 30-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being fully anticipated by Hirakawa et al. JP 2012141605.
Hirakawa et al. JP 2012141605 (machine translation attached) teaches a 30 micron black photosensitive layer which is coated on a PET substrate surface which had been sandblasted. The other surface of the black photosensitive coating was protected by a polyethylene cover film. The polyethylene cover film was peeled and the exposed photosensitive layer was coated on a 18 micron thick copper foil on an FR-4 substrate [0060]. As the matte-treated film, a film whose surface is blasted or a film in which a matting agent is kneaded can be used. A blasted film is particularly preferable. When processed with the same degree of surface roughness, the blasted film may be formed and the gloss of the resist surface may be suppressed as compared with the film in which the matting agent is kneaded. In addition, the blasted film may have better resolution when used as a solder resist as compared to a film in which a matting agent is kneaded. The surface roughness (Ra) of the support film used is preferably 0.2 to 3 μm, and more preferably 0.3 to 1 μm. When the surface roughness of the support film is less than 0.2 μm, the resist layer surface is not sufficiently matted, and the gloss reduction effect may be insufficient. Further, if the surface roughness of the support film is 3 μm or more, the support film may be easily broken in a coating process or the like, and peeling may be heavy when the support film is peeled after exposure, which may hinder the process. The thickness of the matte-treated support film is preferably 5 to 200 μm, particularly preferably 10 to 50 μm [0058]. When using the black photosensitive composition of this invention as a photosensitive layer of a dry film, the film which carried out the matte process of the coating surface side of a support film can be used. In this case, when the resist layer is transferred to a wiring board or the like and cured, a resist layer whose surface is matted is obtained. Thereby, the wiring concealability is improved, the light reflection on the surface is suppressed, a good design property is obtained, and when used for an LED wiring board, the light of the LED is conspicuously preferable [0057]
With respect to claim 14, alternatively the laminate where a roughened surface of the substrate is in contact with the photosensitive layer and the smooth portion of the substrate is outward facing and the opposite surface of the 30 microns photosensitive layer is in contact with the 10 micron copper film on a PET substrate meets claims
With respect to claim 14, 21-23 and 30-32,The laminate where a roughened surface of the substrate is in contact with the photosensitive layer and the smooth portion of the substrate is outward facing and the opposite surface of the 30 microns photosensitive layer is in contact with polypropylene film meets claims as this film can be peeled to allow lamination with a copper film formed on a substrate .
The limitations on the variation of the line width or pattern width in examples 22,23 and 30-32 are considers met by the composition and laminate, although the claims does not preclude the peeling of the substrate, recite the exposure conditions beyond the mask pitch (e.g., no wavelength for the exposure and the location of the mask is not recited) and no development step or conditions are recited. The position of the examiner is that for some exposure and development conditions, the variation in the 10 micron pattern is within the limitation recited in the claims by the laminate.
Claims 14,21-23 and 30-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being fully anticipated by Shimamiya et al. CN 108333877
Shimamiya et al. CN 108333877 (machine translation attached) in embodiment 1, describes coating a photosensitive resin onto a substrate having coating (1) with a high proportion of particles at the surface to form a 20 micron thick substrate. The rear side of the photosensitive film is protected with ah polypropylene layer. The polypropylene layer was removed and the photosensitive layer contacted with an FR-4 foil coated substrate and exposed using a Hg lamp [0178-0183]. The inorganic particles contain the layer 1.according to the mass ratio of solid component is 25: 75, the DIC Co., Ltd. AMIDIR G-821-60 (isobutylated melamine resin, ACRYDIC A-405 (acrylic resin for sintering melamine) produced by 60 % solid component and DIC Co., Ltd. solid component 50 %), using stirrer for pre-stirring, using methyl ethyl ketone to dilute the obtained acrylic acid melamine resin, preparing the resin solution with solid component concentration of 35 mass %. in the resin solution, further adding methyl ethyl ketone according to the thickness of the coating film to reach the proper concentration of the solid component, according to the acrylic acid melamine resin, silicone resin and silicon dioxide mass ratio of 59.7: 0.3: 40, adding silicone resin (SYMAC US-270 produced by East Asia Synthetic Co., Ltd.) and the average primary particle diameter is 0.1 μ m of silicon dioxide, fully stirring at room temperature to obtain the uniform coating liquid. coating the coating liquid on one surface of the polyethylene glycol terephthalate film (E5041) with thickness of 25 μ m by gravure roller method, drying for 20 seconds at 130 degrees centigrade, thereby forming an intermediate layer on the polyethylene glycol terephthalate film; An inorganic particle containing layer 1 is produced by the combination of the polyethylene terephthalate film and the intermediate layer. The thickness of the inorganic particle containing layer is 28 microns.less than inorganic particles containing layer 2 is more than in the inorganic particles containing layer 1, using an average primary particle diameter of 1 μ m of silicon dioxide, the inorganic particles containing layer thickness is 30 μ m, and the same with the same to make the inorganic particles containing layer 2 less than inorganic particles containing layer 3 is more than in the manufacturing of inorganic particles containing layer 1, for the average primary particle diameter is 10 μ m of silicon dioxide, by grading to remove more than 15 μ m particles after use, the thickness of the inorganic particle containing layer is 43 μ m, and the same with the same to make the inorganic particles containing layer 3. less than inorganic particles containing layer 4 is more than Polyethylene terephthalate and polyethylene terephthalate containing 1.0 mass % of silica having an average primary particle diameter of 1 um respectively at 170 ° C. Then, the two respectively supplied to the double-screw extruder, melting at 290 degrees centigrade, by T-mould co-extrusion to prepare film, so as to obtain the un-stretched film. carrying out bidirectional stretching to the obtained un-stretched film, obtaining the inorganic particles with thickness of 25 μ m containing layer 4. less than the inorganic particle containing layer of inorganic particle dispersion state of confirmation > The inorganic particles obtained as described above contain layers 1 to 4, and the proportion of the inorganic particles in the thickness direction is evaluated [0166- 0175]. The present inventors have found that in the photosensitive film laminate in which the inorganic particle-containing layer and the photosensitive film formed by the photosensitive resin composition are formed in this order, the inorganic particles contained in the inorganic particles contain a proportion of the inorganic particles, the higher the surface side of the closer to the photosensitive film; the more away from the surface side of the photosensitive film is lower, especially exposure, the resolution of the resist layer after developing is improved. In addition, the inventors found that using the specific inorganic particle containing layer of the photosensitive film laminated body formed by the solder resist flux even when the surface has damage, it is difficult to see the damage, so it can improve the yield in the appearance inspection. It is especially found that the particle size of the inorganic particles, can exert the effect. The invention is based on the technical idea [0009].
Claims 14,16,21-23 and 30-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirakawa et al. JP 2012141605
Hirakawa et al. JP 2012141605 does not exemplify embodiments bounded by the claims where the surface roughness of the substrate is achieved using a matte layer
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the process of the cited example in Hirakawa et al. JP 2012141605 by replacing the substrate with a sand blasted surface with one which has a matte surface layer with a reasonable expectation of forming a useful photosensitive laminate based upon the disclosure at [0058].
Claims 14,16,-18,21-23,26-27 and 30-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujimoto et al. WO 2022138246, in view of Hirakawa et al. JP 2012141605 and Shimamiya et al. CN 108333877
Fujimoto et al. WO 2022138246 does not exemplify embodiments bounded by the claims where the surface roughness of the substrate is achieved using a matte layer
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the process of the cited example in Fujimoto et al. WO 2022138246 by replacing the substrate with a sand blasted surface with one which has a matte surface layer such as that taught by Shimamiya et al. CN 108333877 with a reasonable expectation of forming a useful photosensitive laminate based upon the disclosure at [0058] of Hirakawa et al. JP 2012141605
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Funakoshi et al. CN 108459465 (machine translation attached). teaches sandblasted PET substrates which are coated on the roughened surface with a photosensitive layer and the opposite surface of the photosensitive layer is then coated with a cover layer
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Martin J Angebranndt whose telephone number is (571)272-1378. The examiner can normally be reached 7-3:30 pm EST.
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, Ching-Yu (Coris) Fung can be reached at 571-270-5713. 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.
MARTIN J. ANGEBRANNDT
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1737
/MARTIN J ANGEBRANNDT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1737 September 23, 2026
Prosecution Insights