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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot 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 § 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, 3 – 7, 17 – 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al. (US 20240215165 A1, “Jung”) in view of SAKAI (US 20170098600 A1, “SAKAI”) further in view of IKEDA et al. (us 20200389969 A1, “IKEDA”)
Regarding claim 1, Jung discloses (Fig. 3) wiring substrate (500), comprising: a first wiring part (100) comprising a first insulating layer (112) and a first conductor layer (123) laminated on the first insulating layer such that the first conductor layer includes a plurality of wirings configured to transmit high frequency signal; and a second wiring part (200) formed on the first wiring part and comprising a second insulating layer (211) and a second conductor layer (221) laminated on the second insulating layer such that a thickness of the second insulating layer is smaller than a thickness of the first insulating layer and that a thickness of the second conductor layer is smaller than a thickness of the first conductor layer (para [0031], [0056] and Fig. 3), wherein the first conductor layer in the first wiring part has a surface on an opposite side with respect to the first insulating layer (See Fig. 3) such that an arithmetic mean roughness of the surface is smaller than an arithmetic mean roughness of a surface of the second conductor layer on an opposite side with respect to the second insulating layer, and Jung also discloses the second wiring part is formed such that the second wiring part is positioned closer to an outermost surface of the wiring substrate than the first wiring part (See Fig. 3).
Jung is silent on such that an arithmetic mean roughness of the surface of the first conductor layer is smaller than an arithmetic mean roughness of a surface of the second conductor layer
However, SAKAI discloses (Fig. 3J) such that an arithmetic mean roughness of the surface of the first conductor layer (10) is smaller than an arithmetic mean roughness of a surface of the second conductor layer (30) (See the abstract and para [0077])
Jung and SAKAI are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of wiring board. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Jung to incorporate the teachings of SAKAI and provide such that an arithmetic mean roughness of the surface of the first conductor layer (10) is smaller than an arithmetic mean roughness of a surface of the second conductor layer (30) (See the abstract and para [0077]). Doing so would improve the adhesion with the insulating layer and preserved the wiring thickness and miniaturization capability (para [0017], [0058]).
Jung in view of SAKAI is silent on such that the first conductor layer includes a plurality of wirings configured to transmit high frequency signal
However, IKEDA discloses (Fig. 1) such that the first conductor layer includes a plurality of wirings (16a) configured to transmit high frequency signal (para [0045], [0046]).
Jung in view of SAKAI and IKEDA are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of wiring board. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Jung in view of SAKAI to incorporate the teachings of IKEDA and provide such that the first conductor layer includes a plurality of wirings (16a) configured to transmit high frequency signal (para [0045], [0046]). Doing so would improve signal integrity and impedance matching (para [0044] – [0045] and [0050]).
Regarding claim 3, Jung in view of SAKAI and IKEDA discloses the wiring substrate according to claim 1, wherein SAKAI further discloses that the first conductor layer is formed in the first wiring part such that the arithmetic mean roughness of the surface on the opposite side with respect to the first insulating layer is 0.13
μ
m
or less (See para [0037] & [0077]).
Regarding claim 4, Jung in view of SAKAI and IKEDA discloses the wiring substrate according to claim 1, wherein SAKAI further discloses that the second wiring part is formed such that a thickness of the second conductor layer (30) is set to 11
μ
m
or less (para [0033]).
Regarding claim 5, Jung in view of SAKAI and IKEDA discloses the wiring substrate according to claim 1, wherein Jung further discloses that the first and second wiring parts are formed such that each of the first insulating layer (112) and the second insulating layer (211) include inorganic filler particles and that a maximum particle size of the inorganic filler particles in the second insulating layer is smaller than a maximum particle size of the inorganic filler particles in the first insulating layer (See para [0062]).
Regarding claim 6, Jung in view of SAKAI and IKEDA discloses the wiring substrate according to claim 5, wherein Jung further discloses that the second wiring part is formed such that the maximum particle size of the inorganic filler particles in the second insulating layer is set to 1
μ
m
or less (See para [0062]).
Regarding claim 7, Jung in view of SAKAI and IKEDA discloses the wiring substrate according to claim 1, wherein SAKAI further discloses that the first wiring part includes an organic coating film layer covering the surface of the first conductor layer on the opposite side with respect to the first insulating layer (See para [0036]).
Regarding claim 17, Jung in view of SAKAI and IKEDA discloses the wiring substrate according to claim 3, wherein Jung further discloses that the first and second wiring parts are formed such that each of the first insulating layer (112) and the second insulating layer (211) include inorganic filler particles and that a maximum particle size of the inorganic filler particles in the second insulating layer is smaller than a maximum particle size of the inorganic filler particles in the first insulating layer (See para [0062]).
Regarding claim 18, Jung in view of SAKAI and IKEDA discloses the wiring substrate according to claim 17, wherein Jung further discloses that the second wiring part is formed such that the maximum particle size of the inorganic filler particles in the second insulating layer is set to 1
μ
m
or less (See para [0062]).
Regarding claim 19, Jung in view of SAKAI and IKEDA discloses the wiring substrate according to claim 3, wherein SAKAI further discloses that the first wiring part includes an organic coating film layer covering the surface of the first conductor layer on the opposite side with respect to the first insulating layer (See para [0036]).
Claim(s) 2, 10 – 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al. (US 20240215165 A1, “Jung”) in view of SAKAI (US 20170098600 A1, “SAKAI”) and IKEDA et al. (us 20200389969 A1, “IKEDA”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (US 20240172373 A1, “Kim”)
Regarding claim 2, Jung in view of SAKAI and IKEDA discloses the wiring substrate according to claim 1, wherein the second insulating layer (211) has a surface on which the second conductor layer (221) is laminated
Jung in view of SAKAI and IKEDA is silent on such that the surface of the second insulating layer has an arithmetic mean roughness that is smaller than an arithmetic mean roughness of a surface of the first insulating layer on which the first conductor layer is laminated.
However, Kim discloses (Fig. 9) such that the surface of the second insulating layer (210) has an arithmetic mean roughness that is smaller than an arithmetic mean roughness of a surface of the first insulating layer (250) on which the first conductor layer is laminated (See para [0113]).
Jung in view of SAKAI, IKEDA and Kim are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of wiring board. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Jung in view of SAKAI and IKEDA to incorporate the teachings of Kim and provide such that the surface of the second insulating layer (210) has an arithmetic mean roughness that is smaller than an arithmetic mean roughness of a surface of the first insulating layer (250) on which the first conductor layer is laminated (See para [0113]). Doing so would create mechanical interlocking for stronger bonds with conductors and other layers. It also transforms a weak chemical bond into a robust mechanical bond.
Regarding claim 10, Jung in view of SAKAI, IKEDA and Kim discloses the wiring substrate according to claim 2, wherein SAKAI further discloses that the first conductor layer is formed in the first wiring part such that the arithmetic mean roughness of the surface on the opposite side with respect to the first insulating layer is 0.13
μ
m
or less (See para [0037] & [0077]).
Regarding claim 11, Jung in view of SAKAI, IKEDA and Kim discloses the wiring substrate according to claim 2, wherein the second wiring part is formed such that a thickness of the second conductor layer (30) is set to 11
μ
m
or less (para [0033]).
Regarding claim 12, Jung in view of SAKAI, IKEDA and Kim discloses the wiring substrate according to claim 2, wherein Jung further discloses that the first and second wiring parts are formed such that each of the first insulating layer (112) and the second insulating layer (211) include inorganic filler particles and that a maximum particle size of the inorganic filler particles in the second insulating layer is smaller than a maximum particle size of the inorganic filler particles in the first insulating layer (See para [0062]).
Regarding claim 13, Jung in view of SAKAI, IKEDA and Kim discloses the wiring substrate according to claim 12, wherein Jung further discloses that the second wiring part is formed such that the maximum particle size of the inorganic filler particles in the second insulating layer is set to 1
μ
m
or less (See para [0062]).
Regarding claim 14, Jung in view of SAKAI, IKEDA and Kim discloses the wiring substrate according to claim 2, wherein SAKAI further discloses that the first wiring part includes an organic coating film layer covering the surface of the first conductor layer on the opposite side with respect to the first insulating layer (See para [0036]). .
Claim(s) 8, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al. (US 20240215165 A1, “Jung”) in view of SAKAI (US 20170098600 A1, “SAKAI”) and IKEDA et al. (us 20200389969 A1, “IKEDA”) as applied to claim 1 and 3 above, and further in view of NAGAI et al. (US 20210185807 A1, “NAGAI”)
Regarding claim 8, Jung in view of SAKAI and IKEDA discloses the wiring substrate according to claim 1, wherein the first and second wiring parts are formed such that
Jung in view of SAKAI and IKEDA is silent on a dielectric loss tangent of the first insulating layer is smaller than a dielectric loss tangent of the second insulating layer at a frequency of 5.8 GHz and that a relative permittivity of the first insulating layer is smaller than a relative permittivity of the second insulating layer at a frequency of 5.8 GHz.
However, NAGAI discloses (Fig. 1a, 11) wherein a dielectric loss tangent of the first insulating layer (11) is smaller than a dielectric loss tangent of the second insulating layer (23) (See para [0037] & [0050]) at a frequency of 5.8 GHz and that a relative permittivity of the first insulating layer is smaller than a relative permittivity of the second insulating layer (See para [0037]) at a frequency of 5.8 GHz.
Jung in view of SAKAI, IKEDA and NAGAI are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of wiring board. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Jung in view of SAKAI to incorporate the teachings of NAGAI and provide wherein a dielectric loss tangent of the first insulating layer (11) is smaller than a dielectric loss tangent of the second insulating layer (23) (See para [0037] & [0050]) at a frequency of 5.8 GHz and that a relative permittivity of the first insulating layer is smaller than a relative permittivity of the second insulating layer (See para [0037]) at a frequency of 5.8 GHz. Thus, when a circuit with a predetermined characteristics is provided on the resin multilayer board, the line width of a conductor pattern provided on the insulating substrate 30 can be made wide, such that the conductor loss of the circuit can be reduced” (See para [0037], [0049] & [0050]].
Please note that the claims are directed to apparatus which must be distinguished from the prior art in term of structure rather function [MPEP 2144]. Hence, the functional limitation “at a frequency of 5.8 GHz* which is narrative in form have not been given significant patentable weight. In order to be given patentable weight, a functional recitation must be supported by recitation in the claim of sufficient structure to warrant the presence of the functional language. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477- 78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Please note that in the instant application, paragraph 0041 and 0047 Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations. Nagai teaches the relationship of the relative permittivity and the dielectric loss tangent between the first and second insulating layers and would maintain that relationship over a range of frequencies.
Regarding claim 20, Jung in view of SAKAI and IKEDA discloses the wiring substrate according to claim 3, wherein the first and second wiring parts are formed such that
Jung in view of SAKAI, IKEDA is silent on a dielectric loss tangent of the first insulating layer is smaller than a dielectric loss tangent of the second insulating layer at a frequency of 5.8 GHz and that a relative permittivity of the first insulating layer is smaller than a relative permittivity of the second insulating layer at a frequency of 5.8 GHz.
However, NAGAI discloses (Fig. 1a, 11) wherein a dielectric loss tangent of the first insulating layer (11) is smaller than a dielectric loss tangent of the second insulating layer (23) (See para [0037] & [0050]) at a frequency of 5.8 GHz and that a relative permittivity of the first insulating layer is smaller than a relative permittivity of the second insulating layer (See para [0037]) at a frequency of 5.8 GHz.
Jung in view of SAKAI, IKEDA and NAGAI are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of wiring board. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Jung in view of SAKAI, IKEDA to incorporate the teachings of NAGAI and provide wherein a dielectric loss tangent of the first insulating layer (11) is smaller than a dielectric loss tangent of the second insulating layer (23) (See para [0037] & [0050]) at a frequency of 5.8 GHz and that a relative permittivity of the first insulating layer is smaller than a relative permittivity of the second insulating layer (See para [0037]) at a frequency of 5.8 GHz. Thus, when a circuit with a predetermined characteristics is provided on the resin multilayer board, the line width of a conductor pattern provided on the insulating substrate 30 can be made wide, such that the conductor loss of the circuit can be reduced” (See para [0037], [0049] & [0050]].
Please note that the claims are directed to apparatus which must be distinguished from the prior art in term of structure rather function [MPEP 2144]. Hence, the functional limitation “at a frequency of 5.8 GHz* which is narrative in form have not been given significant patentable weight. In order to be given patentable weight, a functional recitation must be supported by recitation in the claim of sufficient structure to warrant the presence of the functional language. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477- 78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Please note that in the instant application, paragraph 0041 and 0047 Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations. Nagai teaches the relationship of the relative permittivity and the dielectric loss tangent between the first and second insulating layers and would maintain that relationship over a range of frequencies.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al. (US 20240215165 A1, “Jung”) in view of SAKAI (US 20170098600 A1, “SAKAI”), IKEDA et al. (us 20200389969 A1, “IKEDA”) and Kim et al. (US 20240172373 A1, “Kim”) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of NAGAI et al. (US 20210185807 A1, “NAGAI”)
Regarding claim 15, Jung in view of SAKAI, IKEDA and Kim discloses the wiring substrate according to claim 2, wherein the first and second wiring parts are formed such that
Jung in view of SAKAI, IKEDA and Kim is silent on a dielectric loss tangent of the first insulating layer is smaller than a dielectric loss tangent of the second insulating layer at a frequency of 5.8 GHz and that a relative permittivity of the first insulating layer is smaller than a relative permittivity of the second insulating layer at a frequency of 5.8 GHz.
However, NAGAI discloses (Fig. 1a, 11) wherein a dielectric loss tangent of the first insulating layer (11) is smaller than a dielectric loss tangent of the second insulating layer (23) (See para [0037] & [0050]) at a frequency of 5.8 GHz and that a relative permittivity of the first insulating layer is smaller than a relative permittivity of the second insulating layer (See para [0037]) at a frequency of 5.8 GHz.
Jung in view of SAKAI, IKEDA and Kim and NAGAI are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of wiring board. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Jung in view of SAKAI, IKEDA and Kim to incorporate the teachings of NAGAI and provide wherein a dielectric loss tangent of the first insulating layer (11) is smaller than a dielectric loss tangent of the second insulating layer (23) (See para [0037] & [0050]) at a frequency of 5.8 GHz and that a relative permittivity of the first insulating layer is smaller than a relative permittivity of the second insulating layer (See para [0037]) at a frequency of 5.8 GHz. Thus, when a circuit with a predetermined characteristics is provided on the resin multilayer board, the line width of a conductor pattern provided on the insulating substrate 30 can be made wide, such that the conductor loss of the circuit can be reduced” (See para [0037], [0049] & [0050]].
Please note that the claims are directed to apparatus which must be distinguished from the prior art in term of structure rather function [MPEP 2144]. Hence, the functional limitation “at a frequency of 5.8 GHz* which is narrative in form have not been given significant patentable weight. In order to be given patentable weight, a functional recitation must be supported by recitation in the claim of sufficient structure to warrant the presence of the functional language. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477- 78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Please note that in the instant application, paragraph 0041 and 0047 Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations. Nagai teaches the relationship of the relative permittivity and the dielectric loss tangent between the first and second insulating layers and would maintain that relationship over a range of frequencies.
.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al. (US 20240215165 A1, “Jung”) in view of SAKAI (US 20170098600 A1, “SAKAI”), IKEDA et al. (us 20200389969 A1, “IKEDA”) and NAGAI et al. (US 20210185807 A1, “NAGAI”) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of AMOU et al. (US 20110088933 A1, “AMOU”)
Regarding claim 9, Jung in view of SAKAI, IKEDA and NAGAI discloses the wiring substrate according to claim 8, wherein the first wiring part is formed such that
Jung in view of SAKAI, IKEDA and NAGAI is silent on the first insulating layer has the dielectric loss tangent of 0.005 or less and the relative permittivity of 3.5 or less at a frequency of 5.8 GHz.
However, AMOU discloses the first insulating layer has the dielectric loss tangent of 0.005 or less and the relative permittivity of 3.5 or less at a frequency of 5.8 GHz (See para [0031], [0051]).
Jung in view of SAKAI, IKEDA and NAGAI and AMOU are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of wiring board. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Jung in view of SAKAI, IKEDA and NAGAI to incorporate the teachings of AMOU and provide the first insulating layer has the dielectric loss tangent of 0.005 or less and the relative permittivity of 3.5 or less at a frequency of 5.8 GHz (See para [0031], [0051]). Doing so would can reduce the transmission loss of a high frequency signal compared to conventional wiring boards (See para [0051]).
Please note that the claims are directed to apparatus which must be distinguished from the prior art in term of structure rather function [MPEP 2144]. Hence, the functional limitation “at a frequency of 5.8 GHz* which is narrative in form have not been given significant patentable weight. In order to be given patentable weight, a functional recitation must be supported by recitation in the claim of sufficient structure to warrant the presence of the functional language. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477- 78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Please note that in the instant application, paragraph 0041 and 0047 Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations. Nagai teaches the relationship of the relative permittivity and the dielectric loss tangent between the first and second insulating layers and would maintain that relationship over a range of frequencies.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al. (US 20240215165 A1, “Jung”) in view of SAKAI (US 20170098600 A1, “SAKAI”), IKEDA et al. (us 20200389969 A1, “IKEDA”), Kim et al. (US 20240172373 A1, “Kim”) and NAGAI et al. (US 20210185807 A1, “NAGAI”) as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of AMOU et al. (US 20110088933 A1, “AMOU”)
Regarding claim 16, Jung in view of SAKAI, IKEDA, Kim and NAGAI discloses the wiring substrate according to claim 15, wherein the first wiring part is formed such that
Jung in view of SAKAI, IKEDA, Kim and NAGAI is silent on the first insulating layer has the dielectric loss tangent of 0.005 or less and the relative permittivity of 3.5 or less at a frequency of 5.8 GHz.
However, AMOU discloses the first insulating layer has the dielectric loss tangent of 0.005 or less and the relative permittivity of 3.5 or less at a frequency of 5.8 GHz (See para [0031], [0051]).
Jung in view of SAKAI, IKEDA, Kim and NAGAI and AMOU are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of wiring board. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Jung in view of SAKAI, IKEDA, Kim and NAGAI to incorporate the teachings of AMOU and provide the first insulating layer has the dielectric loss tangent of 0.005 or less and the relative permittivity of 3.5 or less at a frequency of 5.8 GHz (See para [0031], [0051]). Doing so would can reduce the transmission loss of a high frequency signal compared to conventional wiring boards (See para [0051]).
Please note that the claims are directed to apparatus which must be distinguished from the prior art in term of structure rather function [MPEP 2144]. Hence, the functional limitation “at a frequency of 5.8 GHz* which is narrative in form have not been given significant patentable weight. In order to be given patentable weight, a functional recitation must be supported by recitation in the claim of sufficient structure to warrant the presence of the functional language. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477- 78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Please note that in the instant application, paragraph 0041 and 0047 Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations. Nagai teaches the relationship of the relative permittivity and the dielectric loss tangent between the first and second insulating layers and would maintain that relationship over a range of frequencies.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SIDI MOHAMED MAIGA whose telephone number is (703)756-1870. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 am 5 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, Timothy Thompson can be reached on 571-272-2342. 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.
/SIDI M MAIGA/
Examiner, Art Unit 2847
/STANLEY TSO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2847