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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 3-10, 16 and 18 remain withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 11-15, 17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Senkal et al. (US 11307217 B1, hereinafter Senkal) in view of Thiruvenkatanathan et al. (US 20130298675 A1, hereinafter ‘675), Reinke (US 20210140992 A1), Simoni et al. (US 20110056294 A1, hereinafter Simoni) and Zou et al. (US 20200166537 A1, hereinafter Zou).
As to claim 1, Senkal teaches a sensor (fig. 3; title), comprising:
a controller (the device of fig. 3 comprises resonators driven at a resonance frequency of a first, second or third harmonic order; accordingly, there is inherently a controller for controlling the sensor);
a base (col. 8 lines 20-21 teach that anchor 312 corresponds to one of the oxide layers 220, 240 from fig. 2, which means the claimed base corresponds to one of layers 210 and 250 of fig. 2);
a first fixed portion 312 fixed to the base (one of layers 220 and 240 of fig. 2);
an element section (comprising at least the first and second beams and first and second beam electrodes claimed below) including
[AltContent: textbox (A direction perpendicular to directions D1-D2 is D3)][AltContent: textbox (319C)][AltContent: textbox (319B)][AltContent: textbox (319A)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: rect][AltContent: ][AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (D2)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (D1)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (322A)][AltContent: textbox (322B)][AltContent: textbox (322C)][AltContent: textbox (320C)][AltContent: textbox (320B)][AltContent: textbox (320A)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: rect][AltContent: rect][AltContent: rect][AltContent: rect][AltContent: rect][AltContent: rect]
PNG
media_image1.png
720
480
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a first beam 320 including a first portion 320A (fig. 3 above), a first other portion 320b (fig. 3 above), and a first intermediate portion 320C (fig. 3 above) between the first portion and the first other portion, a direction from the first portion to the first other portion being along a first direction D1 (fig. 3 above);
a second beam 322 including a second portion 322A (fig. 3 above), a second other portion 322B (fig. 3 above), and a second intermediate portion 322C (fig. 3 above) between the second portion and the second other portion, a direction from the second portion to the second other portion being along the first direction D1; and
a first support portion 319 supported by the first fixed portion 312 (col. 8 lines 20-25),
a second direction D2 (fig. 3 above) crossing the first direction,
a third direction D3 (see fig. 3 above) crossing a plane including the first direction and the second direction,
a direction from the base to the first fixed portion being along the third direction D3,
the first portion and the second portion being connected to the first support portion (see fig. 3),
a first gap being provided between the base and the element section (col. 8 lines 20-21 teach that anchor 312 corresponds with one of the oxide layers 220, 240 in fig. 2, which shows that layer 230 is the device layer defining the element section; accordingly, the claimed gap corresponds with one of the gaps defined by layers 220, 240).
Senkal does not teach a first fixed electrode and a second fixed electrode fixed to the base;
a first beam electrode connected to the first intermediate portion;
a second beam electrode connected to the second intermediate portion;
wherein the second direction D2 is from the first intermediate portion to the first beam electrode;
a direction from the second intermediate portion to the second beam electrode being along the second direction,
the first beam electrode and the second beam electrode satisfying at least one of a first condition, a second condition, a third condition, a fourth condition, a fifth condition, a sixth condition, a seventh condition or an eighth condition,
in the first condition, a second mass of the second beam electrode being different from a first mass of the first beam electrode,
in the second condition, at least a part of a second material included in the second beam electrode being different from at least a part of a first material included in the first beam electrode,
in the third condition, a second thickness of the second beam electrode along the third direction being different from a first thickness of the first beam electrode along the third direction, the third direction crossing a plane including the first direction and the second direction,
in the fourth condition, a second size of a second hole included in the second beam electrode being different from a first size of a first hole included in the first beam electrode,
in the fifth condition, a second density of the second holes being different from the first density of the first holes,
in the sixth condition, a second number of the second holes being different from a first number of the first holes, or the second beam electrode including the second holes and the first beam electrode not including the first hole,
in the seventh condition, a second layer structure of the second beam electrode being different from a first layer structure of the first beam electrode, and
in the eighth condition, a second shape of the second beam electrode being different from a first shape of the first beam electrode,
the first fixed electrode facing the first beam electrode,
the second fixed electrode facing the second beam electrode,
the controller being configured to apply a first AC signal between the first fixed electrode and the first beam electrode, and
the controller being configured to apply another first AC signal between the second fixed electrode and the second beam electrode.
[AltContent: textbox (BE2)][AltContent: textbox (B2)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (B2)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (BE1)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: ][AltContent: ]
PNG
media_image2.png
344
516
media_image2.png
Greyscale
‘675 teaches a resonant beam accelerometer (¶79, fig. 7b) wherein drive electrodes 8a-b (¶78) and sense electrodes 13, 18 (¶76) cooperate with beam electrodes BE1-2 of beams B1-B2 (in Senkal, fig. 3 teaches that drive and sense electrodes cooperate with both sides of each of beams 320, 322; accordingly, when Senkal is modified in view of ‘675, each side of Senkal’s beams will have a beam electrode).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Senkal to be configured such each side of the beam that cooperates with driving and sense electrodes has a beam electrode that cooperates with drive and sense electrodes configured to cooperate with the beam electrode, as taught by ‘675, since such modifications would be simple substitutions of one method of driving and sensing one side of a beam for another for the predictable result that acceleration is still successfully detected.
Senkal as modified still does not teach wherein the first beam electrode and the second beam electrode satisfying at least one of a first condition or an eighth condition,
in the first condition, a second mass of the second beam electrode being different from a first mass of the first beam electrode, and
in the eighth condition, a second shape of the second beam electrode being different from a first shape of the first beam electrode.
Reinke teaches an accelerometer (¶10 and fig. 2) having a first resonator 120 with beams 124A-B and a second resonator 130 (fig. 3B) with beams 134A-B, wherein the resonators have different resonant frequencies (¶40) due to the first resonator having added masses (¶40; 462A-D, 464A-D – fig. 4A; note that ¶70 teaches that resonator 420 corresponds to the first resonator 120 of fig. 2) on surfaces directly cooperating with fixed electrodes 422A-B (see fig. 4B), and due to beams 134A-B having gaps (562A-D and 564A-D – figs. 5A-B; note that ¶78 teaches that figs. 5A-B illustrate the second resonator 130 of fig. 2) corresponding to where the first resonator 120 has the added masses (¶40, ¶82).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Senkal as modified to configure the accelerometer such that the first and second resonators have different resonant frequencies, due to added masses and gaps on surfaces directly cooperating with fixed electrodes, as taught by Reinke, for the benefit of avoiding/reducing output degradation (¶41, Reinke).
Regarding the limitation of a first fixed electrode and a second fixed electrode fixed to the base,
Simoni teaches drive electrodes 10-11 fixed to a substrate (¶35).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Senkal as modified to fix the driving electrodes to the substrate as taught by Simoni so as to more securely position the driving electrodes for maximizing driving stability.
Regarding the AC signals,
Zou teaches that first and second resonators 20, 22 are driven via different AC signals applied to drive electrodes 24, 26 (¶53 and ¶58).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Senkal as modified such that the first and second resonators are driven by different AC signals applied to the drive electrodes as taught by Zou so as to avoid the problems of mode-shape distortion, injection locking and/or signal cross-talk (¶57 - Zou).
Senkal as modified teaches a first fixed electrode (being a drive electrode similar to drive electrodes 8a-b of ‘675) and a second fixed electrode (being another drive electrode similar to drive electrodes 8a-b of ‘675) fixed to the base (in view of Simoni);
a first beam electrode connected to the first intermediate portion (in view of ‘675);
a second beam electrode connected to the second intermediate portion (in view of ‘675);
wherein the second direction D2 (Senkal) is from the first intermediate portion 320C (Senkal) to the first beam electrode (in view of ‘675);
a direction from the second intermediate portion 322C (Senkal) to the second beam electrode (in light of ‘675) being along the second direction D2 (Senkal),
the first beam electrode and the second beam electrode satisfying at least one of a first condition or an eighth condition,
in the first condition, a second mass of the second beam electrode being different from a first mass of the first beam electrode (due to the added masses and gaps of Reinke),
in the eighth condition, a second shape of the second beam electrode being different from a first shape of the first beam electrode (due to the added masses and gaps of Reinke),
the first fixed electrode facing the first beam electrode (in view of ‘675),
the second fixed electrode facing the second beam electrode (in view of ‘675),
the controller being configured to apply a first AC signal (i.e. voltage difference, as explained below) between the first fixed electrode and the first beam electrode (also see fig. 7b of ‘675; ¶22 of ‘675 states “The electrostatic coupling means may be the application of different DC voltages to each of the resonant elements. In this case, the coupling may take the form of a pair of plates, one plate in the pair of plates coupled to or forming part of the first resonant element and the other plate in the pair of plates coupled to or forming part of the second resonant element, and a voltage source connected to the pair of plates for applying a voltage difference between the plates”; ¶77-78 of ‘675 teach that AC signals are applied to the drive electrodes, which provides electrostatic coupling with the movable electrode portions of the beams they drive, indicating that an AC signal is applied between each drive electrode and the movable electrode structure driven thereby; in light of Zou, each drive electrode drives at a different respective frequency and a different respective AC signal), and
the controller being configured to apply another first AC signal (i.e. voltage difference, as explained below) between the second fixed electrode and the second beam electrode (also see fig. 7b of ‘675; ¶22 of ‘675 states “The electrostatic coupling means may be the application of different DC voltages to each of the resonant elements. In this case, the coupling may take the form of a pair of plates, one plate in the pair of plates coupled to or forming part of the first resonant element and the other plate in the pair of plates coupled to or forming part of the second resonant element, and a voltage source connected to the pair of plates for applying a voltage difference between the plates”; ¶77-78 of ‘675 teach that AC signals are applied to the drive electrodes, which provides electrostatic coupling with the movable electrode portions of the beams they drive, indicating that an AC signal is applied between each drive electrode and the movable electrode structure driven thereby; in light of Zou, each drive electrode drives at a different respective frequency and a different respective AC signal).
As to claim 11, Senkal teaches wherein
a position of the first other portion 320B in the first direction D1 is provided between a position of the first portion 320A in the first direction and a position of the second portion 322A in the first direction, and
a position of the second other portion 322B in the first direction is provided between the position of the first other portion 320B in the first direction and the position of the second portion 322A in the second direction.
[AltContent: textbox (310B)][AltContent: textbox (310A)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: rect][AltContent: rect]
PNG
media_image1.png
720
480
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to claim 12, Senkal teaches wherein
the element section further includes a movable member 310A-B (fig. 3 above) supported by the first fixed portion 312 (col. 9 lines 17-21),
the movable member includes a first movable portion 310A,
the first other portion and the second other portion are connected to the first movable portion (see fig. 3),
the first support portion 319 includes a first support region 319A (fig. 3 above), a second support region 319B (fig. 3 above), and a third support region 319C (fig. 3 above),
the first portion is supported by the first support region, the second portion is supported by the second support region (see fig. 3 above), and
the first movable part is supported by the third support region (see fig. 3 above).
As to claim 13, Senkal teaches wherein
the movable member further includes
a first movable connecting portion 314,
a first movable connecting portion width of the first movable connecting portion 314 in the first direction D1, and
a first movable connecting portion width (being the width of spring 314 in the first direction D1) is narrower than a first movable portion width (width of element 310A ion the first direction D1) of the first movable portion 310A in the first direction D1.
Senkal as modified does not teach a first movable base portion supported by the third support region, and
wherein the first movable connecting portion 314 is provided between the first movable base portion and the first movable portion,
wherein the first movable connecting portion width of the first movable connecting portion 314 in the first direction D1 is narrower than a first movable base width of the first movable base in the first direction.
[AltContent: textbox (SP1)][AltContent: textbox (SP2)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image3.png
438
650
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In an alternate embodiment, Senkal teaches (fig. 9), a first movable connecting portion 909 (i.e. spring/hinge) provided as a narrow part between a first movable portion SP1 (fig. 9 above) and a first movable base portion SP2 (fig. 9 above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Senkal as modified such that the first movable connecting portion is provided as a narrow part between the first movable portion and a first movable base portion, as taught by fig. 9 of Senkal, since such a modification would be a simple substitution of one method of providing a hinge/spring portion for another for the predictable result that acceleration is still successfully detected.
Senkal as modified teaches a first movable base portion SP2 (fig. 9 of Senkal) supported by the third support region, and
wherein the first movable connecting portion 314 (Senkal) is provided between the first movable base portion and the first movable portion (in view of fig. 9 of Senkal),
wherein the first movable connecting portion width of the first movable connecting portion 314 (Senkal) in the first direction D1 (Senkal) is narrower than the first movable base width of the first movable base in the first direction (in view of Senkal’s fig. 9).
As to claim 14, Senkal teaches wherein
the movable member 310A-B further includes a first movable weight portion 310B connected to the first movable portion 310A,
the first movable portion 310A is provided between the first movable connecting portion 314 and the first movable weight portion 310B in the second direction D2, and
a first movable weight portion width in the first direction of the first movable weight portion is wider than the first movable portion width (see fig. 3 above).
[AltContent: textbox (ECP)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: oval][AltContent: textbox (Fig. 7b of ‘675)]
PNG
media_image2.png
344
516
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As to claim 15, Senkal as modified teaches wherein
the first beam electrode (in light of ‘675) includes
a first extending portion (a portion of the first beam electrode) extending along the first direction D1 (Senkal), and
a first extending connecting portion (similar to element ECP in fig. 7b of ‘675 above) connecting the first extending portion to the first intermediate portion 320C (Senkal),
the second beam electrode (in light of ‘675) includes
a second extending portion (a portion of the second beam electrode) extending along the second direction D2 (Senkal; the second extending portion is three-dimensional, so it extends in all directions to some extent), and
a second extending connecting portion (similar to element ECP in fig. 7b of ‘675 above) connecting the second extending portion to the second intermediate portion 322C (Senkal).
As to claim 17, Senkal as modified teaches wherein
the element section includes
a first opposing beam electrode (fig. 3 of Senkal teaches sensing and driving electrodes interacting with both sides of each beam; accordingly, when Senkal was modified in view of ‘675, each side of each of Senkal’s beams 320, 322 was modified to have a respective beam electrode) connected to the first intermediate portion 320C (Senkal), and
a second opposing beam electrode (in light of ‘675) connected to the second intermediate portion 322C (Senkal),
the first beam 320 (Senkal) is provided between the first opposing beam electrode and the first beam electrode in the second direction (in light of ‘675), and
the second beam 322 (Senkal) is provided between the second opposing beam electrode and the second beam electrode in the second direction (in light of ‘675).
As to claim 20, Senkal teaches an electronic device 2000 (fig. 20 of Senkal), comprising:
the sensor according to claim 1 (col. 19 lines 38-63 in Senkal teaches that sensor 2090 can include an accelerometer “according to one of the embodiments described above,” which includes the embodiment of fig. 3); and
a circuit controller (for causing calibration data to be generated - col. 19 lines 38-63 in Senkal) configured to control a circuit (to generate the calibration data - col. 19 lines 38-63 in Senkal) based on a signal obtained from the sensor (col. 19 lines 38-63 in Senkal).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/26/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pg. 19 that Senkal, ‘675, Reinke, Simoni and Zou fail to teach the emphasized parts of claim 1 on pgs. 17 and 19.
Applicant’s argument is not persuasive since Senkal in view of 675, Reinke, Simoni and Zou teach all of claim 1.
Applicant argues on pg. 21 that Zou does not teach applying different AC signals to electrodes 24, 26. Applicant further argues that Zou does not teach the concept of applying an AC signal between a fixed electrode and a beam electrode.
Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. ¶53 of Zou teaches that driving is performed with AC signals, and ¶58 teaches that the resonators are driven in different modes with different frequencies, meaning the AC signals driving the resonators are different from each other.
Regarding the limitation “between,”
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The concept of applying an AC signal between a drive electrode and a movable electrode is taught by ‘675. ¶22 of ‘675 states “The electrostatic coupling means may be the application of different DC voltages to each of the resonant elements. In this case, the coupling may take the form of a pair of plates, one plate in the pair of plates coupled to or forming part of the first resonant element and the other plate in the pair of plates coupled to or forming part of the second resonant element, and a voltage source connected to the pair of plates for applying a voltage difference between the plates.” ¶77-78 of ‘675 teach that AC signals are applied to the drive electrodes, which provides electrostatic coupling with the movable electrode portions of the beams they drive, indicating that an AC signal is applied between each drive electrode and the movable electrode structure driven thereby. Accordingly, in the overall prior art combination in light of Zou, each drive electrode drives at a different respective frequency and via a different respective AC signal between the drive electrode and the respective beam electrode.
Applicant’s argument (pg. 21) that ‘675, Reinke and Simoni do not cure the alleged deficiencies of Senkal and Zou is not persuasive since Applicant’s arguments above are unpersuasive.
Applicant argues on pg. 22 that the references would not render obvious the feature of AC signals being applied between fixed electrodes and beam electrodes because Zou allegedly does not teach such a feature.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The concept of applying an AC signal between a drive electrode and a movable electrode is taught by ‘675. ¶22 of ‘675 states “The electrostatic coupling means may be the application of different DC voltages to each of the resonant elements. In this case, the coupling may take the form of a pair of plates, one plate in the pair of plates coupled to or forming part of the first resonant element and the other plate in the pair of plates coupled to or forming part of the second resonant element, and a voltage source connected to the pair of plates for applying a voltage difference between the plates.” ¶77-78 of ‘675 teach that AC signals are applied to the drive electrodes, which provides electrostatic coupling with the movable electrode portions of the beams they drive, indicating that an AC signal is applied between each drive electrode and the movable electrode structure driven thereby. Accordingly, in the overall prior art combination in light of Zou, each drive electrode drives at a different respective frequency and via a different respective AC signal between the drive electrode and the respective beam electrode.
Applicant argues on pg. 22 that the modification in view of Simoni is unreasonable because Senkal and Simoni disclose different systems driven by different mechanisms. Applicant alleges that the Office does not explain why one of skill in the art would have been motivated to modify Senkal to have a fixed electrode and an entirely different driving mechanism “notwithstanding the fact that Senkal is…designed to operate using its disclosed configuration.”
Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. As stated in the Office Action, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Senkal as modified to fix the driving electrodes to the substrate as taught by Simoni so as to more securely position the driving electrodes for maximizing driving stability. Even if Senkal and Simon have different structures, driving electrodes fixed to a substrate provide better driving stability, meaning one of ordinary skill in the art would have found the modification obvious. Even if Senkal is disclosed as operating with a certain configuration, the modification in view of Simoni would improve such a configuration, making the modification obvious. Additionally, the modification in view of Simoni does not cause Senkal to have an “entirely different driving mechanism,” simply by fixing driving electrodes to the substrate.
Applicant argues on pg. 23 that the Examiner used impermissibly hindsight.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Applicant argues on pg. 23 that dependent claims 11-15, 17 and 20 are allowable because claim 1 is allegedly allowable.
Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because all pending elected claims are properly rejected, as shown above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 RUBEN C PARCO JR whose telephone number is (571)270-1968. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 AM - 4:30 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, Stephen Meier can be reached at 571-272-2149. 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.
/R.C.P./Examiner, Art Unit 2853
/STEPHEN D MEIER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights