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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. DE10 2015 111 491.7, filed on 07/15/2015.
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1 and 5 are amended. Claims 6-15 and 17-19 are as previously presented. Claims 2-4 and 16 is cancelled. Therefore, claims 1, 5-15 and 17-19 are currently pending and have been considered below.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on December 29, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 5-7, filed 12/29/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-19 under U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of applicant’s amendment regarding length and depth of the filamentary damages and newly found prior art regarding those features.
Applicant argues that the multiple references are used and that the totality of the modifications would not be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
It is the Examiner’s position that this argument is not persuasive as it has been held that the reliance on a large number of references does not weight against the obviousness of the claimed invention. In re Gorman, 933 F.2d 982, 18 USPQ2d 1885 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
The combination of Streltsov with Hosseini mere changes the shape of the cutout to be circular to rectangular, which is stated below to be a mere matter of changing the shape of the cutout for a user’s design purposes.
Applicant argues that Li is unrelated to component anchoring. It is the Examiner’s position that this argument is persuasive, however the prior art rejections rely on Bareman for the component anchoring feature.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 5-11, 13, 15, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hosseini (US 20150034613 A1) in view of Streltsov et al. (US 20140147624 A1, hereinafter Streltsov) and Bareman et al. (US 20140036338 A1, hereinafter Bareman) and Nakanishi (JP 2013238726 A) and Arai et al. (WO 2009114375 A2, hereinafter Arai).
Regarding claim 1, Hosseini discloses an article comprising: a glass or glass ceramic element (Para. 0127, lines 1-3, “The filamentation methods disclosed herein may be employed for the processing of a wide range of materials that are transparent to the incident laser beam, including glasses…”);
comprising a circular cutout shape where other shapes can also be formed (Para. 0161, lines 6-9, “…beam or beams can be delivered to a multi-axis rotation and translation stage including: a rotational stage in the XY plane (theta, 0), a 3D XYZ translational stage…”);
wherein the edge surface is inclined relative to the two opposite faces (Para. 0046, lines 1-7, “FIGS. l0(a)-(c) illustrate example embodiments using a theta stage for the positioning of the apparatus described herein, with a non-orthogonal (i.e. <90° or >90° with respect to the target surface), for the creation of angled filament cleave planes.”) and has a direction of inclination relative to the two opposite faces that is consistent along one of the first and second edges (Fig. 10(b), where the incident beam is angled and produces consistent angled edge parts, where the internal shape can be circular or linear, Para. 0193, lines 5-7, “…ability to form arbitrary curvilinear arrays of filaments as well for the applications of closed form shapes and internal features.”, through the, Para. 0182, lines 1-3, “…multi-axis rotational and translational control…purpose of brining the beam on to the work piece(s) at variable focus positions…”); and
filamentary damages that are adjacently aligned and form indentations in the edge surface (Fig. 1(a-e) show that the filaments are aligned along the incident beam, Fig. 10(b) shows the incident beam creating an edge surface where filaments would be longitudinally formed), wherein the filamentary damages have a longitudinal extension in a direction from the first edge to the second edge (Para. 0140, lines 5-6, “…filaments are produced such that they are substantially continuous in nature along their longitudinal axis.”).
Hosseini does not disclose:
an electrical or electronic component;
two opposite faces of the glass or glass ceramic element; and
an edge surface connecting the two opposite faces, the edge surface defined between a first edge of one of the two opposite faces and a second edge of the other of the two opposite faces, wherein the first and second edges define a transition between the edge surface and the two opposite faces; and
wherein the electrical or electronic component is anchored to the indentations by adhesive bonding so that adhesive penetrates into the indentations;
wherein the filamentary damages have a length of at least 200 µm along a longitudinal extension and form indentations in the edge surface at a depth of less than 20 µm.
However, Streltsov discloses, in the similar field of laser manufacturing glass articles, a glass substrate with rectangular openings (Para. 0084, lines 19-21, “The through holes 825 shown in FIG. SA are rectangular and correspond to the grid pattern 815 formed on the glass wafer 810…”, where the rectangular hole would have edge surfaces that are the transition between opposite faces and two opposite faces as they are cut out from the glass substrate, Page 0083, lines 1-3, “Holes and/or shapes may be cut into flat glass sheets to form, for example, beveled or curved edges of the flat glass sheet…”; edge surfaces and opposite faces are shown in modified Fig. 10b and 10c from Hosseini and modified Fig. 8b), where those cutouts can contain electrical devices (Para. 0084, “DLP chips or other MEMS may be inserted into the through holes 825 in the interposer 820 to form a device that is suitable for use in an end product.”). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the circular openings in Hosseini to be rectangular as taught by Streltsov.
Regarding the specific shape of the cutout, it is the Examiner’s position that the modification of a rectangular shape instead of a circular shape would be obvious to try for one of ordinary skill in the art to make. From Hosseini, the laser control system already includes XY axis control along with rotational control. Streltsov then provides an example use for rectangular cutouts, Para. 0084, lines 24-27, “DLP chips or other MEMS may be inserted into the through holes 825 in the interposer 820 to form a device that is suitable for use in an end product.”, which through the XYZ axis control of Hosseini would be possible to create.
Furthermore, it has been held that the mere change in shape is an obvious modification to make. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). The cutout from Hosseini has filament indentation along the edge surface, provides an XY axis control system for determining the shape of the cutout, and is more focused on filament feature rather than the shape of the cutout. Thus, a change in shape of the cutout would not impact the end-result of creating a smoother surface for the cutout.
Bareman discloses, in the similar field of laser machining glass articles (Para. 0002, “assembly comprising a substantially transparent substrate having laser induced channels”), where an electrical component can be anchored to indentations within the glass substrate (Para. 0163, “A laser induced channel area near the surface of a substrate can be used to selective change the wetting properties of the substrate, improve adhesion through an increase in surface anchoring sites, the like, or a combination thereof.”, where laser induced channels have indentations that are areas for surface anchoring sites and the channels can create holes, Para. 0169, “substrates 1002 that have one or more holes 1004 that can be formed by a plurality of laser induced channels.”, where such holes can contain electrical components, Par. 0167, “An electrical switch or button can be placed in the one or more holes”), where a tapered hole shape can be used to anchor components in place (Para. 0167, “The substrate portion that is removed from the hole can be repositioned back into the hole to act as the pressure, capacitive, or resistive sensitive switch button face. The hole can be tapered with a draft that will enable the hole to be more easily removed from the substrate and more easily inserted back into the substrate it was fashioned from.”, where inserting an electrical switch component would result in contacting the side indentation from Hosseini). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the glass filaments in modified Hosseini to have the features as taught by Bareman.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of being able to secure electrical components within glass substrates, where having more laser induced channels improves the adhesion of components, as stated by Bareman, Para. 0163, “A laser induced channel area near the surface of a substrate can be used to selective change the wetting properties of the substrate, improve adhesion through an increase in surface anchoring sites, the like, or a combination thereof.”, where a tapered shape is also known to help with securing the components in place, Para. 0167, “The substrate portion that is removed from the hole can be repositioned back into the hole to act as the pressure, capacitive, or resistive sensitive switch button face. The hole can be tapered with a draft that will enable the hole to be more easily removed from the substrate and more easily inserted back into the substrate it was fashioned from.”.
Further, Nakanishi discloses, in the similar field of electrical components anchored within a substrate (Page 5, Para. 4 from end, “Case 130 is a housing having a housing portion 131 that houses in the lower transparent substrate 122 of the liquid crystal panel 110…Opening 132 is formed in a size that can may wish to ((a) see Figure 1) and a pixel region E in the liquid crystal panel 110.”), where there is an adhesive that bonds and fills the gaps between the electrical component and substrate (Page 8, Para. 4, “the adhesive 150 is filled in the gap between the liquid crystal panel 110 and housing portion 131 of the casing 130 the leaf spring 135 is disposed.”). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the cutting technique of modified Hosseini to use adhesive to fill in the gaps within an electronic component and the substrate cut as taught by Nakanishi; where it is the Examiner’s position that the cutting technique of Hosseini would impart indentations on the side surfaces of the opening from Nakanishi, where the adhesive from Nakanishi that fills in the gaps would then enter into the those indentations in order to secure and anchor the electrical component to the substrate.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of using adhesive for an electrical component in order to fill in gaps, which would be able to create a seal between the electrical component and the substrate, where a seal can be beneficial in isolating electrical elements within the substrate, as stated by Nakanishi, Page 2, last Para., “The sealing material 40, for example an adhesive such as epoxy resin,
UV-curable or thermoplastic is employed.”, and where the adhesive 150 can be one of those materials, Page 6, Para. 4, “Adhesive 150 can be used epoxy resin adhesive thermosetting example shows adhesive performance high for a ceramic or metal material resin, such as glass.”.
Arai discloses, in the similar field of laser manufacturing glass articles (Abstract, “ultrashort pulse laser processing of optically transparent materials are disclosed, with example applications in scribing, marking, welding, and joining.”), where filamentary damages can have a length of at least 200 µm (Para. 212, “The pixel in Fig. 23 is made up of a series of parallel lines, each line is roughly 10 μm wide and 250 μm long.”, where the length of the laser filamentary damage can be controlled, Para. 212, “The visibility of the pixel in Fig. 23 can be controlled
by controlling the width and length of each line in the pixel”), and where the filamentary damages form indentations at a depth of less than 20 µm (Para. 05, “To achieve a precise, high quality cleave, the groove must be of a certain minimum depth, the value of which varies by application (for example, 100- μm thick sapphire requires an approximately 15-μm deep groove for acceptable cleaving).”, where depth can be controlled, Para. 91, “a Z-axis stage (8) is used for beam focus position control (depth)”). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the laser induced filamentary damages used for anchoring electrical components in modified Hosseini to include the specific surface depth and lengths as taught by Arai.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of being able to achieve indentations that serve a dual purpose of allowing for high quality cleaving and increased visibility to the naked eye, where the depth and length can be controlled to achieve both purposes, as stated by Arai, Para. 05, “To achieve a precise, high quality cleave, the groove must be of a certain minimum depth, the value of which varies by application (for example, 100- μm thick sapphire requires an approximately 15-μm deep groove for acceptable cleaving).”, and Para. 212, “The visibility of the pixel in Fig. 23 can be controlled by controlling the width and length of each line in the pixel”
Regarding claim 5, modified Hosseini teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, as set forth above, discloses wherein the filamentary damages have a length along the longitudinal extension of at least 500 µm (Hosseini, Para. 0158, lines 4-8, “The length of the filament may be controllable (for example, from approximately 10 μm to over 10 mm) by changing the process parameters, such as power, focusing characteristics and beam shape, which are controlled machine parameters.”, where the filament length range encompasses being at least 500 micrometers).
Regarding claim 6, modified Hosseini teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, as set forth above, discloses wherein the edge surface is a circumferential edge surface with the filamentary damages (Hosseini, Fig. 16(a), where the filament zones are formed aligned with the incident beam; Fig. 10(b), where the incident beam forms a circumferential edge, which from the teaching of Streltsov can be rectangular in shape).
Regarding claim 7, modified Hosseini teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, as set forth above, discloses wherein the edge surface has an angle of inclination relative to a surface normal to one of the two opposite faces that is at least 3° (Hosseini, Para. 0046, lines 1-7, “FIGS. l0(a)-(c) illustrate example embodiments using a theta stage for the positioning of the apparatus described herein, with a non-orthogonal (i.e. <90° or >90° with respect to the target surface), for the creation of angled filament cleave planes. Such an embodiment enables the production of parts with edges that are not perpendicular to the surface (e.g. a chamfered part).”, where <90° or >90° covers any angle of inclination that is not perpendicular).
Regarding claim 8, modified Hosseini teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, as set forth above, discloses wherein the edge surface has an angle of inclination relative to a surface normal to one of the two opposite faces that is at least 5° (Hosseini, Para. 0046, lines 1-7, “FIGS. l0(a)-(c) illustrate example embodiments using a theta stage for the positioning of the apparatus described herein, with a non-orthogonal (i.e. <90° or >90° with respect to the target surface), for the creation of angled filament cleave planes. Such an embodiment enables the production of parts with edges that are not perpendicular to the surface (e.g. a chamfered part).”, where <90° or >90° covers any angle of inclination that is not perpendicular).
Regarding claim 9, modified Hosseini teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, as set forth above, discloses wherein the edge surface has an angle of inclination relative to a surface normal to one of the two opposite faces that is at least 12° (Hosseini, Para. 0046, lines 1-7, “FIGS. l0(a)-(c) illustrate example embodiments using a theta stage for the positioning of the apparatus described herein, with a non-orthogonal (i.e. <90° or >90° with respect to the target surface), for the creation of angled filament cleave planes. Such an embodiment enables the production of parts with edges that are not perpendicular to the surface (e.g. a chamfered part).”, where <90° or >90° covers any angle of inclination that is not perpendicular).
Regarding claim 10, modified Hosseini teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, as set forth above, discloses wherein the edge surface has an angle of inclination relative to a surface normal to one of the two opposite faces that is at least 15° (Hosseini, Para. 0046, lines 1-7, “FIGS. l0(a)-(c) illustrate example embodiments using a theta stage for the positioning of the apparatus described herein, with a non-orthogonal (i.e. <90° or >90° with respect to the target surface), for the creation of angled filament cleave planes. Such an embodiment enables the production of parts with edges that are not perpendicular to the surface (e.g. a chamfered part).”, where <90° or >90° covers any angle of inclination that is not perpendicular).
Regarding claim 11, modified Hosseini teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, as set forth above, discloses wherein the edge surface has an angle of inclination relative to a surface normal to one of the two opposite faces that is at least 20° (Hosseini, Para. 0046, lines 1-7, “FIGS. l0(a)-(c) illustrate example embodiments using a theta stage for the positioning of the apparatus described herein, with a non-orthogonal (i.e. <90° or >90° with respect to the target surface), for the creation of angled filament cleave planes. Such an embodiment enables the production of parts with edges that are not perpendicular to the surface (e.g. a chamfered part).”, where <90° or >90° covers any angle of inclination that is not perpendicular).
Regarding claim 13, modified Hosseini teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, as set forth above, discloses wherein the filamentary damages have a continuous longitudinal extension in a direction from the first edge to the second edge (Hosseini, Para. 0140, lines 5-6, “…filaments are produced such that they are substantially continuous in nature along their longitudinal axis.”).
Regarding claim 15, modified Hosseini teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, as set forth above, discloses wherein the glass or glass ceramic element is a sheet (Hosseini, Para. 0250, “In the industrial application of single sheet glass scribing, flat panel glass scribing, silicon and/or sapphire wafer scribing”, and Para. 0133, “In particular, the laser system is especially well suited for glass parts with complex shapes or mother glass sheets where a complex spline is present.”).
Regarding claim 17, modified Hosseini teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, as set forth above, discloses further comprising an opening that is delimited by a circumferential edge surface (Hosseini, Fig. 10(b), where the opening is delimited by the edge surface).
Regarding claim 18, modified Hosseini teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, as set forth above, discloses wherein the electrical or electronic component is an actuating element or an electrical display element (Teaching from Streltsov, claim 4, Para. 0084, lines 24-27, “DLP chips or other MEMS may be inserted into the through holes 825 in the interposer 820 to form a device that is suitable for use in an end product.”, where MEMS are microelectromechanical systems that include operating elements, such as microprocessors).
Regarding claim 19, modified Hosseini teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, as set forth above, discloses wherein the electrical or electronic component is an illuminated switch button (Teaching from Bareman, Para. 0167, “An electrical switch or button can be placed in the one or more holes or behind the holes.”, where electrical switch buttons can be placed, Para. 0167, “pressure, capacitive, or resistive sensitive switch button face.”, where illuminated switch buttons can fall within one of the categories disclosed by Bareman).
Claims 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hosseini (US 20150034613 A1) in view of Streltsov et al. (US 20140147624 A1, hereinafter Streltsov) and Bareman et al. (US 20140036338 A1, hereinafter Bareman) and Nakanishi (JP 2013238726 A) and Arai et al. (WO 2009114375 A2, hereinafter Arai) in further view of Li et al. (WO 2005072437 A2, hereinafter Li).
Regarding claim 12, modified Hosseini teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, as set forth above.
Modified Hosseini does not disclose:
wherein the filamentary damages form indentations in the edge surface at a depth of less than 10 µm.
However, Li discloses, in the similar field of laser machining glass articles (Page 3, Para. 2, “laser treatment, and the like. For example, U.S. Patent No. 6,350,506, discusses one method of producing textured surfaces on glass or glass-ceramic substrates.”), where filamentary damages form indentations at a depth of less than 10 µm (Page 5, Para. 4 from end, “The laser light is directed to a spot on the surface. Micro-grooved surfaces are produced that have one or more grooves formed thereon, the grooves having groove 15 depths in the range of about 1 µm to about 100 µm.”). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the filaments in modified Hosseini to have the depth range as taught by Li.
Regarding the claimed filament depth being less than 10 µm, it is the Examiner’s position that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious, through routine experimentation, to selectively choose or optimize depth values for the filament. See MPEP 2144.05, Section II A and B. Routine optimization would have been desired to one of ordinary skill in the art, as the initial application of Hosseini discloses how filament depth can be controlled and modified, Para. 0161, lines 4 from end, “Filament position and depth may be controlled (as illustrated in FIG. 1(/)) using an autofocus configuration ( e.g. using a position-sensing device) that maintains a constant working distance.”. Thus, through Hosseini’s control system, specific values for filament depth would be a design choice.
Claims 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hosseini (US 20150034613 A1) in view of Streltsov et al. (US 20140147624 A1, hereinafter Streltsov) and Bareman et al. (US 20140036338 A1, hereinafter Bareman) and Nakanishi (JP 2013238726 A) and Arai et al. (WO 2009114375 A2, hereinafter Arai) in further view of Jeon (KR 20150050996 A).
Regarding claim 14, modified Hosseini teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, as set forth above, discloses filamentary damages in multilayered structures (Hosseini, Para. 0058, lines 1-3, “FIG. 16(a) illustrates an example embodiment in which a multilayer substrate can be cut or processed in a single pass, cutting at normal and/or non-normal angles.”, where a substrate is shown to have multilayered filamentary damages, where with the angle of inclination being oblique, there would be a stepped or sloped path of filament damage).
Modified Hosseini does not disclose:
wherein the filamentary damages comprise a stepped layering of filamentary damages.
However, Jeon discloses, in the similar field of openings created to hold electronic displays, an opening with stepped layers (Page 5, Para. 3, lines 2-4, “In this case, the groove 810 of the coupling portion 800 may be formed such that one end face of the first and second insulating layers 510 and 550 and one end face of the first metal layer 520 are stepped.”). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the edge surfaces of opening within the substrate of modified Hosseini to have the stepped layer feature as taught by Jeon.
Regarding the feature of stepped layers, it is the Examiner’s position that such a modification would be obvious to try for one of ordinary skill in the art. Hosseini discloses a control system that includes rotational and translational control, Para. 0161, lines 7-10, “…multi-axis rotation and translation stage including: a rotational stage in the XY plane (theta, 0), a 3D XYZ translational stage, and an axis for tipping the beam or the part relative to the X axis (gamma, y) in a coordinated control architecture.”. Jeon then discloses an opening for holding electrical displays where there are stepped layers and grooves. Thus, Jeon provides incentive to use stepped layer structures in containing electric displays and the feature would be possible to create through the XYZ axis control of the laser beam from Hosseini.
Furthermore, it has been held that mere change in shape is an obvious modification to make. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Jeon shows a use for a stepped layer feature and that is it possible to manufacture such a feature. Thus, there is a reasonable chance for success in Hosseini to manufacture the already existing stepped layer feature using its XYZ axis control, where the end-result of creating an opening with filamentary damage would still be achieved.
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 KEVIN GUANHUA WEN whose telephone number is (571)272-9940 and whose email is kevin.wen@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10:00 am - 6:00 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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached on 571-270-5569. 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.
/KEVIN GUANHUA WEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
03/17/2026
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761