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 .
Specification
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/25/24, 09/18/23 was filed in a timely manner; thus, the submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claim #1, 13, 17, 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horning et al., (U.S. Pub. No, 2010/0084752), hereinafter referred to as "Horning" as modified by Lam et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0361180), hereinafter referred to as "Lam" and in further view of Wang et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2008/0230885), hereinafter referred to as "Wang".
Horning shows, with respect to claim #1, hermetic package device comprising: a device wafer (fig. #1, item 16) in which a semiconductor circuit (fig. #Ex1, item Cc) and terminals (fig. #1, item 34) (paragraph 0018-0019) for electrical connection to an outside are provided on a mounting surface (fig. #Ex1, item MS) (paragraph 0019, 0023); a lid wafer (fig. #1, item 12) arranged to be opposed to the mounting surface of the device wafer (paragraph 0020); and a sealing part (fig. #1, item 18) that surrounds an installation region of the semiconductor circuit (fig. #Ex1, item 18) in the mounting surface (paragraph 0018, 0021), is interposed between the device wafer (fig. #Ex1, item D1) and the lid wafer (fig. #Ex1, item 12), and forms a hermetically sealed space in a vacuum atmosphere to house the semiconductor circuit between the device wafer and the lid wafer (paragraph 0021-0022), (paragraph 0057). (fig. #, item)
[AltContent: textbox (Mounting Surface; MS)]
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Device; D1)][AltContent: textbox (Ex1)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (Circuits; Cc)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
414
744
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Horning substantially shows the claimed invention as shown in the rejection of claim #1 above.
Horning fails to show, with respect to claim #1, a method wherein a second installation region in the mounting surface in which the terminals are provided protrudes relative to the lid wafer.
Lam teaches, with respect to claim #1, a method wherein a second installation region (Fig. #Ex2, item OT1) in the mounting surface in which the terminals are provided protrudes relative to the lid wafer (Fig. #Ex2, item LW1) (paragraph 0085).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, with respect to claim #1, to modified the invention of Horning as modified by the invention of Lam, which teaches, method wherein a second installation region in the mounting surface in which the terminals are provided protrudes relative to the lid wafer, to incorporate a structural condition that would provide combination of interconnect electrical and optoelectrical device connection points, as taught by Lam.
[AltContent: textbox (Lid Wafer; LW1)]
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Outside Terminal; OT1)][AltContent: textbox (Ex2)]
PNG
media_image2.png
449
702
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Horning as modified by Lam, substantially shows the claimed invention as shown in the rejection of claim #1 above.
Horning as modified by Lam, fail to show, with respect to claim #1, a device wherein an outer surface of a portion in the sealing part facing the second installation region is inclined such that a position thereon approaches the second installation region when getting closer from the device wafer toward the lid wafer.
Wang teaches, with respect to claim #1, a device wherein an outer surface (Fig. #Ex3, item OP) of a portion in the sealing part (Fig. #Ex3, item 25) facing the second installation region is inclined (Fig. #Ex3, item ϴ1 and ϴ2) such that a position thereon approaches the second installation region when getting closer from the device wafer toward the lid wafer (Fig. #Ex3, item 22) (paragraph 0008, 0030-0032, 0045).
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Ex3)][AltContent: textbox (Mounting Surface; MS)][AltContent: textbox (1)][AltContent: textbox (2)][AltContent: oval][AltContent: connector][AltContent: oval][AltContent: connector][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (25)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (Outer Portion; OP)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (23)][AltContent: textbox (20)][AltContent: arc][AltContent: arc][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector]
PNG
media_image3.png
384
589
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, with respect to claim #1, to modified the invention of Horning modified by Lam, with the invention of Wang, which teaches, a device wherein an outer surface of a portion in the sealing part facing the second installation region is inclined such that a position thereon approaches the second installation region when getting closer from the device wafer toward the lid wafer, to incorporate a structural condition that would increase the percentage of continuous seal area, as taught by Wang.
Horning as modified by Lam, fail to show, with respect to claim #13, a device wherein an angle of the outer surface with respect to the mounting surface is 60 degrees or more and less than 90 degrees.
Wang teaches, with respect to claim #13, a device wherein an angle (Fig. #Ex3, item ϴ1 and ϴ2) of the outer surface (Fig. #Ex3, item OP) with respect to the mounting surface (Fig. #Ex3, item MS) is 60 degrees or more and less than 90 degrees (paragraph 0008, 0030-0032, 0045).
The Examiner notes that Wang does not state explicitly that the angle between the mounting surface and the outer surface is 60 degrees or more and less than 90 degrees. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to arrive at a final angle for best possible sealing of the connecting layers, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re A11er, 105 USPQ 233.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, with respect to claim #13, to modified the invention of Horning modified by Lam, with the invention of Wang, which teaches, a device wherein an angle of the outer surface with respect to the mounting surface is 60 degrees or more and less than 90 degrees, to incorporate a structural condition that would increase the percentage of continuous seal area, as taught by Wang.
Horning as modified by Lam, fail to show, with respect to claim #17, a device wherein an inner surface of a portion in the sealing part provided with the inclination in the outer surface is inclined at an angle gentler than the outer surface in an opposite direction with respect to the outer surface, or is upright to the mounting surface.
Wang teaches, with respect to claim #17, a device wherein an inner (Fig. #Ex3, item OP) surface of a portion in the sealing part provided with the inclination in the outer surface (Fig. #Ex5, item ϴ3) is inclined at an angle greater than the outer surface (Fig. #Ex5, item ϴ4) in an opposite direction with respect to the outer surface, or is upright to the mounting surface(paragraph 0008, 0030-0032, 0045).
[AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: oval][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (3)][AltContent: oval][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (4)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: arc][AltContent: arc][AltContent: textbox (Ex5)]
PNG
media_image4.png
220
331
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The Examiner notes that Wang does not state explicitly that the inner surface of a portion in the sealing part provided with the inclination in the outer surface is inclined at an angle gentler than the outer surface in an opposite direction with respect to the outer surface, or is upright to the mounting surface. However, the Examiner takes the position, (as can be seen from Fig. #Ex5 above) that the angle created by ϴ3 is greater than the angle created by ϴ4. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to arrive at a final angle for best possible sealing of the connecting layers, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re A11er, 105 USPQ 233. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, with respect to claim #17, to modified the invention of Horning modified by Lam, with the invention of Wang, which teaches, a device wherein an inner surface of a portion in the sealing part provided with the inclination in the outer surface is inclined at an angle gentler than the outer surface in an opposite direction with respect to the outer surface, or is upright to the mounting surface, to incorporate a structural condition that would increase the percentage of continuous seal area, as taught by Wang.
Horning shows, with respect to claim #23, hermetic package device comprising; an electronic components that are mounted on the circuit board and are electrically connected to the terminals (paragraph 0023).
//
Claim #2, 14, 15, 16, 18, 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horning et al., (U.S. Pub. No, 2010/0084752), hereinafter referred to as "Horning" as modified by Lam et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0361180), hereinafter referred to as "Lam" and Wang et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2008/0230885), hereinafter referred to as "Wang" as shown the rejection of claim #1 above, and in further view of Kapusta et al., (U.S. Pat. No. 10,431,509), hereinafter referred to as "Kapusta".
Horning as modified by Lam and Wang, substantially shows the claimed invention as shown in the rejection of claim #1 above.
Horning as modified by Lam and Wang fail to show, with respect to claim #2, wherein the sealing part is formed of a first under-layer patterned on the mounting surface, a second under-layer patterned in the lid wafer on an opposed surface of the mounting surface, and a sealing material layer for filling between the first under-layer and the second under- layer, and in the portion in the sealing part facing the second installation region, an end of the second under-layer on a side near the second installation region has a positional shift toward the second installation region with respect to an end of the first under-layer on a side near the second installation region.
Kapusta teaches, with respect to claim #2, wherein the sealing part is formed of a first under-layer patterned (fig. #4, item 252) (column #3, line 60-67; column #4, line 1-5) on the mounting surface, a second under-layer (fig. #4, item 256 & 150) patterned in the lid wafer (fig. #4, item 100) (column #4, line 53-67) on an opposed surface of the mounting surface, and a sealing material layer (fig. #4, item 255) for filling between the first under-layer (fig. #4, item 252) and the second under layer (fig. #4, item 256 & 150), and in the portion in the sealing part facing the second installation region, an end of the second under-layer on a side near the second installation region has a positional shift (fig. #Ex4, item PS) toward the second installation region with respect to an end of the first under-layer on a side near the second installation region (column #3, line 60-67; column #4, line 1-5).
[AltContent: textbox (Position shift; PS)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: oval][AltContent: oval][AltContent: textbox (Ex4)]
PNG
media_image5.png
619
746
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, with respect to claim #2, to modified the invention of Horning as modified by Lam and Wang as modified by the invention of Kapusta, which teaches, wherein the sealing part is formed of a first under-layer patterned on the mounting surface, a second under-layer patterned in the lid wafer on an opposed surface of the mounting surface, and a sealing material layer for filling between the first under-layer and the second under- layer, and in the portion in the sealing part facing the second installation region, an end of the second under-layer on a side near the second installation region has a positional shift toward the second installation region with respect to an end of the first under-layer on a side near the second installation region, to incorporate a structural condition that would the bonding of the sealing material to the outer layers, as taught by Kapusta.
Horning as modified by Lam, Wang and Kapusta, substantially shows the claimed invention as shown in the rejection of claim #2 above.
Horning as modified by Lam and Kapusta, fail to show, with respect to claim #14, a device wherein an angle of the outer surface with respect to the mounting surface is 60 degrees or more and less than 90 degrees.
Wang teaches, with respect to claim #14, a device wherein an angle (Fig. #Ex3, item ϴ1 and ϴ2) of the outer surface (Fig. #Ex3, item OP) with respect to the mounting surface (Fig. #Ex3, item MS) is 60 degrees or more and less than 90 degrees (paragraph 0008, 0030-0032, 0045).
The Examiner notes that Wang does not state explicitly that the angle between the mounting surface and the outer surface is 60 degrees or more and less than 90 degrees. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to arrive at a final angle for best possible sealing of the connecting layers, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re A11er, 105 USPQ 233.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, with respect to claim #14, to modified the invention of Horning modified by Lam and Kapusta, with the invention of Wang, which teaches, a device wherein an angle of the outer surface with respect to the mounting surface is 60 degrees or more and less than 90 degrees, to incorporate a structural condition that would increase the percentage of continuous seal area, as taught by Wang.
Horning as modified by Lam and Kapusta, fail to show, with respect to claim #15, a device, wherein the angle of the outer surface with respect to the mounting surface is 70 degrees or more and 85 degrees or less.
Wang teaches, with respect to claim #15, a device wherein the angle (Fig. #Ex3, item ϴ1 and ϴ2) of the outer surface (Fig. #Ex3, item OP) with respect to the mounting surface (Fig. #Ex3, item MS) is 70 degrees or more and 85 degrees or less (paragraph 0008, 0030-0032, 0045).
The Examiner notes that Wang does not state explicitly that the angle between the mounting surface and the outer surface is 70 degrees or more and less than 85 degrees. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to arrive at a final angle for best possible sealing of the connecting layers, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re A11er, 105 USPQ 233.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, with respect to claim #15, to modified the invention of Horning modified by Lam and Kapusta, with the invention of Wang, which teaches, a device wherein an angle of the outer surface with respect to the mounting surface is 60 degrees or more and less than 90 degrees, to incorporate a structural condition that would increase the percentage of continuous seal area, as taught by Wang.
Horning as modified by Lam and Kapusta, fail to show, with respect to claim #16, a device, wherein the angle of the outer surface with respect to the mounting surface is 70 degrees or more and 85 degrees or less.
Wang teaches, with respect to claim #16, a device wherein the angle (Fig. #Ex3, item ϴ1 and ϴ2) of the outer surface (Fig. #Ex3, item OP) with respect to the mounting surface (Fig. #Ex3, item MS) is 70 degrees or more and 85 degrees or less (paragraph 0008, 0030-0032, 0045).
The Examiner notes that Wang does not state explicitly that the angle between the mounting surface and the outer surface is 70 degrees or more and less than 85 degrees. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to arrive at a final angle for best possible sealing of the connecting layers, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re A11er, 105 USPQ 233.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, with respect to claim #16, to modified the invention of Horning modified by Lam and Kapusta, with the invention of Wang, which teaches, a device wherein an angle of the outer surface with respect to the mounting surface is 60 degrees or more and less than 90 degrees, to incorporate a structural condition that would increase the percentage of continuous seal area, as taught by Wang.
Horning as modified by Lam, Kapusta and Wang, substantially shows the claimed invention as shown in the rejection of claim #2 above.
Horning as modified by Lam and Kapusta fail to show, with respect to claim #18, a device wherein an inner surface of a portion in the sealing part provided with the inclination in the outer surface is inclined at an angle gentler than the outer surface in an opposite direction with respect to the outer surface, or is upright to the mounting surface.
Wang teaches, with respect to claim #18, a device wherein an inner (Fig. #Ex3, item OP) surface of a portion in the sealing part provided with the inclination in the outer surface (Fig. #Ex5, item ϴ3) is inclined at an angle greater than the outer surface (Fig. #Ex5, item ϴ4) in an opposite direction with respect to the outer surface, or is upright to the mounting surface(paragraph 0008, 0030-0032, 0045).
The Examiner notes that Wang does not state explicitly that the inner surface of a portion in the sealing part provided with the inclination in the outer surface is inclined at an angle gentler than the outer surface in an opposite direction with respect to the outer surface, or is upright to the mounting surface. However, the Examiner takes the position, (as can be seen from Fig. #Ex5 above) that the angle created by ϴ3 is greater than the angle created by ϴ4. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to arrive at a final angle for best possible sealing of the connecting layers, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re A11er, 105 USPQ 233. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, with respect to claim #18, to modified the invention of Horning modified by Lam and Kapusta, with the invention of Wang, which teaches, a device wherein an inner surface of a portion in the sealing part provided with the inclination in the outer surface is inclined at an angle gentler than the outer surface in an opposite direction with respect to the outer surface, or is upright to the mounting surface, to incorporate a structural condition that would increase the percentage of continuous seal area, as taught by Wang.
Horning shows, with respect to claim #24, hermetic package device comprising; an electronic components that are mounted on the circuit board and are electrically connected to the terminals (paragraph 0023).
///
Claim #20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horning et al., (U.S. Pub. No, 2010/0084752), hereinafter referred to as "Horning" as modified by Lam et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0361180), hereinafter referred to as "Lam" and Wang et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2008/0230885), hereinafter referred to as "Wang" as shown in the rejection of claim #1 above and in further view of NIINO et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0334845), hereinafter referred to as "Niino".
Horning as modified by Lam and Wang, substantially shows the claimed invention as shown in the rejection of claim #1 above.
Horning as modified by Lam and Wang fail to show, with respect to claim #20, wherein an image sensing element for infrared light is used for the semiconductor circuit and an infrared transmission material is used for the lid wafer so as to function as an infrared sensor.
Niino teaches, with respect to claim #20 wherein an image sensing element (fig. 3b, item 6a) for infrared light (paragraph 0002) is used for the semiconductor circuit and an infrared transmission material is used for the lid wafer (fig. 3b, item 8) (paragraph 0039) so as to function as an infrared sensor (paragraph 0069).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, with respect to claim #20, to modified the invention of Horning as modified by Lam and Wang as modified by the invention of Niino, which teaches, wherein an image sensing element for infrared light is used for the semiconductor circuit and an infrared transmission material is used for the lid wafer so as to function as an infrared sensor , to incorporate a structural condition in order to improve protection and functionality of the electronic component, as taught by Niino.
////
Claim # 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horning et al., (U.S. Pub. No, 2010/0084752), hereinafter referred to as "Horning" as modified by Lam et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0361180), hereinafter referred to as "Lam" and Wang et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2008/0230885), hereinafter referred to as "Wang" and Kapusta et al., (U.S. Pat. No. 10,431,509), hereinafter referred to as "Kapusta" as shown the rejection of claim #2 above, and in further view of NIINO et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0334845), hereinafter referred to as "Niino".
Horning as modified by Lam, Wang and Kapusta, substantially shows the claimed invention as shown in the rejection of claim #2 above.
Horning as modified by Lam, Wang and Kapusta, fail to show, with respect to claim #21, wherein an image sensing element for infrared light is used for the semiconductor circuit and an infrared transmission material is used for the lid wafer so as to function as an infrared sensor.
Niino teaches, with respect to claim #21 wherein an image sensing element (fig. 3b, item 6a) for infrared light (paragraph 0002) is used for the semiconductor circuit and an infrared transmission material is used for the lid wafer (fig. 3b, item 8) (paragraph 0039) so as to function as an infrared sensor (paragraph 0069).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, with respect to claim #21, to modified the invention of Horning as modified by Lam, Wang and Kapusta as modified by the invention of Niino, which teaches, wherein an image sensing element for infrared light is used for the semiconductor circuit and an infrared transmission material is used for the lid wafer so as to function as an infrared sensor , to incorporate a structural condition in order to improve protection and functionality of the electronic component, as taught by Niino.
Objected Subject Matter
Claims #3-5, 11, 12, 19, 22, 25 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowable subject matter: While the prior art teaches a hermetic package device comprising: a device wafer in which a semiconductor circuit and terminals for electrical connection to an outside are provided on a mounting surface; a lid wafer arranged to be opposed to the mounting surface of the device wafer; and a sealing part that surrounds an installation region of the semiconductor circuit in the mounting surface, is interposed between the device wafer and the lid wafer, and forms a hermetically sealed space in a vacuum atmosphere to house the semiconductor circuit between the device wafer and the lid wafer, wherein a second installation region in the mounting surface in which the terminals are provided protrudes relative to the lid wafer, and an outer surface of a portion in the sealing part facing the second installation region is inclined such that a position thereon approaches the second installation region when getting closer from the device wafer toward the lid wafer, (Horning et al., 2021/0084752; Lam et al., 2019/0361180; Wang et al., 2008/023088; Kapusta et al., 10,431,509), it fails to teach either collectively or alone, with respect to claim #3, a hermetic package device wherein a dimension of the positional shift is 50 m or less. Furthermore, with respect to claim #5, the prior art fails to teach, either collectively or alone, a hermetic package device wherein, wherein lead-free solder is used for the sealing material layer and nickel is used for the first under-layer and the second under-layer.
EXAMINATION NOTE
The rejections above rely on the references for all the teachings expressed in the text of the references and/or one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably understood or implied from the texts of the references. To emphasize certain aspects of the prior art, only specific portions of the texts have been pointed out. Each reference as a whole should be reviewed in responding to the rejection, since other sections of the same reference and/or various combinations of the cited references may be relied on in future rejections in view of amendments.
Pertinent art
Pertinent art, not relied on in the present rejection, but considered to be related to the claimed filed invention, will be listed below.
Hogrefe et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0286051).
Angle shape to sealing component/material (paragraph 0031).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Andre’ Stevenson whose telephone number is (571) 272 1683 (Email Address, Andre.Stevenson@USPTO.GOV). The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 7:30 am to 4:30 pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Zandra Smith can be reached on 571-272 2429. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Andre’ Stevenson Sr./
Art Unit 2899
01/05/2026
/Brent A. Fairbanks/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2899