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 .
Status of Claims
Applicant cancelled original Claims 1-13 and added new Claims 14-29 are pending n the application and are examined on merits herein.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore,
the “functional material”.. “comprising a main extension plane running parallel to a main extension plane of the source carrier”, as Claim 16 recites, where Claim 16 depends on Claim 14 reciting: “the source carrier comprises cavities, each cavity being filled with the functional material”, - must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s).
“the functional material provides adhesion between the chip and a cover body”, as Claim 24 recites, wherein Claim 24 depends on Claim 23, which teaches that “the functional material covers the chip in places”.
“the functional material covers the chip in places and the functional material provides adhesion between the chip and a cover body”, as Claim 28 recites.
No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show number 100 as described in paragraph 0046 of the specification of the published application US 2025/0006543. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: Claim 16 has a limitation: “the functional material is present as layer or as layer sequency comprising a main extension plane” and is dependent on Claim 14 that recites: “the source carrier comprises cavities, each cavity being filed with the functional material”. However, the specification does not support an embodiment comprised two cited limitations, since paragraphs 0028 and 0029 of the published application teach that there are different dispositions of a functional material – it can be disposed either as a layer or a layer sequence comprising a main extension plane – when the source carrier is formed as a flat disk (paragraph 0028) - or a functional material can be disposed in cavities, when the source carrier comprises cavities (paragraph 0029) – the specification does not teach that in the source carrier comprising cavities filled with portions of functional material – a functional material is present as a layer, etc.
The specification is objected to, since a disposition of the functional material between the chip and the cover body and also on the chip, as paragraph 0038 states and as Claims 24 and 28 claim - is unclear. Appropriate clarification is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 16 recites: “is present as layer or as layer sequence”. Examiner suggests changing the recitation to: “is present as a layer or as a layer sequence”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 14-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In re Claim 14: Claim 14 has following limitations: “providing a source carrier with a functional material” (lines 3) and - (lines 10-11): “each cavity being filled with the functional material”. The combination of recitations is unclear since it contradicts to paragraphs 0047 and 0059 of the published application, teaching that in the case when a functional material is applied on a carrier (paragraph 0047) that comprises cavities - each cavity is filled with only a part of the functional material (paragraph 0059).In addition, it is unclear how each cavity can be filled with entire functional material when only a part of each is attached to the component, as lines 6-7 of the claim recite.
In accordance with MPEP 2173.03 Correspondence Between Specification and Claims [R-07.2022] inconsistence of the claim with the specification makes the claim indefinite, even though the terms of a claim may appear to be definite: see In re Cohn 438 F.2d 989, 169 USPQ 95 (CCPA 1971).
Appropriate correction is required to clarify the claim language.
For this Office Action, in view of the such earlier cited limitations of Claim 14 as:
“a functional material on a lower face of the source carrier” (lines 3-4), “detaching a part of the functional material” (line 5), “attached the detached part of the functional material” (line 7), the cited limitation of lines 10-11 was interpreted as: “each cavity being filled with a part of the functional material”.
In re Claim 16: Claim 16 recites: “the functional material is present as layer or as layer sequency comprising a main extension plane”. The recitation is unclear, since Claim 16 depends on Claim 14, which states that the functional material is disposed in cavities, while paragraphs 0028 and 0029 of the published application teach that there are different dispositions of a functional material – it can be disposed either as a layer or a layer sequency comprising a main extension plane – when the source carrier is formed as a flat disk (paragraph 0028) - or a functional material can be disposed in cavities, when the source carrier comprises cavities (paragraph 0029) – the specification does not teach that in the source material comprising cavities – a functional material is present as a layer or as a layer sequence comprising a main extension plane.
In accordance with MPEP 2173.03 Correspondence Between Specification and Claims [R-07.2022] inconsistence of the claim with the specification makes the claim indefinite, even though the terms of a claim may appear to be definite: see In re Cohn 438 F.2d 989, 169 USPQ 95 (CCPA 1971).
Appropriate correction is required to clarify the claim language.
For this Office Action, the entire Claim 16 was interpreted as: “The method according to Claim 14”.
In re Claim 17: Claim 17 recites: “regions between the cavities”. The recitation is unclear with respect to which cavities of multiple cavities cited by Claim 14 are recited with article “the” in Claim 17.
Appropriate correction is required to clarify the claim language.
For this Office Action, the cited limitation was interpreted as: “regions between adjacent cavities”,
In re Claim 20: Claim 20 recites: “the functional material covers the potting in places”. The recitation is unclear, since, based on Claim 143 (on which Claim 20 depends), not the entire functional material, but only a part of the functional material is attached to the component.
Appropriate correction is required to clarify the claim language.
For this Office Action, the cited limitation was interpreted as: “the attached part of the functional material covers the potting in places”.
In re Claim 21: Claim 21 recites: “the functional material covers the housing in places”. The recitation is unclear for a similar reason that is disclosed for Claim 20, and for this Office Action, the cited recitation was interpreted as: “the attached part of the functional material covers the housing in places”.
In re Claim 22: Claim 22 recites: “the functional material covers the at least one inclined side face in places”. The recitation is unclear for a similar reason that is disclosed for Claim 20, and for this Office Action, the cited recitation was interpreted as: “the attached part of the functional material covers the at least one inclined side face in places”.
In re Claim 23: Claim 23 has a same issue as Claim 20, and for this Office Action, a corresponding portion of a limitation was interpreted in a similar way.
In re Claim 24: Claim 24 has a same issue as Claim 20, and for this Office Action, a corresponding portion of a limitation was interpreted in a similar way.
In re Claims 15, 18-19, and 25: Claims 15, 18-19, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) due to dependency on Claim 20.
In re Claim 26: Independent Claim 26 has a recitation: “the functional material covers the potting in places”. The recitation is unclear for the same reason as Claim 20, and for this Office Action, the recitation was interpreted as: “the attached part of the functional material covers the potting in places”.
In re Claim 27: Claim 27 recites: “the source carrier comprises cavities which are each filled with the functional material”. The recitation is unclear for a same reason that is presented for Claim 14, and for this Office Action, it was interpreted as:
“the source carrier comprises cavities which are each filled with a part of the functional material”.
In re Claims 28 and 29: Each Claim 28 and 29 has a same issue as Claim 20, and for this Office Action, a corresponding limitation was interpreted in a similar way.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
As far as the claims are understood, Claims 14, 16, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Van Den Brand et al. (US 2022/0216087).
In re Claim 14, Van Den Brand teaches a method for producing an optoelectronic assembly, the method comprising:
providing (Fig. 7A) at least one component 40e (such as electrodes for a micro-LEDs 11, paragraphs 0057, 0069) of the (to be created) optoelectronic assembly;
providing (Fig. 7A) a source carrier 30 (paragraph 0071) with a functional material – a functional material is a plurality of micro-LEDs 11 (paragraphs 0057, 0073) - on a lower face of the source carrier 30 facing the at least one component 40e;
detaching (Fig. 7B, paragraph 0072) a part of the functional material – as a single micro-LED 11 - by irradiation via a laser beam L (paragraphs 0020, 0072) through an upper face of the source carrier 30 facing away from the at least one component 40e;
attaching (Fig. 7C, paragraphs 0072-0074) the detached part 11 of the functional material to a side of the at least one component 40e facing the source carrier 30; and completing the optoelectronic assembly (if only one component 11 is required, wherein
the source carrier 30 comprises cavities 31 (Figs. 7A-7C, paragraph 0074; the number 31 is shown for cavities/recesses in Figs. 8, paragraph 0076), each cavity being filled with the functional material.
In re Claim 16, Van Den Brand teaches the method according to Claim 14, wherein the functional material is present as layer or as layer sequence comprising a main extension plane running parallel to a main extension plane of the source carrier 9e.g., as interpreted).
In re Claim 17, Van Den Brand teaches the method according to Claim 14, wherein (Figs. 7A-7B) regions between the cavities 31 (see about the number in - In re Claim 14) on the lower face of the source carrier 30 facing the at least one component 46 are free of the functional material.
In re Claim 19, Van Den Brand teaches the method according to Claim 14, wherein (Figs. 7A-7B) the functional material 11 and the at least one component 40e are arranged at a distance between at least 1 um and at most 1500 µm, inclusive, from each other – Van Den Brand teaches a distance in the range from 20 µm to 500 µm (paragraph 0038, for components 11 with a size of 350 µm). Note that in accordance with MPEP 2131.03 Anticipation of Ranges [R-01.2024] – a statement on the anticipation is proper - see. I. A SPECIFIC EXAMPLE IN THE PRIOR ART WHICH IS WITHIN A CLAIMED RANGE ANTICIPATES THE RANGE.
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.
As far as the claims are understood, Claims 15 and 18 are rejected under 35 .S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Den Brand.
In re Claim 15, Van Den Brand teaches the method according to Claim 14 as cited above, but, for the embodiment of Figs. 7, Van Den Brand does not teach a separating material, which is irradiated by the laser beam, is arranged between the source carrier and the functional material.
However, for multiple other embodiments, including the embodiment of Figs. 8A-8C, Van Den Brand teaches a separating material 30a (paragraph 0076) which is irradiated by the laser beam (paragraph 0077) and is arranged between the source varier 30 and the functional material 11.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing the application to modify the method of the embodiment of Figs. 7 and to provide a separating material between the source carrier and the functional material, when it is desirable to ensure a faster and/or a more reliable release of the functional material.
In re Claim 18, Van Den Brand teaches the method according to Claim 17 as cited above, but does not teach for the embodiment of Figs. 7 that the functional material is in direct contact with the at least one component during detaching.
However, for the embodiment of Figs. 6 (paragraphs 0068-0069), Van Den Brand teaches that the functional material 11 is in direct contact with the at least one component 40e during detaching (Fig. 6B).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing the application to modify the method of the embodiment of Figs. 7 by disposing the functional material 11 in direct contact with the at least one component during the detaching, if such dispositions of elements ensure a better correlation between a desired place for the functional material and its real disposition after attaching.
As far as the claims are understood, Claims 14, 23, and 25 are rejected under 35 .S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wagner (US 2013/0292724) in view of Van Den Brand.
In re Claim 14, Wagner teaches a method for producing an optoelectronic assembly, the method comprising:
providing (Fig. 1A) at least one component 2 (as an optoelectronic semiconductor chip, paragraph 0049) of the (to be created) optoelectronic assembly;
providing (Fig. 1A) a source carrier 4 (paragraph 0049) with a functional material 3 (being a conversion material, paragraph 0049) on a lower face of the source carrier 304 facing the at least one component 2;
detaching (Fig. 1C, paragraph 0051) a part of the functional material 3 by irradiation via a laser beam 6 (paragraphs 0050) through an upper face of the source carrier 4 acing away from the at least one component 2;
attaching (Fig. 1D, paragraph 0051) the detached part of the functional material 3 to a side of the at least one component 2 facing the source carrier 4; and completing the optoelectronic assembly (if only one component 2 shall be covered with the conversion material).
Wagner does not teach that the source carrier comprises cavities, each cavity being filled with the functional material.
Van Den Brand teaches a method for providing an optoelectronic assembly, in which: the source carrier 30 comprises cavities 31 (Figs. 7A-7C, paragraph 0074; the number 31 is shown for cavities/recesses in Figs. 8, paragraph 0076), each cavity being filled with the functional material 11 (paragraph 0024).
Wagner and Van Den Brand teach analogous arts directed to method for providing an optoelectronic assembly, having a step of a laser ablation, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing the application would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the Wagner method in view of the Van Den Brand method, since they are from the same field of endeavor, and the Van Den Brand method created successfully operated optoelectronic assemblies.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing the application to modify the Wagner device by substituting its source carrier with a source carrier comprising cavities, the functional material being disposed in the cavities (per Van Den Brand), if such source carrier and functional material shapes/dispositions are desired: See MPEP 2144.05 and MPEP 2143 on a Conclusion of Obviousness: KSR Rational (B): Simple Substitution of One Known Element for Another to Obtain Predictable Results.
In re Claim 23, Wagner/Van Den Brand teaches the method according to Claim 14 as cited above, wherein (Wagner, Figs. 1A-1G) the at least one component comprises a chip 2 (paragraph 0049), and wherein the functional material 3 covers the chip 2 in places.
In re Claim 25, Wagner/Van Den Brand teaches the method according to Claim 14 as cited above.
Wagner further teaches (Figs. 1) that the functional material 3 comprises at least one of the following materials: a radiation reflecting material, a radiation absorbing material, a radiation scattering material, a radiation refracting material, a luminescence conversion material, a sealing material, or an adhesive – Wagner teaches a luminescence conversion material (paragraph 0049).
As far as the claims are understood, Claims 20-22 are rejected under 35 .S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wagner/Van Den Brand. In view of Schardt et al. (US 2007/0001182).
In re Claim 20, Wagner/Van Den Brand teaches the method according to Claim 14 as cited above, wherein the at least one component comprises a chip (being a micro-LED) covered with a functional material, but does not teach that the at least one component comprises a potting surrounding a chip, and wherein the functional material covers the potting in places.
Schardt teaches a component (Fig. 6) comprising a potting 213 (paragraph 0047) surrounding a chip 212 (being LED 212, paragraph 0047), wherein a functional material 221 (such as a phosphor, paragraph 0049) covers the potting 213 in places.
Wagner/Van Den Brand and Schardt teach analogous arts directed to an optoelectronic component covered with a functional layer, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing the application would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the Wagner/Van Den Brand method in view of the Schardt teaching, since they are from the same field of endeavor, and Schardt created a successfully operated device.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing the application to modify the Wagner/Van Den Brandt method by substituting the at least one component comprised a single chip with a component comprised a chip surrounded by a potting material, while disposing the functional layer on the potting material, wherein it is desirable to extend a field of applicability of the method for creating the optoelectronic assemblies comprised chips surrounded by the potting materials.
In re Claim 21, Wagner/Van Den Brandt teaches the method according to Claim 14 as cited above, including the component comprised a LED and the functional material being a conversion material covering the component, but does not teach that the at least one component comprises a housing with a housing cavity into which a chip is inserted, and wherein the functional material covers the housing in places.
Schardt teaches (Fig. 6, paragraphs 0047-0049) a component comprised a housing 211 with a housing cavity into which a chip 212 is inserted, wherein a functional material 221 covers the housing 211 in places.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing the application to modify the Wagner/Van Den Brandt method by substituting the at least one component comprised a single chip with a component comprised a housing with a cavity into which a chip is inserted, while disposing the functional layer to cover the housing at least in places (per Schardt), wherein it is desirable to extend a field of applicability of the method for creating the optoelectronic assemblies comprised chips disposed in the housing covered with a functional material.
In re Claim 22, Wagner/Van Den Brandt/Schardt teaches the method according to Claim 21 as cited above, including the component comprised the housing with a cavity into which the chip (the LED) is inserted and where the functional material covers the housing in places.
Wagner/Van Den Brandt/Schardt further teaches (Schardt, Fig. 6, paragraphs 0047-0049) that the housing cavity is confined by at least one inclined side face, wherein the functional material 221 covers at least one inclined side face in places – such as along a perimeter of the cavity.
As far as the claims are understood, Claim 26 is rejected under 35 .S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wagner in view of Schardt.
In re Claim 26, Wagner teaches a method for producing an optoelectronic assembly, the method comprising:
providing (Fig. 1A) at least one component 2 (as an optoelectronic semiconductor chip, paragraph 0049) of the (to be created) optoelectronic assembly;
providing (Fig. 1A) a source carrier 4 (paragraph 0049) with a functional material 3 (being a conversion material, paragraph 0049) on a lower face of the source carrier 304 facing the at least one component 2;
detaching (Fig. 1C, paragraph 0051) a part of the functional material 3 by irradiation via a laser beam 6 (paragraphs 0050) through an upper face of the source carrier 4 acing away from the at least one component 2;
attaching (Fig. 1D, paragraph 0051) the detached part of the functional material 3 to a side of the at least one component 2 facing the source carrier 4; and completing the optoelectronic assembly (if only one component 2 shall be covered with the conversion material).
Wagner does not teach that the at least one component comprises a potting surrounding a chip, and that the functional material covers the potting in places.
Schardt teaches a component (Fig. 6) comprising a potting 213 (paragraph 0047) surrounding a chip 212 (being LED 212, paragraph 0047), wherein a functional material 221 (such as a phosphor, paragraph 0049) covers the potting 213 in places.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing the application to modify the Wagner method by substituting the at least one component comprised a single chip with a component comprised a chip surrounded by a potting material, while disposing the functional layer on the potting material, wherein it is desirable to extend a field of applicability of the method for creating the optoelectronic assemblies comprised chips surrounded by the potting materials.
As far as the claims are understood, Claim 27 is rejected under 35 .S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wagner/Schardt in view of Van Den Brand.
In re Claim 27, Wagner/Schardt teaches the method according to Claim 26 as cited above, but does not teach that the source carrier comprises cavities which are each filled with the functional material.
Van Den Brand teaches a method for providing an optoelectronic assembly, in which: the source carrier 30 comprises cavities 31 (Figs. 7A-7C, paragraph 0074; the number 31 is shown for cavities/recesses in Figs. 8, paragraph 0076), each cavity being filled with the functional material 11 (paragraph 0024).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing the application to modify the Wagner device by substituting its source carrier with a source carrier comprising cavities, the functional material being disposed in the cavities (per Van Den Brand), if such source carrier and functional material shapes/dispositions are desired: See MPEP 2144.05 and MPEP 2143 on a Conclusion of Obviousness: KSR Rational (B): Simple Substitution of One Known Element for Another to Obtain Predictable Results.
Allowable Subject Matter
As far as claims are understood, Claims 24 and 28 contain allowable subject matter, while Claim 29 depends on Claim 28.
Reason for Indicating Allowable Subject Matter
Re Claim 24: The prior arts of record, alone or in combination, fail(s) to anticipate or render obvious such limitation of the claim, as interpreted, as: “the functional material provides adhesion between the chip and a cover body”, in combination with such limitation of Claim 23 (on which Claim 24 depends) as: “the functional material covers the chip in places” and in combination with all limitations of Claim 14 (as interpreted), on which Claim 24 depends as well.
Re Claim 28: The prior arts of record, alone or in combination, fail(s) to anticipate or render obvious such limitation of Claim 28, as interpreted as: “the functional material covers the chip in places and the functional material provides adhesion between the chip and a cover body”, in combination with other limitations of the claim.
The prior arts of record, in addition to the prior arts cited by the current Office Action, also include: Harada et al. (US 20070267643, which can be used for many claims instead of Schardt) and various applications incorporating a step of laser ablation in manufacturing an optoelectronic assembly, such as Li et al. (US 2018/0333945), Muzino et al. (US 2010/0258543), Che (US 10,096,740), Hirao et al. (US 2009/0014748).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to GALINA G YUSHINA whose telephone number is 571-270-7440. The Examiner can normally be reached between 8 AM - 7 PM Pacific Time (Flexible).
Examiner interviews are available. 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, Lynne Gurley can be reached on 571-272-1670.
The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300; a fax phone number of Galina Yushina is 571-270-8440.
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 visit 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.
/GALINA G YUSHINA/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2811, TC 2800,
United States Patent and Trademark Office
E-mail: galina.yushina@USPTO.gov
Phone: 571-270-7440
Date: 03/17/26