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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 12/08/2025 has been entered. Claim(s) 4, 12-20 and 24 are canceled. Claim(s) 1-3, 5-11, 21-23, and 25-34 remain pending and have been examined below.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 34 are objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation “the grind disc having a thickness in a range of about 10 millimeters or greater” should read as “the grind disc having a thickness in a range of about 10 millimeters to about 40 millimeters . Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 5-8, 10-11, 21-22, 30-32 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arahata et al (Japanese Patent Publication No. JP2007073796), alone, as evidenced by the machine translation of Arahata.
Regarding claims 1 (Currently Amended) and 34 (Previously Presented), Arahata discloses a semiconductor workpiece polishing system [Arahata, fig 2, 20], the system comprising:
a platen [Arahata, fig 2, 21];
a grind disc on the platen [Arahata, fig 2, 10], the grind disc having an abrasive surface containing abrasive material including a plurality of abrasive elements [Arahata, fig 1A, 10 includes abrasive material 12] configured to grind silicon carbide [Arahata, fig 2, 10 is capable of grinding silicon carbide, further per MPEP 2115 it is held that in apparatus claims, "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims". Where in the instant case the silicon carbide wafer is given the proper patentable weight as being the workpiece being worked upon], and the grind disc having a thickness in a range of about 2 millimeters to about 40 millimeters [Arahata, page 7, pp 0033, range of 0.5mm to 3mm];
a workpiece carrier [Arahata, fig 2, 22] operable to bring a semiconductor workpiece into contact with the grind disc to implement a grinding operation on the semiconductor workpiece [Arahata, fig 2, 22 brings W into contact with 10 and 22 is capable of bringing a silicon carbide workpiece], the grinding operation reducing a thickness of the silicon carbide semiconductor workpiece by polishing rate [Arahata, page 17, pp 0069, polishing rate of 2000A/min which is a polishing rate of 0.2 microns/min] without an abrasive slurry [Arahata, page 7, pp 0029, without a slurry];
wherein the plurality of abrasive elements [Arahata, fig 1A, 12] includes one or more of (i) diamond; (ii) ceramic; (iii) metal nitride; (iv) metal oxide, (v) metal carbide; (vi) metalloid nitride; (vii) metalloid oxide; (viii) metalloid carbide; (ix) carbon group nitride; (x) carbon group oxide; or (xi) carbon group carbide [Arahata, page 10, pp 0044, includes at least diamond].
Arahata may not explicitly disclose the grind disc having a thickness in a range of about 10 millimeters to about 40 millimeters (claims 1 and 34), and the grinding operation reducing a thickness of the silicon carbide semiconductor workpiece by at least about 1 micron.
Arahata discloses grind disc thickness needs to be optimized to increase the polishing rate [page 7, pp’s 0033-34]. As taught in page 7, pp’s 0033-0034, the density of the abrasives needs to be uniform such that thickness of the grind disc influences the uniformity of the density of the abrasives and is disclosed to be a result effective variable in that adjusting the thickness of the grind disc affects the uniformity of the density of the abrasive grains. Further, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the Arahata device to have thickness of the grind disc to be within the claimed range, as it involves only adjusting the dimension of a component disclosed to require adjustment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Arahata by making the thickness of the grind disc to be between about 10 millimeters or greater as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held in MPEP 2144.05(II)(A) that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation”. Further, applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range see original claim 4, where the range listed is outside of the currently claimed range. (see MPEP 2144.05(III)(A) and 716.02-716.02(g)).
Arahata further teaches that the polishing time of the wafer needs to be optimized to “shorten the time” for “high precision at a high rate” without forming scratches on the surface of the wafer [Arahata, page 7, pp 0029]. As taught the polishing depth (microns) is disclosed to be a result effective variable in that changing the amount of time polishing at the specified rate, increases the polishing depth (i.e. polishing rate at 0.2 microns/min with 5 minutes gives a polishing depth of 1 micron), which is a set requirement from the end user of the wafer. Further it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the device of Arahata to have a polishing depth at the specified rate, as it involves only adjusting the dimension (polishing time) disclosed to require adjustment. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Arahata by making the polishing depth be at least about 1 micron as required by the claim because it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation” [MPEP 2144.05(II)]. Further, applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range since the use of the term “may be” and listing of several different ranges per the applicant’s disclosure in pp [0031] (see MPEP 2144.05(III)(A) and 716.02-716.02(g)).
Regarding claim 2 (Original), Arahata as modified further discloses the semiconductor workpiece polishing system of claim 1, wherein the grind disc is on a receptacle on the platen, the receptacle configured to hold a polishing pad for the semiconductor workpiece polishing system [Arahata, fig 1B and page 10, pp 0045, 14 is double sided adhesive and is between 10 and 21].
Regarding claim 3 (Original), Takaashi as modified further discloses the semiconductor workpiece polishing system of claim 1, wherein the workpiece carrier is operable to bring the silicon carbide semiconductor workpiece into contact with the grind disc such that an entire surface of the silicon carbide semiconductor workpiece is in contact with the grind disc at the same time [Arahata, fig 2, 22 brings the entire surface of W into contact with 10].
Regarding claim 5 (Original), Arahata as modified further discloses the semiconductor workpiece polishing system of claim 1, wherein the grind disc comprises an abrasive containing material [Arahata, page 10, pp 0044, includes at least diamond].
Regarding claim 6 (Original), Arahata as modified further discloses the semiconductor workpiece polishing system of claim 1, wherein the grind disc comprises an additive [Arahata, page 7, pp 0033 made of a resin which is an additive].
Regarding claims 7 (Original) and 8 (Original), Arahata as modified further discloses the semiconductor workpiece polishing system of claim 6, wherein the additive is one or more of a lubricant, coagulant, chemical reactant [Arahata, page 7, pp 0033, resin is the product of a chemical reaction], oxidizing agent, or caustic compound (clm 7); wherein the additive is an actuatable additive [Arahata, page 7, pp 0033, resin can be actuated by physical combination, heat, or UV, or combinations thereof] (clm 8).
Regarding claims 10 (Original) and 11 (Previously Presented), Arahata as modified further discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the system comprises a coolant delivery system configured to deliver a coolant to a surface of the semiconductor workpiece or the grind disc [Arahata, fig 2, 23 can deliver water and page 12, pp 0050, preferably water is used] (clm 10); wherein the coolant delivery system comprises an additive delivery system configured to provide an additive to the coolant [Arahata, page 12, 0052, water can include alcohols or glycols] (clm 11).
Regarding claims 21 (Previously Presented) and 22 (Previously Presented), Arahata discloses the semiconductor workpiece polishing system of claim 1, wherein a first surface of the grind disc is exposed for grinding the silicon carbide semiconductor workpiece [Arahata, fig 1, the top surface of 10 and is capable of grinding the workpiece, where per MPEP 2115, the "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims.", where in the instant case, the silicon carbide workpiece does not impart patentability on the claim(s)].
However, Arahata as modified does not explicitly disclose the abrasive surface is at least about 75% (clm 21) or 95% (clm 22) of a surface area of the first surface of the grind disc as required by the claim.
Arahata discloses abrasive surface area of the first surface of the grind disc needs to be optimized to achieve a sufficient removal rate [Arahata, page 10, pp 0043]. As taught in pp’s 0042-0043, the abrasive surface area relative to the first surface of the grind disc is within a range of 10% to 50% such that abrasive surface area ratio to the first surface of the grind disc is disclosed to be a result effective variable in that changing the abrasive surface changes the removal rate of the grind disc. Further, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying Arahata device to have the abrasive surface area ratio be within the claimed range, as it involves only adjusting the dimension of a component disclosed to require adjustment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Arahata by making the abrasive surface area ratio to be between at least 95% as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held in MPEP 2144.05(II)(A) that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation”. Further, applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range since the use of the term “at least” and listing of several different ranges per the applicant’s pp [0044] (see MPEP 2144.05(III)(A) and 716.02-716.02(g)).
Regarding claims 30 (Previously Presented), 31 (Previously Presented), and 32 (Previously Presented), Arahata as modified discloses the semiconductor polishing system of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose the grinding operation reduces the thickness of the silicon carbide semiconductor workpiece by about 3 microns or greater (clm 30), or about 5 microns or greater (clm 31), or about 20 microns or greater (clm 32).
Arahata further teaches that the polishing time of the wafer needs to be optimized to “shorten the time” for “high precision at a high rate” without forming scratches on the surface of the wafer [Arahata, page 7, pp 0029]. As taught the polishing depth (microns) is disclosed to be a result effective variable in that changing the amount of time polishing at the specified rate, increases the polishing depth (i.e. polishing rate at 0.2 microns/min with 15 minutes gives a polishing depth of 3 microns, 25 min gives a polishing depth of 5 microns, and 100 min gives a polishing depth of 20 microns), which is a set requirement from the end user of the wafer. Further it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the device of Arahata to have a polishing depth at the specified rate, as it involves only adjusting the dimension (polishing time) disclosed to require adjustment. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Arahata by making the polishing depth be at least about 3, 5, or 20 microns as required by the claim because it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation” [MPEP 2144.05(II)]. Further, applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range since the use of the term “may be” and listing of several different ranges per the applicant’s pp [0031] (see MPEP 2144.05(III)(A) and 716.02-716.02(g)).
Claims 23 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arahata et al (Japanese Patent Publication No. JP2007073796) as evidenced by the machine translation of Arahata, as applied to claims 6 and 1, respectively, and in further view of Lugg et al (US Patent No. 10,556,316), hereinafter referred to as Arahata and Lugg, respectively.
Regarding claim 23 (Previously Presented), Arahata discloses the semiconductor workpiece polishing system of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose the grind disc has a diameter in a range of about 150 millimeters to about 820 millimeters.
Lugg teaches a semiconductor workpiece polishing system [Lugg, fig 1, 10], the system comprising: a grind disc on a rotating platen [Lugg, fig 1, 40 on 20 which rotates about axis A], the grind disc [Lugg, fig 1, 40] having an abrasive surface [Lugg, col 3, lines 2-25, 40 abrades the surface of a wafer]; wherein the grind disc has a diameter in a range of about 150 millimeters to about 820 millimeters [Lugg, col 19, lines 51-52 teaching a 38.1 cm diameter pad which is 381mm diameter which lies within the claimed range].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the grind disk of Arahata to have the size of the grind disk of Lugg because per MPEP 2143(I)(A) is has been held that the combination of old elements is obvious over the prior art. Where in the instant case to include the size of the grind disk as taught by Lugg in the system of Arahata, each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references. The only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the size of the grind disk as taught by Lugg in the system of Arahata because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, the elements being size of the grind disk. In the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination gave the predictable result of the polishing disk of Arahata would function the same exactly the same at a different as the current size.
Regarding claim 29 (Previously Presented), Arahata as modified discloses the semiconductor workpiece polishing system of claim 1, but may not explicitly disclose wherein the workpiece carrier is operable to bring a plurality of silicon carbide semiconductor workpieces into contact with the grind disc for batch processing.
Lugg teaches a semiconductor workpiece polishing system [Lugg, fig 1, 10], the system comprising: a grind disc on a rotating platen [Lugg, fig 1, 40 on 20 which rotates about axis A], the grind disc [Lugg, fig 1, 40] having an abrasive surface [Lugg, col 3, lines 2-25, 40 abrades the surface of a wafer]; wherein the workpiece carrier is operable to bring a plurality of silicon carbide semiconductor workpieces into contact with the grind disc for batch processing [Lugg, col 2, lines 46-49, the system is configured to process multiple workpieces such that fig 1, 10 is to process multiple 12’s].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate within the workpiece carrier of Takahashi with the ability of Lugg to have the workpiece carrier be operable for batch processing because per MPEP 2143(I)(A) it has been held that the combination of old elements is obvious over the prior art. Where in the instant case to include the ability to do batch processing as taught by Lugg in the system of the workpiece carrier of Arahata, each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references. The only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the ability to do batch processing as taught by Lugg in the system of the workpiece carrier of Arahata because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, the elements being the ability to process a plurality of wafers within the carrier head. In the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination gave the predictable result of the system of Arahata to be able to process a plurality of workpieces to improve throughout of the wafers.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arahata et al (Japanese Patent Publication No. JP2007073796) as evidenced by the machine translation of Arahata, as applied to claim 5, and in further view of Wang et al (US PGPUB No. 2009/0170409), hereinafter referred to as Arahata and Wang, respectively.
Regarding claim 25 (Previously Presented), Arahata discloses the semiconductor workpiece polishing system of claim 5, but does not explicitly disclose the abrasive containing material comprises a ceramic material or an unsintered metal oxide material.
Wang teaches a polishing pad [Wang, fig 1A, 110] comprising a plurality of abrasive particles [Wang, fig 1A, 104], wherein the abrasive particles contain ceramic particles [Wang, page 1, pp 0025].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the ceramic particles in the abrasive particles of the polishing pad of Wang to be within the abrasive particles of Arahata because these ceramic particles, along with other portions of the polishing pad help to affect the uniform distribution of the abrasive particles throughout the polishing pad [Wang, page 1, pp’s 0006 – 0007, summarized], where having a uniform distribution of particles makes uniform polishing, which is a known problem in chemical mechanical polishing systems.
Claims 26-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arahata et al (Japanese Patent Publication No. JP2007073796) as evidenced by the machine translation of Arahata , as applied to claim 6, and in further view of Shinozaki (US Patent No. 10,636,665), hereinafter referred to as Arahata and Shinozaki, respectively.
Regarding claims 26 (Previously Presented), 27 (Previously Presented), and 28 (Previously Presented), Arahata as modified discloses the semiconductor workpiece polishing system of claim 6, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the semiconductor workpiece polishing system further comprises a conditioning head, wherein the conditioning head is configured to provide the additive to the grind disc (clm 26); wherein the conditioning head is on a swing arm (clm 27); and wherein the conditioning head is configured to rotate about an axis (clm 28).
Shinozaki teaches a semiconductor workpiece polishing system [Shinozaki, fig 1], the system comprising:
a grind disc having an abrasive surface [Shinozaki, col 3, lines 35-44, polishing pad];
a workpiece carrier operable to bring a semiconductor workpiece into contact with the grind disc to implement a grinding operation [Shinozaki, fig 1, 31A];
wherein the wafer polishing system comprises a conditioning head [Shinozaki, fig 3, 33], wherein the conditioning head is configured to provide the additive to the grind disc [Shinozaki, col 2, lines 20-33 and lines 56-58] (clm 26),
wherein the conditioning head is on a swing arm [Shinozaki, fig 3, 51 and 52 provide a swing arm] (clm 27),
wherein the conditioning head is configured to rotate about an axis [Shinozaki, fig 3, 55 and col 10, lines 21-23, 55 rotates the conditioning disk] (clm 28).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the conditioning arm and head of Shinozaki with the polishing system of Arahata because having a conditioning arm and head makes it possible to reduce the maintenance frequency and enhances the ability of the removal of the polishing liquid and debris [Shinozaki, col 2, lines 1-6, summarized].
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arahata et al (Japanese Patent Publication No. JP2007073796) as evidenced by the machine translation of Arahata, as applied to claim 1, and in further view of Fletcher et al (US Patent No. 7,494,519), hereinafter referred to as Arahata and Fletcher, respectively.
Regarding claim 33 (Currently Amended), Arahata as modified discloses the semiconductor workpiece polishing system of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the platen is configured to rotate about the axis at a rotational speed of at least about 120 rpm.
Fletcher (US Patent No. 7,494,519) teaches a method of polishing comprising pressing an abrasive article in compact with a workpiece [Fletcher, col 4, lines 51-52], of a single sided lapping apparatus [Fletcher, col 13, lines 34-35] and the single sided lapping machine having a platen supporting the abrasive article and rotating at 180 rpm [Fletcher, col 13, lines 49-51].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to rotate the platen of Arahata at the rotating speed taught by Fletcher because per MPEP 2143(I)(A) it has been held that the combination of old elements is obvious over the prior art. Where in the instant case to include the rotation rate of at least 120 rpm as taught by Fletcher in the system of Arahata, each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references. The only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the rotation rate of the platen to be at least 120 rpm to that of 180 rpm as taught by Fletcher in the system of Arahata because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, the elements being adjusting the rotation rate of the platen to be 180 rpm. In the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination gave the predictable result of the platen and grinding disc to rotate at 180 rpm for grinding.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 is 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 a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 9 (Previously Presented), the prior art considered as a whole, alone or in combination, neither anticipates nor renders obvious “wherein the system comprises an actuator operable to activate the actuatable additive” together in combination with the rest of the limitations in the independent claim. Where the prior art teaches that the additive within the grinding disc is resin (see clm 6) and resin can be actuated by a UV lamp or heat gun, however the prior art does not teach the use of an actuator to control the additive within the grind disc.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/08/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant has argued on page 8 that because the newly claimed range of greater than 10 millimeters is in conditions for allowance because A) the prior art Arahata teaches away from the claimed range and further B) that the thickness of the resin sheet is not a result-effective variable. Respectfully the Office disagrees for the following reasons: A) per MPEP 2144.05(III)(B) it was held that the prior art did not teach away, just merely showed a preference for a certain range. Where in the instant case, the prior art Arahata does not explicitly teach that the range cannot be 10mm or more, but merely shows a preference for a thickness range, such that the conclusion being that Arahata does not teach away from this range and that one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to find it through routine-optimization as shown in the rejection. B) per MPEP 2144.05(III)(C) it has been held that “if the prior art does recognize that the variable affects the relevant property or result, then the variable is result-effective”. Where in the instant case, the Office action has laid out in detail on how the variable of thickness in the prior art affects the uniformity of the density of the abrasives, and therefore shows a result-effective variable. Under these conclusions, the applicant would then only be left to argue that the range is critical per MPEP 2144.05(III)(A) that the range of 10mm or greater would have to show unexpected results (see MPEP 716.02 -716.02(g) for a discussion on criticality and unexpected results).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Singh et al (US PGPUB No. 2022/0396715) teaches in pp [0028] a thickness of the grinding pad is within a range of 0.1mm to about 25mm. Goers et al (US Patent No. 10,259,102) teaches in col 17, lines 46-63 the thickness of the disc is between about 0.5mm to about 25cm.
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 ROBERT NEIBAUR whose telephone number is (571)270-7979. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 8:00 am - 5:00 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, David Posigian can be reached at 313-446-6546. 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.
/ROBERT F NEIBAUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights