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 Arguments
This Office Action is in response to the amended application filed on December 26, 2025. The Remarks of December 26, 2025 have been fully considered and are addressed as follows.
The Remarks regarding the objections to the Claims are considered and the respective amendments are accepted. There are no further objections to the Claims.
The Remarks regarding the 103 rejection of claim 1 are considered. The applicant’s amendments to the claim overcome the 103 rejection of claim 1 and its dependent claims. The 103 rejections of claims 1-2 and 4-20 are subsequently withdrawn.
The applicant’s amendments to claim 1 necessitate new grounds of rejection. Due to the new grounds of rejection the applicant’s arguments regarding the cited prior art failing to teach the limitations of the amended claims are moot.
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 1-2, 4-5, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grant et al. (US 7202826 B2, hereinafter Grant) in view of Liversidge et al. (WO 2022123056 A1, hereinafter Liversidge).
Regarding claim 1, Grant (Fig. 1; col. 4, lines 27-45) discloses an antenna system (10), comprising:
a main ground element (20/22 – regarding the main ground element, see col. 4, lines 38-41);
a first antenna element (30) having a first feeding point (74); and
a second antenna element (40) having a second feeding point (76), wherein the second antenna element is coupled to the main ground element.
Grant does not teach a floating ground element adjacent to the main ground element, wherein the floating ground element is separated from the main ground element, and wherein the main ground element and the floating ground element are disposed on a same plane. Further, Grant does not teach the limitation wherein the first antenna element is coupled to the floating ground element.
Liversidge (Figs. 4B-4C; p. 14, lines 21-32) teaches a floating ground element (14 – Fig. 4B) adjacent to the main ground element (12 – Fig. 4B), wherein the floating ground element is separated from the main ground element (see Fig. 4C – separation is achieved by the ring (17)), wherein the main ground element and the floating ground element are disposed on a same plane. Liversidge further teaches an antenna element (Dipole – Fig. 4B) is coupled to the floating ground element (see Fig. 4B – coupling between the antenna element and the floating ground element is achieved by the Coaxial Feed Cable).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Grant to add a floating ground element adjacent to the main ground element, wherein the floating ground element is separated from the main ground element, wherein the main ground element and the floating ground element are disposed on a same plane, and wherein the first antenna element is coupled to the floating ground element as taught by Liversidge. This modification would result in the antenna system having a first antenna element with independent control of high band impedance matching and CMR (Common Mode Resonance) filtering at the low band (see Liversidge, p. 15, lines 35-37 and p. 16, lines 1-3).
Regarding claim 2, the modified Grant teaches the antenna system of claim 1 as addressed above.
The modified Grant does not explicitly teach the limitation, wherein the floating ground element is surrounded by the main ground element, and a partition gap is formed between the floating ground element and the main ground element.
Liversidge (Figs. 4B-4C; p. 15, lines 4-7) teaches a floating ground element (14 – Fig. 4B) is surrounded by the main ground element (12 – Fig. 4B), and a partition gap (17 – Fig. 4C; see p. 15, lines 4-7) is formed between the floating ground element and the main ground element.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Grant so that the floating ground element is surrounded by the main ground element, and a partition gap is formed between the floating ground element and the main ground element as taught by Liversidge. This modification would result in the antenna system having a first antenna element with independent control of high band impedance matching and CMR (Common Mode Resonance) filtering at the low band (see Liversidge, p. 15, lines 35-37 and p. 16, lines 1-3).
Regarding claim 4, the modified Grant teaches the antenna system of claim 1 as addressed above.
Grant (col. 5, lines 23-27) further teaches the first antenna element (30) supports a vehicle communication and covers a first frequency band.
Regarding claim 5, the modified Grant teaches the antenna system of claim 4 as addressed above.
The modified Grant does not explicitly teach the first frequency band is between 5850MHz and 5925MHz.
However, Grant (col. 5, lines 42-53) teaches that the first antenna element (30) can cover various frequency bands. Furthermore, it is well-known in the art that by changing the antenna electrical length it can cover a specific frequency band of operation.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Grant, so that the first frequency band is between 5850MHz and 5925MHz. This modification would provide an antenna system operating in the desired first frequency band. Furthermore, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 16, the modified Grant teaches the antenna system of claim 1 as addressed above.
Grant (Fig. 1) further teaches the second antenna element (40) is a planar inverted F antenna.
Regarding claim 18, the modified Grant teaches the antenna system of claim 1 as addressed above.
The modified Grant does not explicitly teach a distance between the second antenna element and the first antenna element is between 40mm and 60mm.
However, the Specification ([0063], lines 26-30) discloses: “A specific distant DS between the first antenna element 300 and the second antenna element 600 can be between 40 mm and 60 mm. The above dimension ranges are obtained based on multiple experimental results, which help to optimize the omnidirectionality, operational bandwidth, and impedance matching of the antenna system 100.” Furthermore, Grant (col. 7, lines4-18) teaches that the first antenna element (30) and the second antenna element (40) are positioned so that the mutual coupling between the two antenna elements is effectively reduced. It is well-known in the art that the mutual coupling between the two antenna elements can be changed by adjusting the separation between these antenna elements.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Grant, so that a distance between the second antenna element and the first antenna element is between 40mm and 60mm. This modification would provide antenna system with the desired performance – e.g., isolation between the antenna elements as taught by Grant. Furthermore, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claims 6-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modified Grant as applied to claim 1 in view of Sharma et al. (“A Meandered Rectangular Monopole Antenna for Quad-Band Applications”, 2015 IEEE International Microwave and RF Conference, hereinafter Sharma).
Regarding claim 6, the modified Grant teaches the antenna of claim 1 as addressed above.
The modified Grant does not teach the limitation wherein the first antenna element is a monopole antenna.
Sharma (Fig. 4) teaches a monopole antenna element.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Grant by replacing the first antenna element in Grant with the antenna element of Sharma. This modification would result in an antenna system having a quad-band monopole antenna covering four operating frequency bands (see Sharma, Abstract) as a first antenna element.
Regarding claim 7, the modified Grant teaches the antenna system of claim 4 as addressed above.
The modified Grant does not explicitly teach the limitation wherein the first antenna element comprises:
a first radiation portion coupled to the first feeding point;
a second radiation portion; and
a third radiation portion, wherein the third radiation portion is coupled to the first radiation portion through the second radiation portion.
Sharma (Fig. 4) teaches an antenna element comprising:
a first radiation portion coupled to a feeding point;
a second radiation portion; and
PNG
media_image1.png
592
800
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a third radiation portion, wherein the third radiation portion is coupled to the first radiation portion through the second radiation portion (regarding the feeding point, the first radiation portion, the second radiation portion, and the third radiation portion, see annotated Fig. 4 in Sharma below).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Grant by replacing the first antenna element in Grant with the antenna element of Sharma, so that the first antenna element comprises: a first radiation portion coupled to the first feeding point; a second radiation portion; and a third radiation portion, wherein the third radiation portion is coupled to the first radiation portion through the second radiation portion. This modification would result in an antenna system having a quad-band monopole antenna covering four operating frequency bands (see Sharma, Abstract) as a first antenna element.
Regarding claim 8, the modified Grant teaches the antenna system of claim 7 as addressed above.
The modified Grant does not explicitly teach the limitation wherein the first radiation portion substantially has a wide stripe shape.
Sharma (Fig. 4) teaches the first radiation portion substantially has a wide stripe shape (regarding the first radiation portion, see annotated Fig. 4 in Sharma above).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Grant, so that the first radiation portion substantially has a wide stripe shape as taught by Sharma. This modification would result in an antenna system having a quad-band monopole antenna covering four operating frequency bands (see Sharma, Abstract) as a first antenna element.
Regarding claim 9, the modified Grant teaches the antenna system of claim 7 as addressed above.
The modified Grant does not explicitly teach the limitation wherein a length of the first radiation portion is approximately equal to 0.25 times the wavelength of the first frequency band.
However, the Specification ([0063], lines 28-30) discloses: “The above dimension ranges are obtained based on multiple experimental results, which help to optimize the omnidirectionality, operational bandwidth, and impedance matching of the antenna system 100.” Furthermore, it is well-known in the art that the length of an antenna element and, thus, the lengths of portions of the antenna element are proportional to the wavelength of radiation corresponding to the frequency of operation.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Grant, so that a length of the first radiation portion is approximately equal to 0.25 times the wavelength of the first frequency band. This modification would provide antenna system with the desired performance – e.g., achieving good antenna return loss (i.e., impedance matching) for the desired frequency band(s) of operation (see Sharma, Fig. 8). Furthermore, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCP A 1980).
Regarding claim 10, the modified Grant teaches the antenna system of claim 7 as addressed above.
The modified Grant does not explicitly teach the limitation wherein the second radiation portion substantially has a meandering shape.
Sharma (Fig. 4) teaches the second radiation portion substantially has a meandering shape (regarding the second radiation portion, see annotated Fig. 4 in Sharma above).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Grant, so that the second radiation portion substantially has a meandering shape as taught by Sharma. This modification would result in an antenna system having a quad-band monopole antenna covering four operating frequency bands (see Sharma, Abstract) as a first antenna element.
Regarding claim 11, the modified Grant teaches the antenna system of claim 7 as addressed above.
The modified Grant does not explicitly teach the limitation wherein a length of the second radiation portion is approximately equal to 0.5 times the wavelength of the first frequency band.
However, the Specification ([0063], lines 28-30) discloses: “The above dimension ranges are obtained based on multiple experimental results, which help to optimize the omnidirectionality, operational bandwidth, and impedance matching of the antenna system 100.” Furthermore, it is well-known in the art that the length of an antenna element and, thus, the lengths of portions of the antenna element are proportional to the wavelength of radiation corresponding to the frequency of operation.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Grant, so that a length of the second radiation portion is approximately equal to 0.5 times the wavelength of the first frequency band. This modification would provide antenna system with the desired performance – e.g., achieving good antenna return loss (i.e., impedance matching) for the desired frequency band(s) of operation (see Sharma, Fig. 8). Furthermore, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCP A 1980).
Regarding claim 12, the modified Grant teaches the antenna system of claim 7 as addressed above.
The modified Grant does not explicitly teach the limitation wherein the third radiation portion substantially has a narrow stripe shape.
Sharma (Fig. 4) teaches the third radiation portion substantially has a narrow stripe shape (regarding the third radiation portion, see annotated Fig. 4 in Sharma above).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Grant, so that the third radiation portion substantially has a narrow stripe shape as taught by Sharma. This modification would result in an antenna system having a quad-band monopole antenna covering four operating frequency bands (see Sharma, Abstract) as a first antenna element.
Regarding claim 13, the modified Grant teaches the antenna system of claim 7 as addressed above.
The modified Grant does not explicitly teach the limitation wherein a length of the third radiation portion is approximately equal to 0.5 times the wavelength of the first frequency band.
However, the Specification ([0063], lines 28-30) discloses: “The above dimension ranges are obtained based on multiple experimental results, which help to optimize the omnidirectionality, operational bandwidth, and impedance matching of the antenna system 100.” Furthermore, it is well-known in the art that the length of an antenna element and, thus, the lengths of portions of the antenna element are proportional to the wavelength of radiation corresponding to the frequency of operation.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Grant, so that a length of the third radiation portion is approximately equal to 0.5 times the wavelength of the first frequency band. This modification would provide antenna system with the desired performance – e.g., achieving good antenna return loss (i.e., impedance matching) for the desired frequency band(s) of operation (see Sharma, Fig. 8). Furthermore, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCP A 1980).
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modified Grant as applied to claim 1 in view of Nella et al. (“A Survey on Microstrip Antennas for Portable Wireless Communication System Applications”, 2017 International Conference on Advances in Computing, Communications and Informatics, 13-16 Sept 2017, hereinafter Nella).
Regarding claim 14, the modified Grant teaches the antenna system of claim 1 as addressed above.
Grant (col. 6, lines 55-60) further teaches the second antenna element (40) supports a mobile communication and covers a second frequency band.
The modified Grant does not teach the limitation wherein the second antenna element covers a second frequency band, a third frequency band, and a fourth frequency band.
Nella (Figs. 8-9; p. 2158, paragraph after Fig. 8) teaches an antenna element that covers three frequency bands.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Grant by substituting the second antenna element in Grant with the antenna element of Nella. This modification would provide an antenna system wherein the second antenna element covers a second frequency band, a third frequency band, and a fourth frequency band, and, thus, allowing the antenna system to operate in four frequency bands, respectively.
Regarding claim 15, the modified Grant teaches the antenna system of claim 14 as addressed above.
The modified Grant does not explicitly teach the limitation wherein the second frequency band is between 617MHz and 960MHz, the third frequency band is between 1710MHz and 2690MHz, and the fourth frequency band is between 3300MHz and 5925MHz.
However, Grant (col. 6, lines 66-67 and col. 7, lines 1-3) teaches that the second antenna element (40) can cover various frequency bands. Furthermore, it is well-known in the art that by changing the antenna electrical length it can cover a specific frequency band of operation.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Grant, so that the second frequency band is between 617MHz and 960MHz. This modification would provide an antenna system operating in the desired second frequency band. Furthermore, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
The modified Grant does not teach the limitation wherein the third frequency band is between 1710MHz and 2690MHz, and the fourth frequency band is between 3300MHz and 5925MHz.
Nella (Figs. 8-9; p. 2158, paragraph after Fig. 8) teaches an antenna element that covers three frequency bands. Furthermore, it is well-known in the art that by changing the antenna electrical length or the lengths of different antenna portions the antenna can cover specific frequency bands of operation.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Grant, so that the third frequency band is between 1710MHz and 2690MHz, and the fourth frequency band is between 3300MHz and 5925MHz. This modification would provide an antenna system operating in the desired third and fourth frequency bands. Furthermore, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modified Grant as applied to claim 1 in view of Nella and Kuonanoja (US 9761951 B2).
Regarding claim 17, the modified Grant teaches the antenna system of claim 1 as addressed above.
The modified Grant does not teach the limitation wherein the second antenna element comprises:
a fourth radiation portion coupled to the second feeding point;
a fifth radiation portion coupled to the fourth radiation portion, wherein the fifth radiation portion and the fourth radiation portion are respectively disposed on two perpendicular planes;
a sixth radiation portion coupled to the fourth radiation portion, wherein a slot is formed between the sixth radiation portion and the fourth radiation portion; and
a seventh radiation portion coupled to the second feeding point.
Nella (Fig. 8) teaches an antenna element comprising:
a feeding point;
a fourth radiation portion coupled to the feeding point;
a fifth radiation portion coupled to the fourth radiation portion;
a sixth radiation portion coupled to the fourth radiation portion, wherein a slot is formed between the sixth radiation portion and the fourth radiation portion; and
a seventh radiation portion coupled to the feeding point
PNG
media_image2.png
596
868
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(regarding the feeding point, the fourth radiation portion, the fifth radiation portion, the sixth radiation portion, the seventh radiation portion, and the slot between the sixth radiation portion and the fourth radiation portion, see annotated Fig. 8 in Nella below).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Grant by substituting the second antenna element in Grant with the antenna element of Nella. This modification would provide an antenna system wherein the second antenna element covers three frequency bands (see Nella, p. 2158, paragraph after Fig. 8).
The so modified Grant does not teach the limitation wherein the fifth radiation portion and the fourth radiation portion are respectively disposed on two perpendicular planes.
Kuonanoja (Fig. 3) teaches an antenna element comprising multiple portions that are disposed on two perpendicular planes.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Grant so that the fifth radiation portion and the fourth radiation portion are respectively disposed on two perpendicular planes. This modification would provide an antenna system wherein the maximum dimension of the volumetric box enclosing the second antenna element is reduced, which in turn allows the antenna to be integrated in electronic devices with limited space available.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modified Grant as applied to claim 3 in view of Matsunaga et al. (US 20220416429 A1, hereinafter Matsunaga).
Regarding claim 19, the modified Grant teaches the antenna system of claim 3 as addressed above.
The modified Grant (Fig. 1; col. 4, lines 36-41) further teaches a printed circuit board (20), wherein the main ground element (22) is disposed on the printed circuit board.
The modified Grant does not teach:
a carrier plate, wherein the floating ground element is disposed on the carrier plate;
a printed circuit board configured to support the carrier plate;
a system ground plane; and
one or more conductive elements, wherein the main ground element is further coupled to the system ground plane through the conductive elements.
Liversidge (Fig. 4B; p. 14, lines 17-19) teaches a carrier plate (a baseboard – see p. 14, lines 17-19), wherein the floating ground element (14) is disposed on the carrier plate.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Grant to include a carrier plate, wherein the floating ground element is disposed on the carrier plate as taught by Liversidge. This modification would result in the antenna system having a first antenna element with independent control of high band impedance matching and CMR (Common Mode Resonance) filtering at the low band (see Liversidge, p. 15, lines 35-37 and p. 16, lines 1-3).
The so modified Grant does not teach:
a printed circuit board configured to support the carrier plate;
a system ground plane; and
one or more conductive elements, wherein the main ground element is further coupled to the system ground plane through the conductive elements.
Matsunaga (Fig. 7; [0055], lines 1-3) teaches:
a printed circuit board (100) configured to support a carrier plate (572) of an antenna element (500);
a system ground plane (600); and
one or more conductive elements, wherein the printed circuit board is coupled to the system ground plane through the conductive elements (regarding the one or more conductive elements, see annotated Fig. 7 in Matsunaga).
PNG
media_image3.png
512
752
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Grant, so that the antenna system further comprises a printed circuit board configured to support the carrier plate; a system ground plane; and one or more conductive elements, wherein the main ground element is further coupled to the system ground plane through the conductive elements. This modification would provide an antenna system with improved performance of its antenna elements – e.g., improved radiation directivity and suppression of unwanted antenna oscillations (see Matsunaga, [0033-0034]).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modified Grant as applied to claim 1 in view of Yun (US 20200112101 A1).
Regarding claim 20, the modified Grant teaches the antenna system of claim 1 as addressed above.
Grant (Fig. 1) further teaches a third antenna element (60), wherein the first antenna element, the second antenna element, and the third antenna element are interleaved with each other and arranged in a straight line.
The modified Grant does not teach a fourth antenna element.
Yun (Fig. 1) teaches an antenna system (100) comprising four antenna elements (103-106), which are interleaved with each other.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Grant by adding a fourth antenna element, wherein the first antenna element, the second antenna element, the third antenna element, and the fourth antenna element are interleaved with each other and arranged in the same straight line. This modification would provide the antenna system of Grant with a fourth antenna element, which, as is well-known in the art, would provide additional pattern and/or spatial antenna diversity, or coverage of an additional frequency band.
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 MARIN STOYTCHEV STOYTCHEV whose telephone number is (571)272-3467. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 8:00-17:00.
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, Dimary Lopez can be reached at 571-270-7893. 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.
/MARIN STOYTCHEV STOYTCHEV/Examiner, Art Unit 2845
/DIMARY S LOPEZ CRUZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights