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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 6/1/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by “Touwslager” (US 8,563,868).
Regarding claim 1, Touwslager anticipates 1. An apparatus, comprising:
a metal layer including a metal pattern (Fig. 2, col. 3, line 50-col. 4, line 35; conductive material 109);
a fluid phase conductor configured to overlap at least a first portion of the metal pattern of the metal layer (Fig. 2, col. 3, line 50-col. 4, line 35; liquid conductor 115 forms the conductor 110);
and a first encapsulation layer disposed on the metal layer, the first encapsulation layer having one or more vias extending through the first encapsulation layer and filled with the fluid phase conductor and configured to encapsulate the fluid phase conductor within the apparatus (Fig. 2, col. 3, line 50-col. 4, line 35; layer 106).
Regarding claim 14, Touwslager anticipates 14. An apparatus, comprising:
a metal layer including a metal pattern (Fig. 2, col. 3, line 50-col. 4, line 35; conductive material 109);
a substrate layer coupled to the metal layer (Fig. 2, col. 3, line 50-col. 4, line 35; layer 106);
a fluid phase conductor wetted to the metal layer and the substrate layer, the fluid phase conductor configured to overlap at least a first portion of the metal pattern of the metal layer (Fig. 2, col. 3, line 50-col. 4, line 35; liquid conductor 115 forms the conductor 110);
and an encapsulation layer encapsulating the metal layer and the fluid phase conductor (Fig. 2, col. 3, line 50-col. 4, line 35; top substrate 120).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2-10 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Touwslager in view of “Ronay ‘628” (US 2020/0066628).
Regarding claim 2, Touwslager discloses the claimed invention as applied to claim 1, above.
Touwslager does not disclose the limitations of claim 2.
Ronay ‘628 discloses 2. The apparatus of claim 1, further comprising a second encapsulation layer (Figs. 13B, 14B, [0059]-[0061]; a layer of encapsulant is formed on the layer 152).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have constructed Touwslager’s apparatus with the encapsulation layer of Ronay ‘628 in order to form an electric component supported by the substrate and having terminals arranged in a pattern corresponding to the pattern of contacts points, as suggested by Ronay ‘628 at [0004].
Regarding claim 3, Touwslager in view of Ronay ‘628 discloses the claimed invention as applied to claim 2, above.
Touwslager does not disclose the limitations of claim 3.
Ronay ‘628 discloses 3. The apparatus of claim 2, further comprising a stencil layer configured to provide electrical communication to the first encapsulation layer by way of at least one of a plurality of vias in the first encapsulation layer (Figs. 13B, 14B, [0059]-[0061]; the layer 170).
Regarding claim 4, Touwslager in view of Ronay ‘628 discloses the claimed invention as applied to claim 3, above.
Touwslager does not disclose the limitations of claim 4.
Ronay ‘628 discloses 4. The apparatus of claim 3, further comprising a second stencil layer including a second pattern of slots containing the fluid phase conductor (Figs. 13B, 14B, [0059]-[0061]; the layer 152).
Regarding claim 5, Touwslager in view of Ronay ‘628 discloses the claimed invention as applied to claim 4, above.
Touwslager does not disclose the limitations of claim 5.
Ronay ‘628 discloses 5. The apparatus of claim 4, wherein the second stencil layer is adhered to the second encapsulation layer (Figs. 13B, 14B, [0059]-[0061]; a layer of encapsulant is formed on the layer 152).
Regarding claim 6, Touwslager in view of Ronay ‘628 discloses the claimed invention as applied to claim 3, above.
Touwslager does not disclose the limitations of claim 6.
Ronay ‘628 discloses 6. The apparatus of claim 3, wherein the second encapsulation layer is adhered to the first stencil layer (Figs. 13B, 14B, [0059]-[0061]; a layer of encapsulant is formed on the layer 152).
Regarding claim 7, Touwslager in view of Ronay ‘628 discloses the claimed invention as applied to claim 3, above.
Touwslager does not disclose the limitations of claim 7.
Ronay ‘628 discloses 7. The apparatus of claim 3, further comprising an electronic component coupled to the metal layer (Figs. 1-2, [0028]; IC 116).
Regarding claim 8, Touwslager in view of Ronay ‘628 discloses the claimed invention as applied to claim 7, above.
Touwslager does not disclose the limitations of claim 8.
Ronay ‘628 discloses 8. The apparatus of claim 7, further comprises a discrete reinforcement segment configured to support the electronic component (Fig. 3E, [0036]; layer 126).
Regarding claim 9, Touwslager in view of Ronay ‘628 discloses the claimed invention as applied to claim 8, above.
Touwslager does not disclose the limitations of claim 9.
Ronay ‘628 discloses 9. The apparatus of claim 8, wherein the discrete reinforcement segment is inserted between two layers (Fig. 3E, [0036]; layer 126 is inserted between 2 layers).
Regarding claim 10, Touwslager in view of Ronay ‘628 discloses the claimed invention as applied to claim 8, above.
Touwslager does not disclose the limitations of claim 10.
Ronay ‘628 does not explicitly disclose the discrete reinforcement segment causes the apparatus to have a bend radius larger than twice a length of the electronic component.
It would have been obvious matter of design choice, to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have made the bend radius larger than twice a length of the component. Constructing the bend radius to be larger than twice a length of the electronic component would have involved routine experimentation by a person of ordinary skill. 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 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 15, Touwslager discloses the claimed invention as applied to claim 14, above.
Touwslager does not disclose the limitations of claim 15.
Ronay ‘628 discloses 15. The apparatus of claim 14, further comprising:
a stencil layer containing a fluid phase conductor, wherein the encapsulation layer is coupled to the stencil layer (Figs. 13B, 14B, [0059]-[0061]; the layer 170).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have constructed Touwslager’s apparatus with the encapsulation layer of Ronay ‘628 in order to form an electric component supported by the substrate and having terminals arranged in a pattern corresponding to the pattern of contacts points, as suggested by Ronay ‘628 at [0004].
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Touwslager in view of Ronay ‘628 and “Ronay ‘349” (US 2020/0381349).
Regarding claim 11, Touwslager in view of Ronay ‘628 discloses the claimed invention as applied to claim 8, above.
Touwslager does not disclose the limitations of claim 11.
Ronay ‘349 discloses 11. The apparatus of claim 8, wherein the discrete reinforcement segment is a textile segment (Figs. 1,4, [0030]; materials A & B are woven or nonwoven fabrics).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have constructed Touwslager’s apparatus, as modified by Ronay ‘628, with the textile segment of Ronay ‘349 in order to form a continuous interconnect between the first and second materials, wherein the first and second materials are heterogeneous, as suggested by Ronay ‘349 at Abstract.
Regarding claim 12, Touwslager in view of Ronay ‘628 and Ronay ‘349 discloses the claimed invention as applied to claim 11, above.
Touwslager does not disclose the limitations of claim 12.
Ronay ‘628 discloses 12. The apparatus of claim 11, wherein the discrete reinforcement segment is a polymer film segment (Fig. 3E, [0036]; layer 126 is a polymer PET).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Touwslager in view of Ronay ‘628, Ronay ‘349 and “Chang” (US 2018/0190596).
Regarding claim 13, Touwslager in view of Ronay ‘628 and Ronay ‘349 discloses the claimed invention as applied to claim 12, above.
Touwslager does not disclose the limitations of claim 13.
Chang discloses 13. The apparatus of claim 12, wherein the polymer film is a polyimide film (Figs. 1-4, [0033]; support member 410 is a polyimide film or PET).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have constructed Touwslager’s apparatus, as modified by Ronay ‘628 and Ronay ‘349, with Chang’s polyimide film in order to provide a single support member to mitigate potential damage of a semiconductor die within a semiconductor package, as suggested by Chang at [0032].
Claims 16-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Touwslager in view of Ronay ‘349.
Regarding claim 16, Touwslager discloses the claimed invention as applied to claim 14, above.
Touwslager discloses 16. The apparatus of claim 14, wherein the metal layer is a first metal layer, the substrate layer is a first substrate layer, the metal layer and the substrate layer form a first segment (Fig. 2, col. 3, line 50-col. 4, line 35; conductive material 109 and layer 106).
Touwslager does not disclose a second segment including a second substrate layer; a third segment including a third substrate layer, wherein the fluid phase conductor is wetted to the metal layer and the third substrate layer; and a third encapsulation layer encapsulating the metal layer and the third substrate layer, wherein the second segment is electrically coupled to at least a portion of the third segment.
Ronay ‘349 discloses a second segment including a second substrate layer; a third segment including a third substrate layer, wherein the fluid phase conductor is wetted to the metal layer and the third substrate layer; and a third encapsulation layer encapsulating the metal layer and the third substrate layer, wherein the second segment is electrically coupled to at least a portion of the third segment (Fig. 11).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have constructed Touwslager’s apparatus with the encapsulation layer of Ronay ‘349 in order to form a continuous interconnect between the first and second materials, wherein the first and second materials are heterogeneous, as suggested by Ronay ‘349 at Abstract.
Regarding claim 17, Touwslager in view of Ronay ‘349 discloses the claimed invention as applied to claim 16, above.
Touwslager does not disclose the limitations of claim 17.
Ronay ‘349 discloses 17. The apparatus of claim 16, further comprising an electronic component electrically coupled to the second metal layer (Fig. 11).
Regarding claim 18, Touwslager discloses the claimed invention as applied to claim 14, above.
Touwslager discloses 18. The apparatus of claim 14, wherein the metal layer is a first metal layer, the substrate layer is a first substrate layer, the metal layer and the substrate layer form a first segment (Figs. 1-2, [0008], [0043]-[0044], [0049]-[0059]; conductive structure 10 and insulation layer 40).
Touwslager does not disclose a second segment including a second substrate layer; a third segment including the fluid phase conductor having a predetermined current conductivity.
Ronay ‘349 discloses a second segment including a second substrate layer; a third segment including the fluid phase conductor having a predetermined current conductivity (Fig. 11).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have constructed Touwslager’s apparatus with the encapsulation layer of Ronay ‘349 in order to form a continuous interconnect between the first and second materials, wherein the first and second materials are heterogeneous, as suggested by Ronay ‘349 at Abstract.
Regarding claim 19, Touwslager in view of Ronay ‘349 discloses the claimed invention as applied to claim 18, above.
Touwslager does not disclose the limitations of claim 19.
Ronay ‘349 discloses 19. The apparatus of claim 18, further comprising an electronic component electrically coupled to the second metal layer (Fig. 11).
Regarding claim 20, Touwslager in view of Ronay ‘349 discloses the claimed invention as applied to claim 19, above.
Touwslager does not disclose the limitations of claim 20.
Ronay ‘349 discloses 20. The apparatus of claim 19, wherein the electronic component is selected from the group consisting of: a terminal to an external device, a integrated circuit, a chip, a resistor, a capacitor, or an inductor (Fig. 11).
Regarding claim 21, Touwslager in view of Ronay ‘349 discloses the claimed invention as applied to claim 19, above.
Touwslager does not disclose the limitations of claim 21.
Ronay ‘349 discloses 21. The apparatus of claim 19, wherein the electronic component is an integrated circuit (IC) (Fig. 11).
Regarding claim 22, Touwslager in view of Ronay ‘349 discloses the claimed invention as applied to claim 17, above.
Touwslager does not disclose the limitations of claim 22.
Ronay ‘349 discloses 22. The apparatus of claim 17, wherein the electronic component is a first electronic component mechanically coupled to the second metal layer and further comprising a second electronic component mechanically coupled to the encapsulation layer (Fig. 11).
Ronay ‘349 does not disclose the second electronic component has a physical size factor that is larger than the first electronic component.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have made the size of the second component larger than the first, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 23, Touwslager in view of Ronay ‘349 discloses the claimed invention as applied to claim 22, above.
Touwslager and Ronay ‘349 does not disclose 23. The apparatus of claim 22, wherein the physical size factor corresponds to an SMT package standard.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have made the physical size factor corresponds to an SMT package standard, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 24, Touwslager in view of Ronay ‘349 discloses the claimed invention as applied to claim 22, above.
Touwslager and Ronay ‘349 does not disclose 24. The apparatus of claim 22, wherein the physical size factor is at least an 0603 SMT package size.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have made the physical size factor is at least an 0603 SMT package size, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 25, Touwslager in view of Ronay ‘349 discloses the claimed invention as applied to claim 16, above.
Touwslager and Ronay ‘349 does not disclose 25. The apparatus of claim 16, wherein the fluid phase conductor has a maximum current of not more than 1.5 Amperes.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have made the maximum current of not more than 1.5 Amperes, since 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 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 26, Touwslager in view of Ronay ‘349 discloses the claimed invention as applied to claim 25, above.
Touwslager and Ronay ‘349 does not disclose 26. The apparatus of claim 25, wherein the maximum current of the fluid phase conductor is not more than 1.0 Amperes.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have made the maximum current of not more than 1.0 Amperes, since 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 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 27, Touwslager in view of Ronay ‘349 discloses the claimed invention as applied to claim 16, above.
Touwslager and Ronay ‘349 does not disclose 27. The apparatus of claim 16, wherein the metal layer has a maximum current greater than a maximum current of the fluid phase conductor.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have changed the current capacity of the metal layer, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Claim 10 is alternately rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Touwslager in view of Ronay ‘349, “Augoustidis” (US 2016/0029481) and “Hess” (US2005/0145408).
Regarding claim 10, Touwslager in view of Ronay ‘349 discloses the claimed invention as applied to claim 8, above.
Touwslager and Ronay ‘349 does not explicitly disclose the discrete reinforcement segment causes the apparatus to have a bend radius larger than twice a length of the electronic component.
Augoustidis, Figs. 1-2, [0057], discloses a flexible circuit board 102 having a flexible graphite substrate having a bend radius of up to 600 mm, and Hess, Fig. 3A, Abstract, teaches an electronic component having a length of 0.2 mm. As such, Augoustidis and Hess teaches the bend radius (600 mm) is 3000 times larger than a length of the electronic component (0.2 mm). This is substantially greater than “a bend radius larger than twice a length of the electronic component” as recited in claim 10.
Claims 25-26 are alternately rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Touwslager in view of Ronay ‘349 and Gutierrez (US 6,373,356).
Regarding claim 25, Touwslager in view of Ronay ‘349 discloses the claimed invention as applied to claim 16, above.
Touwslager and Ronay ‘349 does not disclose the limitations of claim25.
Gutierrez discloses 25. The apparatus of claim 16, wherein the fluid phase conductor has a maximum current of not more than 1.5 Amperes (Fig. 5, col. 4, lines 61-64; the system is capable of switching currents on the order of 1 ampere per device).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have made Touwslager’s apparatus, as modified by Ronay ‘349, with Gutierrez’ system in order to enable the use in more complex circuit configurations requiring multiple resistors of multiple resistances, as suggested by Gutierrez at col 5, lines 1-10.
Regarding claim 26, Touwslager in view of Ronay ‘349 and Gutierrez discloses the claimed invention as applied to claim 25, above.
Touwslager and Ronay ‘349 does not disclose the limitations of claim 26.
Gutierrez discloses 26. The apparatus of claim 25, wherein the maximum current of the fluid phase conductor is not more than 1.0 Amperes (Fig. 5, col. 4, lines 61-64; the system is capable of switching currents on the order of 1 ampere per device).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have made Touwslager’s apparatus, as modified by Ronay ‘349, with Gutierrez’ system in order to enable the use in more complex circuit configurations requiring multiple resistors of multiple resistances, as suggested by Gutierrez at col 5, lines 1-10.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/1/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the arguments for independent claims 1 and 14 and dependent claims 11 and 13, Applicant's amendment necessitated the new grounds of rejection presented in this Office action. As such, the argument for independent claims 1 and 14 and dependent claims 11 and 13 are moot.
Regarding the arguments for dependent claim 10, Applicant argues that claim 10 is allowable because the cited prior art does not identify a teaching that the ratio of the bend radius of the reinforcing segment to the length of the component is a known variable to be optimized.
The Examiner respectfully submits that Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Claim 10 recites: “the discrete reinforcement segment causes the apparatus to have a bend radius larger than twice a length of the electronic component.”
Although the cited references does not explicitly disclose the ratio of the bend radius of the reinforcing segment to the length of the component, this variable would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. An ordinary skilled person would have made the bend radius larger than twice a length of the component through routine experimentation. 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 (CCPA 1980).
Furthermore, claim 10 is alternately rejected under different grounds, where Augoustidis discloses a bend radius of up to 600 mm, and Hess discloses an electronic component having a length of 0.2 mm. The teachings of Augoustidis and Hess results in the bend radius (600 mm) is 3000 times larger than a length of the electronic component (0.2 mm), which is substantially greater than “apparatus to have a bend radius larger than twice a length of the electronic component” as recited in claim 10.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Doering, US 9,433,091, teaches the customizing connections of conductors where the conductive material may be a liquid or a gel.
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 STANLEY TSO whose telephone number is (571)270-0723. The examiner can normally be reached Tu-Thurs 6am-6pm, alt M 6am-2pm.
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, Tim Thompson can be reached at 571-272-2342. 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.
/STANLEY TSO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2847
Prosecution Insights