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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) entered 07/08/2026 and 08/05/2026 is being considered by the examiner. A signed IDS is hereby attached.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 1-4, 7-8, 14, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luebben et al. US Patent Number US11631436B1 (hereinafter Luebben) in view of NPL, Schroeder, H. (1987). Fluorocarbon Elastomers. In: Morton, M. (eds) Rubber Technology. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-7823-9_14 (hereinafter Schroeder).
Regarding Claim 1: Luebben discloses an article adapted to be disposed in a housing of a sealed (Col. 1 lines 63-67 i.e., "electronic device" and "housing"; Col. 3 lines 5-6 i.e. hermetically sealed electronic device), data storage device (Col. 3 lines 25-29 i.e., data storage device), wherein the article comprises an adsorbent composition (Col. 4 lines 34-38 i.e., materials that can absorb) comprising: a molecular sieve component (Col. 9 line 14-16 i.e., "Zeolite Compositions" and "4A molecular sieves") comprising one or more molecular sieves that can adsorb one or more organic compounds from an interior gas space of the housing; (Col. 9 line 14-16 i.e., "Zeolite Compositions" and "4A molecular sieves"; Col. 8 lines 24-29 i.e., adsorb volatile organic compounds (VOCs); Col. 2 lines 33-37 i.e., … in disk drives an operating atmosphere (e.g., interior gas space 40) can include an initial fill of a gas mixture… ) ; and a binder component (Col. 6 lines 58-60 i.e., binder) but remains silent as to a binder component comprising at least one cured rubber comprising at least one fluorocarbon-based elastomer, wherein the at least one fluorocarbon-based elastomer comprises vinylidene fluoride.
In an analogous art, Schroeder teaches a binder component comprising at least one cured rubber comprising at least one fluorocarbon-based elastomer (p. 410-411 i.e., fluorocarbon elastomers; 414, Table 14.2 i.e., Binders) , wherein the at least one fluorocarbon-based elastomer comprises vinylidene fluoride (414, Table 14.2 i.e., vinylidene fluoride…Binders…).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the vinylidene fluoride to the binder, as taught by Schroeder,
to improve resistance to chemicals. These benefits are taught in the Schroede and the advantages are consistent with the purpose set forth in paragraph 54 of the specification, namely, to withstand relatively high-temperature conditions.
Regarding Claim 2: Luebben in view of Schroeder teaches the article of claim 1 as discussed above. Luebben further discloses wherein the one or more molecular sieves (Col. 9 line 14-16 i.e., "Zeolite Compositions" and "4A molecular sieves") have a nominal pore size of greater than 4 angstroms (Col. 5 lines 16-18 i.e., "zeolite composition" and "greater than 5 angstroms").
Regarding Claim 3: Luebben in view of Schroeder teaches the article of claim 1 as discussed above. Luebben further discloses, wherein the one or more molecular sieves chosen from Type A molecular sieves, Type X molecular sieves, Type Y molecular sieves, Type Beta molecular sieves, MCM molecular sieves, ZSM molecular sieves, SAPO molecular sieves, and combinations thereof (Col. 9 line 14-16 i.e., SAPO).
Regarding Claim 4: Luebben in view of Schroeder teaches the article of claim 1 as discussed above. Luebben further discloses, wherein the molecular sieve component comprises a first plurality of molecular sieves each having a nominal pore size in a range from greater than 4 angstroms to 10 angstroms (Col 5 lines 16-26 i.e., …zeolite composition can have an average pore size…greater than 4 angstroms, greater than 5 angstroms, greater than 6 angstroms…) and a second plurality of molecular sieves each having a nominal pore size of greater than 10 angstroms (Col 5. lines 16-26 i.e., greater than 10 angstroms).
Regarding Claim 7: Luebben in view of Schroeder teaches the article of claim 1 as discussed above. Luebben further discloses zeolite composition(a molecular sieve) can be blended with one or more binder materials (Col. 6 lines 59-60 i.e. zeolite composition).
A person of ordinary skill in the art upon reading the reference, would also have recognized the desirability of an improved composition ratio of molecular sieve component and binder component. Furthermore, Luebben teaches one or more zeolite compositions can be combined with a binder and pressed into a shape. That would reasonably have been expected to apply to the ratios of molecular sieve component and binder component.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to select and test the claimed broad range of ratio of the molecular sieve component and binder component to determine an optimal composition. A person with ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the option, as identifying optimized ratio within his or her technical grasp. In turn because the composition of the molecular sieve component and binder component as claimed has the properties predicted by the prior art, it would have been obvious to employ such a ratio of the molecular sieve component and binder component.
Regarding Claim 8: Luebben in view of Schroeder teaches the article of claim 1 as discussed above. Luebben further discloses wherein the article comprises a filter (Col. 2, line 22-23, i.e., desiccant) and zeolite composition(a molecular sieve) can be blended with one or more binder materials (Col. 6 lines 59-60 i.e. zeolite composition).
A person of ordinary skill in the art upon reading the reference, would also have recognized the desirability of an improved composition ratio of molecular sieve component and binder component in a filter. Furthermore, Luebben teaches a desiccant component comprising one or more zeolite compositions and one or more zeolite compositions can be combined with a binder and pressed into a shape. That would reasonably have been expected to apply to the ratios of molecular sieve component and binder component.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to select and test the claimed broad range of ratio of the molecular sieve component and binder component to determine an optimal composition. A person with ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the option, as identifying optimized ratio within his or her technical grasp. In turn because the composition of the molecular sieve component and binder component as claimed has the properties predicted by the prior art, it would have been obvious to employ such a ratio of the molecular sieve component and binder component.
Regarding Claim 14: Luebben further discloses a sealed, data storage device comprising: the housing having interior gas space(Col. 1 lines 31-32 i.e., housing having an interior gas space); one or more electronic components disposed within the housing (Col. 1 lines 33-34, i.e., electronic components disposed within the housing) and Luebben in view of Schroeder teaches and at least one article according to claim 1 (Col. 9 line 14-16 i.e., "Zeolite Compositions" and "4A molecular sieves").
Regarding Claim 15: Luebben in view of Schroeder teaches the sealed, data storage device of claim 14 as discussed above. Luebben further teaches wherein the interior gas space of the sealed, data storage device comprises helium gas and the sealed, data storage device has a helium leak rate of 10 x10^-8 atm (atmosphere) cc (cubic centimeter)/ second or less at 25°C (Claim 20, "…wherein the interior gas space comprises helium gas and the electronic device has a helium leak rate of 50x10^-8 atm (atmosphere) cc (cubic centimeter)/second or less at 25° C."; It includes values within the claimed range). Luebben discloses the temperature at 25° C, which encompasses the claimed range. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select the claimed value within the same temperature through routine experimentation in order to obtain predictable results, as suggested by In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955), which states 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."
Claim 5 is is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luebben in view of Schroeder and further in view of Kong et al. China Patent Publication Number CN101723401B (hereinafter Kong).
The English translation of CN101723401A in CN101723401A ENG.pdf is used as the basis of the rejection.
Regarding Claim 5: Luebben in view of Schroeder teaches the article of claim 4 as discussed above but remains silent as to at least a first portion of the first plurality of molecular sieves has a first mole ratio of SiO2 to Al2O3 wherein at least a second portion of the first plurality of molecular sieves has a second mole ratio of SiO2 to Al2O3 and wherein the first mole ratio is less than the second mole ratio.
In an analogous art, Kong teaches wherein at least a first portion of the first plurality of molecular sieves ([0003] i.e., core-shell type zeolite molecular sieve: a ZSM-5 with the mol ratio of SiO2/Al2O3 as 15-100) has a first mole ratio of SiO2 to Al2O3 ([0003] i.e., a ZSM-5 with the mol ratio of SiO2/Al2O3 as 15-100 is used as a core phase molecular sieve), wherein at least a second portion of the first plurality of molecular sieves has a second mole ratio of SiO2 to Al2O3 ([0003] i.e.,ZSM-5 with the mol ratio of SiO2/Al2O3 as 60-100 is used as a shell phase molecular sieve), and wherein the first mole ratio is less than the second mole ratio ([0003] i.e., 15-100…60-100). Kong is considered an analogous art because it is about zeolite/molecular sieve synthesis preparing ZSM-5 with different SiO2/Al2O3 ratios in the core and shell portions, and the disclosure itself is focused on zeolite structural design and composition control.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the molecular ratio of SiO2 to Al2O3 into the adsorbent composition of Luebben and Schroeder in order to have enhanced selectivity and the combination merely applies known system for zeolite structural design and composition to achieve predictable result.
Claims 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luebben in view of Schroeder and further in view of Nicklay et al. U.S Patent Publication Number US20180085693A1.
Regarding Claim 9: Luebben in view of Schroeder teaches the article of claim 8 as discussed above. Luebben further discloses the interior gas space of the housing of the sealed, data storage device of an electronic device (Col. 3 lines 13-14, i.e., interior gas space (e.g., interior gas space 40) of an electronic device) but remains silent as to explicitly teach how the filter is configured to remove contaminants.
In an analogous art, Nicklay teaches wherein the filter is configured to remove contaminants ([0019] i.e., filter …contaminants that are removed) from a moving flow of gas within an interior gas space ([0021] i.e, acid gas; [0040] i.e., flowing air stream within an electronics enclosure) of the housing of the sealed, data storage device ([0038] i.e., electronics enclosure that is a disk drive 300; [0021] i.e., The adsorbent 114 is generally configured to adsorb chemical contaminants from the environment within an electronics enclosure; [0026] i.e., …permeability is the linear air flow; [0021] i.e, acid gas; [0038] i.e., electronics enclosure that is a disk drive 300; [0040] i.e., filter…to be positioned in a flowing air stream within an electronics enclosure… )
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the configuration of the filter by Nicklay to efficiently trap and remove contaminants(Nicklay, paragraph [0019]).
Regarding Claim 10: Luebben in view of Schroeder teaches the article of claim 9 as discussed above but remains silent as to the adsorbent composition is disposed between a first scrim layer and a second scrim layer, and wherein each of the first scrim layer and the second scrim layer are configured to enclose and protect the adsorbent composition.
In an analogous art, Nicklay teaches wherein the adsorbent composition is disposed between a first scrim layer (Fig. 1B i.e., 112a and 112b; [0018] i.e., filter material 112… support layer. The support layer can be … scrim) and a second scrim layer (Fig. 1B i.e., 122 and 124; [0025] i.e., first containment layer 122 and the second containment layer 124 are each … scrim), and wherein each of the first scrim layer and the second scrim layer are configured to enclose and protect the adsorbent composition (Fig. 1B; [0021] i.e., …adsorbent is bonded to a support scrim … support scrim can be encapsulated by the filter material).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the positioning of the scrim layers, as taught by Nicklay to efficiently trap and remove contaminants(Nicklay, paragraph [0019]).
Regarding Claim 11: Luebben in view of Schroeder teaches the article of claim 10 as discussed above but remains silent as to the filter further comprises at least one particle removal layer disposed between the adsorbent composition and at least one of the first scrim layer and the second scrim layer.
In an analogous art, Nicklay teaches wherein the filter further comprises at least one particle removal layer ([0021] i.e., "The adsorbent 114…adsorb chemical contaminants…" and "molecular sieves") disposed between the adsorbent composition and at least one of the first scrim layer and the second scrim layer (Fig. 1B i.e., 114; [0021] i.e., …adsorbent is bonded to a support scrim…).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the positioning of the scrim layers, as taught by Nicklay to efficiently trap and remove contaminants(Nicklay, paragraph [0019]).
Claim 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luebben in view of Schroeder and further in view of Donaldson Article (“ADSORBENT LABEL FILTER (ALF)”, https://pdf.directindustry.com/pdf/donaldson/adsorbent-label-filter-alf/6182-257881.html Time stamp 02/26/2024 (herein after Donaldson).
Regarding Claim 12: Luebben in view of Schroeder teaches the article of claim 8 as discussed above but remains silent as to the filter comprises a recirculation filter or a label filter.
In an analogous art, Nicklay teaches the filter comprises a recirculation filter ([0003] i.e., recirculation filter).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the positioning of the scrim layers, as taught by Nicklay to efficiently trap and remove contaminants(Nicklay, paragraph [0019]).
However, Nicklay remains silent as to the filter comprises a recirculation a label filter.
In an analogous art, Donaldson teaches the filter comprises a recirculation a label filter([Page 1, Description] Adsorbent Label Filter).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate an adsorbent label filter taught by Donaldson into combination of Luebben and Schroeder, since doing so would provide protection from humidity effectively. These advantages are disclosed in Donaldson (Page 2, Relative Humidity Test). Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to try environmental control module including an adsorbent label filter with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luebben in view of Schroeder and further in view of Zhang et al. U.S. Patent number US11270739B1 (herein after Zhang).
Regarding Claim 16: Luebben in view of Schroeder teaches the sealed, data storage device of claim 14 as discussed above but remains silent as to the sealed, data storage device is a heat-assisted magnetic recording hard disk drive.
In an analogous art, Zhang teaches wherein the sealed, data storage device is a heat-assisted magnetic recording hard-disk drive (Col. 3 lines 45-50 i.e., heat-assisted magnetic recording; Col. 11 lines 52-55, i.e., HAMR).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sealed, data storage device of combination of Luebben and Schroeder to include the heat-assisted magnetic recording as taught by Zhang. Zhang is an analogous art to the claimed invention and discloses the heat-assisted magnetic recording hard disk drive. Incorporating the heat-assisted magnetic recording into the sealed, data storage device would have been a predictable use of a known element and applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Claim 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luebben in view of Schroeder and further in view of Bent et al. U.S. Patent Publication Number US20220334923A1 (herein after Bent).
Regarding Claim 17: Luebben in view of Schroeder teaches claim 14 as discussed above but remains silent as to a computing system comprising a plurality of sealed, data storge devices.
In an analogous art, Bent teaches a computing system ([0020] i.e., Fig. 1… computing enclosure 100) comprising a plurality of sealed, data storge devices ([0020] i.e., network storage services; [0002] i.e., "plurality of data storage").
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sealed, data storage device of combination of Luebben and Schroeder to include a computing system and plurality of sealed, data storge devices by Bent. Bent is an analogous art to the claimed invention and discloses the computing system and plurality of sealed, data storge devices . Incorporating the computing system and plurality of sealed, data storge devices into a sealed, data storge devices would have been a predictable use of a known element and applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Claims 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luebben in view of Schroeder.
Regarding Claim 18: Luebben discloses a method of making an article adapted to be disposed in a housing of a sealed (Col. 1 lines 63-67 i.e., "electronic device" and "housing"; Col. 3 lines 5-6 i.e. hermetically sealed electronic device), data storage device (Col. 3 lines 25-29 i.e., data storage device), wherein the method comprises: forming a mixture comprising: a molecular sieve component comprising one or more molecular sieves (Col. 9 line 14-16 i.e., "Zeolite Compositions" and "4A molecular sieves") that can adsorb one or more organic compounds from an interior gas space of the housing (Col. 9 line 14-16 i.e., "Zeolite Compositions" and "4A molecular sieves"; Col. 8 lines 24-29 i.e., adsorb volatile organic compounds (VOCs); Col. 2 lines 33-37 i.e., … in disk drives an operating atmosphere (e.g., interior gas space 40) can include an initial fill of a gas mixture… ); and forming the mixture into the article ( Col. 6 lines 59-67 i.e., …zeolite composition can be blended with one or more binder materials and pressed into any desirable form… A zeolite composition can be contained within a container that is disposed within the housing of an electronic device along with one or more electronic components… ) but remains silent as to a binder component comprising at least one rubber comprising at least one rubber comprising at least one fluorocarbon-based elastomer, wherein the at least one fluorocarbon-based elastomer comprises vinylidene fluoride; and forming the mixture into the article.
In an analogous art, Schroeder teaches a binder component comprising at least one rubber comprising at least one fluorocarbon-based elastomer (410-411 i.e., fluorocarbon elastomers; 414, Table 14.2 i.e., Binders), wherein the at least one fluorocarbon-based elastomer comprises vinylidene fluoride (414, Table 14.2 i.e., vinylidene fluoride…Binders…).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the vinylidene fluoride to the binder, as taught by Schroeder,
to improve resistance to chemicals. These benefits are taught in the Schroede and the advantages are consistent with the purpose set forth in paragraph 54 of the specification, namely, to withstand relatively high-temperature conditions.
Claims 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luebben in view of Schroeder and further in view of Luo et al. U.S. Patent Publication Number US20120100379A1(hereinafter Luo).
Regarding Claim 19: Luebben in view of Schroeder teaches the method of claim 18 as discussed above but remains silent as to the forming the mixture step further comprises: receiving at least one uncured rubber, and curing the at least one uncured rubber to form the at least one rubber comprising at least one fluorocarbon-based elastomer that is present in the mixture to form the article.
In an analogous art, Luo teaches the forming the mixture step further comprises: receiving at least one uncured rubber, and curing the at least one uncured rubber to form the at least one rubber comprising at least one fluorocarbon-based elastomer (para. [0130] i.e., …methods of bonding the fluoroelastomer composition … a curable FKM … composition … curing it via any curing means…).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the FKM (a family of fluorocarbon-based fluoroelastomers) in Luo to a binder in order to improve resistance to harsh chemicals. These benefits are taught in Luo (para, 9) and the advantages are consistent with the purpose set forth in paragraph 54 of the specification, namely, to withstand relatively high-temperature conditions.
Luebben further discloses that is present in the mixture to form the article ( Col. 6 lines 59-67 i.e., …zeolite composition can be blended with one or more binder materials and pressed into any desirable form… A zeolite composition can be contained within a container that is disposed within the housing of an electronic device along with one or more electronic components… ).
Claim 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luebben in view of Schroeder and Luo, and further in view of Crosslinking Agents - BOC Sciences catalog https://polymer.bocsci.com/products/crosslinking-agents-4193.html , Timestamp 06/02/2023 (hereinafter BOC Sciences)
Regarding Claim 20: Luebben in view of Schroeder teaches the method of claim 19 as discussed above but remains silent as to the curing comprises vulcanization, bisphenol curing, peroxide curing, amination curing, and combinations thereof.
In an analogous art, BOC Sciences teaches wherein the curing comprises at least one of vulcanization (Page 8, Organic Sulfide Crosslinker i.e., vulcanized), bisphenol curing (Page 3, i.e., bisphenol), peroxide curing(Page 7, Types of Crosslinking Reagents i.e., peroxide), amination curing( Page 8, Amine Crosslinking Agent, i.e., Amine) and combinations thereof (Page 1-11, Crosslinking Agents - BOC Sciences catalog).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate all claimed crosslinking methods of BOC Sciences into combination of Luebben and Luo. BOC Sciences is an analogous art to the claimed invention and discloses the agents for polymerization. Incorporating agents for polymerization would have been a predictable use of a known element to provide better water/thermal dual-responsive shape memory properties. These benefits are explicitly taught in BOC Sciences (Page 7, Types of Crosslinking Reagents), and applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-5, 7-12 and 14-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHELLE J KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-5571. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 11am-5pm.
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, Steven Lim can be reached at (571) 270-1210. 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.
/MICHELLE J. KIM/Examiner, Art Unit 2688
/STEVEN LIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2688
Prosecution Insights