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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Groups I and III in the reply filed on 12/29/25 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “the search and examination of all of the claims can be made without serious burden to the Examiner”. This is not found persuasive because it is non-specific and does not effectively address the distinctions between the claim groups detailed in the Restriction Requirement mailed 10/28/25.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 1-7 and 15-20 are examined herein.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) filed on 7/18/24 and 1/27/25 are considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “second capacitive-fed dual-polarized patch includes one or more antenna elements having an X-shaped dual-polarized configuration” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-7 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation of “a via-fed dual-polarized patch; a first capacitive-fed dual-polarized patch capacitively coupled to the via-fed dual-polarized patch through an air gap; and a second capacitive-fed dual-polarized patch capacitively coupled to the first capacitive-fed dual-polarized patch through a dielectric layer” is indefinite in that the claimed limitation is inconsistent with the otherwise disclosed invention. In detail: [0057] of the disclosure recites the via-fed dual-polarized patch as being element 502 of Figs. 5A-5C, however, 502 does not appear to be a via-fed patch; similarly, [0057] of the disclosure recites the first capacitive-fed-dual polarized patch as being element 504 of Figs. 5A-5C, however, 504 appears to be a via-fed patch (see Fig. 5C); further, [0057] of the disclosure recites the second capacitive-fed dual-polarized patch as being element 508, however, element 508 is capacitively coupled to element 502 through dielectric layer 510, rather than being capacitively coupled to element 504, as apparently claimed. It is therefore unclear to the examiner based on the discrepancy between the claim language and the disclosure’s recitation of the claimed elements, whether the elements are appropriately detailed, thus the scope of the claim as written is deemed indefinite. To expedite prosecution, the claim will be examined as best understood by the examiner.
Claims 2-7 are included for their dependency upon claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, the claim is indefinite in scope as the value of λ0 is not defined within the language of the claim, thus rendering indefinite the bounds of the claimed length and width which depend upon this term. Further, the “length” and “width” recited are in relation to an X-shaped antenna element, which does not have an obviously definable “length” and “width” as such terms may relate to the perspective height and width of the X shape interpreted as the letter, or the length corresponding to the extent of one arm and the width to the other, or the length corresponding to the length of either arm and the width to the lateral dimension of each arm; thus, without these aspects being clearly defined within the bounds of the claim nor the remainder of the disclosure, the limitation renders the claim indefinite in scope. To expedite prosecution, the claim will be examined as best understood by the examiner.
Claim 5 is included for its dependency upon claim 3.
Regarding claim 5, the claim is indefinite in scope as the value of λ0 is not defined within the language of the claim, thus rendering indefinite the bounds of the claimed length and width which depend upon this term.
Regarding claim 6, the claim is indefinite in scope as the value of λ0 is not defined within the language of the claim, thus rendering indefinite the bounds of the claimed distance which depends upon this term.
Regarding claim 7, the claim is indefinite in scope as the value of λ0 is not defined within the language of the claim, thus rendering indefinite the bounds of the claimed thickness which depends upon this term.
Regarding claim 15, the limitation of “capacitively coupling a second capacitive-fed dual-polarized patch to the first capacitive-fed dual-polarized patch through a dielectric layer” is indefinite in that the claimed limitation is inconsistent with the otherwise disclosed invention. In detail: [0057] of the disclosure recites the first capacitive-fed dual-polarized patch as being element 504, and the second capacitive-fed dual-polarized patch as being element 508, however, element 508 is capacitively coupled to element 502 through dielectric layer 510, rather than being capacitively coupled to element 504, as apparently claimed. It is therefore unclear to the examiner based on the discrepancy between the claim language and the disclosure’s recitation of the claimed elements, whether the elements are appropriately detailed, thus the scope of the claim as written is deemed indefinite. To expedite prosecution, the claim will be examined as best understood by the examiner.
Claims 16-20 are included for their dependency upon claim 15.
Regarding claim 17, the claim is indefinite in scope as the value of λ0 is not defined within the language of the claim, thus rendering indefinite the bounds of the claimed length and width which depend upon this term. Further, the “length” and “width” recited are in relation to an X-shaped antenna element, which does not have an obviously definable “length” and “width” as such terms may relate to the perspective height and width of the X shape interpreted as the letter, or the length corresponding to the extent of one arm and the width to the other, or the length corresponding to the length of either arm and the width to the lateral dimension of each arm; thus, without these aspects being clearly defined within the bounds of the claim nor the remainder of the disclosure, the limitation renders the claim indefinite in scope. To expedite prosecution, the claim will be examined as best understood by the examiner.
Regarding claim 19, the claim is indefinite in scope as the value of λ0 is not defined within the language of the claim, thus rendering indefinite the bounds of the claimed length and width which depend upon this term.
Regarding claim 20, the claim is indefinite in scope as the value of λ0 is not defined within the language of the claim, thus rendering indefinite the bounds of the claimed distance and thickness which depend upon this term.
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, 6-7, 15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over So et al. (US Patent No. 11,641,065) in view of Dufilie et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2024/0421487).
Regarding claim 1, So et al. teaches (Figs. 2, 3) an apparatus comprising: a via-fed dual-polarized patch (130; Col 11 lines 50-57); a first capacitive-fed dual-polarized patch (140) capacitively coupled to the via-fed dual-polarized patch (Col 6 lines 44-52); and a second capacitive-fed dual-polarized patch (170) capacitively coupled to the first capacitive-fed dual-polarized patch through a dielectric layer (220b-220f).
So does not teach the first capacitive-fed dual-polarized patch being capacitively coupled to the via-fed dual-polarized patch through an air gap.
Dufilie et al. teaches (Figs. 1, 3) an apparatus comprising: a via-fed dual-polarized patch (14; see ¶49, ¶76); and a first capacitive-fed dual-polarized patch (12) capacitively coupled to the via-fed dual-polarized patch through an air gap (see Fig. 1).
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 apparatus of So such that the first capacitive-fed dual-polarized patch is capacitively coupled to the via-fed dual-polarized patch through an air gap, employing the teachings of Dufilie.
Doing so would provide the predictable benefit of enabling high frequency operation of the apparatus (Dufilie, ¶8).
Regarding claim 6, So teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
So does not teach wherein the air gap has a distance in an inclusive range of 0.015-0.025 λ0.
Dufilie et al. teaches (Figs. 1, 3) an apparatus comprising: a via-fed dual-polarized patch (14; see ¶49, ¶76); and a first capacitive-fed dual-polarized patch (12) capacitively coupled to the via-fed dual-polarized patch through an air gap (see Fig. 1), wherein the air gap has a distance in an inclusive range of 0.015-0.025 λ0 (S1, see Fig. 1, may be construed as encompassing and/or falling within 0.015-0.025 λ0 as λ0 is arbitrarily defined).
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 apparatus of So such the air gap has a distance in an inclusive range of 0.015-0.025 λ0, employing the teachings of Dufilie; further, 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.
Doing so would provide the predictable benefit of enabling high frequency operation of the apparatus (Dufilie, ¶8).
Regarding claim 7, So teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
So does not explicitly teach the dielectric layer having a thickness in an inclusive range of 0.01-0.015 λ0; however, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the dielectric layer to have a thickness according to desired parameters (of 220b-220f, in the z direction, see Fig. 3), which may be construed as encompassing and/or falling within 0.01-0.015 λ0. as λ0 is arbitrarily defined; further, 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.
Doing so would provide the predictable benefit of achieving a desirable constant and loss tangent of the dielectric layer (Col 6 lines 20-25).
Regarding claim 15, So et al. teaches (Figs. 2, 3) a method of using an antenna comprising: capacitively coupling a first capacitive-fed dual-polarized patch (140) to a via-fed dual-polarized patch (130; Col 11 lines 50-57); and capacitively coupling a second capacitive-fed dual-polarized patch (170) to the first capacitive-fed dual-polarized patch (140) through a dielectric layer (220b-220f).
So does not teach specifically coupling the first capacitive-fed dual-polarized patch to the via-fed dual-polarized patch through an air gap.
Dufilie et al. teaches (Figs. 1, 3) a method of using an antenna comprising: capacitively coupling a first capacitive-fed dual-polarized patch (12) to a via-fed dual-polarized patch (14; see ¶49, ¶76) through an air gap (see Fig. 1).
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 method of So such that the first capacitive-fed dual-polarized patch is capacitively coupled to the via-fed dual-polarized patch through an air gap, employing the teachings of Dufilie.
Doing so would provide the predictable benefit of enabling high frequency operation of the antenna (Dufilie, ¶8).
Regarding claim 20, So teaches the method of claim 15.
So does not explicitly teach the dielectric layer having a thickness in an inclusive range of 0.01-0.015 λ0, however, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the dielectric layer to have a thickness according to desired parameters (of 220b-220f, in the z direction, see Fig. 3), which may be construed as encompassing and/or falling within 0.01-0.015 λ0 as λ0 is arbitrarily defined; further, 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.
Doing so would provide the predictable benefit of achieving a desirable constant and loss tangent of the dielectric layer (Col 6 lines 20-25).
So does not teach wherein the air gap has a distance in an inclusive range of 0.015-0.025 λ0.
Dufilie et al. teaches (Figs. 1, 3) a method of using an antenna comprising: a via-fed dual-polarized patch (14; see ¶49, ¶76); and a first capacitive-fed dual-polarized patch (12) capacitively coupled to the via-fed dual-polarized patch through an air gap (see Fig. 1), wherein the air gap has a distance in an inclusive range of 0.015-0.025 λ0 (S1, see Fig. 1, may be construed as encompassing and/or falling within 0.015-0.025 λ0 as λ0 is arbitrarily defined).
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 method of So such the air gap has a distance in an inclusive range of 0.015-0.025 λ0, employing the teachings of Dufilie; further, 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.
Doing so would provide the predictable benefit of enabling high frequency operation of the apparatus (Dufilie, ¶8).
Claims 2-5 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over So et al. (US Patent No. 11,641,065) in view of Dufilie et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2024/0421487) as applied to claims 1 and 15 above, and further in view of Xie et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2020/0303832).
Regarding claim 2, So teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
So does not teach wherein the second capacitive-fed dual-polarized patch includes one or more antenna elements having an X-shaped dual-polarized configuration.
Xie et al. teaches (Figs. 2(a), 2(b)) an apparatus comprising: a first dual-polarized patch (230); and a second capacitive-fed dual-polarized patch (210) capacitively coupled to the first dual-polarized patch through a dielectric layer (220); wherein the second capacitive-fed dual-polarized patch includes one or more antenna elements having an X-shaped dual-polarized configuration (see Fig. 2(b)).
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 apparatus of claim 1 such that the second capacitive-fed dual-polarized patch includes one or more antenna elements having an X-shaped dual-polarized configuration, employing the teachings of Xie.
Doing so would provide the predictable benefit of independent regulation of differently polarized electromagnetic waves (Xie, ¶14).
Regarding claim 3, So teaches the apparatus of claim 2.
So does not teach wherein the one or more antenna elements have a length in an inclusive range of 0.25-0.3 λ0 and a width in an inclusive range of 0.008-0.015 λ0.
Xie et al. teaches (Figs. 2(a), 2(b)) an apparatus comprising: a first dual-polarized patch (230); and a second capacitive-fed dual-polarized patch (210) capacitively coupled to the first dual-polarized patch through a dielectric layer (220); wherein the second capacitive-fed dual-polarized patch includes one or more antenna elements having an X-shaped dual-polarized configuration (see Fig. 2(b)), wherein the one or more antenna elements have a length in an inclusive range of 0.25-0.3 λ0 (1mm-4mm which may be construed as encompassing the range of 0.25-0.3 λ0 with λ0 being arbitrarily defined) and a width in an inclusive range of 0.008-0.015 λ0 (W2 recited may be construed as encompassing and/or falling within the range of 0.008-0.015 λ0 with λ0 being arbitrarily defined).
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 apparatus of claim 1 such that the one or more antenna elements have a length in an inclusive range of 0.25-0.3 λ0 and a width in an inclusive range of 0.008-0.015 λ0, employing the teachings of Xie; further, 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.
Doing so would provide the predictable benefit of independent regulation of differently polarized electromagnetic waves (Xie, ¶14).
Regarding claim 4, So teaches the apparatus of claim 2.
So does not teach wherein the one or more antenna elements are configured with a given wavelength, and the one or more antenna elements are applicable in different frequency bands.
Xie et al. teaches (Figs. 2(a), 2(b)) an apparatus comprising: a first dual-polarized patch (230); and a second capacitive-fed dual-polarized patch (210) capacitively coupled to the first dual-polarized patch through a dielectric layer (220); wherein the second capacitive-fed dual-polarized patch includes one or more antenna elements having an X-shaped dual-polarized configuration (see Fig. 2(b)), wherein: the one or more antenna elements are configured with a given wavelength (see ¶17, operating wavelength), and the one or more antenna elements are applicable in different frequency bands (see ¶60, a wide operating bandwidth may be understood to be a combination of different frequency bands).
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 apparatus of claim 2 such that the one or more antenna elements are configured with a given wavelength, and the one or more antenna elements are applicable in different frequency bands, employing the teachings of Xie.
Doing so would provide the predictable benefit of a relatively wide operating bandwidth (Xie, ¶60).
Regarding claim 5, So teaches the apparatus of claim 3, wherein: the via-fed dual-polarized patch (130) has a width or a length in an inclusive range of 0.3-0.35 λ0 (Lx2 or Ly2, see Fig. 5, may be construed as encompassing and/or falling within 0.3-0.35 λ0 as λ0 is arbitrarily defined), the first capacitive-fed dual-polarized patch (140) has a width or a length in an inclusive range of 0.3-0.35 λ0 (Lx3 or Ly3, see Fig. 6, may be construed as encompassing and/or falling within 0.3-0.35 λ0 as λ0 is arbitrarily defined), and the second capacitive-fed dual-polarized patch (170) has a width or a length in an inclusive range of 0.35-0.4 λ0 (Lx5 or Ly5, see Fig. 9, may be construed as encompassing and/or falling within 0.3-0.4 λ0 as λ0 is arbitrarily defined); further, 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, So teaches the method of claim 15.
So does not teach wherein the second capacitive-fed dual-polarized patch includes one or more antenna elements having an X-shaped dual-polarized configuration.
Xie et al. teaches (Figs. 2(a), 2(b)) a method of using an antenna comprising: a first dual-polarized patch (230); and a second capacitive-fed dual-polarized patch (210) capacitively coupled to the first dual-polarized patch through a dielectric layer (220); wherein the second capacitive-fed dual-polarized patch includes one or more antenna elements having an X-shaped dual-polarized configuration (see Fig. 2(b)).
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 method of claim 15 such that the second capacitive-fed dual-polarized patch includes one or more antenna elements having an X-shaped dual-polarized configuration, employing the teachings of Xie.
Doing so would provide the predictable benefit of independent regulation of differently polarized electromagnetic waves (Xie, ¶14).
Regarding claim 17, So teaches the method of claim 16.
So does not teach wherein the one or more antenna elements have a length in an inclusive range of 0.25-0.3 λ0 and a width in an inclusive range of 0.008-0.015 λ0.
Xie et al. teaches (Figs. 2(a), 2(b)) a method of using an antenna comprising: a first dual-polarized patch (230); and a second capacitive-fed dual-polarized patch (210) capacitively coupled to the first dual-polarized patch through a dielectric layer (220); wherein the second capacitive-fed dual-polarized patch includes one or more antenna elements having an X-shaped dual-polarized configuration (see Fig. 2(b)), wherein the one or more antenna elements have a length in an inclusive range of 0.25-0.3 λ0 (1mm-4mm which may be construed as encompassing the range of 0.25-0.3 λ0 with λ0 being arbitrarily defined) and a width in an inclusive range of 0.008-0.015 λ0 (W2 recited may be construed as encompassing and/or falling within the range of 0.008-0.015 λ0 with λ0 being arbitrarily defined).
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 method of claim 16 such that the one or more antenna elements have a length in an inclusive range of 0.25-0.3 λ0 and a width in an inclusive range of 0.008-0.015 λ0, employing the teachings of Xie; further, 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.
Doing so would provide the predictable benefit of independent regulation of differently polarized electromagnetic waves (Xie, ¶14).
Regarding claim 18, So teaches the method of claim 16.
So does not teach wherein the one or more antenna elements are configured with a given wavelength, and the one or more antenna elements are applicable in different frequency bands.
Xie et al. teaches (Figs. 2(a), 2(b)) an method of using an antenna comprising: a first dual-polarized patch (230); and a second capacitive-fed dual-polarized patch (210) capacitively coupled to the first dual-polarized patch through a dielectric layer (220); wherein the second capacitive-fed dual-polarized patch includes one or more antenna elements having an X-shaped dual-polarized configuration (see Fig. 2(b)), wherein: the one or more antenna elements are configured with a given wavelength (see ¶17, operating wavelength), and the one or more antenna elements are applicable in different frequency bands (see ¶60, a wide operating bandwidth may be understood to be a combination of different frequency bands).
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 method of claim 16 such that the one or more antenna elements are configured with a given wavelength, and the one or more antenna elements are applicable in different frequency bands, employing the teachings of Xie.
Doing so would provide the predictable benefit of a relatively wide operating bandwidth (Xie, ¶60).
Regarding claim 19, So teaches the method of claim 18, wherein: the via-fed dual-polarized patch (130) has a width or a length in an inclusive range of 0.3-0.35 λ0 (Lx2 or Ly2, see Fig. 5, may be construed as encompassing and/or falling within 0.3-0.35 λ0 as λ0 is arbitrarily defined), the first capacitive-fed dual-polarized patch (140) has a width or a length in an inclusive range of 0.3-0.35 λ0 (Lx3 or Ly3, see Fig. 6, may be construed as encompassing and/or falling within 0.3-0.35 λ0 as λ0 is arbitrarily defined), and the second capacitive-fed dual-polarized patch (170) has a width or a length in an inclusive range of 0.35-0.4 λ0 (Lx5 or Ly5, see Fig. 9, may be construed as encompassing and/or falling within 0.3-0.4 λ0 as λ0 is arbitrarily defined); further, 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Ramabadran et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2025/0132505), Salah et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2025/0070466), and Igarashi (US PG Pub. No. 2022/0320743) each teach stacked patch antenna arrangements..
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jordan E. DeWitt whose telephone number is (571)270-1235. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Thursday from 8:30 AM to 3:30 PM ET.
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.
/DAMEON E LEVI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2845
/Jordan E. DeWitt/Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights