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 .
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.
Claims 17 and 22 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.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the base". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes “the base” will be read as “a base”.
Claims 18 is dependent on claim 17 and therefore rejected for at least the same reasons.
Claim 22 recites the limitation "the main body". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes “the main body” will be read as “a main body”.
The above 112 rejected claims will be interpreted as best understood, in light of the specification, unless otherwise stated.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Lim et al. (US 2013/0163085).
Regarding claim 1, Lim discloses a driving mechanism for moving an optical element (Figures 1 and 8) that has an optical axis ([0024] discloses: optical image stabilizer that includes drive unit, disposed along an optical axis; Figure 1 depicts: 111, lens group, the optical element that is moved), comprising:
a fixed part ([0061] discloses: 130, housing, including 131, flexible printed circuit board);
a movable part ([0056] discloses: 110, lens barrel, driven in the direction of the optical axis;), movably connected to the fixed part for holding the optical element ([0056] discloses: 120, auto-focusing unit, drives 110, lens barrel; [0061] discloses: 120, auto-focusing unit, inside of 130, housing; thus, the housing is considered the fixed part, with the auto-focusing unit driving/moving 110, lens barrel, the movable part); and
a driving assembly ([0056] discloses: 120, auto-focusing unit, which is considered to contain the drive unit which includes 11, magnets, 20 hall sensors and 12, coils), configured for moving the optical element relative to the fixed part ([0056] discloses: 120, auto-focusing unit, drives 110, lens barrel, that houses 111, lens group and considered to move relative to 130, housing).
Claims 2-12 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Lim et al. (US 2013/0163085), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Sugawara (US 2018/0348538) in view of Seo (US 2022/0099917).
Regarding claim 2, the modified Lim discloses the driving mechanism as claimed in claim 1,
Lim fails to disclose a device wherein the driving assembly includes: a first coil, affixed to the fixed part; a second coil, affixed to the fixed part; and a first magnetic element, disposed on the movable part and located adjacent to the first and second coils and wherein the first and second coils at least partially overlap along the optical axis. Lim and Sugawara are related because both disclose camera modules.
Sugawara teaches a device wherein the driving assembly includes: a first coil (Figure 9 depicts: 211A, first OIS coil), affixed to the fixed part ([0075-0076] teaches: 211A, first OIS coil, is part of OIS fixing part); a second coil (Figure 9 depicts: 211B, second OIS coil), affixed to the fixed part ([0075-0076] teaches: 211A, first OIS coil, is part of OIS fixing part); and a first magnetic element, disposed on the movable part and located adjacent to the first and second coils ([0070] teaches: 122A, 122B first and second magnets, part of 11, AF movable part; [0075] teaches: magnets adjacent to the first and second coils).
Lim and Seo are related because both disclose camera modules.
Seo teaches disclose a device wherein the first and second coils at least partially overlap along the optical axis ([0118] teaches: two coils disposed along the optical axis; Figure 7 depicts: 362a and 362b, first and second coils, overlapping along the optical axis).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lim in view of Sugawara and Seo and provide a device wherein the driving assembly includes: a first coil, affixed to the fixed part; a second coil, affixed to the fixed part; and a first magnetic element, disposed on the movable part and located adjacent to the first and second coils and wherein the first and second coils at least partially overlap along the optical axis. Doing so would allow for the structure to maintain electromagnetic force within a compact arrangement, thereby improving OIS/AF drive performance in a reduced size lens driving mechanism.
Regarding claim 3, the modified Lim discloses the driving mechanism as claimed in claim 2, wherein the length of the first coil along a first axis is greater than the length of the second coil along the first axis (Sugawara: [0080] discloses: 211a, upper coil layer and 211b, lower coil layer; Figure 9 depicts 211a, upper coil layer, with a length greater than 211b, lower coil layer, along the length of 211A/211B, considered the first axis), and the first axis is perpendicular to the optical axis (Sugawara: Examiner notes that the coils are stacked up and down along the optical axis, the length and width directions are perpendicular to the optical axis; Examiner notes that the same motivation to combine applied to an earlier claim, 2, also applies here, and no further analysis is required, consistent with MPEP § 2143, which permits reliance on previously articulated rationale where the combination and reasonings remain unchanged).
Regarding claim 4, the modified Lim discloses the driving mechanism as claimed in claim 3, further comprising a position sensor ([0046] discloses: 20, hall sensor) disposed on the fixed part (Figure 8 depicts: 20, hall sensors disposed on 131, flexible printed circuit board, that is part of the fixed part) for detecting the displacement of the movable part relative to the fixed part ([0046] discloses: 20, hall sensors detect displacement, of 111, lens group, which is part of the movable part), wherein the position sensor and the first magnetic element at least partially overlap along a second axis that is perpendicular to the first axis and the optical axis (see annotated Figure A below, which is an annotated Figure 1 of Lim).
PNG
media_image1.png
502
858
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, the modified Lim discloses the driving mechanism as claimed in claim 4, wherein the position sensor and the second coil at least partially overlap along the first axis (Sugawara: Figure 9 depicts: 24, hall device, and 211B, second coil, overlapping along the left to right axis, considered the first axis; Examiner notes that the same motivation to combine applied to an earlier claim, 2, also applies here, and no further analysis is required, consistent with MPEP § 2143, which permits reliance on previously articulated rationale where the combination and reasonings remain unchanged).
Regarding claim 6, the modified Lim discloses the driving mechanism as claimed in claim 5, wherein driving assembly further includes two second coils (Sugawara: Figure 9 depicts: 211b, and 211b, considered a the second coil broken into two sensor coils), and the position sensor is disposed between the second coils (Sugawara: Figure 9 depicts: 24, hall device, disposed between the second coils; Examiner notes that the same motivation to combine applied to an earlier claim, 2, also applies here, and no further analysis is required, consistent with MPEP § 2143, which permits reliance on previously articulated rationale where the combination and reasonings remain unchanged).
Regarding claim 7, the modified Lim discloses the driving mechanism as claimed in claim 6, wherein the second coils do not protrude from the first coil along the first axis (Sugawara: Figure 9 depicts: 211b and 211b, second coils not protruding from the first coil along both the length and width axes, the length direction is considered the first axis; Examiner notes that the same motivation to combine applied to an earlier claim, 2, also applies here, and no further analysis is required, consistent with MPEP § 2143, which permits reliance on previously articulated rationale where the combination and reasonings remain unchanged).
Regarding claim 8, the modified Lim discloses the driving mechanism as claimed in claim 5, wherein the position sensor and the first coil do not overlap along the first axis ([0026] discloses: hall sensor is disposed outside the coil; It would have been obvious to combine embodiments as doing so would allow the hall sensor to be positioned to reduce coil interference and accommodate circuit layout constraints, thereby improving position detection accuracy in a compact lens driving mechanism).
Regarding claim 9, the modified Lim discloses the driving mechanism as claimed in claim 5, wherein the position sensor and the first coil at least partially overlap along the optical axis (Sugawara: Figure 9 depicts: 24, hall device, at least partially overlapping 211A, first OIS coil in the optical axis direction, from bottom to top of Figure 9; Examiner notes that the same motivation to combine applied to an earlier claim, 2, also applies here, and no further analysis is required, consistent with MPEP § 2143, which permits reliance on previously articulated rationale where the combination and reasonings remain unchanged).
Regarding claim 10, the modified Lim discloses the driving mechanism as claimed in claim 5, wherein the position sensor and the second coil do not overlap along the optical axis (Sugawara: Figure 9 depicts: 24, hall device, and 211B, second OIS coil, do not overlap along the optical axis direction; from bottom to top of Figure 9; Examiner notes that the same motivation to combine applied to an earlier claim, 2, also applies here, and no further analysis is required, consistent with MPEP § 2143, which permits reliance on previously articulated rationale where the combination and reasonings remain unchanged).
Regarding claim 11, the modified Lim discloses the driving mechanism as claimed in claim 5, wherein the position sensor is offset from the center of the magnetic element along the optical axis (Figure 1 depicts: 20, hall sensor, in a position offset from the center of 11 magnets along the optical axis, i.e., the they are not disposed on top of each other from Figure 1).
Regarding claim 12, the modified Lim discloses the driving mechanism as claimed in claim 5, wherein the position sensor detects the displacement of the movable part relative to the fixed part along the second axis ([0046] discloses: 20, hall sensors detect displacement, of 111, lens group, which is part of the movable part, in the x direction and the y direction; Examiner notes that the y direction is considered the second axis).
Regarding claim 19, the modified Lim discloses the driving mechanism as claimed in claim 5, further comprising a circuit substrate ([0062] discloses: 131, circuit board), wherein the first and second coils are disposed inside the circuit substrate (Figure 1 of Lim depicts: the plurality of coils disposed inside the circuit board; It would have been obvious to implement Sugawara’ fir and second coils in Lim’s circuit board; Doing so would allow the coils to be integrated into the circuit substrate regardless of coil orientation, thereby reducing thickness and improving assembly reliability).
Regarding claim 20, the modified Lim discloses the driving mechanism as claimed in claim 19, wherein the circuit substrate forms a groove for receiving the position sensor (Sugawara: [0096] discloses: 24, hall device, can be embedded into 21, coil substrate, and a complicated wire pattern can be readily formed; thus the coil substrate is analogous to the circuit substrate; Examiner notes that the same motivation to combine applied to an earlier claim, 2, also applies here, and no further analysis is required, consistent with MPEP § 2143, which permits reliance on previously articulated rationale where the combination and reasonings remain unchanged).
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Lim et al. (US 2013/0163085), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Sugawara (US 2018/0348538) in view of Seo (US 2022/0099917), as applied to claim 5 above, in view of Yun et al. (US 2022/0086315).
Regarding claim 13, the modified Lim discloses the driving mechanism as claimed in claim 5.
Lim fails to disclose a device wherein the first magnetic element includes a first magnetic unit and a second magnetic unit arranged along the optical axis, the first magnetic unit and the first coil at least partially overlap along the second axis, and the second magnetic unit and the second coil at least partially overlap along the second axis. Lim and Yun are related because both disclose camera modules.
Yun teaches a device wherein the first magnetic element includes a first magnetic unit and a second magnetic unit arranged along the optical axis (Figure 5 depicts: 411, magnet, having two sets of poles, considered a first and a second magnetic unit, arranged along the z-axis, the optical axis direction), the first magnetic unit and the first coil at least partially overlap along the second axis (Figure 7 depicts: first magnetic unit, top portion, and 430 coil, on the left hand side, at least partially overlapping the in the x direction, considered the second axis), and the second magnetic unit and the second coil at least partially overlap along the second axis (Figure 7 depicts: second magnetic unit, bottom portion, and 430, coil, on right hand side, at least partially overlapping the in the x direction, considered the second axis).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lim in view of Yun and provide a device wherein the first magnetic element includes a first magnetic unit and a second magnetic unit arranged along the optical axis, the first magnetic unit and the first coil at least partially overlap along the second axis, and the second magnetic unit and the second coil at least partially overlap along the second axis. Doing so would allow for different magnetic pole regions to interact with respective coil portions, thereby improving electromagnetic driving efficiency and compactness in the lens driving mechanism.
Regarding claim 14, the modified Lim discloses the driving mechanism as claimed in claim 13, wherein the second magnetic unit (Yin: Figure 5 depicts: magnets disposed in the optical axis direction; Examiner notes that the same motivation to combine applied to an earlier claim, 13, also applies here, and no further analysis is required, consistent with MPEP § 2143, which permits reliance on previously articulated rationale where the combination and reasonings remain unchanged) and the position sensor (Figure 1 depicts: 20, hall sensor) at least partially overlap along the second axis (Figure 1 depicts: 11 magnets overlapping 20, hall sensor in the second direction).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Lim et al. (US 2013/0163085), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Sugawara (US 2018/0348538) in view of Seo (US 2022/0099917) in view of Yun et al. (US 2022/0086315), as applied to claim 14 above, in view of Lee et al. (US 2021/0364733).
Regarding claim 15, the modified Lim discloses the driving mechanism as claimed in claim 14.
Lim fails to disclose a device wherein the first magnetic unit and the position sensor do not overlap along the second axis. Lim and Lee are related because both disclose camera modules.
Lee teaches a device wherein the first magnetic unit and the position sensor do not overlap along the second axis ([0387] teaches: 170, position sensor may not overlap 130, first magnet in a direction toward the coil; considered analogous to the second axis).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lim in view of Lee and provide a device wherein the first magnetic unit and the position sensor do not overlap along the second axis. Doing so would allow for the position sensor to detect the magnetic field of the selected magnetic unit while reducing magnetic interference with other magnetic units, thereby improving position detection accuracy.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Lim et al. (US 2013/0163085), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Sugawara (US 2018/0348538) in view of Seo (US 2022/0099917) in view of Yun et al. (US 2022/0086315), as applied to claim 14 above, in view of Inaba et al. (US 2008/0111890).
Regarding claim 16, the modified Lim discloses the driving mechanism as claimed in claim 13.
Lim fails to disclose a device further comprising a metal sheet disposed between the first magnetic unit and the second magnetic unit, wherein the polar directions of the first magnetic unit and the second magnetic unit are different. Lim and Inaba are related because both disclose driving apparatus.
Inaba teaches a device further comprising a metal sheet disposed between the first magnetic unit and the second magnetic unit (Figure 7 depicts: 303, magnetic plate, between 301, first magnet plate and 302, second magnet plate), wherein the polar directions of the first magnetic unit and the second magnetic unit are different (Figure 7 depicts: polar directions of 301, first magnet plate and 302, second magnet plate are different).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lin in view of Inaba and provide a device further comprising a metal sheet disposed between the first magnetic unit and the second magnetic unit, wherein the polar directions of the first magnetic unit and the second magnetic unit are different. Doing so would allow for the magnetic units to be separately produced and magnetically integrated while providing different pole directions for interaction with respective coil portions, thereby improving assembly and electromagnetic drive performance.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Lim et al. (US 2013/0163085), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Sugawara (US 2018/0348538) in view of Seo (US 2022/0099917) in view of Yun et al. (US 2022/0086315) in view of Inaba et al. (US 2008/0111890), as applied to claim 16 above, in view of Park et al. (US 2010/0039719).
Regarding claim 17, as best understood, the modified Lim discloses the driving mechanism as claimed in claim 16.
Lim fails to disclose a device further comprising a magnetic permeable sheet disposed on a base, wherein the second magnetic unit is located between the metal sheet and the magnetic permeable sheet. Lim and Park are related because both disclose lens driving apparatus.
Park teaches a device further comprising a magnetic permeable sheet disposed on a base ([0018] teaches: 130, metal yoke, includes 131, horizontal plate, mounted on the base), wherein the second magnetic unit is located between the metal sheet and the magnetic permeable sheet (Examiner notes that the horizontal plate of Park is below the entire magnet set, the metal yoke; therefore in the Modified Lin, the second magnet would be between the magnetic plate of claims 16 and the horizonal plate of claim 17).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lim in view of Park and provide a device further comprising a magnetic permeable sheet disposed on a base, wherein the second magnetic unit is located between the metal sheet and the magnetic permeable sheet. Doing so would allow for magnetic flux to be guided and leaked flux to be reduced, thereby improving electromagnetic driving efficiency in the lens driving mechanism.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Lim et al. (US 2013/0163085), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Sugawara (US 2018/0348538) in view of Seo (US 2022/0099917) in view of Yun et al. (US 2022/0086315) in view of Inaba et al. (US 2008/0111890) in view of Park et al. (US 2010/0039719), as applied to claim 17 above, in view of Nishimura (US 2015/0350577).
Regarding claim 18, the modified Lim discloses the driving mechanism as claimed in claim 17.
Lim fails to disclose a device wherein the magnetic permeability of the magnetic permeable sheet is higher than the magnetic permeability of the metal sheet. Lim and Nishimura are related because both disclose imaging devices.
Nishimura teaches a device wherein the magnetic permeability of the magnetic permeable sheet ([0034] teaches: 212, second magnetic body, the upper sheet analogous the magnetic permeable sheet) is higher than the magnetic permeability of the metal sheet ([0034] teaches: 212, second magnetic body, having a higher relative permeability than that of 211, first magnetic body, analogous to the metal sheet).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lim in view of Nishimura and provide a device wherein the magnetic permeability of the magnetic permeable sheet is higher than the magnetic permeability of the metal sheet. Doing so would allow for the magnetic permeable sheet to more effectively guide the magnetic flux and suppress leakage of magnetic field, thereby improving the overall performance of the drive mechanism.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Lim et al. (US 2013/0163085), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Sugawara (US 2018/0348538) in view of Seo (US 2022/0099917), as applied to claim 19 above, in view of Yoshinaga et al. (US 2021/0227687).
Regarding claim 21, the modified Lim discloses the driving mechanism as claimed in claim 19, further comprising a flexible circuit board electrically connected to the first and second coils ([0062] discloses: 12, coils are disposed on 131, flexible printed circuit board, and electrically connected to power supply and circuit board connects external power supply to coils), wherein the circuit substrate (Sugawara: Figure 8 depicts: 21, coil substrate; considered the circuit substrate) is disposed on the flexible (Lim: [0062] discloses: flexible printed circuit board) circuit board (Sugawara: Figure 8 depicts: 22, sensor substrate; considered the circuit board; Examiner notes that the same motivation to combine applied to an earlier claim, 2, also applies here, and no further analysis is required, consistent with MPEP § 2143, which permits reliance on previously articulated rationale where the combination and reasonings remain unchanged).
Lim fails to disclose a device with the thickness of the flexible circuit board is less than the thickness of the circuit substrate. Lim and Yoshinaga are related because both disclose circuit board configurations.
Yoshinaga teaches disclose a device with the thickness of the flexible circuit board is less than the thickness of the circuit substrate ([0050] teaches: flexible part located between two component mounting parts, formed to have thickness thinner than each of the boards of the component mounting parts).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lim in view of Yoshinaga and provide disclose a device with the thickness of the flexible circuit board is less than the thickness of the circuit substrate. Doing so would allow for flexibility in the circuit board to bend and route electrical signals while the circuit substrate provides support for the coils, thereby improving compactness and assembly reliability.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Lim et al. (US 2013/0163085), as applied to claim 21 above, in view of Sugawara (US 2018/0348538) in view of Seo (US 2022/0099917) in view of Yoshinaga et al. (US 2021/0227687), as applied to claim 21 above, in view of Lu (2016/0227649).
Regarding claim 22, as best understood, the modified Lim discloses the driving mechanism as claimed in claim 21.
Lim fails to disclose a device further comprising a conductive element, wherein a main body of the flexible circuit board has an inner surface facing the circuit substrate, the circuit substrate has a lateral surface adjacent to the inner surface, and the conductive element is connected between the inner surface and the lateral surface. Lim and Lu are related because both disclose electrical circuit setups.
Lu teaches a device further comprising a conductive element ([0038] teaches: 40, surface mount pads), wherein a main body of the flexible circuit board ([0038] discloses: 10, substrate) has an inner surface facing (Figure 4 depicts: inner surface of 10, substrate, facing 50, circuit board, surface adjacent to inside top of 40, surface mount pads) the circuit substrate ([0038] teaches: 50, circuit board), the circuit substrate has a lateral surface ([0038] teaches: lateral surface of substrate) adjacent to the inner surface (Figure 4 depicts: inner surface and lateral surface adjacent to each other, across the gap of 40, surface mount pads), and the conductive element is connected between the inner surface and the lateral surface (Figure 4 depicts: 40, mounting pads, connected between the two surfaces defined as the lateral surface and inner surface).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lim in view of Lu and provide a device further comprising a conductive element, wherein a main body of the flexible circuit board has an inner surface facing the circuit substrate, the circuit substrate has a lateral surface adjacent to the inner surface, and the conductive element is connected between the inner surface and the lateral surface. Doing so would allow for the flexible circuit board and circuit substrate to be electrically connected using a compact side-surface conductive connection, thereby reducing connector space and improving electrical connection reliability.
Compact Prosecution
To advance prosecution, Applicant may consider amending the independent claim, if supported by the specification, to disclose the impact-prevention structure, such as a buffer element disposed on the movable frame/plastic body and configured to contact the circuit substrate when the movable part reaches a limit position, thereby preventing the first magnetic element from impacting the circuit substrate. Applicant may further consider reciting the disclosed hardness relationship between the buffer element, plastic body and base. Such an amendment would focus the claims on a specific mechanical protection arrangement rather than a conventional coil/magnet/hall sensor driving mechanism.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Lee (US 2018/0203203) discloses a lens driving device but fails to disclose the correct coil orientation, Shin et al. (US 2016/0274328) discloses a lens driving device but fails to disclose the correct driving configuration.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to John Sipes whose telephone number is (703)756-1372. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 4:30-9:30/12:30-7:30 (CT).
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, Bumsuk Won can be reached at (571) 272-2713. 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.
John Sipes
Examiner
Art Unit 2872
/J.C.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/BUMSUK WON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights