DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 04/21/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 are currently pending. Applicant’s amendments to the claims and drawings have overcome the drawing objections and 35 USC 112 rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 01/23/2026.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Similar amendments should be made throughout the specification that were made to the claims to correct “a first substrate having a first parasitic element configured to provide a filtering function and disposed on the spatial filter device; a second substrate having a second parasitic element configured to provide a filtering function and disposed under the spatial filter device” since it is unclear how the first substrate or the first parasitic element can be disposed on the spatial filter device, when the first substrate and the first parasitic element are a part of the spatial filter device itself. Similarity it is unclear how the second substrate or the second parasitic element can be disposed under the spatial filter device, when the second substrate are the second parasitic element are a part of the spatial filter device itself.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-20 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.
Claims 1 and 11 recite ”a second dipole antenna disposed on the second substrate”. It is not clear how the second dipole antenna is disposed on the second substrate. The only thing that is disposed on the second substrate is the second parasitic element. The applicant should use language to relate the positioning of the two, such as the second substrate is disposed under the second dipole antenna.
Claims 2-10 and 12-20 are dependent on claims 1 and 11, respectively, and therefore also rejected.
Claims 10 and 20 recite “ a plurality of vias connecting a first portion of the first dipole antenna connected to the first parasitic element and a second portion of the second dipole antenna connected to the second parasitic element”. In the figures and in the specification, it is clear that there is a single via that connects each individual arm of the first dipole antenna to a corresponding arm of the second dipole antenna. This claim is unclear as it reads as there are a plurality of vias that connect a first portion of the first dipole antenna to a second portion of the second dipole antenna. Furthermore, it is unclear based on the specification and drawings as to what is a “first portion” of the first dipole antenna and what is “a second portion” of the second dipole antenna.
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.
Claims 1-9 and 11-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crouch et al. (US 11075452, hereby referred as Crouch) in view of Xu et al. (CN 115064877, hereby referred as Xu).
Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Crouch teaches the following:
a spatial filter device comprising:
a first substrate (element 216, figures 2) having a first parasitic element (combination of the patches of element 216, as shown in figure 2B; column 3, lines 44-54; column 4, line 1-7; column 5, line 62-67) configured to provide a filtering function;
a first dipole antenna (elements 212, figure 2) disposed under the first substrate, wherein the first dipole antenna is configured to transmit and receive radio waves in free space, and coupled to the first parasitic element (as shown in figure 2B; column 3, lines 44-54; column 4, line 1-7 and 15-23; column 5, line 62-67);
a second substrate (element 226, figures 2) having a second parasitic element (combination of the individual patches of element 226, as shown in figure 2B; column 3, lines 44-54; column 4, line 1-7; column 5, line 62-67) configured to provide a filtering function; and
a second dipole antenna (elements 222, figures 2) disposed on the second substrate, wherein the second dipole antenna is configured to transmit and receive radio waves in free space, and coupled to the second parasitic element (as shown in figure 2B; column 3, lines 44-54; column 4, line 1-7 and 15-23; column 5, line 62-67),
wherein the first dipole antenna and the second dipole antenna are electrically connected (by way of elements 218, figures 2), and
wherein a cutoff frequency of the spatial filter device is determined based on a length of the first parasitic element and the second parasitic element (the combination of the patches of elements 216 and 226, as shown in figure 2B; column 3, lines 44-54; column 4, line 1-7; column 5, line 62-67; the cutoff frequency of an element of a frequency selective surface is inherently based on a length of the elements).
Crouch does not teach the first and second dipole antennas are not to be aligned therewith the first and second parasitic elements, respectively.
Xu suggests the teachings of the dipole antenna (elements 3, figures 1-4) so as not to be aligned with the parasitic elements (elements 102/202, figures 1-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the first and second dipole antennas of Crouch to not be aligned therewith the first and second parasitic elements, respectively as suggested by the teachings of Xu which can be used to control the transmission coefficient, the reflection coefficient of the FSS, and the polarization of the desired signals to filter/reflect out.
Regarding claim 2, as best understood, Crouch as referred in claim 1 teaches the following:
wherein the first parasitic element (combination of the patches of element 216, as shown in figure 2B; column 3, lines 44-54; column 4, line 1-7; column 5, line 62-67) is configured as a cross-shaped metal or a modified cross-shaped metal, and
wherein the second parasitic element (combination of the patches of element 226, as shown in figure 2B; column 3, lines 44-54; column 4, line 1-7; column 5, line 62-67) is configured as the cross-shaped metal or the modified cross-shaped metal.
Regarding claim 3, as best understood, Crouch as referred in claim 1 teaches the following:
a third substrate having a third parasitic element configured to provide a filtering function and disposed on the first substrate (column 4, lines 15-23),
wherein the third parasitic element is coupled to the first dipole antenna so as not to be aligned therewith (as explained in claim 1, column 4, lines 15-23).
Regarding claim 4, as best understood, Crouch as referred in claim 1 teaches the following:
wherein two axes each of the first dipole antenna and the second dipole antenna are configured as cross-shaped metals that are perpendicular to each other (as shown in figures 2).
Regarding claim 5, as best understood, Crouch as referred in claim 4 teaches the device with the exception of explicitly teaching the following:
wherein a length of each of the first dipole antenna and the second dipole antenna is configured as half of a wavelength in waveguide of an operating frequency.
However, it is well known in the antenna art that dipole antennas are most commonly configured as half of a wavelength in waveguide of an operating frequency.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have a length of each of the first dipole antenna and the second dipole antenna of Crouch to be configured as half of a wavelength in waveguide of an operating frequency as it is well known in the art that dipole antennas are most commonly configured as half of a wavelength in waveguide of an operating frequency since that is the length where its length where current and voltage peaks align perfectly and allowing maximum power transfer which makes it a highly effective radiator, and 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 6, as best understood, Crouch as referred in claim 1 teaches the following:
wherein two axes of each of the first parasitic element (combination of the patches of element 216, as shown in figure 2B; column 3, lines 44-54; column 4, line 1-7; column 5, line 62-67) and the second parasitic element (combination of the individual patches of element 226, as shown in figure 2B; column 3, lines 44-54; column 4, line 1-7; column 5, line 62-67) are connected perpendicularly to each other at a center (as shown in figures 2).
Crouch does not explicitly teach wherein a length of each of the first parasitic element and the second parasitic element is configured as half of a wavelength in waveguide of a cutoff frequency.
However, it is well known in the antenna art that elements of a frequency selective surfaces, such as the one in Crouch, are most commonly configured as half of a wavelength in waveguide of an operating frequency when they are dipoles.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have a length of each of the first parasitic element and the second parasitic element of Crouch to be configured as half of a wavelength in waveguide of a cutoff frequency as it is well known in the art that elements of a frequency selective surfaces are most commonly configured as half of a wavelength in waveguide of an operating frequency when they are dipoles since that is the length where its length where current and voltage peaks align perfectly and allowing it to be tuned to filter out certain frequencies, and 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 7, as best understood, Crouch as referred in claim 1 teaches the device with the exception of the following:
wherein an alignment angle between the first dipole antenna and the first parasitic element is configured in a range of 25° to 65°, and wherein an alignment angle between the second dipole antenna and the second parasitic element is configured in a range of 25° to 65°.
Xu suggests the teachings of wherein an alignment angle between the dipole antenna (elements 3, figures 1-4) and the parasitic element (elements 102/202, figures 1-4) is configured in a range of 25° to 65°.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have an alignment angle between the first and second dipole antenna and the first and second parasitic element, respectively, of Crouch to be configured in a range of 25° to 65° as suggested by the teachings of Xu which can be used to control the transmission coefficient, the reflection coefficient of the FSS, and the polarization of the desired signals to filter/reflect out.
Regarding claim 8, as best understood, Crouch as referred in claim 1 teaches the device with the exception of the following:
wherein an alignment angle between the first dipole antenna and the first parasitic element is configured as 45°, and wherein an alignment angle between the second dipole antenna and the second parasitic element is configured as 45°.
Xu suggests the teachings of wherein an alignment angle between the dipole antenna (elements 3, figures 1-4) and the parasitic element (elements 102/202, figures 1-4) is configured as 45°.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have an alignment angle between the first and second dipole antenna and the first and second parasitic element, respectively of Crouch to be configured as 45° as suggested by the teachings of Xu which can be used to control the transmission coefficient, the reflection coefficient of the FSS, and the polarization of the desired signals to filter/reflect out.
Regarding claim 9, as best understood, Crouch as referred in claim 1 teaches the following:
wherein a cutoff frequency of the first parasitic element is determined based on a length of the first parasitic element (the cutoff frequency of an element of a frequency selective surface is inherently based on a length of the elements, such as the ones shown in Crouch), and
wherein a cutoff frequency of the second parasitic element is determined based on a length of the second parasitic element (the cutoff frequency of an element of a frequency selective surface is inherently based on a length of the elements, such as the ones shown in Crouch).
Regarding claim 11, as best understood, Crouch teaches the following:
an electronic device comprising:
a spatial filter device (figures 2); and
one or more processors communicatively coupled to the spatial filter device (column 4, line 66 – column 5, line 3),
wherein the spatial filter device comprises:
a first substrate (element 216, figures 2) having a first parasitic element (combination of the patches of element 216, as shown in figure 2B; column 3, lines 44-54; column 4, line 1-7; column 5, line 62-67) configured to provide a filtering function;
a first dipole antenna (elements 212, figure 2) disposed under the first substrate, wherein the first dipole antenna is configured to transmit and receive radio waves in free space, and coupled to the first parasitic element (as shown in figure 2B; column 3, lines 44-54; column 4, line 1-7 and 15-23; column 5, line 62-67);
a second substrate (element 226, figures 2) having a second parasitic element (combination of the individual patches of element 226, as shown in figure 2B; column 3, lines 44-54; column 4, line 1-7; column 5, line 62-67) configured to provide a filtering function; and
a second dipole antenna (elements 222, figures 2) configured to transmit and receive radio waves in free space, and coupled to the second parasitic element (as shown in figure 2B; column 3, lines 44-54; column 4, line 1-7 and 15-23; column 5, line 62-67),
wherein the first dipole antenna and the second dipole antenna are electrically connected (by way of elements 218, figures 2), and
wherein a cutoff frequency of the spatial filter device is determined based on a length of the first parasitic element and the second parasitic element (the combination of the patches of elements 216 and 226, as shown in figure 2B; column 3, lines 44-54; column 4, line 1-7; column 5, line 62-67; the cutoff frequency of an element of a frequency selective surface is inherently based on a length of the elements).
Crouch does not teach the first and second dipole antennas are not to be aligned therewith the first and second parasitic elements, respectively.
Xu suggests the teachings of the dipole antenna (elements 3, figures 1-4) so as not to be aligned with the parasitic elements (elements 102/202, figures 1-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the first and second dipole antennas of Crouch to not be aligned therewith the first and second parasitic elements, respectively as suggested by the teachings of Xu which can be used to control the transmission coefficient, the reflection coefficient of the FSS, and the polarization of the desired signals to filter/reflect out.
Regarding claim 12, as best understood, Crouch as referred in claim 11 teaches the following:
wherein the first parasitic element (combination of the patches of element 216, as shown in figure 2B; column 3, lines 44-54; column 4, line 1-7; column 5, line 62-67) is configured as a cross-shaped metal or a modified cross-shaped metal, and
wherein the second parasitic element (combination of the patches of element 226, as shown in figure 2B; column 3, lines 44-54; column 4, line 1-7; column 5, line 62-67) is configured as the cross-shaped metal or the modified cross-shaped metal.
Regarding claim 13, as best understood, Crouch as referred in claim 11 teaches the following:
a third substrate having a third parasitic element configured to provide a filtering function and disposed on the first substrate (column 4, lines 15-23),
wherein the third parasitic element is coupled to the first dipole antenna so as not to be aligned therewith (as explained in claim 1, column 4, lines 15-23).
Regarding claim 14, as best understood, Crouch as referred in claim 11 teaches the following:
wherein two axes of each of the first dipole antenna and the second dipole antenna are configured as cross-shaped metals that are perpendicular to each other (as shown in figures 2).
Regarding claim 15, as best understood, Crouch as referred in claim 14 teaches the device with the exception of explicitly teaching the following:
wherein a length of each of the first dipole antenna and the second dipole antenna is configured as half of a wavelength in waveguide of an operating frequency.
However, it is well known in the antenna art that dipole antennas are most commonly configured as half of a wavelength in waveguide of an operating frequency.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have a length of each of the first dipole antenna and the second dipole antenna of Crouch to be configured as half of a wavelength in waveguide of an operating frequency as it is well known in the art that dipole antennas are most commonly configured as half of a wavelength in waveguide of an operating frequency since that is the length where its length where current and voltage peaks align perfectly and allowing maximum power transfer which makes it a highly effective radiator, and 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 16, as best understood, Crouch as referred in claim 11 teaches the following:
wherein two axes of each of the first parasitic element (combination of the patches of element 216, as shown in figure 2B; column 3, lines 44-54; column 4, line 1-7; column 5, line 62-67) and the second parasitic element (combination of the individual patches of element 226, as shown in figure 2B; column 3, lines 44-54; column 4, line 1-7; column 5, line 62-67) are connected perpendicularly to each other at a center (as shown in figures 2).
Crouch does not explicitly teach wherein a length of each of the first parasitic element and the second parasitic element is configured as half of a wavelength in waveguide of a cutoff frequency.
However, it is well known in the antenna art that elements of a frequency selective surfaces, such as the one in Crouch, are most commonly configured as half of a wavelength in waveguide of an operating frequency when they are dipoles.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have a length of each of the first parasitic element and the second parasitic element of Crouch to be configured as half of a wavelength in waveguide of a cutoff frequency as it is well known in the art that elements of a frequency selective surfaces are most commonly configured as half of a wavelength in waveguide of an operating frequency when they are dipoles since that is the length where its length where current and voltage peaks align perfectly and allowing it to be tuned to filter out certain frequencies, and 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 17, as best understood, Crouch as referred in claim 11 teaches the device with the exception of the following:
wherein an alignment angle between the first dipole antenna and the first parasitic element is configured in a range of 25° to 65°, and wherein an alignment angle between the second dipole antenna and the second parasitic element is configured in a range of 25° to 65°.
Xu suggests the teachings of wherein an alignment angle between the dipole antenna (elements 3, figures 1-4) and the parasitic element (elements 102/202, figures 1-4) is configured in a range of 25° to 65°.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have an alignment angle between the first and second dipole antenna and the first and second parasitic element, respectively, of Crouch to be configured in a range of 25° to 65° as suggested by the teachings of Xu which can be used to control the transmission coefficient, the reflection coefficient of the FSS, and the polarization of the desired signals to filter/reflect out.
Regarding claim 18, as best understood, Crouch as referred in claim 11 teaches the device with the exception of the following:
wherein an alignment angle between the first dipole antenna and the first parasitic element is configured as 45°, and wherein an alignment angle between the second dipole antenna and the second parasitic element is configured as 45°.
Xu suggests the teachings of wherein an alignment angle between the dipole antenna (elements 3, figures 1-4) and the parasitic element (elements 102/202, figures 1-4) is configured as 45°.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have an alignment angle between the first and second dipole antenna and the first and second parasitic element, respectively, of Crouch to be configured as 45° as suggested by the teachings of Xu which can be used to control the transmission coefficient, the reflection coefficient of the FSS, and the polarization of the desired signals to filter/reflect out.
Regarding claim 19, as best understood, Crouch as referred in claim 11 teaches the following:
wherein a cutoff frequency of the first parasitic element is determined based on a length of the first parasitic element (the cutoff frequency of an element of a frequency selective surface is inherently based on a length of the elements, such as the ones shown in Crouch), and
wherein a cutoff frequency of the second parasitic element is determined based on a length of the second parasitic element (the cutoff frequency of an element of a frequency selective surface is inherently based on a length of the elements, such as the ones shown in Crouch).
Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crouch et al. (US 11075452, hereby referred as Crouch) in view of Xu et al. (CN 115064877, hereby referred as Xu), and further in view of Gimeno Martin et al. (US 2022/0399643, hereby referred as Gimeno).
Regarding claim 10, as best understood, Crouch as referred in claim 1 teaches the following:
a plurality of vias (elements 218, figures 2) connecting a first portion of the first dipole antenna (elements 212, figures 2) connected to the first parasitic element and a second portion of the second dipole antenna (elements 222, figures 2) connected to the second parasitic element.
Crouch does not teach a via wall configured to surround the plurality of vias.
Gimeno suggests the teachings of a via wall configured to surround the plurality of vias (“A via fence 82 has been implemented as an additional countermeasure to overcome inter-element couplings and mutual coupling.”, paragraphs [0097]-[0098]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have Crouch as modified to include a via wall configured to surround the plurality of vias as suggested by the teachings of Gimeno to reduce any inter-element couplings and mutual coupling so as to reduce any interference/noise that may occur (paragraphs [0097]-[0098]).
Regarding claim 20, as best understood, Crouch as referred in claim 11 teaches the following:
a plurality of vias (elements 218, figures 2) connecting a first portion of the first dipole antenna (elements 212, figures 2) connected to the first parasitic element and a second portion of the second dipole antenna (elements 222, figures 2) connected to the second parasitic element.
Crouch does not teach a via wall configured to surround the plurality of vias.
Gimeno suggests the teachings of a via wall configured to surround the plurality of vias (“A via fence 82 has been implemented as an additional countermeasure to overcome inter-element couplings and mutual coupling.”, paragraphs [0097]-[0098]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have Crouch as modified to include a via wall configured to surround the plurality of vias as suggested by the teachings of Gimeno to reduce any inter-element couplings and mutual coupling so as to reduce any interference/noise that may occur (paragraphs [0097]-[0098]).
Additional Comments
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Gottl et al. (US 2018/0040948) also teaches a dipole antenna that is not aligned with the parasitic elements of a spatial filter, and could be used in place of Xu to teach the claimed limitations.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding independent claims 1 and 11, the applicant argues that both Crouch and Xu do not discloses a first dipole antenna disposed under the first substrate and electrically connected to a second dipole antenna disposed on the second substrate, and wherein a cutoff frequency of the spatial filter device is determined based on a length of the first parasitic element and the second parasitic element, and therefore the combination of Crouch and Xu would not teach the claimed limitations.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Similar to the current application, Crouch teaches a first dipole antenna (elements 212, figure 2; column 5, lines 15-17; column 5, lines 42-45; column 6, line 25-28) disposed under the first substrate (elements 216, figure 2) and electrically connected (by way of elements 218, figures 2) to a second dipole antenna (elements 222, figures 2; column 5, lines 15-17; column 5, lines 42-45; column 6, line 25-28) disposed on the second substrate (elements 226, figures 2). It is also inherent in the antenna art that the cutoff frequency of a frequency selective surface (elements 216 and 226, figures 2; column 3, lines 44-54; column 4, line 1-7; column 5, line 62-67) is determined by the size/length of the parasitic elements.
Therefore, Crouch would teach the additional limitations, and the combination of Crouch and Xu would teach amended claims 1 and 11 as explained in the rejection above. The rest of the claims would also be rejected as explained above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AB SALAM ALKASSIM JR whose telephone number is (571)270-0449. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday.
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, Dameon Levi can be reached at (571) 272-2105. 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.
/AB SALAM ALKASSIM JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights