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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: on page 8, paragraph 1, line 1, “prestn” should read –present--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 12, “configured generate” should read --configured to generate--.
In claim 4, line 2, “wherein” is unnecessarily duplicated.
In claim 5, line 3, the second instance of “the first” should read --the third--, and “four” should read --fourth--.
In claim 8, line 2, “fource” should read --fourth--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of copending Application No. 19051251 (reference application). The claims at issue are not identical because claim 3 of the reference application requires the additional elements of “wherein the polarity reversal diode of the first transmission stage and the third transmission stage is each a switched polarity reversal diode that can be bypassed or short-circuited, and wherein the polarity reversal diode of the second transmission stage and the fourth transmission stage is each a pn-based polarity reversal diode that is a parasitic of a transistor and is hard-wired so that the polarity reversal diode cannot be bypassed or short-circuited”, not required by claim 1 of the instant application. However, the conflicting claims are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Claim 1 of this application and claim 3 of the reference application recite common subject matter;
Whereby claim 1 of the application, which recites the open-ended transitional phrase “comprising”, does not preclude the additional elements recited by claim 3 of the reference application, and
Whereby the elements of claim 1 of the application are fully anticipated by claim 3 of the reference, and anticipation is “the ultimate or epitome of obviousness” (In re Kalm, 154 USPQ 10 (CCPA 1967), also In re Dailey, 178 USPQ 293 (CCPA 1973) and In re Pearson, 181 USPQ 641 (CCPA 1974)).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 2 and 5 - 17 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 2 and 7 - 19 of copending Application No. 19051251 (herein ‘251) in view of “TCAN341x 3.3-V CAN FD Transceivers With Standby Mode and ±58 V Bus Standoff” (herein TCAN).
Regarding claim 2, claim 2 of ‘251 recites all the limitations of claim 2 except for setting a bus midpoint voltage of approximately 1.9 V when the transmitting module is operated with a voltage supply of approximately 3.3 V.
TCAN teaches setting a bus midpoint voltage of approximately 1.9V (“The TCAN341x family has the recessive bias voltage set to 1.9V”, pg. 27, i.e. bus midpoint voltage is 1.9V; see annotated Figure 7-2) when the transmitting module (“The TCAN3413 and TCAN3414 are controller area network (CAN) FD transceivers”, pg. 1) is operated with a voltage supply of approximately 3.3V (“3.3 V Single supply operation”, pg. 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
510
730
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, taking the teachings of ‘251 and TCAN as a whole, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention of the instant application to modify the transmitting module of ’251 to set a bus midpoint voltage of approximately 1.9 V when the transmitting module is operated with a voltage supply of approximately 3.3 V as taught by TCAN. The motivation for doing so would have been to benefit from the “low power consumption of operating their CAN transceivers from a 3.3-V supply”, as suggested on page 27 of TCAN.
Regarding claim 5, claim 7 of Application ‘251 recites all the limitations of claim 5 except for setting a bus midpoint voltage of approximately 1.9 V when the transmitting module is operated with a voltage supply of approximately 3.3 V.
TCAN teaches setting a bus midpoint voltage of approximately 1.9V (“The TCAN341x family has the recessive bias voltage set to 1.9V”, pg. 27, i.e. bus midpoint voltage is 1.9V; see Figure 7-2) when the transmitting module (“The TCAN3413 and TCAN3414 are controller area network (CAN) FD transceivers”, pg. 1) is operated with a voltage supply of approximately 3.3V (“3.3 V Single supply operation”, pg. 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention of the instant application to modify the transmitting module of the ‘251 application to set a bus midpoint voltage of approximately 1.9 V when the transmitting module is operated with a voltage supply of approximately 3.3 V. The motivation for doing so would have been to benefit from the “low power consumption of operating their CAN transceivers from a 3.3-V supply”, as suggested on page 27 of TCAN.
Regarding claim 6, claim 8 of Application No. 19051251 recites all the limitations of claim 6 except for setting a bus midpoint voltage of approximately 1.9 V when the transmitting module is operated with a voltage supply of approximately 3.3 V.
TCAN teaches setting a bus midpoint voltage of approximately 1.9V (“The TCAN341x family has the recessive bias voltage set to 1.9V”, pg. 27, i.e. bus midpoint voltage is 1.9V; see Figure 7-2) when the transmitting module (“The TCAN3413 and TCAN3414 are controller area network (CAN) FD transceivers”, pg. 1) is operated with a voltage supply of approximately 3.3V (“3.3 V Single supply operation”, pg. 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention of the instant application to modify the transmitting module of the ‘251 application to set a bus midpoint voltage of approximately 1.9 V when the transmitting module is operated with a voltage supply of approximately 3.3 V. The motivation for doing so would have been to benefit from the “low power consumption of operating their CAN transceivers from a 3.3-V supply”, as suggested on page 27 of TCAN.
Regarding claim 7, claim 9 of Application No. 19051251 recites all the limitations of claim 7 except for setting a bus midpoint voltage of approximately 1.9 V when the transmitting module is operated with a voltage supply of approximately 3.3 V.
TCAN teaches setting a bus midpoint voltage of approximately 1.9V (“The TCAN341x family has the recessive bias voltage set to 1.9V”, pg. 27, i.e. bus midpoint voltage is 1.9V; see Figure 7-2) when the transmitting module (“The TCAN3413 and TCAN3414 are controller area network (CAN) FD transceivers”, pg. 1) is operated with a voltage supply of approximately 3.3V (“3.3 V Single supply operation”, pg. 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention of the instant application to modify the transmitting module of the ‘251 application to set a bus midpoint voltage of approximately 1.9 V when the transmitting module is operated with a voltage supply of approximately 3.3 V. The motivation for doing so would have been to benefit from the “low power consumption of operating their CAN transceivers from a 3.3-V supply”, as suggested on page 27 of TCAN.
Regarding claim 8, claim 10 of Application No. 19051251 recites all the limitations of claim 8 except for setting a bus midpoint voltage of approximately 1.9 V when the transmitting module is operated with a voltage supply of approximately 3.3 V.
TCAN teaches setting a bus midpoint voltage of approximately 1.9V (“The TCAN341x family has the recessive bias voltage set to 1.9V”, pg. 27, i.e. bus midpoint voltage is 1.9V; see Figure 7-2) when the transmitting module (“The TCAN3413 and TCAN3414 are controller area network (CAN) FD transceivers”, pg. 1) is operated with a voltage supply of approximately 3.3V (“3.3 V Single supply operation”, pg. 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention of the instant application to modify the transmitting module of the ‘251 application to set a bus midpoint voltage of approximately 1.9 V when the transmitting module is operated with a voltage supply of approximately 3.3 V. The motivation for doing so would have been to benefit from the “low power consumption of operating their CAN transceivers from a 3.3-V supply”, as suggested on page 27 of TCAN.
Regarding claim 9, claim 11 of Application No. 19051251 recites all the limitations of claim 9 except for setting a bus midpoint voltage of approximately 1.9 V when the transmitting module is operated with a voltage supply of approximately 3.3 V.
TCAN teaches setting a bus midpoint voltage of approximately 1.9V (“The TCAN341x family has the recessive bias voltage set to 1.9V”, pg. 27, i.e. bus midpoint voltage is 1.9V; see Figure 7-2) when the transmitting module (“The TCAN3413 and TCAN3414 are controller area network (CAN) FD transceivers”, pg. 1) is operated with a voltage supply of approximately 3.3V (“3.3 V Single supply operation”, pg. 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention of the instant application to modify the transmitting module of the ‘251 application to set a bus midpoint voltage of approximately 1.9 V when the transmitting module is operated with a voltage supply of approximately 3.3 V. The motivation for doing so would have been to benefit from the “low power consumption of operating their CAN transceivers from a 3.3-V supply”, as suggested on page 27 of TCAN.
Regarding claim 10, claim 12 of Application No. 19051251 recites all the limitations of claim 10 except for setting a bus midpoint voltage of approximately 1.9 V when the transmitting module is operated with a voltage supply of approximately 3.3 V.
TCAN teaches setting a bus midpoint voltage of approximately 1.9V (“The TCAN341x family has the recessive bias voltage set to 1.9V”, pg. 27, i.e. bus midpoint voltage is 1.9V; see Figure 7-2) when the transmitting module (“The TCAN3413 and TCAN3414 are controller area network (CAN) FD transceivers”, pg. 1) is operated with a voltage supply of approximately 3.3V (“3.3 V Single supply operation”, pg. 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention of the instant application to modify the transmitting module of the ‘251 application to set a bus midpoint voltage of approximately 1.9 V when the transmitting module is operated with a voltage supply of approximately 3.3 V. The motivation for doing so would have been to benefit from the “low power consumption of operating their CAN transceivers from a 3.3-V supply”, as suggested on page 27 of TCAN.
Regarding claim 11, claim 13 of Application No. 19051251 recites all the limitations of claim 11 except for setting a bus midpoint voltage of approximately 1.9 V when the transmitting module is operated with a voltage supply of approximately 3.3 V.
TCAN teaches setting a bus midpoint voltage of approximately 1.9V (“The TCAN341x family has the recessive bias voltage set to 1.9V”, pg. 27, i.e. bus midpoint voltage is 1.9V; see Figure 7-2) when the transmitting module (“The TCAN3413 and TCAN3414 are controller area network (CAN) FD transceivers”, pg. 1) is operated with a voltage supply of approximately 3.3V (“3.3 V Single supply operation”, pg. 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention of the instant application to modify the transmitting module of the ‘251 application to set a bus midpoint voltage of approximately 1.9 V when the transmitting module is operated with a voltage supply of approximately 3.3 V. The motivation for doing so would have been to benefit from the “low power consumption of operating their CAN transceivers from a 3.3-V supply”, as suggested on page 27 of TCAN.
Regarding claim 12, claim 14 of Application No. 19051251 recites all the limitations of claim 12 except for setting a bus midpoint voltage of approximately 1.9 V when the transmitting module is operated with a voltage supply of approximately 3.3 V.
TCAN teaches setting a bus midpoint voltage of approximately 1.9V (“The TCAN341x family has the recessive bias voltage set to 1.9V”, pg. 27, i.e. bus midpoint voltage is 1.9V; see Figure 7-2) when the transmitting module (“The TCAN3413 and TCAN3414 are controller area network (CAN) FD transceivers”, pg. 1) is operated with a voltage supply of approximately 3.3V (“3.3 V Single supply operation”, pg. 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention of the instant application to modify the transmitting module of the ‘251 application to set a bus midpoint voltage of approximately 1.9 V when the transmitting module is operated with a voltage supply of approximately 3.3 V. The motivation for doing so would have been to benefit from the “low power consumption of operating their CAN transceivers from a 3.3-V supply”, as suggested on page 27 of TCAN.
Regarding claim 13, claim 15 of Application No. 19051251 recites all the limitations of claim 13 except for setting a bus midpoint voltage of approximately 1.9 V when the transmitting module is operated with a voltage supply of approximately 3.3 V.
TCAN teaches setting a bus midpoint voltage of approximately 1.9V (“The TCAN341x family has the recessive bias voltage set to 1.9V”, pg. 27, i.e. bus midpoint voltage is 1.9V; see Figure 7-2) when the transmitting module (“The TCAN3413 and TCAN3414 are controller area network (CAN) FD transceivers”, pg. 1) is operated with a voltage supply of approximately 3.3V (“3.3 V Single supply operation”, pg. 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention of the instant application to modify the transmitting module of the ‘251 application to set a bus midpoint voltage of approximately 1.9 V when the transmitting module is operated with a voltage supply of approximately 3.3 V. The motivation for doing so would have been to benefit from the “low power consumption of operating their CAN transceivers from a 3.3-V supply”, as suggested on page 27 of TCAN.
Regarding claim 14, claim 16 of Application No. 19051251 recites all the limitations of claim 14 except for setting a bus midpoint voltage of approximately 1.9 V when the transmitting module is operated with a voltage supply of approximately 3.3 V.
TCAN teaches setting a bus midpoint voltage of approximately 1.9V (“The TCAN341x family has the recessive bias voltage set to 1.9V”, pg. 27, i.e. bus midpoint voltage is 1.9V; see Figure 7-2) when the transmitting module (“The TCAN3413 and TCAN3414 are controller area network (CAN) FD transceivers”, pg. 1) is operated with a voltage supply of approximately 3.3V (“3.3 V Single supply operation”, pg. 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention of the instant application to modify the transmitting/receiving device for a subscriber station for a serial bus system of the ‘251 application to set a bus midpoint voltage of approximately 1.9 V when the transmitting module is operated with a voltage supply of approximately 3.3 V. The motivation for doing so would have been to benefit from the “low power consumption of operating their CAN transceivers from a 3.3-V supply”, as suggested on page 27 of TCAN.
Regarding claim 15, claim 17 of Application No. 19051251 recites all the limitations of claim 15 except for setting a bus midpoint voltage of approximately 1.9 V when the transmitting module is operated with a voltage supply of approximately 3.3 V.
TCAN teaches setting a bus midpoint voltage of approximately 1.9V (“The TCAN341x family has the recessive bias voltage set to 1.9V”, pg. 27, i.e. bus midpoint voltage is 1.9V; see Figure 7-2) when the transmitting module (“The TCAN3413 and TCAN3414 are controller area network (CAN) FD transceivers”, pg. 1) is operated with a voltage supply of approximately 3.3V (“3.3 V Single supply operation”, pg. 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention of the instant application to modify the transmitting module of the ‘251 application to set a bus midpoint voltage of approximately 1.9 V when the transmitting module is operated with a voltage supply of approximately 3.3 V. The motivation for doing so would have been to benefit from the “low power consumption of operating their CAN transceivers from a 3.3-V supply”, as suggested on page 27 of TCAN.
Regarding claim 16, claim 18 of Application No. 19051251 recites all the limitations of claim 16 except for setting a bus midpoint voltage of approximately 1.9 V when the transmitting module is operated with a voltage supply of approximately 3.3 V.
TCAN teaches setting a bus midpoint voltage of approximately 1.9V (“The TCAN341x family has the recessive bias voltage set to 1.9V”, pg. 27, i.e. bus midpoint voltage is 1.9V; see Figure 7-2) when the transmitting module (“The TCAN3413 and TCAN3414 are controller area network (CAN) FD transceivers”, pg. 1) is operated with a voltage supply of approximately 3.3V (“3.3 V Single supply operation”, pg. 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention of the instant application to modify the transmitting module of the ‘251 application to set a bus midpoint voltage of approximately 1.9 V when the transmitting module is operated with a voltage supply of approximately 3.3 V. The motivation for doing so would have been to benefit from the “low power consumption of operating their CAN transceivers from a 3.3-V supply”, as suggested on page 27 of TCAN.
Regarding claim 17, claim 19 of Application No. 19051251 recites all the limitations of claim 17 except for setting a bus midpoint voltage of approximately 1.9 V when the transmitting module is operated with a voltage supply of approximately 3.3 V.
TCAN teaches setting a bus midpoint voltage of approximately 1.9V (“The TCAN341x family has the recessive bias voltage set to 1.9V”, pg. 27, i.e. bus midpoint voltage is 1.9V; see Figure 7-2) when the transmitting module (“The TCAN3413 and TCAN3414 are controller area network (CAN) FD transceivers”, pg. 1) is operated with a voltage supply of approximately 3.3V (“3.3 V Single supply operation”, pg. 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention of the instant application to modify the transmitting module of the ‘251 application to set a bus midpoint voltage of approximately 1.9 V when the transmitting module is operated with a voltage supply of approximately 3.3 V. The motivation for doing so would have been to benefit from the “low power consumption of operating their CAN transceivers from a 3.3-V supply”, as suggested on page 27 of TCAN.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claim 3 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of copending Application No. 19051251 in view of Motz (US 20120038416 A1).
Claim 3 of Application No. 19051251 recites all the limitations of claim 3 except for wherein each polarity reversal diode is a Schottky diode.
Motz teaches wherein each polarity reversal diode is a Schottky diode (¶[0023], “Circuit 102 is also coupled to Vdd by a Schottky diode 119, which can provide reverse protection in an embodiment”, i.e. a reverse polarity protection diode is a Schottky diode).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the transmitting module of claim 3 of the ‘251 application to include a Schottky diode as taught by Motz because such a modification is the result of market forces and/or design incentives that lead known work in one field to be varied and implemented in the same or different fields. More specifically, Schottky diodes are well known in the art to allow one of ordinary skill to gain the commonly understood market or design benefits of a low forward bias voltage drop, which reduces power consumption, and quick switching behavior. Therefore, modifying the transmitting module of claim 3 of the ‘251 application to include the Schottky diode of Motz would allow one of ordinary skill to gain the commonly understood design benefits of lower power consumption and quick switching behavior without any unpredictable results, as discussed above.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claim 4 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 19051251 in view of Qu et al. (US 20120280353 A1).
Claim 1 of Application No. 19051251 recites all the limitations of claim 4 except for wherein each polarity reversal diode is a pn-based diode.
Qu et al. teaches wherein each polarity reversal diode is a pn-based diode (Fig. 1, ¶[0008] FIG. 1 shows a circuit diagram of a typical protective element having pn-diode D and Z diode or Zener diode Z; ¶[0012], “FIG. 2 shows a circuit diagram of a protective element or a protective system according to the present invention having Schottky diode S instead of pn-diode and Z or Zener diode Z. In this protective system, which may also be integrated into a semiconductor, a Schottky diode S is thus used as the polarity reversal protection diode”, i.e. FIG 1 shows a pn-based diode D acting as a polarity reversal diode).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the transmitting module of claim 1 of the ‘251 application to include the pn-based diode of Qu et al. because such a modification is the result of market forces and/or design incentives that lead known work in one field to be varied and implemented in the same or different fields. More specifically, pn-based diodes are well known in the art to allow one of ordinary skill to gain the commonly understood market or design benefits of simplified operation and reduced cost. Therefore, modifying the transmitting module of claim 1 of the ‘251 application to include the pn-based diode of Qu et al. would allow one of ordinary skill to gain the commonly understood benefits of increased reliability, simplified operation and reduced cost without any unpredictable results, as discussed above.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW HAO ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-0891. The examiner can normally be reached Monday Friday, 8 a.m. 5 p.m. 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, Chieh Fan can be reached at (571) 272-3042. 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.
/ANDREW HAO ZHANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2632
/CHIEH M FAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2632
Prosecution Insights