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 Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 3 of claim 8, “which is opposite side of the reflective surface” should be “which is the opposite side of the reflective surface.” Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-4, 7-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shinkawa (US 20240241369) in view of Wagner (WO 2024002585).
Regarding Claim 1, Shinkawa discloses:
A movable device (Fig. Fig. 7-8: 13 – movable device) comprising:
a movable portion (Fig. 7-8: 101 – mirror unit);
a driver to drive the movable portion (Fig. 7-8: 110a, 112a – driver 110a comprising driving unit 112a);
a first connect beam (Fig. 7-8: 111a – torsion bar)
extending from the movable portion in a direction intersecting a centerline of the movable portion (Fig. 7-8 – torsion bar 111a extends from center of movable device 13);
a second connect beam (Fig. 7-8: 120 – support unit; para. 89 – support unit 120 supports driver 110a)
extending from the driver in a direction intersecting the centerline of the movable portion (Fig. 7-8: 120 – support unit 120 extends in a direction going outwards from center).
Shinkawa does not disclose: an intermediate connector extending in a direction along the centerline and connecting the first connect beam and the second connect beam.
Shinkawa and Wagner are related in that they both disclose MEMS devices.
Wagner discloses:
an intermediate connector (Wagner: Fig. 2: 224, 252 – first and second pillars)
extending in a direction along the centerline (Wagner: Fig. 2: 224, 252 – plurality of first pillars 224 and second pillars 252 extend along centerline)
and connecting the first connect beam and the second connect beam (Wagner: Fig. 2: 224, 252 – first column 224 extends from first part 201 [a top portion] to resilient member 260 [an intermediate portion], and second column 252 extends from resilient member 260 to substrate 250 [bottom portion]).
The benefit of adding intermediate pillars between two connecting parts in a MEMS device would be to add support when the tilt or position of the movable portion is shifted by a driver, as taught by Wagner (Wagner: para. 66 – piezo-electric actuators may deform by exerting a force against the first pillars 224 and the second pillars 252).
Therefore, it would be obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for an ordinarily skilled artisan to add the intermediate connecting pillars of Wagner into the movable device of Shinkawa in order to provide stability for the movable portion when it is moved by the driver.
Regarding Claim 2, the Shinkawa-Wagner combination discloses:
The movable device according to claim 1 (Shinkawa: Fig. 7-8; Wagner: Fig. 2).
Shinkawa does not disclose: wherein the intermediate connector is columnar; and the intermediate connector extends in a direction along the centerline.
Shinkawa and Wagner are related in that they both disclose MEMS devices.
Wagner discloses:
the intermediate connector is columnar (Wagner: Fig. 2: 224, 252 – first and second pillars);
and the intermediate connector extends in a direction along the centerline (Wagner: Fig. 2: 224, 252 – plurality of first pillars 224 and second pillars 252 extend along centerline).
The benefit of adding intermediate pillars between two connecting parts in a MEMS device would be to add support when the tilt or position of the movable portion is shifted by a driver, as taught by Wagner (Wagner: para. 66 – piezo-electric actuators may deform by exerting a force against the first pillars 224 and the second pillars 252).
Therefore, it would be obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for an ordinarily skilled artisan to add the intermediate connecting pillars of Wagner into the movable device of Shinkawa in order to provide stability for the movable portion when it is moved by the driver.
Regarding Claim 3, the Shinkawa-Wagner combination discloses:
The movable device according to claim 2 (Shinkawa: Fig. 7-8; Wagner: Fig. 2), wherein: the driver includes:
a piezoelectric portion (Shinkawa: Fig. 8: 202 – piezoelectric portion);
and a base connected to the second connect beam (Shinkawa: para. 80 – support body of drive unit 112a coupled to support unit 120),
the piezoelectric portion is disposed on one side of the base in the direction along the centerline (Shinkawa: Fig. 8: 202 – piezoelectric portion direction disposed on top of the support body of drive unit 112a of support unit 120).
Shinkawa does not disclose that: the intermediate connector extends from the second connect beam to a side opposite to the piezoelectric portion.
Shinkawa and Wagner are related in that they both disclose MEMS devices.
Wagner discloses: the intermediate connector extends from the second connect beam to a side opposite to the piezoelectric portion (Wagner: Fig. 2: 201, 242 – connecting pillar 224 disposed on top side of resilient member 260, while piezoelectric element 242 is disposed on bottom [i.e. opposite] side of resilient member 260).
The benefit of placing an intermediate connector such that it extends from a second connect beam to a side opposite to a piezoelectric portion would be to connect the second connect beam to the piezoelectric portion.
Therefore, it would be obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for an ordinarily skilled artisan to configure the intermediate connector of Wagner to extend from the second connect beam of Shinkawa to the piezoelectric portion of Shinkawa, in order to connect the second connect beam to the piezoelectric portion in the movable device of Shinkawa.
Regarding Claim 4, the Shinkawa-Wagner combination discloses:
The movable device according to claim 3 (Shinkawa: Fig. 7-8; Wagner: Fig. 2), further comprising:
a support (Shinkawa: Fig. 7-8: 120 – support unit 120)
which includes a frame to support a plurality of [the] drivers (Shinkawa: para. 80 – support body of drive unit 112a coupled to support unit 120), wherein:
the movable portion is disposed inside the support as viewed along the centerline (Shinkawa: Fig. 7 – movable portion disposed inside support unit 120 as viewed from top-down view),
the base extends inwardly from the support as viewed along the centerline (Shinkawa: Fig. 7 – base [i.e. support unit 120] extends towards center as viewed from top-down view),
the support has a predetermined length in the direction along the centerline (Fig. 7-8 – support has given length),
and the movable portion is disposed inside the support as viewed along the centerline (Shinkawa: Fig. 7 – movable portion disposed inside support unit 120 as viewed from top-down view).
Regarding Claim 7, Shinkawa-Wagner discloses:
The movable device according to claim 1 (Shinkawa: Fig. 7-8; Wagner: Fig. 2).
Shinkawa does not disclose: wherein the intermediate connector includes: a first intermediate connector; a second intermediate connector; and a third connect beam, wherein the first intermediate connector and the second intermediate connector are connected via a third connect beam.
Shinkawa and Wagner are related in that they both disclose MEMS devices.
Wagner discloses:
wherein the intermediate connector includes: a first intermediate connector (Wagner: Fig. 2: 224 – first columns);
a second intermediate connector (Wagner: Fig. 2: 252 – second columns);
and a third connect beam (Wagner: Fig. 2: 260 – resilient member),
wherein the first intermediate connector and the second intermediate connector are connected via a third connect beam (Wagner: Fig. 2 – resilient member 260 connects first columns and second columns).
The benefit of having two intermediate connectors connected by a third connect beam would be to provide additional structural support between the movable portion and the drivers.
Therefore, it would be obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for an ordinarily skilled artisan to add the two intermediate connectors and the third connect beam connecting them, from Wagner, to the movable device of Shinkawa, in order to provide additional support between the movable portion and the drivers.
Regarding Claim 8, the Shinkawa-Wagner combination discloses:
The movable device according to claim 1 (Shinkawa: Fig. 7-8; Wagner: Fig. 2), wherein the movable portion includes:
a reflective surface (Shinkawa: Fig. 8: 106 – reflecting surface);
a movable base including the reflective surface (Shinkawa: Fig. 8: 102 – mirror base body with reflecting surface 106 formed on the lower surface);
and a rear-side connector disposed on a rear side of the movable base (Shinkawa: Fig. 8: 3 – movable part mount), which is [the] opposite side of the reflective surface, wherein:
the rear-side connector is connected to the first connector (Shinkawa: Fig. 8: 122, 124 – pillar 122 and support layer 124 connect mirror base body 102 to movable part mount 3),
and a diameter of the reflective surface is larger than a diameter of the rear-side connector (Shinkawa: Fig. 8 – movable part mount 3 has width denoted by label 212, which is smaller than the width of mirror base body 102).
Regarding Claim 9, the Shinkawa-Wagner combination discloses:
The movable device according to claim 8 (Shinkawa: Fig. 7-8; Wagner: Fig. 2), wherein the movable portion includes:
a rear-side overhang portion (Shinkawa: Fig. 8: 122, 124 – pillar 122 and support layer 124)
extending from the rear side of the movable base in a direction along the centerline (Shinkawa: Fig. 8 – pillar 122 and support layer 124 disposed on the side of mirror base body 102 that is opposite the reflective surface 106),
wherein the rear-side overhang portion is connected to the first connect beam via the rear-side connector (Shinkawa: Fig. 8: 120, 128 – support unit 120 and silicon active layer 128; para. 79 – movable part mount 3 formed of active layer 128, which is the same substrate forming support unit 120 [which comprises the first connect beam 111a]).
Regarding Claim 10, the Shinkawa-Wagner combination discloses:
An image projection apparatus (Shinkawa: Fig. 27-28 – image projection apparatus 500) comprising:
a light scan system (Shinkawa: Fig. 23-24: 10 – optical scanning system 10)
including the movable device according to claim 1 (Shinkawa: para. 147 – optical scanning system 10 to which movable device 13 [i.e. the combination Shinkawa: Fig. 7-8; Wagner: Fig. 2 of Claim 1] is applied).
Regarding Claim 11, the Shinkawa-Wagner combination discloses:
A moving body (Shinkawa: Title – Movable Device, Projection Apparatus, Head-Up Display, Laser Headlamp, Head-Mounted Display, Object Recognition Apparatus, Mobile Object, Method of Manufacturing Movable Device) comprising:
the image projection apparatus according to claim 10 (Shinkawa: para. 153 – movable device 13 according to present embodiment [i.e. the combination Shinkawa: Fig. 7-8, 23-24; Wagner: Fig. 2 of Claim 10] can project image by Lissajous scan or vector scan).
Regarding Claim 12, the Shinkawa-Wagner combination discloses:
A head-mounted display (Shinkawa: Fig. 34-25: 60 – head-mounted display 60) comprising:
the movable device according to claim 1 (Shinkawa: para. 215 – head-mounted display 60 to which movable device 13 [i.e. the combination Shinkawa: Fig. 7-8; Wagner: Fig. 2 of Claim 1] is applied).
Regarding Claim 13, the Shinkawa-Wagner combination discloses:
A head-up display (Shinkawa: Fig. 27-28 – head-up display 500) comprising:
the movable device according to claim 1 (Shinkawa: para. 180 – image projection apparatus, to which movable device 13 [i.e. the combination Shinkawa: Fig. 7-8; Wagner: Fig. 2 of Claim 1] is applied).
Regarding Claim 14, the Shinkawa-Wagner combination discloses:
A laser headlamp (Shinkawa: Fig. 33 – laser headlamp 50) comprising:
the movable device according to claim 1 (Shinkawa: para. 208 – laser headlamp 50 incorporating movable device 13 [i.e. the combination Shinkawa: Fig. 7-8; Wagner: Fig. 2 of Claim 1] according to embodiment of headlight of a vehicle).
Regarding Claim 15, the Shinkawa-Wagner combination discloses:
An object recognition apparatus (Shinkawa: Fig. 31-32: 700 – laser imaging detection and ranging device) comprising:
the movable device according to claim 1 (Shinkawa: para. 198 – object recognition apparatus, to which movable device 13 [i.e. the combination Shinkawa: Fig. 7-8; Wagner: Fig. 2 of Claim 1] is applied).
Regarding Claim 17, Shinkawa discloses:
A device (Fig. 7-8: 13 – movable device) comprising:
a mirror (Fig. 7-8: 101 – mirror unit);
a driver to drive the mirror (Fig. 7-8: 110a, 112a – driver 110a comprising driving unit 112a);
a first connect beam (Fig. 7-8: 111a – torsion bar)
extending from the mirror in a direction intersecting a centerline of the mirror (Fig. 7-8 – torsion bar 111a extends from center of movable device 13);
a second connect beam (Fig. 7-8: 120 – support unit 120; para. 89 – support unit 120 supports driver 110a)
extending from the driver in a direction intersecting the centerline of the mirror (Fig. 7-8: 120 – support unit 120 extends in a direction going outwards from center);
Shinkawa does not disclose: an intermediate connector extending in a direction along the centerline and connecting the first connect beam and the second connect beam.
Shinkawa and Wagner are related in that they both disclose MEMS devices.
Wagner discloses:
an intermediate connector (Wagner: Fig. 2: 224, 252 – first and second pillars)
extending in a direction along the centerline (Wagner: Fig. 2: 224, 252 – plurality of first pillars 224 and second pillars 252 extend along centerline)
and connecting the first connect beam and the second connect beam (Wagner: Fig. 2: 224, 252 – first column 224 extends from first part 201 [a top portion] to resilient member 260 [an intermediate portion], and second column 252 extends from resilient member 260 to substrate 250 [bottom portion]).
The benefit of adding intermediate pillars between two connecting parts in a MEMS device would be to add support when the tilt or position of the movable portion is shifted by a driver, as taught by Wagner (Wagner: para. 66 – piezo-electric actuators may deform by exerting a force against the first pillars 224 and the second pillars 252).
Therefore, it would be obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for an ordinarily skilled artisan to add the intermediate connecting pillars of Wagner into the movable device of Shinkawa in order to provide stability for the movable portion when it is moved by the driver.
Regarding Claim 18, the Shinkawa-Wagner combination discloses:
The device according to claim 17 (Shinkawa: Fig. 7-8; Wagner: Fig. 2).
Shinkawa does not disclose: wherein the intermediate connector is columnar; and the intermediate connector extends in a direction along the centerline.
Shinkawa and Wagner are related in that they both disclose MEMS devices.
Wagner discloses:
the intermediate connector is columnar (Wagner: Fig. 2: 224, 252 – first and second pillars);
and the intermediate connector extends in a direction along the centerline (Wagner: Fig. 2: 224, 252 – plurality of first pillars 224 and second pillars 252 extend along centerline).
The benefit of adding intermediate pillars between two connecting parts in a MEMS device would be to add support when the tilt or position of the movable portion is shifted by a driver, as taught by Wagner (Wagner: para. 66 – piezo-electric actuators may deform by exerting a force against the first pillars 224 and the second pillars 252).
Therefore, it would be obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for an ordinarily skilled artisan to add the intermediate connecting pillars of Wagner into the movable device of Shinkawa in order to provide stability for the movable portion when it is moved by the driver.
Regarding Claim 19, the Shinkawa-Wagner combination discloses:
The device according to claim 18 (Shinkawa: Fig. 7-8; Wagner: Fig. 2), wherein: the driver includes:
a piezoelectric portion (Shinkawa: Fig. 8: 202 – piezoelectric portion);
and a base connected to the second connect beam (Shinkawa: para. 80 – support body of drive unit 112a coupled to support unit 120),
the piezoelectric portion is disposed on one side of the base in the direction along the centerline (Shinkawa: Fig. 8: 202 – piezoelectric portion direction disposed on top of the support body of drive unit 112a of support unit 120).
Shinkawa does not disclose that: the intermediate connector extends from the second connect beam to a side opposite to the piezoelectric portion.
Shinkawa and Wagner are related in that they both disclose MEMS devices.
Wagner discloses: the intermediate connector extends from the second connect beam to a side opposite to the piezoelectric portion (Wagner: Fig. 2: 201, 242 – connecting pillar 224 disposed on top side of resilient member 260, while piezoelectric element 242 is disposed on bottom [i.e. opposite] side of resilient member 260).
The benefit of placing an intermediate connector such that it extends from a second connect beam to a side opposite to a piezoelectric portion would be to connect the second connect beam to the piezoelectric portion.
Therefore, it would be obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for an ordinarily skilled artisan to configure the intermediate connector of Wagner to extend from the second connect beam of Shinkawa to the piezoelectric portion of Shinkawa, in order to connect the second connect beam to the piezoelectric portion in the movable device of Shinkawa.
Regarding Claim 20, the Shinkawa-Wagner combination discloses:
The device according to claim 19 (Shinkawa: Fig. 7-8; Wagner: Fig. 2), further comprising:
a support (Shinkawa: Fig. 7-8: 120 – support unit 120)
which includes a frame to support a plurality of [the] drivers (Shinkawa: para. 80 – support body of drive unit 112a coupled to support unit 120), wherein:
the movable portion is disposed inside the support as viewed along the centerline (Shinkawa: Fig. 7 – movable portion disposed inside support unit 120 as viewed from top-down view),
the base extends inwardly from the support as viewed along the centerline (Shinkawa: Fig. 7 – base [i.e. support unit 120] extends towards center as viewed from top-down view),
the support has a predetermined length in the direction along the centerline (Fig. 7-8 – support has given length),
and the movable portion is disposed inside the support as viewed along the centerline (Shinkawa: Fig. 7 – movable portion disposed inside support unit 120 as viewed from top-down view).
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shinkawa-Wagner as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Albert (US 20190361223).
Regarding Claim 5, the Shinkawa-Wagner combination discloses:
The movable device according to claim 1 (Shinkawa: Fig. 7-8; Wagner: Fig. 2).
Shinkawa-Wagner does not disclose: a first support panel, wherein the first connect beam includes: a pair of beams extending in the longitudinal direction of the first connect beam, and disposed apart in the width direction that intersects the longitudinal direction of the first connect beam; and a pair of support beams extending inwardly from each other from the pair of beams, wherein: the first support panel connects with the pair of support beams, and the intermediate connector is connected to the first support panel.
Shinkawa-Wagner and Albert are related in that they all disclose MEMS devices.
Albert discloses:
a first support panel (Albert: Fig. 9: 60 - protrusion), wherein the first connect beam includes:
a pair of beams extending in the longitudinal direction of the first connect beam (Albert: Fig. 9: 52, 54 – first and second spring elements extending along same direction as protrusion [i.e. x-direction]),
and disposed apart in the width direction that intersects the longitudinal direction of the first connect beam (Albert: Fig. 9: 52, 54 – first and second spring elements separated from each other in width direction [y-direction]);
and a pair of support beams extending inwardly from each other from the pair of beams (Albert: Fig. 9: 150a, 150b – torsion bars 150a and 150b extend inwardly from the first and second spring elements 52 and 54), wherein:
the first support panel connects with the pair of support beams (Albert: Fig. 9 – torsion bars 150a and 150b connect with protrusion 60).
The benefit of adding a support and connection structure including a support panel disposed with two support beams connecting two connection portions would be to provide support and resistance to stress effects caused by driving motions in the movable device and suppression of unwanted vibration modes, as taught by Albert (Albert: para. 62 – having two torsion bars in torsion element 150 may suppress Tz and Ry modes [unwanted oscillation modes]; para. 67 – relief springs may compensate for external stress from forces acting on frame).
Therefore, it would be obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for an ordinarily skilled artisan to add the first support panel, two longitudinal beams, and two inward support beams of Albert into the movable device of Shinkawa-Wagner such that they connect to the intermediate connector element, in order to suppress unwanted oscillation modes in the connect beams and to provide support and resistance to stress effects caused by driving motions in the movable device.
Regarding Claim 6, the Shinkawa-Wagner combination discloses:
The movable device according to claim 1 (Shinkawa: Fig. 7-8; Wagner: Fig. 2).
Shinkawa-Wagner does not disclose: a second support panel, wherein the second connect beam includes: a pair of beams extending in the longitudinal direction of the second connect beam, and disposed apart in the width direction that intersects the longitudinal direction of the second connect beam; and a pair of support beams extending inwardly from each other from the pair of beams, wherein: the second support panel connects with the pair of support beams, and the intermediate connector is connected to the second support panel.
Shinkawa-Wagner and Albert are related in that they all disclose MEMS devices.
Albert discloses:
a second support panel (Albert: Fig. 9: 60 - protrusion), wherein the second connect beam includes:
a pair of beams extending in the longitudinal direction of the second connect beam (Albert: Fig. 9: 52, 54 – first and second spring elements extending along same direction as protrusion [i.e. x-direction]),
and disposed apart in the width direction that intersects the longitudinal direction of the second connect beam (Albert: Fig. 9: 52, 54 – first and second spring elements separated from each other in width direction [y-direction]);
and a pair of support beams extending inwardly from each other from the pair of beams (Albert: Fig. 9: 150a, 150b – torsion bars 150a and 150b extend inwardly from the first and second spring elements 52 and 54), wherein:
the second support panel connects with the pair of support beams (Albert: Fig. 9 – torsion bars 150a and 150b connect with protrusion 60).
The benefit of adding a support and connection structure including a support panel disposed with two support beams connecting two connection portions would be to provide support and resistance to stress effects caused by driving motions in the movable device and suppression of unwanted vibration modes, as taught by Albert (Albert: para. 62 – having two torsion bars in torsion element 150 may suppress Tz and Ry modes [unwanted oscillation modes]; para. 67 – relief springs may compensate for external stress from forces acting on frame).
Therefore, it would be obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for an ordinarily skilled artisan to add the second support panel, two longitudinal beams, and two inward support beams of Albert into the movable device of Shinkawa-Wagner such that they connect to the intermediate connector element, in order to suppress unwanted oscillation modes in the connect beams and to provide support and resistance to stress effects caused by driving motions in the movable device.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shinkawa-Wagner as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Wang (US 20260104583).
Regarding Claim 16, the Shinkawa-Wagner combination discloses:
the movable device according to claim 1 (Shinkawa: Fig. 7-8; Wagner: Fig. 2).
Shinkawa-Wagner does not disclose: An eye tracking apparatus which comprises the movable device.
Shinkawa, Wagner, and Wang are related in that they all disclose MEMS devices.
Wang discloses: An eye tracking apparatus (Fig. 6 – MEMS scanning eye tracking eye piece with MEMS devices 602 and 604).
MEMS devices are disclosed by both the Shinkawa-Wagner combination and by Wang. Furthermore, Wang teaches that MEMS devices can be used in application to eye-tracking devices in order to manipulate the eye-piece in the device.
Therefore, it would be obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for an ordinarily skilled artisan to substitute the MEMS device used in the eyepiece of Wang for the movable device (i.e. MEMS device) of Shinkawa-Wagner in order to obtain the predictable result of a mirror or lens piece which can be moved.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHAZERAE AYODELE PIERCE-WALKER whose telephone number is (571)270-7492. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am - 4:00pm 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, Jennifer Carruth can be reached at 5712729791. 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.
/C.A.P./Examiner, Art Unit 2871
/JENNIFER D. CARRUTH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights