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 44 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 44, “the second Fabre- Perot filter” should be “the second Fabry- Perot filter”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a movement mechanism” in claim 54.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 48, 58 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.
In claim 48, the phrase “wherein the first Fabry-Perot filter angle and second Fabry-Perot filter have the same magnitude” compares an angle (of the first Fabry-Perot filter) to a filter (of second Fabry-Perot filter). A physical filter does not have a “magnitude” in the sense used here. For examination purposes, the examiner would assume ““wherein the first Fabry-Perot filter angle and the second Fabry-Perot filter angle have the same magnitude””
Claim 58 is directed to the use of the sensor of claim 44 without reciting any active, positive steps delimiting how this use is actually practiced (Mpep 2173.05(q)).
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 44, 49, 53, 56, 58-59 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wouters (US 20200033121 A1) in view of Tsuboi (US 20170234717 A1).
Regarding claim 44, Wouters teaches a sensor for measuring the surface of a measurement object relative to the sensor (Abstract), comprising: a light source (101) configured to emit measurement light ([0039]); a first Fabry-Perot filter (102) configured to filter the measurement light such that all mutually parallel light is of the same wavelength or combination of wavelengths ([0041], [0044] light is collimated by the lens to the filter); first optics (107) configured to focus measurement light exiting the first Fabry-Perot filter onto a measurement plane, wherein the measurement light has a unique wavelength or combination of wavelengths at each point of focus of said measurement light along an axis in the measurement plane ([0037]-[0038]); second optics (105) configured to receive measurement light reflected from the surface of a measurement object; a sensor lens (109) configured to focus measurement light onto a sensor plane (110) ([0050], [0077], FIG. 7); and a light sensor (110) in the sensor plane configured to measure measurement ([0052]), but fails to explicitly disclose second optics configured to receive measurement light reflected from the surface of a measurement object and to direct said measurement light onto a second Fabry-Perot filter; a sensor lens configured to focus measurement light exiting the second Fabre- Perot filter onto a sensor plane; and a light sensor in the sensor plane configured to measure measurement light exiting the second Fabry-Perot filter.
However, Wouters teaches in another embodiment that a plurality of the tunable color filter 102 are positioned in a path of the light beam 111 at one or more locations along a path of the light beam ([0043]), second optics (105) configured to receive measurement light reflected from the surface of a measurement object and to direct said measurement light onto a filter ([0043]); a sensor lens (109) configured to focus measurement light exiting filter onto a sensor plane (110) ([0050], [0077], FIG. 7); and a light sensor (110) in the sensor plane configured to measure measurement light exiting the filter ([0052]), and Tsuboi which relates to a sensor for measuring, thus from the same field of endeavor as Wouters, teaches a sensor lens (24-2) configured to focus measurement light exiting the second filter (24-3) onto a sensor plane (fig. 1, [0047]-[0048]); and a light sensor (24-1) in the sensor plane configured to measure measurement light exiting the second filter ([0047]-[0048]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wouters by incorporating second optics configured to receive measurement light reflected from the surface of a measurement object and to direct said measurement light onto a second Fabry-Perot filter; a sensor lens configured to focus measurement light exiting the second Fabre- Perot filter onto a sensor plane; and a light sensor in the sensor plane configured to measure measurement light exiting the second Fabry-Perot filter in order in order to reduce effects of the environment on the light (Tsuboi: [0048]).
Regarding claim 49, Wouters, when modified by Tsuboi, teaches the sensor of claim 44, wherein the separation between internal reflective surfaces and refractive indices of the layers of the first Fabry-Perot filter are the same as the separation between internal reflective surfaces and refractive indices of the layers of second Fabry-Perot filter (Wouters: [0043] a plurality of the tunable color filter 102 are positioned in a path of the light beam 111 at one or more locations along a path of the light beam 111).
Regarding claim 53, Wouters, when modified by Tsuboi, teaches the sensor of claim 44, wherein measurement light is incident on the surface of the first Fabry-Perot filter in a series of parallel lines (Wouters: [0041], [0044] light is collimated by the lens to the filter, therefore light beams are parallel when incident on the Fabry-Perot filter).
Regarding claim 56, Wouters, when modified by Tsuboi, teaches the sensor of claim 44, wherein: an illumination axis extends from the light source to the measurement plane; a measurement axis extends from the measurement plane to the light sensor; and the illumination axis and measurement axis are on the same side of the measurement plane (Wouters: [0045], fig. 1, Tsuboi: fig. 1).
Regarding claim 58, Wouters, when modified by Tsuboi, teaches Use of the sensor of claim 44 for measuring the displacement of the surface of a measurement object relative to the sensor, measuring the profile of the measurement object, measuring the three-dimensional shape of the measurement object, and/or measuring a thickness of a transparent layer of the measurement object (Wouters: [0035]).
Regarding claim 59, Wouters teaches a method for measuring the surface of a measurement object relative to a sensor (Abstract), the method comprising: emitting measurement light from a light source ([0039]);filtering the measurement light using a first Fabry-Perot filter such that all mutually parallel light is of the same wavelength or combination of wavelengths ([0041]);focusing the filtered measurement light onto a measurement plane using first optics, wherein the measurement light has a unique wavelength or combination of wavelengths at each point of focus along an axis in the measurement plane ([0037]-[0038]); receiving measurement light reflected from the surface of the measurement object using second optics but fails to disclose directing the reflected measurement light onto a second Fabry-Perot filter; filtering the reflected measurement light using the second Fabry-Perot filter; focusing the filtered reflected measurement light onto a sensor plane using a sensor lens; and measuring the filtered reflected measurement light at the sensor plane using a light sensor.
However, Wouters, in another embodiment teaches that directing the reflected measurement light onto a filter ([0043]); filtering the reflected measurement light using the filter ([0043]); focusing the filtered reflected measurement light onto a sensor plane using a sensor lens ([0050], [0077], FIG. 7); and measuring the filtered reflected measurement light at the sensor plane using a light sensor ([0052]), and Tsuboi teaches directing the reflected measurement light onto a second filter (fig. 1, [0047]-[0048]); filtering the reflected measurement light using the second filter ([0047]-[0048]); focusing the filtered reflected measurement light onto a sensor plane using a sensor lens ([0047]-[0048]); and measuring the filtered reflected measurement light at the sensor plane using a light sensor ([0047]-[0048]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wouters by incorporating directing the reflected measurement light onto a second Fabry-Perot filter; filtering the reflected measurement light using the second Fabry-Perot filter; focusing the filtered reflected measurement light onto a sensor plane using a sensor lens; and measuring the filtered reflected measurement light at the sensor plane using a light sensor filter in order in order to reduce effects of the environment on the light (Tsuboi: [0048]).
Claims 45 and 60-62 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wouters (US 20200033121 A1) in view of Tsuboi (US 20170234717 A1), further in view of Scholdstrom (US 4508448 A)
Regarding claim 45, Regarding claim 1, Wouters, when modified by Tsuboi, teaches the sensor of claim 44, wherein: an illumination axis extends from the light source to the measurement plane ( Wouters: fig. 1, [0039]-[]0051]);a measurement axis extends from the measurement plane to the light sensor (Wouters: fig. 1, [0039]-[]0051]), but fails to disclose the first Fabry-Perot filter is positioned relative to the illumination axis at a first Fabry-Perot filter tilt angle defined between the illumination axis and a normal vector of the first Fabry-Perot filter; and the second Fabry-Perot filter is positioned relative to the measurement axis at a second Fabry-Perot filter tilt angle defined between the measurement axis and a normal vector of the second Fabry-Perot filter.
However, it is well known in the art that tilting a Fabry-Perot filter would change adjust the central wavelength as disclosed by Scholdstrom (US 4508448 A: col. 5, lines 10-16).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wouters and Tsuboi by incorporating the first Fabry-Perot filter is positioned relative to the illumination axis at a first Fabry-Perot filter tilt angle defined between the illumination axis and a normal vector of the first Fabry-Perot filter; and the second Fabry-Perot filter is positioned relative to the measurement axis at a second Fabry-Perot filter tilt angle defined between the measurement axis and a normal vector of the second Fabry-Perot filter for adjustment of the central wavelength.
Regarding claim 60, Wouters, when modified by Tsuboi, teaches the method of claim 59, but fails to disclose further comprising: adjusting an angle of the first Fabry-Perot filter relative to the illumination axis, or adjusting an angle of the second Fabry-Perot filter relative to the measurement axis, or adjusting both angles, to tune the first and second Fabry-Perot filters such that measurement light reflected from the measurement plane can pass through the second Fabry-Perot filter.
It is well known in the art that tilting a Fabry-Perot filter would adjust the central wavelength as disclosed by Scholdstrom (US 4508448 A: col. 5, lines 10-16).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wouters and Tsuboi by incorporating further comprising: adjusting an angle of the first Fabry-Perot filter relative to the illumination axis, or adjusting an angle of the second Fabry-Perot filter relative to the measurement axis, or adjusting both angles, to tune the first and second Fabry-Perot filters such that measurement light reflected from the measurement plane can pass through the second Fabry-Perot filter in order to improve and/or narrow bandwidth (Wouters: [0078])
Regarding claim 61, Wouters, when modified by Tsuboi, teaches the method of claim 59, but fails to disclose further comprising adjusting a distance between reflectors of at least one of said Fabry-Perot filters such that measurement light reflected from the measurement plane can pass through an other of said Fabry-Perot filters.
However, Scholdstrom teaches adjusting a distance between reflectors (col. 5, lines 7-19).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wouters and Tsuboi by incorporating further comprising adjusting a distance between reflectors of at least one of said Fabry-Perot filters such that measurement light reflected from the measurement plane can pass through an other of said Fabry-Perot filters in order to improve and/or narrow bandwidth (Wouters: [0078]).
Regarding claim 62, Wouters, when modified by Tsuboi, teaches the sensor of claim 44, but fails to disclose wherein the first Fabry-Perot filter is configured to be adjustable relative to the illumination axis, the second Fabry- Perot filter is configured to be adjustable relative to the measurement axis, or both, to tune the first and second Fabry-Perot filters such that measurement light reflected from the measurement plane can pass through the second Fabry-Perot filter.
It is well known in the art that tilting a Fabry-Perot filter would adjust the central wavelength as disclosed by Scholdstrom (US 4508448 A: col. 5, lines 10-16).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wouters and Tsuboi by incorporating wherein the first Fabry-Perot filter is configured to be adjustable relative to the illumination axis, the second Fabry- Perot filter is configured to be adjustable relative to the measurement axis, or both, to tune the first and second Fabry-Perot filters such that measurement light reflected from the measurement plane can pass through the second Fabry-Perot filter order to improve and/or narrow bandwidth (Wouters: [0078])
Claim 50 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wouters (US 20200033121 A1) in view of Tsuboi (US 20170234717 A1), further in view of Vincent (US 5144498 A)
Regarding claim 50, Wouters, when modified by Tsuboi, teaches the sensor of claim 44, wherein the light sensor (area scan camera) is characterized by a plurality of regions ([0052] an area scan camera inherently comprising a plurality of pixel regions), but fails to disclose wherein each region is sensitive to a single wavelength or single combination of wavelengths of measurement light.
However, Vincent which relates to a sensor for measuring, thus from the same field of endeavor as Wouters, teaches the light sensor is characterized by a plurality of regions, and wherein each region is sensitive to a single wavelength or single combination of wavelengths of measurement light (col. 6, lines 10-19, col. 7, lines 54-60).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wouters and Tsuboi by incorporating wherein the light sensor is characterized by a plurality of regions, and wherein each region is sensitive to a single wavelength or single combination of wavelengths of measurement light for a compact device (Vincent: col. 8, lines 5-7).
Claim 51 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wouters (US 20200033121 A1) in view of Tsuboi (US 20170234717 A1), further in view of Furstenau (US 5910840 A)
Regarding claim 51, Wouters, when modified by Tsuboi, teaches the sensor of claim 44, but fails to disclose wherein measurement light emitted from the light source illuminates the first Fabry-Perot filter at a plurality of angles of incidence.
However, dependence of the filter (Fabry-Perot filter) central wavelength on the angle of incidence θ of the light beam is well known in the art as disclosed by Furstenau (US 5910840 A: col. 7, lines 17-18).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wouters and Tsuboi by incorporating wherein measurement light emitted from the light source illuminates the first Fabry-Perot filter at a plurality of angles of incidence for achieving desired wavelength selectivity.
Claim 52 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wouters (US 20200033121 A1) in view of Tsuboi (US 20170234717 A1), further in view Furstenau (US 5910840 A), and further in view of Bossche (US 20160200161)
Regarding claim 52, Wouters, when modified by Tsuboi and Furstenau, teaches the sensor of claim 51, but fails to disclose wherein the light source comprises a light source lens configured such that measurement light incident at each point in the illumination area of the first Fabry-Perot filter is incident at a predetermined range of angles
However, using a lens to modify the incident angle at a filter is known in the art as disclosed by Bossche (US 20160200161 A1: [0063]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wouters, Tsuboi and Furstenau by incorporating wherein the light source comprises a light source lens configured such that measurement light incident at each point in the illumination area of the first Fabry-Perot filter is incident at a predetermined range of angles for achieving desired wavelength selectivity.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 46-48, 54-55 and 57 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 46:
The prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to teach or disclose “wherein a direction of rotation of the first Fabry-Perot filter tilt angle is opposite to a direction of rotation of the second Fabry-Perot filter tilt angle”.
Claim 48 would also be allowable due to dependency on claim 46, and if the 112 (b) rejection is overcome.
Saari (US20170269351A1) discloses two adjustable Fabry-Perot filters that are tiltable or rotatable, and are tilted in opposite directions. However, Saari’s two filters share a single common optical path, not separate illumination and measurement axes (fig. 1b, claim 1) as required by the claim.
Neither reference expressly discloses the relative direction of rotation between two Fabry-Perot filters as claimed.
Regarding claim 47:
The prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to teach or disclose “a direction of rotation of the first Fabry-Perot filter tilt angle is the same as a direction of rotation of the second Fabry-Perot filter tilt angle”
Regarding claim 54:
The prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to teach or disclose “an illumination diffraction grating aligned with the first focal plane such that filtered measurement light is in focus across the illumination diffraction grating; and second illumination optics configured to focus measurement light diffracted by the illumination diffraction grating in the measurement plane, a measurement diffraction grating aligned with the first image plane such that reflected measurement light is in focus across the measurement diffraction grating; and second measurement optics configured to focus measurement light diffracted by the measurement diffraction grating at infinity”
Claims 55 would be allowable due to dependency on claim 54.
Diffraction-grating based relay optics are not disclosed by any of the cited references. Wouters, Tsuboi’s optics rely entirely on refractive lenses with no diffraction grating. There is no teaching, suggestion or motivation in the cited art to combine these references to arrive at claim 54’ s specific optical architecture.
Regarding claim 57:
The prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to teach or disclose “wherein the measurement plane is offset from the first movement vector by a measurement plane offset angle”
Wouters, when modified by Tsuboi, teaches a sensor for measuring the shape of the surface of a measurement object (Wouters: Abstract), the sensor comprising: the sensor of claim 44; a stage (112) for holding the measurement object (Wouters: [0040]), but fails to disclose a movement mechanism configured to move the sensor relative to the stage along a first movement vector, or the stage relative to the sensor along the first movement vector; wherein the measurement plane is offset from the first movement vector by a measurement plane offset angle.
Kannaka (US 20110279822 A1), which relates to a sensor for measuring the shape of the surface of a measurement object, thus from the same field of endeavor as Wouters, teaches a movement mechanism configured to move the sensor relative to the stage along a first movement vector, or the stage relative to the sensor along the first movement vector ([0122], [0125]).
Wouters teaches away from this feature by stating his workpiece and stage are “fixed and do not move” ([0040]), and “Because there is no mechanical movement, the system 100 is free from vibrations and has improved throughput compared to previous systems” ([0065]). There is no teaching, suggestion or motivation in the cited art to combine these references to arrive at claim 57’ s specific optical architecture
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMED DOUMBIA whose telephone number is (571)272-8266. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00 PM ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michelle Iacoletti can be reached at 571-272-3995. 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.
/MOHAMED DOUMBIA/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/MICHELLE M IACOLETTI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights