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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. The following features are not shown:
Claims 6-7 and 14: “a centerline of a body of the dielectric lens”;
Claims 7 and 14: “an aperture offset from a centerline of a body of the dielectric lens”;
Claims 18: “a penetrated hole”.
Therefore, the above features must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Throughout the Specification the term “electronically scanned array” is being used. However, the term as recited is ambiguous since it can imply various types of arrays (e.g., an array of switches, amplifiers, or other electronic components. In order to avoid ambiguity and to clarify the true subject of the invention, the term “electronically scanned antenna array” should be used instead.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 and 11: “electronically scanned array” should be amended to “electronically scanned antenna array”.
Claim 1 (lines 4-5) and claim 11 (line 2): “dielectric material” should be amended to “a dielectric material”;
Claim 5: “the dielectric lens comprises the dielectric material having a pattern of holes formed therein” should be amended to “the dielectric material comprises a pattern of holes formed therein”;
Claim 7 (lines 1-2): “a centerline of a body of the dielectric lens” should be amended to “a centerline of the dielectric lens”;
Claim 7 (lines 2-3): “the domed arrangement comprises an asymmetric arrangement” should be amended to “the domed arrangement is an asymmetric arrangement”;
Claims 8 and 15: “the dielectric lens comprises the dielectric material having a selected dielectric constant laminate impedance matching layer applied to at least one surface” should be amended to “the dielectric material comprises a selected dielectric constant laminate impedance matching layer applied to at least one surface” (see Specification, [0050]).
Claims 2-4, 6, 9-10, 12-14, and 16 are included in the objections because of their dependence on the respective objected claims.
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.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 18 (line 3) recites: “a penetrated hole”. It is not clear whether the penetrated hole is a part of each of the holes among the pattern of holes or the penetrated hole is different from and not a part of any of the holes among the pattern of holes. Furthermore, it is not clear if the limitation refers to a hole that penetrates the entire thickness of the dielectric lens or a partial thickness. In addition, “a penetrated hole” is not defined in the Specification. For examination purposes the claim is interpreted as the pattern of holes include penetration of the entire thickness of the body of the dielectric lens.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Mohamadi (US 20220037798 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Mohamadi (Fig. 1; [0021]) discloses an apparatus (100) comprising:
an electronically scanned array (104; [0021] discloses “beamsteering antenna array”, which is a form of an electronically scanned array); and
a dielectric lens (102) applied to the electronically scanned array;
wherein the dielectric lens comprises a domed arrangement (Fig. 1 shows the dielectric lens 102 having a domed arrangement) formed from dielectric material (inherent; the lens 102 is described as a dielectric lens).
Regarding claim 2, as best understood, Mohamadi discloses the apparatus of claim 1 as addressed above.
Mohamadi (Fig. 1) further discloses the dielectric lens (102) is applied over the electronically scanned array (104) such that beam scan operations across a directional range ([0025] discloses “a second scan angle relative to boresight 114”) achieve a target performance ([0027] discloses: “the resulting antenna beam produced by the beamsteering antenna array 100 has a greater directivity and lower side-lobes than an antenna beam produced by the antenna array 104 if operating in free space without the dielectric lens 102) over a target bandwidth (inherent; it is well-known in the art that antennas operate within a certain bandwidth(s) around their resonance frequency (frequencies)).
Regarding claim 3, as best understood, Mohamadi further discloses the apparatus of claim 2 as addressed above.
Mohamadi ([0025]) further discloses the directional range includes off-boresight angles ([0025] discloses “a second scan angle relative to boresight 114”).
Regarding claim 17, Mohamadi (Fig. 1; [0021]) discloses a method, comprising:
forming (inherent), from a dielectric material (inherent; the lens 102 is described as a dielectric lens), a dielectric lens (102) with a domed arrangement (Fig. 1 shows the dielectric lens 102 having a domed arrangement); and
applying (inherent) the dielectric lens to an electronically scanned array (104; [0021] discloses “beamsteering antenna array”, which is a form of an electronically scanned array).
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.
Claims 4, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mohamadi (cited above).
Regarding claim 4, Mohamadi discloses the apparatus of claim 1 as addressed above.
Mohamadi does not explicitly teach the dielectric material is configured to provide impedance matching over a selected frequency range.
However, Mohamadi (Fig. 1) teaches the electronically scanned array (104) integrated with the dielectric lens (102). It is well-known in the art that, in such cases, the dielectric material is configured to provide impedance matching for the electronically scanned array over a selected frequency range, so that optimal antenna array performance is achieved in terms of antenna array efficiency and peak gain, for example.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mohamadi so that the dielectric material is configured to provide impedance matching over a selected frequency range. This modification would provide an electronically scanned array having optimal efficiency and/or peak gain within the selected frequency range.
Regarding claim 11, as best understood, Mohamadi (Fig. 1; [0021]) discloses a dielectric lens (102) comprising:
dielectric material (inherent; 102 is disclosed to be a dielectric lens); and
a domed arrangement (Fig. 1 shows the dielectric lens 102 having a domed arrangement) formed from the dielectric material (inherent).
Mohamadi does not disclose the dielectric material is configured to provide impedance matching for an electronically scanned array such that beam scan operations performed by the electronically scanned array across a directional range achieve a target performance over a target bandwidth.
However, Mohamadi (Fig. 1) teaches an electronically scanned array (104) integrated with the dielectric lens (102). It is well-known in the art that, in such cases, the dielectric material is configured to provide impedance matching for the electronically scanned array such that beam scan operations performed by the electronically scanned array across a directional range achieve a target performance over a target bandwidth – e.g., optimal efficiency and peak gain over the operational range of scanning angles and the operational frequency range (bandwidth) of the electronically scanned array.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mohamadi so that the dielectric material is configured to provide impedance matching for an electronically scanned array such that beam scan operations performed by the electronically scanned array across a directional range achieve a target performance over a target bandwidth. This modification would provide an electronically scanned array having optimal efficiency and peak gain over the operational range of scanning angles and the operational frequency range/bandwidth of the electronically scanned array.
Regarding claim 12, as best understood, the modified Mohamadi teaches the dielectric lens of claim 11 as addressed above.
Mohamadi ([0025]) further discloses the directional range includes off-boresight angles ([0025] discloses “a second scan angle relative to boresight 114”).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mohamadi (cited above) in view of Sabet et al. (US 6081239 A, hereinafter Sabet).
Regarding claim 5, Mohamadi discloses the apparatus of claim 1 as addressed above.
Mohamadi does not teach the dielectric lens comprises the dielectric material having a pattern of holes formed therein.
Sabet (Figs. 5 and 6) teaches a dielectric lens (62) applied to antenna elements (58 and 60 in Fig. 5), wherein the dielectric lens comprises a dielectric material (Sabet, col. 6, lines 38-50, discloses: “The lens 62 can be made of any suitable material, such as polymers, ceramics, thermoplastics, and their composites.”) having a pattern of holes (64) formed therein.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mohamadi so that the dielectric lens comprises the dielectric material having a pattern of holes formed therein as taught by Sabet. This modification would provide a dielectric lens having the desired effective dielectric constant (see Sabet, col. 6, lines 14-25).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modified Mohamadi as applied to claim 11 in view of Sabet (cited above).
Regarding claim 13, as best understood, the modified Mohamadi teaches the dielectric lens of claim 11 as addressed above.
The modified Mohamadi does not teach the dielectric material comprises a pattern of holes formed therein.
Sabet (Figs. 5 and 6) teaches a dielectric lens (62) applied to antenna elements (58 and 60 in Fig. 5), wherein the dielectric lens comprises a dielectric material (Sabet, col. 6, lines 38-50, discloses: “The lens 62 can be made of any suitable material, such as polymers, ceramics, thermoplastics, and their composites.”) having a pattern of holes (64) formed therein.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mohamadi so that the dielectric material comprises a pattern of holes formed therein as taught by Sabet. This modification would provide a dielectric lens having the desired effective dielectric constant (see Sabet, col. 6, lines 14-25).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mohamadi in view of Sabet (cited above) and Zimmerman et al. (US 5677796 A, hereinafter Zimmerman).
Regarding claim 18, Mohamadi discloses the method of claim 17 as addressed above.
Mohamadi does not teach forming the dielectric lens comprises forming the dielectric lens with a pattern of holes through a thickness of the dielectric lens, wherein each of the holes comprises tapered ends abutting a penetrated hole through the dielectric material.
Sabet (Figs. 5 and 6) teaches a dielectric lens (62), wherein the dielectric lens comprises a dielectric material (Sabet, col. 6, lines 38-50, discloses: “The lens 62 can be made of any suitable material, such as polymers, ceramics, thermoplastics, and their composites.”) having a pattern of holes (64) through a thickness of the dielectric lens.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mohamadi so that the method of forming the dielectric lens comprises forming the dielectric lens with a pattern of holes through a thickness of the dielectric lens as taught by Sabet. This modification would provide a dielectric lens having the desired effective dielectric constant (see Sabet, col. 6, lines 14-25).
The modified Mohamadi does not teach the limitation wherein each of the holes comprises tapered ends abutting a penetrated hole through the dielectric material.
Zimmerman (Figs. 4, 5, 5A) teaches a dielectric lens (48) having holes (49a,b), wherein each of the holes comprises a tapered end abutting a penetrated hole through the dielectric material (regarding the tapered end and the penetrated hole, see annotated Fig. 4 in Zimmerman below).
PNG
media_image1.png
620
562
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mohamadi so that each of the holes comprises tapered ends abutting a penetrated hole through the dielectric material as taught by Zimmerman. This modification would provide the desired dielectric gradient of the dielectric lens (see Zimmerman, col. 12, lines 27-47).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mohamadi (cited above) in view of Bieti (US 11158954 B2).
Regarding claim 6, Mohamadi discloses the apparatus of claim 1 as addressed above.
Mohamadi does not teach the limitation wherein the dielectric lens comprises an aperture centered on a centerline of a body of the dielectric lens.
Bieti (Fig. 1) teaches a hemispherical antenna (100) comprising a dielectric lens (108), wherein the dielectric lens comprises an aperture (114) centered on a centerline (154) of a body of the dielectric lens.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mohamadi so that the dielectric lens comprises an aperture centered on a centerline of a body of the dielectric lens as taught by Bieti. This modification would provide an antenna having higher antenna gain off the centerline (beam axis) of the dielectric lens (see Bieti, col. 4, lines 20-33).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mohamadi (cited above) in view of Kratzenberg et al. (US 10992052 B2, hereinafter Kratzenberg).
Regarding claim 7, as best understood, Mohamadi discloses the apparatus of claim 1 as addressed above.
Mohamadi does not teach the limitation wherein the dielectric lens comprises an aperture offset from a centerline of a body of the dielectric lens such that the domed arrangement comprises an asymmetric arrangement.
PNG
media_image2.png
320
766
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Kratzenberg (Fig. 4) teaches a dielectric lens (200) having a domed arrangement, wherein the dielectric lens comprises an aperture (260) offset from a centerline (regarding the centerline, see annotated Fig. 4 in Kratzenberg below) of a body of the dielectric lens such that the domed arrangement comprises an asymmetric arrangement.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mohamadi so that the dielectric lens comprises an aperture offset from a centerline of a body of the dielectric lens such that the domed arrangement comprises an asymmetric arrangement as taught by Kratzenberg. This modification would provide means for forming the dielectric lens (see Kratzenberg, col. 5, lines 12-14).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modified Mohamadi as applied to claim 11 in view of Kratzenberg (cited above).
Regarding claim 14, as best understood, the modified Mohamadi teaches the dielectric lens of claim 11 as addressed above.
The modified Mohamadi does not teach the dielectric lens comprises an aperture offset from a centerline of the dielectric lens such that the domed arrangement comprises an asymmetric arrangement.
Kratzenberg (Fig. 4) teaches a dielectric lens (200) having a domed arrangement, wherein the dielectric lens comprises an aperture (260) offset from a centerline (regarding the centerline, see annotated Fig. 4 in Kratzenberg above) of the dielectric lens such that the domed arrangement comprises an asymmetric arrangement.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mohamadi so that the dielectric lens comprises an aperture offset from a centerline of the dielectric lens such that the domed arrangement comprises an asymmetric arrangement as taught by Kratzenberg. This modification would provide means for forming the dielectric lens (see Kratzenberg, col. 5, lines 12-14).
Claims 8 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mohamadi (cited above) in view of Wu (EP 0420137 A2).
Regarding claim 8, Mohamadi discloses the apparatus of claim 1 as addressed above.
Mohamadi does not teach the limitation wherein the dielectric lens comprises the dielectric material having a selected dielectric constant laminate impedance matching layer applied to at least one surface.
Wu (Fig. 7) teaches a dielectric lens (714) comprising a dielectric material having a selected dielectric constant laminate impedance matching layer (710, 712, 716, 718) applied to at least one surface.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mohamadi so that the dielectric lens comprises the dielectric material having a selected dielectric constant laminate impedance matching layer applied to at least one surface as taught by Wu. This modification would provide a dielectric lens whose permittivity is matched to the surrounding environment (see Wu, col. 7, lines 53-58).
Regarding claim 19, Mohamadi discloses the method of claim 17 as addressed above.
Mohamadi does not teach the limitation wherein forming the dielectric lens comprises applying a selected dielectric constant laminate impedance matching layer to at least one surface of the dielectric lens.
Wu (Fig. 7) teaches a dielectric lens (714) comprising a dielectric material having a selected dielectric constant laminate impedance matching layer (710, 712, 716, 718) applied to at least one surface.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mohamadi so that forming the dielectric lens comprises applying a selected dielectric constant laminate impedance matching layer to at least one surface of the dielectric lens as taught by Wu. This modification would provide a dielectric lens whose permittivity is matched to the surrounding environment (see Wu, col. 7, lines 53-58).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modified Mohamadi as applied to claim 11 in view of Wu (cited above).
Regarding claim 15, as best understood, the modified Mohamadi teaches the dielectric lens of claim 11 as addressed above.
The modified Mohamadi does not teach the limitation wherein the dielectric lens comprises the dielectric material having a selected dielectric constant laminate impedance matching layer applied to at least one surface.
Wu (Fig. 7) teaches a dielectric lens (714) comprising a dielectric material having a selected dielectric constant laminate impedance matching layer (710, 712, 716, 718) applied to at least one surface.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mohamadi so that the dielectric lens comprises the dielectric material having a selected dielectric constant laminate impedance matching layer applied to at least one surface as taught by Wu. This modification would provide a dielectric lens whose permittivity is matched to the surrounding environment (see Wu, col. 7, lines 53-58).
Claims 9 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mohamadi (cited above) in view of Henderson (US 7190324 B2).
Regarding claim 9, Mohamadi discloses the apparatus of claim 1 as addressed above.
Mohamadi does not teach the limitation wherein the dielectric material is selected from at least one among syntactic foam, cross-linked polystyrene, thermoset polystyrene, and ceramic-filled 3D printing resin.
Henderson (Fig. 2) teaches a dielectric lens (18), wherein the dielectric material is syntactic foam (col. 3, lines 53-54, discloses: “The lens 18 is made from a syntactic foam composite material and has a dielectric constant of 1.5.”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mohamadi so that the dielectric material is syntactic foam, as taught by Henderson. This modification would provide a dielectric lens having the desired dielectric constant and shape, so that the desired radiation pattern is produced (see Henderson, col. 3, lines 49-67).
Regarding claim 20, Mohamadi discloses the method of claim 17 as addressed above.
Mohamadi does not teach the limitation wherein the dielectric material is selected from at least one among syntactic foam, cross-linked polystyrene, thermoset polystyrene, and ceramic-filled 3D printing resin.
Henderson (Fig. 2) teaches a dielectric lens (18), wherein the dielectric material is syntactic foam (col. 3, lines 53-54, discloses: “The lens 18 is made from a syntactic foam composite material and has a dielectric constant of 1.5.”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mohamadi so that the dielectric material is syntactic foam, as taught by Henderson. This modification would provide a dielectric lens having the desired dielectric constant and shape, so that the desired radiation pattern is produced (see Henderson, col. 3, lines 49-67).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modified Mohamadi as applied to claim 11 in view of Henderson (cited above).
Regarding claim 16, as best understood, the modified Mohamadi teaches the dielectric lens of claim 11 as addressed above.
The modified Mohamadi does not teach the limitation wherein the dielectric material is selected from at least one among syntactic foam, cross-linked polystyrene, thermoset polystyrene, and ceramic-filled 3D printing resin.
Henderson (Fig. 2) teaches a dielectric lens (18), wherein the dielectric material is syntactic foam (col. 3, lines 53-54, discloses: “The lens 18 is made from a syntactic foam composite material and has a dielectric constant of 1.5.”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mohamadi so that the dielectric material is syntactic foam, as taught by Henderson. This modification would provide a dielectric lens having the desired dielectric constant and shape, so that the desired radiation pattern is produced (see Henderson, col. 3, lines 49-67).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mohamadi (cited above) in view of Hauk (WO 9845725 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Mohamadi discloses the apparatus of claim 1 as addressed above.
Mohamadi does not teach absorber materials positioned in parallel with the electronically scanned array and disposed between one or more outer edges of the electronically scanned array and the dielectric lens.
Hauk (Fig. 1) teaches an apparatus comprising a dielectric lens (9), an antenna array (antenna feeds 2-4 and the corresponding radiators S), and absorber materials (12) positioned in parallel with the antenna array and disposed between the outer edges of the antenna array and the dielectric lens.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mohamadi by adding absorber materials positioned in parallel with the electronically scanned array and disposed between one or more outer edges of the electronically scanned array and the dielectric lens as taught by Hauk. This modification would reduce significantly the undesired sidelobes of the antenna elements of the array (see Hauk, Figs. 2 and 3 – Fig. 2 shows the radiation patterns 21-23 of the respective radiating elements in the array in the absence of absorber material with the patterns exhibiting large sidelobes; Fig. 3 shows the radiation patterns 31-33 of the respective radiating elements in the array in the presence of absorber material, where sidelobes are absent or significantly reduces).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIN STOYTCHEV STOYTCHEV whose telephone number is (571)272-3467. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 8:00-17:00.
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, Dimary Lopez can be reached at 571-270-7893. 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.
/MARIN STOYTCHEV STOYTCHEV/Examiner, Art Unit 2845
/DIMARY S LOPEZ CRUZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights