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
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in KR on 11/14/2022. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
The Office cannot retrieve the certified copies for KR10-2022-0186783.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/10/2026 and 04/23/2025 have been considered by the examiner.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract exceeds 150 word in length. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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 6 and 16 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.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "wherein the first antenna elements are configured to transmit and/or receive a first polarized signal and a second polarized signal in the first direction, and wherein the second antenna elements are configured to transmit and/or receive the first polarized signal and the second polarized signal in a lateral direction of the antenna module" in lines 2-6 which renders the claim indefinite. This limitation conflicts with claim 5 because in order to transmit and/or receive two polarized signals, the antenna elements require to have two different feeding lines but in claim 5, the first antenna elements only requires a first feeding line and/or a second feeding line and the second antenna elements only requires a third feeding line and/or a fourth feeding line. For the purpose of examination, Examiner interprets the claim as best understood.
Similar rejection would be applied to claim 16.
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 1-4, 7, 11-14 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al, US-20200381804-A1 (hereinafter Park) and in view of Mizunuma, US-20210126341-A1.
Regarding claim 1, Park discloses the following:
an electronic device comprising: a housing comprising a first surface (210A, figs. 2-3), a second surface (210B), and a side surface (210C) surrounding a space between the first surface and the second surface; and
an antenna module disposed (800, 830, fig. 9) inside the housing,
wherein the antenna module (800, 830, fig. 8, or 1000 in figs. 10-11, para [0114]) comprises:
a wireless communication circuit (752, fig. 7, para [0116]),
a first substrate (1020) comprising a first surface oriented in a first direction and a second surface oriented in a second direction opposite to the first direction (fig. 11 below), wherein, on the first substrate (1020), first antenna elements (AAR1) and first portions of second antenna elements (1001, 1003, 1005, 1007, para [0120], fig. 10, 1201, portion of 1202, para [0131], fig. 12) are disposed,
a second substrate (1030) disposed at a first position of the second surface of the first substrate, wherein second portions of the second antenna elements (1002, 1004, 1006, 1008, portion of 1202) are disposed on the second substrate, and
a shielding member (790) disposed adjacent to the second substrate at a second position of the second surface of the first substrate (fig. 11).
Park does not disclose wherein a portion of the shielding member is configured to serve as a ground for the second portions of the second antenna elements.
Mizunuma suggests wherein a portion of the shielding member (53, fig. 4) is configured to serve as a ground for the antenna elements (para [0054]: The shield layer 53 is connected to a ground potential).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the shielding member taught tin Park to serve as a ground for the second portions of the second antenna elements as suggested in Mizunuma as claimed for the purpose of reducing interference and noise, improving the radiation efficiency in order to improve the antenna’s performance (Mizunuma, para [0054]).
Examiner’s note - Regarding the recitation that an element is “configured to” perform a function, it is the position of the office that such limitations are not positive structural limitations, and thus, only require the ability to so perform. In this case the prior art applied herein is construed as at least possessing such ability.
When the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.)
PNG
media_image1.png
368
612
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Park discloses wherein the first portions (1201, 1202, fig. 12) and the second portions (1202) of the second antenna elements are electrically connected via a conductive connection member (1203, para [0133]).
Regarding claim 3, Park does not disclose wherein the portion of the shielding member comprises a conductive material.
Mizunuma suggests wherein the portion of the shielding member (53, fig. 4) comprises a conductive material (para [0054]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the shielding member taught in Park to comprise conductive material as suggested in Mizunuma as claimed for the purpose of being able to form electrical connection between the shielding member and the ground to reduce interference and noise, improve the radiation efficiency in order to improve the antenna’s performance (Mizunuma, para [0054]).
Regarding claim 4, Park discloses wherein the shielding member comprises a shield can (para [0100]).
Park does not disclose the shield can is a conductive shield can.
Mizunuma suggests the shield can is a conductive shield can (para [0054]).
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the shield can taught in Park to be a conductive shield can as suggested in Mizunuma as claimed for the purpose of being able to form electrical connection between the shielding member and the ground to reduce interference and noise, improve the radiation efficiency in order to improve the antenna’s performance (Mizunuma, para [0054]).
Regarding claim 7, Park discloses the electronic device of claim 1, further comprising: a first ground layer (633, fig. 6) is disposed between the first antenna elements (736) and the second surface of the first substrate (710, fig. 6).
Regarding claim 11, Park discloses the following:
an antenna module comprising:
a wireless communication circuit (752, fig. 7, para [0116]);
a first substrate (1020) comprising a first surface oriented in a first direction and a second surface oriented in a second direction opposite to the first direction (fig. 11 above), wherein, on the first substrate (1020), first antenna elements (AAR1) and first portions of second antenna elements (1001, 1003, 1005, 1007, para [0120], fig. 10, 1201, portion of 1202, para [0131], fig. 12) are disposed;
a second substrate (1030) disposed at a first position of the second surface of the first substrate, wherein, on the second substrate, second portions of the second antenna elements (1002, 1004, 1006, 1008, portion of 1202) are disposed; and
a shielding member (790) disposed adjacent to the second substrate at a second position of the second surface of the first substrate (fig. 11).
Park does not disclose wherein a portion of the shielding member is configured to serve as a ground for the second portions of the second antenna elements.
Mizunuma suggests wherein a portion of the shielding member (53, fig. 4) is configured to serve as a ground for the antenna elements (para [0054]: The shield layer 53 is connected to a ground potential).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the shielding member taught tin Park to serve as a ground for the second portions of the second antenna elements as suggested in Mizunuma as claimed for the purpose of reducing interference and noise, improving the radiation efficiency in order to improve the antenna’s performance (Mizunuma, para [0054]).
Examiner’s note - Regarding the recitation that an element is “configured to” perform a function, it is the position of the office that such limitations are not positive structural limitations, and thus, only require the ability to so perform. In this case the prior art applied herein is construed as at least possessing such ability.
When the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.)
Regarding claim 12, Park discloses wherein the first portions (1201, 1202, fig. 12) and the second portions (1202) of the second antenna elements are electrically connected via a conductive connection member (1203, para [0133]).
Regarding claim 13, Park does not disclose wherein the portion of the shielding member comprises a conductive material.
Mizunuma suggests wherein the portion of the shielding member (53, fig. 4) comprises a conductive material (para [0054]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the shielding member taught in Park to comprise conductive material as suggested in Mizunuma as claimed for the purpose of being able to form electrical connection between the shielding member and the ground to reduce interference and noise, improve the radiation efficiency in order to improve the antenna’s performance (Mizunuma, para [0054]).
Regarding claim 14, Park discloses wherein the shielding member comprises a shield can (para [0100]).
Park does not disclose the shield can is a conductive shield can.
Mizunuma suggests the shield can is a conductive shield can (para [0054]).
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the shield can taught in Park to be a conductive shield can as suggested in Mizunuma as claimed for the purpose of being able to form electrical connection between the shielding member and the ground to reduce interference and noise, improve the radiation efficiency in order to improve the antenna’s performance (Mizunuma, para [0054]).
Regarding claim 17, Park discloses the antenna module of claim 11, further comprising: a first ground layer (633, fig. 6) is disposed between the first antenna elements (736) and the second surface of the first substrate (710, fig. 6).
Claims 5-6 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park and Mizunuma as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Chiang, US-20230231305-A1.
Regarding claim 5, Park discloses wherein the first antenna elements (AAR1, fig. 10) are electrically connected to the wireless communication circuit (fig. 5, para [0115]) via a first feeding line and/or a second feeding line (para [0126]: two feed lines for vertical polarization and horizontal polarization), and
wherein the second antenna elements (AAR2) are electrically connected to the wireless communication circuit (fig. 5, para [0115]) through a third feeding line and/or a fourth feeding line (para [0121]).
The combination of Park and Mizunuma does not disclose the first portions of the second antenna elements are electrically connected to the wireless communication circuit through a third feeding line and/or a fourth feeding line.
Chiang suggests the first portions of the second antenna elements (portion 230HBE of 230HB1, fig. 7 of the top layer of substrate 200, fig. 1) are electrically connected to a third feeding line and/or a fourth feeding line (234, para [0037]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to connect the feeding line taught in Park and Mizunuma to the first portions of the second antenna elements as suggested in Chiang, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). The motivation stems from the need to adjust the current distribution toward the first portions of the second antenna elements in order to achieve desired impedance.
Regarding claim 6, as best understood, Park discloses wherein the first antenna elements are configured to transmit and/or receive a first polarized signal and a second polarized signal in the first direction (para [0126]), and
wherein the second antenna elements are configured to transmit and/or receive the first polarized signal and the second polarized signal in a lateral direction of the antenna module (para [0118]).
Examiner’s note - Regarding the recitation that an element is “configured to” perform a function, it is the position of the office that such limitations are not positive structural limitations, and thus, only require the ability to so perform. In this case the prior art applied herein is construed as at least possessing such ability.
When the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.)
Regarding claim 15, Park discloses wherein the first antenna elements (AAR1, fig. 10) are electrically connected to the wireless communication circuit (fig. 5, para [0115]) via a first feeding line and/or a second feeding line (para [0126]: two feed lines for vertical polarization and horizontal polarization), and
wherein the second antenna elements (AAR2) are electrically connected to the wireless communication circuit (fig. 5, para [0115]) through a third feeding line and/or a fourth feeding line (para [0121]).
The combination of Park and Mizunuma does not disclose the first portions of the second antenna elements are electrically connected to the wireless communication circuit through a third feeding line and/or a fourth feeding line.
Chiang suggests the first portions of the second antenna elements (portion 230HBE of 230HB1, fig. 7 of the top layer of substrate 200, fig. 1) are electrically connected to a third feeding line and/or a fourth feeding line (234, para [0037]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to connect the feeding line taught in Park and Mizunuma to the first portions of the second antenna elements as suggested in Chiang, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). The motivation stems from the need to adjust the current distribution toward the first portions of the second antenna elements in order to achieve desired impedance.
Regarding claim 16, as best understood, Park discloses wherein the first antenna elements are configured to transmit and/or receive a first polarized signal and a second polarized signal in the first direction (para [0126]), and
wherein the second antenna elements are configured to transmit and/or receive the first polarized signal and the second polarized signal in a lateral direction of the antenna module (para [0118]).
Examiner’s note - Regarding the recitation that an element is “configured to” perform a function, it is the position of the office that such limitations are not positive structural limitations, and thus, only require the ability to so perform. In this case the prior art applied herein is construed as at least possessing such ability.
When the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.)
Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park and Mizunuma as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Chen, US-20230030798-A1.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Park and Mizunuma does not disclose the electronic device of claim 1, further comprising a second ground layer is disposed between the first antenna elements and the second antenna elements.
Chen suggests the electronic device further comprising a second ground layer (17 connected to the ground plane, fig. 6, para [0026]) is disposed between the first antenna elements (14) and the second antenna elements (15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a second ground layer as suggested in Chen to the electronic device taught in Park and Mizunuma as claimed for the purpose of increasing the ground area for the antenna module, ensuring the signal reception and transmission effects on the antenna elements in order to improve the antenna elements’ performance (Chen, para [0026]).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Park and Mizunuma does not disclose the antenna module of claim 11, further comprising a second ground layer is disposed between the first antenna elements and the second antenna elements.
Chen suggests the antenna module further comprising a second ground layer (17 connected to the ground plane, fig. 6, para [0026]) is disposed between the first antenna elements (14) and the second antenna elements (15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a second ground layer as suggested in Chen to the antenna module taught in Park and Mizunuma as claimed for the purpose of increasing the ground area for the antenna module, ensuring the signal reception and transmission effects on the antenna elements in order to improve the antenna elements’ performance (Chen, para [0026]).
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park and Mizunuma as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Park et al, US-20220336967-A1 (hereinafter Park’967).
The applied reference US-20220336967 has a common Applicant with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Park and Mizunuma does not disclose the electronic device of claim 1, further comprising:
third antenna elements spaced apart from the first antenna elements and disposed on the first substrate;
first portions of fourth antenna elements spaced apart from the first portions of the second antenna elements and disposed on the first substrate; and second portions of the fourth antenna elements spaced apart from the second portions of the second antenna elements and disposed on the second substrate.
Park’967 suggests the electronic device, further comprising:
third antenna elements (5010, figs. 5, 6A) spaced apart from the first antenna elements (501) and disposed on the first substrate (510);
first portions of fourth antenna elements (5311) spaced apart from the first portions of the second antenna elements (5211) and disposed on the first substrate (510); and second portions of the fourth antenna elements (5311) spaced apart from the second portions (5211) of the second antenna elements and disposed on the second substrate (530).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the third and fourth antenna elements as suggested in Park’967 to the electronic device taught in Park and Mizunuma as claimed for the purpose of being able to perform wireless communication in multiple frequencies.
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Park and Mizunuma does not disclose the antenna module of claim 11, further comprising: third antenna elements spaced apart from the first antenna elements and disposed on the first substrate;
first portions of fourth antenna elements spaced apart from the first portions of the second antenna elements and disposed on the first substrate; and second portions of the fourth antenna elements spaced apart from the second portions of the second antenna elements and disposed on the second substrate.
Park’967 suggests the antenna module, further comprising:
third antenna elements (5010, figs. 5, 6A) spaced apart from the first antenna elements (501) and disposed on the first substrate (510);
first portions of fourth antenna elements (5311) spaced apart from the first portions of the second antenna elements (5211) and disposed on the first substrate (510); and second portions of the fourth antenna elements (5311) spaced apart from the second portions (5211) of the second antenna elements and disposed on the second substrate (530).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the third and fourth antenna elements as suggested in Park’967 to the antenna module taught in Park and Mizunuma as claimed for the purpose of being able to perform wireless communication in multiple frequencies.
Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park, Mizunuma and Park’967 as applied to claims 9 and 19 above, and further in view of Chiang.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Park and Mizunuma does not disclose wherein the third antenna elements are electrically connected to the wireless communication circuit via a fifth feeding line and/or a sixth feeding line, and wherein the first portions of the fourth antenna elements are electrically connected to the wireless communication circuit via a seventh feeding line and/or an eighth feeding line.
Park’967 suggests wherein the third antenna elements (5010, fig. 6A) are electrically connected to the wireless communication circuit (wireless communication module) via a fifth feeding line and/or a sixth feeding line (603, 604), and
wherein the fourth antenna elements (5311) are electrically connected to the wireless communication circuit (wireless communication module) via a seventh feeding line and/or an eighth feeding line (637, 638).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to connect the feeding lines as suggested in Park’967 to the antenna module taught in Park and Mizunuma as claimed for the purpose of feeding different signals to the third and fourth antenna elements in order to be able to perform wireless communication in multiple frequencies.
The combination of Park, Mizunuma and Park’967 does not disclose the first portions of the fourth antenna elements are electrically connected to the wireless communication circuit via a seventh feeding line and/or an eighth feeding line.
Chiang suggests the first portions of the antenna elements (portion 230HBE of 230HB1, fig. 7 of the top layer of substrate 200, fig. 1) are electrically connected to a seventh feeding line and/or an eighth feeding line (234, para [0037]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to connect the feeding line taught in Park, Mizunuma and Park’967 to the first portions of the fourth antenna elements as suggested in Chiang, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). The motivation stems from the need to adjust the current distribution toward the first portions of the fourth antenna elements in order to achieve desired impedance.
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Park and Mizunuma does not disclose wherein the third antenna elements are electrically connected to the wireless communication circuit via a fifth feeding line and/or a sixth feeding line, and wherein the first portions of the fourth antenna elements are electrically connected to the wireless communication circuit via a seventh feeding line and/or an eighth feeding line.
Park’967 suggests wherein the third antenna elements (5010, fig. 6A) are electrically connected to the wireless communication circuit (wireless communication module) via a fifth feeding line and/or a sixth feeding line (603, 604), and
wherein the fourth antenna elements (5311) are electrically connected to the wireless communication circuit (wireless communication module) via a seventh feeding line and/or an eighth feeding line (637, 638).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to connect the feeding lines as suggested in Park’967 to the antenna module taught in Park and Mizunuma as claimed for the purpose of feeding different signals to the third and fourth antenna elements in order to be able to perform wireless communication in multiple frequencies.
The combination of Park, Mizunuma and Park’967 does not disclose the first portions of the fourth antenna elements are electrically connected to the wireless communication circuit via a seventh feeding line and/or an eighth feeding line.
Chiang suggests the first portions of the antenna elements (portion 230HBE of 230HB1, fig. 7 of the top layer of substrate 200, fig. 1) are electrically connected to a seventh feeding line and/or an eighth feeding line (234, para [0037]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to connect the feeding line taught in Park, Mizunuma and Park’967 to the first portions of the fourth antenna elements as suggested in Chiang, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). The motivation stems from the need to adjust the current distribution toward the first portions of the fourth antenna elements in order to achieve desired impedance.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANH N HO whose telephone number is (571)272-4657. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00.
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, Dameon Levi can be reached at (571)272-2105. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DAMEON E LEVI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2845
/ANH HO/Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights