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 .
Response to Amendment
The Applicant’s amendment filed on 08/11/2026 has been fully considered and made of record. As such, the objection to the specification and the claims and rejection of claims under 112(b), as outlined in the Office action mailed 05/12/2026 have been withdrawn. Claims 2 and 4-22 are pending in the application and thus, being examined.
Claim Objections
Claims 9 and 20-22 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 9, line 2, the limitation “the second surface” need to be amended to - - the opposed second surface - - .
In claim 20, lines 3-4, the limitation “from the second surface” need to be amended to - - from the opposed second surface - - .
In claim 21, line 2, the limitation “the first and the opposed second surface” need to be amended to - - the first surface and the opposed second surface - - .
In claim 22, line 7, the limitation “from the second surface toward the opposed first surface” need to be amended to - - from the opposed second surface toward the - - .
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 2, 4-13, 16 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kochupurackal et al. (WO2009153728A1, hereinafter “Kochupurackal”) in view of Mobley et al. (US 20190304877A1, hereinafter “Mobley”) and Knickerbocker et al. (US 10,130,302, hereinafter “Knickerbocker”).
As applied to claims 2 and 9, Kochupurackal teaches a method of metallizing a substrate body (10) comprising the steps of physically contacting a solid metal (16) with a first surface of the substrate body opposite a second surface of the substrate body; after the step of physically contacting the solid metal (16), melting the solid metal so as to define a molten metal (paragraph bridging pages 5-6); causing a quantity of the metal in a molten state to flow via capillary action from the first surface toward the second surface of the substrate body in a via (12) that extends from the first surface to the second surface; and solidifying the molten metal in the via to produce a solidified metal that defines an electrically conductive path between the first surface and the second surface (page 1, lines 14-16; page 3, lines 1-14; page 6, line 28 to page 7, line 4; page 11, lines 10-17; Figs. 1a-1d and 2). Kochupurackal teaches that the substrate is made of not only silicon wafers but other wafer materials may also be used (page 5, lines 11-14) and that suitable conductive materials includes metals having a relatively low melting point such as aluminum, tin, alloys of tin and silver (page 6, lines23-25). (page 1, lines 14-16, page 6, line 28 to page 7, line 4, page 11, lines 10-17, Figs. 1a-1d).
However, Kochupurackal does not explicitly teach the substrate is a monolithic substrate comprising sapphire, that the solid metal comprises gold or gold alloy and that a metallic wetting liner is applied to the sidewall of the via.
Mobley teaches a conventional method of metallizing a substrate wherein the substrate body is a single homogenous monolithic substrate comprising sapphire (paragraphs [0004] and [0043], Fig. 13F), wherein at least one coating layer is applied to the sidewall of the via for promoting adhesion of the filled metal to the substrate (paragraphs [0057], [0059] and [060]) and wherein the metal used to fill the via is selected from a variety of different materials including gold (paragraph [0102]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to substitute a monolithic substrate comprising sapphire for the multi-layered substrate and a low melting metal such as gold for the solid metal material of Kochupurackal, as taught by Mobley, as a matter of simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results (see MPEP 2143, KSR, Rationale “B”). The resulting method would be reasonably expected to perform in the manner taught by Kochupurackal without modification of the principles of operation of Kochupurackal, because Kochupurackal explicitly discloses that any other wafer materials may be used and that any metal with relatively low melting point can be used.
Knickerbocker teaches a conventional method of metallizing a substrate 102 including forming one or more vias 103 (Figs. 1, 2A-2B, 3A-3B) in the substrate, forming at least one liner 104 on at least one sidewall of at least one of the vias, and filling said at least one via with solder material using injection molded soldering (abstract, lines 1-7, col. 4, lines 47-59). Knickerbocker further teaches in some embodiments a liner 104 is a solder adhesion layer that is formed from a metal that helps solder wetting and allows solder fill material to flow easily into the vias 103 (col. 4, lines 47-50).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the coating layer as a wetting layer applied at the sidewall of the via of Kochupurackal/Mobley, as taught by Knickerbocker, as an effective means of facilitating the filling the molten metal into the via in a simple and repeatable manner.
As applied to claims 4-8, Kochupurackal as modified by Mobley and Knickerbocker teaches the invention cited.
Mobley further teaches wherein at least one coating layer is applied to the sidewall of the via for promoting adhesion of the filled metal to the substrate (paragraphs [0057], [0059] and [060]) and wherein the metal used to fill the via is selected from a variety of different materials including gold (paragraph [0102]).
Knickerbocker further teaches a conventional method of metallizing a substrate 102 including forming one or more vias 103 (Figs. 1, 2A-2B, 3A-3B) in the substrate, forming at least one liner 104 on at least one sidewall of at least one of the vias, and filling said at least one via with solder material using injection molded soldering (abstract, lines 1-7, col. 4, lines 47-59). Knickerbocker further teaches in some embodiments, the liner 104 comprises a solder adhesion layer. A solder adhesion layer may be formed from a metal that helps solder wetting and allows solder fill material to flow easily into the vias 103. The solder adhesion layer therefore improves solder filling yield for vias 103 having high aspect ratios. In particular, the use of a solder adhesion layer as the liner 104 may be useful in cases where the via 103 has a high aspect ratio of 5:1 or greater for both a Si substrate and a glass substrate, as it is difficult to fill such high aspect ratio through vias or blind vias due to lower solder flow/wetting in the through via or blind via. The solder adhesion layer, however, is not limited solely to use with vias having aspect ratios 5:1 or greater. The solder adhesion layer may be formed from copper (Cu), gold (Au), chromium (Cr), tin (Sn), a copper-nickel (CuNi) alloy, a chromium-nickel-gold (CrNiAu) alloy, a chromium-nickel-copper-gold (CrNiCuAu) alloy, a titanium-nickel (TiNi) alloy, a titanium-copper-nickel-gold (TiCuNiAu) alloy, etc. The solder adhesion layer may have a thickness of 0.1 microns to 10 microns in some embodiments. The thickness of the solder adhesion layer may depend on the type of solder material used. For example, a high Sn percentage solder would benefit from a thicker adhesion layer. In other embodiments, the liner 104 may be a barrier layer. Some substrate materials, such as silicon, are not attractive for high frequency RF applications due to the low resistivity of silicon. The low resistivity of silicon raises concerns about power consumption and noise coupling performance. These concerns may be at least partially reduced via the use of a barrier layer as the liner 104. The barrier layer may be formed from nickel (Ni), titanium (Ti), molybdenum (Mo), titanium nitride (TiN), tantalum (Ta), tantalum nitride (TaN), etc. The barrier layer may have a thickness of 0.1 microns to 2 microns. In some embodiments, the liner 104 may include both a barrier layer and a solder adhesion layer. For example, the liner 104 may include a barrier layer formed on sidewalls of one or more of the vias 103, and a solder adhesion layer formed over the barrier layer. In such embodiments, the thicknesses of the barrier layer and solder adhesion layer may be the same as that described above. Generally, the solder adhesion layer is formed thicker than the barrier layer but this is not a strict requirement (col. 4, lines 47-67, col. 5, lines 1-23).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to apply an adhesion layer to an inner surface/sidewall of the via before physically contacting step and applying the wetting layer to the adhesion layer prior to the melting step such that adhesion layer is disposed between the inner surface and the metallic wetting liner by employing a conventional multi-layer liner (including barrier, adhesion, and wetting layers) comprising the claimed compositions (i.e., copper, gold for wetting liner and titanium, tantalum for barrier layer with each being devoid of tin), as taught by Knickerbocker, as an effective means of reducing he concerns about the power consumption and noise coupling performance of the substrate (see Knickerbocker, col. 5, lines 4-10) and providing a wetting effect thus allowing the molten metal to flow easier into the vias of the substrate (see Knickerbocker, col. 4, lines 48-52).
As applied to claims 10-13, Kochupurackal as modified by Mobley and Knickerbocker teaches the invention cited. Kochupurackal further teaches wherein the contacting step comprises placing a quantity of the metal (16) in a solid state on the first surface of the substrate body (10) such that the quantity of the metal in the solid state is in physical contact with the first surface of the monolithic substrate body (page 6, lines 26-27, Figs. 2 and 4); that the method further comprising the step of melting the metal in the solid state after the placing step, so as to transition the metal in the solid state to the metal in the molten state (page 7, lines 13-16); wherein the melting step comprises selectively applying an excitation device to the quantity of solid metal sufficient to cause the solid metal to reach a melting temperature that causes the solid metal to melt; and wherein the excitation device is a laser (20, abstract, Fig. 2) that directs a laser beam to the quantity of solid metal (col. 4, lines 10-13, Figs. 2-4).
As applied to claim 16, Kochupurackal as modified by Mobley and Knickerbocker teaches the invention cited including Kochupurackal further teaches the vias have a high aspect ratio, wherein the aspect ratio is a ratio of a length of the via from the first surface to the second surface along a central axis with respect to a maximum cross-sectional dimension of the via along a direction perpendicular to the central axis (page 3, lines 3-14, page 8, lines 18-21, Fig. 5 showing aspect ratios of 5-40).
As applied to claim 19, Kochupurackal as modified by Mobley and Knickerbocker teaches the invention cited. Kochupurackal teaches the method further comprising the step of applying a redistribution layer (22) to at least one or both of the first and second surfaces in electrical communication with the via (page 10, lines 30-32, Figs. 3 & 4).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kochupurackal et al. (WO2009153728A1, hereinafter “Kochupurackal”) in view of Mobley et al. (US 20190304877A1, hereinafter “Mobley”) and Knickerbocker et al. (US 10,130,302, hereinafter “Knickerbocker”) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Ward (US 3,735,911).
As applied to claim 14, Kochupurackal as modified by Mobley and Knickerbocker teaches the invention cited including melting the metal from solid state to molten state but does not explicitly teach a further step of pre-heating the substrate body prior to the melting step.
Ward teaches a method of manufacturing a semiconductor substrate (240 wherein the substrate is pre-heated (by pre-heater 20) prior to being worked on in order to prevent the substrate from being subjected to any thermal shock (col. 3, lines 15-19). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to employ a step of preheating the substrate in the method of Kochupurackal/Mobley/Knickerbocker, as taught by Ward, as a matter of use of known technique to improve similar methods in the same way (see MPEP 2143, KSR, Rationale “C”). The resulting method would reasonably be expected to ensure the substrate of Kochupurackal/Mobley/Knickerbocker would be heated sufficiently without being subjected to a sudden thermal shock during the heating of the metal from solid state to molten state as it is flown into the vias of the substrate.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kochupurackal et al. (WO2009153728A1, hereinafter “Kochupurackal”) in view of Mobley et al. (US 20190304877A1, hereinafter “Mobley”) and Knickerbocker et al. (US 10,130,302, hereinafter “Knickerbocker”) as applied to claim 11, and further in view of Kemper (US 20080023530, hereinafter “Kemper”).
As applied to claim 15, Kochupurackal as modified by Mobley and Knickerbocker teaches the invention cited including melting the metal from solid state to molten state using a laser but does not explicitly teach wherein the step of melting comprises inducing eddy currents in the metal in the solid state.
Kemper teaches a method of manufacturing a semiconductor device wherein a metal material is melted from solid state to molten state using eddy currents (col. 2, lines 37-39). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to substitute a conventional heating source of eddy currents for the conventional laser heating source of Kochupurackal/Mobley/ Knickerbocker, as taught by Kemper, as a matter of simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results (see MPEP 2143, KSR, Rationale “B”) and in order to provide uniform melting of the metal resulting in a filled via having continuous porosity. The resulting method would be reasonably expected to perform in the manner taught by Kochupurackal without modification of the principles of operation of Kochupurackal.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kochupurackal et al. (WO2009153728A1, hereinafter “Kochupurackal”) in view of Mobley et al. (US 20190304877A1, hereinafter “Mobley”) and Knickerbocker et al. (US 10,130,302, hereinafter “Knickerbocker”) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of either Ahn et al. (US 3,852,877 hereinafter “Ahn”) or Feulner et al. (US 3,561,110, hereinafter “Feulner”).
As applied to claim 17, Kochupurackal as modified by Mobley and Knickerbocker teaches the invention cited except for teaching wherein the contacting step comprises placing the substrate body in a bath of the metal in the molten state.
Ahn teaches a method of metalizing a substrate by dipping the substrate into the molten conductor (52), using capillary forces to enter into the interior of the substrate structure to form desired circuits (col. 6, lines 25-30).
Feulner teaches a method of making connections and conductive paths wherein a solder is applied to the interior surface of a via hole (22) by dipping the entire substrate into a molten solder bath for a period of time sufficient to allow the solder (72) to permeate to the bottom of the via hole (22, col. 7, lines 25-28, Figs. 1-6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to employ a conventional soaking/filling technique of dipping the entire substrate of Kochupurackal/Mobley/Knickerbocker into a conductive metal bath in molten state, as taught by either Ahn or Feulner, as a matter of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (see MPEP 2143, KSR, Rationale “A”). The resulting method would be reasonably expected to perform in the manner taught by Kochupurackal without modification of the principles of operation of Kochupurackal, especially since Kochupurackal does not dissuade one of ordinary skill to use such a conventional hole filling technique.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kochupurackal et al. (WO2009153728A1, hereinafter “Kochupurackal”) in view of Mobley et al. (US 20190304877A1, hereinafter “Mobley”) and Knickerbocker et al. (US 10,130,302, hereinafter “Knickerbocker”) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Nomura et al. (US 10,755,998, hereinafter “Nomura”).
As applied to claim 18, Kochupurackal as modified by Mobley and Knickerbocker teaches the invention cited with the exception of explicitly teaching step of filling the voids with a polymer.
Nomura teaches a method of manufacturing a semiconductor device (col. 2, lines 37-39) wherein a metal layer (12) of a substrate (10/M1, Figs. 5 & 6) has hole-like voids (12a) which are filled with resin member (20) made of a polymer (col. 11, 47-65, paragraph bridging cols.11-12). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to employ a conventional void filling technique in the method of Kochupurackal/Mobley/Knickerbocker, as taught by Nomura, as a matter of use of known technique to improve similar methods in the same way (see MPEP 2143, KSR, Rationale “C”). The resulting method would be reasonably expected to ensure to fill the voids of the substrate of Kochupurackal/Mobley/ Knickerbocker resulting in via having uniform and continuous porosity that would improve and enhance the performance of the substrate in use. A person having ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect that technique of using the polymer by Nomura could be used to fill any voids that may have been created during the solidification of the molten metal in the vias of the substrate of Kochupurackal without modification of the principles of operation of Kochupurackal.
Claim(s) 20 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kochupurackal et al. (WO2009153728A1, hereinafter “Kochupurackal”) in view of Mobley et al. (US 20190304877A1, hereinafter “Mobley”) and Knickerbocker et al. (US 10,130,302, hereinafter “Knickerbocker”) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Umetsu et al. (US 20030060000A1, hereinafter “Umetsu”).
As applied to claim 20, Kochupurackal as modified by Mobley and Knickerbocker teaches the invention cited including the first mass of solid metal physically contacting the first surface of the substrate causing a quantity of a first solid mass of metal to flow via capillary action from first surface to second surface. The combination fails to teach a further step of causing a quantity of a second mass of molten metal to flow via capillary action from the second surface toward the first surface in the via; and solidifying the quantity of the second mass of molten metal in the via.
Umetsu teaches a method of metallizing a substrate body (10) comprising the steps of physically contacting a solid metal (bump 42) with a first surface (top) of the substrate body opposite a second surface (bottom) of the substrate body, causing a quantity of a mass of molten metal (40/44) to flow from the first surface toward the second surface of the substrate body in a via (24) that extends from the first surface to the second surface; contacting a mass of solid metal (46) with a second surface (bottom) of the substrate body opposite a first surface (top) of the substrate body, causing a quantity of the molten metal to flow from the second surface toward the first surface of the substrate body in a via (24) that extends from the second surface to the first surface; and solidifying the molten metal in the via to produce a solidified metal that defines an electrically conductive path between the first surface and the second surface (paragraph [0145], Fig. 3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to employ in the method of Kochupurackal as modified by Mobley and Knickerbocker, steps of flowing a first and second mass of molten metal to flow via capillary action from both the first surface toward the second surface and from the second surface toward the first surface, respectively, as taught by Umetsu, as a matter of use of known technique to improve similar methods in the same way (see MPEP 2143, KSR, Rationale “C”). The resulting method would reasonably be expected to fill the vias of the substrate of Kochupurackal/Mobley/Knickerbocker with reduced filling time and ensuring no trapped air remains in the center of the via thus, resulting in the substrate having enhanced strength and optimal thermal management.
As applied to claim 22, Kochupurackal as modified by Mobley and Knickerbocker teaches the invention cited including the first mass of solid metal physically contacting the first surface of the substrate causing a quantity of the first molten mass to flow via capillary action from first surface to second surface. The combination fails to teach wherein the physically contacting step comprises physically contacting the solid metal with each of the first surface and the opposed second surface; the causing step comprises causing a respective quantity of the molten metal to flow via capillary action from the first surface toward the opposed second surface along the metallic wetting liner, and further causes a respective quantity of the molten metal to flow via capillary action from the second surface toward the opposed first surface along the metallic wetting liner.
Umetsu teaches a method of metallizing a substrate body (10) comprising the steps of physically contacting a solid metal (bump 42) with a first surface (top) of the substrate body opposite a second surface (bottom) of the substrate body, causing a quantity of the solid metal in a molten state (40/44) to flow from the first surface toward the second surface of the substrate body in a via (24) that extends from the first surface to the second surface; contacting a mass of solid metal (46) with a second surface (bottom) of the substrate body opposite a first surface (top) of the substrate body, causing a quantity of the metal in a molten state to flow from the second surface toward the first surface of the substrate body in a via (24) that extends from the second surface to the first surface; and solidifying the metal in the molten state in the via to produce a solidified metal that defines an electrically conductive path between the first surface and the second surface (paragraph [0145], Fig. 3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to replace the step of physically contacting the first surface with solid metal in method of Kochupurackal as modified by Mobley and Knickerbocker with steps of physically contacting first and second surfaces with first and second solid mass of solid metals, respectively, as taught by Umetsu, as a matter of use of known technique to improve similar methods in the same way (see MPEP 2143, KSR, Rationale “C”). The resulting method would be reasonably expected to fill the vias of the substrate of Kochupurackal as modified by Mobley and Knickerbocker with reduced filling time and ensuring no trapped air remains in the center of the via thus, resulting in the substrate having enhanced strength and optimal thermal management.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kochupurackal et al. (WO2009153728A1, hereinafter “Kochupurackal”) in view of Mobley et al. (US 20190304877A1, hereinafter “Mobley”) and Knickerbocker et al. (US 10,130,302, hereinafter “Knickerbocker”) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Kirby (US 20060148250A1).
As applied to claim 21, the combination of Kochupurackal as modified by Mobley and Knickerbocker teaches the invention cited including forming the wetting layer along the interior surface of the via but does not explicitly teach the wetting layer does not extend along either of the first and the second opposed surfaces.
Kirby teaches a method for forming interconnections in microelectronic workpieces wherein a hole/via is formed in the workpiece (stage 310), a dielectric liner is formed in the hole/via (stage 330) and a wetting layer is formed on the dielectric liner (which is only in the hole/via and thus, not extending on any of the two opposite surfaces) at stage 330 (paragraph [0032], Fig. 3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to employ in the method of Kochupurackal/Mobley/Knickerbocker the step of forming the wetting layer only inside the via and not extending to any of the two outside surfaces, as taught by Kirby, as a matter of use of known technique to improve similar methods in the same way (see MPEP 2143, KSR, Rationale “C”). The resulting method would be reasonably expected to ensure facilitating the deposition of subsequent molten metal only into the via without any subsequent steps of cleaning any residue of the wetting liner outside the via.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 2 and 4-22 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Please note that the primary art of Anderson is no longer relied upon in the rejection of claims 2 and 4-22.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARANG AFZALI whose telephone number is (571)272-8412. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7 am - 4 pm EST.
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, Thomas Hong can be reached at 571-272-0993. 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.
/SARANG AFZALI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726 09/11/2026
Prosecution Insights