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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-8, 10-15, and 17-22 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by the applicant’s amendments to the claims.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS’ of 09/29/21, 04/12/22, 04/14/22, 08/08/22, 07/31/23, 10/25/23, 04/03/24, and 06/04/24 were previously considered by another examiner. They have also been reviewed and considered by the current examiner, as part of the update search. Since the previous IDS forms were already signed, they will not be signed again.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 223 and S33. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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.
Claim Objections
Claims 6, 12-13, and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 6 states, “wherein the device management controller is configured to derive information indicative of an index of the operation state of apparatus by using deduction method.” This sentence contains a couple of minor grammatical informalities. It will be construed that the claim should state, “wherein the device management controller is configured to derive information indicative of an index of the operation state of the apparatus by using a deduction method.” (emphasis mine).
Claim 12, line 3 discloses an MFC but does not define what an MFC is.
Claim 13, line 2 states, “that constitute the apparatus …” However, the last “s” of the word “apparatus” appears to be canceled. The examiner will interpret that the cancellation line was unintentionally extended to that final letter and will construe that “apparatus” should not have any deleted or cancelled letters.
Claim 15, line 3 states, “with the number of the plurality of part data …” For consistency with the other claims, it will be construed that the claim should state, “with the number of the plurality of parts data …”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-8, 10-15, and 17-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
With respect to step 1 of the patent subject matter eligibility analysis, the claims are directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. Independent claim 1 is directed to a processing apparatus, which is a machine. Independent claim 19 is directed to a device management controller, which is a machine. Independent claim 20 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium, which is a manufacture. All other claims depend on independent claims 1 and 19-20. As such, claims 1-8, 10-15, and 17-22 are directed to a statutory category.
With respect to step 2A, prong one, the claims recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon. Specifically, the following limitations recite mathematical concepts and/or mental processes.
Claim 1
configured to monitor a plurality of parts data each including one of a number of uses and a time of use of respective parts that constitute the apparatus (Monitoring data that includes two types of variables is an observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion that can be performed in the human mind. This limitation therefore recites an abstract mental process.)
configured to be capable of updating evaluation information of an operating state of the apparatus based on a number of the plurality of parts data determined as abnormal (A general updating of evaluation information is an observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion that can be performed in the human mind. This limitation therefore recites an abstract mental process.)
each of the plurality of parts data being determined as abnormal as the one of the number of uses and the time of use for the parts exceeds a threshold value (Making a general determination based on whether a variable exceeds a threshold value is an observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion that can be performed in the human mind. This limitation therefore recites an abstract mental process.)
Independent claims 19-20 represent variations of claim 1 and recite similar abstract limitations.
Dependent claims 2-8, 10-15, 17-18, and 21-22 depend on independent claims 1 and 19-20. They also recite the independent claims’ abstract limitations, by virtue of their dependence. In addition, some of the claims also recite their own abstract mathematical concepts and/or mental processes.
Claim 2 discloses monitoring data and updating evaluation information, which are abstract mental processes that can be performed in the human mind.
Claim 3 discloses determining an extent of abnormality, which is an abstract mental process that can be performed in the human mind.
Claim 4 discloses diagnosing at least one item from a group. General diagnosis is an abstract mental process that can be performed in the human mind. Details of the diagnosis technique are not claimed.
Claim 5 discloses performing evaluation by weighing between parts data determined as abnormal and device data determined as abnormal. General evaluation between two variables is an abstract mental process that can be performed in the human mind.
Claim 6 discloses deriving information by using deduction method. General deduction to derive information is an abstract mental process that can be performed in the human mind. Details of the deduction method are not claimed.
Claim 7 discloses determining whether or not device data is abnormal by comparing device data with standard data for device data. General determination by comparing two sets of data is an abstract mental process that can be performed in the human mind.
Claim 8 discloses comparing data with a threshold value for the data and determining an outcome, such as replacement timing, based on whether the threshold value is exceeded. These are observations, evaluations, judgments, and/or opinions that can be performed in the human mind. The limitation therefore recites an abstract mental process.
Claim 21 discloses updating information of the operation state of an apparatus based on result data. This is an abstract mental process that can be performed in the human mind.
Claim 22 discloses further monitoring and updating of evaluation of information, which are abstract mental processes that can be performed in the human mind.
With respect to step 2A, prong two, the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The following limitations are considered “additional elements” and explanation will be given as to why these “additional elements” do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 1
A processing apparatus comprising a parts management controller (This is a general and generic recitation of a computer processing element(s). Mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea is not indicative of integration into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).)
Claim 19
A device management controller comprising a parts management controller (This is a general and generic recitation of a computer processing element(s). Mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea is not indicative of integration into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).)
Claim 20
A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a program that causes a device management controller to perform a process (This is a general and generic recitation of a computer processing element(s). Mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea is not indicative of integration into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).)
wherein the device management controller comprises a parts management controller (This is a general and generic recitation of a computer processing element(s). Mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea is not indicative of integration into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).)
Dependent claims 2-8, 10-15, 17-18, and 21-22 depend on independent claims 1 and 19-20. They also recite the independent claims’ limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application, by virtue of their dependence. In addition, some of the claims also recite their own limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application.
Claim 11 discloses “a diagnosis target item that concerns the reaction chamber comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of a reaction chamber temperature, a reaction chamber pressure, a flow rate of gas … wherein the gas supplied into the reaction chamber comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of a processing gas and a dilution gas.” These limitations merely serve to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). They are not indicative of integration into a practical application. Citing a general laundry list of structural applications, parameters, and/or properties, that merely give general and generic context to what is selected, is considered more of a general linking (see MPEP 2106.05(h)) than a specific application or using of the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo).
Claim 12 discloses that the parts data is data related to parts constituting the apparatus including a reaction tube, a heater, a valve and an MFC. This limitation merely serves to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Claim 13 discloses that the parts data is data related to lifetimes of parts that constitute the apparatus. This limitation merely serves to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Claim 14 discloses that the parts data is data monitoring a degree of deterioration and wear of the parts that constitute the apparatus. This limitation merely serves to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Claim 15 discloses a display device that displays output data. Displaying output data merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). It is not indicative of integration into a practical application.
Claim 17 discloses a device management controller configured to cause the display to display at least one screen selected from a type of output data. Displaying output data merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). It is not indicative of integration into a practical application.
Claim 18 further discloses a device management controller to cause the display to display some sort of output data. Displaying output data merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). It is not indicative of integration into a practical application.
Claim 22 discloses “processing a substrate based on the evaluation information of the operation state of the apparatus.” This limitation is not considered to be indicative of integration into a practical application because it is not clear what the processing entails. The processing may simply be a computer processing that merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). If the processing is a structural transformation that effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.05(c)), it is suggested that the exact structural transformational nature of that “processing” be positively and affirmatively claimed.
With respect to step 2B, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claimed invention does not add significantly more because, as discussed above in step 2A, prong two, the claims do nothing more than merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and/or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The claims are directed to receiving and processing data. This is well-understood, routine, and conventional. Simply appending well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry, and specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception is not indicative of an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) (see MPEP 2106.05(d) and Berkheimer Memo).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-8, 15, and 17-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hamada et al (JP2003086479A). Both original and machine translation from Google Patents have been attached.
With respect to claim 1, Hamada et al discloses:
A processing apparatus comprising a parts management controller configured to monitor a plurality of parts data each including one of a number of uses and a time of use of respective parts that constitute the apparatus (abstract states, “The attrition rate of each part of the substrate-processing apparatus 1 is measured by measuring the use time of the part by a timer 117 or by counting the number of processed substrates using the part.”)
wherein the parts management controller is configured to be capable of updating evaluation information of an operating state of the apparatus based on a number of the plurality of parts data determined as abnormal, each of the plurality of parts data being determined as abnormal as the one of the number of uses and the time of use for the parts exceeds a threshold value (abstract states, “The information 241 is obtained from a supporting computer 3, and it is decided for each part, whether or not the consumption degree exceeds a prescribed value. If the resulted value exceeds the prescribed value, an alarming section 313 issues an alarm to urge replacement of the corresponding part …” The transition between data reception and decision serves as the claimed “updating evaluation information.” Page 4 of the machine translation, paragraphs 3 and 6 also disclose memory, and another interpretation of the limitation is that the parts management controller is inherently capable of updating evaluation information of an operating state of the apparatus, as it uses memory to store and process the parts management information, which includes determinations of abnormality (i.e. consumption/attrition information of each part).)
Independent claims 19-20 represent variations of independent claim 1 and are rejected for similar reasons. The main difference between independent claims 19-20 and claim 1 are the preamble limitations.
Claim 19 discloses a device management controller comprising a parts management controller. This is disclosed by the abstract of Hamada et al, for reasons similar as those discussed in claim 1 above.
Claim 20 discloses a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a program that causes a device management controller to perform a process, wherein the device management controller comprises a parts management controller (see abstract of Hamada et al, as well as disclosure on page 4, paragraph 3 of the machine translation, which states, “The system control unit 100 controls the entire apparatus in a centralized manner, and comprises a microcomputer. Specifically, the CPU that is the main body 101, a ROM 102 that is a read-only memory that stores a basic program and the like, a RAM 103 that is a readable and writable memory …”
With respect to claim 2, Hamada et al discloses:
further comprising a device state monitoring controller configured to monitor an integrity of a plurality of device data obtained from an operating state of each part that constitutes the apparatus (abstract states, “The information 241 is obtained from a supporting computer 3, and it is decided for each part, whether or not the consumption degree exceeds a prescribed value. If the resulted value exceeds the prescribed value …” In other words, the integrity check is in whether the prescribed value is exceeded. It is also clear from the abstract that each part has a separate decision made about it. The examiner therefore broadly interprets the parts management controller as catering to specific individual parts, while the device state management controller caters to the collective decisions about the multiple parts, as a whole. Hamada et al anticipates both. If the applicant has some sort of more specific structural or functional difference between the parts management controller and device state monitoring controller in mind, it is suggested that the details of such differences be positively claimed. Under broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the examiner interprets potential overlap between the parts management controller and the device state management controller.)
wherein the device state monitoring controller is configured to be capable of updating the evaluation information of the operating state of the apparatus based on a number of the plurality of device data determined as abnormal (abstract states, “… an alarming section 313 issues an alarm … and an order placing signal transmission section 314 transmits an order …” The act of alarming and order placing serves as an updating. Also, as discussed above, the very act of using memory to process the data also serves as a type of updating.)
With respect to claim 3, Hamada et al discloses:
further comprising a device management controller configured to manage the parts data and the device data (abstract; As discussed above, Hamada anticipates both individual consideration of a single part, as well as the collective decisions about multiple parts.)
wherein the device management controller is configured to determine an extent of abnormality of the parts data determined as abnormal or the device data determined as abnormal (abstract)
With respect to claim 4, Hamada et al discloses:
wherein the device management controller is configured to be capable of diagnosing at least one selected from the group of the device data and the parts data for a plurality of diagnosis target items (abstract; As discussed, Hamada et al discloses consideration of multiple parts.)
With respect to claim 5, Hamada et al discloses:
wherein the device management controller is configured to perform evaluation by weighting between the parts data determined as abnormal and the device data determined as abnormal (abstract states, “and it is decided for each part …” This shows a “weighting,” in terms of weighing different possibilities for each part. Please note that the claim does not define what “weighting” entails.)
With respect to claim 6, Hamada et al discloses:
wherein the device management controller is configured to derive information indicative of an index of the operation state of the apparatus by using a deduction method (abstract states, “If the resulted value exceeds the prescribed value, an alarming section 313 issues an alarm to urge replacement …” Here, the controller can see a data result (i.e. resulted value exceeds prescribed value) and deduce information indicative of an index of the operation state (i.e. part needs to be replaced).)
With respect to claim 7, Hamada et al discloses:
wherein the device state monitoring controller is configured to determine whether or not the device data is abnormal by comparing the device data with standard data for the device data (abstract; The standard data is broadly interpreted as data that abides by the prescribed value. There is therefore an inherent comparison when there is a determination of whether a resulted value exceeds a prescribed value.)
With respect to claim 8, Hamada et al discloses:
wherein the parts management controller is configured to:
compare the parts data with a threshold value for the parts data (abstract; prescribed value serves as threshold value)
determine replacement timing according to whether or not the parts data exceeds the threshold value (abstract states, “If the resulted value exceeds the prescribed value, an alarming section 313 issues an alarm to urge replacement …”)
With respect to claim 15, Hamada et al discloses:
wherein the device management controller includes a display device configured to display an icon in accordance with the number of the plurality of part data determined as abnormal and the number of the plurality of device data determined as abnormal (figure 8; page 5 of the machine translation, paragraphs 5-6 state, “FIG. 8 is a diagram showing an example of the consumption level information 241 … As shown in FIG. 8, the consumption information 241 stores the degree of wear of each component … the consumption level information 241 stored in the fixed disk 24 is acquired from the information disclosure unit 236 and displayed on the display 35 …”)
With respect to claim 17, Hamada et al discloses:
wherein the device management controller is configured to cause the display device to display at least one screen selected from the group consisting of:
a screen for displaying at least one selected from the parts data determined as abnormal and the device data determined as abnormal (figure 8; page 5, paragraphs 5-6 of the machine translation; display suggests screen)
a screen for displaying the evaluation information of the operation state of the apparatus (figure 8; page 5, paragraphs 5-6 of the machine translation; display suggests screen)
With respect to claim 18, Hamada et al discloses:
further comprising a display device (figure 8; page 5, paragraphs 5-6 of the machine translation)
wherein the device management controller is configured to cause the display device to display presence or absence of setting as a diagnosis target item for each of the parts data (figure 8; page 5, paragraphs 5-6 of the machine translation; This is also inherent for any teaching of a display device, as if the display device displays the setting, it is present, and if it doesn’t, it is absent.)
With respect to claim 21, Hamada et al discloses:
A parts management method comprising updating the evaluation information of the operation state of the apparatus based on result data for the parts data monitored by the parts management controller of Claim 1 (abstract)
With respect to claim 22, Hamada et al discloses:
monitoring whether the apparatus is in an operation state in which a stable operation is achieved, by updating the evaluation information of the operation state of the apparatus according to the parts management method of Claim 21 (abstract; figure 7 shows flow chart of method)
processing a substrate based on the evaluation information of the operation state of the apparatus (figure 7 shows flow chart of method; Step S3 shows where, if the degree of wear does not exceed the predetermined value, then the process returns to step S1, which is interpreted to be normal operation, wherein a substrate continues to be processed based on the evaluation information of the operation state of the apparatus, without interruption to operations. Even in a state, where the method proceeds to step S4 and S5, it can still be broadly interpreted that the substrate continues to be “processed,” since the applicant has not defined what the substrate processing entails in the claims.)
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.
Claim(s) 10-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamada et al (JP2003086479A) in view of Yamamoto (US PgPub 20150039116).
With respect to claim 10, Hamada et al discloses:
The processing apparatus of Claim 4 (as applied to claim 4 above)
With respect to claim 10, Hamada et al differs from the claimed invention in that it does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the plurality of diagnosis target items are set as a module concerning one or more parts that constitutes at least one selected from the group consisting of a reaction chamber, a transfer chamber, a loader chamber, and a transfer system
With respect to claim 10, Yamamoto discloses:
wherein the plurality of diagnosis target items are set as a module concerning one or more parts that constitutes at least one selected from the group consisting of a reaction chamber, a transfer chamber, a loader chamber, and a transfer system (figure 5; processing chamber 152, chamber 122, plasma generating chamber 154)
With respect to claim 10, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Yamamoto into the invention of Hamada et al. The motivation for the skilled artisan in doing so is to gain the benefit of identifying and targeting parts data for specific areas/regions of the overall substrate processing apparatus.
With respect to claim 11, Hamada et al, as modified, discloses:
wherein a diagnosis target item that concerns the reaction chamber comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of a reaction chamber temperature, a reaction chamber pressure, a flow rate of a gas supplied into the reaction chamber, an exhaust pressure for exhausting a gas from the reaction chamber, and a flow rate of cooling water supplied to a component constituting the reaction chamber (obvious in view of combination; paragraphs 0066-0067 state, “A gas supply pipe 240, configured to supply a reaction gas for generating plasma, is connected to the gas introduction hole … An MFC 242 and an opening/closing valve 244 are installed in the gas supply pipe 240. The MFC 234 and the MFC 224 are configured to control a gas flow rate, measure the gas flow rate according to time and detect trouble based on the gas flow rate …”)
wherein the gas supplied into the reaction chamber comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of a processing gas and a dilution gas (paragraph 0079 states, “Examples of the specified process gas contain at least one of oxygen (O2), hydrogen (H2) … After the gas is supplied into the plasma generating chamber …”)
With respect to claim 12, Hamada et al discloses:
The processing apparatus of Claim 1 (as applied to claim 1 above)
With respect to claim 12, Hamada et al differs from the claimed invention in that it does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the parts data is data related to parts constituting the apparatus including a reaction tube, a heater, a valve, and an MFC
With respect to claim 12, Yamamoto discloses:
wherein the parts data is data related to parts constituting the apparatus including a reaction tube, a heater, a valve, and an MFC (figure 6; paragraphs 0059, 0065-0067
With respect to claim 12, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Yamamoto into the invention of Hamada et al. The motivation for the skilled artisan in doing so is to gain the benefit of identifying and targeting parts data for specific areas/regions/components of the overall substrate processing apparatus.
With respect to claim 13, Hamada et al, as modified, discloses:
wherein the parts data is data related to lifetimes of parts that constitute the apparatus (obvious in view of combination; The abstract of Hamada et al suggests lifetime of parts, until time for replacement.)
With respect to claim 14, Hamada et al, as modified, discloses:
wherein the parts data is data monitoring a degree of deterioration and wear of the parts that constitute the apparatus (obvious in view of combination; see abstract of Hamada et al)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Shimatani et al (US PgPub 20090198368) discloses a manufacturing apparatus, information processing method, and program.
Asai et al (US PgPub 20120253724) discloses a management device.
Yang et al (US PgPub 20130226327) discloses a novel closed loop control for reliability.
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 LEONARD S LIANG whose telephone number is (571)272-2148. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00 AM - 7 PM.
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, ARLEEN M VAZQUEZ can be reached at (571)272-2619. 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.
/LEONARD S LIANG/ Examiner, Art Unit 2857 09/18/26
Prosecution Insights