DETAILED ACTION/EXAMINER’S COMMENT
This Office action responds to the amendments filed on 12/02/2025.
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 . In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for a 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.
Amendment Status
Applicant’s response filed on 12/02/2025 in reply to the non-final rejection mailed on 09/03/2025, has been entered. The present Office action is made with all previously suggested amendments being fully considered. Accordingly, pending in this Office action are claims 1-25. Claims 23-25 are method claims and are withdrawn as reading on non-elected invention II, species 1b reading on figures 3 & 8. Claims 1-22 will be examined in this Office action.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims.
Therefore,
‘a dielectric’ of claim 11
must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
As recited in claim 11, ‘a dielectric’ is not assigned an element number in Applicant’s specifications.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 13, 17, 18, 19 & 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ecton (US 20230093258).
Regarding Claim 13, Ecton (see, e.g., fig. 2e, annotated figure 2e) shows a package comprising:
a glass substrate 231 (see, e.g., para.0040) having a first side (near 244) and a second side (near 242) opposite the first side, the glass substrate comprising a single layer of glass continuous from the first side to the second side (see, e.g., fig. 2e, annotated figure 2e);
a plurality of through glass vias (TGV) 232 that include conductive material,
the plurality of TGV extend through the glass substrate from the first side to the second side;
a first routing layer 233 having a first side (near 225) and a second side (near 237) opposite the first side,
the first side of the first routing layer coupled with the second side of the glass substrate,
the first routing layer including one or more electrical traces 234 that are electrically coupled with at least one of the plurality of TGV (see, e.g., para.0043),
wherein each of the one or more TGV have a same width continuous from the first side of the glass substrate to the one or more electrical traces (see, e.g., annotated figure 2e, para.0044);
wherein the second side of the first routing layer includes one or more metal pads 238 (see, e.g., para.0043) that are electrically coupled with the one or more electrical traces of the first routing layer;
and a die 240 on the second side of the first routing layer,
a side of the die including one or more metal pads,
wherein at least one metal pad 239 (see, e.g., para.0047) of the die is directly bonded to at least one of the metal pads of the first routing layer.
Regarding Claim 17, Ecton (see, e.g., fig. 2e) shows the package of claim 13, further comprising:
a second routing layer 220 with a side of the second routing layer coupled with the first side of the glass substrate,
wherein the second routing layer includes one or more electrical traces 228 & 223 that are electrically coupled with at least one of the plurality of TGV (see, e.g., para.0048).
Regarding Claim 18, Ecton (see, e.g., fig.2e, para.0048, para.0050) shows the package of claim 17,
wherein the side of the second routing layer is a first side;
and further comprising:
a second side of the second routing layer opposite the first side,
a plurality of electrical connectors 227 on the second side of the second routing layer electrically coupled with at least one of the plurality of TGV.
Regarding Claim 19, Ecton (see, e.g., para.0044, para.0032, para.0050) shows the package of claim 18,
wherein at least some of the plurality of electrical traces in the first routing layer route signals,
and wherein at least some of the plurality of electrical traces in the second routing layer route power.
Regarding Claim 20, Ecton (see, e.g., para.0050) shows the package of claim 18,
wherein the plurality of electrical connectors (226 or 227 or 216) on the second side of the second routing layer include a selected one or more of:
solder connectors,
copper connectors,
or hybrid bonded connectors.
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 1-16, 21, & 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US 20230038892) in view of Yamaguchi (US 20130037314).
Regarding Claim 1, Chen (see, e.g., fig. 4, fig. 7, annotated figures 7a-b, para.0063) shows a package comprising:
a glass substrate 108 (see, e.g., para.0025) with a first side 604 and a second side opposite the first side,
the glass substrate comprising a single layer of glass continuous from the first side to the second side (see, e.g., annotated figure 7a);
one or more through glass vias (TGV) 110a & 110b that include conductive material,
wherein the one or more TGV extend through the glass substrate from the first side to the second side;
one or more pads 112 on the first side of the glass substrate,
at least one of the one or more metal pads directly electrically coupled with one of the one or more TGV 110a & 110b,
wherein each of the one or more TGV have a same width continuous from the second side of the glass substrate to the one or more pads 112 (see, e.g., annotated figure 7b , para.0087);
a die 330 with a first side (near 112, fig. 7) and a second side opposite the first side,
the first side of the die including one or more metal pads 410;
and wherein at least one metal pad of the die is directly bonded with at least one of the metal pads of the glass substrate.
Regarding the limitation, “wherein each of the one or more TGV 110a & 110b have a same width continuous from the second side of the glass substrate to the one or more pads 112,” Examiner interprets the limitation “same width” as a feature of the shared width between TGVs 110a & 110b. Any width, including a varying width, would teach the limitation so long as the width of TGV 110a and is the same as the width of TGV 110b continuous from the second side of the glass substrate to the one or more pads 112 (see, e.g., annotated figure 7b). Thus, Chen teaches the limitation.
Chen, however, fails to show
one or more metal pads on the first side of the glass substrate.
at least one of the one or more metal pads directly electrically coupled with one of the one or more TGV 110a & 110b
wherein each of the one or more TGV have the same width continuous from the second side of the glass substrate to the one or more metal pads 112
Yamaguchi (see, e.g., para.0033), in a similar device to Chen, teaches that a ternary metal alloy including copper as a metal pad would improve mechanical properties, elongation characteristics and increase reliability of a bonding joint.
It would have been obvious at the time of filing the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the ternary metal alloy including copper of Yamaguchi as a metal pad in the device of Chen to improve mechanical properties, elongation characteristics and increase reliability of a bonding joint.
Examiner believes Chen, in view of Yamaguchi, shows all aspects of the instant invention, see paragraph 18 above. In the event Chen, in view of Yamaguchi, does not show the limitation “same width,” which Examiner does not concede, the Applicant’s interpretation of Chen, in view of Yamaguchi, is addressed.
Applicant interprets Chen, in view of Yamaguchi, to show “wherein each of the one or more TGV 110a & 110b have a varying width continuous from the second side of the glass substrate to the one or more pads 112.”
It is noted that the specification fails to provide teachings about the criticality of having “wherein each of the one or more TGV have a same width continuous from the second side of the glass substrate to the one or more pads,” and teachings about the “same width” as claimed in the instant application.
Therefore, absent any criticality, this limitation is only considered to be an obvious modification of the “varying width” disclosed by Chen, in view of Yamaguchi, as the courts have held that a change in shape or configuration, without any criticality, is within the level of skill in the art, and the particular “same width” claimed by applicant is nothing more than one of numerous TGV width shapes that a person having ordinary skill in the art will find obvious to provide using routine experimentation as a matter of choice or based on its suitability for the intended use of the invention. See In re Daily, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976).
Furthermore, the claimed width shape is known in the art: Ma (US 20110147059), in the same field of endeavor teaches that the width of TGVs can be the “same width.” Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the shape of “same width” in the device of Chen, in view of Yamaguchi, because TGV width shape is known in the semiconductor art to have “same width” for its use as a conductor through a substrate, as suggested by Ma, and implementing a known structure shape for its conventional use/purpose would have been a common sense choice by the skilled artisan. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding Claim 2, Chen (see, e.g., para.0083), in view of Yamaguchi, shows the package of claim 1,
further comprising
a redistribution layer (RDL) 116R,
wherein a side of the RDL is coupled with the second side of the glass substrate.
Regarding Claim 3, Chen (see, e.g., para.0083), in view of Yamaguchi, shows the package of claim 2,
Regarding the process limitation of claim 3:
wherein the RDL is formed using a backend of line (BEOL) process.
Note that a “product-by-process” claim is directed to the product per se, no matter how actually made.
See In re Thorpe et al., 227 USPQ 964 (CAFC, 1985) and the related case law cited therein which make it
clear that it is the final product per se which must determine in a “product-by-process” claim, and not the
patentability of the process, and that, as here, an old or obvious product produced by a new method is not
patentable as a product, whether claimed in “product-by-process” claim or not. As stated in Thorpe, even
though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. In re Brown, 459 F.2d 531, 535, 173 USPQ 685, 688 (CCPA 1972); In re Pilkington, 411 F.2d 1345, 162 USPQ 145 (CCPA 1969); Buono v. Yankee Maid Dress Corp., 77 F.2d 274, 279, 26, USPQ 57, 61 (2d. Cir 1935).
NOTE that the applicant has burden of proof in such cases as the above case law makes clear.
In reference to the claimed process step: “formed using a backend of line (BEOL) process” this is considered an intermediate method step that does not affect the structure of the final device.
Regarding Claim 4, Chen (see, e.g., para.0089), in view of Yamaguchi, shows the package of claim 2,
wherein the RDL includes one or more electrical traces that electrically couple with at least one of the one or more TGV.
Regarding Claim 5, Chen (see, e.g., fig. 7), in view of Yamaguchi, shows the package of claim 4,
wherein the die is a plurality of dies.
Regarding Claim 6, Chen (see, e.g., para.0090), in view of Yamaguchi, shows the package of claim 5,
wherein at least two of the plurality of dies are electrically coupled through the one or more electrical traces within the RDL.
Regarding Claim 7, Chen (see, e.g., fig.7, para.0083), in view of Yamaguchi, shows the package of claim 2,
wherein the side of the RDL is a first side;
and further comprising:
a second side of the RDL opposite the first side;
and a plurality of electrical connectors on the second side of the RDL electrically coupled with at least one of the one or more TGV.
Regarding Claim 8, Chen (see, e.g., para.0083), in view of Yamaguchi, shows the package of claim 7,
wherein the plurality of electrical connectors on the second side of the RDL include a selected one or more of:
solder connectors,
copper connectors,
or hybrid bonded connectors.
Regarding Claim 9, Chen, in view of Yamaguchi, shows the package of claim 1,
Chen (see, e.g., para.0104) teaches wherein a thickness of the die is range from approximately 50 µm to approximately 200 µm.
Chen, in view of Yamaguchi, however, fails to teach wherein a thickness of the die is less than 20 µm. However, die thickness will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such ranges are critical. “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the workable ranges by routine experimentation” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454,456,105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Criticality
The specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed temperature and pressure ranges or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding Claim 10, Chen (see, e.g., fig. 6, fig. 7, para.0079), in view of Yamaguchi, shows the package of claim 1,
wherein the one or more TGV is a plurality of TGV,
Chen, in view of Yamaguchi, teaches a pitch of the plurality of TGV is in a range from approximately 10 µm to approximately 100 µm.
Chen, in view of Yamaguchi, however, fails to teach wherein a pitch of the plurality of TGV is less than 10 µm.
When the prior art discloses a range which touches or overlaps the claimed range, but no specific examples falling within the claimed range are disclosed, a case by case determination must be made as to anticipation. In order to anticipate the claims, the claimed subject matter must be disclosed in the reference with "sufficient specificity to constitute an anticipation under the statute." What constitutes a "sufficient specificity" is fact dependent. If the claims are directed to a narrow range, and the reference teaches a broader range, other facts of the case, must be considered when determining whether the narrow range is disclosed with "sufficient specificity" to constitute an anticipation of the claims. Compare ClearValue Inc. v. Pearl River Polymers Inc., 668 F.3d 1340, 101 USPQ2d 1773 (Fed. Cir. 2012) with Atofina v. Great Lakes Chem. Corp, 441 F.3d 991, 999, 78 USPQ2d 1417, 1423 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
Also regarding the range limitation, die thickness will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such ranges are critical. “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the workable ranges by routine experimentation” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454,456,105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See paragraph 42 for criticality statement.
Regarding Claim 11, Chen (see, e.g., fig.4, para.0058), in view of Yamaguchi, shows the package of claim 1,
wherein the first side of the die includes a dielectric 420 surrounding the one or more metal pads.
Regarding Claim 12, Examiner interprets another embodiment of Chen. Thus, regarding Claim 1, Chen (see, e.g., fig. 3, para.0051) shows a package comprising:
a glass substrate 346 with a first side and a second side opposite the first side;
one or more through glass vias (TGV) 338 that include conductive material,
the one or more TGV extend through the glass substrate from the first side to the second side;
one or more metal pads 344 on the first side of the glass substrate,
at least one of the one or more metal pads directly electrically coupled with one of the one or more TGV
wherein each of the one or more TGV have a same width continuous from the second side of the glass substrate to the one or more pads 112 (see, e.g., annotated figure 7b , para.0087);
a die 102 or 104 with a first side and a second side opposite the first side,
the first side of the die including one or more pads 350;
and wherein at least one pad of the die is directly bonded with at least one of the metal pads of the glass substrate.
Chen, however, fails to show
the first side of the die including one or more metal pads.
and wherein at least one pad of the die is directly bonded with at least one of the metal pads of the glass substrate
Yamaguchi (see, e.g., para.0033), in a similar device to Chen, teaches that a ternary metal alloy including copper as a metal pad would improve mechanical properties, elongation characteristics and increase reliability of a bonding joint.
It would have been obvious at the time of filing the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the ternary metal alloy including copper of Yamaguchi as a metal pad in the device of Chen to improve mechanical properties, elongation characteristics and increase reliability of a bonding joint.
Regarding Claim 12, Chen (see, e.g., fig. 3, para.0052), in view of Yamaguchi (see, e.g., para.0033), shows the package of claim 1,
wherein the conductive material and the metal pads include copper.
Regarding Claim 13, Chen (see, e.g., fig. 7, annotated figures 7a-b, para.0058) shows a package comprising:
a glass substrate 108 having a first side 604 and a second side opposite the first side, the glass substrate comprising a single layer of glass continuous from the first side to the second side (see, e.g., annotated figure 7a);
a plurality of through glass vias (TGV) 110a & 110b that include conductive material,
the plurality of TGV extend through the glass substrate from the first side to the second side;
a first routing layer 116R having a first side and a second side 602 opposite the first side,
the first side of the first routing layer coupled with the second side of the glass substrate,
the first routing layer including one or more electrical traces 110c & 110d that are electrically coupled with at least one of the plurality of TGV (see, e.g., para.0089),
wherein each of the one or more TGV 110a & 110b have a same width continuous from the first side of the glass substrate to the one or more electrical traces 110c & 110d (see, e.g., annotated figure 7b, para.0089);
wherein the second side of the first routing layer includes one or more metal pads 112 that are electrically coupled with the one or more electrical traces of the first routing layer (see, e.g., para.0087);
and a die 102 or 104 on the second side of the first routing layer,
a side of the die including one or more metal pads,
wherein at least one metal pad of the die is directly bonded to at least one of the pads of the first routing layer.
Regarding the limitation, “wherein each of the one or more TGV have a same width continuous from the first side of the glass substrate to the one or more electrical traces,” Examiner uses the same argument in Claim 1, see paragraphs 18 & 22-26 above, and believes Chen to teach the limitation.
Chen, however, fails to show
wherein the second side of the first routing layer includes one or more metal pads that are electrically coupled with the one or more electrical traces of the first routing layer
a side of the die including one or more metal pads,
wherein at least one metal pad of the die is directly bonded to at least one of the metal pads of the first routing layer
Yamaguchi (see, e.g., para.0033), in a similar device to Chen, teaches that a ternary metal alloy including copper as a metal pad would improve mechanical properties, elongation characteristics and increase reliability of a bonding joint.
It would have been obvious at the time of filing the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the ternary metal alloy including copper of Yamaguchi as a metal pad in the device of Chen to improve mechanical properties, elongation characteristics and increase reliability of a bonding joint.
Regarding Claim 14, Chen (see, e.g., fig. 2, para.0082, para.0032), in view of Yamaguchi, shows the package of claim 13,
wherein the first routing layer includes an inorganic dielectric material.
Regarding Claim 15, Chen (see, e.g., fig. 7), in view of Yamaguchi, shows the package of claim 13,
wherein the die is a plurality of dies 102 & 104.
Regarding Claim 16, Chen (see, e.g., para.0070), in view of Yamaguchi, shows the package of claim 15,
wherein at least two of the plurality of dies are electrically coupled by the one or more electrical traces of the first routing layer.
Regarding Claim 21, Chen, in view of Yamaguchi, shows the package of claim 13,
Chen (see, e.g., para.0104) teaches wherein a thickness of a die (die 330 of another embodiment) is range from approximately 50 µm to approximately 200 µm.
Chen, in view of Yamaguchi, however, fails to teach wherein a thickness of the die is less than 20 µm. However, die thickness will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such ranges are critical. “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the workable ranges by routine experimentation” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454,456,105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See paragraph 42 for criticality statement.
Regarding Claim 22, Chen (see, e.g., fig. 6, fig. 7, para.0079), in view of Yamaguchi, shows the package of claim 13,
wherein a pitch of the plurality of TGV is less than 10 µm.
Chen, in view of Yamaguchi, teaches a pitch of the plurality of TGV is in a range from approximately 10 µm to approximately 100 µm.
Chen, in view of Yamaguchi, however, fails to teach wherein a pitch of the plurality of TGV is less than 10 µm.
When the prior art discloses a range which touches or overlaps the claimed range, but no specific examples falling within the claimed range are disclosed, a case by case determination must be made as to anticipation. In order to anticipate the claims, the claimed subject matter must be disclosed in the reference with "sufficient specificity to constitute an anticipation under the statute." What constitutes a "sufficient specificity" is fact dependent. If the claims are directed to a narrow range, and the reference teaches a broader range, other facts of the case, must be considered when determining whether the narrow range is disclosed with "sufficient specificity" to constitute an anticipation of the claims. Compare ClearValue Inc. v. Pearl River Polymers Inc., 668 F.3d 1340, 101 USPQ2d 1773 (Fed. Cir. 2012) with Atofina v. Great Lakes Chem. Corp, 441 F.3d 991, 999, 78 USPQ2d 1417, 1423 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
Also regarding the range limitation, die thickness will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such ranges are critical. “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the workable ranges by routine experimentation” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454,456,105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See paragraph 42 for criticality statement.
Response to Amendment
Applicant did not address the objections to the drawings, the objections to the specification, and the prior art rejections of claims 13, 17, 18, 19, & 20 under U.S.C. 102 (a)(2). This Office action reiterates the objections to the drawings, the objections to the specification, and the prior art rejections of claims 13, 17, 18, 19, & 20 under U.S.C. 102 (a)(2).
From MPEP 714.03: Where an amendment substantially responds to the rejections, objections, or requirements in a non-final Office action (and is a bona fide attempt to advance the application to final action) but contains a minor deficiency (e.g., fails to treat every rejection, objection, or requirement), the examiner may simply act on the amendment and issue a new (non-final or final) Office action. The new Office action may simply reiterate the rejection, objection, or requirement not addressed by the amendment (or otherwise indicate that such rejection, objection, or requirement is no longer applicable).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see pages 8-12, filed 12/02/2025 with respect to the prior art rejections of claims 1-16, 21, & 22 under U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The amendments made to independent claims 1 & 13 do not overcome the rejections made under the prior art of record (Chen, in view of Yamaguchi). Examiner has provided further clarification of the prior art of record as to why the amendments do not overcome the prior art rejections of claims 1-16, 21, & 22 under U.S.C. 103, see paragraphs 15-69 above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 FERNANDO JOSE RAMOS-DIAZ whose telephone number is (571) 270-5855. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am-5pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Wael Fahmy can be reached on 571-272-1705. 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.
/F.R.D./ Examiner, Art Unit 2814
Examiner, Art Unit 2814
/WAEL M FAHMY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2814
Prosecution Insights