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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/04/2026 has been entered.
Drawings
The Examiner acknowledges that the Applicants amendments to the drawings and claims resolves the previous drawings objection. Therefore, the previous drawings objection has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The Examiner acknowledges that the Applicant’s amendments to the claims resolves the previous rejection of claims 1-3, 5-8, 10 and 19-20 under 35 USC 112(b). Therefore, the previous rejection of claims 1-3, 5-8, 10 and 19-20 under 35 USC 112(b) have been withdrawn.
The Examiner acknowledges that the Applicant’s amendments to the claims resolves the previous rejection of claims 1, 3, 5-8, 10, 12, 15, 17 and 19-20 under 35 USC 112(a). Therefore, the previous rejection of claims 1, 3, 5-8, 10, 12, 15, 17 and 19-20 under 35 USC 112(a) have been withdrawn.
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, 3, 5-8, 10, 12, 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoo et al. (US 2023/0307551) hereinafter “Yoo” in view of Deijkers et al. (US 2022/0384197) hereinafter “Deijkers” and in further view of Ruiz et al. (US 2018/0212147) hereinafter “Ruiz”.
Regarding claim 1, Fig. 2 of Yoo teaches a method of forming a 3D NAND device (Paragraph 0091), the method, comprising: forming, a substantially conformal barrier layer (Item BP) directly on a dielectric material (Item GI) on a semiconductor substrate (Combination of Items 100, 101, SE, and ILD) having a feature (Combination of Items GI and CH) comprising a bottom and at least one sidewall, the bottom comprising a channel material (Item CH), the at least one sidewall comprising the dielectric material (Item GI); and depositing a metal fill (Item CP) directly on the barrier layer (Item BP) to fill the feature.
Yoo does not teach where the barrier layer is a transition metal dichalcogenide (TMDC) liner such that the TMDC liner is formed in the absence of a barrier layer nor where the TMDC liner has a thickness in the range of 10 Angstroms to 20 Angstroms nor where the TMDC liner acts as both a barrier and a liner.
Fig. 1 of Deijkers teaches where a barrier layer is a transition metal dichalcogenide (TMDC) liner (Item 120; Paragraph 0020) on a dielectric material (Item 130), where the TMDC liner (Item 120) has a thickness in the range of 10 Angstroms to 20 Angstroms (Paragraph 0023) and where the TMDC liner (Item 120) acts as a barrier layer and liner (Paragraph 0022).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the barrier layer of Yoo be a TMDC liner such that the TMDC liner is formed in the absence of a barrier layer, where the TMDC liner has a thickness in the range of 10 Angstroms to 20 Angstroms, where the TMDC liner acts as a barrier layer and a liner because the TMDC liner having a thickness between 10 Angstroms and 20 Angstroms prevents metal from the fill from diffusing into the material (whether it be channel or dielectric) below and to the side of it (Deijkers Paragraph 0074).
When the barrier layer of Yoo is a TMDC liner as taught by Deijkers, the metal fill will be directly deposited on the TMDC liner.
Yoo does not explicitly teach where the TMDC liner has a resistivity less than or equal to 12 µΩ-cm for a thickness less than 35 angstroms.
However, MPEP 2112(III) states “Where applicant claims a composition in terms of a function, property or characteristic and the composition of the prior art is the same as that of the claim but the function is not explicitly disclosed by the reference, the examiner may make a rejection under both 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103.” As Deijkers recites all of the materials recited by the Applicant in their specification as the possible TMDC liner (molybdenum disulfide, titanium disulfide), the TDMC liner has a resistivity less than or equal to 12 µΩ-cm for a thickness less than 35 angstroms is rendered to be an inherent characteristic of the TMDC liner taught by Deijker.
Further, the resistivity of a transition metal dichalcogenide is a result effective variable (Ruiz Paragraph 0073 where the resistivity is tuned so that a cell is more stable during reading). In In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977), the CCPA held that a particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation, because "obvious to try" is not a valid rationale for an obviousness finding (MPEP 2144.05(II)(B)).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the resistivity of the TMDC liner such that the TMDC liner has a resistivity less than or equal to 12 µΩ-cm for a thickness less than 35 angstroms because "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Yoo, Deijkers and Ruiz teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above.
Yoo does not explicitly teach where surface scattering of electrons between the metal fill and TMDC liner is less than surface scattering of electrons between a similar metal fill formed on a titanium nitride (TiN) liner.
Deijkers further teaches where a transition metal dichalcogenide liner can be formed to be very thin such that a resistance (i.e. surface scattering of electrons between the metal fill and TMDC liner) of a metal gate in a transistor is reduced relative to a metal gate utilizing previously relied upon barrier layer materials such as TaN/Ta (Paragraph 0022).
Further, MPEP 2112(III) states “Where applicant claims a composition in terms of a function, property or characteristic and the composition of the prior art is the same as that of the claim but the function is not explicitly disclosed by the reference, the examiner may make a rejection under both 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103.” As such, the surface scattering of electrons between the metal fill and TMDC liner is less than surface scattering of electrons between a similar metal fill formed on a titanium nitride (TiN) liner is rendered to be an obvious inherent characteristic of the TMDC material.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Yoo, Deijkers and Ruiz teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above except where the TMDC liner acts as a fluorine diffusion barrier.
However, MPEP 2112(III) states “Where applicant claims a composition in terms of a function, property or characteristic and the composition of the prior art is the same as that of the claim but the function is not explicitly disclosed by the reference, the examiner may make a rejection under both 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103.” As such, the TMDC liner acting as a fluorine diffusion barrier is rendered to be an inherent characteristic of the TMDC liner. Further, Deijkers further teaches other TMDC materials such as molybdenum disulfide, titanium disulfide.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Yoo, Deijkers and Ruiz teaches all of the elements as stated above except where the TMDC liner comprises tungsten disulfide, molybdenum disulfide, tantalum disulfide, or titanium sulfide.
Deijkers further teaches where the TMDC liner (Item 120) comprises a tungsten disulfide (Paragraph 0025).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the TMDC liner comprise a tungsten disulfide because tungsten disulfide is known to prevent metal from the fill from diffusing into the material (whether it be channel or dielectric) below and to the side of it (Deijkers Paragraph 0074) and since it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960), and MPEP 2144.07 Art Recognized Suitability for an Intended Purpose.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Yoo, Deijkers and Ruiz teaches all of the elements as stated above except where forming the TMDC liner comprises exposing the dielectric material to a chalcogenide precursor comprising one or more of sulfur, selenium, or tellurium.
Deijkers further teaches where forming the TMDC liner (Item 120) comprises exposing the dielectric material (Item 130) to a chalcogenide precursor comprising one or more of sulfur, selenium or tellurium (Paragraph 0055).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the forming the TMDC liner comprise exposing the dielectric material to a chalcogenide precursor comprising one or more of sulfur, selenium, or tellurium because “(C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way and/or (D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results” supports a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Yoo, Deijkers and Ruiz teaches all of the elements as stated above except where the transition metal dichalcogenide film is substantially free of oxygen.
Deijkers further teaches where the transition metal dichalcogenide film (Item 120) is substantially free of oxygen (Paragraphs 0061-0064; See also Paragraph 0065 where the use of oxygen is in an alternate embodiment indicating that the embodiment in paragraphs 0061-0064 do not include oxygen).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the transition metal dichalcogenide film be substantially free of oxygen since it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960), and MPEP 2144.07 Art Recognized Suitability for an Intended Purpose.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Yoo, Deijkers and Ruiz teaches all of the elements as stated above except where the TMDC liner comprises one or more of molybdenum, tungsten, tantalum, or titanium.
Deijkers further teaches where the TMDC liner (Item 120) comprises tungsten (Paragraph 0044).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the TMDC liner comprise tungsten because tungsten is known to prevent metal from the fill from diffusing into the material (whether it be channel or dielectric) below and to the side of it (Deijkers Paragraph 0074) and since it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960), and MPEP 2144.07 Art Recognized Suitability for an Intended Purpose.
Regarding claim 12, Fig. 2 of Yoo teaches a 3D NAND device (Paragraph 0091) comprising: a substrate (Combination of Items 100, 101, SE, and ILD) having a feature (Combination of Items GI and CH) comprising a bottom and at least one sidewall, the bottom comprising a channel material (Item CH), the at least one sidewall comprising a dielectric material (Item GI); a substantially conformal barrier layer (Item BP) formed directly on the at least one sidewall leaving a feature opening; and a metal fill (Item CP) formed in the feature opening directly on the conformal barrier layer (Item BP).
Yoo does not teach where the barrier layer is a transition metal dichalcogenide (TMDC) liner nor where the TMDC liner has a thickness in the range of 10 Angstroms to 20 Angstroms nor where the TMDC liner acts as both a barrier and a liner.
Fig. 1 of Deijkers teaches where a barrier layer is a transition metal dichalcogenide (TMDC) liner (Item 120; Paragraph 0020) on a dielectric material (Item 130), where the TMDC liner (Item 120) has a thickness in the range of 10 Angstroms to 20 Angstroms (Paragraph 0023) and where the TMDC liner (Item 120) acts as a barrier layer and liner (Paragraph 0022).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the barrier layer of Yoo be a TMDC liner, where the TMDC liner has a thickness in the range of 10 Angstroms to 20 Angstroms, where the TMDC liner acts as a barrier layer and a liner because the TMDC liner having a thickness between 10 Angstroms and 20 Angstroms prevents metal from the fill from diffusing into the material (whether it be channel or dielectric) below and to the side of it (Deijkers Paragraph 0074).
When the barrier layer of Yoo is a TMDC liner as taught by Deijkers, the metal fill will be directly deposited on the TMDC liner.
Yoo does not explicitly teach where the TMDC liner has a resistivity less than or equal to 12 µΩ-cm for a thickness less than 35 angstroms.
However, MPEP 2112(III) states “Where applicant claims a composition in terms of a function, property or characteristic and the composition of the prior art is the same as that of the claim but the function is not explicitly disclosed by the reference, the examiner may make a rejection under both 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103.” As Deijkers recites all of the materials recited by the Applicant in their specification as the possible TMDC liner (molybdenum disulfide, titanium disulfide), the TDMC liner has a resistivity less than or equal to 12 µΩ-cm for a thickness less than 35 angstroms is rendered to be an inherent characteristic of the TMDC liner taught by Deijker.
Further, the resistivity of a transition metal dichalcogenide is a result effective variable (Ruiz Paragraph 0073 where the resistivity is tuned so that a cell is more stable during reading). In In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977), the CCPA held that a particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation, because "obvious to try" is not a valid rationale for an obviousness finding (MPEP 2144.05(II)(B)).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the resistivity of the TMDC liner such that the TMDC liner has a resistivity less than or equal to 12 µΩ-cm for a thickness less than 35 angstroms because "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Yoo does not teach where the TMDC liner comprises tungsten disulfide, molybdenum disulfide, tantalum disulfide, or titanium sulfide.
Deijkers further teaches where the TMDC liner (Item 120) comprises a tungsten disulfide (Paragraph 0025).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the TMDC liner comprise a tungsten disulfide because tungsten disulfide is known to prevent metal from the fill from diffusing into the material (whether it be channel or dielectric) below and to the side of it (Deijkers Paragraph 0074) and since it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960), and MPEP 2144.07 Art Recognized Suitability for an Intended Purpose.
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Yoo, Deijkers and Ruiz teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above except where the TMDC liner acts as a fluorine diffusion barrier.
However, MPEP 2112(III) states “Where applicant claims a composition in terms of a function, property or characteristic and the composition of the prior art is the same as that of the claim but the function is not explicitly disclosed by the reference, the examiner may make a rejection under both 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103.” As such, the TMDC liner acting as a fluorine diffusion barrier is rendered to be an inherent characteristic of the TMDC liner. Further, Deijkers further teaches other TMDC materials such as molybdenum disulfide, titanium disulfide.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Yoo, Deijkers and Ruiz teaches all of the elements as stated above except where the transition metal dichalcogenide film is substantially free of oxygen.
Deijkers further teaches where the transition metal dichalcogenide film (Item 120) is substantially free of oxygen (Paragraphs 0061-0064; See also Paragraph 0065 where the use of oxygen is in an alternate embodiment indicating that the embodiment in paragraphs 0061-0064 do not include oxygen).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the transition metal dichalcogenide film be substantially free of oxygen since it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960), and MPEP 2144.07 Art Recognized Suitability for an Intended Purpose.
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jahangir et al. (US 2018/0226248) hereinafter “Jahangir” in view of Yoo et al. (US 2023/0307551) hereinafter “Yoo” and Wu et al. A Self-Limited Atomic Layer Deposition of WS2 Based on the Chemisorption and Reduction of Bis(t-butylimino)bis(dimethylamino) Complexes. Chem. Mater. 2019, 31, 1881-1890 and in further view of Deijkers et al. (US 2022/0384197) hereinafter “Deijkers”.
Regarding claim 19, Fig. 2(b) of Jahangir teaches a method of forming a transition metal dichalcogenide film (Item MoS2) on a substrate (Item n+ Si) surface, the method comprising: sequentially exposing the substrate surface to a metal precursor (Paragraph 0046 where tungsten is applied) and an oxidant (Paragraph 0047 where oxygen is applied to the metal precursor) to directly deposit a transition metal oxide film (Paragraph 0047 where an intermediate transition metal oxide film is formed), the metal precursor comprising tungsten (Paragraph 0046); exposing the transition metal oxide film to a chalcogenide precursor to convert the transition metal oxide film to a transition metal dichalcogenide film (Paragraph 0050), the chalcogenide precursor comprising sulfur (Paragraph 0050).
Jahanagir does not teach where the semiconductor substrate has a feature comprising a bottom and at least one sidewall, the bottom comprising a channel material, the at least one sidewall comprising a dielectric material nor depositing a metal fill directly on the transition metal dichalcogenide film to fill the feature.
Yoo teaches a 3D NAND device (Paragraph 0091) having a semiconductor substrate (Combination of Items 100, 101, SE, and ILD) having a feature (Combination of Items GI and CH) comprising a bottom and at least one sidewall, the bottom comprising a channel material (Item CH), the at least one sidewall comprising the dielectric material (Item GI); and a metal film directly on a transition metal dichalcogenide film to fill the feature.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have where the semiconductor substrate have a feature comprising a bottom and at least one sidewall, the bottom comprising a channel material, the at least one sidewall comprising a dielectric material; and a metal film directly on a transition metal dichalcogenide film to fill the feature because this yields a transistor structure (Yoo Paragraph 0002).
Jahanagir does not teach where the transition metal oxide film is substantially conformal and directly on the dielectric material nor that the TMDC liner is formed in the absence of a barrier layer nor where the TMDC liner has a thickness in the range of 10 Angstroms to 20 Angstroms nor where the TMDC liner acts as both a barrier and a liner.
Fig. 1 of Deijkers teaches where a barrier layer is a transition metal dichalcogenide (TMDC) liner (Item 120; Paragraph 0020) that is substantially conformal (Paragraph 0029) directly on a dielectric material (Item 130), where the TMDC liner (Item 120) has a thickness in the range of 10 Angstroms to 20 Angstroms (Paragraph 0023) and where the TMDC liner (Item 120) acts as a barrier layer and liner (Paragraph 0022).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the transition metal oxide film be substantially conformal directly on the dielectric material because this allows for step coverage over structures with complex surface morphology (Deijkers Paragraph 0029) and to have the transition metal oxide film be formed in the absence of a barrier layer, where the TMDC liner has a thickness in the range of 10 Angstroms to 20 Angstroms, where the TMDC liner acts as a barrier layer and a liner because the TMDC liner having a thickness between 10 Angstroms and 20 Angstroms prevents metal from the fill from diffusing into the material (whether it be channel or dielectric) below and to the side of it (Deijkers Paragraph 0074).
Jahangir does not teach where the tungsten precursor is bis(t-butylimino) bis(dimethylamino) tungsten.
Wu teaches where bis(t-butylimino) bis(dimethylamino) tungsten is used as a precursor to a deposition of tungsten (Under “WS2 ALD section”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the tungsten precursor be bis(t-butylimino) bis(dimethylamino) tungsten because bis(t-butylimino) bis(dimethylamino) tungsten is known to be a precursor material when forming a WS2 film (Wu Under “WS2 ALD section).
Jahangir does not teach where the chalcogen precursor comprises H2S.
Deikjers teaches where H2S is used as a chalcogen precursor for the formation of a WS2 film (Paragraph 0062).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the chalcogen precursor comprises H2S because H2S is known to be a precursor material when forming a WS2 film (Deijkers Paragraph 0062).
Jahangir does not explicitly teach wherein the substrate surface is maintained at a temperature in a range of about 350 °C to about 450 C.
However, Jahanagir teaches where the substrate surface is maintained at a temperature in a range of about 350C to 450C (Paragraph 0051 where the annealing temperature is between 400C and 550C).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the substrate surface be maintained at a temperature in a range of about 350C to 450C because “In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976)” (MPEP 2144.05).
Jahanair does not teach explicitly teach the transition metal dichalcogenide film having a thickness in a range of 20 A to 30 A.
Deijkers further teaches where the barrier layer of transition metal chalcogenide has a thickness of less than 3nm (30 Angstroms).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the transition metal dichalcogenide film having a thickness in a range of 20 A to 30 A because this allows for the transition metal dichalcogenide to act as barrier layer (Deijkers Paragraph 0072) and “In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976)” (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 20, Jahanagir further teaches where depositing the transiston metal oxide film on the semiconductor substrate and converting the transition metal oxide film to the transition metal dichalcogenide film are performed in a single processing chamber (Paragraphs 0049 and 0050).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant’s REMARKS, filed 02/04/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 3, 5-8, 10, 19 and 20 under 35 USC 112(b) and claims 1, 3, 5-8, 10, 12, 15, 17 and 19-20 under 35 USC 112(a) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Yoo, Deijkers and Ruiz.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC K ASHBAHIAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5187. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5:30 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, Matthew Landau can be reached on 571-272-1731. 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.
/ERIC K ASHBAHIAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2891