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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I (claims 1-10 and 12-13) in the reply filed on June 23, 2025 is acknowledged.
Claim 11 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
First Art Rejection
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-10 and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Tanaka (WO 2020/090426).
Note. US 2021/0387919 will used as the English Translation for WO 2020/090426.
The applied reference has a common inventor with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
Referring to Figures 1(a), 1(b), and paragraphs [0018]-[0027], Tanaka discloses a
member for a plasma processing apparatus, comprising: a tubular body 2a composed of a ceramic having a rare earth element oxide, aluminum oxide, or a rare earth element aluminum composite oxide as a main constituent (pars.[0018]-[0020]).
Tanaka is silent on the tubular body including a through hole in an axial direction and a number of recessed portions having a depth of from 10 m to 20 pm, the depth starting from a ridge located between an inner peripheral surface of the tubular body and a target observation surface of the tubular body, wherein the target observation surface is obtained by polishing from an outer peripheral surface of the tubular body toward the axis, wherein the number of the recessed portions is 2 or less per 1 mm of the ridge.
However, referring to paragraphs [0026]-[0027], Tanaka does teach that the section height difference of the roughness profile is 2 mm or less and the root mean square slope of the roughness profile is 3.5 mm or less of the inner peripheral surface which produces recesses (unevenness) that are small and relatively flat in order to suppress particle generation and scattering. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would expect that the depth of the recessed portions and the number of recessed portions would be met by Tanaka’s tubular body’s roughness profile having the claimed section height difference of the roughness profile and the root mean square slope of the roughness profile. Additionally, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed tubular body’s recessed portions and a tubular body’s recessed portions having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art tubular body’s closed recessed portions, the claimed tubular body’s recessed portions was not patentably distinct from the prior art tubular body’s recessed portions.
With respect to claim 2, the member for a plasma processing apparatus of Tanaka further includes wherein a straightness of the ridge on the target observation surface is 20 mm or less (As stated above, Tanaka discloses the section height difference of the roughness profile is 2 mm or less and the root mean square slope of the roughness profile is 3.5 mm or less of the inner peripheral surface which produces recesses (unevenness) that are small and relatively flat in order to suppress particle generation and scattering. Hence, a straightness of the ridge on the target observation surface is 20 mm or less would be expected. Additionally, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed tubular body’s target observation surface and a tubular body’s target observation surface having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art tubular body’s target observation, the claimed tubular body’s target observation surface was not patentably distinct from the prior art tubular body’s target observation surface).
With respect to claim 3, the member for a plasma processing apparatus of Tanaka further includes wherein a maximum diameter of a closed pore is 0.9 mm or less, the closed pore is located on the target observation surface within 0.1 mm from the ridge toward an outer edge, and the outer edge is a boundary between the outer peripheral surface of the tubular body and the target observation surface (As stated above, Tanaka discloses polishing for a desired surface roughness, a maximum diameter of a closed pore is 0.9 mm or less would be expected. Nevertheless, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed tubular body’s closed pore and a tubular body’s closed pore having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art tubular body’s closed pore, the claimed tubular body’s closed pore was not patentably distinct from the prior art tubular body’s closed pore).
With respect to claim 4, the member for a plasma processing apparatus of Tanaka further wherein the inner peripheral surface of the tubular body is a fired surface having a root mean square slope (RDqi) of 1.3 or less (par.[0027]).
With respect to claim 5, the member for a plasma processing apparatus of Tanaka further includes wherein the inner peripheral surface of the tubular body is a fired surface having a section height difference (Rdci) of 1.7 mm or less, wherein Rdci represents a difference between a section height at a material ratio of 25% in a roughness profile and a section height at a material ratio of 75% in the roughness profile (par.[0026]).
With respect to claim 6, the member for a plasma processing apparatus of Tanaka further includes wherein the outer peripheral surface of the tubular body is a fired surface having a root mean square slope (RDqo) of 0.04 or greater (par.[0039]).
With respect to claim 7, the member for a plasma processing apparatus of Tanaka further includes wherein the outer peripheral surface of the tubular body is a fired surface having a section height difference (Rdco) of 0.04 m or greater, wherein Rdco represents a difference between a section height at a material ratio of 25% in a roughness profile and a section height at a material ratio of 75% in the roughness profile (par.[0038]).
With respect to claim 8, the member for a plasma processing apparatus of Tanaka further includes wherein the ceramic comprises 98 mass % or greater of the rare earth element oxide or the aluminum oxide (par.[0019]).
With respect to claim 9, the member for a plasma processing apparatus of Tanaka further includes wherein a content of the rare earth element oxide or the aluminum oxide is 99.0 mass% or greater (par.[0019]).
With respect to claim 10, the member for a plasma processing apparatus of Tanaka further includes wherein the ceramic comprises the aluminum oxide and the rare earth element aluminum composite oxide in which either the aluminum oxide or the rare earth element aluminum composite oxide is the main constituent (pars. [0019]-[0020], [0031]).
With respect to claim 12, a plasma processing apparatus of Tanaka further comprising: the member 2a for a plasma processing apparatus of claim 1 and a plasma generating apparatus (pars. [0011]-[0018]).
With respect to claim 13, the plasma processing apparatus of Tanaka further includes wherein the plasma generating apparatus comprises an upper electrode 2 and a lower electrode 3 disposed inside a chamber 1, the upper electrode including an electrode plate 2b and a plurality of gas-flow passage tubes 2a that are installed on the electrode plate and are configured to supply a plasma generating gas into the chamber, and the member 2a for a plasma processing apparatus is a gas-flow passage tube of the plurality of gas-flow passage tubes (pars.[0011]-[0012], [0018]).
Second Art Rejection
Claim(s) 1-10 and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka (WO 2019/066033).
Note. US 2021/0035776 will used as the English Translation for WO 2019/066033.
Referring to Figures 1(a), 1(b), and paragraphs [0013]-[0046], Tanaka discloses a
member for a plasma processing apparatus, comprising: a tubular body 2a composed of a ceramic having a rare earth element oxide, aluminum oxide, or a rare earth element aluminum composite oxide as a main constituent (pars.[0022]-[0024]).
Tanaka is silent on the tubular body including a through hole in an axial direction and a number of recessed portions having a depth of from 10 m to 20 pm, the depth starting from a ridge located between an inner peripheral surface of the tubular body and a target observation surface of the tubular body, wherein the target observation surface is obtained by polishing from an outer peripheral surface of the tubular body toward the axis, wherein the number of the recessed portions is 2 or less per 1 mm of the ridge.
However, referring to paragraph [0046], Tanaka does teach that an arithmetic average roughness RA of 0.4 mm or less of the tubular body yields particle generation and scattering suppression. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would expect that the depth of the recessed portions and the number of recessed portions would be met by Tanaka’s tubular body having an arithmetic average roughness RA of 0.4 mm or less. Additionally, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed tubular body’s recessed portions and a tubular body’s recessed portions having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art tubular body’s closed recessed portions, the claimed tubular body’s recessed portions was not patentably distinct from the prior art tubular body’s closed recessed portions.
With respect to claim 2, the member for a plasma processing apparatus of Tanaka further includes wherein a straightness of the ridge on the target observation surface is 20 mm or less (As stated above, Tanaka discloses tubular body having an arithmetic average roughness RA of 0.4 mm or less which produces recesses (unevenness) that are small and relatively flat in order to suppress particle generation and scattering. Hence, a straightness of the ridge on the target observation surface is 20 mm or less would be expected. Additionally, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed tubular body’s target observation surface and a tubular body’s target observation surface having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art tubular body’s target observation, the claimed tubular body’s target observation surface was not patentably distinct from the prior art tubular body’s target observation surface).
With respect to claim 3, the member for a plasma processing apparatus of Tanaka further includes wherein a maximum diameter of a closed pore is 0.9 mm or less, the closed pore is located on the target observation surface within 0.1 mm from the ridge toward an outer edge, and the outer edge is a boundary between the outer peripheral surface of the tubular body and the target observation surface (pars.[0041]-[0042], Nevertheless, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed tubular body’s closed pore and a tubular body’s closed pore having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art tubular body’s closed pore, the claimed tubular body’s closed pore was not patentably distinct from the prior art tubular body’s closed pore).
With respect to claim 4, the member for a plasma processing apparatus of Tanaka further wherein the inner peripheral surface of the tubular body is a fired surface having a root mean square slope (RDqi) of 1.3 or less (As stated above, Tanaka teaches a tubular body having an arithmetic average roughness RA of 0.4 mm or less. Additionally, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed tubular body’s inner peripheral surface and a tubular body’s inner peripheral surface having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art tubular body’s inner peripheral surface, the claimed tubular body’s inner peripheral surface was not patentably distinct from the prior art tubular body’s inner peripheral surface).
With respect to claim 5, the member for a plasma processing apparatus of Tanaka further includes wherein the inner peripheral surface of the tubular body is a fired surface having a section height difference (Rdci) of 1.7 mm or less, wherein Rdci represents a difference between a section height at a material ratio of 25% in a roughness profile and a section height at a material ratio of 75% in the roughness profile (As stated above, Tanaka teaches a tubular body having an arithmetic average roughness RA of 0.4 mm or less. Additionally, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed tubular body’s inner peripheral surface and a tubular body’s inner peripheral surface having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art tubular body’s inner peripheral surface, the claimed tubular body’s inner peripheral surface was not patentably distinct from the prior art tubular body’s inner peripheral surface).
With respect to claim 6, the member for a plasma processing apparatus of Tanaka further includes wherein the outer peripheral surface of the tubular body is a fired surface having a root mean square slope (RDqo) of 0.04 or greater (As stated above, Tanaka teaches a tubular body having an arithmetic average roughness RA of 0.4 mm or less. Additionally, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed tubular body’s outer peripheral surface and a tubular body’s outer peripheral surface having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art tubular body’s outer peripheral surface, the claimed tubular body’s outer peripheral surface was not patentably distinct from the prior art tubular body’s outer peripheral surface).
With respect to claim 7, the member for a plasma processing apparatus of Tanaka further includes wherein the outer peripheral surface of the tubular body is a fired surface having a section height difference (Rdco) of 0.04 m or greater, wherein Rdco represents a difference between a section height at a material ratio of 25% in a roughness profile and a section height at a material ratio of 75% in the roughness profile (As stated above, Tanaka teaches a tubular body having an arithmetic average roughness RA of 0.4 mm or less. Additionally, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed tubular body’s outer peripheral surface and a tubular body’s outer peripheral surface having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art tubular body’s outer peripheral surface, the claimed tubular body’s outer peripheral surface was not patentably distinct from the prior art tubular body’s outer peripheral surface).
With respect to claim 8, the member for a plasma processing apparatus of Tanaka further includes wherein the ceramic comprises 98 mass % or greater of the rare earth element oxide or the aluminum oxide (par.[0022]).
With respect to claim 9, the member for a plasma processing apparatus of Tanaka further includes wherein a content of the rare earth element oxide or the aluminum oxide is 99.0 mass% or greater (pars.[0022]-[0023]).
With respect to claim 10, the member for a plasma processing apparatus of Tanaka further includes wherein the ceramic comprises the aluminum oxide and the rare earth element aluminum composite oxide in which either the aluminum oxide or the rare earth element aluminum composite oxide is the main constituent (pars. [0022]-[0024]).
With respect to claim 12, a plasma processing apparatus of Tanaka further comprising: the member 2a for a plasma processing apparatus of claim 1 and a plasma generating apparatus (pars. [0013]-[0024]).
With respect to claim 13, the plasma processing apparatus of Tanaka further includes wherein the plasma generating apparatus comprises an upper electrode 2 and a lower electrode 3 disposed inside a chamber 1, the upper electrode including an electrode plate 2b and a plurality of gas-flow passage tubes 2a that are installed on the electrode plate and are configured to supply a plasma generating gas into the chamber, and the member 2a for a plasma processing apparatus is a gas-flow passage tube of the plurality of gas-flow passage tubes (pars.[0013]-[0014], [0021]).
Third Art Rejection
Claim(s) 1-10 and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okamoto et al. (J.P. 2008-260644A) in view of Kajiwara et al. (J.P. 2012-54266).
Referring to the abstract, Okamoto et al. disclose a member for a plasma processing apparatus, comprising: a body composed of a ceramic having a rare earth element oxide, aluminum oxide, or a rare earth element aluminum composite oxide as a main constituent (abstract, page 3, par.[5]).
Okamoto et al. is silent on the body including a through hole in an axial direction and a number of recessed portions having a depth of from 10 m to 20 pm, the depth starting from a ridge located between an inner peripheral surface of the tubular body and a target observation surface of the tubular body, wherein the target observation surface is obtained by polishing from an outer peripheral surface of the tubular body toward the axis, wherein the number of the recessed portions is 2 or less per 1 mm of the ridge.
However, referring to page 3, par.[1], Okamoto et al. does teach that a surface roughness Ra of 0.05 mm -5 mm of the body yields particle generation and scattering suppression. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would expect that the depth of the recessed portions and the number of recessed portions would be met by Okamoto et al.’s body having a surface roughness Ra of 0.05 mm -5 mm. Additionally, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed body’s recessed portions and a body’s recessed portions having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art body’s closed recessed portions, the claimed body’s recessed portions was not patentably distinct from the prior art body’s closed recessed portions.
Okamoto et al. is silent on the body being tubular.
Referring to Figure 2 and paragraph [0028], Kajiwara et al. teach that it is conventionally known in the art to manufacture a body composed of a ceramic having a rare earth element oxide, aluminum oxide, or a rare earth element aluminum composite oxide as a main constituent into a tubular body for use as a plasma resistant gas nozzle. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention for the body of Okamoto et al. to be tubular as taught by Kajiwara et al. since it is a conventionally known shape used for a plasma resistant gas nozzle. The resulting apparatus of Okamoto et al. in view of Kajiwara et al. would yield a tubular body.
With respect to claim 2, the member for a plasma processing apparatus of Okamoto et al. in view of Kajiwara et al. further includes wherein a straightness of the ridge on the target observation surface is 20 mm or less (As stated above, Okamoto et al.’s body having a surface roughness Ra of 0.05 mm -5 mm which produces recesses (unevenness) that are small and relatively flat in order to suppress particle generation and scattering. Hence, a straightness of the ridge on the target observation surface is 20 mm or less would be expected. Additionally, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed tubular body’s target observation surface and a tubular body’s target observation surface having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art tubular body’s target observation, the claimed tubular body’s target observation surface was not patentably distinct from the prior art tubular body’s target observation surface).
With respect to claim 3, the member for a plasma processing apparatus of Okamoto et al. in view of Kajiwara et al. further includes wherein a maximum diameter of a closed pore is 0.9 mm or less, the closed pore is located on the target observation surface within 0.1 mm from the ridge toward an outer edge, and the outer edge is a boundary between the outer peripheral surface of the tubular body and the target observation surface (page 3, par.[10], Nevertheless, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed tubular body’s closed pore and a tubular body’s closed pore having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art tubular body’s closed pore, the claimed tubular body’s closed pore was not patentably distinct from the prior art tubular body’s closed pore).
With respect to claim 4, the member for a plasma processing apparatus of Okamoto et al. in view of Kajiwara et al. further wherein the inner peripheral surface of the tubular body is a fired surface having a root mean square slope (RDqi) of 1.3 or less (As stated above, Okamoto et al.’s body having a surface roughness Ra of 0.05 mm -5 mm. Additionally, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed tubular body’s inner peripheral surface and a tubular body’s inner peripheral surface having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art tubular body’s inner peripheral surface, the claimed tubular body’s inner peripheral surface was not patentably distinct from the prior art tubular body’s inner peripheral surface).
With respect to claim 5, the member for a plasma processing apparatus of Okamoto et al. in view of Kajiwara et al. further includes wherein the inner peripheral surface of the tubular body is a fired surface having a section height difference (Rdci) of 1.7 mm or less, wherein Rdci represents a difference between a section height at a material ratio of 25% in a roughness profile and a section height at a material ratio of 75% in the roughness profile (As stated above, Okamoto et al.’s body having a surface roughness Ra of 0.05 mm -5 mm. Additionally, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed tubular body’s inner peripheral surface and a tubular body’s inner peripheral surface having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art tubular body’s inner peripheral surface, the claimed tubular body’s inner peripheral surface was not patentably distinct from the prior art tubular body’s inner peripheral surface).
With respect to claim 6, the member for a plasma processing apparatus of Okamoto et al. in view of Kajiwara et al. further includes wherein the outer peripheral surface of the tubular body is a fired surface having a root mean square slope (RDqo) of 0.04 or greater (As stated above, Okamoto et al.’s body having a surface roughness Ra of 0.05 mm -5 mm. Additionally, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed tubular body’s outer peripheral surface and a tubular body’s outer peripheral surface having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art tubular body’s outer peripheral surface, the claimed tubular body’s outer peripheral surface was not patentably distinct from the prior art tubular body’s outer peripheral surface).
With respect to claim 7, the member for a plasma processing apparatus of Okamoto et al. in view of Kajiwara et al. further includes wherein the outer peripheral surface of the tubular body is a fired surface having a section height difference (Rdco) of 0.04 m or greater, wherein Rdco represents a difference between a section height at a material ratio of 25% in a roughness profile and a section height at a material ratio of 75% in the roughness profile (As stated above, Okamoto et al.’s body having a surface roughness Ra of 0.05 mm -5 mm. Additionally, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed tubular body’s outer peripheral surface and a tubular body’s outer peripheral surface having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art tubular body’s outer peripheral surface, the claimed tubular body’s outer peripheral surface was not patentably distinct from the prior art tubular body’s outer peripheral surface).
With respect to claim 8, the member for a plasma processing apparatus of Okamoto et al. in view of Kajiwara et al. further includes wherein the ceramic comprises 98 mass % or greater of the rare earth element oxide or the aluminum oxide (Okamoto et al.-page 5, par.[6]).
With respect to claim 9, the member for a plasma processing apparatus of Okamoto et al. in view of Kajiwara et al. further includes wherein a content of the rare earth element oxide or the aluminum oxide is 99.0 mass% or greater (Okamoto et al.-page 5, par.[6], Kajiwara et al.-pars.[0028]-[0030]).
With respect to claim 10, the member for a plasma processing apparatus of Okamoto et al. in view of Kajiwara et al. further includes wherein the ceramic comprises the aluminum oxide and the rare earth element aluminum composite oxide in which either the aluminum oxide or the rare earth element aluminum composite oxide is the main constituent (Okamoto et al.-page 5, par.[6], pars.[0028]-[0030]).
With respect to claim 12, a plasma processing apparatus of Okamoto et al. in view of Kajiwara et al. further comprising: the member 4 for a plasma processing apparatus of claim 1 and a plasma generating apparatus (Kajiwara et al.-pars. [0028]-[0030]).
With respect to claim 13, the plasma processing apparatus of Okamoto et al. in view of Kajiwara et al. further includes wherein the plasma generating apparatus comprises an upper electrode 4, 9 and a lower electrode 6 disposed inside a chamber 1, the upper electrode including an electrode plate 13 and a plurality of gas-flow passage tubes 12 that are installed on the electrode plate and are configured to supply a plasma generating gas into the chamber, and the member 1 for a plasma processing apparatus is a gas-flow passage tube of the plurality of gas-flow passage tubes (Kajiwara et al.pars.[0014]-[0016]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Noguchi’318, Nakahara’262, Hayashi’673, Nakahara’499, Tanaka’995, Sato’061, Tanaka’140, Tanaka’563, and Matsufuji’244 teach a ceramic body used as plasma resistant member (i.e. gas nozzle) made of a rare earth element oxide, aluminum oxide, or a rare earth element aluminum composite oxide as a main constituent.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michelle CROWELL whose telephone number is (571)272-1432. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 10:00am-6:00pm.
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, Parviz Hassanzadeh can be reached at 571-272-1435. 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.
/Michelle CROWELL/Examiner, Art Unit 1716
/SYLVIA MACARTHUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716