DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments, filed 1/26/2026, have been fully considered and reviewed by the examiner. The examiner notes the amendment to claims 1 and 9. Claims 1-14 and 16-21 remain pending with claims 19-21 withdrawn from consideration.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 1/26/2026, have been fully considered and reviewed by the examiner but are not persuasive as they are directed towards newly added claim requirements that are specifically addressed hereinafter.
Parimi discloses the vacuum chamber for ultrahigh vacuum for deposition (0024) and thus would make obvious the claimed deposition pressure as the pressure of the deposition would be recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to directly affect the deposition process (as supported by Parimi disclosure of the pressure directly affecting the vapor pressure).
As such, Parimi explicitly illustrates to one of ordinary skill in the art that the temperature and pressure of the chamber during cleaning and precoating is a result effective variable, directly controlling the sublimation, i.e. the vapor pressure, of aluminum fluoride. Therefore, taking the level of one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have controlled and adjusted the pressure and temperature of the chamber during the plasma cleaning and seasoning coat to control the sublimation of AlF from the support so as to increase the lifetime use of the support.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to reduce the vapor pressure of the AlF3 via a control over the pressure and temperature during the cleaning and seasoning as claimed to achieve the benefits of elimination of the gas phase by preventing sublimation so as to increase the lifetime use of the support.
Each of the first, second and third control pressures are related to the vapor pressure of the AlF to prevent sublimiation/vapor of the AlF and maintaining a pressure that would achieve that result is detailed by Parimi, who specifically desires to reduce/eliminate the AlF sublimation and also directly links the sublimation to the pressure and temperature of the chamber. As specifically noted by Parimi discloses the amount of sublimation is directly proportional to the temperature, here, the sublimation rate of AlF at approx. 480C is lower than the sublimation rate at 600C (see 0029) and as the temperature increases, the pressure of the chamber will need to be increased in order to achieve the equivalent sublimation rate at lower temperature (see 0029, stating “The detrimental effects created by the sublimation of the formed aluminum fluoride material from the heated chamber component(s) exponentially increases as the component's temperature is increased to a temperature above 600° C. By use of the apparatus and one or more methods disclosed herein, sublimation of a formed aluminum fluoride material can be kept to a low sublimation rate, such as a rate equal to the sublimation rate of the aluminum fluoride layer at a temperature below 480° C.”). Here a fair reading of this disclosure illustrates that the direct relationship between the temperature and pressure as it relates to the sublimation rate of AlF and thus the the vapor pressure of AlF (to prevent vaporization of the AlF, the increase in temperature requires an increase in pressure).
Applicant’s arguments as it relates to the combination of Parimi and Masuda fail to appreciate the level of one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention and what the references take collectively illustrate and teach to one of ordinary skill. Here, while Parimi illustrates a high temperature clean and seasoning (at a temperature of deposition), the reference itself does so by increasing the chamber pressure so as to be above the vapor pressure of AlF and prevent the sublimation therefore. However, Parimi, at 0029 discloses “it has been found that during and after performing an in-situ cleaning process in a vacuum processing chamber, while an aluminum containing chamber component (e.g., substrate support) is maintained at a high temperature (e.g., >480° C.), the sublimation of a formed aluminum fluoride layer therefrom can reduce the lifetime of the chamber components and contaminate the vacuum chamber and wafers processed in the vacuum processing chamber.” And also discloses at 0057 “ temperature that the aluminum fluoride is not susceptible to sublimation, such as below 480 degrees Celsius.”
Masuda discloses a lower temperature cleaning/precoat (see 0039, stating “the temperature of the heater pedestal 13 is lowered to a temperature lower than that during the plasma treatment. Specifically, the temperature of the heater pedestal 13 is, for example, 500° C. or lower.” ) Here, the prior art discloses and makes obvious the lower temperature for the cleaning and precoating process and thus using such would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. As such, using a lower pressure than as specifically disclosed in Parimi would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as the pressure and temperature of the chamber are directly linked to the sublimation of the AlF3 in the chamber during those processes and controlling such would have been obvious to control the sublimation. Here, the goal of both Parimi and Masuda are to control the sublimation of the AlF3 using control over chamber temperature and pressure and the understanding that the pressure and temperature directly affects the sublimation (see Parimi) and thus taking the level of one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, it would have been well within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have modified Parimi with Masuda to control the temperature and pressure, including as claimed, to control the AlF3 sublimation.
Here, while Parimi discloses the maintaining the temperature during the cleaning and precoat, so as to eliminate the temperature ramp time between the process steps (0034), the examiner notes that the predictable results will follow, i.e. cleaning process at a lower temperature will results in a
Here, Parimi discloses at 0034 “the benefit of maintaining the substrate support at a fixed temperature for the duration of the method 400 is that it will greatly decrease the clean/material deposition cycle time because the substrate support temperature does not need to be ramped down and then ramped back up for each substrate process and clean process cycle (e.g., process operation blocks 401-416) performed in the vacuum process chamber. For example, if the substrate support temperature is decreased to 550 degrees Celsius during one or more of the process steps to decrease the aluminum fluoride sublimation rate, the temperature ramp time can often be as long as between 15 minutes to 30 minutes to decrease the substrate support temperature from the processing temperature to a cleaning process temperature (e.g., 650° C. dropped to 550° C.) or increase the substrate support temperature from 550 degrees Celsius back to a target material deposition substrate support temperature of, for example 650 degrees Celsius.” (emphasis added by the examiner). The predictable results in a lower cleaning temperature will necessarily follow, that is the requirement of a temperature ramp time between the cleaning and coating temperature; however, this predictable results would be expected and would not be detrimental, but merely a decision readily made by the ordinary artisan to balance the thermal load versus process through time.
Applicant’s have failed to address the examiner position as it relates to the temperature and pressure of the chamber (lower cleaning and precoat temperatures are known to be utilized by one of ordinary skill in the art, see Matsuda and Parimi, specifically Parimi at 0034), and that the pressure and temperature of the chamber and components therein are regulated during the process sequence to specifically control the sublimation of the AlF and one would desire to specifically control the pressure and temperature to achieve the deposition, clean, precoat process as suggested by Matsuda and Parimi and simultaneously prevent/reduce the sublimation of AlF by keeping the pressure above the vapor pressure of AlF.
The applicant’s have presented no persuasive factual evidence or arguments that the claimed pressure and temperature regulation are any more than mere optimization/ordinary control and/or presented no secondary consideration that would indicate that that claimed pressure/temperature would provide unexpected results. The examiner maintains that in view of the claims as drafted and the totality of the prior art disclosure, the claimed temperature and pressure regime are made obvious.
As for the added requirement of increasing the pressure by supplying an inert gas, such is made obvious by Parimi at 0043 (“The chamber is then quickly back filled with an inert purge gas to increase the chamber pressure again to about 10 Torr for a period of time, such as about 4 seconds.”) and at 0057 (“a purge gas such as nitrogen, argon, neon or other inert gases, or combination of inert gases, to achieve a specified pressure, such as greater than about 10 Torr, to prevent the sublimation of the previously formed aluminum fluoride layer found on one or more of the chamber components.”) Here, Parimi discloses the increase of the pressure can be initiated by the inert gas supplied to the chamber and therefore increasing the pressure via supplying an inert gas so as to control/prevent the sublimation of AlF would have been obvious as predictable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-14 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 and 9 each individually require “before the temperature of the stage is increased from the performing the precoating to the forming the film, an inert gas . . . increase a third control pressure . . . to be equal to or higher than the vapor pressure of the aluminum fluoride at the temperature of the stage during the forming of the film” (emphasis added); however, the time relationship for the pressure increase as it relates to the temperature increase appears to be new matter. A full reading of the specification illustrates that the temperature is increased concurrently with the pressure of the chamber (“the temperature of the stage 11 is increased while increasing the control pressure in the processing container”) and therefore there is no disclosure that before the temperature is increase, the pressure is increased to a control pressure higher than the vapor pressure of AlF at the temperature of the film formation.
If the applicant can provide explicit or implicit support for the claimed sequence, i.e. before temperature increase, pressure is increased by inert gas, the examiner will withdraw this rejection.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-12 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 and 9 each individually require “before the temperature of the stage is increased from the performing the precoating to the forming the film” lacks antecedent basis in the claims as the claims fail to require a precoat temperature to be less then the temperature of the forming temperature and thus does not require a temperature regime that necessitates increasing a temperature from the performing the precoating to the forming the film. Here, claims require film forming temperature (and claim 9 requires 500C or higher), but does not specifically note temperature such that there is an inherent or necessary temperature increase as required (see e.g. claims 13-14 as requiring a temperature lower than 500C).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-9, 11-14, 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication 20190382889 by Parimi et al. alone or with US Patent Application Publication 20200080201 by Masuda taken with US Patent Application Publication 20170323768 by Zhang et al.
Examiner incorporates by reference the Response to Arguments section above.
Claim 1: Parimi discloses a film forming method of forming a film on a substrate by using a film forming apparatus including a processing container and an aluminum-containing stage on which the substrate is placed in the processing container (Figure 4A, 4D 0003), the film forming method comprising: forming the film on one substrate or consecutively on a plurality of substrates by supplying a film formation gas into the processing container while heating the substrate on the stage (Figure 4A and accompanying text); cleaning an interior of the processing container by a fluorine-containing gas (Figure 4A and accompanying text, see 0005 related to pressure, 0036 related to fluorine containing gas); and performing a precoating continuously to the cleaning the interior of the processing container such that a precoat film is formed on at least a surface of the stage (Figure 4A and accompanying text, see 0046 related to seasoning), wherein the forming the film, the cleaning the interior of the processing container, and the performing the precoating are repeatedly performed (Figure 4A and accompanying text).
As for the pressure and temperature during the cleaning and the precoating, the examiner notes that the Parimi discloses the pressure and temperature of the cleaning and precoat are regulated based on the AlF3 formation and using the pressure and temperature relationship to control and prevent the sublimation of the Aluminum fluoride (0003-0004, 0029) and to prevent the sublimation of the AlF3 formed on the stage so as to prolong the lifetime of the stage (0029). As such, Parimi explicitly illustrates to one of ordinary skill in the art that the temperature and pressure of the chamber during cleaning and precoating is a result effective variable, directly controlling the sublimation, i.e. the vapor pressure, of aluminum fluoride. Therefore, taking the level of one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have controlled and adjusted the pressure and temperature of the chamber during the plasma cleaning and seasoning coat to control the sublimation of AlF from the support so as to increase the lifetime use of the support.
Additionally, the examiner cites here Masuda, which also is in the art of plasma vacuum chamber, chamber cleaning and seasoning and discloses controlling the temperature of the chamber during the cleaning and seasoning process to control the AlF sublimation (0039-0063) and therefore, in additional to Parimi, Masuda illustrates that the temperature of the pedestal is controlled during the cleaning and seasoning so as to prevent or reduce the sublimation and one would desire to control the temperature of these processes to reap the benefits as outlined by either Parimi or Masuda.
Additionally, even if explicitly required, Masuda discloses a sequence that includes coating, dry cleaning, and seasoning, wherein the precoat and film forming can reasonably be considered continuous (see Figure 6) and discloses raising the temperature of the pedestal for film formation (0050) and supplying inert gas into the chamber (0071). Parimi discloses controlling pressure by flowing purge gas into the chamber (see Figures 5-6 and accompanying text).
As for the pressure being less than 100 Pa as claimed, a full review of the Parimi reference illustrates the control over the pressure and temperature during the cleaning and precoat so as to prevent the sublimation of the AlF from the support. Parimi discloses a high temperature cleaning/precoat and using a commensurate high pressure to prevent the sublimation of the AlF. However, Masuda discloses a lower temperature cleaning/precoat (see 0039, stating “the temperature of the heater pedestal 13 is lowered to a temperature lower than that during the plasma treatment. Specifically, the temperature of the heater pedestal 13 is, for example, 500° C. or lower.” Here, the prior art discloses and makes obvious the lower temperature for the cleaning and precoating process and thus using such would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. As such, using a lower pressure than as specifically disclosed in Parimi would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as the pressure and temperature of the chamber are directly linked to the sublimation of the AlF3 in the chamber during those processes and controlling such would have been obvious to control the sublimation. Here, the goal of both Parimi and Masuda are to control the sublimation of the AlF3 using control over chamber temperature and pressure and the understanding that the pressure and temperature directly affects the sublimation (see Parimi) and thus taking the level of one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, it would have been well within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have modified Parimi with Masuda to control the temperature and pressure, including as claimed, to control the AlF3 sublimation.
As for the added requirement of increasing the pressure by supplying an inert gas, such is made obvious by Parimi at 0043 (“The chamber is then quickly back filled with an inert purge gas to increase the chamber pressure again to about 10 Torr for a period of time, such as about 4 seconds.”) and at 0057 (“a purge gas such as nitrogen, argon, neon or other inert gases, or combination of inert gases, to achieve a specified pressure, such as greater than about 10 Torr, to prevent the sublimation of the previously formed aluminum fluoride layer found on one or more of the chamber components.”) Here, Parimi discloses the increase of the pressure can be initiated by the inert gas supplied to the chamber and therefore increasing the pressure via supplying an inert gas so as to control/prevent the sublimation of AlF would have been obvious as predictable.
As for the explicit pressure, while the examiner maintains the position as set forth above, the examiner cites here Zhang which discloses low pressure cleaning from 0.1 Torr to 10 Torr and discloses that reducing the pressure during cleaning “enable the spontaneity of the cleaning reaction” and therefore at the very least, using a pressure that is within the claimed range for the cleaning would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to reap the benefits as suggested by Zhang. Taken with Masuda and the disclosure of Parimi, using a lower pressure for the cleaning and lower temperature would have been obvious as each is taught by the individual references as a known pressure and temperature, and controlling such to pressure and temperature to achieve the prevention/elimination of the sublimation of AlF would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Here of note is the overall disclosure of Parimi that the high temperature of cleaning requires high pressure, so conversely, a lower temperature cleaning (as suggested and made obvious by Masuda) will provide a lower pressure in the chamber (as suggested and made obvious by Zhang).
Zhang discloses performing the seasoning layer, i.e. precoat, and introducing an inert gas into the chamber (0048) and thus using the inert gas would have been obvious as a predictable gas supplied to the chamber during the process. The inert gas of Zhang would necessarily provide a pressure change, due to its presence, and thus in combination with Parimi alone or with Masuda would meet the claimed increase pressure.
Claim 2: Parimi discloses the forming the film is performed by setting the temperature of the stage to be 500C or higher (0004).
Claim 3: Parimi discloses the forming the film is silicon-containing (0030).
Claim 4: Parimi alone or with Masuda discloses all that is taught above and discloses forming a silicon containing layer for seasoning the chamber; however, fails to disclose the layer includes SiN. However, Zhang, also in the art of cleaning plasma chambers and discloses using a deposition process onto the substrate including SIO2 or SiN and forming a seasoning layer onto the chamber for forming a seasoning layer of the material used for the deposition, i.e. using a seasoning film of SiN when depositing an SiN film on the substrate (0048). Therefore, taking the references collectively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have modified Parimi alone or with Masuda to use the SiN deposition and seasoning layer as Zhang explicitly discloses that SiN deposition onto substrate and including an SiN seasoning layer.
Claim 5: Parimi discloses the forming the film is performed by generating plasma of the film formation gas (0030).
Claim 7: Parimi discloses the cleaning the interior of the processing container includes using NF3 gas excited by plasma as the fluorine-containing gas (0036).
Claim 8: Masada discloses the seasoning film is made of the same material as the deposited film (0048) and thus makes obvious this requirement.
Claim 8, 9-14: Parimi alone or with Masuda discloses all that is taught above and discloses forming a silicon containing layer for seasoning the chamber; however, fails to disclose the layer includes SiN. However, Zhang, also in the art of cleaning plasma chambers and discloses using a deposition process onto the substrate including SIO2 or SiN and forming a seasoning layer onto the chamber for forming a seasoning layer of the material used for the deposition, i.e. using a seasoning film of SiN when depositing an SiN film on the substrate (0048). Therefore, taking the references collectively, it would have been obvious to one of
Claims 13-14: Masuda discloses the temperature of the stage is less than 500C or lower (0039) and discloses that the lowering the temperature after the film deposition for the cleaning and seasoning (0039 with 0050, after seasoning film, temperature is raised). Therefore using this temperature regime would have been obvious to control the cleaning and seasoning process, taking into consideration the AlF formation (0041).
Claim 16: Parimi discloses after the performing the precoating, performing a second precoating under a condition appropriate for a film forming condition of the film to be formed on the substrate (0050-0051).
Claim 17: The temperature is made obvious for the reasons set forth above and Parimi discloses the temperature the same as deposition (0050).
Claim 18: Parimi discloses the stage is made of an aluminum nitride (0003).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parimi alone or with Masuda with Zhang as applied above and further with US Patent Application Publication 20060189171 by Chua et al.
Parimi alone or with Masuda with Zhang discloses all that is taught above. Parimi discloses using vacuum chamber and RF powered plasma (0030) in one example; however, fails to explicitly disclose microwave plasma. However, Chua, also in the art of cleaning, seasoning with an Si containing layer (abstract) and discloses using a vacuum chamber with RF and/or microwave plasma (see 0028, Figure 1 and accompanying text) for the plasma CVD. Therefore, taking the references collectively and all that is known to one of ordinary skill in the art, it would have been obvious to have modified Parimi alone or with Masuda to use the microwave plasma power as Chua discloses microwave is a well known alternative to RF plasma (or used in combination with RF power) for the plasma vacuum chambers. Additionally, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. See KSR Int'l Inc. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S Ct. 1727, 1741, 82 USPQ2d.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parimi alone or with Masuda each with Zhang as applied above and further with Chua.
Parimi alone or with Masuda each with Zhang discloses all that is taught above. Parimi discloses using vacuum chamber and RF powered plasma (0030) in one example; however, fails to explicitly disclose microwave plasma. However, Chua, also in the art of cleaning, seasoning with an Si containing layer (abstract) and discloses using a vacuum chamber with RF and/or microwave plasma (see 0028, Figure 1 and accompanying text) for the plasma CVD. Therefore, taking the references collectively and all that is known to one of ordinary skill in the art, it would have been obvious to have modified Parimi alone or with Masuda each with Zhang to use the microwave plasma power as Chua discloses microwave is a well known alternative to RF plasma (or used in combination with RF power) for the plasma vacuum chambers. Additionally, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. See KSR Int'l Inc. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S Ct. 1727, 1741, 82 USPQ2d.
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 DAVID P TUROCY whose telephone number is (571)272-2940. The examiner can normally be reached Mon, Tues, Thurs, and Friday, 7:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached on 571-272-5166. 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.
/DAVID P TUROCY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718