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
The amendment filed 17 April 2026 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: “innermost peripheral surface and an outermost peripheral surface”. Applicant references portions of the specification as support for these amendments, but the specification never uses the terms “innermost” and “outermost” and the cited passages merely identify measurement reference points. Applicant is relying on attorney argument and inference rather than express or inherent disclosure.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Per the amendment to claim 19, the previously presented 112 rejection is withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 17 April 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the Office Action incorrectly interprets the first length because the first length identified in the Office Action differs from that claimed because the first length in the referenced annotated figure “is not measured from the innermost peripheral surface of the flange plate”. Examiner respectfully reminds Applicant that the claim required the first length to be defined as “from a side surface of the protrusion to the inner peripheral surface”, and the amendment claiming “innermost” is not supported by the original disclosure. Applicant further argues that Ishida does not disclose the limitation claiming “a distance from the top plate to the ceiling is smaller than… a second length from the outer peripheral surface to an inner peripheral surface of the inner tube”. Examiner agrees that the office action did not establish this relationship, as it was not required by the previously presented claim 1. Examiner also agrees that Ishida does not disclose this relationship, but asserts that Cheutomu does, and exemplifies this in the claim 1 rejection of this Final Office Action, as well as the claim 16 rejection of the previous office action.
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, 3-15, and 17-19 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. Specifically, the limitations amending “inner” and “outer” peripheral surface to “innermost” and “outermost” peripheral surface in claims 1, 12, 13, 15, 18, and 19. The rest of the claims do not comply with the written description requirement by virtue of their dependence on the forementioned claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 3-11, 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheutomu (JP-2010034406-A) in view of Ishida (JP-2018160513-A).
Regarding Claim 1, Cheutomu discloses a substrate processing apparatus (see [0001]), comprising:
a substrate holder configured to arrange and hold substrates (a boat as a substrate holder for holding a plurality of wafers; see [0029]);
a reaction tube in which the substrate holder is accommodated (process tube as a reaction tube… process tube includes an inner tube in which a boat described later is accommodated; see [0027]),
wherein the substrate holder includes: a plurality of pillars (the boat… includes… a plurality of columns; see [0030]) installed around the arranged substrates (the columns are arranged such that the holding grooves face each other. By inserting the outer peripheral of the wafer into the respective holding grooves…; see [0030] and Figs. 1 and 3 parts 200 and 217a) and extending in a direction substantially perpendicular to the substrates (“wafers stacked horizontally”; see [0029] and “columns vertically installed”; see [0030]);
a top plate comprising an outer peripheral surface (see annotated Fig. 3 below) configured to fix one ends of the plurality of pillars to each other (end plates at the top and bottom, and a plurality of columns vertically installed between them; see [0030]) and having an opening at a center of the top plate (the upper end opening; see [0031]); and
a bottom plate configured to fix other ends of the plurality of pillars to each other (end plates at the top and bottom; see [0030]), wherein the reaction tube includes an inner tube configured to accommodate the substrate holder (The process tube 205 includes an inner tube 204 in which a boat 217 described later is accommodated; see [0027]), wherein the inner tube includes a ceiling terminating an upper portion of the inner tube (top plate of inner tube 204; see [0034]),
wherein a distance from the top plate to the ceiling is smaller than a length from the outer peripheral surface to an inner peripheral surface of the inner tube (see annotated Fig. 3 below, where 204 is the inner tube, 217c is the top end plate which comprises the annotated outer peripheral surface).
PNG
media_image1.png
207
236
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Cheutomu does not explicitly teach a protrusion or an inner peripheral surface. However, Ishida discloses the reaction tube including a protrusion protruding inward in a shape corresponding to a shape of the opening of the top plate and having a flat leading end (a portion of the ceiling portion 5a is formed in a U-shaped cross section in the center portion of the lower surface of the ceiling portion 5a or protruding downward in a downward direction and an engaging convex portion 5c extending from the engaging convex portion 5c; see [0021] and Fig. 1), wherein the top plate comprises an inner peripheral surface and an outer peripheral surface (see first annotated Fig. 1 below), and wherein the protrusion is installed to be inserted into the opening of the top plate (the engaging convex portion 5c is inserted into the supporting hole 6b; see [0023]) in a state where the substrate holder is accommodated in the reaction tube (The tube body 5 described above is installed so as to surround the wafer boat 3; see [0023] and Fig. 1), and is configured to be closer to a substrate arranged closest to the top plate of the substrate holder than the top plate (see Fig. 1 parts 5c and 5a), wherein a height of the protrusion is set such that a distance between the protrusion and the substrate arranged closest to the top plate on the substrate holder is substantially equal to a distance between the substrates adjacent to each other on the substrate holder (see Fig. 1, Parts 5c and 2), wherein the protrusion is installed at the ceiling (engaging protrusions 5c may be formed on the ceiling 5a; see [0029]), and wherein a distance from the top plate to the ceiling (see second annotated Fig. 1 below, where “B” represents this distance) is smaller than a first length from a side surface of the protrusion to the inner peripheral surface (see second annotated Fig. 1 below, where “A” represents this distance; it is evident by the annotated figure that distance B is smaller than distance A).
PNG
media_image2.png
481
417
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
481
417
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Cheutomu and Ishida are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of substrate processing apparatuses. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Cheutomu by incorporating the teachings of Ishida and providing a protrusion. Doing so would restrict the horizontal swinging of the upper flange plate (see e.g. Ishida [0023]). Further, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design the protrusion height in efforts to manipulate the relative distance between the protrusion and the wafers, and place the protrusion in the claimed position. Doing so is an engineering design choice that controls the conductance in certain regions of the apparatus (see e.g. Cheutomu [0088]-[0092]) and allows the tube to engage with the boat and prevent the lateral vibration of the wafer boat (see Ishida [0028]), respectively. Further, increased lateral spacing would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because it may prevent the wafer boat from colliding with the inner surface of the tube body, which may cause breakage of the wafer boat (see Ishida [0008]).
Regarding Claim 3, Cheutomu and Ishida together disclose the substrate processing apparatus of claim 1. Cheutomu further discloses the reaction tube including an outer tube (and an outer tube 203; see [0027]) having a pressure-resistant structure (…outer tube are each made of a heat-resistant non-metallic material such as quarts or silicon carbide; see [0027]) and configured to accommodate the inner tube (outer tube surrounding the inner tube; see [0027]).
Regarding Claim 4, Cheutomu and Ishida together disclose the substrate processing apparatus of claim 3. Cheutomu further discloses the apparatus comprising: a nozzle (a vaporized gas nozzle 233a as a first gas nozzle and a reaction gas nozzle 233b as a second gas nozzle; see [0039]) extending parallel to an arrangement direction of the substrates (disposed (extended) in the preparatory chamber 201a along the direction in which the wafers 200 are stacked; see [0039]) and configured to supply a gas to each of the substrates (the vaporized gas generated in the vaporizer 260 is supplied into the inner tube 204 through the vaporized gas nozzle 233a; see [0042]), wherein the inner tube further includes a bulging portion formed by bulging outward on a side surface of the inner tube (the vaporized gas jet port 248a and the reaction gas jet port 248b are provided at positions projecting radially outward of the inner tube 204 with respect to the side wall of the inner tube 204; see [0040]) and configured to accommodate the nozzle in the bulging portion (vaporized gas jet ports 248 a and reactive gas jet ports 248 b are respectively provided… of the vertical portion of the vaporized gas nozzle 233a and the reactive gas nozzle 233b; see [0040]).
Regarding Claim 5, Cheutomu and Ishida together disclose the substrate processing apparatus of claim 1. Cheutomu further discloses the apparatus comprising: a rotary shaft (a rotating shaft 255; see [0036]) configured to rotatably support the substrate holder (By rotating the rotation shaft 255 by the rotation mechanism 267, the boat 217 on which the plurality of wafers 200 are mounted can be rotated in the inner tube 204; see [0036]), wherein the opening and the protrusion are formed in a circular shape concentric with the rotary shaft (The rotating shaft 255 is provided to penetrate the center of the seal cap 219; see [0036] and Fig. 5).
Regarding Claim 6, Cheutomu and Ishida together disclose the substrate processing apparatus of claim 1. Cheutomu further discloses the apparatus comprising a cover (gas penetration preventing cylinder; see [0086]) configured to surround a plurality of arrangement positions including an arrangement position closest to the bottom plate among arrangement positions of the substrates on the substrate holder, from an upper surface and a side surface of the plurality of arrangement positions (region below the region in which the wafers are stacked in the boat is surrounded by the gas penetration preventing cylinder; see [0086]), wherein the substrate holder is configured to hold a plurality of product substrates or monitoring substrates at a plurality of arrangement positions between the cover and the top plate without holding the plurality of product substrates and the monitoring substrates at the plurality of arrangement positions surrounded by the cover (prevent the gas supplied into the inner tube from flowing into the region below the region in which the wafers are stacked in the boat; see Cheutomu [0086] and Fig. 3 Part 271f and 200)).
Regarding Claim 7, Cheutomu and Ishida together disclose the substrate processing apparatus of claim 4. Cheutomu further discloses the apparatus comprising: a cover configured to surround a plurality of arrangement positions including an arrangement position closest to the bottom plate among arrangement positions of the substrates on the substrate holder, from an upper surface and a side surface of the plurality of arrangement positions (see Claim 6 rejection) wherein the nozzle includes a plurality of gas supply ports at positions corresponding to a plurality of product substrates or monitoring substrates held at a plurality of arrangement positions between the cover and the top plate (The vaporized gas jet port 248 a and the reaction gas jet port 248 b are opened at positions (height positions) respectively corresponding to the plurality of wafers 200; see [0040] and Fig. 3) without having gas supply ports at positions corresponding to the plurality of arrangement positions surrounded by the cover (it is possible to prevent the gas supplied into the inner tube from flowing into the region below the region in which the wafers are stacked; see [0086] and Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 8, Cheutomu and Ishida together discloses the substrate processing apparatus of claim 3. Cheutomu further discloses the entire inner surface of the ceiling of the inner tube being formed along a shape of the top plate of the substrate holder (see Fig. 1 Parts 204 and 217c).
Regarding Claim 9, Cheutomu and Ishida together disclose the substrate processing apparatus of claim 1. Cheutomu further discloses a lid configured to close an opening through which the substrate holder is loaded into and unloaded from a process vessel constituted by the reaction tube (a lid for air-tightly closing the lower end of the process furnace when the boat elevator is elevated; see [0017]); a rotation mechanism installed on the lid to hold the substrate holder in the reaction tube (a rotation shaft configured to pass through the lid and support the substrate holder from below; see [0135]); and a sealing member configured to seal a gap between the reaction tube and the lid without allowing the reaction tube to directly contact the lid (a sealing member such as an O-ring for air-tightly sealing the inside of the inner tube is provided between the lower end of the manifold and the seal cap; see [0027]).
Regarding the limitation claiming, “a height of the protrusion is set such that, when the sealing member is capable of being crushed by a predetermined crushing distance, a distance between the protrusion and the substrate arranged closest to the top plate is substantially equal to a distance between the substrates adjacent to each other in the substrate holder”, Ishida discloses the distance between the protrusion and the top substrate as being equal to the distance between substrates in Fig. 1, as previously explained. All O-rings are capable of being crushed by a predetermined crushing distance, and that particular phrase of the limitation does not define a state or position of a sealing member, but rather a property of a sealing member – the property being present, by nature, in all O-rings. The claim language seems to indicate that the claimed relative distances occur due to the sealing member being in a certain state or position, but the state/position being claimed is a necessary property of the sealing member and not actually a state/position. No manipulation of the apparatus has to occur in order for the sealing member to be “capable of being crushed”, and stating that the specified distances occur when the sealing member is capable of being crushed by a predetermined crushing distance indicates that a sealing member that is not capable of being crushed by a predetermined crushing distance can be used, and if this type of sealing member is used, then the protrusion is not required to have a height set such that the claimed distances are present. The apparatus taught by Cheutomu and modified by Ishida has the capability of sealing, has a sealing member that is capable of being crushed by a predetermined crushing distance, and teaches the distance between the protrusion and the top substrate as being equal to the distance between substrates, and is therefore capable of maintaining or achieving that distance when the sealing member is capable of being crushed by a predetermined crushing distance.
Regarding Claim 10, Cheutomu and Ishida together disclose the substrate processing apparatus of claim 1. Cheutomu further discloses a lid configured to close an opening through which the substrate holder is loaded into and unloaded from a process vessel constituted by the reaction tube (a lid for air-tightly closing the lower end of the process furnace when the boat elevator is elevated; see [0017]); a rotation mechanism provided on the lid to hold the substrate holder in the reaction tube (a rotation shaft configured to pass through the lid and support the substrate holder from below; see [0135]), and a sealing member configured to seal a gap between the reaction tube and the lid without allowing the reaction tube to directly contact the lid (a sealing member such as an O-ring for air-tightly sealing the inside of the inner tube is provided between the lower end of the manifold and the seal cap; see [0027]).
Regarding the limitation claiming, “the height of the protrusion is set such that, when the sealing member is capable of being crushed by a predetermined crushing distance, the distance between the protrusion and the substrate arranged closest to the top plate is sufficiently smaller than the distance between the substrates adjacent to each other in the substrate holder and larger than a variation of the predetermined crushing distance”, Cheutomu discloses the distance between the top plate and the top of the reaction tube as being smaller than the distance between adjacent substrates (see [0034]). All O-rings are capable of being crushed by a predetermined crushing distance, and that particular phrase of the limitation does not define a state or position of a sealing member, but rather a property of a sealing member – the property being present, by nature, in all O-rings. The claim language seems to indicate that the claimed relative distances occur due to the sealing member being in a certain state or position, but the state/position being claimed is a necessary property of the sealing member and not actually a state/position. No manipulation of the apparatus has to occur in order for the sealing member to be “capable of being crushed”, and stating that the specified distances occur when the sealing member is capable of being crushed by a predetermined crushing distance indicates that a sealing member that is not capable of being crushed by a predetermined crushing distance can be used, and if this type of sealing member is used, then the protrusion is not required to have a height set such that the claimed distances are present. The apparatus taught by Cheutomu and modified by Ishida has the capability of sealing, has a sealing member that is capable of being crushed by a predetermined crushing distance, and teaches the claimed relative distances, and is therefore capable of maintaining or achieving that distance when the sealing member is capable of being crushed by a predetermined crushing distance.
Regarding Claim 11, Cheutomu and Ishida together discloses the substrate processing apparatus of claim 6. Cheutomu further discloses the substrate holder being configured to hold the plurality of product substrates or the monitoring substrates at a plurality of arrangement positions between the cover and the top plate excluding the arrangement position closest to the top plate (see [0086] and “inserting the outer peripheral portion of the wafer 200 into the respective holding grooves”; see [0030]). The wafers are loaded into holding grooves. The apparatus of Cheutomu is clearly capable of holding a wafer in any holding groove, or excluding a wafer in any holding groove, depending on the choice of the engineer.
Regarding Claim 12, the limitations of this claim do not exceed those of claim 1. Please refer to the claim 1 rejection as the rejection of claim 12 follows the same rationale.
Regarding Claim 13, Cheutomu discloses a method of manufacturing a semiconductor device (a substrate processing process; see [0064]), comprising: accommodating a substrate holder, which is configured to arrange and hold substrates (the boat holding a plurality of wafers; see [0065]) and includes a plurality of pillars (the boat… includes… a plurality of columns; see [0030]) installed around the arranged substrates (the columns are arranged such that the holding grooves face each other. By inserting the outer peripheral of the wafer into the respective holding grooves…; see [0030] and Figs. 1 and 3 parts 200 and 217a) and extending in a direction substantially perpendicular to the substrates (“wafers stacked horizontally”; see [0029] and “columns vertically installed”; see [0030]); a top plate configured to fix one ends of the plurality of pillars to each other (end plates at the top and bottom, and a plurality of columns vertically installed between them; see [0030]) and having an opening at a center of the top plate (the upper end opening; see [0031]); and a bottom plate configured to fix other ends of the plurality of pillars to each other (end plates at the top and bottom; see [0030]) into a reaction tube (The process tube 205 includes an inner tube 204 in which a boat 217 described later is accommodated; see [0027]), and processing the substrates in the reaction tube (see [0064]).
Cheutomu does not explicitly teach a protrusion. However, Ishida discloses the reaction tube including a protrusion protruding inward in a shape corresponding to a shape of the opening of the top plate and having a flat leading end (a portion of the ceiling portion 5a is formed in a U-shaped cross section in the center portion of the lower surface of the ceiling portion 5a or protruding downward in a downward direction and an engaging convex portion 5c extending from the engaging convex portion 5c; see [0021] and Fig. 1); wherein, while accommodating the substrate holder, the protrusion is inserted into the opening of the top plate (the engaging convex portion 5c is inserted into the supporting hole 6b; see [0023]) and is brought closer to a substrate arranged closest to the top plate of the substrate holder than the top plate (see Fig. 1 parts 5c and 5a), and wherein a height of the protrusion is set such that a distance between the protrusion and the substrate arranged closest to the top plate on the substrate holder is substantially equal to a distance between the substrates adjacent to each other on the substrate holder (see Fig. 1, Parts 5c and 2). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Cheutomu by incorporating the teachings of Ishida and providing a protrusion. Doing so would restrict the horizontal swinging of the upper flange plate (see e.g. Ishida [0023]). Further, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design the protrusion height in efforts to manipulate the relative distance between the protrusion and the wafers. Doing so is an engineering design choice that controls the conductance in certain regions of the apparatus (see e.g. Cheutomu [0088]-[0092]).
The additional limitations, namely those claiming, “the top plate comprising an inner peripheral surface and an outer peripheral surface, wherein the reaction tube includes an inner tube configured to accommodate the substrate holder, wherein the inner tube includes a ceiling terminating an upper portion of the inner tube, wherein the protrusion is installed at the ceiling, and wherein a distance from the top plate to the ceiling is smaller than at least one of a first length from a side surface of the protrusion to the inner peripheral surface and a second length from the outer peripheral surface to an inner peripheral surface of the inner tube” are addressed in the claim 1 rejection. Please refer to the claim 1 rejection as the rejection of these limitations follows the same rationale.
Regarding Claim 15, Cheutomu and Ishida together disclose the substrate processing apparatus of claim 3. The remaining limitations of this claim do not exceed those of claim 1. Please refer to the claim 1 rejection, as the rejection of claim 15 follows the same rationale.
Regarding Claim 17, Cheutomu and Ishida together disclose the substrate processing apparatus of claim 1. Cheutomu further discloses wherein the ceiling (see Fig. 3, top plate of inner tube 204) is directly above the top plate (see Fig. 3, end plate 217c).
Regarding Claim 18, Cheutomu and Ishida together disclose the substrate processing apparatus of claim 1. Ishida further discloses wherein the inner peripheral surface is closer to the protrusion than the outer peripheral surface (see annotated Fig. 1 under claim 1 rejection near the beginning of this office action). Increased lateral spacing would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because it may prevent the wafer boat from colliding with the inner surface of the tube body, which may cause breakage of the wafer boat (see Ishida [0008]).
Regarding Claim 19, Cheutomu and Ishida together disclose the substrate processing apparatus of 1. Ishida further discloses wherein the inner peripheral surface of the innertube is further from the protrusion than the outer peripheral surface (please see annotated Fig. 1 of Ishida under the claim 1 rejection where this claimed relationship is undeniably visible).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheutomu (JP-2010034406-A) in view of Ishida (JP-2018160513-A) and Miyahara (US-20180033608-A1).
Regarding Claim 14, Cheutomu and Ishida together disclose the method of claim 13.
Cheutomu discloses a controller to perform the method (the operation of each part constituting the substrate processing apparatus is controlled by the controller; see [0064]), but Cheutomu modified by Ishida does not explicitly teach a non-transitory recording medium. However, Miyahara discloses a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a program that causes, by a computer, a substrate processing apparatus to perform required methods (see Miyahara [0011]).
Cheutomu and Miyahara are both considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of substrate processing apparatuses. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Cheutomu by incorporating the teachings of Miyahara and providing a non-transitory recording medium. Doing so would enable automated control of the apparatus (see Miyahara [0011]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALYSSA LEE KUYKENDALL whose telephone number is (571)270-3806. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, Claire Wang can be reached at 571-270-1051. 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.
/A.L.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1774
/CLAIRE X WANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1774
Prosecution Insights