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 02/18/2025 has been entered. Applicant’s amendments to the specification, drawings, and claims have overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 11/15/2024.
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/03/2025 was filed after the mailing date of the Non-Final Office Action on 11/15/2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Status
Claims 1, 4-5, and 10-16 are pending.
Claims 2-3, and 6-9 are cancelled.
Claims 1 and 4-5 are currently amended.
Claims 10-16 are newly added.
Claim Interpretation
The Examiner construes “a group-III compound semiconductor crystal” as a material or article worked upon by the apparatus. The courts have held that such an inclusion does not impart patentability to the claims. See MPEP 2115.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 27 recites the claim limitation “the upper face of the substrate support member is disposed on an upstream side of the second opening”. For the purpose of clarity, the Examiner recommends amending the claim to read “the upper face of the substrate support member is disposed inside the gas flow path on an upstream side of the second opening”, in line with lines 25-26 of same claim 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 and 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohashi (US 6113705 A), further in view of Gurary (US 20150056790 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Ohashi teaches a manufacturing apparatus (Ohashi, Abstract, vapor deposition apparatus) for a group-III compound semiconductor crystal, the manufacturing apparatus comprising:
a reaction container (Ohashi, Fig. 1, [Col 7 line 42, reactor 10]),
wherein the reaction container includes:
a crystal growth section (Ohashi, Fig.2, [Col 9 lines 47-48], upper end U of lower cylindrical portion 2); and
a gas flow channel (Ohashi, Fig. 1, [Col 11 line 50], gas is supplied via gas supply ports 16 through upper cylindrical portion 1 and lower cylindrical portion 2, [Col 7 lines 42-43]),
wherein the crystal growth section includes:
a substrate support member configured to hold a seed substrate on an upper face of the substrate support member and rotate the seed substrate (Ohashi, Fig. 1, [Col 8 lines 4-14], substrate 11 is mounted on the upper surface of the rotational substrate holder 12 and is rotated by rotational shaft 13), on which the group-III compound semiconductor crystal is to grow,
wherein the gas flow channel includes:
a first flow channel (Ohashi, Fig. 1, [Col 11 line 50], gas is supplied via gas supply ports 16 through upper cylindrical portion 1 [Col 7 lines 42-43]);
a second flow channel (Ohashi, Fig.1, [Col 7 lines 42-43], lower cylindrical portion 2); and
a connection portion (Ohashi, Fig. 1 and Fig.10B, [Col 9 line 18], link portion 19), wherein: the first flow channel includes a first opening (Ohashi, Fig. 1, [Col 8 lines 26-28], upper cylindrical portion 1 has diameter D1);
the second flow channel includes a second opening (Ohashi, Fig. 1, [Col 8 lines 26-28], lower cylindrical portion 2 has diameter D2);
an area of the second opening is configured to be larger than an area of the first opening (Ohashi, [Col 9 line 1], D2/D1 is above 1.2);
the connection portion connects the first opening and the second opening with each other (Ohashi, Fig. 1 and Fig.10B, [Col 9 lines 46-48], link portion 19 connects lower end B of upper cylindrical portion 1 and upper end U of lower cylindrical portion 2);
the connection portion has a tapered shape expanding from the first opening toward the second opening (Ohashi, Fig. 1 and Fig.10B, [Col 9 lines 46-48], link portion 19 connects lower end B of upper cylindrical portion 1 and upper end U of lower cylindrical portion 2);
the gas flow channel defines a gas flow path (Ohashi, Fig. 1, figure arrows display gas flow path) for gases to flow in the reaction container sequentially passing through the first flow channel, the connection portion, and the second flow channel (Ohashi, Fig. 1, gas via gas ports 16 flows directionally downward through upper cylindrical portion 1, link portion 19, and lower cylindrical portion 2); and
the substrate support member is disposed inside the gas flow path on a downstream side of the first opening (Ohashi, Fig. 1, [Col 10 lines 24-26], substrate holder 12 is located downstream of the upper cylindrical portion 1 having opening of diameter D1, in the gas flow path exhibited by the figure arrows).
Ohashi fails to teach wherein the upper face of the substrate support member is disposed on an upstream side of the second opening.
However, Gurary teaches wherein the upper face of the substrate support member is disposed on an upstream side of the second opening (Gurary, Fig. 1, [0017], carrier top surface 34 is located above lower opening dCR and below upper opening dFR within downwardly-facing transition surface 22, where gas flows downwardly from upper opening dFR through towards lower opening dFR).
Gurary is considered analogous art to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of semiconductor processing. It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have incorporated the teachings of carrier surface placement within the flow channels as taught by Gurary as doing so can provide a stable and orderly flow of reactive gases over the surface of the carrier and over the surface of the wafer, so that all of the wafers on the carrier, and all regions of each wafer, are exposed to substantially uniform conditions, resulting in uniform deposition on the wafers (Gurary, [0006]).
To clarify the record, the claim limitation “the gas flow channel defines a gas flow path for gases to flow in the reaction container sequentially passing through the first flow channel, the connection portion, and the second flow channel” is merely an intended use and is given patentable weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. Ohashi is regarded as capable of performing the intended use since it teaches all of the structural features required (Ohashi – reaction container, first flow channel, connection portion, second flow channel, as above) as well as an explicitly taught gas supply procedure (Ohashi, Fig. 1, [Col 11 lines 53-54] gas is supplied via gas supply ports 16 into space area S). A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2114(II).
Regarding claim 4, Ohashi teaches wherein a difference between the area of the first opening (Ohashi, Fig. 1, [Col 8 lines 26-27], upper portion 1 has diameter D1 and D1area = π(D1/2)2 and an area of the upper face of the substrate support member (Ohashi, Fig. 1, [Col 8 lines 28-29], substrate holder 12 has diameter Ds and Dsarea = π(Ds/2)2) is within 30% of the area of the upper face of the substrate support member (Ohashi, Table 1, embodiment 1, which corresponds to Fig. 2, where D1 and Ds are equal, and therefore the difference (D1area-Dsarea)/D1area is within 30% of the area of the upper face Ds).
Regarding claim 5, Ohashi teaches wherein: the area of the first opening is S1 (Ohashi, Fig. 1, [Col 8 lines 26-27], upper portion 1 has diameter D1 and D1area = π(D1/2)2); the area of the second opening is S2 (Ohashi, Fig. 1, [Col 8 lines 26-28], lower portion 2 has diameter D2 and D2area = π(D2/2)2); an area of the upper face of the substrate support member is S3 (Ohashi, Fig. 1, [Col 8 lines 28-29], substrate holder 12 has diameter Ds and Dsarea = π(Ds/2)2); and -50% < ((S2-S3)-S1)/S1 < 50% (Ohashi, Table 1, embodiment 1, which corresponds to Fig. 2, where D1 = 260 mm, D2 = 337 mm and Ds = 260 mm, ((D2area -Dsarea)-D1area)/D1area = -32%).
Claims 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohashi (US 6113705 A), in view of Gurary (US 20150056790 A1), as applied in claims 1 and 4-5 above, and further in view of Fujikura (US 20170260630 A1).
The limitations of claims 1 and 4-5 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 10, modified Ohashi teaches a spraying orifice of the raw material gas nozzle and spraying orifices of the reactive gas nozzles are configured to be surrounded by the first flow channel (Ohashi, Fig. 1, [Col 8 lines 21-23], gas supply ports 16 supply gas within upper cylindrical portion 1).
Modified Ohashi fails to teach wherein: the reaction container further includes a raw material reaction section;
the raw material reaction section includes:
a raw material reaction chamber configured to produce group-III element- containing gas in the raw material reaction chamber; and
a raw material gas nozzle configured to lead the group-III element-containing gas out of the raw material reaction chamber, and spray the group-III element-containing gas toward the crystal growth section;
the crystal growth section further includes reactive gas nozzles configured to spray reactive gases for reacting with the group-III element-containing gas toward the seed substrate to produce the group-III compound semiconductor crystal.
However, Fujikura teaches teach wherein: the reaction container further includes a raw material reaction section (Fujikura, Fig. 1, [0030], processing gas generator 14);
the raw material reaction section includes:
a raw material reaction chamber (Fujikura, Fig. 1, [0030], vessel 14b contains metal source 14a and gas flow space 14c) configured to produce group-III element- containing gas in the raw material reaction chamber (Fujikura, [0030], reaction gas passes through space 14c where it is in contact with metal source 14a to generate a process gas, [0032] where metal source 14a is a group III element); and
a raw material gas nozzle configured to lead the group-III element-containing gas out of the raw material reaction chamber (Fujikura, Fig. 1, [0029], a group III element-containing gas is supplied via gas supply pipe 13c into the processing chamber 12), and spray the group-III element-containing gas toward the crystal growth section (Fujikura, Fig. 1, [0029], gas supply port 13d blows the gas to substrate 100);
the crystal growth section further includes reactive gas nozzles (Fujikura, Fig. 1, [0029], a group III element-containing gas is supplied via gas supply pipe 13c into the processing chamber 12) configured to spray reactive gases for reacting with the group-III element-containing gas toward the seed substrate to produce the group-III compound semiconductor crystal (Fujikura, Fig. 1, [0029], gas supply port 13d blows the gas to substrate 100).
Fujikura is analogous art to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endeavor of substrate processing apparatuses. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modified the gas supply ports of Ohashi to incorporate the raw material gas section, raw material reaction chamber, and raw material gas nozzles of Fujikura to produce and spray reactive group group-III element-containing gas to the substrate. Incorporation of said assemblies suppresses unintended substrate processing from being performed after processing is ended (Fujikura, [0015]). Thus, as a combination, Ohashi and Fujikura teach wherein the first flow channel (Ohashi) is disposed surrounding a spraying orifice of the reactive gas nozzles (Fujikura) due to the breadth of the word “surrounded”, which can be met by any adjacent structures within the combined apparatus.
Regarding claim 12, modified Ohashi fails to teach wherein the raw material gas nozzle is disposed such that a spraying direction of the spraying orifice of the raw material gas nozzle is directed toward the upper face of the substrate support member.
However, Fujikura teaches wherein the raw material gas nozzle (Fujikura, Fig. 1, [0029], a group III element-containing gas is supplied via gas supply pipe 13c to gas supply port 13d) is disposed such that a spraying direction of the spraying orifice of the raw material gas nozzle is directed toward the upper face of the substrate supporting member (Fujikura, Fig. 1, [0029], gas supply port 13d blows the gas to substrate 100, which is located on the upper face of susceptor 20).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the gas supply ports of Ohashi to incorporate the nozzles of Fujikura and direct the gas nozzles to the upper face supporting member. Incorporation of said assembly suppresses unintended substrate processing from being performed after processing is ended (Fujikura, [0015]).
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohashi (US 6113705 A), in view of Gurary (US 20150056790 A1) and Fujikura (US 20170260630 A1), as applied in claims 10 and 12 above, and further in view of Kim (US 20100024727 A1).
The limitations of claims 10 and 12 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 13, modified Ohashi fails to teach wherein the reactive gas nozzles are disposed such that spraying directions of the spraying orifices of the reactive gas nozzles are inclined with respect to the upper face of the substrate support member.
However, Kim teaches wherein the reactive gas nozzles (Kim, Fig. 1, [0043], showerhead 200 has head 210 and injection nozzles 215 which inject reaction gas G into reaction chamber 110) are disposed such that spraying directions of the spraying orifices of the reactive gas nozzles are inclined with respect to the upper face of the substrate supporting member (Kim, Fig. 1 and Fig. 2, [0048] – [0051], injection nozzles 215 are inclined from the center portion to the circumferential portion and inject gas towards the upper face of susceptor 120).
Kim is analogous art to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endeavor of semiconductor substrate processing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the reactive gas nozzles of modified Ohashi to incorporate the reactive gas nozzles of Kim as it would create a spiral vortex flow field in the reaction chamber, so as to mix the injected reaction gas within a shorter distance and increase effective deposition radius for performing a uniform-density deposition on the entire surface of a wafer using the mixed reaction gas (Kim, [0008]).
Regarding claim 14, modified Ohashi fails to teach wherein in a top view of the substrate support member, the reactive gas nozzles are disposed such that spraying directions of the spraying orifices of the reactive gas nozzles are deflected with respect to a radial direction from an axis of rotation of the substrate support member.
However, Kim teaches wherein in a top view of the substrate support member, the reactive gas nozzles are disposed such that spraying directions of the spraying orifices of the reactive gas nozzles are deflected with respect to a radial direction from an axis of rotation of the substrate support member (Kim, Fig. 1, [0048]-[0051], injection nozzles 215 are inclined at a predetermined angle which extends in the circumferential direction and produces a clockwise or counterclockwise flow along a circular spiral path, which forms a spiral gas vortex moving down to the susceptor 120, which holds wafer 2, and rotates [0038]–[0039]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the reactive gas nozzles of Ohashi and Fujikura to incorporate angle of the reactive gas nozzles of Kim as it would create a spiral vortex flow field in the reaction chamber, so as to mix the injected reaction gas within a shorter distance and increase effective deposition radius for performing a uniform-density deposition on the entire surface of a wafer using the mixed reaction gas (Kim, [0008]).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohashi (US 6113705 A), in view of Gurary (US 20150056790 A1) and Fujikura (US 20170260630 A1), as applied in claims 10 and 12 above, and further in view of Cowher (US 4211803 A).
The limitations of claims 10 and 12 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 11, modified Ohashi teaches wherein: each of the first flow channel and the second flow channel is configured to have a cylindrical shape (Ohashi, Fig.1, [Col 7 lines 42-43], upper cylindrical portion 1 and lower cylindrical portion 2).
Modified Ohashi fails to teach wherein a difference between a first vertical distance from the raw material gas nozzle to the upper face of the substrate support member and a second vertical distance from the spraying orifice of the raw material gas nozzle to the second opening is within 30% of a third vertical distance from the raw material gas nozzle to the upper face of the substrate support member.
While Cowher does not explicitly teach the limitations above, Cowher teaches wherein the distance(s) between a raw material gas nozzle and a substrate supporting member is a result effective variable. Particularly, Cowher teaches wherein the distances A, B, and C (Cowher, Fig. 1) are varied in order to achieve optimum thickness and composition control for a particular substrate geometry (Cowher – C4, L65- C5, L10).
Cowher teaches a substrate processing apparatus, and is thus considered to be analogous art to the instant application. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the instant application, to discover the optimum range for the distance from the raw material gas nozzle to the upper face of the substrate supporting member, the vertical distance from the spraying orifice of the raw material gas nozzle to the second opening, and a vertical distance from the raw material gas nozzle to the upper face of modified Ohashi through routine experimentation in order to achieve optimum thickness and composition control for a particular substrate geometry (Cowher – C4, L65- C5, L10). It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohashi (US 6113705 A), in view of Gurary (US 20150056790 A1), Fujikura (US 20170260630 A1), and Cowher (US 4211803 A) as applied in claim 11 above, and further in view of Kim (US 20100024727 A1).
The limitations of claim 11 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 15, modified Ohashi fails to teach wherein spraying directions of the reactive gas nozzles and a spraying direction of the raw material gas nozzle are configured to intersect on an upstream side of the substrate support member.
However, Kim teaches wherein spraying directions of the reactive gas nozzles and a spraying direction of the raw material gas nozzle are configured to intersect on an upstream side of the substrate support member (Kim, Fig. 1, [0048] – [0051], injection nozzles 215 are inclined from the center portion to the circumferential portion and inject gas towards the upper face of susceptor 120, intersecting above susceptor 120 exhibited by the arrows in Fig. 1, where the design of the showerhead 200’ allows for different gases to be injected at the same time through the injection nozzles 225 and 235, mixing after injection into the processing space, Fig. 3, [0072]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the reactive gas nozzles of Ohashi and Fujikura to incorporate angle of the reactive gas nozzles of Kim as it would create a spiral vortex flow field in the reaction chamber, so as to mix the injected reaction gas within a shorter distance and increase effective deposition radius for performing a uniform-density deposition on the entire surface of a wafer using the mixed reaction gas (Kim, [0008]).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohashi (US 6113705 A), further in view of Gurary (US 20150056790 A1).
Regarding claim 16, a manufacturing apparatus (Ohashi, Abstract, vapor deposition apparatus) for a group-III compound semiconductor crystal, the manufacturing apparatus comprising:
a reaction container (Ohashi, Fig. 1, [Col 7 line 42, reactor 10]),
wherein the reaction container includes:
a crystal growth section (Ohashi, Fig.2, [Col 9 lines 47-48], upper end U of lower cylindrical portion 2); and
a gas flow channel (Ohashi, Fig. 1, [Col 11 line 50], gas is supplied via gas supply ports 16 through upper cylindrical portion 1 and lower cylindrical portion 2, [Col 7 lines 42-43]),
wherein the crystal growth section includes:
a substrate support member configured to hold a seed substrate on an upper face of the substrate support member and rotate the seed substrate (Ohashi, Fig. 1, [Col 8 lines 4-14], substrate 11 is mounted on the upper surface of the rotational substrate holder 12 and is rotated by rotational shaft 13), on which the group-III compound semiconductor crystal is to grow,
wherein the gas flow channel includes: a first flow channel having a first diameter (Ohashi, Fig. 1, [Col 11 line 50], gas is supplied via gas supply ports 16 through upper cylindrical portion 1 with diameter D1 [Col 7 lines 42-43]);
a second flow channel having a second diameter (Ohashi, Fig.1, [Col 7 lines 42-43], lower cylindrical portion 2 having diameter D2); and
a connection portion (Ohashi, Fig. 1 and Fig.10B, [Col 9 line 18], link portion 19), wherein:
the second diameter is larger than the first diameter (Ohashi, [Col 9 line 1], D2/D1 is above 1.2);
the first flow channel includes a first opening disposed at a downstream end of the first flow channel (Ohashi, Fig. 1, [Col 11 line 50], gas is supplied via gas supply ports 16 through upper cylindrical portion 1 with diameter D1 [Col 7 lines 42-43], where diameter D1 remains the same throughout the length of the channel);
the second flow channel includes a second opening disposed at an upstream end of the second flow channel (Ohashi, Fig.1, [Col 7 lines 42-43], lower cylindrical portion 2 having diameter D2 where diameter D2 remains the same throughout the length of the channel );
an area of the second opening is larger than an area of the first opening (Ohashi, [Col 9 line 1], D2/D1 is above 1.2, therefore areas of openings would have the same relationship);
the connection portion connects the first opening and the second opening with each other (Ohashi, Fig. 1 and Fig.10B, [Col 9 lines 46-48], link portion 19 connects lower end B of upper cylindrical portion 1 and upper end U of lower cylindrical portion 2);
an entirety of the connection portion extends between the first diameter and the second diameter and has a conical shape (Ohashi, Fig. 1 and Fig.10B, [Col 9 lines 46-48], link portion 19 connects two cylindrical bodies with a tapering surface, thereby creating a conical shape of the link portion); and
the gas flow channel defines a gas flow path (Ohashi, Fig. 1, figure arrows display gas flow path) for gases to flow in the reaction container sequentially passing through the first flow channel, the connection portion, and the second flow channel (Ohashi, Fig. 1, gas via gas ports 16 flows directionally downward through upper cylindrical portion 1, link portion 19, and lower cylindrical portion 2).
Ohashi fails to teach wherein the substrate support member is disposed inside the connection portion.
However, Gurary teaches wherein the substrate support member is disposed inside the connection portion (Gurary, Fig. 1, [0017], carrier top surface 34 is located above lower opening dCR and below upper opening dFR within downwardly-facing transition surface 22).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have incorporated the teachings of carrier surface placement within the flow channels as taught by Gurary as doing so can provide a stable and orderly flow of reactive gases over the surface of the carrier and over the surface of the wafer, so that all of the wafers on the carrier, and all regions of each wafer, are exposed to substantially uniform conditions, resulting in uniform deposition on the wafers (Gurary, [0006]).
Response to Arguments
In the Applicant’s response filed 2/18/2025, the Applicant asserts that none of the cited prior art teaches “the upper face of the substrate support member is disposed on an upstream side of the second opening” of independent claim 1 and related “…disposed inside the connection portion” of claim 16. As well, the Applicant asserts that none of the cited prior art teaches the intersecting spraying directions of the nozzles of claim 15. In response to the amendments, the Examiner has newly rejected the claims in the “Claims Rejections” sections above, thereby rendering the arguments moot.
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 TODD M SEOANE whose telephone number is (703)756-4612. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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.
/TODD M SEOANE/Examiner, Art Unit 1718
/GORDON BALDWIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1718