DETAILED ACTION
This is the Office action based on the 17842501 application filed February 17, 2022, and in response to applicant’s argument/remark filed on September 23, 2025. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been considered below.
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 .
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 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.
Claim Interpretations
Claim 1 recites “an elevated etching phase” without reciting any actual etching, “an etching-and-deposition phase” without reciting any actual etching and depositing, and “an elevated deposition phase” without reciting any actual depositing. Therefore, for the purpose of examining the phrases “an elevated etching phase”, “an etching-and-deposition phase”, and “an elevated deposition phase” will be interpreted as intentions, and may or may not occur.
Claim 1 recites “a first SP level”, “a second SP level”, “a third SP level”, without any indication of the level values except the condition “the third SP level being less than the first SP level”. Therefore, for the purpose of examining the first SP level, the second SP level, and the third SP level are assumed to be any value, such as the same level value, as long as the condition is satisfied.
Claim 1 recites “a lower-frequency radio frequency” without any indication of the frequency. Therefore, for the purpose of examining it is assumed to be any value.
Claim 1 recites “a higher-frequency RF bias power” without any indication of the frequency. Therefore, for the purpose of examining it is assumed to be any value.
Claim 1 recites “a first LBP level” without any indication of the level. Therefore, for the purpose of examining it is assumed to be any value.
Claim 1 recites “a first HBP level” without any indication of the level. Therefore, for the purpose of examining it is assumed to be any value.
Claim 1 recites applying SP, LBP and HBP in an elevated etching phase, an etch-and-deposition phase, and elevated deposition phase, but does not indicates whether these phases are consecutive and uninterrupted. Therefore, for the purpose of examining this is interpreted as the sequence may be interrupted by other phase(s), such as another phase, such as an elevated deposition phase, may be inserted between an elevated etching phase and an etch-and-deposition phase.
Claim 1 recites “applying …a source power (SP) to the processing chamber at a first SP level… applying, in an elevated deposition phase, the SP to the processing chamber at a third SP level…the third SP level being less than the first SP level”. Since the specification fails to define the term “SP level”, for the purpose of examining this term is interpreted as the power that is applied by the source power to the substrate at any time during the process. It is noted that due to normal manufacturing fluctuation due to equipment calibration, repeatability, process condition,… the power that is applied to a substrate during a process may fluctuate or drift from a setpoint even though the power setpoint is unchanged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 102:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention..
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103:
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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 1-14 and 16-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Kim et al. (U.S. PGPub. No. 20210104382), hereinafter “Kim”:--Claims 1, 5, 6: Kim teaches a method of plasma etching a substrate in a process chamber (Fig. 1), comprisingSupplying a process gas 22 into the chamber ([0071, 0031-0032]), the chamber is provided with a first power source 51 having an RF of 60 MHz, a second power source 53 having an RF of 2 MHz and a third power source 55 having an RF of 400 KHz (Fig. 2, [0036]), wherein the first power 51 may be 5-10 KW ([0073]), the second power 53 may be 10-20 KW ([0095]), and the third power source 55 may be 10-20 KW ([0087]). It is noted that, since the first power source 51, the second power source 53, and the third power source 55 are all applied to the substrate (Fig. 1), any of them may be considered a source power or a bias power. --Applying the first power source 51, second power source 53 and a third power source 55 according Fig. 2, which is duplicated below for clarity, to form a plasma that etches the substrate. In Fig. 2 pulse 55 is delayed by ½ wavelength.
PNG
media_image1.png
658
858
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kim further teaches that the applying a pulse inclination would “help stabilizing ion energy of the plasma” ([0118]), and that “features, characteristics, and/or elements described in connection with a particular embodiment may be used singly or in combination with features, characteristics, and/or elements described in connection with other embodiments unless otherwise specifically indicated.” ([0141]) Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention, in routine experimentations, to apply a pulse inclination to the pulse of the first power source 51 in Fig. 2 above to stabilize the plasma. Kim further teaches that the third power source pulse 55 may be delayed as much as half wavelength to help increase uniformity of the ion energy of the plasma and may stabilize the ion energy of the plasma ([0041]. Fig. 30 of Kim is duplicated below, except pulse 55 is delayed by 1/2 wavelength.
PNG
media_image2.png
685
616
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It is noted that power sources 51, 53, and 55 are equivalent to the source power SP, HBP and LBP, respectively. Considering the cycle starting at period 1:
--during period 1, the SP power is at the first SP level, the HBP is at a first HBP level, and the LBP is at 0. --during period 2, the SP power is at the second SP level, the HBP is at a second HBP level greater than the first HBP level. --during period 5, the SP power is at the third SP level lower than the first SP level, and the LBP is at second LBP level. Alternately, it is noted that at the end of the etching process power pulse 51 would inclined to 0. Therefore, during that period, the SP power is at a fourth level lower than the first SP level, the HBP is at a first HBP level, and the LBP second LBP level. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention, in routine experimentations, to use the power pulse arrangement described above to etch the stack in the invention of Kim because Kim teaches that this is among the variations. Although Kim does not teach supplying the same process gas 22 during the process , since Kim does not disclose changing the process gas 22 during the process, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention, in routine experimentations, to keep the supplying the process gas 22 the same during the process.--Claim 2, 4: Kim further teaches that the SP power 51 may be pulsed to a multilevel. Therefore, in the above figure, pulse 51 may have has a third power level lower or higher than shown in periods 5-8. --Claim 3: Kim further teaches to obtain an impedance resulting from a single pulse of the source power, obtain an impedance resulting from a two-level pulse of the source power, then adjusting a frequency of the two-level pulse of the source power and matching an impedance of the two-level pulse with the impedance of the plasma ([0005]).--Claims 7, 8, 9, 12, 13: Kim teaches the invention as above. It is noted that the second power source 53 having an RF of 2 MHz, which is greater than the RF of the third power source 55, i.e. 400 KHz. Although Kim is silent about the first power source 51, the second power source 53, and the third power source 55 generate plasma comprising low ions that passivate the surface of the stack, or that the first phase is an etch phase, the second phase is an etch-and-deposition phase, and the third phase is a deposition phase, Since the gases, the stack and the power pulses taught by Kim are the same as Applicant’s, such low ions that passivate the surface of the stack would occur and such deposition and etching would occur, as taught by Applicant. Although Kim fails to teach that the first phase is an etch phase, the second phase is an etch-and-deposition phase, and the third phase is a deposition phase According to MPEP 2112 “[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer.”, Atlas Powder Co. v. Ireco Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Thus the claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)”.--Claims 9, 10: Since Kim teaches that the power pulse 55 has a shorter or the same duty cycle as the power pulses 53 and 51, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention, in routine experimentations, to have a duty cycle of a combination of the etch phase and the etch-and-deposition phase is greater than 50% of a period of the periodic plasma process and a duty cycle of the etch phase is greater than a duty cycle of the deposition phase in a first cycle of the periodic plasma process; a duty cycle of a combination of the deposition phase and the etch-and-deposition phase is greater than 50% of the period of the periodic plasma process, and a duty cycle of the deposition phase is greater than a duty cycle of the etch phase in a second cycle of the periodic plasma process; and a duty cycle of the etch phase, a duty cycle of the etch-and-deposition phase, and a duty cycle of the deposition phase are equal in a third cycle of the periodic plasma process.--Claim 11: It is noted that in the revised Fig. 30 above, the power level of the first SP pulse and the power level of the second SP pulse are substantially equal--Claims 14, 16, 17, 18, 20: Kim further teaches that the etching is performed on a stack comprising layers 110 alternate with layers 151, wherein layer 110 and layer 151 may be selected from the group consisting of polysilicon, silicon oxide, silicon carbide, silicon oxynitride, or silicon nitride so that one of them may be selectively etched relative to the other ([0063-0065], Fig. 11), wherein layers 151 are etched laterally to expose an inner layer comprising a first semiconductor layer 130, such as silicon ([0097-0099]), a dielectric layer 140 ([0100]), a second semiconductor layer 135 ([0102-0103]) and a second dielectric layer 150, such as silicon oxide ([0102-0104]). Kim further teaches that the process gas may include, e.g., CF4, C4F6, C4F5, COS, CHF3, HBr, SiCl4, O2, N2, H2, NF3, SF6, He, and/or Ar ([0031]). Although Kim is silent about the first power source 51, the second power source 53, and the third power source 55 generate plasma comprising low ions that passivate the surface of the stack, since the gases, the stack and the power pulses taught by Kim are the same as Applicant’s, such low ions that passivate the surface of the stack would occur, as taught by Applicant. According to MPEP 2112 “[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer.”, Atlas Powder Co. v. Ireco Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Thus the claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)”. It is noted that Fig. 12 shows that the etching stops when the inner layer is exposed.--Claim 19: It is noted that CF4 is a fluorocarbon and Ar is a carrier gas, 20
Claims 15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Kim et al. (U.S. PGPub. No. 20210104382), hereinafter “Kim”, as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (U.S. PGPub. No. 20230260802), hereinafter “Kim’802”:--Claim 15: Kim teaches the invention as above. Kim fails to teach that the semiconductor layer 130 or the stack may comprise SiGe.Kim’802, also directed to a method of selective etching a stack comprising alternate layers of a silicon-containing material, such as silicon, and layers of silicon-and-germanium containing layers (abstract, [0038], Fig. 4A-B), teaches that the etching may be performed by supplying gases such as BCl3, CF4, C2F4, C4F8, C4F6, CHF3, CH2F2, CH3F, NF3, NH3, CO2, SO2, CO, N2, NO2, N2O, and/or H2 ([0030]) and RF powers to a process chamber to form plasma (Fig. 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention, in routine experimentations, to use the etching method taught by Kim to selectively etch the stack in the invention of Kim’802 because Kim teaches that it would be effective.
Claims 1-13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Ranjan et al. (U.S. PGPub. No. 20210249225), hereinafter “Ranjan”:--Claims 1, 6, 7: Ranjan teaches a method of controlling a plasma, comprisingloading a substrate 65 on a stage 70 in a chamber ([0066, Fig. 6), the substrate comprises trench with sidewall ([0042]);supplying a chlorine-additive and Ar, or HBr/CF4/O2/Ar to the chamber ([0023]);applying a sequence of pulse cycle, each pulse cycle comprises a SP pulse, a HBP pulse and a LBP pulse, and a time period having no pulse to the substrate (Fig. 2, 4(a)), wherein the frequency of SP may be about 13-26 MHz ([0029]), wherein the frequency of HBP, such as 13.56 MHz, is greater than the frequency of LBP, such as less than 800 KHz, ([0039]), wherein each pulse cycle has any duration, such as 1 ms ([0037]), wherein the HBP pulse may have the same or different duration as the SP pulse ([0039]), such as 20 µs ([0044, 0079]), wherein the SP pulse power may be about 500W, the HBP power may be about 100W, and the LBP pulse power may be about 500 W ([0044]), wherein the SP pulse is applied to a coil electrode 60 above the chamber (Fig. 6, [0066-0071]), and the HBP and LBP pulses are applied to the substrate (Fig. 3, [0066-0071]) to form a plasma;etching the substrate by using the plasma.applying the sequence of pulse cycle may be in the arrangement shown in Fig. 4. It is noted that the SP, HBP and LBP pulses shown in Fig. 4(f), 4(g), 4(h) and 4(i), and described in paragraphs [0053-0054] with the third period is selected to be any period in the sections 2 or 3 of the charts that have both the SP pulse 416 or 417 and the HBP pulse 433-436 would meet all limitations recited in claim 1. For example, Fig. 4(f) is duplicated and illustrated as shown below. In this figure, the top pulse 412/416 represents the SP pulse, the middle pulse 433 represents the LBP pulse, and the bottom pulse 422 represents the HBP pulse.
PNG
media_image3.png
285
195
media_image3.png
Greyscale
--during period 1, the SP power is at the first SP level, the LBP is at a first LBP level, and the HBP is at 0. --during period between period 1 and 2, the SP power is at the second SP level, LBP is at a first LP level, and the HBP is at 0. --during period 2, the SP power is at the second SP level lower than the first SP level, the HBP is at a first HBP level. Alternately, although Ranjan does not teach supplying the same process gas during the process , since Ranjan does not disclose changing the process gas during the process, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention, in routine experimentations, to keep the supplying the process gas the same during the process.--Claims 2, 4: It is noted that the SP power level is changed during the cycle.--Claim 3: Ranjan further teaches to monitor electron density and ion flux, and adjust the power pulses accordingly ([0056-0067]).--Claim 5: Ranjan further teaches that a HBP pulse may be changed to a lower power during the cycle ([0052]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention, in routine experimentations, to provide an HBP pulse having lower power during the first period than during the third period.--Claims 7, 11, 12, 13: It is noted that the first period shown in Fig. 4(f) above may be considered to comprise two equal portions, period 1a and period 1b, of which period 1a is considered period 1 and period 1b is consider period 3. This would meet all limitations of claims 7 and 11.--Claims 8, 9, 10: Ranjan teaches that the power pulses may have different duty cycle ([0031, 0039, 0044, 0046, 0054]; Fig. 2-4). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention, in routine experimentations, to have a duty cycle of a combination of the etch phase and the etch-and-deposition phase is greater than 50% of a period of the periodic plasma process and a duty cycle of the etch phase is greater than a duty cycle of the deposition phase in a first cycle of the periodic plasma process; a duty cycle of a combination of the deposition phase and the etch-and-deposition phase is greater than 50% of the period of the periodic plasma process, and a duty cycle of the deposition phase is greater than a duty cycle of the etch phase in a second cycle of the periodic plasma process; and a duty cycle of the etch phase, a duty cycle of the etch-and-deposition phase, and a duty cycle of the deposition phase are equal in a third cycle of the periodic plasma process.
Claims 14-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Ranjan in view of Kim’802:
--Claims 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20: Ranjan teaches the invention as above. Ranjan further teaches that “The pulse timing shown in schematic timing diagram 200 may advantageously be used in a number of plasma processing methods (e.g. for logic fabrication) such as thin etching, profile etching, (e.g. managing thin-top, bottom-corner rounding) and patterning (e.g. silicon nitride, silicon oxide, silicon), as well as multiple patterning uses” ([0041]) and “passivation of horizontal surfaces may be controlled using HPB pulses. Referring now to schematic diagram 206, a mask 55 may delineate etching regions of a substrate 256 including features such as trenches and holes with sidewalls. It may be desirable to reduce or prevent etching of the sidewalls by forming a passivation layer 57. The passivation layer 57 is an oxide in some embodiments” ([0042]). Ranjan further teaches that passivation of surface may be controlled by the HBP pulses ([0042]), and that “The optimal region 11 corresponds to sufficiently low values of BP pulse frequency and BP pulse duration. In particular, above a certain critical BP pulse frequency fc, strong coupling may exist resulting in undesirable secondary plasma generation. For example, once 13.56 MHz BP is applied, a secondary plasma may be generated above the wafer which may change the radical-to-ion ratio thereby changing the degree of passivation of sidewalls and/or changing selectivity, among other effects. “ ([0033]). Ranjan fails to teach selective etching a layer in a stack comprising a silicon layers and a SiGe layers. Kim’802, also directed to a method of selective etching a stack comprising alternate layers of a silicon-containing material, such as silicon, on a sidewall of a trench, teaches that the stack comprises layers of silicon layers and silicon-and-germanium containing layers (abstract, [0038], Fig. 4A-B), teaches that the etching may be performed by supplying gases such as BCl3, CF4, C2F4, C4F8, C4F6, CHF3, CH2F2, CH3F, NF3, NH3, CO2, SO2, CO, N2, NO2, N2O, and/or H2 ([0030]) and RF powers to a process chamber to form plasma (Fig. 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention, in routine experimentations, to use the etching method taught by Ranjan to selectively etch the stack in the invention of Kim’802 because Ranjan teaches that it would be effective. --Claim 19: It is noted that CF4 is a fluorocarbon and Ar is a carrier gas.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 23, 2025 have been fully considered as follows:--Regarding Applicant’s argument that one of skill in the art would not, during routine experimentations, delay the pulse 92 in Fig. 30, by half a wavelength in order to help increase uniformity of the ion energy of the plasma and may stabilize the ion energy of the plasma, as taught by Kim in paragraph [0041], this argument is not persuasive. One of skill in the art would recognize that both Fig. 2 and Fig. 30 present the same RF power situation, i.e. three RF power pulses are applied simultaneously to a substrate to generate plasma, and would attempt to delay the third RF power pulse by half a wavelength to help increase uniformity of the ion energy of the plasma and may stabilize the ion energy of the plasma, as taught by Kim. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007) (“A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton’). In making an obviousness determination one “can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. Furthermore, the U.S. Supreme Court has clarified that an "obvious to try" line of reasoning may properly support an obviousness rejection. In In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). Also see in re O'Farrell, 853 F.2d 894, 903-04 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (“Obviousness does not require absolute predictability of success . . .. For obviousness under § 103, all that is required is a reasonable expectation of success”)--Regarding Applicant’s argument that Ranjan does not teach the claimed feature “concurrently applying, in an etching-and-deposition phase, the SP to the processing chamber at a second SP level and the LBP to the processing chamber at a first LBP level, and without applying a higher-frequency RF bias power (HBP) during the etching-and-deposition phase”, this argument is not persuasive. A typographical error was made in the Office action, which is obvious since the labels on the figure do not match the written explanation. The error has been corrected as shown above. Specifically, during period 1, the SP power is at the first SP level, the LBP is at a first LBP level, and the HBP is at 0; during period between period 1 and 2, the SP power is at the second SP level, LBP is at a first LP level, and the HBP is at 0, and during period 2, the SP power is at the second SP level lower than the first SP level, the HBP is at a first HBP level, wherein in the figure the top pulse 412/416 represents the SP pulse, the middle pulse 433 represents the LBP pulse, and the bottom pulse 422 represents the HBP pulse.--Regarding Applicant’s argument that it is not proper to combine Ranjan and Kim’802, this argument is not persuasive. In this instance, Ranjan teaches that the method may be used in a number of plasma processing methods (e.g. for logic fabrication) such as thin etching, profile etching, (e.g. managing thin-top, bottom-corner rounding) and patterning (e.g. silicon nitride, silicon oxide, silicon), as well as multiple patterning uses” ([0041]) and that “passivation of horizontal surfaces may be controlled using HPB pulses. Referring now to schematic diagram 206, a mask 55 may delineate etching regions of a substrate 256 including features such as trenches and holes with sidewalls. It may be desirable to reduce or prevent etching of the sidewalls by forming a passivation layer 57. The passivation layer 57 is an oxide in some embodiments” ([0042]). Therefore, one of skill in the art would obviously use the method taught by Ranjan in etching a trench through silicon-containing layer(s) where the etch sidewall profile is critical, such as etching a deep trench having a vertical sidewall through a stack of silicon and silicon germanium layers taught by Kim’802.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 THOMAS PHAM whose telephone number is (571) 270-7670 and fax number is (571) 270-8670. The examiner can normally be reached on MTWThF9to6 PST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joshua Allen can be reached on (571) 270-3176. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/THOMAS T PHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713
Prosecution Insights