DETAILED ACTION
Status
The amendment filed 08/27/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-16 and 19-22 are pending. In the amendment filed 08/27/2025, claims 1, 5-6, 11, and 16 were amended, claims 17-18 were canceled, and claims 21-22 were newly added.
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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“shaft motion assembly” in claim 21 interpreted as one or mor motors or actuators [0029], and equivalents thereof.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Regarding claim 22, consistent with [0046-0048] of the instant specification, the structures of the central opening, plurality of radial appendages, and pin roller are interpreted inclusive of referring to opening 512 of flange 502, radial appendages 514, and pin rollers 508 [0046-0048]. These structures are part of the shaft motion coupling 208 which is part of the shaft (see 2 and 5A-D). Applicant is encouraged to consider claiming further comprising a shaft motion coupling comprising the recited structures to avoid any potential for misinterpretation that the central opening with a sidewall is referring to the body of the shaft (i.e. part 318).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 21 is 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.
In the final line of claim 21, the claim recites “a plurality of pin rollers disposed between the at least one groove”. This limitation is unclear because it is unclear if the plurality of pin rollers are intended to be disposed between the at least one groove and another structure that was not recited or if the limitation is intended to indicate that the plurality of pin rollers are disposed within the at least one groove (i.e. between sides of the groove). In either interpretation it is unclear if the entire plurality is between or within one groove or if the limitation is intended to indicate that a pin roller of the plurality of pin rollers will be disposed between or within the at least one groove (i.e. a one to one relationship that requires more than one groove). The instant specification teaches the pin rollers in a one to one relationship positioned within the grooves and (Fig 5A-D) and teaches the pin rollers between the groove and the sidewall 510 of the flange 502 (Fig 5A-D and [0047]). For purpose of examination on the merits and consistent with the instant claims, the limitation is being examined inclusive of requiring a plurality of pins and requiring that each pin of the plurality of pins is disposed between a groove of the at least one groove and the flange. Applicant is kindly requested to amend the claim for clarity and it is respectfully noted that the final 2 lines of claim 22 appear to convey the same concept in a clearer manner regarding the positioning of the pin roller.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8, and 11-15 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Krishnan (prev. presented US 2013/0252404).
Regarding claim 1, Krishnan teaches a substrate support assembly (Fig 1, see 40 and 30) [0066], configured for use in semiconductor processing [0001-0002], comprising: a susceptor (40 Fig 1, 3A) [0066] (240 Fig 7-8B [0107-0118]) comprising: a substrate support surface (41 Fig 1, 3A) [0069] (240 Fig 7-8B [0107-0118]); a coupling surface (44 Fig 1, 3C) [0071-0072] (240 Fig 7-8B [0107-0118]); and a cogged indent within the coupling surface (Fig 7, 8B see 248a-d [0107-0108]); and a shaft (30 Fig 1, 230 Fig 8A, 330 Fig 8B, referred to as a spindle [0051],[0118]), comprising: a first distal end (upper end of spindle 30, 230, 330); and a second distal end opposite the first distal end (lower end of spindle 30, 230, 330); and a shaft coupling portion (36 Fig 2A, 236 Fig 8A, 336 Fig 8B) comprising: a coupling contact surface (surface of portion 236 Fig 8A, 336 Fig 8B) having a plurality of projections (280a-280d Fig 8A, 380a, 380c Fig 8B) extending outwardly from a central axis of the shaft (Fig 8A, 8B).
Regarding claim 2, Krishnan teaches the cogged indent includes a central opening (247 Fig 7 [0108]) and a plurality of wings (248a-d Fig 7 [0107-0108]) extending from the central opening outward across the coupling surface (Fig 7 and [0107-0108]).
Regarding claim 3, Krishnan teaches each of the plurality of wings are extensions of the central opening (Fig 7 and 8B and [0107-0108]) and three or more wings extend radially outward from the central opening (Fig 7 and [0107] teaches 4 and mentions there may be 3 instead).
Regarding claim 4, Krishnan teaches the central opening has a circular cross-section (247 Fig 7 also note [0108] discusses the 248 structures being disposed “circumferentially”).
Regarding claim 5, Krishnan teaches the cogged indent further include a plurality of first features (two of 248a-d Fig 7 or the rounded ends of 248a-d Fig 7, 8B).
Regarding claim 6, Krishnan teaches the shaft coupling portion further includes a plurality of second features on the coupling surface of the shaft coupling portion (two of 280a-d Fig 8A or the recesses 337a & 337c Fig 8B in the surface of 336).
Regarding claim 8, Krishnan teaches a shaft motion coupling (34 Fig 1 or a seal or bearing of 34 [0051]) coupled to the second distal end of the shaft (Fig 1 and [0051]).
Regarding claim 11, Krishnan teaches a susceptor (40 Fig 1, 3A) [0066] (240 Fig 7-8B [0107-0118]), configured for use in semiconductor processing [0001-0002], comprising: a substrate support surface(41 Fig 1, 3A) [0069] (240 Fig 7-8B [0107-0118]); a coupling surface (44 Fig 1, 3C) [0071-0072] (240 Fig 7-8B [0107-0118]) opposite the substrate support surface (44 is opposite 41 Fig 1, 3C); and a cogged indent disposed within the coupling surface (Fig 7, 8B see 248a-d [0107-0108]) and further comprising: a central opening (247 Fig 7 [0108]); a plurality of wings (248a-d Fig 7 [0107-0108]) extending from the central opening outward across the coupling surface (Fig 7 and [0107-0108]); and a plurality of pins (280a-280D Fig 8A, when inserted into the opening of Fig 7 or 380a, 380c Fig 8B as shown in the opening), wherein each wing of the plurality of wings comprises a pin of the plurality of pins (when structure of Fig 8A is inserted into Fig 7 or as shown in Fig 8B).
Regarding claim 12, Krishnan teaches at least a portion of a wall of each of the plurality of wings is curved (see curved outer ends of 248a-d Fig 7).
Regarding claim 13, Krishnan teaches three or more wings extend radially outward from the central opening (Fig 7 and [0107] teaches 4 and mentions there may be 3 instead).
Regarding claim 14, Krishnan teaches the susceptor is formed of a graphite material [0068].
Regarding claim 15, Krishnan teaches the substrate support surface is circular (41 Fig 3A) [0066].
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claim(s) 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krishnan in view of Bedingham (prev. presented US 2003/0124506).
Regarding claim 5-7, Krishnan remains as applied to claim 1, 5, and 6 above. This rejection is provided additionally for claims 5 and 6 because the first features are claimed broadly in claim 5 and the second features are claimed broadly in claim 6 while additional structural details are required in claim 7. As noted herein and above, Krishnan teaches first and second features, however these are not the same as the first features (plurality of pins extending from the cogged indent) and second features (plurality of indents extending into the coupling surface) of claim 7. Addressing the same problem of connection between a rotating base plate (10 Fig 1) and a rotational driving connector (54 Fig 1), Bedingham teaches that an indent on the rotating base plate (indent 52 Fig 2) for connection [0054] includes a plurality of pins as a first feature (53 Fig 2 [0053] to extend from the indent (Fig 2) and the lower rotational driving connector (54 Fig 1, analogous to the coupling surface) includes a plurality of indents (sockets 55 Fig 1 [0053] as second features extending into the coupling surface [0053]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Krishnan to include the pins in the indent as first features and indents (sockets) in the coupling surface as second features as taught by Bedingham because Bedingham teaches that these allow for electrical connection, optical connections, or fluid connections [0054]. As noted above, this combination includes first and second features (claims 5-6) and the specific features as recited in claim 7.
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krishnan in view of Collins (prev. presented US 2015/0037019).
Regarding claim 9, Krishnan remains as applied to claim 8 above. Krishnan fails to teach the shaft motion coupling includes a central opening, a plurality of radial appendages extending outward from the central opening, and the second distal end of the shaft includes a plurality of grooves disposed therein. In the same field of endeavor of susceptor shaft supports (abstract, title), Collins teaches a shaft motion coupling (200 Fig 4A) includes a central opening (206 Fig 2,4A [0033]), a plurality of radial appendages extending outward from the central opening (recesses in surface of 204 in which pins 208 are positioned as seen in Fig 2,4A) , and the second distal end of the shaft includes a plurality of grooves disposed therein (308 Fig 4A,B [0036-0037]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Krishnan to include the shaft motion coupling includes a central opening, a plurality of radial appendages extending outward from the central opening, and the second distal end of the shaft includes a plurality of grooves disposed therein as taught by Collins because Collins teaches this arrangement prevents wobbling [0036].
Regarding claim 10, the combination remains as applied to claim 9 above. Collins as part of the combination applied to claim 9 teaches the plurality of radial appendages are extensions of the central opening (recesses in surface of 204 in which pins 208 are positioned as seen in Fig 2,4A) and a pin (208 Fig 2, 4A [0033]) is disposed between each of the radial appendages and each of the grooves ([0033] shown in Fig 4A as between the grooves 308 and the radial appendages, note [0033] teaches the pins are polytetrafluoroethylene and teaches the shaft motion coupling 200 is made of stainless steel [0033]).
Claim(s) 16 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi (prev. presented US 2013/0036970) in view of Bedingham.
Regarding claim 16, Choi teaches a shaft (610 Fig 29 and 30a), configured for use in semiconductor processing [0002] (Fig 29), comprising: a first distal end (upper end of 610 Fig 29 and 30a); a second distal end opposite the first distal end (lower end of 610 Fig 29 and 30a); and a shaft coupling portion coupled to the first distal end of the shaft (630 Fig 30a [0242-0243]) and comprising: a coupling contact surface (upper surface of gear 630 Fig 3a); a shaft insert surface opposite to the coupling contact surface (lower surface of gear 630 Fig 30a); an outer surface disposed between he coupling contact surface and the shaft insert surface (side surface of gear 630 Fig 30a); and a plurality of projections (teeth of gear 630 Fig 30a) extending outward from a central axis of the coupling contact surface, such that the coupling contact surface is cogged (630 Fig 3a). Choi fails to teach the coupling contact surface having a plurality of indents extending into the coupling contact surface and fails to teach wherein a projection of the plurality of projections comprises an indent of the plurality of indents. Regarding the coupling contact surface having a plurality of indents extending into the coupling contact surface, addressing the same problem of connection between a rotating base plate (10 Fig 1) and a rotational driving connector (54 Fig 1), Bedingham teaches that an indent on the rotating base plate (indent 52 Fig 2) for connection [0054] includes a plurality of pins as a first feature (53 Fig 2 [0053] to extend from the indent (Fig 2) and the lower rotational driving connector (54 Fig 1, analogous to the coupling surface) includes a plurality of indents (sockets 55 Fig 1 [0053]) as features extending into the coupling contact surface [0053]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Choi to include the indents (sockets) in the coupling surface as taught by Bedingham because Bedingham teaches that these allow for electrical connection, optical connections, or fluid connections [0054]. Regarding a projection of the plurality of projections comprises an indent of the plurality of indents, this represents a mere rearrangement of parts of the position of the indents in the coupling surface to be at the projections of the coupling surface. Mere rearrangement of parts which does not modify the operation of a device is prima facie obvious. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
Regarding claim 19, Choi teaches there are three or more projections (teeth of gear 630 Fig 30a).
Claim(s) 20-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi in view of Beddingham as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Collins.
Regarding claim 20-21, Choi in view of Beddingham remains as applied to claim 16 above. Choi fails to teach the second distal end of the shaft includes a plurality of grooves. In the same field of endeavor of susceptor shaft supports (abstract, title), Collins teaches a shaft (132 Fig 4A,B) includes a plurality of grooves disposed therein (308 Fig 4A,B [0036-0037]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Choi to include the second distal end of the shaft includes a plurality of grooves as taught by Collins because Collins teaches this arrangement prevents wobbling [0036]. Choi further fails to teach a shaft motion coupling comprising: a flange with a lower shaft motion assembly disposed within the shaft motion coupling and wherein the second distal end of the shaft is disposed within the flange; and a plurality of pin rollers disposed between the at least one groove. As part of the movement structure, Collins teaches a flange (200 and 202 Fig 2). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the lower shaft motion assembly (drive unit 620 Fig 29) to be positioned within the flange of the shaft motion coupling (Fig 2) of Collins because Collins teaches this arrangement prevents wobbling [0036]. Collins further teaches as part of the arrangement that the second distal end of the shaft is disposed within the flange (Fig 4A) and that a plurality of pin rollers (208 Fig 4A) are disposed between the at least one groove and a sidewall of the flange (Fig 4A, sidewall of 200 which is part of 200 and 202).
Regarding claim 22, Choi in view of Beddingham remains as applied to claim 16 above. Choi fails to teach a central opening comprising a sidewall; a plurality of radial appendages as extensions of the central opening, wherein the plurality of radial appendages form protrusions from the sidewall; and a pin roller disposed within each radial appendage of the plurality of radial appendages such that the pin roller is disposed between the sidewall and the shaft. In the same field of endeavor of susceptor shaft supports (abstract, title), Collins teaches a central opening (204 Fig 2, 4A) comprising a sidewall (inner side wall of 200 Fig 2, 4A), a plurality of radial appendages as extensions of the central opening (groove in sidewall of 200 into which 208 is inserted, see Fig 2 and 4A), wherein the plurality of radial appendages form protrusions from the sidewall (the grooves are a protrusion outward from the inner sidewall in a manner consistent would the radial appendages 514 of instant specification Fig 5D are discussed); and a pin roller (208 Fig 4A [0033]) disposed within each radial appendage of the plurality of radial appendages such that the pin roller is disposed between the sidewall and the shaft (Fig 4A, [0033]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/27/2025, hereinafter reply, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Krishnan does not teach the amended limitations of claim 1 (reply p7-8). This is not persuasive because applicant appears to interpret the use of surface as requiring a flat surface. It is noted that the upper surface of the shaft of Krishnan including the protrusions is a surface. Applicant may wish to indicate the surface is flat if applicant intends to require the surface to be flat.
Applicant argues (reply p8-9) that Choi fails to teach the required indents of claim 16. The rejection has been updated to be an obviousness rejection in view of the amendments and therefore this argument is moot.
The arguments regarding the dependent claims (reply p9-11) rely on the alleged failing of Krishan to teach or render obvious the independent claims which has been addressed above. Note that for claim 16 Krishnan is no longer being applied due to the amendments to claim 16 that necessitated the newly applied rejection relying on Choi.
For all of these reasons the arguments are not persuasive as to the allowability of the instant claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 6726769 demonstrates the interface of a substrate support shaft and the substrate holder (Fig 5A, 6A, 7A).
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 MARGARET D KLUNK whose telephone number is (571)270-5513. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:30-5:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Parviz Hassanzadeh can be reached on 571-272-1435. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MARGARET KLUNK/Examiner, Art Unit 1716
/PARVIZ HASSANZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1716