DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment dated 10/09/2025, in which claim 39 was amended, claims 1-12, 14, 16, 18-19, 24, 28, 31, 38 were cancelled, claims 32-39 were added, has been entered.
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 13, 20-23, 32, 34 and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peng (US Pub. 20160211264) in view of Clendenning et al. (US Pub. 20150179798) as evidenced by Xiang et al. (US Pub. 20120238088) and Gadgil (US Pat. 7365005).
Regarding claim 13, Peng discloses in Fig. 10, Fig. 11, paragraph [0037]-[0049] a method of forming a portion of a gate structure disposed between a first nanosheet [118] and a vertically adjacent second nanosheet [108], the method comprising:
forming a high-k dielectric layer [123] on the first [118] and second [108] nanosheets [paragraph [0040]-[0041]];
subsequent to forming the high-k dielectric layer [123], depositing a diffusion barrier layer comprising N [124] on the high-k dielectric layer [123][paragraph [0042]]; and
depositing a work function metal layer [125] comprising titanium, aluminum, and carbon [TiAlC layer] directly on the diffusion barrier layer [124] such that the work function metal layer [TiAlC layer] merges with itself to form a merged work function metal layer [125][paragraph [0042]][conformally deposition method such as ALD or PVD would result to the work function metal layer [TiAlC layer] merges with itself to form a merged work function metal layer 125 as shown in Fig. 10 as evidenced in Fig. 2F-2G, paragraph [0030], [0041] of Xiang et al., Fig. 10-Fig. 11, column 18 of Gadgil].
[“diffusion barrier layer” and/or “work function metal” direct to intended function of a material layer. Peng discloses in paragraph [0042] that layer 124 includes TiN which is the same material of the claimed diffusion barrier layer, thus, layer 124 is capable of performing the intended function as diffusion barrier layer. Peng further discloses layer 125 includes TiAlC which is the same material of the claimed work function layer, thus layer 125 is capable of performing the intended function as a work function metal layer. “WHEN THE STRUCTURE RECITED IN THE REFERENCE IS SUBSTANTIALLY IDENTICAL TO THAT OF THE CLAIMS, CLAIMED PROPERTIES OR FUNCTIONS ARE PRESUMED TO BE INHERENT.” “IF THE COMPOSITION IS PHYSICALLY THE SAME, IT MUST HAVE THE SAME PROPERTIES.” See MPEP 2112.01. In addition, Per MPEP 2131: The elements must be arranged as required by the claim, but this is not an ipsissimis verbis test, i.e., identity of terminology is not required. In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 15 USPQ2d 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1990).]
Peng fails to disclose
wherein the merged work function metal layer has a thickness of about 5 nm.
However, Peng discloses in paragraph [0042] that “The overall width and thickness of the gates (G) 124/125 may vary as a function of the height and length of the channel regions 108′ and 118′ and overall semiconductor device 100.”
Clengenning et al. discloses in Fig. 7a, Fig. 7b, paragraph [0035], [0042], [0043], [0056]
wherein the merged work function metal layer [718/740] has a thickness of about 5 nm [“The metal compounds are deposited as films have a thickness in the range of 1 nm to 50 nm, including all values and increments therein, such as 1 nm to 30 nm.” “the gate material includes the metal compounds …TiAlC”. “The gate electrode is formed from the material compounds described herein and are deposited using conformal coating methods such as atomic layer deposition or chemical vapor deposition.”] In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Clengenning et al. into the method of Peng to include wherein the merged work function metal layer has a thickness of about 5 nm. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Peng in the above manner for the purpose of providing suitable thickness of a metal gate electrode layer [paragraph [0035] of Clengenning et al.].
In addition, Applicant has not provided any criticality of the claimed range. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Peng to provide the claimed range for at least the purpose of optimization and routine experimentation to provide sufficient thickness of the common metal layer. The claimed ranges are merely optimizations, and as such are not patentable over the prior art. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). "The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages." Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382.
Regarding claims 20-21, 32, 34, Peng discloses in paragraph [0042]
wherein the diffusion barrier layer [124] comprises titanium and nitrogen [TiN, TiSiN];
wherein the diffusion barrier layer [124] has a thickness of about 1 nm [paragraph [0042]];
wherein the diffusion barrier layer [124] comprises titanium nitride;
wherein the diffusion barrier layer [124] consists of titanium nitride.
Regarding claims 22-23, Peng discloses in paragraph [0041]
wherein the high-k dielectric layer [123] comprises hafnium and oxygen [HfO2];
wherein a thickness of the high-k dielectric layer [123] is between about 1 nm and 2 nm [1 nm to about 3 nm].
In addition, Applicant has not provided any criticality of the claimed range. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Peng to provide the claimed range for at least the purpose of optimization and routine experimentation. The claimed ranges are merely optimizations, and as such are not patentable over the prior art. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). "The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages." Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382.
Regarding claim 36, Peng discloses in paragraph [0042]
the work function metal layer [125] consists of titanium, aluminum, and carbon [TiAlC].
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peng (US Pub. 20160211264) in view of Clendenning et al. (US Pub. 20150179798) as applied to claim 13 above and further in view of Kaga et al. (US Pub. 20160196978).
Regarding claim 15, Peng discloses in paragraph [0042] wherein the work function metal layer [125] comprises TiAlC.
Peng fails to disclose
wherein a concentration of aluminum in the work function metal layer is between about 20% and about 40%.
Kaga et al. discloses in paragraph [0093]
wherein a concentration of aluminum in the work function metal layer TiAlC can be adjusted to control (adjust, modulate or tune) a work function of a gate electrode configured by the obtained TiAlC film to a predetermined value.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Kaga et al. into the method of Peng to include wherein a concentration of aluminum in the work function metal layer is between about 20% and about 40%. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Peng in the above manner for the purpose of providing suitable concentration of aluminum in the TiAlC layer to control a work function of a gate electrode [paragraph [0093] of Kaga et al.].
In addition, Applicant has not provided any criticality of the claimed range. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Peng to include the claimed range for at least the purpose of optimization and routine experimentation to obtain a metal layer having desired properties. The claimed ranges are merely optimizations, and as such are not patentable over the prior art. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). "The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages." Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382.
Claims 17 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Peng (US Pub. 20160211264) in view of Clendenning et al. (US Pub. 20150179798) as applied to claim 13 above and further in view of Manabe et al. (US Pub. 20140239407) and Hong (US Pub. 20140070324).
Regarding claims 17 and 37 Peng fails to disclose
wherein the work function metal layer further comprises oxygen;
wherein the work function metal layer consists of titanium, aluminum, carbon, and oxygen.
Manabe et al. discloses in paragraph [0003], [0031]-[0035]
wherein the work function metal layer [WFM 205] further comprises oxygen [oxidized TiAlC];
wherein the work function metal layer [WFM] consists of titanium, aluminum, carbon, and oxygen [oxidized TiAlC].
For further support, Hong is cited.
Hong discloses in Fig. 1, paragraph [0042], paragraph [0069] and paragraph [0070]
wherein the work function metal layer [3] further comprises oxygen [TiAlCO];
wherein the work function metal layer consists of titanium, aluminum, carbon, and oxygen [TiAlCO].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Manabe et al. and Hong into the method of Peng to include wherein the work function metal layer further comprises oxygen; wherein the work function metal layer consists of titanium, aluminum, carbon, and oxygen. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Peng in the above manner for the purpose of providing suitable alternative gate material [paragraph [0069]-[0070] of Hong]; to form metal gate electrode in which threshold voltages Vth can be selectively and precisely controlled [paragraph [0013], [0029], [0031] of Manabe et al.]. Further, it would have been obvious to try one of the known methods with a reasonable expectation of success. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claims 25 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peng (US Pub. 20160211264) in view of Clendenning et al. (US Pub. 20150179798) as applied to claim 13 above and further in view of Lee et al. (US Pub. 20170263711)
Regarding claims 25 and 29, Peng fails to explicitly disclose
before forming the high-k dielectric layer, forming an interfacial oxide layer on each of the first and second nanosheets, the interfacial oxide layer comprising silicon;
wherein: the high-k dielectric layer is formed directly on the interfacial oxide layer.
However, Peng discloses in paragraph [0041] gate dielectrics 123 may comprise SiO2,… HfO2, or a combination or multiple layers.
Lee et al. discloses in Fig. 6, paragraph [0124]-[0126]
before forming the high-k dielectric layer [82], forming an interfacial oxide layer [81] on each of the first [57] and second [55] nanosheets, the interfacial oxide layer [81] comprising silicon;
wherein: the high-k dielectric layer [82] is formed directly on the interfacial oxide layer [81].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Lee et al. into the method of Peng to include before forming the high-k dielectric layer, forming an interfacial oxide layer on each of the plurality of nanosheets, the interfacial oxide layer comprising silicon; wherein: the high-k dielectric layer is formed directly on the interfacial oxide layer. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Peng in the above manner for the purpose of providing suitable configuration of a multilayer gate dielectric comprising SiO2 and HfO2 [paragraph [0124]-[0126] of Lee et al.]. Further, it would have been obvious to try one of the known methods with a reasonable expectation of success. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peng (US Pub. 20160211264) in view of Clendenning et al. (US Pub. 20150179798) and Lee et al. (US Pub. 20170263711) as applied to claim 25 above and further in view of Chang et al. (US Pub. 20140051213)
Regarding claim 26-27, Peng and Lee et al. fails to disclose
wherein the interfacial oxide layer has a thickness between about 0.5 nm and about 5 nm;
wherein the interfacial oxide layer has a thickness between about 0.5 and about 1 nm.
Chang et al. discloses in paragraph [0031]
wherein the interfacial oxide layer [202] has a thickness between about 0.5 nm and about 5 nm [0.5 nm to about 3 nm];
wherein the interfacial oxide layer has a thickness between about 0.5 and about 1 nm [0.5 nm to about 3 nm].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Chang et al. into the method of Peng and Lee et al. to include wherein the interfacial oxide layer has a thickness between about 0.5 nm and about 5 nm; wherein the interfacial oxide layer has a thickness between about 0.5 and about 1 nm. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Peng in the above manner for the purpose of providing suitable thickness of the interfacial oxide layer [paragraph [0031] of Chang et al.].
In addition, Applicant has not provided any criticality of the claimed range. It would have been obvious to modify Chang et al., Peng and Lee et al. to provide the claimed range for at least the purpose of optimization and routine experimentation to provide desired thickness of the interface oxide layer. The claimed ranges are merely optimizations, and as such are not patentable over the prior art. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Peng (US Pub. 20160211264) in view of Clendenning et al. (US Pub. 20150179798) and Lee et al. (US Pub. 20170263711) as applied to claim 29 above and further in view of Manabe et al. (US Pub. 20140239407) and Hong (US Pub. 20140070324).
Regarding claim 30, Peng fails to disclose
wherein the work function metal layer further comprises oxygen;
Manabe et al. discloses in paragraph [0003], [0031]-[0035]
wherein the work function metal layer [WFM 205] further comprises oxygen [oxidized TiAlC];
For further support, Hong is cited.
Hong discloses in Fig. 1, paragraph [0042], paragraph [0069] and paragraph [0070]
wherein the work function metal layer [3] further comprises oxygen [TiAlCO];
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Manabe et al. and Hong into the method of Peng to include wherein the work function metal layer further comprises oxygen. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Peng in the above manner for the purpose of providing suitable alternative gate material [paragraph [0069]-[0070] of Hong]; to form metal gate electrode in which threshold voltages Vth can be selectively and precisely controlled [paragraph [0013], [0029], [0031] of Manabe et al.]. Further, it would have been obvious to try one of the known methods with a reasonable expectation of success. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claims 33 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peng (US Pub. 20160211264) in view of Clendenning et al. (US Pub. 20150179798) as applied to claim 13 above and further in view of Ando et al. (US Pub. 20150035073).
Regarding claims 33 and 35, Peng fails to disclose
wherein the diffusion barrier layer comprises titanium nitride;
wherein the diffusion barrier layer consists of tantalum nitride.
Ando et al. discloses in Fig. 13, paragraph [0062]
wherein the diffusion barrier layer [144] comprises tantalum nitride;
wherein the diffusion barrier layer [144] consist of tantalum nitride.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Ando et al. into the method of Peng to include wherein the diffusion barrier layer comprises titanium nitride; wherein the diffusion barrier layer consists of tantalum nitride. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Peng in the above manner for the purpose of providing suitable alternative material of a barrier layer [paragraph [0062] of Ando et al.]. Further, it would have been obvious to try one of the known methods with a reasonable expectation of success. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim 39 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peng (US Pub. 20160211264) in view of Clendenning et al. (US Pub. 20150179798) as applied to claim 13 above and further in view of Ching et al. (US Pub. 20150035071) and Dewey et al. (US Pub. 20140332852).
Regarding claim 39, Peng discloses in Fig. 10, Fig. 11, Fig. 52C
forming a first device comprising a first portion of the gate structure disposed between the first nanosheet [and the vertically adjacent second nanosheet;
forming a second device comprising a second portion of the gate structure disposed between a third nanosheet and a vertically adjacent fourth nanosheet.
PNG
media_image1.png
351
447
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Peng fails to disclose
forming an interfacial oxide layer on the first and second nanosheets of the first device and on the third and fourth nanosheets of the second device, the interfacial oxide layer comprising silicon,
wherein a thickness of a portion of the interfacial oxide layer on the third and fourth nanosheets of the second device is about 4 nm.
However, Peng discloses in paragraph [0041] gate dielectrics 123 may comprise SiO2,… HfO2, or a combination or multiple layers.
Ching et al. discloses in Fig. 10A, paragraph [0040]
forming an interfacial oxide layer [462] on the first and second nanosheets of the first device and on the third and fourth nanosheets of the second device, the interfacial oxide layer [462] comprising silicon [HfSiO].
Dewey et al. discloses in Fig. 2, Fig. 3, Fig. 5E, paragraph [0026], [0032], [0070]-[0071]
forming an interfacial oxide layer [220] on nanosheets of a device [500], the interfacial oxide layer [220] comprising silicon [aluminum silicate (AlSiOx, silicon oxynitride (SiON), silicon dioxide (SiO2), and silicon nitride],
wherein a thickness of a portion of the interfacial oxide layer [220] on the nanosheets of a device is about 4 nm [2-15 nm].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Ching et al. and Dewey et al. into the method of Peng to include forming an interfacial oxide layer on the first and second nanosheets of the first device and on the third and fourth nanosheets of the second device, the interfacial oxide layer comprising silicon, wherein a thickness of a portion of the interfacial oxide layer on the third and fourth nanosheets of the second device is about 4 nm. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Peng in the above manner for the purpose of providing suitable configuration of a multilayer gate dielectric to reduce interface state generation below the transistor channel and improvements in mobility in the channel may be realized; providing suitable thickness of an interface in device with wide gap/trench for its intended function [paragraph [0040] of Ching et al., paragraph [0023], [0026] of Dewey et al.].
In addition, Applicant has not provided any criticality of the claimed range. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Peng to include the claimed range for at least the purpose of optimization and routine experimentation to obtain a metal layer having desired properties. The claimed ranges are merely optimizations, and as such are not patentable over the prior art. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). "The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages." Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/09/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
As stated in the rejection, Clengenning et al. discloses in Fig. 7a, Fig. 7b, paragraph [0035], [0042], [0043], [0056] the limitation of “wherein the merged work function metal layer [718/740] has a thickness of about 5 nm [“The metal compounds are deposited as films have a thickness in the range of 1 nm to 50 nm, including all values and increments therein, such as 1 nm to 30 nm.” “the gate material includes the metal compounds …TiAlC”. “The gate electrode is formed from the material compounds described herein and are deposited using conformal coating methods such as atomic layer deposition or chemical vapor deposition.”].
The claimed thickness range of about 5nm lie inside the thickness range of 1 nm to 50 nm disclosed by Clengenning et al. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05.
Applicants can rebut a prima facie case of obviousness by showing the criticality of the range. "The law is replete with cases in which the difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some range or other variable within the claims… In such a situation, the applicant must show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range." In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also Minerals Separation, Ltd. v. Hyde, 242 U.S. 261, 271 (1916). See MPEP 2144.05 III A
In this case, Applicant has not provided any criticality of the claimed range. Neither paragraph [0030], paragraph [0031], paragraph [0060], paragraph [0066], nor paragraph [0074] of the specification provide any criticality of the claimed range. Thus, the ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Peng to provide the claimed range for at least the purpose of optimization and routine experimentation to provide sufficient thickness of the common metal layer. The claimed ranges are merely optimizations, and as such are not patentable over the prior art. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). "The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages." Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382. See MPEP 2144.05 II.
Overall, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. The claims stand rejected and the Action is made FINAL.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SOPHIA T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1686. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am -5:00 pm, Monday-Friday.
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, BRITT D HANLEY can be reached at (571)270-3042. 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.
/SOPHIA T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893