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 07/22/2025 has been entered. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 06/16/2025.
Claim Status
Claims 1, 3-4, 7-16, 18-19, and 21-24 are pending.
Claims 1, 4, 8, and 16 are currently amended.
Claims 2, 5, 6, 17, and 20 are cancelled.
Claims 21-24 are newly added.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 3, 8-10, 14, 16, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (US 20020036881 A1), further in view of Kim (US 20190013222 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Wang teaches a substrate support (Fig. 6, [0026], electrostatic chuck 55), comprising:
a base (Fig. 6, [0029], support 190);
a first ceramic layer on the base (Fig. 6, base 175, supported by support 190, can be a ceramic, [0032]); and
a second ceramic layer above the first ceramic layer and bonded to the first ceramic layer (Fig. 6, [0027], electrostatic member 100 sits above base 175, and bond layer 250 joins electrostatic member 100 to base 175, [0046]),
wherein the first ceramic layer has
a first base portion made of a first ceramic (Fig. 6, base 175 can be a ceramic, [0032]), and
a heater electrode included in the first base portion and for adjusting a temperature of the substrate (Fig. 6, [0052], Heater 235 is embedded in base 175 maintains substrate 30 temperature), and
wherein the second ceramic layer has
a second base portion made of a second ceramic different from the first ceramic (Fig. 6, [0027], electrostatic member 100 comprised of separate dielectric 115), and
a chucking electrode included in the second base portion and for holding the substrate (Fig. 6, [0027], electrode 105 embedded in dielectric 115 holds substrate 30 to chuck surface 120).
Wang fails to teach wherein the first base portion includes a plurality of areas, a plurality of heater electrodes included in the first base portion and for adjusting a temperature of the substrate, each of the plurality of heater electrodes being provided in a corresponding one of the plurality of areas of the first base portion.
However, Kim teaches wherein the first base portion includes a plurality of areas (Kim, Fig. 4, [0046]-[0048], one set of cell heaters 661/663/665/667 define an area within the insulation plate 620, where plural areas each having a set of cell heaters are provided and defined in separation by azimuthal angle θ, Fig. 3), a plurality of heater electrodes included in the first base portion and for adjusting a temperature of the substrate (Kim, Fig. 2, [0045], plural cell heaters 662 are embedded in ceramic insulation plate 620), each of the plurality of heater electrodes being provided in a corresponding one of the plurality of areas of the first base portion (Kim, Fig. 4, [0046]-[0048], one set of cell heaters 661/663/665/667 define an area within the insulation plate 620, where plural areas each having a set of cell heaters are provided and defined in separation by azimuthal angle θ, Fig. 3).
Kim 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 plurality of heaters and heater controller of Kim into the base of Wang as doing so would allow the ability to independently adjust the different heaters in different regions thereby improving temperature uniformity across a substrate (Kim, [0094]).
Regarding claim 3, Wang fails to teach wherein the first ceramic layer includes a plurality of multi-layered electrical wirings included in the first base portion and connected to the plurality of heater electrodes, respectively.
However, Kim teaches wherein the first ceramic layer includes a plurality of multi-layered electrical wirings included in the first base portion and connected to the plurality of heater electrodes, respectively (Kim, Fig. 2, [0040], plurality of electrode wirings 622 run through insulation plate 620 and are connected to cell heaters 662, where the wirings 622 run across multiple levels).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have incorporated the plurality of heaters and heater controller of Kim into the base of Wang as doing so would allow the ability to independently adjust the different heaters in different regions thereby improving temperature uniformity across a substrate (Kim, [0094]).
Regarding claim 8, Wang teaches an adhesive layer including an inorganic adhesive and disposed between the first ceramic layer and the second ceramic layer and adhesively bonding the first ceramic layer to the second ceramic layer (Fig. 6, [0046], bond layer 250, made from a metal, joins electrostatic member 100 to base 175).
Regarding claim 9, Wang teaches wherein the first ceramic and the second ceramic have the same ceramic as a main ingredient ([0065], dielectric 115 of electrostatic member 100 can be aluminum oxide, and base 175 can be made from aluminum oxide, [0044]).
Regarding claim 10, Wang teaches wherein the second ceramic has higher purity than the first ceramic ([0065], dielectric 115 of electrostatic member 100 can be aluminum oxide, and base 175 can be made from aluminum oxide, [0044], and base 175 can further be a porous ceramic infiltrated with molten metal, [0032]).
Regarding claim 14, Wang fails to explicitly teach wherein a difference in thermal expansion coefficients between the first base portion and the second base portion is 5 ppm or less.
While Wang does not explicitly teach the claim limitation above, Wang does teach wherein choosing the material of the base to match the CTE of the electrostatic member is a result effective variable. Specifically, Wang teaches the coefficient of thermal expansion of the base 175 can be further tailored to match that of the electrostatic member 100 by forming a base 175 comprising a hybrid or plurality of component members that each have a different coefficient of thermal expansion, where the CTE of the base can be calculated using the presented equations (Wang, [0039]-[0042]). Therefore, by utilizing the equations presented by Wang, it would have been possible to choose the material of the base to ensure a difference in the CTE of 5 ppm or less of the CTE of the electrostatic member.
Regarding claim 16, Wang teaches a plasma processing apparatus processing a substrate (Fig. 1, [0026], chamber for processing a substrate), comprising:
a chamber (Fig. 1, [0026], chamber 25); and
a substrate support inside the chamber (Fig. 1, [0026], electrostatic chuck 55),
wherein the substrate support has
a base (Fig. 6, [0029], support 190),
a first ceramic layer on the base (Fig. 6, base 175, supported by support 190, can be a ceramic, [0032]), and
a second ceramic layer above the first ceramic layer and bonded to the first ceramic layer (Fig. 6, [0027], electrostatic member 100 sits above base 175),
wherein the first ceramic layer has
a first base portion made of a first ceramic (Fig. 6, base 175 can be a ceramic, [0032]), and
a heater electrode included in the first base portion and for adjusting a temperature of the substrate (Fig. 6, [0052], Heater 235 is embedded in base 175 maintains substrate 30 temperature), and
wherein the second ceramic layer has
a second base portion made of a second ceramic different from the first ceramic (Fig. 6, [0027], electrostatic member 100 comprised of separate dielectric 115), and
a chucking electrode included in the second base portion and for holding the substrate (Fig. 6, [0027], electrode 105 embedded in dielectric 115 holds substrate 30 to chuck surface 120).
Wang fails to teach wherein the first base portion includes a plurality of areas, a plurality of heater electrodes included in the first base portion and for adjusting a temperature of the substrate, each of the plurality of heater electrodes being provided in a corresponding one of the plurality of areas of the first base portion.
However, Kim teaches wherein the first base portion includes a plurality of areas (Kim, Fig. 4, [0046]-[0048], one set of cell heaters 661/663/665/667 define an area within the insulation plate 620, where plural areas each having a set of cell heaters are provided and defined in separation by azimuthal angle θ, Fig. 3), a plurality of heater electrodes included in the first base portion and for adjusting a temperature of the substrate (Kim, Fig. 2, [0045], plural cell heaters 662 are embedded in ceramic insulation plate 620), each of the plurality of heater electrodes being provided in a corresponding one of the plurality of areas of the first base portion (Kim, Fig. 4, [0046]-[0048], one set of cell heaters 661/663/665/667 define an area within the insulation plate 620, where plural areas each having a set of cell heaters are provided and defined in separation by azimuthal angle θ, Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have incorporated the plurality of heaters and heater controller of Kim into the base of Wang as doing so would allow the ability to independently adjust the different heaters in different regions thereby improving temperature uniformity across a substrate (Kim, [0094]).
Regarding claim 18, Wang fails to teach wherein the first ceramic layer includes a plurality of multi-layered electrical wirings included in the first base portion and connected to the plurality of heater electrodes, respectively.
However, Kim teaches wherein the first ceramic layer includes a plurality of multi-layered electrical wirings included in the first base portion and connected to the plurality of heater electrodes, respectively (Kim, Fig. 2, [0040], plurality of electrode wirings 622 run through insulation plate 620 and are connected to cell heaters 662, where the wirings 622 run across multiple levels).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have incorporated the plurality of heaters and heater controller of Kim into the base of Wang as doing so would allow the ability to independently adjust the different heaters in different regions thereby improving temperature uniformity across a substrate (Kim, [0094]).
Regarding claim 19, Wang teaches at least one power supply connected to the plurality of heater electrodes (Fig. 1, [0051], heater power supply 260 is connected to heating element 255).
Wang fails to teach the connections to the plurality of heater electrodes through the plurality of multi-layered electrical wirings, wherein each of the plurality of heater electrodes is configured to perform temperature control independently.
However, Kim teaches wherein the connections to the plurality of heater electrodes through the plurality of multi-layered electrical wirings (Kim, Fig. 2, [0040], plurality of electrode wirings 622 run through insulation plate 620 and are connected to cell heaters 662, where the wirings 622 run across multiple levels), wherein each of the plurality of heater electrodes is configured to perform temperature control independently (Kim, Fig. 6, [0059]-[0061], controller 678 controls heaters 661, 663, 665, and 667 individually and separately based on preset temperatures vs measured resistance outputs from each heater).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have incorporated the plurality of heaters and heater controller of Kim into the base of Wang as doing so would allow the ability to independently adjust the different heaters in different regions thereby improving temperature uniformity across a substrate (Kim, [0094]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (US 20020036881 A1) in view of Kim (US 20190013222 A1), as applied in claims 1, 3, 8-10, 14, 16, and 18-19, and further in view of Anada (US 20180261486 A1).
The limitations of claims 1, 3, 8-10, 14, 16, and 18-19are set forth above.
Regarding claim 4, modified Wang fails to teach wherein the first base portion is a multi-layered structure in which a plurality of ceramic layers are stacked, and at least one heater electrode is disposed between respective layers of the plurality of ceramic layers, and the plurality of ceramic layers is a sintered body of a plurality of green sheets.
However, Anada teaches wherein the first base portion is a multi-layered structure in which a plurality of ceramic layers are stacked (Anada, [0068], dielectric layers 111 and 112 are stacked), at least one heater electrode is disposed between respective layers of the plurality of ceramic layers, and the plurality of ceramic layers is a sintered body of a plurality of green sheets (Anada, [0070], heater 131 is provided on major surface 11b and is sintered together by stacking green sheets on which the heater is printed).
Anada 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 formed the base of Wang by utilizing the sintered stack sheets method of Anada as doing so would provide the flexibility to print the heaters directly onto the surface of the dielectric, or be formed by using PVD or CVD (Anada, [0071]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (US 20020036881 A1) in view of Kim (US 20190013222 A1), as applied in claims 1, 3, 8-10, 14, 16, and 18-19, and further in view of Hidaka (US 20190019713 A1).
The limitations of claims 1, 3, 8-10, 14, 16, and 18-19 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 7, Wang teaches the dielectric 115 of electrostatic member 100 can be aluminum oxide, base 175 can be made from aluminum oxide, and base 175 can further be a porous ceramic infiltrated with molten metal ([0065], [0044], [0032]), but fails to explicitly teach wherein the second ceramic has higher volume resistance than the first ceramic.
However, Hidaka teaches that the volume resistivity value of a ceramic, like aluminum oxide, decreases as the amount of metal impurities present in the sintered body increase (Hidaka, [0087]). Hidaka is considered analogous art to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of semiconductor processing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have utilized the teachings of Hidaka to choose a composition of aluminum oxide for the chucking dielectric of Wang such that impurities are minimized and produce a high dielectric breakdown strength of the chuck material at a high temperature (Hidaka, [0087]-[0088]).
Claims 11-12, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (US 20020036881 A1) in view of Kim (US 20190013222 A1), as applied in claims 1, 3, 8-10, 14, 16, and 18-19, and further in view of Teratani (US 20100056358 A1).
The limitations of claims 1, 3, 8-10, 14, 16, and 18-19 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 11, modified Wang fails to teach wherein the second base portion has volume resistance of 1x1016 Ω or more at a room temperature or more and 350°C or less.
However, Teratani teaches wherein the second base portion has volume resistance of 1x1016 Ω or more at a room temperature or more and 350°C or less (Teratani, Table 2, Comparative Example 1, resulting sintered body of alumina has a volume resistivity of 7.8x1016 Ω at room temperature). When the prior art discloses a point within the claimed range, the prior art anticipates the claim. See MPEP 2131.03(I).
Teratani 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 utilized the sintering product and method of Teratani to form the dielectric for the electrostatic chuck of Wang as doing so would allow the ability to adjust the volume resistivity of the resulting ceramic body as required by the process requirements (Teratani, [0004]).
Regarding claim 12, modified Wang fails to teach wherein the second ceramic includes alumina at a mass percentage concentration of 99.95% or more.
However, Teratani teaches wherein the second ceramic includes alumina at a mass percentage concentration of 99.95% or more (Teratani, [0040], commercially available aluminum oxide powders having a high purity of 99.0% to 99.995% other than the powder used in Example 1 were also used as aluminum oxide and results similar to those in Example 1 were obtained, where comparative Examples 1 to 9 were produced with the compositions and the firing conditions shown in Tables 1 and 2 in a manner similar to that in Example 1, [0049]). When the prior art discloses a point within the claimed range, the prior art anticipates the claim. See MPEP 2131.03(I).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have utilized the sintering product and method of Teratani to form the dielectric for the electrostatic chuck of Wang as doing so would allow the ability to adjust the volume resistivity of the resulting ceramic body as required by the process requirements (Teratani, [0004]).
Regarding claim 15, modified Wang fails to teach wherein the second ceramic has a porous rate of 0.1% or less.
However, Teratani teaches wherein the second ceramic has a porous rate of 0.1% or less (Teratani, Table 2, Comparative Example 1, resulting sintered body of alumina has a porosity of 0.06%). When the prior art discloses a point within the claimed range, the prior art anticipates the claim. See MPEP 2131.03(I).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have utilized the sintering product and method of Teratani to form the dielectric for the electrostatic chuck of Wang as doing so would allow the ability to adjust the volume resistivity of the resulting ceramic body as required by the process requirements (Teratani, [0004]).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (US 20020036881 A1) in view of Kim (US 20190013222 A1), as applied in claims 1, 3, 8-10, 14, 16, and 18-19, and further in view of Ye (US 20160049323 A1).
The limitations of claims 1, 3, 8-10, 14, 16, and 18-19 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 13, Wang teaches a dielectric of the second ceramic ([0065], dielectric 115 of electrostatic member 100 can be aluminum oxide, aluminum nitride, silicon dioxide), but fails to explicitly teach wherein the dielectric constant of the second ceramic is 10 to 11.
However, Ye teaches wherein a dielectric constant of the second ceramic is 10 to 11 (Ye, [0044], chuck body 228 may be made of a material having a relative dielectric constant of 10, where suitable materials include aluminum oxide, aluminum nitride, silicon dioxide).
Ye 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 utilized the materials of the chuck body listed by Ye as the material for the electrostatic chuck of Wang as doing so would provide for a material that can provide sufficient chucking force to the substrate at a wide range of temperatures, such that leakage current in the body is low at high temperatures (Ye, [0044]).
Claims 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (US 20020036881 A1) in view of Kim (US 20190013222 A1), as applied in claims 1, 3, 8-10, 14, 16, and 18-19, and further in view of Parkhe (US 20170215230 A1).
The limitations of claims 1, 3, 8-10, 14, 16, and 18-19 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 21, modified Wang fails to teach wherein the plurality of areas are rotatably symmetric to each other at 90 degrees around a center of the first base portion, and the plurality of areas includes one first area positioned and provided at the center of the first base portion and four second areas positioned and provided at an outer periphery side of the first area.
However, while Parkhe fails to explicitly teach the claim limitations above, Parkhe teaches a plurality of individually spatially tunable heaters configured in a pattern symmetric around a midpoint (Parkhe, Fig. 4A, [0093], heaters 140, pattern 490), where the tuning heater controller can turn on a single heater or group of heaters (Parkhe, Fig. 4A, [0093], controller 202) to define geometric and non-contiguous configurations (Parkhe, Fig. 4A, [0093], inner wedge 462, perimeters group 464, pie shaped area 460, etc), and that the pattern may alternatively have larger and/or smaller units, extend to the edge, or have other forms, such as defined by the above claim limitations.
Parkhe 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 spatially tunable heaters and controller of Parkhe into the apparatus of modified Wang as doing so would allow for precise control of independent locations along the surface of the substrate support by being able to alter the defined heating areas into various geometric and/or non-contiguous shapes to meet the process requirements (Parkhe, [0093]).
Regarding claim 22, modified Wang fails to teach wherein the plurality of areas further includes eight third areas positioned at an outer periphery side of the second area, and one fourth area positioned and provided at an outer periphery of the third area, the fourth area being an outer periphery of the first base portion.
However, while Parkhe fails to explicitly teach the claim limitations above, Parkhe teaches a plurality of individually spatially tunable heaters configured in a pattern symmetric around a midpoint (Parkhe, Fig. 4A, [0093], heaters 140, pattern 490), where the tuning heater controller can turn on a single heater or group of heaters (Parkhe, Fig. 4A, [0093], controller 202) to define geometric and non-contiguous configurations (Parkhe, Fig. 4A, [0093], inner wedge 462, perimeters group 464, pie shaped area 460, etc), and that the pattern may alternatively have larger and/or smaller units, extend to the edge, or have other forms, such as defined by the above claim limitations.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have incorporated the spatially tunable heaters and controller of Parkhe into the apparatus of modified Wang as doing so would allow for precise control of independent locations along the surface of the substrate support by being able to alter the defined heating areas into various geometric and/or non-contiguous shapes to meet the process requirements (Parkhe, [0093]).
Regarding claim 23, modified Wang fails to teach wherein the plurality of areas are rotatably symmetric to each other at 90 degrees around a center of the first base portion, and the plurality of areas includes one first area positioned and provided at the center of the first base portion and four second areas positioned and provided at an outer periphery side of the first area.
However, while Parkhe fails to explicitly teach the claim limitations above, Parkhe teaches a plurality of individually spatially tunable heaters configured in a pattern symmetric around a midpoint (Parkhe, Fig. 4A, [0093], heaters 140, pattern 490), where the tuning heater controller can turn on a single heater or group of heaters (Parkhe, Fig. 4A, [0093], controller 202) to define geometric and non-contiguous configurations (Parkhe, Fig. 4A, [0093], inner wedge 462, perimeters group 464, pie shaped area 460, etc), and that the pattern may alternatively have larger and/or smaller units, extend to the edge, or have other forms, such as defined by the above claim limitations.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have incorporated the spatially tunable heaters and controller of Parkhe into the apparatus of modified Wang as doing so would allow for precise control of independent locations along the surface of the substrate support by being able to alter the defined heating areas into various geometric and/or non-contiguous shapes to meet the process requirements (Parkhe, [0093]).
Regarding claim 24, modified Wang fails to teach wherein the plurality of areas further includes eight third areas positioned at an outer periphery side of the second area, and one fourth area positioned and provided at an outer periphery of the third area, the fourth area being an outer periphery of the first base portion.
However, while Parkhe fails to explicitly teach the claim limitations above, Parkhe teaches a plurality of individually spatially tunable heaters configured in a pattern symmetric around a midpoint (Parkhe, Fig. 4A, [0093], heaters 140, pattern 490), where the tuning heater controller can turn on a single heater or group of heaters (Parkhe, Fig. 4A, [0093], controller 202) to define geometric and non-contiguous configurations (Parkhe, Fig. 4A, [0093], inner wedge 462, perimeters group 464, pie shaped area 460, etc), and that the pattern may alternatively have larger and/or smaller units, extend to the edge, or have other forms, such as defined by the above claim limitations.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have incorporated the spatially tunable heaters and controller of Parkhe into the apparatus of modified Wang as doing so would allow for precise control of independent locations along the surface of the substrate support by being able to alter the defined heating areas into various geometric and/or non-contiguous shapes to meet the process requirements (Parkhe, [0093]).
Response to Arguments
In the Applicant’s response filed 07/22/2025, the Applicant asserts that none of the cited prior art, particularly Kim, teach the claim limitations “wherein the first base portion includes a plurality of areas” and “a plurality of heater electrodes… each of the plurality of heater electrodes being provided in a corresponding one of the plurality of areas” of independent claims 1 and 16, as newly amended. The Examiner has carefully considered the arguments but respectfully disagrees. Figure 4 of Kim describes one set of cell heaters 661/663/665/667 defining an area within the insulation plate 620 (Kim, [0046]-[0048]). Figure 3 of Kim shows where plural areas, each having a set of cell heaters as disclosed in Figure 4, are provided within insulation plate 620 and defined in separation by azimuthal angle θ (Kim, [0046]-[0048]). Therefore, Kim meets the above claim limitations as currently presented.
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 at 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