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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments and remarks filed (2 – 3 – 2026) have been fully considered but they are not persuasiveApplicant argues…
Urakawa merely describes a method of preparing ceramic green sheets (26, 27, 28) by mixing powders such as Cr2O3, MgO, SiO2, CaO, Al2O3, and Y2O3 in an organic solvent to create a slurry, followed by heat treatment (calcination). Thus, Urakawa does not distinguish between the processing of a slurry without rare earth elements (Y2O3) and the processing of a slurry containing rare earth elements (Y2O3).
Urakawa's process is distinct from the sequential processes recited in claim 1. Specifically, obtaining an amorphous powder without rare earth elements (Y2О3) in process (A) allows the amorphous material to promote the sinterability of the ceramic matrix, resulting in a relative density of 98% or more. Including, improving relative density and volume resistivity and achieving excellent effects.
Additionally, forming crystallized glass centered around rare earth elements (Y2O3) in process (B) suppresses crystal growth by controlling particle size and results in improved high-temperature characteristics with a high-volume resistivity of 1015 Q·cm or more at temperatures above 200 °C.
Applicant further argues that none of the other applied references make up for the deficiency of Miyazawa / Miyazawa as modified.
This is not found to be persuasive because…
While examiner agrees that Urakawa teaches mixing powders such as Cr2O3, MgO, SiO2, CaO, Al2O3, and Y2O3, as well as BaO, SiO2, B2O3, and ZrO2 powders in an organic solvent to create a slurry and then heat-treating. Urakawa goes on to state in ([0063]) that the resultant calcined powders were pulverized in a zirconia ball mill for about 12 hours to prepare material powders. ([0064]) adding the material powders were mixed with an organic solvent including toluene and Ekinen and then with a binder and a plasticizer to prepare slurries. As such, Urakawa teaches forming a sequential slurry that comprises all the components required of applicant’s slurry. Furthermore, applicant’s first slurry “contains” MgO, SiO2, & CaO, where the term “contains” is understood to be synonymous with the transitional term “comprising” which is inclusive or opened-ended and does not exclude additional unrecited elements or method steps. As such, applicant’s claim broadly provide for other components including AlO3, MgO & Y2O3 to exist in the slurry. Applicant may choose to limit their first slurry such that it “consists” of only MgO, SiO2 & CaO which is understood to be non-inclusive and/or not opened-ended. Ultimately, applicant’s argument is understood to rely on subject matter, which is not claimed, i.e., a slurry which only “consist” of MgO, SiO2 & CaO. As such, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a slurry which only “consist” of MgO, SiO2 & CaO) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).Additionally, 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).
Applicant’s arguments are found to rely on features which are not claimed, namely that the obtaining an amorphous powder without rare earth elements (Y2О3) in process (A)promotes the sinterability of the ceramic matrix, resulting in a relative density of 98% or more. Including, improving relative density and volume resistivity and achieving excellent effects and/or forming crystallized glass centered around rare earth elements (Y2O3) in process (B) suppresses crystal growth by controlling particle size and results in improved high-temperature characteristics with a high-volume resistivity of 1015 Q·cm or more at temperatures above 200 °C. As such, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the obtaining an amorphous powder without rare earth elements (Y2О3) in process (A) promotes the sinterability of the ceramic matrix, resulting in a relative density of 98% or more and/or forming crystallized glass centered around rare earth elements (Y2O3) in process (B) suppresses crystal growth by controlling particle size and results in improved high-temperature characteristics with a high-volume resistivity of 1015 Q·cm or more at temperatures above 200 °C.) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Additionally, 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).
This is unpersuasive because as explained above there was not found to be deficiency in Miyazawa / Miyazawa as modified. Claim Objections
Claim(s) 1 – 7 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Currently claim 1 reads “…a slurry containing MgO, SiO2, and CaO…” it should read “…a first slurry containing MgO, SiO2, and CaO…” for the purposes of claim consistency and clarity.
Currently claim 1 reads “preparing a slurry by mixing an Al2O3…” it should read “….preparing a second slurry by mixing an Al2O3…” for the purposes of claim consistency and clarity.
Currently claim 1 reads “…with the first additive powder…” it should read “…with the vitrified first additive powder…” for the purposes of claim consistency and clarity.
Currently claim 1 reads “…and forming the ceramic sheets by tape casting the slurry.” it should read “…and forming the ceramic sheets by tape casting the second slurry.” for the purposes of claim consistency and clarity.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
A.) Claim(s) 1 & 4, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyazawa et al. (US 20140334059 A1 hereinafter Miyazawa) in view of Jun Urakawa (US 20090004438 A1, hereinafter Urakawa)Regarding claim 1,
A method for manufacturing a ceramic susceptor, the method comprising:
preparing ceramic sheets;
preparing a lamination structure of a molded body, in which the ceramic sheets are laminated and
a conductive metal material for electrodes is disposed between the ceramic sheet laminated products; and
sintering the lamination structure of the molded body,
wherein the preparing of the ceramic sheets includes:
obtaining a vitrified first additive powder by heat-treating a slurry containing MgO, SiO2, and CaO;
preparing a slurry by mixing an Al2O3 powder with the first additive powder,
a second additive powder containing a MgO powder, and
a third additive powder containing a Y2O3 powder; and
forming the ceramic sheets by tape casting the slurry.
Miyazawa teaches the following:
([0030]) teaches a placing stage 20 is formed from a ceramic mainly including aluminum oxide (Al2O3). ([0031]) teaches a method of making the placing stage 20, a metal material for the electrostatic electrode 22 and an electric heat material for the heater 24 are each sandwiched between green (ceramic) sheets.
, c.) & d.) ([0031]) teaches a method of making the placing stage 20, a metal material for the electrostatic electrode 22 and an electric heat material for the heater 24 are each sandwiched between green sheets, and the resultant laminated body is sintered. As shown in (Figs. 1 & 6), a placing stage 20 in which the electrostatic electrode 22 and the heater 24 are built in can be obtained.
([0050]) teaches a composition utilized for the placing stage 20 that comprises MgO, SiO2 and CaO. This can be seen in (Fig. 4)
([0050]) teaches a composition utilized for the placing stage 20 that comprises Al2O3. This can be seen in (Fig. 4)
([0050]) teaches a composition utilized for the placing stage 20 that comprises MgO. This can be seen in (Fig. 4)
([0047]) teaches a composition utilized for the placing stage 20 that comprises Y2O3. This can be seen in (Fig. 4)
Regarding Claim 1, Miyazawa is silent regarding the ceramic sheet forming process including forming a slurry. In analogous art to produce a ceramic composition that includes Al2O3,SiO2, Y2O3, CaO, MgO, Urakawa suggests details regarding the ceramic sheet forming process including forming a slurry, and in this regard, Urakawa teaches the following:
, f.) , g.) & h.) ([0063]) teaches that, powders of SiO2, BaCO3, Al2O3, B2O3, Cr2O3, and ZrO2, defining the major components of the dielectric ceramic composition, and powders of Y2O3, CaCO3, MgCO3, and SrCO3. These powders were weighed out and mixed and were calcined at about 800 °C to about 1,000 °C. The resultant calcined powders were pulverized in a zirconia ball mill for about 12 hours to prepare material powders. ([0075]) notes that trace components can further include Y2O3, CaO, MgO, and SrO. As such, MgO, SiO2 and CaO, Al2O3 and Y2O3 which are understood to be mixed and calcined / heat treated. ([0064]) adding that the material powders were mixed with an organic solvent to prepare slurries. The slurries were formed into ceramic green sheets using a doctor blade. Accordingly, it is understood that the components including calcined MgO, SiO2 and CaO, Al2O3 and Y2O3 which are vitrified via heat treated, and formed into a slurry used to fabricate ceramic green sheets by a doctor blade. ([0065]) teaches that next, the ceramic green sheets were laminated, cut to an appropriate size, and fired in a reducing atmosphere. As such, the slurries formed into green sheets comprising calcined MgO, SiO2 and CaO, Al2O3 and Y2O3 and solvent are understood to undergo a second heat treatment. Consequently, due to Urakawa forming a slurry being after calcination / heat treatment transpires (forming a vitrified powder) and due to forming a slurry in a single step (versus forming a first slurry and second slurry that are mixed). The case law for sequential vs. simultaneous steps may be recited. Where, in general, the transposition of process steps or the splitting of one step into two, where the processes are substantially identical or equivalent in terms of function, manner and result, was held to be not patentably distinguish the processes. Ex parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 440 (Bd. Pat. App. 1959). Namely, Urakawa results in forming a slurry that comprise calcined MgO, SiO2 and CaO, Al2O3 and Y2O3 used to form and fabricate ceramic green sheets by tape casting with a doctor blade.
(Abstract) teaches the invention is related multilayer ceramic substrate has a laminated structure. ([0064]) teaches that slurries were formed into ceramic green sheets with a thickness of 50 about μm using a doctor blade. As such, tape casting the slurry using a doctor to form ceramic sheets is understood to be disclosed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production method and apparatus for manufacturing a ceramic electrostatic chuck that is formed from by laminated and sintering ceramic green sheets, of Miyazawa. By modifying the process to include ceramic green sheets that are fabricated via forming a slurry of heat-treated powder that is tape cast with a doctor blade, as taught by Urakawa. Highlighting, implementation of ceramic green sheets that are fabricated via forming a slurry of heat-treated powder that is tape cast with a doctor blade provides for tailoring the thickness of the ceramic green sheets formulated, ([0064]). Highlighting, that the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way and/or the application a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results provides for the recitation of KSR case law. Where, "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), MPEP 2143.
Regarding claim 4 as applied to claim ,
Wherein the grain size distribution of ceramic grains in the sintered body after the sintering is 0.5 to 5 µm.
Miyazawa as modified Urakawa teaches the following:
As detailed above, Miyazawa as modified Urakawa encompasses the same fabrication process as the instant application. Namely, preparing ceramic sheets by obtaining a vitrified first additive powder by heat-treating a slurry comprising the same composition, and forming the ceramic sheets by tape casting the slurry, followed by preparing a lamination structure, in which the ceramic sheets are laminated and a conductive metal layer for electrodes is disposed between the ceramic sheet laminated products; and sintering the lamination structure of the molded body. As such, the article fabricated by Miyazawa as modified Urakawa are understood to comprise the same composition which undergoes the same fabrication process. Accordingly, the resulting grain size distribution of ceramic grains in the sintered body fabricated from each respective method is thus understood to result in the same. Namely, a grain size distribution for ceramic grains in the sintered bodies preprepared will be from 0.5 to 5 µm. Consequently, the case law for substantially identical process and structure may be recited. Where, it has been held that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or are produced by identical or a substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness will be considered to have been established over functional limitations that stem from the claimed structure. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), In re Spada, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed products. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), MPEP 2144.
B.) Claim(s) 5, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyazawa in view of Urakawa and in further view of Miyazawa et al. (US 20080315536 A1, hereinafter Miyazawa II)
Regarding Claim 6, Miyazawa as modified by Urakawa is silent on the thickness of the
conductive metal material / electrostatic electrode thickness being between 10 to 30 µm. In analogous art for the fabrication of an electrostatic chuck that comprises a conductive metal material / electrostatic electrode that is sandwiched between two layers of ceramic material, ([0050]), Miyazawa II suggests details regarding the conductive metal material / electrostatic electrode thickness being between 10 to 30 µm, and in this regard, Miyazawa II teaches the following:
([0050]) teaches that the ceramic material 13 is provided on a surface 12A of the electrostatic electrode 12. Also, the ceramic material 14 is provided on a surface 12B of the electrostatic electrode 12. A thickness of the electrostatic electrode 12 may be set to 20 μm, for example.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production method and apparatus for manufacturing a ceramic electrostatic chuck that is formed from by laminated and sintering ceramic green sheets, of Miyazawa. By further augmenting the manufacturing process to include a electrostatic electrode 12 that has a thickness that is set to 20 μm, as taught by Miyazawa II. Highlighting, implementation of an electrostatic electrode thickness set to 20 μm provides for a joint strength between the ceramic base 11 and the electrostatic electrode 12 can be improved, ([0056]). Accordingly, the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way and/or the application a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results provides for the recitation of KSR case law. Where, "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), MPEP 2143. Additionally, the case law for change of size may be recited. Where, the mere scaling up or down of a prior art process capable of being scaled up or down would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled, In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976), MPEP 2144.
C.) Claim(s) 6 & 7, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyazawa in view of Urakawa and in further view of Dimitriadis et al. (Glass-Ceramics in the CaO–MgO–Al2O3–SiO2 System, 2021, hereinafter Dimitriadis)
Regarding claim 6 & 7 as both applied to claim 1 respectively,
Wherein the obtaining of the vitrified first additive powder comprises sequentially performing mixing, melting, quenching, and grinding on the slurry containing MgO, SiO2, and CaO.
Wherein the quenching is water quenching.
Regarding Claim(s) 6 & 7, Miyazawa as modified by Urakawa is silent regarding obtaining the vitrified powder by sequentially performing mixing, melting, quenching, and grinding the slurry containing MgO, SiO2, and CaO. In analogous art for forming a ceramics that comprises CaO MgO Al2O3 and SiO2, Dimitriadis suggests details regarding obtaining the vitrified powder by sequentially performing mixing, melting, quenching, and grinding the slurry containing MgO, SiO2, and CaO, and in this regard, Dimitriadis teaches the following:
& 7a.) (2.1 Synthesis of Glasses and Thermal Analysis, ¶2) teaches that 100g batches for each composition comprising SiO2, Mg(NO3)2·6H2O, and CaCO3 are prepared. First, the powders were preheated at 900 °C for 1 h in alumina crucibles (the heating rate was 1.5 K/min). Next, melting took place in Pt crucible at 1400 °C for 1 h, in air. Followed by melt-quenching was carried out by casting the molten glass into cold water, whereby frit was obtained. As such, water quenching is understood to be disclosed after melting. After drying, the frit was pulverized (by ball-milling using a planetary mill at 400 rpm for 45 min in an yttria-stabilized zirconia milling jar. After sieving (<32 μm), fine powder was obtained for each composition. As such, griding / pulverization is understood to transpire after water quenching. Accordingly, Dimitriadis sequentially discloses preparing / mixing the composition followed by melting, then water quenching, and finally grinding the quenched composition to form and obtain a sieveable powder.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production method and apparatus for manufacturing a ceramic electrostatic chuck that is formed from by laminated and sintering ceramic green sheets, of Miyazawa as modified by Urakawa. By further augmenting the manufacturing process to include a obtaining the vitrified powder by sequentially performing mixing, melting, quenching, and grinding the slurry, as taught by Dimitriadis. Highlighting, implementation of obtaining the vitrified powder by sequentially performing mixing, melting, quenching, and grinding the slurry provides for producing a powdered material that may have its particle size range further tailored by sieving, (2.1 Synthesis of Glasses and Thermal Analysis, ¶2). Accordingly, the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way and/or the application of a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results provides for the recitation of KSR case law. Where, "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), MPEP 2143. Additionally, the case law for change of size may be recited. Where, the mere scaling up or down of a prior art process capable of being scaled up or down would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled, In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976), MPEP 2144.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 2 – 3 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner' s statement of reasons for allowance:
a.) Regarding claim(s) 2 – 3, a primary reason why the claim(s) are deemed novel and non-obvious over the prior art of record, namely Miyazawa as instantly claimed. While the prior art of Miyazawa / Miyazawa as modified teaches forming the vitrified first additive powder with weight ratios of CaO, SiO2, and MgO. However, the weight ratio (wt. %) of CaO is given to be fixed at 0.2 wt %, as such the ratio provided by Miyazawa is outside the range of 35 – 55 as claimed by applicant. Highlighting, that a similar situation arises for the weight ratio provided by Miyazawa for SiO2 being below 5 wt.% which is also outside applicant’s claimed range of 35 – 50 wt.%. As such, Miyazawa does not teach the claimed weight ratio (wt%) of CaO, SiO2, and MgO in the slurry being 35 – 55 : 35– 50 : 8 – 18. Furthermore, while Miyazawa does teach the Al2O3 powder having a range of 94.2 – 96.1 wt %, which does overlap with applicant’s range of 94 – 98 wt %. However, Miyazawa does not teach the weight ratios of the first additive powder, the second additive powder, nor the third additive powder. As such, Miyazawa does not teach the claimed weight ratio (wt%) of Al2O3 powder, the first additive powder, the second additive powder, and the third additive powder being 94 – 98 : 1– 3 : 0.5 – 1.5 : 0.5 – 1.5 as claimed by applicant. Accordingly, claim(s) 2 – 3, are deemed novel and non-obvious over the prior art of record.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Iguchi et al. (US 20220384111 A1) – teaches in the (Abstract) a dielectric composition includes dielectric particles and first segregations. The dielectric particles each include a perovskite compound represented by ABO3 as a main component. The first segregations each include at least Ba, V, and O. A molar ratio (Ba/Ti) of Ba to Ti detected in the first segregations is 1.20 or more.
Yasutaka Sugimoto (US 20090061178 A1) – teaches in the (Abstract) a multilayer ceramic substrate includes an inner layer portion and surface portions that sandwich the inner layer portion in the stacking direction and have an increased transverse strength because of the surface layer portion having a thermal expansion coefficient less than that of the inner layer portion.
Paul N. Shepherd (US 6205032 B1) – teaches in the (Abstract) a low temperature co-fired ceramic assembly (LTCC) with a constraining core to minimize shrinkage of outer ceramic layers during firing. The outer ceramic layers have high density circuit features. A ceramic core includes several ceramic layers. Several via holes are located in the first and second ceramic layers.
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 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Andrés E. Behrens Jr. whose telephone number is (571)-272-9096. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 7:30 AM-5:30 PM.
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, Alison Hindenlang can be reached on (571)-270-7001. 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.
/Andrés E. Behrens Jr./Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/JaMel M Nelson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743