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 02/18/2026 has been entered. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every objection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 09/18/2025.
Claim Status
Claims 1-2, and 5-20 are pending.
Claims 3-4 are currently withdrawn.
Claims 1, 7, 9-10, 14, 16, and 17 are currently amended.
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 9 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.
Claim 9 recites a limitation wherein the length of the RF electrode is defined in relation to the substrate. One ordinarily skilled in the art would recognize that substrates come in variety of sizes and shapes, thus the exact metes and bounds of the claims cannot be determined since the physical dimensions of the apparatus are claimed relative to an object that can have variable dimensions. See MPEP 2173.05(b)(II).
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 1-2, 5, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 20210366693 A1), further in view of Nakano (US 20210348273 A1) and Lin (US 20170278682 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Lee teaches a substrate support for a process chamber (Lee, Fig. 1, [0045], substrate support unit 150), comprising:
a pedestal having a support surface for supporting a substrate (Lee, Fig. 1, [0047], substrate support unit 150 is configured to support substrate S on the top surface), one or more heating elements disposed therein (Lee, Fig. 1, [0050], heating units HU1 and HU2 are disposed within substrate support unit 150), and an RF electrode disposed therein (Lee, Fig. 1, [0053], ground electrode GE1/GE2 are coupled to ground and are a path for RF power);
a hollow shaft coupled to a lower surface of the pedestal (Lee, Fig. 9, [0087]-[0090], unlabeled shaft is coupled to bottom surface of heating block 1, where ground rods 4/5 and power rods 10 for heating run through the hollow shaft); and
an RF rod extending through the hollow shaft and coupled to the RF electrode (Lee, Fig. 9, [0087]-[0090], ground rod 4 is coupled to RF ground electrode 2), and wherein the RF rod is coupled to an impedance adjustment device (Lee, Fig. 1, [0058], plasma intensity controller PC1, which includes an LC circuit, is coupled to ground electrode GE1 via the ground rod).
Lee fails to teach wherein an impedance of the RF rod is less than about 0.2 ohms, the RF rod is plated with a material comprising gold or silver, and at least one of a variable inductor or a variable resistor.
However, Lin teaches wherein the RF rod is plated with a material comprising gold or silver (Lin, [0023], RF rod is coated with Au or Ag).
Lin is considered analogous art 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 coating the RF rod of Lee with Au or Ag in the manner taught by Lin as doing so reduces the electrical resistivity/increases the skin depth of the RF rod, which minimizes heat generation as RF current travels through the rod (Lin, [0023]).
Modified Lee fails to teach wherein an impedance of the RF rod is less than about 0.2 ohms at least one of a variable inductor or a variable resistor.
However, Nakano teaches at least one of a variable inductor or a variable resistor (Nakano, Fig. 2A, [0058], resonance circuit 250B contains inductor 254A, where the inductor may be adjustable, [0041]), and wherein an impedance of the RF rod is less than about 0.2 ohms (Nakano, [0068]-[0069], impedance is adjusted to any suitable level between 0 ohms to 10k ohms).
Nakano is considered analogous art 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 made the inductor of Lee adjustable in the manner taught by Nakano as doing so would enable the option to adjust the resonance circuit by changing the inductance (Nakano, [0041]), instead of being limited to a fixed inductance value.
Regarding claim 2, Lee teaches wherein impedance adjustment device is disposed radially inward of the hollow shaft (Lee, Fig. 1, [0058], plasma intensity controller PC1, which includes the LC circuit, is disposed between the unlabeled shaft of substrate support unit 150).
Regarding claim 5, Lee teaches wherein the RF rod includes an upper portion and a lower portion, wherein a diameter of the upper portion is greater than a diameter of the lower portion (Lee, Fig. 10, [0089], RF rod 14 has an upper section diameter greater than the lower section).
Regarding claim 9, Lee teaches wherein the RF electrode extends from a center of the pedestal to radially beyond the substrate (Lee, Fig. 4A, [0079], ground electrodes 2/3 extend from center of pedestal out to beyond the edges of substrate 6).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 20210366693 A1) in view of Nakano (US 20210348273 A1) and Lin (US 20170278682 A1), as applied in claims 1-2, 5, and 9, and further in view of Chae (US 20220377848 A1).
The limitations of claims 1-2, 5, and 9 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 6, Lee teaches wherein the RF rod is connected to the RF electrode with copper, gold, silver, or nickel (Lee, Fig. 10, buffer electrode rod 13, located between ground electrode rod 12/electrode 11 and RF ground rod 14 contains Ni), but fails to explicitly teach wherein the RF rod connection is brazed.
However, Chae teaches wherein the RF rod connection is brazed (Chae, Fig. 4, [0048], rod 121 is connected to high-frequency electrode 112 via brazing of first rod connecting member 113).
Chae is considered analogous art 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 brazing to connect the rod and electrode as taught by Chae as doing so could greatly reduce a contact resistance between the connected members (Chae, [0048]-[0051).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 20210366693 A1) in view of Nakano (US 20210348273 A1) and Lin (US 20170278682 A1), as applied in claims 1-2, 5, and 9, and further in view of Unno (JP 7129587 B1, using attached English machine translation).
The limitations of claims 1-2, 5, and 9 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 7, modified Lee fails to teach wherein the RF rod has one or more slits near a lower end of the RF rod.
However, Unno teaches wherein the RF rod has one or more slits near a lower end of the RF rod (Unno, Fig. 13, [0050], constricted portion 632b is located at lower end of rod 630).
Unno is considered analogous art 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 indented portions as taught by Unno into the apparatus of modified Lee as doing so provides sufficient flexibility and can readily reduce local heat generation in the upper portion of the rod (Unno, [0050]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 20210366693 A1) in view of Nakano (US 20210348273 A1) and Lin (US 20170278682 A1), as applied in claims 1-2, 5, and 7, and further in view of Zhao (US 20030051665 A1).
The limitations of claims 1-2, 5, and 7 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 8, modified Lee fails to teach wherein a lower end of the RF rod is coupled to a ceramic insulator.
However, Zhao teaches wherein a lower end of the RF rod is coupled to a ceramic insulator (Zhao, Fig. 8B, [018]-[0119], ceramic plug 862 extends to and surrounds bottom of RF electrode rod 856).
Zhao is considered analogous art 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 surrounded the bottom of the RF rod of modified Lee with a ceramic material in the manner taught by Zhao as doing so would help suppress arcing from occurring between the RF rods and/or other conductors, such as the heater electrode rod(s) (Zhao, [0118]-[0119]).
Claims 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 20210366693 A1), further in view of Lin (US 20170278682 A1) and Nakano (US 20210348273 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Lee teaches a substrate support for a process chamber (Lee, Fig. 1, [0045], substrate support unit 150), comprising:
a pedestal having one or more heating elements (Lee, Fig. 1, [0050], heating units HU1 and HU2 are disposed within substrate support unit 150) and an RF electrode disposed therein (Lee, Fig. 1, [0053], ground electrode GE1/GE2 are coupled to ground and are a path for RF power) and a support surface for supporting a substrate (Lee, Fig. 1, [0047], substrate support unit 150 is configured to support substrate S on the top surface);
a hollow shaft coupled to a lower surface of the pedestal (Lee, Fig. 9, [0087]-[0090], unlabeled shaft is coupled to bottom surface of heating block 1, where ground rods 4/5 and power rods 10 for heating run through the hollow shaft); and
an RF rod extending through the hollow shaft and coupled to the RF electrode (Lee, Fig. 9, [0087]-[0090], ground rod 4 is coupled to RF ground electrode 2),
and wherein the RF rod is coupled to an impedance adjustment device (Lee, Fig. 1, [0058], plasma intensity controller PC1, which includes an LC circuit, is coupled to ground electrode GE1 via the ground rod).
Lee fails to teach wherein the RF rod comprises a first material plated with a second material different than the first material, and wherein the impedance adjustment device is configured to change an impedance of the RF rod by about 0.05 to about 0.1 ohms.
However, Lin teaches wherein the RF rod comprises a first material plated with a second material different than the first material (Lin, [0023], rod is made of Ni and plated with Au or Ag).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have incorporated coating the RF rod of Lee with Au or Ag in the manner taught by Lin as doing so reduces the electrical resistivity/increases the skin depth of the RF rod, which minimizes heat generation as RF current travels through the rod (Lin, [0023]).
Modified Lee fails to teach wherein the impedance adjustment device is configured to change an impedance of the RF rod by about 0.05 to about 0.1 ohms.
However, Nakano teaches wherein the RF rod comprises a first material plated with a second material different than the first material, and wherein the impedance adjustment device is configured to change an impedance of the RF rod by about 0.05 to about 0.1 ohms (Nakano, [0068]-[0069], impedance is adjusted to any suitable level between 0 ohms to 10k ohms).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have made the inductor of Lee adjustable in the manner taught by Nakano as doing so would enable the option to adjust the resonance circuit by changing the inductance (Nakano, [0041]), instead of being limited to a fixed inductance value.
Regarding claim 11, modified Lee fails to teach wherein the impedance adjustment device includes at least one of a variable inductor or a variable resistor.
However, Nakano teaches wherein the impedance adjustment device includes at least one of a variable inductor or a variable resistor (Nakano, Fig. 2A, [0058], resonance circuit 250B contains inductor 254A, where the inductor may be adjustable, [0041]).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have made the inductor of Lee adjustable in the manner taught by Nakano as doing so would enable the option to adjust the resonance circuit by changing the inductance (Nakano, [0041]), instead of being limited to a fixed inductance value.
Regarding claim 12, Lee teaches wherein the impedance adjustment device is disposed in the hollow shaft (Lee, Fig. 1, [0058], plasma intensity controller PC1, which includes an LC circuit, is disposed between the unlabeled shaft of substrate support unit 150).
Regarding claim 13, Lee teaches wherein at least one of: the RF rod is brazed to the RF electrode with copper, gold, silver, or nickel (Lee, Fig. 10, buffer electrode rod 13, located between ground electrode rod 12/electrode 11 and RF ground rod 14 contains Ni).
Lee fails to teach wherein the second material comprises nickel, gold, or silver.
However, Lin teaches the second material comprises nickel, gold, or silver (Lin, [0023], rod is made of Ni and plated with Au or Ag).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have incorporated coating the RF rod of Lee with Au or Ag in the manner taught by Lin as doing so reduces the electrical resistivity/increases the skin depth of the RF rod, which minimizes heat generation as RF current travels through the rod (Lin, [0023]).
Claims 14, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang (US 20150155140 A1), further in view of Lin (US 20170278682 A1), Lee (US 20210366693 A1), and Bokka (US 20180308669 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Jang teaches a process chamber (Jang, Fig. 1, [0040], apparatus 100), comprising:
a chamber body defining an interior volume therein (Jang, Fig. 1, [0040]-[0041], chamber 110 seals chamber form outside);
a substrate support disposed in the interior volume and including a pedestal (Jang, Fig. 1, [0040]-[0041], substrate support 130 is within chamber 110), having one or more heating elements (Jang, Fig. 1, [0051], heat generating member 134) and
an RF electrode disposed therein (Jang, Fig. 1, [0051], ground electrode 132) and a support surface for supporting a substrate (Jang, Fig. 1, substrate support 130 supports substrate 10on surface), and a hollow shaft coupled to a lower surface of the pedestal (Jang, Fig. 1, [0040]-[0041] unlabeled shaft is connected to bottom of substrate support 130); and an RF rod extending through the hollow shaft and coupled to the RF electrode (Jang, Fig. 1, [0046], ground rod 152 runs through the shaft and is connected to electrode 132).
Jang fails to teach wherein the RF rod is plated with a material comprising gold or silver, wherein the RF rod is coupled to an impedance adjustment device, and a gas distribution assembly disposed atop the chamber body and defining an upper boundary of the interior volume, wherein the gas distribution assembly includes a tuning ring that is electrically coupled to an RF tuner havinq a variable capacitor.
However, Lin teaches wherein the RF rod is plated with a material comprising gold or silver (Lin, [0023], rod is made of Ni and plated with Au or Ag).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have incorporated coating the RF rod of Jang with Au or Ag in the manner taught by Lin as doing so reduces the electrical resistivity/increases the skin depth of the RF rod, which minimizes heat generation as RF current travels through the rod (Lin, [0023]).
Modified Jang fails to teach wherein the RF rod is coupled to an impedance adjustment device, and a gas distribution assembly disposed atop the chamber body and defining an upper boundary of the interior volume, wherein the gas distribution assembly includes a tuning ring that is electrically coupled to an RF tuner havinq a variable capacitor.
However, Lee teaches wherein the RF rod is coupled to an impedance adjustment device (Lee, Fig. 1, [0058], plasma intensity controller PC1, which includes an LC circuit, is coupled to ground electrode GE1 via the ground rod).
Lee is considered analogous art 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 LC resonance circuit as taught by Lee into the apparatus of Jang as doing so would allow at least one of density and intensity of plasma in a reaction space to be adjusted (Lee, [0059]).
Modified Lee fails to teach a gas distribution assembly disposed atop the chamber body and defining an upper boundary of the interior volume, wherein the gas distribution assembly includes a tuning ring that is electrically coupled to an RF tuner havinq a variable capacitor.
However, Bokka teaches a gas distribution assembly disposed atop the chamber body and defining an upper boundary of the interior volume, wherein the gas distribution assembly includes a tuning ring that is electrically coupled to an RF tuner havinq a variable capacitor (Bokka, Fig. 1, [0025]-[0026], tuning ring 124 sits atop chamber body 102, and is coupled to RF tuner 135 having variable capacitor 128).
Bokka is considered analogous art 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 tuning ring and associated RF tuner as taught by Bokka into the apparatus of modified Jang as doing so would allow a mechanism to control RF utilizing active measurements from a V/I sensor (Bokka, [0026]).
Regarding claim 17, Jang fails to teach wherein the RF electrode comprises a mesh.
However, Lee teaches wherein the RF electrode comprises a mesh (Lee, Fig. 1, [0061], ground electrodes GE1/GE2 are a mesh type).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have incorporated the mesh style electrodes in the manner of Lee to the apparatus of modified Jang as doing so would allow for additional spatial control of plasma density or intensity on the substrate by changing the density of the mesh across areas of the electrode (Lee, [0061]).
Regarding claim 20, Jang teaches wherein the RF rod is disposed radially outward of a center of the pedestal (Jang, Fig. 1, [0046], rod 152 is set on an axis which is off center of the substrate support 130).
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang (US 20150155140 A1) in view of Lin (US 20170278682 A1), Lee (US 20210366693 A1), and Bokka (US 20180308669 A1) as applied in claims 14, 17, and 20, and further in view of Nakano (US 20210348273 A1).
The limitations of claims 14, 17, and 20 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 15, modified Jang fails to teach wherein the impedance adjustment device has at least one of a variable inductor or a variable resistor.
However, Nakano teaches wherein the impedance adjustment device has at least one of a variable inductor or a variable resistor (Nakano, Fig. 2A, [0058], resonance circuit 250B contains inductor 254A, where the inductor may be adjustable, [0041]).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have made the inductor of modified Jang adjustable in the manner taught by Nakano as doing so would enable the option to adjust the resonance circuit by changing the inductance (Nakano, [0041]), instead of being limited to a fixed inductance value.
Regarding claim 16, modified Jang fails to teach wherein the RF tuner includes a sensor disposed between the tuning ring and the variable capacitor.
However, Bokka teaches wherein the RF tuner includes a sensor disposed between the tuning ring and the variable capacitor (Bokka, Fig. 1, [0025]-[0026], sensor 130 is positioned between variable capacitor 128 and tuning ring 124).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have incorporated the tuning ring and associated RF tuner as taught by Bokka into the apparatus of modified Jang as doing so would allow a mechanism to control RF utilizing active measurements from a V/I sensor (Bokka, [0026]).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang (US 20150155140 A1) in view of Lin (US 20170278682 A1), Lee (US 20210366693 A1), and Bokka (US 20180308669 A1) as applied in claims 14, 17, and 20, and further in view of Chen (US 10125422 B2).
The limitations of claims 14, 17, and 20 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 18, Jang teaches a heating power source coupled to the one or more heating elements (Jang, Fig. 1, [0052], power source 94 is coupled to heat generating member 134 via power rod 156).
Jang fails to teach one or more RF filters disposed between the heating power source and the one or more heating elements.
However, Chen teaches one or more RF filters disposed between the heating power source and the one or more heating elements (Chen, Fig. 1, C5 L39-43, RF filters 160 are disposed between heating power source 165 and heating elements 150).
Chen is considered analogous art 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 RF filters as taught by Chen into the apparatus of modified Jang as doing so would block RF energy from reaching the heating power source (Chen, C5 L39-43).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang (US 20150155140 A1) in view of Lin (US 20170278682 A1), Lee (US 20210366693 A1), and Bokka (US 20180308669 A1) as applied in claims 14, 17, and 20, and further in view of Zhao (US 20030051665 A1)
The limitations of claims 14, 17, and 20 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 19, modified Jang fails to teach a spacer plate disposed in the hollow shaft at a lower end of the RF rod.
However, Zhao teaches a spacer plate disposed in the hollow shaft at a lower end of the RF rod (Zhao, Fig. 8B, [0119], insulative plug 863 is disposed in shaft 861 at a lower end of RF rod 856).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have incorporated the insulative plug of Zhao into the apparatus of modified Jang as doing so would help prevent arcing between the RF rod and other conductors (Zhao, [0119]).
Response to Arguments
In the Applicant’s response filed 02/18/2026, the Applicant asserts that that none of the cited prior art teach the claim limitations “wherein an impedance of the RF rod is less than about 0.2 ohms” of independent claim 1 as newly amended, and similarly “wherein the impedance adjustment device is configured to change an impedance of the RF rod by about 0.05 to about 0.1 ohms” of claim 10 as newly amended. In response to the amendments, the Examiner has newly rejected the claims in the “Claims Rejections” sections above using the combination of Lee modified by Nakano, thereby rendering the arguments moot.
The Applicant asserts that none of the cited prior art, particularly Lee, teach the claim limitations “wherein the RF rod has one or more slits near a lower end of the RF rod” of claim 7 as newly amended. In response to the amendments, the Examiner has newly rejected the claims in the “Claims Rejections” sections above using new reference Unno, thereby rendering the arguments moot.
The Applicant asserts that that none of the cited prior art, particularly Lee, teach the claim limitations “the RF electrode extends from a center of the pedestal to radially beyond the substrate” of claim 9 as newly amended. The Examiner has carefully considered the arguments but does not find them persuasive. In Fig. 4A of Lee, ground electrodes 2/3 extend from center of pedestal out to beyond the edges of substrate 6, thereby being capable of meeting the claim limitations (Lee, [0079]).
Additionally, the claim recites a limitation wherein the length of the RF electrode is defined in relation to the substrate. One ordinarily skilled in the art would recognize that substrates come in variety of sizes and shapes, thus the exact metes and bounds of the claims cannot be determined since the physical dimensions of the apparatus are claimed relative to an object that can have variable dimensions. See MPEP 2173.05(b)(II).
The Applicant asserts that none of the cited prior art teach the claim limitations “a gas distribution assembly disposed atop the chamber body and defining an upper boundary of the interior volume, wherein the gas distribution assembly includes a tuning ring that is electrically coupled to an RF tuner havinq a variable capacitor” of independent claim 14 as newly amended, and relatedly “wherein the RF tuner includes a sensor disposed between the tuning ring and the variable capacitor” of claim 16 as newly amended. In response to the amendments, the Examiner has newly rejected the claims in the “Claims Rejections” sections above using new reference Bokka, thereby rendering the arguments moot.
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
Prosecution Insights