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
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C 103
Applicant's arguments filed on 04/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have learned from Tokunaga and Ina how to design a sub-nano-level high precision writing field stitching lithography system that implements a non-contact sensing mechanism to detect the surface structure of a wafer. However, Ina teaches a device for avoiding wafer induced shift by using a sensor, “[t]he measurement sensor of the offset analyzer is not limited to the use of an AFM. A contact-type profiler, an SEM or a scan-type tunnel microscope, for example, may be used, as in the preceding embodiment (col. 13, lines 26-30).” A scanning tunneling microscope uses a non-contact sensing mechanism to detect a surface structure, and instead relies on monitoring current as the tip scans a surface. Therefore, the cited references reasonably suggest how to detect the surface structure of a wafer without contacting the wafer surface.
Claim Rejections – 35- U.S.C 112
All claim rejections regarding antecedent basis of claims 11 and 12 are withdrawn.
The remarks take the position that the amendments of claims 11 and 12 avoid 112(f) interpretations of the “electron beam control system” and the “pattern generator” and overcome rejections under 112(b) and 112(a).
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term "means" or "step" or a term used as a substitute for "means" that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
The terms “pattern generator” and “electron beam control system” provide no specific structural meaning.
(B) the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word "for" (e.g., "means for") or
another linking word or phrase, such as "configured to" or "so that";
“the pattern generator is configured to send a corrected electron beam scanning control signal after operation processing to the electron beam control system”
“the electron beam control system is connected to and controls a shutter of the focusing system on the electron beam column and a deflection coil”
and
(C) the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
The claims do not provide any structure for the pattern generator of the electron beam control system. The claims have been amended to specify the pattern generator is connected to the nano- contact sensor and the electron beam control system and the electron beam control system is connected to the focusing system, the deflection coil, the control computer, and the secondary electron imaging signal acquisition device. Specifying what the “pattern generator” is connected to does not provide sufficient structure for how the generator is capable of sending a corrected signal. Further, specifying the what the “electron beam control system” is connected to does not provide sufficient structure for controlling a shutter of the focusing system and controlling a deflection coil.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 04/16/2026. These drawings are acceptable.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“electron beam control system” in claims 11 and 12.
“pattern generator” in claim 11
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
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.
Claims 11-12 are 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.
Claims 11-12 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim limitations “electron beam control system” in claims 11 and 12 and “pattern generator” in claim 11 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
The “electron beam control system”, in claims 11 and 12, is prescribed with a function of controlling the shutter of the focusing system and the deflection coil and receiving the secondary electron imaging signal acquisition device. However, no structure is provided for the limitation in the specification or the drawings. The “electron beam control system” is not described in such a way to convey, to one skilled in the relevant art, what this limitation is. For the purposes of examination, the “electron beam control system” will be interpreted to be a processor.
The “pattern generator”, in claim 11 is prescribed with a function of sending the corrected electron beam scanning control signal after the operation processing to the electron beam control system under the control of the control computer. However, neither the specifications nor the drawing provides any structure for the “pattern generator.” The pattern generator is not described in such a way to convey, to one skilled in the relevant, art what this limitation is. For the purposes of examination, the “pattern generator” will be interpreted to be memory storage.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 11 and 12 are further 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 11 recites “the electron beam control system is connected to and controls a shutter of the focusing system on the electron beam column and a deflection coil.” It is unclear if the electron beam control system is connected to the shutter of the focusing system, or the focusing system. In the event the electron beam control system is connected to a shutter of the focusing system, it is unclear how a control system can be connected to a shutter. It is also unclear if the electron beam control system is also connected to and configured to control the deflection coil. For the purposes of examination, the electron beam control system will be interpreted to be connected to and configured to control the focusing system and the deflection coil.
Claims 11 and 12 use the phrasing “connected to” repeatedly to describe the relationship between parts of the apparatus. It is unclear if “connected to” refers to a physical connection or communication between two parts. For the purposes of examination, “connected to” will refer to communication between two parts.
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.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tokunaga (20010003655), hereinafter referred to as Tokunaga, and in view of Ina et al. (US 6636311), hereinafter referred to as Ina.
Regarding claim 10, Tokunaga teaches a sub-nano-level high-precision writing field stitching lithography system, comprising a stationary chamber (31) (fig. 6 as annotated below) and a stage (37) in the stationary chamber (fig. 6 as annotated below);
an electron microscope (fig. 6 as annotated below), and a wafer workbench (38) are arranged on the stage (37) (fig. 6 as annotated below);
an electron beam column (32) is provided on the electron microscope (fig. 6 as annotated below);
PNG
media_image1.png
546
867
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the wafer workbench (38) is provided with a numerical control driving device (371) (stage control unit 112 (para. [0006])) for dragging a front, back and/or left, right and/or upward, downward movement of the wafer workbench (an X/Y stage 109 for loading thereon the wafer 200 to position it in X-axis direction and Y-axis direction (para. 0006])).
Tokunaga fails to teach at least one nano-contact sensor arranged on the stage and the wafer workbench is provided with a numerical control device for changing an angle of the wafer workbench, wherein the nano-contact sensor (39) is a tunnel electron probe sensor, a nano-level surface work function measurement sensor, or a combination thereof.
However, Ina teaches at least one nano-contact sensor arranged on the stage (fig. 18 as annotated below) and the wafer workbench is provided with a numerical control device for changing an angle of the wafer workbench (fig. 2C as annotated below), wherein the nano-contact sensor (39) is a tunnel electron probe sensor, a nano-level surface work function measurement sensor, or a combination thereof (The measurement sensor of the offset analyzer is not limited to the use of an AFM. A contact-type profiler, an SEM or a scan-type tunnel microscope, for example, may be used, as in the preceding embodiment (col. 13, lines 26-30)).
PNG
media_image2.png
698
854
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
518
932
media_image3.png
Greyscale
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 device described in Tokunaga to include the teachings of Ina such that the tilt stage 23, disclosed in Ina is added to the X/Y stage 109 of Tokunaga. Doing so allows users to more precisely correct “the overall focus state (col. 8, line 36)” of the wafer.
Further 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 device described in Tokunaga to include the nano-contact sensor (scan-type tunnel microscope), taught by Ina, in order to trace “the surface of the alignment mark portion (col. 20, line 37-38)” to calculate an offset value and achieve wafer alignment.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tokunaga and Ina as applied to claim 10 above, and in further view of Lo et al. (US 20200133139), hereinafter referred to as Lo.
Regarding claim 11, Tokunaga teaches the system of claim 10, wherein the lithography system further comprises a control computer (42) (main control unit 115), a pattern generator (46) (Drawing pattern data or like are stored in a memory 113 or 114 or a dedicated memory (not shown) or like. The alignment deflector 107 uses the drawing pattern data read out, to thereby control the alignment deflector 107, so that a scanning electron-beam (that is, electron-beam deflected corresponding to the drawing pattern data) may be deflected by the alignment deflector 107, thus drawing a pattern (para. [0008])), and an electron beam control system (control unit 111);
the control computer (main control unit 115) is connected to the pattern generator (46), the electron beam control system (34), and the numerical control driving device (371) (fig. 2 as annotated below);
the pattern generator (46) is connected to the electron beam control system (34) (Fig. 2 as annotated below);
[AltContent: textbox (the pattern generator (46) is connected to the electron beam control system (34))][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image4.png
980
1103
media_image4.png
Greyscale
the pattern generator (46) is configured to send a corrected electron beam scanning control signal after operation processing to the electron beam control system (34) under the control of the control computer (42) (fig. 2 as annotated below)
PNG
media_image5.png
795
1101
media_image5.png
Greyscale
and the electron beam control system (34) (control unit 111) is connected to and controls the deflection coil ( 35) (alignment deflector 107) (a alignment deflector control unit 111 for controlling the alignment deflector 107 (para. [0006])).
Tokunaga fails to teach the pattern generator (46) is connected to the nano-contact sensor (39); the nano-contact sensor (39) is configured to send a collected in-situ alignment coordinate identification signal (40) and/or an electron beam drift signal on the measured wafer to the pattern generator (46) under the control of the control computer (42); and the electron beam control system (34) is connected to and controls a shutter (33A) of the focusing system {on the electron beam column (32).
However, Ina teaches the pattern generator (46) (Simulator) is connected to the nano-contact sensor (39) (AFM 103); the nano-contact sensor (39) is configured to send a collected in- situ alignment coordinate identification signal (40) and/or an electron beam drift signal on the measured wafer to the pattern generator (46) under the control of the control computer (42) (An AFM (atomic force microscope) 103 for measuring the surface of a wafer with or without a resist thereon, and a CPU (central processing unit) 104 for controlling the offset analyzer as a whole and having a simulator for calculating an alignment offset on the basis of the surface shape detected (para. [0019])).
The AFM communicates with the CPU which contains the pattern generator (simulator). Therefore, the pattern generator and the nano-contact sensor are connected.
It would have beam obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device described in Tokunaga to include the teachings of Ina such that the nano-contact sensor (AFM), disclosed in Ina, is connected to the pattern generator and sends an alignment coordination signal under the control of the of a control computer (AFM measures the surface of the wafer. The connection allows This measurement is then used to calculate an alignment offset under the control of the central processing unit.) Doing so allows “for accomplishing high precision alignment (col. 9, lines 37-39).”
Further, Lo teaches, and the electron beam control system (34) (controller 135) (The controller 135 may control the electron source 102 to adjust the intensity of electron beam 134 (para. [0030])) connected to and controls a shutter (33A) of the focusing system {on the electron beam column (32) (fig. 1A as annotated below).
[AltContent: textbox (Electron beam control system is connected to the focusing system )][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image6.png
503
576
media_image6.png
Greyscale
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 device described in Tokunaga to include the teachings of Lo by adding the shutter-deflection unit 108 disclosed in Lo onto the electron beam column in Tokunaga such that the electron beam control system (Tokunaga, main control unit 115) is connected to and configured to control the shutter-deflection unit 108, as taught by Lo. Doing so allows the main controller to turn one or more electron beams on and off by a set of commands so the layout pattern can be generated in energy sensitive material (Lo, para. [0072])).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tokunaga, in view of Ina and Lo as applied to claim 11 above, and in further view of Nakano et al. (US 5334846), hereinafter referred to as Nakano.
Regarding claim 12, Tokunaga teaches the system of claim 11, wherein the field stitching system further comprises a secondary electron imaging signal acquisition device (36) disposed on the electron beam column (32) (The reflected electron detector 108 uses a diode detector to trap a reflected electron (that is, secondary electron) from the reflective wafer surface when electrons are applied onto an alignment mark formed as a recess in the wafer 200, thus detecting a position of the alignment mark based on a difference between an amount of reflection from the alignment mark and that from its surrounding (para. [0007]));
the secondary electron imaging signal acquisition device (36) collects a secondary image scanned by the electron beam and feeds the secondary image back to the control computer (42) (fig. 2 as annotated below) and the electron beam control system (34) is connected to the control computer (42).
PNG
media_image7.png
648
966
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Tokunaga fails to teach the secondary electron imaging signal acquisition device is connected to the electron beam control system and the secondary electron imaging signal acquisition device feeds the secondary image through the electron beam control system (34).
However, Nakano teaches the secondary electron imaging signal acquisition device is connected to the electron beam control system and the secondary electron imaging signal acquisition device feeds the secondary image back to the control computer (42) through the electron beam control system (34) (The electron beam control unit 26 recognizes the position detection mark M by carrying out a signal processing on a mark detection signal S4 which is output from the secondary electron detector 23 (col. 8, lines 8-12)) (Fig 1 as annotated below).
PNG
media_image8.png
362
691
media_image8.png
Greyscale
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 device described in Tokunaga to include the teachings of Nakano by rearranging the order of operations to feed the secondary image through the electron beam control system (Nakano, electron beam control 5) before sending it to the electron beam control system as taught by Tokunaga. Doing so allows the electron beam control to carry out signal processing of the secondary electron image before reaching the main controller.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tokunaga in view of Ina, as applied to claim 10 above, and in further view of Tokita Toshinobu (JP 2005347573 A), hereinafter referred to as Toshinobu.
Regarding claim 14, Tokunaga fails to teach the system of claim 10, wherein the nano-contact sensor (39) is provided with a lever-type sensing contact arm (391), and the lever-type sensing contact arm (391) is equipped with a needle tip sensing contact (392).
However, Toshinobu teaches wherein the nano-contact sensor (39) is provided with a lever-type sensing contact arm (391), and the lever-type sensing contact arm (391) is equipped with a needle tip sensing contact (392) (fig. 6 as annotated below).
PNG
media_image9.png
652
822
media_image9.png
Greyscale
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 device described in Tokunaga to include the teachings of Toshinobu, in view of Ina, such that the nano-contact sensor disclosed in Ina (Ina; probe of the atomic force microscope 78) is provided with a lever-type sensing contact arm. Doing so allows for the “displacement of the cantilever 5 in the Z direction” to be measured (Toshinobu; para. [0017]).
Claims 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tokunaga and Ina as applied to claim 10 above, and in further view of Hantschel et al. (US 20210116476), hereinafter referred to as Hantschel.
Regarding claim 17, Tokunaga teaches and the electron beam column (32) is directly facing the exposure area (22) of the wafer on the workbench (38) (fig. 2 as annotated below).
PNG
media_image10.png
636
810
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Tokunaga does not teach the system of claim 10, wherein the field stitching system comprises two rows of the nano-contact sensor (39) arranged on both sides of the electron beam column (32), four contact sensors in each row.
However, Hantchel teaches wherein the field stitching system comprises two rows of the nano-contact sensor (39) arranged on both sides of the electron beam column (32), four contact sensors in each row (fig. 1 as annotated below);
PNG
media_image11.png
412
697
media_image11.png
Greyscale
It would have been 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 device described in Tokunaga, in view of Ina, to include two rows of four of the nano-contact sensors (Ina; probe of the atomic force microscope 78), as taught by Hantschel. Doing so, allows for the scanning of a larger substrate more efficiently and with different shaped tips, as taught in Hantschel. Further, 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 device described in Tokunaga to place the rows of contact sensors on either side of the electron beam in order to be able to measure a majority of the surface of the wafer even while the electron beam is on, and to be able to measure the surface faster with more accuracy.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated any 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 MICA J. EINHORN whose telephone number is (571)272-4641. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 7:30am-5pm.
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, Robert Kim can be reached at (571) 272-2293. 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.
/MICA JILLIAN EINHORN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2881
/WYATT A STOFFA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights