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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of invention I and species of Fig. 1, 9 in the reply filed on 11/25/25 is acknowledged.
Claims 9, 11-15, 19, 20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention and species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Additionally, it was found that claims 2, 3 are not directed to elected Fig. 1, 9 but at least to non-elected Fig. 10 where the third nozzle is between the first and second nozzles and are also withdrawn. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11/25/25.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 6-8, 16, 18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over at least claims 1, 3-5, 16, 20 of U.S. Patent No. 11555246. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because at least the claims 1, 3-5, 16, 20 of patent ‘246 encompass the subject matter and scope of the claims 1, 6-8, 16, 18, respectively, of the instant application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 7, 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Takebayashi (US 20140213069).
Regarding claim 1. Takebayashi teaches in fig. 1, 2 a substrate processing apparatus (process furnace 202 [29]) comprising: a substrate retainer (boat 217 [30 63]) configured to support a substrate (holds a stack of wafers, fig. 1 [30]); a tubular part (inner tube 204 [29]) having a process chamber (process chamber 201 is inside/part of 204 [30] fig. 2) configured to accommodate the substrate retainer (fig. 1, 2 201/204 contains the 217 w/ wafers), the tubular part comprising: a discharge part (exhaust hole 204a [32]) configured to discharge a fluid in the process chamber to an outside thereof (the gas inside 204/201 is exhausted to the outer tube and exhaust duct 231 via 204a [32 44] fig. 1), and a supply part (the long rectangular opening of the spare chamber 201a [41] that opens into/faces 201, fig. 1, 2) configured to supply a process gas capable of processing the substrate into the process chamber (fig. 1, 2, [41-55] the gases from the nozzles 249a-d, g are emitted through the opening of 201a into 201, the gases used for processing the wafers on the boat [50-64]) and disposed at a position different from the discharge part (fig. 1, 2, said opening of 201a is opposite to 204a); a nozzle chamber (said spare chamber 201a containing all the ga nozzles 249a-d, g, fig. 1, 2) configured to communicate with the process chamber through the supply part (as discussed, 201a opens into 201 via the opening of 201a, fig. 1, 2);
a plurality of nozzles (said gas nozzles 249a-d, g fig. 1, 2, and also 249ef shown in fig. 3, 10, 11 [41-55]) arranged in the nozzle chamber in a circumferential direction (249a-g arranged along/in the direction of the arcuate circumference of 201a fig. 2, 10) and comprising: a first nozzle (at least one of the nozzles 249d,e fig. 3, 10-11) extending in an axial direction (all the nozzles extend in a vertical axial direction, fig. 1-3, 10 11) and provided with, on a side surface thereof, a plurality of first ejection holes (all the gas nozzles 249a-g have respective series of holes 250a-g on an inward side, fig. 1-3, 10 11 [41-44]) configured to eject the process gas flowing in the first nozzle into the process chamber through the supply part (eg 250de of 249de ejects process gas from the said nozzle(s) into 201 via the said opening of 201a, fig. 1-3, 10; it is noted the process gas is not an apparatus structure but an intended use that can be replaced with different combinations and types of gases according to a user’s process needs, MPEP 2114); a second nozzle (eg central nozzle 249c fig. 3, 10 11) extending in the axial direction (fig. 3, 10, 11 it extends vertically) and provided with, on a side surface thereof, a plurality of second ejection holes (eg gas ejection holes 250c on its inner surface side, fig. 1-3, 10, 11 [41-44]) configured to eject the process gas flowing in the second nozzle into the process chamber through the supply part (same concept w/ the 1st nozzle, 250c ejects gas from 249c into 201 via the connecting opening between 201a and 201, fig. 1-3, 10 11);
and a third nozzle (one of the two gas nozzles 249b, f fig. 3, 10 11) extending in the axial direction (they extend vertically, fig. 1-3, 10 11) and provided with, on a side surface thereof, a plurality of third ejection holes (eg holes 250b, f on inner facing sides of 249bf fig. 1-3, 10 11) configured to eject the process gas flowing in the third nozzle into the process chamber through the supply part (same concept w/ the previous nozzles, eg 250bf of 249bf ejects process gas from the said nozzle(s) into 201 via the said opening of 201a, fig. 1-3, 10 11; again, the gas is an intended use as prev discussed); and a plurality of gas supply pipes (232a-g [42 47-64]) through which the plurality of nozzles communicate with a plurality of gas supply sources (all/each of the nozzles are/is connected w/ said respectively lettered 232a-g pipes to at least one gas source from gas sources eg inert gas via 235ag [47 48], gas tanks 603cf [54 112], oxygen via 220 [52], vaporizer 70d [61], 270e [117] fig. 3), respectively, wherein the process gas comprises a first gas, a second gas and a third gas, (as discussed, the gas is an intended process ingredient/raw material and not an apparatus structure, and may be exchanged according to user requirement, MPEP 2114) wherein at least one of the first gas and the second gas comprises an element constituting a film formed on the substrate (as discussed, the materials/gases used in the process are intended uses and may be exchanged/replaced),
the first nozzle comprises two gas nozzles (as disc, 249d, e), one of which is configured to eject the first gas and the other of which is configured to eject the third gas (the two nozzles can eject different gases/vapors generated from different tanks/sources 291d vs 291e, fig. 3 if different materials are used as part of intended use), the second nozzle is provided between the two gas nozzles of the first nozzle (249c is between 249 d, e fig. 11) such that the third gas is supplied while the first gas is being ejected through the first nozzle and the second gas is supplied while the first gas is not being ejected through the first nozzle (these are intended processing/operations that do not further add structure to the apparatus, MPEP 2114; various controls/operations may be applied such as different controlling/turn on/off combos of the valves 233a-g, to individually control gas flow to be on or off ejected from the nozzles even when the respective gases are supplied such as 1st, 3rd gases are both supplied and ejected by turning on 233 e and d on, and also supplying the 2nd gas, which can be valve 233c on or off on the middle pipe 249c, and turning off the first gas on one of the first nozzles by turning off one of their valves 233d or e),
the third nozzle comprises two gas nozzles (as discussed 249b and f) provided adjacent to each of the two gas nozzles of the first nozzle, respectively (fig. 11 249b and f are next to 249 d and e), and one of which is configured to eject the third gas (as disc, the gas type is an intended use and can be changed/replaced; the same gas from 291d or e or a carrier gas can be applied to one of those applied to 249b or f as part of an intended use, fig. 3), and a supply amount or a flow rate of the third gas ejected through the plurality of first ejection holes or the plurality of third ejection holes is less than that of the second gas ejected through the plurality of second ejection holes (this is entirely operation of the apparatus/intended use, and different relative flow rates may be set by controlling the valves and MFCs of each the nozzles of the first/third ejection holes ejecting a ‘third’ gas and of the 2nd nozzle of the 2nd ejection holes ejecting the ‘second’ gas, such as controlling each of 235debf to be less in flow rate vs the flow from 235c).
Regarding claim 4. Takebayashi teaches the substrate processing apparatus of claim 1, wherein the two gas nozzles of the third nozzle are configured to be supplied with the third gas (as discussed, the gases are intended uses and may be exchanged to use the same or different gases depending on the desired/intended use) at the same time through one or more of the gas supply pipes and eject the third gas (as discussed, this is an intended use operation; the said valves can control the gas flow through said third nozzles from the gas pipes to eject gas simultaneously, i.e. both their valves open), and wherein the two gas nozzles of the first nozzle are configured to be supplied with the first gas at the same time through one or more of the gas supply pipes and eject the third gas (again, this is an intended use operation, the two nozzles can be supplied with eg, a mixture of first and third gases and also eject this mixture containing a third gas when the valves are open).
Regarding claim 7. Takebayashi teaches the substrate processing apparatus of claim 1, wherein an ejection time period during which the third gas is ejected through either the first nozzle or the third nozzle at least partly overlaps with an ejection time period during which the second gas is ejected through the second nozzle (this is intended use operation that does not structurally limit the apparatus, both valves of the second and 1st/3rd nozzles can be turned on, and the third and second gases can be used and flown out as part of a desired/intended use process), and the first ejection holes of the first nozzle, the second ejection holes of the second nozzle and the third ejection holes of the third nozzle are open toward a center of the substrate or parallel to one another (fig. 1-3, 10, 11 all the holes of all the nozzles are all opened to the reaction chamber w/ the boat and wafer centers to flow gas to vapor process the wafers; they are also parallel to each other since they are along the nozzles which are also parallel to each other).
Regarding claim 8. Takebayashi teaches the substrate processing apparatus of claim 1, wherein the first nozzle is further configured to intermittently eject the third gas, in a state where neither of the first gas and the second gas is being supplied into the process chamber (again this is an intended operation/use, the valve(s) to both nozzles of said first nozzle can be turned on-off intermittently/pulsed and the valve to the 2nd nozzle is turned off and no first gas is provided or its valve turned off, such as for a carrier gas being the 1st gas).
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.
Claim(s) 5, 6, 10, 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takebayashi (US 20140213069) in view of Yoshida (US 20170294318).
Regarding claim 5. Takebayashi teaches the substrate processing apparatus of claim 1, but does not teach wherein the supply part comprises: one or more first supply holes communicating between the plurality of first ejection holes and the process chamber; one or more second supply holes communicating between the plurality of second ejection holes and the process chamber; and one or more third supply holes communicating between the plurality of third ejection holes and the process chamber, wherein the one or more first supply holes, the one or more second supply holes, and the one or more third supply holes are distributed over a substrate arrangement region wherein a plurality of substrates including the substrate are disposed.
However, Yoshida teaches in fig. 2, 4-7 the supply part (the side/252 of the protruded gas supply area facing inside 201 and having holes) comprises: one or more first supply holes communicating between the plurality of first ejection holes and the process chamber; one or more second supply holes communicating between the plurality of second ejection holes and the process chamber; and one or more third supply holes communicating between the plurality of third ejection holes and the process chamber (all the nozzles and their respective ejection holes such as 234a-c have their own respective supply holes 235 that allow the respective ejection holes to flow gas into chamber 201), wherein the one or more first supply holes, the one or more second supply holes, and the one or more third supply holes are distributed over a substrate arrangement region wherein a plurality of substrates including the substrate are disposed (all the holes 235 are aligned to face a stacked region of wafers on a boat, fig. 1, 2, 4, 7 [66 67]). It would be obvious to those skilled in the art at invention time to modify Takebayashi to improve efficiency of gas supply [67].
Regarding claim 6. Takebayashi teaches the substrate processing apparatus of claim 1, but does not teach wherein the nozzle chamber comprises a first nozzle chamber, a second nozzle chamber and a third nozzle chamber, consecutively disposed in the circumferential direction at an outer circumference side of the tubular part, the second nozzle is disposed in the second nozzle chamber, the first nozzle is disposed in each of the first nozzle chamber and the third nozzle chamber, and the third nozzle is disposed either at both sides of the second nozzle in the second nozzle chamber or in each of the first nozzle chamber and the third nozzle chamber.
However, Yoshida teaches in fig. 1 2 4 7 the nozzle chamber 222 comprises a first nozzle chamber, a second nozzle chamber and a third nozzle chamber, consecutively disposed in the circumferential direction at an outer circumference side of the tubular part (consecutive chambers [49-52] three nozzle chambers next to each other consecutively in the arcuate direction at the outer circum side of the tube/cylinder 209), the second nozzle is disposed in the second nozzle chamber, the first nozzle is disposed in each of the first nozzle chamber and the third nozzle chamber, and the third nozzle is disposed either at both sides of the second nozzle in the second nozzle chamber or in each of the first nozzle chamber and the third nozzle chamber (it is noted the all the nozzles are distributed amongst the nozzle chambers to provide balanced gas flow, as shown in fig. 2, therefore if applied to Takebayashi fig. 11, in order to distribute the nozzles in 3 chambers in a balanced manner with at least one nozzle per chamber, one skilled in the art and math would divide 7 nozzles into 3 spots as 3/1/3 or 2/3/2 or 1/5/1, where the center nozzle is the 2nd, the next adjacent being the first and next outer adjacent third nozzles as in Takebayashi fig. 11 and disc in claim 1, the center chamber being 2nd, and outer being 1/3 nozzle chambers). It would be obvious to those skilled in the art at the time of invention to modify Takebayashi to prevent unwanted mixing/byproducts from forming [52-54]. Additionally, per MPEP 2144.04, it has been held that differences in arrangement did not render the claims patentable.
Regarding claim 10. Takebayashi teaches the substrate processing apparatus of claim 1, wherein the first nozzle is provided with the plurality of first ejection holes (as disc in claim 1) corresponding to a plurality of substrates including the substrate (fig. 1-3 10 11, the holes of the 1st nozzle all face/correspond to a stack/boat of wafers), the second nozzle is provided with the plurality of second ejection holes (as disc in claim 1) corresponding to the plurality of substrates (fig. 1-3 10 11, all the nozzles and their holes face the wafer boat/stack), but does not teach the supply part comprises: a plurality of first supply holes, each of which is formed between corresponding one of the first ejection holes and corresponding one of the plurality of substrates; a plurality of second supply holes, each of which is formed between corresponding one of the second ejection holes and corresponding one of the plurality of substrates; and a plurality of third supply holes, each of which is formed between corresponding one of the first ejection holes and corresponding one of the plurality of substrates, and at least one of the plurality of first supply holes, the plurality of second supply holes and the plurality of third supply holes are horizontal slits extending in a horizontal direction.
However, Yoshida teaches in fig. 2 4-7 a plurality of first supply holes, each of which is formed between corresponding one of the first ejection holes and corresponding one of the plurality of substrates; a plurality of second supply holes, each of which is formed between corresponding one of the second ejection holes and corresponding one of the plurality of substrates; and a plurality of third supply holes, each of which is formed between corresponding one of the first ejection holes and corresponding one of the plurality of substrates (all the nozzles and their respective ejection holes such as 234a-c have their own respective supply holes 235 that is between the respective ejection holes to flow gas into chamber 201 and the stack of wafers), and at least one of the plurality of first supply holes, the plurality of second supply holes and the plurality of third supply holes are horizontal slits extending in a horizontal direction (fig. 4 all 3 sets of supply holes are horizontal slits). It would be obvious to those skilled in the art at invention time to modify Takebayashi to improve efficiency of gas supply [67].
Regarding claim 16. Takebayashi teaches in fig. 1-3, 10 11 a substrate processing apparatus comprising: a substrate retainer configured to support a substrate (see claim 1); a tubular part having a process chamber configured to accommodate the substrate retainer (claim 1), the tubular part comprising: a discharge part configured to discharge a fluid in the process chamber to an outside thereof (claim 1), and a supply part configured to supply a process gas capable of processing the substrate into the process chamber and disposed at a position different from the discharge part (claim 1); a nozzle chamber configured to communicate with the process chamber through the supply part (claim 1); a plurality of nozzles arranged in the nozzle chamber in a circumferential direction (claim 1) and comprising :a first nozzle extending in an axial direction and provided with, on a side surface thereof, a plurality of first ejection holes configured to eject the process gas flowing in the first nozzle into the process chamber (claim 1)
a second nozzle extending in the axial direction and provided with, on a side surface thereof, a plurality of second ejection holes configured to eject the process gas flowing in the second nozzle into the process chamber (claim 1) and a third nozzle extending in the axial direction and provided with, on a side surface thereof, a plurality of third ejection holes configured to eject the process gas flowing in the third nozzle into the process chamber (claim 1), but does not teach at least one or more of each of first, second and third supply holes through which the first, second and third ejection holes eject the process gas in the first, second and third nozzles into the process chamber respectively, However, Yoshida teaches at least one or more of each of first, second and third supply holes (fig. 4, there is a series of 3 vertical columns of horizontal gas supply slits, see claim 5) through which the first, second and third ejection holes eject the process gas in the first, second and third nozzles into the process chamber respectively (see claim 5, i.e. the 3 columns of slits are through which the 1-3 sets of ejection holes eject the gas in the 1-3 gas nozzles associated with each column of slit, into the chamber 201). It would be obvious to those skilled in the art at invention time to modify Takebayashi to improve efficiency of gas supply [67].
a plurality of gas supply pipes through which the plurality of the nozzles communicate with a plurality of gas supply sources, respectively (see claim 1, each of the nozzles has at least one gas supply connected via a gas pipe); and a controller (controller 280 [32 66-70] fig. 1 4); wherein the process gas comprises a first gas, a second gas, and a third gas, wherein at least one of the first gas and the second gas comprises an element constituting a film formed on the substrate, the first nozzle comprises two gas nozzles, each of which is configured to eject the third gas (see claim 1), the second nozzle is provided in the axial direction of the tubular part (all the nozzles are vertically directed wrt to said tubular chamber, fig. 1-3, 10 11) and between the two gas nozzles of the first nozzle (see claim 1), the second nozzle configured to eject the second gas (as disc in claim 1, i.e. the 2nd nozzle, via its 2nd ejection holes, ejecting 2nd gas), the third nozzle is provided adjacent to one of the two gas nozzles of the first nozzle and configured to eject the third gas (see claim 1),
and the controller is configured to control a flow rate or a flow velocity of the second gas ejected from the plurality of the second ejection holes of the second nozzle and a flow rate or a flow velocity of the third gas ejected from at least either one of the plurality of the first ejection holes of the first nozzle and the plurality of the third ejection holes of the third nozzle (as discussed the controller controls/sets the flow rate of all the gas thru the nozzles and their holes via control of MFCs/valves [66-70] fig. 4), such that the second gas ejected out of the nozzle chamber through the one or more second supply holes is prevented from flowing back into the nozzle chamber (Takebayashi utilizes the same peripheral most nozzle inert gas flow [46-48] as the applicant pgpub [91] to prevent backflow; furthermore, as shown in fig. 1, all the flow is directed from the nozzles towards the opposite exhaust end and pumped out at 231, hence the reactor provides a cross-flow from nozzle, across the wafers and out the exhaust and does not do reverse flow).
Regarding claim 17. Takebayashi in view of Yoshida, teaches the substrate processing apparatus of claim 16, wherein at least one of the two gas nozzles of the first nozzle are further configured to eject the third gas (see claim 1), wherein the controller is further configured to control a thickness of the film formed on the substrate to have either a convex distribution or a concave distribution (during processing, the thickness uniformity of the film on the substrate is adjusted or controlled which means the thickness distribution is adjusted across the wafer surface/at least temporal adjustments/instances of local non-uniformities, i.e. convexity/concavity, have to occur for this adjustment to occur [63 121]) by controlling the flow rate or the flow velocity of the third gas exhausted both through the plurality of first ejection holes and the plurality of third ejection holes while the second gas is being ejected through the second nozzle (during processing all the gases and all the nozzles are controlled to flow the gases, fig. 6-7 and have their gas flow rate/velocities controlled via the MFC/valves, as prev discussed).
Regarding claim 18. Takebayashi in view of Yoshida, teaches the substrate processing apparatus of claim 16, wherein the second nozzle is provided with the second ejection holes (see claim 1) disposed along a substrate arrangement region where the substrate is arranged in the process chamber (fig. 1-3 10, 11, the nozzles all have holes along the height of the boat/stack of wafers in the chamber), and the third nozzle is provided with the third ejection holes disposed at least one of an upper portion and a lower portion of the substrate arrangement region (as discussed all the nozzles have holes along the length of the boat/stack of wafers including top and bottom regions of the stack/boat) without any third ejection hole being disposed at a center portion between the upper portion and the lower portion of the substrate arrangement region (there is at least a center region of each nozzle corresponding to the center of the wafer stack/boat between said top/bottom regions, where there is a solid region/solid part of the nozzle between adjacent holes at the center, as can be clearly seen in fig. 1).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YUECHUAN YU whose telephone number is (571)272-7190. 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.
/YUECHUAN YU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718