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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Applicants' amendment of the claims, filed on 04/10/2026, in response to the rejection of claims 1-13 from the non-final office action, mailed on 01/12/2026, by amending claims 1-5, 7, 12 and adding new claims 17-19, is acknowledged and will be addressed below.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 14-16 remain withdrawn from consideration as pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
(1) The “to deform” of Claim 1 should be “to be deformed”.
(2) Applicant is advised that should claim 4 be found allowable, claim 6 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim interpretation
MPEP citations:
It has been held that claim language that simply specifies an intended use or field of use for the invention generally will not limit the scope of a claim (See MPEP 2106; Walter, 618 F.2d at 769, 205 USPQ at 409). When apparatus is capable of performing such functions, it is considered to meet the claim limitations. Additionally, in apparatus claims, intended use must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim (See MPEP 2111.02, 2115; In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458,459 (CCPA 1963). When the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent (See MPEP 2112.01; In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430,433 (CCPA 1977). It has further been held that expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim. Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969); and the inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. In re Young, 75 F.2d 966, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)). While features of an apparatus may be described either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus MUST be distinguished from prior art in terms of structure rather than function (See MPEP §2114).
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.
Claims 2, 4, 7 and 17-18 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.
(1) The “an inner peripheral side” and “an outer peripheral side” of Claim 2 are not clear, because it is not clear which parts are defined by the terms.
For the purpose of examination, it will be examined inclusive of any side within the gas supply assembly.
(2) The “the attaching portion is formed in a pipe shape” of Claim 4 is not clear, because the claim 1 recites the same feature, thus it is not clear that the recited feature of the claim 4 is the same or different feature of Claim 1.
(3) The “a longitudinal direction” of Claim 7 is not clear, because it is not clear that the recited feature of the claim 7 is the same or different feature of Claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 6-7 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ohno et al. (US 20190256974, hereafter ‘974).
Regarding to Claim 1, ‘974 teaches:
The gas introduction pipe 408 (Fig. 3, [0031], the claimed “A gas supply assembly comprising: a nozzle that has an attaching portion on one end and discharges a gas supplied to the attaching portion, the attaching portion is formed in a pipe shape”);
a process furnace 400 (Fig. 1, [0014]), and The joint part 415 and flange 405a (Fig. 3, [0043], note the joint 415a and flange 405a are, together, can be interpreted as a nozzle adapter, the claimed “a nozzle adapter that is attachable to and detachable from a processing chamber of a substrate processing apparatus and is clearance-fitted to an outer peripheral surface of the attaching portion with a predetermined gap”);
the joint part 415 is fixed to the gas introduction pipe 408 via an O-ring 417 ([0052]) and O-ring 416 ([0042], see also O-ring 418 of [0054], the claimed “and a plurality of annular buffer members disposed in the attaching portion and abutting the nozzle adapter, wherein at least one of the annular buffer members is compressed in a radial direction of the corresponding annular buffer member to deform in a state where the attaching portion of the nozzle is attached to the nozzle adapter, wherein the plurality of annular buffer members are disposed at different positions in a longitudinal direction of the attaching portion”);
Fig. 3 clearly shows a gap between the joint 415a and flange 405a and the gap is disposed between the O-rings 416 and 418 (the claimed “and the nozzle adapter has an opening located between two of the plurality of annular buffer members”).
Regarding to Claim 6,
‘974 teaches the joint part 415 is fixed to the gas introduction pipe 408 via an O-ring 417 ([0052], note Fig. 3 shows the pipe 408 has an upright portion, therefore, the joint part also supports the upright portion of the pipe 408, the claimed “wherein: the nozzle adapter supports the nozzle in an upright state”).
Regarding to Claim 7,
Fig. 3 of ‘974 shows each of the pipe outer diameter and joint part inner diameter is constant in a longitudinal direction (the claimed “wherein: the attaching portion has a constant outer diameter in a longitudinal direction, and a hole of the nozzle adapter into which the attaching portion is inserted has a constant inner diameter”).
Regarding to Claim 9,
‘974 further teaches The substrate support 30 supports, for example, 50 to 175 wafers including the wafer 14, in a horizontal manner in multiple stages ([0022], note Fig. 2 shows the pipe 408 extends along the vertical arrangement direction of the wafers, thus the gas from the pipe 408 is discharged at a right angle to the arrangement direction, the claimed “wherein: the nozzle extends in an arrangement direction of a plurality of substrates loaded into the processing chamber, and discharges a gas at a substantially right angle to the arrangement direction”).
Regarding to Claim 10,
‘974 further teaches the gas introduction pipe 408 is made of a heat resistant non-metallic material ([0044]) and The joint part 415 is made of a metal ([0048], the claimed “wherein: the nozzle adapter is made of metal, and the nozzle is made of non-metal”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 4-11 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanabe et al. (US 20090205783, hereafter ‘783) in view of ‘974 and Yoshida (US 20180087152, hereafter ‘152).
Regarding to Claim 1, ‘783 teaches:
the process furnace 53 of the substrate processing apparatus (Figs. 1 and 3, [0064]), and a gas supply nozzle 66 is vertically supported by the nozzle holder 65 (Fig. 4, [0070], the claimed “A gas supply assembly comprising: a nozzle that has an attaching portion on one end and discharges a gas supplied to the attaching portion, the attaching portion is formed in a pipe shape; a nozzle adapter that is attachable to and detachable from a processing chamber of a substrate processing apparatus and is clearance-fitted to an outer peripheral surface of the attaching portion with a predetermined gap”);
O-ring 103 (a seal member) ([0103], the claimed “and a annular buffer member disposed in the attaching portion and abutting the nozzle adapter, wherein at least one of the annular buffer members is compressed in a radial direction of the corresponding annular buffer member to deform in a state where the attaching portion of the nozzle is attached to the nozzle adapter”).
‘783 does not explicitly teach the other limitations (BOLD and ITALIC letter) of:
Claim 1: (1A) and a plurality of annular buffer members disposed in the attaching portion and abutting the nozzle adapter,
(1B) wherein the plurality of annular buffer members are disposed at different positions in a longitudinal direction of the attaching portion,
(1C) and the nozzle adapter has an opening located between two of the plurality of annular buffer members.
In regards to the limitation of 1A-1B,
‘974 is analogous art in the field of substrate processing (title). ‘974 teaches the joint part 415 is fixed to the gas introduction pipe 408 via an O-ring 417 (Fig. 4, [0052]) and O-ring 416 ([0042], see also O-ring 418 of [0054] and Fig. 3).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have adopted plural O-rings, to the outer surface of the gas supply nozzle 66 of ‘783, for instance, simply replacing the fangle part 66a of ‘783 with the additional O-ring, for the purpose of providing balanced mounting arrangement with at least pair of the O-rings, and/or for its suitability as known method of use of plural O-rings with predictable result. The selection of something based on its known suitability for its intended use has been held to support a prima facie case of obviousness, see MPEP 2144.07. Further note, MPEP clearly guides that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art, see MPEP 2144.04.
In regards to the limitation of 1C,
‘152 is analogous art in the field of substrate processing (title). ‘152 teaches as illustrated in FIGS. 3 and 6, a window portion 84C to install a pin 90 that fixes the nozzle 44 to the installation portion 84 is formed at an upper portion of the outer pipe 84A on the front surface side (process chamber 14 side) ([0043], note Fig. 4 shows the pin 90 is installed on the nozzle 44 surface through the window portion).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have added a window portion, to the outer surface of the gas supply nozzle 66 of ‘783, for the purpose of providing a pin that firmly fixes the nozzle.
Further, unless the position of the window portion makes the process gas to be undesirably leaked through a connection part of the gas supply nozzle, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have added any position in the attaching portion, such as arranging in a position between the two O-rings or in a position not between them. MPEP clearly guides that rearranging parts of an invention only involves routine skill in the art, see MPEP 2144.04.
Regarding to Claim 4,
Fig. 4 of ‘783 shows the nozzle holder 65a has horizontal portion and vertical portion, and the nozzle 66 is supported in an upright position by the vertical portion of the nozzle holder (the claimed “wherein: the attaching portion is formed in a pipe shape and elongated vertically, the nozzle adapter comprises a first portion that is attachable to an inlet port penetrating a side surface of the processing chamber and a second portion that extends vertically in the processing chamber and supports the nozzle in an upright state”);
Fig. 4 of ‘783 shows, due to the O-ring, the nozzle 66 and the holder 65 are not directly contacted with each other (the claimed “and the annular buffer members are disposed to separate an outer peripheral surface of the attaching portion of the nozzle and the nozzle adapter from each other by a predetermined amount to prevent the outer peripheral surface and the nozzle adapter from coming into contact with each other”).
Regarding to Claim 5,
As discussed in the claim 1 rejection with ‘152 in the teaching of the limitation of 1C, the imported pin that fixes the nozzle is installed on the imported window portion of the nozzle holder that is disposed between the two O-rings (the claimed “wherein: a fixing holder for making a direction of the nozzle correct is disposed between the annular buffer members”).
Regarding to Claim 6,
Claim 6 is rejected for substantially the same reason as claim 4 rejection above, because the claim 4 has the same feature.
Regarding to Claim 7,
Fig. 4 of ‘783 shows each of the nozzle outer diameter and holder inner diameter is constant in a longitudinal direction (the claimed “wherein: the attaching portion has a constant outer diameter in a longitudinal direction, and a portion of the nozzle adapter into which the attaching portion is inserted has a constant inner diameter”).
Regarding to Claim 8,
‘783 further teaches the lower end of the gas supply nozzle 66 can be placed against the O-ring 117 (Fig. 11, [0134]).
Therefore, when one of the O-rings is disposed against the lower end of the nozzle, it prevents the bottom of the nozzle from coming into contact with the nozzle adapter (the claimed “wherein: one of the plurality of annular buffer members is disposed at a lower end of the attaching portion to prevent a bottom of the nozzle from coming into contact with the nozzle adapter”).
Regarding to Claim 9,
‘783 further teaches wafers 4 can be charged into and discharged from a substrate holding device (hereinafter, referred to as a boat 43) ([0045], note Fig. 3 shows the nozzle 66 extends along the vertical arrangement direction of the substrates, thus the gas from the nozzle 66 is discharged at a right angle to the arrangement direction, the claimed “wherein: the nozzle extends in an arrangement direction of a plurality of substrates loaded into the processing chamber, and discharges a gas at a substantially right angle to the arrangement direction”).
Regarding to Claim 10,
‘783 further teaches The nozzle holder 65 is an elbow-shaped hollow metal pipe ([0099]), and the gas supply nozzle 66 made of a material such as quartz ([0140], the claimed “wherein: the nozzle adapter is made of metal, and the nozzle is made of non-metal”).
Regarding to Claim 11,
‘783 teaches the process furnace 53 of the substrate processing apparatus ([0064], the claimed “A substrate processing apparatus”);
The feature of Claim 1 was discussed in the claim 1 rejection above (the claimed “comprising the gas supply assembly of claim 1”);
Fig. 3 of ‘783 shows the connection portion of the nozzle holder 65 is disposed in the process furnace (the claimed “wherein the nozzle adapter is installed in the processing chamber of the processing apparatus”).
Regarding to Claim 17,
Based on Fig. 3 of ‘783, the nozzle 66 is capable of attaching to the nozzle holder 65 outside the chamber then the nozzle holder can be attached to the chamber (the claimed “wherein: the nozzle adapter is configured to be attachable to the nozzle stably held outside the processing chamber before the nozzle adapter is attached to the inlet port of the processing chamber”).
Further note, the applicants are remined that the feature is a method of installing the nozzle and nozzle holder.
Emphasized again, the applicants claim an apparatus. In the apparatus claim, installing the nozzle to the nozzle holder before installing the nozzle holder to the chamber or installing the nozzle to the nozzle holder after installing the nozzle holder to the chamber does not make the structural difference of the finally installed form of the nozzle and nozzle holder. The patentability of the apparatus claim is determined by the finally installed form of the nozzle and nozzle holder, see also MPEP citation above.
Regarding to Claim 18,
‘783 teaches the lower end of the gas supply nozzle 66 can be placed against the O-ring 117 ([0137], the claimed “wherein: the attaching portion is at a corner of a lower end and an outer periphery to form a surface and one of the annular buffer members is disposed between the surface and a bottom surface of a hole of the nozzle adapter into which the attaching portion is inserted”).
‘783, ‘974 and ‘152 do not explicitly teach the other limitations (BOLD and ITALIC letter) of:
Claim 18: wherein: the attaching portion is chamfered at a corner of a lower end and an outer periphery to form a tapered surface and one of the annular buffer members is disposed between the tapered surface and a bottom surface of a hole of the nozzle adapter into which the attaching portion is inserted.
However, ‘783 further teaches The top edge of the nozzle hold hole 102 is chamfered (rounded), and an O-ring 103 (a seal member) is pressed against the chamfered part (Fig. 4, [0101]), and the O-ring 103 is compressed between the chamfered part of the nozzle hold hole 102 and the gas supply nozzle 66 so that the nozzle holder 65 and the gas supply nozzle 66 can be air-tightly connected ([0102], note in this case, the top edge of the nozzle holder can be interpreted as a lower end of the nozzle, and the surface of the ring nut 105 contacting the top edge can be interpreted as a bottom surface of the hole of the nozzle holder, thus the O-ring 103 is between the chamfered surface and the bottom surface).
Consequently, as taught by ‘783, when the lower end of the gas supply nozzle 66 can be placed against the O-ring 117 ([0137]),
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have added the chamfered surface, to the lower end of the nozzle 66 of ‘783, thus the O-ring is compressed between the chamfered surface and the bottom surface, for the purpose of providing air-tightly connection, and/or for its suitability as known connection structure with predictable result. The selection of something based on its known suitability for its intended use has been held to support a prima facie case of obviousness, see MPEP 2144.07.
Claims 2-3, 12-13 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘783, ‘974 and ‘152, as being applied to Claim 1 rejection above, further in view of Zhang et al. (US 20190226089, hereafter ‘089) and Funabashi (US 20160170313, hereafter ‘313).
Regarding to Claim 2,
‘783, ‘974 and ‘152 do not explicitly teach the other limitations (BOLD and ITALIC letter) of:
Claim 2: wherein: the plurality of annular buffer members are made of polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE)-based material with different physical properties such that stickiness, adhesiveness, or thermoplasticity is enhanced on an inner peripheral side rather than an outer peripheral side.
Emphasized again, as discussed in the claim 1 rejection with ‘783 above, the gas supply nozzle of ‘783 having the plural O-rings would have been slidably inserted into the nozzle holder, in other words, the O-ring is fixed on the nozzle surface and is separated (or moved) on the nozzle holder surface while the nozzle is slide along the nozzle holder.
‘089 is analogous art in the field of processing a substrate (abstract). ‘089 teaches the seal 152 is an O-ring formed from a material such as polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), rubber, or silicone ([0020]).
‘313 is analogous art in the field of processing a substrate (abstract). ‘313 teaches at least a distal end portion of the lip seal 31… is preferably formed of a material having low adhesiveness so that the substrate 3 easily separates from the lip seal 31… at least the distal end portion may be coated with a material having low adhesiveness such as PTFE or molybdenum disulfide ([0048], note ‘313 clearly teaches a portion of the seal can have a different physical property).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have formed the O-ring, with polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), specifically having a different physical property on the inner peripheral side of the O-ring contacting the nozzle surface, for the purpose of firmly attaching on the nozzle surface while the nozzle is slide along the nozzle holder.
Regarding to Claim 3,
As discussed in the claim 1 rejection above, the plural O-rings are disposed on the nozzle surface at two different positions in the longitudinal direction of the nozzle (the claimed “wherein: the plurality of annular buffer members are disposed on an outer periphery near both ends of the attaching portion, respectively”).
‘783, ‘974 and ‘152 do not explicitly teach the other limitations (BOLD and ITALIC letter) of:
Claim 3: wherein: the plurality of annular buffer members is disposed in grooves formed on an outer periphery near both ends of the attaching portion, respectively, and protrudes from the grooves, respectively.
Fig. 1 of ‘089 shows each seal (O-ring) 152/154 is disposed in a groove. The feature is commonly well-known in the art, for instance, see the prior art, US 20150235811, hereafter ‘811, [0032], which was cited in the previous OA.
Further note, when the O-ring is disposed in the groove, a portion of the O-ring must be protruded from the groove, for the purpose of providing seal between the attaching parts by compressing. This feature is also commonly well-known in the art, for instance, see the prior art, US 20170137942, which was cited in the previous OA, disclosing O-rings 61, 103/104 of Fig. 12.
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have adopted grooves, to the outer surface of the nozzle of ‘783, for the purpose of providing fixed position for each O-ring, thus preventing unexpected movement of the O-ring, and/or for its suitability as known O-ring installment method with predictable result. The selection of something based on its known suitability for its intended use has been held to support a prima facie case of obviousness, see MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding to Claim 12,
as discussed in the claim 1 rejection above with ‘783, ‘974, ‘152, and further in the claim 3 rejection with ‘089 and ‘313 above;
‘783 teaches a gas supply nozzle 66 is vertically supported by the nozzle holder 65 (Fig. 4, [0070], the claimed “A nozzle comprising: an attaching portion formed in a straight pipe at one end and which is inserted into a nozzle adapter, and into which a gas is supplied from the nozzle adapter”);
‘974 teaches Gases such as the process gas are supplied through the plurality of gas supply holes into the process space 402 ([0031], see Fig. 2 showing plural holes on the side wall of the pipe 408, thus it is obvious that the nozzle 66 of ‘783 would have the same plural holes, the claimed “a gas supply hole that discharges the gas supplied to the attaching portion at a substantially right angle to a longitudinal direction of the attaching portion”);
The teaching of the plural O-rings disposed in the grooves was discussed in the claim 3 rejection with ‘089 above (the claimed “and two grooves which are formed on an outer periphery near both ends of the attaching portion and to which a plurality of annular buffer members are attached, respectively”);
The teaching of the window portion disposed between two O-rings, for the purpose of installing a pin that fixes the nozzle through the window portion was discussed in the claim 1 rejection with ‘152 above, further Fig. 3 of ‘152 shows a cutout portion for the pin installment on the nozzle surface, therefore, the cutout portion also would be disposed between the two grooves having the two O-rings (the claimed “and a cutout portion formed on the attaching portion between the two grooves to be facing an opening of the nozzle adapter, the opening being located between two of the plurality of annular buffer members”).
Regarding to Claim 13,
As discussed in the claim 3 rejection above, the O-rings are disposed in the grooves, and further Fig. 1 of ‘089 shows the groove has a U shape (the claimed “wherein: the grooves are formed in U-shape”);
‘783 teaches the gas supply nozzle 66 made of a material such as quartz ([0140], the claimed “and the entire nozzle is made of non-metal”).
Regarding to Claim 19,
As discussed in the claims 1 and 12 rejection with ‘152 above, a pin that fixes the nozzle is installed through the window portion formed on the nozzle holder and the pin is also installed on the cutout portion of the nozzle. Further, based on a shape of the window portion 84C shown in the Fig. 6 of ‘152, the pin would have been formed in a cylindrical block shaped segment, see also Fig. 3 of ‘152 clearly showing that the pin 90 also has a thin outer part covering the cylindrical block shaped segment fitted in the window portion, therefore the cylindrical block shaped segment can be interpreted as a block holder, and the thin part covering the block shaped form can be interpreted as a ring holder formed in a semicircular ring shape (the claimed “further comprising: a block holder formed in a shape of cylindrical segment and attached to the opening to engage a cutout portion formed on the attaching portion, and a ring holder formed in a semicircular ring shape and configured to secure the block holder”).
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed on 04/10/206 have been fully considered but they are not convincing in light of the new ground of rejection above.
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 AIDEN Y LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-1440. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 9am-5pm PT.
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 on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/AIDEN LEE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights