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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, Species I in the reply filed on January 6, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 2 and 19-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention and species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the heating part in claim 1 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
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;
(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”; 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.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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: heating part in claim 1.
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.
Paragraph [0021] indicates the “heating part” is a heater used to heat semiconductor wafers.
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 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 5-7 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.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the radio frequency power”" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In light of the above, dependent claims 6-7are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) at least due to dependency to rejected claim 5.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5, 9-11, and 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fu et al. (U.S. 2024/0170254) in view of Gorin et al. (U.S.4,264,393).
Referring to Figures 5-7 and paragraphs [0058]-[0064], Fu et al. disclose a plasma processing apparatus comprising: a substrate holder 218 configured to place a plurality of substrates in a multi-stage structure in a height direction on the substrate holder (Fig. 7); and a processing container 100 in which the substrate holder is accommodated (par.[0037]), wherein the substrate holder includes a plurality of stages, which are made of a dielectric material (pars.[0058]-[0059]), and a first electrode layer 214 and a second electrode layer 216 embedded in the plurality of stages (par.[0062]).
Fu et al. is silent on a heating part that heats the plurality of substrates.
Referring to Figures 1-2 and column 4, lines 10-13, Gorin et al. teach a plasma processing apparatus wherein a heating part 13 that heats the plurality of substrates for substrate processing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the apparatus of Fu et al. with a heating part that heats the plurality of substrates as taught by Gorin et al. in order to control the substrate temperature during substrate processing.
With respect to claim 3, the plasma processing apparatus of Fu et al. further includes wherein at least one of the first electrode layer 214 and the second electrode layer 216 has a mesh shape (Fig. 7) or a film shape (Fig. 5).
With respect to claim 5, the plasma processing apparatus of Fu et al. further includes wherein the radio frequency power 250 is supplied to the first electrode layer 214, and the second electrode layer 216 is connected to a ground 255 (par.[0062]).
With respect to claim 9, the plasma processing apparatus of Fu et al. further includes wherein each of the plurality of stages of the substrate holder 218 has a placement surface on which the substrate is placed (Fig. 7).
With respect to claim 10, the plasma processing apparatus of Fu et al. further includes wherein the first electrode layer 214 and the second electrode layer 216 have circular outer edges, and the circular outer edges of the first electrode layer and the second electrode layer are larger than or the same as an outer edge of the placement surface (Fig. 5).
With respect to claim 11, the plasma processing apparatus of Fu et al. further includes wherein the outer edge of the first electrode layer and the outer edge of the second electrode layer have the same size (Figs. 5-7).
With respect to claim 16, the plasma processing apparatus of Fu et al. further includes comprising: a radio frequency power supply 250 configured to output a radio frequency power; and a distributor (i.e. feed lines from RF power supply 250) configured to distribute the radio frequency power output from the radio frequency power supply, wherein the radio frequency power is distributed and supplied to a plurality of first electrode layers 214 in the plurality of stages (Figs. 5-7, pars.[0061]-[0062]).
With respect to claim 17, the plasma processing apparatus of Fu et al. further includes wherein, among the plurality of stages, the second electrode layer 216 is arranged above the first electrode layer 214 in the plurality of stages 218 (Figs. 5-7).
With respect to claim 18, the plasma processing apparatus of Fu et al. further includes wherein uppermost and lowermost electrode layers among the first electrode layer 214 and the second electrode layer 216 embedded in the plurality of stages are the second electrode layer (Figs. 5-7).
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5, 7, 8-14, and 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maher, Jr. et al. (U.S. 381,965) in view of Kim et al. (KR101394110B1) and Ravi et al. (4, 381,965).
Referring to Figures 4-5 and column 5 , line 24-column 7, line 18, Maher, Jr. et al. disclose a plasma processing apparatus comprising: a substrate holder 19c-25c configured to place a plurality of substrates 15 in a multi-stage structure in a height direction on the substrate holder (Fig. 4); and a processing container 10 in which the substrate holder is accommodated (par.[0037]), wherein the substrate holder includes a plurality of stages, 19c-25c which are made of a dielectric material (col. 6, lines 7-9), and a first electrode layer 19b-25b and a second electrode layer 19a-25a on the plurality of stages (col. 6, line 50-col. 7, line 4).
Maher, Jr. et al. is silent on a heating part that heats the plurality of substrates.
Referring to page 6, paragraph 3, Kim et al. teach a plasma processing apparatus wherein a heating part that heats the plurality of substrates for substrate processing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the apparatus of Maher, Jr. et al. with a heating part that heats the plurality of substrates as taught by Kim et al. in order to control the substrate temperature during substrate processing.
Maher, Jr. et al. fail to each a first electrode layer and a second electrode layer embedded in the plurality of stages.
Referring to paragraphs [0026], Ravi et al. teach that is conventionally known in the art for a plasma processing apparatus to include an electrode 168 embedded in the stage 108. Additionally, electrodes 140, 190, 192 are embedded in supports (pars.[0028]-[0029]). Embedding the electrode layer within the stage will protect the electrode layer from the plasma environment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified a first electrode layer and a second electrode layer Maher, Jr. et al. with embedding in the stage as taught Ravi et al. in order to protect the electrode layers from the plasma environment. The resulting apparatus of Maher, Jr. et al. in view of Ravi et all. includes a first electrode layer and a second electrode layer embedded in the plurality of stages.
With respect to claim 3, the plasma processing apparatus of Maher, Jr. et al. further includes wherein at least one of the first electrode layer 19b-25b and the second electrode layer 19a-25a has a mesh shape or a film shape (Fig. 4).
With respect to claim 5, the plasma processing apparatus of Maher, Jr. et al. further includes wherein the radio frequency power 44 is supplied to the first electrode layer 19b-25b, and the second electrode layer 19a-25a is connected to a ground 255 (col. 6, lines 56-68).
With respect to claim 7, the plasma processing apparatus of Maher, Jr. et al. further includes wherein the first electrode layer 19b-25b in a first stage among the plurality of stages faces the second electrode layer 19a-25a in a second stage adjacent to the first stage with a plasma processing space interposed between the first electrode layer 19b-25b and the second electrode layer 19a-25a, and the second electrode layer 19a-25a in the first stage faces the first electrode layer19b-25b in a third stage adjacent to the first stage with the plasma processing space interposed between the second electrode layer 19a-25a and the first electrode layer 19b-25b, and wherein the substrate holder 19c-25c is configured to generate plasma in the plasma processing space between the first stage and the second stage and between the first stage and the third stage, and perform a plasma processing on the plurality of substrates when the radio frequency power 44 is supplied to the first electrode layers 19b-25b in the first stage and in the third stage (Fig. 4, col. 6, line 50-col. 7, line 4).
With respect to claim 8, Maher, Jr. et al. in view of Ravi et al. is silent on wherein the substrate holder 20 includes a lift pin mechanism 21 configured to transfer the plurality of substrates to the plurality of stages, respectively.
Referring to page 6, paragraph 2, Kim et al. teach a plasma processing apparatus wherein the substrate holder 20 includes a lift pin mechanism 21 configured to transfer the plurality of substrates to the plurality of stages, respectively. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the substrate holder of Maher, Jr. et al. a lift pin mechanism configured to transfer the plurality of substrates to the plurality of stages, respectively as taught by Kim et al. for substrate lifting.
With respect to claim 9, the plasma processing apparatus of Maher, Jr. et al. further includes wherein each of the plurality of stages of the substrate holder 19c-25c has a placement surface on which the substrate is placed (Fig. 4).
With respect to claim 10, the plasma processing apparatus of Maher, Jr. et al. in view of Kim et al. and Ravi et al. further includes wherein the first electrode layer 50 and the second electrode layer 20 have circular outer edges, and the circular outer edges of the first electrode layer and the second electrode layer are larger than or the same as an outer edge of the placement surface (Kim et al., Fig. 2).
With respect to claim 11, the plasma processing apparatus of Maher, Jr. et al. in view of Kim et al. and Ravi et al. further includes wherein the outer edge of the first electrode layer and the outer edge of the second electrode layer have the same size (Kim et al., Fig. 2).
With respect to claim 12, Maher, Jr. et al. in view of Ravi et al. is silent on wherein the substrate holder includes a plurality of hollow post members made of the dielectric material and provided to extend in the height direction at an outer peripheral side of the placement surface.
Referring to page 8, paragraphs 2-3 and page 9, paragraph 10-page 10, paragraph 1, Kim et al. teach a plasma processing apparatus wherein the substrate holder includes a plurality of hollow post members 49, 79 made of the dielectric material and provided to extend in the height direction at an outer peripheral side of the placement surface as a means to provide RF power 75 and ground lines 45 to the substrate holder. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the substrate holder of Maher, Jr. et al. to include a plurality of hollow post members made of the dielectric material and provided to extend in the height direction at an outer peripheral side of the placement surface as taught by Kim. et al. as a means to provide RF power and ground lines to the substrate holder.
With respect to claim 13, the plasma processing apparatus of Maher, Jr. et al. in view of Kim et al. and Ravi et al. further includes wherein a ground line 45 connected to the second electrode layer in the plurality of stages is accommodated in at least one of the plurality of hollow post members 40 (Kim et al.-Fig. 4a).
With respect to claim 14, the plasma processing apparatus of Maher, Jr. et al. in view of Kim et al. and Ravi et al. further comprising: a radio frequency power supply configured to output radio frequency power, wherein a feeder line 75 that connects the radio frequency power supply and the first electrode layer in the plurality of stages is accommodated in at least one of the plurality of hollow post members 70 (Kim et al.-page 9, paragraph 10-page 10, paragraph 1).
With respect to claim 16, the plasma processing apparatus of Maher, Jr. et al. further includes comprising: a radio frequency power supply 44 configured to output a radio frequency power; and a distributor (i.e. feed lines from RF power supply 44) configured to distribute the radio frequency power output from the radio frequency power supply, wherein the radio frequency power is distributed and supplied to a plurality of first electrode layers 19b-25b in the plurality of stages (Fig. 4, col. 6, lines 55-63).
With respect to claim 17, the plasma processing apparatus of Maher, Jr. et al. further includes wherein, among the plurality of stages, the second electrode layer 19a-25a is arranged above the first electrode layer 19b-25b in the plurality of stages 19c-25c (Fig. 4).
With respect to claim 18, the plasma processing apparatus of Fu et al. further includes wherein uppermost and lowermost electrode layers among the first electrode layer 19b-25b and the second electrode layer 19a-25a embedded in the plurality of stages are the second electrode layer (Fig. 4).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maher, Jr. et al. (U.S. 381,965) in view of Kim et al. (KR101394110B1) and Ravi et al. (4, 381,965) as applied to claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 8-14, and 16-18 above, and further in view of Ishisaka et al. (U.S. 8,197,638).
The teachings of Maher, Jr. et al. in view of Kim et al. and Ravi et al. have been discussed above.
Maher, Jr. et al. in view of Kim et al. and Ravi et al. fail to teach wherein, when the at least one of the first electrode layer and the second electrode layer has the mesh shape, a dielectric pillar is arranged to pass through a gap in the mesh shape.
Referring to Figure 2 and column 4, lines 27-59, column 6, line 61-column 7, line 59, Ishisaka an electrode layer 51 has the mesh shape and a dielectric pillar 50 is arranged to pass through a gap in the mesh shape in order to provide support to the substrate holder and provide uniform voltage distribution across the entire substrate holder to promote process uniformity. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the substrate holder of Maher, Jr. et al. to include at least one of the first electrode layer and the second electrode layer has the mesh shape, a dielectric pillar is arranged to pass through a gap in the mesh shape as taught by Ishisaka et al. in order to provide support to the substrate holder and provide uniform voltage distribution across the entire substrate holder to promote process uniformity.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maher, Jr. et al. (U.S. 381,965) in view of Kim et al. (KR101394110B1) and Ravi et al. (4, 381,965) as applied to claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 8-14, and 16-18 above, and further in view of Sadjadi et al. (U.S. 2015/0311105).
The teachings of Maher, Jr. et al. in view of Kim et al. and Ravi et al. have been discussed above.
Maher, Jr. et al. in view of Kim et al. and Ravi et al. fail to teach wherein the second electrode layer is connected to the ground via an impedance adjuster.
Referring to Figure 4 and paragraphs [0062]-[0063], Sadjadi et al. teach a plasma processing apparatus wherein the second electrode layer 140 is connected to the ground via an impedance adjuster 410 in order to enable precise process control during substrate processing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the substrate holder of Maher, Jr. et al. in view of Kim et al. and Ravi et al. in order to enable precise process control during substrate processing.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maher, Jr. et al. (U.S. 381,965) in view of Kim et al. (KR101394110B1) and Ravi et al. (4, 381,965) as applied to claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 8-14, and 16-18 above, and further in view of Hanawa et al. (U.S. 2004/0027781).
The teachings of Maher, Jr. et al. in view of Kim et al. and Ravi et al. have been discussed above.
Maher, Jr. et al. in view of Kim et al. and Ravi et al. fail to teach wherein an inner wall of the plurality of hollow post members is covered with a metal film or a metal cylindrical member, and wherein the metal film or the metal cylindrical member is connected to a ground and functions as a ground line that grounds the second electrode layer in the plurality of stages.
With respect to claim 15, referring to paragraphs [0025]-[0027], the plasma processing apparatus of Maher, Jr. et al. in view of Kim et al. and Ravi et al. teaches the concept of a substrate stage having a co-axial structure of a metal cylindrical member 285 that is connected to ground surrounding an RF feeder line 230 for the purpose of switching from a two wire structure to a coaxial structure to virtually eliminate (or avoid) losses due to RF heating of other components or other materials. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the ground line of Maher, Jr. et al. in view of Kim et al. and Ravi with the metal cylindrical member is connected to a ground and functions as a ground line that grounds the second electrode layer in the stage as taught by Hanawa et al. for the purpose of switching from a two wire structure to a coaxial structure to virtually eliminate (or avoid) losses due to RF heating of other components or other materials.
The resulting apparatus of Maher, Jr. et al. in view of Kim et al., Ravi, and Hanawa et al. further includes wherein an inner wall of the plurality of hollow post members is covered with a metal film or a metal cylindrical member, and wherein the metal film or the metal cylindrical member is connected to a ground and functions as a ground line that grounds the second electrode layer in the plurality of stages.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Hanawa et al.’473, Schlemm et al.’041, Maruyama’811, Cook et al.’680, Hochwalt’819, Bohm et al.’907, Hirata et al.’701, Dozier’851, and Kishimoto et al.’319 teach a plurality of stages with first and second electrode layers. Fukasawa et al.’461 teach a plurality of electrode layers. Lin et al.’332 and Okunishi et al.’344 teach a coaxial structure (outer metal cylinder and inner conductor) stem connected to the substrate holder. Shibata et al.’545 teach embedding electrodes in a dielectric. Iwashita et al.’344 teach an impedance controller.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michelle CROWELL whose telephone number is (571)272-1432. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 10:00am-6:00pm.
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, Parviz Hassanzadeh can be reached at 571-272-1435. 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.
/Michelle CROWELL/Examiner, Art Unit 1716
/SYLVIA MACARTHUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights