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 .
Statement re Text of U.S. Code
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 16-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on June 10, 2025 (in which reply, Applicant elected Group I, drawn to a “substrate support”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-9 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.
In claim 1, lines 4-5, the claim now recites “wherein each trench of the plurality of trenches extends in a linear manner substantially entirely across an entirety of the upper surface”. However, the term “substantially entirely” (and particularly, “substantially across an entirety…”) in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The terms “substantially”/“substantially entirely”/“substantially entirely across an entirety…” is/are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In particular, it is unclear how much of the “entirety” of the upper surface each trench must extend across in order for each of the trenches to be considered to extend “substantially entirely across an entirety of the upper surface”, and how little of the “entirety” of the upper surface each trench must extend across in order for each of the trenches to be excluded by the term “substantially entirely across an entirety of the upper surface”.
In claim 7, the claim sets forth “wherein a depth of each of the plurality of trenches is 2 to 20 microns”. However, it is unclear as claimed from where/what frame of reference this “depth” is to be determined/measured, e.g., depth relative to what surface or frame of reference? On page 6 of the response filed 9/29/2025, Applicant indicates that “the specification at ¶[0024] and Figure 2 sets out the frame of reference for the term ‘depth’” and “[S]pecifically, depth 204 is referring to a distance between the upper surface 210 of the ESC 152 and a lower surface of the plurality of trenches 240, providing a sufficient frame of reference”. However, it is noted that the specification does not provide a “special definition” (using language that makes it clear that such is a special definition) of the term “depth”, such that the term in the claim must be given its broadest reasonable interpretation/plain meaning in light of the specification. That said, while claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, it is improper to import limitations from the specification. See MPEP 2111.01. Thus, if it is Applicant’s intent for the term “depth” to mean “a distance between the upper surface of the ESC and a lower surface of the plurality of trenches” (or a lower surface of each trench of the plurality of trenches), then the claim should be so amended to reflect Applicant’s intent.
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.
Claim 2 is 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.
As amended on 9/29/2025, claim 2 now recites “wherein at least some of the plurality of trenches extend from a sidewall of the ESC to an opposing sidewall of the ESC”. However, this limitation does not appear to have support in the specification as originally filed.
Firstly, it is noted that the specification as filed does not appear to teach that any of the trenches 220 extend from one sidewall of the (circular; see Fig. 3 and paragraph 0025) ESC 152 to any different/additional sidewall of the ESC 152. Additionally, even assuming that Applicant intended to indicate that some of the trenches extend from a sidewall of the ESC on one side of the ESC to the same sidewall of the ESC (but at a location on an opposite side of the ESC), the specification as filed likewise does not provide support for such, noting that the specification as filed does not expressly teach such, nor is such inherent. Note that in Figure 3, the trenches 220 are only shown in the enlarged oval portion/section which is not at any kind of edge/sidewall of the ESC 152 (and which enlarged oval portion/section further does not show two edges/sidewalls of the ESC 152 and trenches 220 thereat).
Furthermore, while paragraph 0026 teaches that the plurality of trenches 220 “extend substantially across an entirety of the upper surface 210”, such a teaching is not an express teaching that “at least some of the plurality of trenches extend from a sidewall of the ESC to an opposing sidewall of the ESC”, nor is such inherent from the aforementioned paragraph 0026 teaching. In particular, trenches that do not extend from one sidewall of the ESC to an opposing sidewall of the ESC can still extend “substantially across an entirety” of the upper surface 210 simply by extending “most” of the way across the upper surface 210 and yet being spaced from one or more sidewalls of the ESC 152.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claims 1, 3-5, 7, and 9, any of which that were rejected under 35 USC 112 above are as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0406576 to Otsuki et al. (hereinafter, “Otsuki”).
Regarding claim 1¸ Otsuki teaches a substrate support (for supporting, for example, substrate W; see paragraph 0045 and Figures 2 and 5), comprising:
an electrostatic chuck (ESC) (114; see Figures 2-5 and 27, for example, as well as at least paragraphs 0048-0050, 0061-0063, for example) having an upper surface (111a; see Figures 3-6, 10, 15-21, 23, and 26-27, as well as at least paragraphs 0047-0049, 0064-0067, 0070, 0076, 0093, 0098-0102, 0114, 0116-0118, for example) and a plurality of mesas (210; see at least Figures 3-10, 15-16, 26-27, and paragraphs 0065, 0067-0068, for example) extending upward from the upper surface (111a) (see, for example, especially Figures 5-6, 10, and 26, for example) and a plurality of trenches (220a-220h, for example; see Figures 3-10, 17-20, 26, and 27, as well as paragraphs 0066-0084, 0091-0093, and 0098-0116, for example, especially paragraphs 0066-0075 and 0098 and 0103-0104, for example) extending downward from the upper surface (111a) and into the ESC (114) (see Figures 5-6, 10, 26 and at least paragraph 0066, for example), wherein each trench of the plurality of trenches (220a-220a) extends in a linear manner (for example, see Figures 3-4 and 27 noting that the longitudinal direction of the trenches 220a-h extends along a curved line, and thus, the trenches are “linear” in that sense, i.e., curvilinear; additionally/alternatively, see Figure 17, noting that Otsuki expressly teaches that instead of the circular trenches 220a-h, the trenches 220a-h can instead have a polygonal shape, as depicted in Figure 17, which trenches 220a-h of Figure 17 each have multiple segments, i.e., each “side” of the polygonal shape being such a segment, that each have longitudinal directions that extend in a straight line, i.e., extend rectilinearly; see, for example, Figures 3-4 and 17, as well as at least paragraphs 0038, 0093, 0103-0104, and 0108, as well as at least claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 11-13, and 15 of Otsuki) “substantially across an entirety of” the upper surface (111a) (see Figure 3 noting, for example, that the trenches 220a-220a have a dimension in the plane of Figure 3 that is “substantially across an entirety” of the upper surface 111a, such as, for example, the left/right horizontal dimension of the overall trenches in Figure 3; such can also be seen re Figure 27 and re the embodiment of Figure 17), wherein the ESC (114) includes a plurality of backside gas openings (230a-c; see at least Figures 4-10 and 27, for example, as well as at least paragraphs 0077-0087, and 0095-0097, for example) extending through the ESC (114) (see Figures 5-6, 10 and paragraph 0077, for example) and terminating within at least some (220b, 220e, and 220h; see Figures 3-5, 7-10, and paragraphs 0077-0080, for example) of the plurality of trenches (220a-220h); and
one or more chucking electrodes (201) disposed in the ESC (114) (see at least Figures 5-6 and paragraphs 0055, 0059, 0063, and 0068, for example).
Regarding claim 3, wherein the plurality of trenches (220a-h) include first trenches (220b, 220e, 220h) that are “aligned with” the plurality of backside gas openings (230a-230c) (at least since the backside gas opening 230a is provided in trench 220b, the backside gas opening 230b is provided in trench 220e, and the backside gas opening 230c is provided in trench 220a; see at least Figures 4-10; see also Figure 27; see also at least paragraphs 0077-0080, for example) and second trenches (such as, for example, 220a, 220c, 220d, 220f, 220g) that are not “aligned with” the plurality of backside gas openings (230a-230c) (in that, for example, 230a-230c are not provided in trenches 220a, 220c, 220d, 220f, 220g, though it is noted that this is but one example of an interpretation of the reference meeting the broadly recited “aligned with” and “not aligned with” language of claim 3).
Regarding claim 4, a first set of the plurality of trenches extend parallel to each other in a first direction and a second set of the plurality of trenches extend parallel to each other in a second direction different than the first direction and intersect with the first set of the plurality of trenches. For example, as can be seen in the annotated reproduction of Figure 17 below (see also paragraphs 0038, 0103-0104, and claims 1-2, 4, 7, 11-13 and 15 of Otsuki, for example), a first set (such as the set located at W1 of the trenches 220d-220f that are labeled below in the annotated reproduction of Figure 17; alternatively, such as the set located at W3 of the trenches 220d-220f that are labeled below in the annotated reproduction of Figure 17) of the trenches extend parallel to each other in a first direction (i.e., all three of the trenches 220d-220f of W1 extend parallel to each other in a direction; all three of the trenches of 220d-f of W3 extend parallel to each other in a direction), and a second set (the other of the aforedescribed sets located at W1, W3, i.e., for an example where the set at W1 is the first set, set W3 can be considered the claimed second set; for an example where the set at W3 is the first set, the set at W1 can be considered the claimed second set, and so forth; additionally, it is noted that each trench of W1 and each trench of W3 extends in a rectilinear manner, and thus, a linear manner, “substantially across an entirety” of the upper surface 111a, as broadly claimed and as best understood in view of the above rejection(s) under 35 USC 112(b), as can be seen in Figure 17) of the plurality of trenches extend parallel to each other in a second direction different than the first direction (see the annotated reproduction of Figure 17 below) and intersect (at the corner labeled in the annotated reproduction of Figure 17 below as C1) with the first set of the plurality of trenches.
[AltContent: textbox (C1)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (W4)][AltContent: textbox (W3)][AltContent: textbox (W2)][AltContent: textbox (W1)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector]
PNG
media_image1.png
604
546
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, the mesas (210) are circular. See paragraph 0065, for example, as well as at least Figures 3-4, 7-10, and 27, for example.
Regarding claim 7, a depth (such as depth D1) of each of the plurality of trenches (220a-220h) is 2 to 20 microns. In particular, see Figure 6, as well as at least paragraph 0067, which teaches that the depth D1 is greater than or equal to the height H1, and teaches that H1 is 5 μm to 20 μm. For example, for the scenario when D1 is equal to H1 (disclosed in paragraph 0067), it is noted that D1 is thus 5 μm to 20 μm, which range is completely encompassed within the claimed range of 2 to 20 microns.
Regarding claim 9, the plurality of backside gas openings (230a-230c) are “arranged along” an inner ring and an outer ring. For example, see Figures 3-4 and 27, noting that the openings 230a-c are “along” rings such as the “ring” shaped trenches 220b, 220e, 220h in which the openings 230a-c terminate, and noting that ring 220b is an inner ring, and noting that 220h is an outer ring, and/or noting that 220b is an inner ring, and rings 220e and 220h are outside of ring 220b, and/or noting that 220h is an outer ring and that rings 220e and 220b are inside of ring 220h. Additionally/alternatively, note that the backside gas openings 230a-c are “along” (e.g., alongside) “rings” such as the ring-shaped trenches 220a, 220c, 220d, 220f, and/or 220g, which are concentrically arranged such that of any two of these rings, one is an outer ring and the other is an inner ring relative thereto. Additionally/alternatively, note that the backside gas openings 230a-c are “along” (e.g., alongside) “rings” such as the ring shaped regions R4, R3, R2, as can be seen in at least Figure 4, or alternatively, Figure 27, for example, and it is noted that R4 is outside of R3 and R2, and R3 is outside of R2, for example. Additionally/alternatively, note that the backside gas openings 230a-c are “along” (e.g., alongside) “rings”, such as, for example, the rings labeled below in the annotated reproduction of Figure 4 as Q1, Q2, and it is noted that Q1 is outside of Q2, as can be seen below. The foregoing are but a few examples of ways in which the backside gas openings of Otsuki can be considered to be “arranged along” an inner ring and an outer ring, as set forth in claim 9.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim 8, as best understood in view of the above rejections based on 35 USC 112, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0406576 to Otsuki et al. (hereinafter, “Otsuki”) as applied to at least claim 1 above.
Otsuki teaches all aspects of the presently-claimed invention as were discussed in the above rejection(s) based thereon.
However, Otsuki does not expressly teach that “a width of each of the plurality of trenches is 2 to 7 microns”, as set forth in claim 8.
That said, it is noted that Otsuki teaches that the trenches 220a-220h have a width “E” (Figure 6). Otsuki teaches that “[T]he width E of the annular grooves 220 is not particularly limited, but is, for example, 0.3 mm to 10 mm” (paragraph 0069). Otsuki also teaches that “the width E of the annular groove 220 or the number of the annular grooves 220 is not limited to the present embodiment” and “[F]or example, even when the width E of the annular groove 220 is small and there is only one annular groove, the effect of controlling the pressures in the heat transfer spaces in the above-mentioned regions R1 to R3 may be enjoyed”, and “[H]owever, when the width E of the annular groove 220 is large and the number of annular grooves 220 is large, this effect may be shown more remarkably” (paragraph 0092). Otsuki also teaches “[I]n other words, the shape and installation range of the annular groove 220 on the substrate support surface 111a are not limited to this embodiment” and “[B]y arbitrarily setting the shape and installation range of the annular groove 220, the substrate support surface 111a may be divided into any regions, and the pressure in the heat transfer space in each region may be appropriately controlled” (paragraph 0093).
It is noted that the example range for the width E taught by Otsuki of 0.3 mm to 10 mm is equivalent to 300 μm to 10,000 μm. However, it is also noted that Otsuki expressly teaches that the width E is not particularly limited (paragraph 0069), and teaches that even when the width E is small, the effect of controlling the pressures in the heat transfer spaces in the regions R1 to R3 may still be enjoyed (paragraph 0092), and teaches that setting the configuration (shape and size/installation range) of the grooves/trenches 220, as desired, the pressure in the heat transfer spaces in each region “may be appropriately controlled” (paragraph 0093). Further, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the Otsuki device such that the width E was within the claimed range, as it involves only adjusting the dimension of a component disclosed as being able to be whatever size an end user prefers (i.e., “the width E is not particularly limited”, per paragraph 0069) in order to “appropriately control” the pressure in the heat transfer spaces in each region (paragraphs 0092-0093, for example).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Otsuki by making the width E of each of the trenches be “2 microns to 7 microns” as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges routine experimentation”. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-15 are allowed.
Claim 6 would be allowable if rewritten (without broadening in any way) to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Comment Regarding Non-Indication of Allowable Subject Matter
A thorough search has been conducted re the elected invention/claims. That being said, though no art rejections are considered to presently apply to claim 2, no indication regarding the allowability of the subject matter of elected claim 2 with respect to the prior art is being made at this time due to the rejection(s) thereof based on 35 USC 112(a), set forth above, particularly given that is unclear what changes to the claims might be necessary to overcome the above-described issues with respect to 35 USC 112(a).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 29, 2025 have been fully considered. To the extent that any of the arguments still pertain to the rejections set forth herein, they will be addressed.
It is noted that Applicant’s arguments with respect to the previous rejection of claim 7 under 35 USC 112(b) was addressed in the rejection itself above.
Regarding the rejection of independent claim 1 under 35 USC 102(a)(1) and 35 USC 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0406576 to Otsuki et al. (hereinafter, “Otsuki”), Applicant indicates (pages 7-8 of the 9/29/2025) does not teach the newly-added limitation “wherein each trench of the plurality of trenches extends in a linear manner substantially across an entirety of the upper surface” (which is of a different scope than what was previously recited in claim 2, which previously merely stated “wherein the trenches are linear”).
Firstly, Applicant indicates that the concentric trenches 220a-h of Otsuki that (have longitudinal directions that) extend along curved lines are not “linear”. However, such is not persuasive. It is noted that the claims in question do not indicate that the trenches extend in a rectilinear manner (as opposed to a curvilinear manner) such that a longitudinal axis of each of the trenches extends in a straight line, or anything similar. That said, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., apparently that the trenches extend such that a longitudinal direction of each of the trenches extends in a straight line or rectilinearly, as opposed to extending curvilinearly along a curved line) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Additionally, attention is further directed to Figure 17 of Otsuki and the discussion thereof in the above (and previous) art rejection, noting that the trenches in the Figure 17 embodiment do have longitudinal axes that extend in straight/rectilinear directions. In particular, as noted in the above rejection of claim 1 based on Otsuki, Otsuki teaches (with emphasis on the italicized portions below):
an electrostatic chuck (ESC) (114; see Figures 2-5 and 27, for example, as well as at least paragraphs 0048-0050, 0061-0063, for example) having an upper surface (111a; see Figures 3-6, 10, 15-21, 23, and 26-27, as well as at least paragraphs 0047-0049, 0064-0067, 0070, 0076, 0093, 0098-0102, 0114, 0116-0118, for example) and a plurality of mesas (210; see at least Figures 3-10, 15-16, 26-27, and paragraphs 0065, 0067-0068, for example) extending upward from the upper surface (111a) (see, for example, especially Figures 5-6, 10, and 26, for example) and a plurality of trenches (220a-220h, for example; see Figures 3-10, 17-20, 26, and 27, as well as paragraphs 0066-0084, 0091-0093, and 0098-0116, for example, especially paragraphs 0066-0075 and 0098 and 0103-0104, for example) extending downward from the upper surface (111a) and into the ESC (114) (see Figures 5-6, 10, 26 and at least paragraph 0066, for example), wherein each trench of the plurality of trenches (220a-220a) extends in a linear manner (for example, see Figures 3-4 and 27 noting that the longitudinal direction of the trenches 220a-h extends along a curved line, and thus, the trenches are “linear” in that sense, i.e., curvilinear; additionally/alternatively, see Figure 17, noting that Otsuki expressly teaches that instead of the circular trenches 220a-h, the trenches 220a-h can instead have a polygonal shape, as depicted in Figure 17, which trenches 220a-h of Figure 17 each have multiple segments, i.e., each “side” of the polygonal shape being such a segment, that each have longitudinal directions that extend in a straight line, i.e., extend rectilinearly; see, for example, Figures 3-4 and 17, as well as at least paragraphs 0038, 0093, 0103-0104, and 0108, as well as at least claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 11-13, and 15 of Otsuki) “substantially across an entirety of” the upper surface (111a) (see Figure 3 noting, for example, that the trenches 220a-220a have a dimension in the plane of Figure 3 that is “substantially across an entirety” of the upper surface 111a, such as, for example, the left/right horizontal dimension of the overall trenches in Figure 3; such can also be seen re Figure 27 and re the embodiment of Figure 17), wherein the ESC (114) includes a plurality of backside gas openings (230a-c; see at least Figures 4-10 and 27, for example, as well as at least paragraphs 0077-0087, and 0095-0097, for example) extending through the ESC (114) (see Figures 5-6, 10 and paragraph 0077, for example) and terminating within at least some (220b, 220e, and 220h; see Figures 3-5, 7-10, and paragraphs 0077-0080, for example) of the plurality of trenches (220a-220h); and
Regarding dependent claim 4, it is noted that claim 4 has been amended to recite “wherein a first set of the plurality of trenches extend parallel to each other in a first direction and a second set of the plurality of trenches extend parallel to each other in a second direction different than the first direction and intersect with the first set of the plurality of trenches”. Applicant indicates (on page 9 of the 9/29/2025 response) that Otsuki does not teach the newly added feature of re the intersection of the sets of trenches. However, such is not persuasive.
In particular, as set forth in the above rejection of claim 4 based on the Otsuki reference, Otsuki teaches sets W1 and W3 of trenches (labeled in the above annotated reproduction of Figure 17 discussed above in the rejection of claim 4 as being anticipated by Otsuki) which extend in different directions and intersect at the corner labeled in the above annotated reproduction of Figure 17 as C1.
Regarding dependent claims 3-5, 7, 8, and 9, which dependent from claim 1, Applicant applies the above arguments (re claim 1) to claims 3-5, 7, 8, and 9. However, likewise, the above responses to those arguments equally apply to claims 3-5, 7, 8, and 9.
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 ERICA E CADUGAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4474. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 5:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, and via 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, Sunil K Singh can be reached at (571) 272-3460. 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.
/ERICA E CADUGAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3722
eec
February 5, 2026