DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The Applicant's amendment filed on June 10, 2026 was received. Claims 1 and 15 are amended. Claim 21 was added. Claims 3-4, and 17 are canceled.
The text of those sections of Title 35. U.S.C. code not included in this action can be found in the prior Office Action Issued April 1, 2026.
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.
The claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawai (US20240120404) in view of and Matsushita (JP2021022706A) on claims 1, 5-6, 8-9, 15 and 18 are withdrawn, because the claims have been amended.
The claim rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawai (US20240120404) in view of and Matsushita (JP2021022706A) as applied to claims 1, 5-6, 8-9, 15 and 18, and further in view of Feng (CN105914270) on claim 2 is withdrawn, because the claim has been amended.
The claim rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawai (US20240120404) in view of and Matsushita (JP2021022706A) and Feng (CN105914270) as applied to claims 1-2, 5-6, 8-9, 15 and 18, and further in view of Ueoka (US20240194829) on claim 3 is withdrawn, because the claim has been canceled.
The claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawai (US20240120404) in view of and Matsushita (JP2021022706A) as applied to claims 1, 5-6, 8-9, 15 and 18, and further in view of Chou (US20190229236) on claims 12-14 are withdrawn, because the claims have been amended.
The claim rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawai (US20240120404) in view of and Matsushita (JP2021022706A) as applied to claims 1, 5-6, 8-9, 15 and 18, and in alternative, further in view of Feng (CN105914270) on claim 16 is withdrawn, because the claim has been amended.
The claim rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawai (US20240120404) in view of and Matsushita (JP2021022706A), in alternative further view of Feng (CN105914270) as applied to claims 1, 5-6, 8-9, 15-16 and 18 and further in view of Ueoka (US20240194829) on claim 17 is withdrawn, because the claim has been canceled.
Claims 1, 5-11, 15 and 18- 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawai (US20240120404) in view of and Matsushita (JP2021022706A) and Ueoka (US20240194829).
Regarding claim 1, Kawai teaches a method of making a GaN based field effect transistor and electrical equipment by forming an epitaxially grown structured on a substate (paragraphs 0001, 0062 and 0069) (a method of manufacturing an epitaxial structure). Kawai teaches to provide a SiC silicon carbide substate (pargraph 0056, figure 1), Kawai teaches an amorphous AlN buffer layer (amorphous structure layer) is provided on the surface of the substate for depositing the GaN based stack (paragraph 0056). Since first layer of the GaN stack (layer 11) is formed wholly on the substrate, the amorphous AlN buffer layer is reasonably expected to be wholly formed on the SiC substrate (paragraph 0056, figure 1). Kawai teaches the layers grows on C-plane orientation on the substate (paragraph 0056) (forming an amorphous structure layer on the C-face of the SiC substrate, the amorphous structure layer is directly connected to the SiC substrate, wherein the amorphous structure layer is wholly formed on the SiC substrate, the amorphous structure layer is structure comprising aluminum and nitrogen). Kawai teaches to deposit a first group III nitride layer on the amorphous structure layer (see layer 12, paragraph 0056, figure 1). Kawai teaches to deposit a second group III nitride layer on the first group III nitride layer (see layer 13, paragraph 0056, figure 1).
Kawai does not explicitly teach the substrate have a carbon face without an off-angle. However, Matsushita teaches a method of making a silicon carbide semiconductive device (abstract). Matsushita teaches the crystal insulating film layers, such as AlN, GaN (group III nitride) is preferably formed on the 000-1 plane (C-face) (paragraphs 0053 and 0082). Matsushita teaches it is effective to reduce the off-angle of the SiC substate in order to control the atomic level flatness of SiC surface, and the off angle is 0 to 4 degree (paragraphs 0071-0074). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the group III nitrides films and amorphous structure on the C-face of the SiC substrate without an off-angle (0 off angle) as suggested by Matsushita in the method of Kawai because Matsushita teaches such surface is preferred for formation of the crystal insulating film layers, such as AlN, GaN (group III nitride), and reduced off-angle (no off angle) enhance the flatness of the SiC surface (paragraphs 0082 and 0071-0074).
Kawai in view of Matsushita does not explicitly teach the claimed thickness of the amorphous layer. Kawai teaches the amorphous AlN buffer layer (amorphous structure layer) is required for stacking the GaN layer 11 and other group III nitride layer stacks on the SiC substrate 10 surface (paragraph 0056), thus, Kawai teaches the amorphous structure layer is required to have a minimum thickness to perform such buffer layer function but does not explicitly teach the exact value of the such thickness. However, Ueoka teaches a method of forming a multilayer epitaxial structure (pargraph 0039, abstract). Ueoka teaches to form gallium nitride film on a SiC substrate (paragraphs 0068-0069). Ueoka teaches an amorphous layer is formed on the SiC substrate surface before the deposit the GaN layer (paragraph 0068), wherein the thickness of the amorphous layer governs the crystallinity of the nitride based layer formed on the surface (paragraph 0068). Therefore, it would have been within the skill of the ordinary artisan to adjust and optimize the thickness of the amorphous layer in the process, specifically thick enough to perform the buffer layer function as required by Kawai and thin enough to not affect too much of the crystallinity of the nitride based layer formed on the surface as suggested by Ueoka (paragraph 0068). Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F. 2d 272, 205 USPQ215.
Regarding claim 5, Kawai teaches the amorphous structure layer comprising AlN (paragraph 0056), which has more than 50wt% of aluminum.
Regarding claim 6, Kawai teaches the first group III nitride layer AlxGa1-xN layer (layer 12), which reads on the limitation of aluminum nitride (paragraph 0056).
Regarding claim 7, Kawai in view of Matsushita does not explicitly teach the full width at half maximum. However, Ueoka further teaches the full width at half maximum (FWHM) of the layers controls the crystallinity of the layer (paragraph 0095), and the FWHM is analyzed by X-ray diffractometry (paragraph 0096). Therefore, it would have been within the skill of the ordinary artisan to adjust and optimize the FWHM of the layer in the process to yield the desired crystallinity layer. Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F. 2d 272, 205 USPQ215.
Regarding claim 8, Kawai teaches the thickness of the first group III nitride layer is governs the gate threshold voltage (Vth) of the structure (paragraphs 0084, figure 9). Therefore, it would have been within the skill of the ordinary artisan to adjust and optimize the first group III nitride layer thickness in the process to yield the desired threshold voltage of the structure. Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F. 2d 272, 205 USPQ215.
Regarding claim 9, Kawai teaches the second group III nitride layer 13 is gallium nitride (paragraphs 0056 and 0062).
Regarding claim 10, Kawai in view of Matsushita does not explicitly teach the full width at half maximum. However, Ueoka further teaches the full width at half maximum (FWHM) of the layers controls the crystallinity of the layer (paragraph 0095), and the FWHM is analyzed by X-ray diffractometry (paragraph 0096). Therefore, it would have been within the skill of the ordinary artisan to adjust and optimize the FWHM of the layer in the process to yield the desired crystallinity layer. Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F. 2d 272, 205 USPQ215.
Regarding claim 11, Kawai in view of Matsushita does not explicitly teach the surface roughness. Ueoka teaches the roughness of the structure is less than 1nm (pargraph 0092), In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exist. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler,116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP 2144.05. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the surface roughness for the structure (second group III nitride layer) as suggested by Ueoka in the method of Kawai in view of Matsushita because Ueoka teaches such roughness is idea for forming nitride devices (paragraph 0092).
Regarding claim 15, Kawai teaches a method of making a GaN based field effect transistor and electrical equipment by forming an epitaxially grown structured on a substate (paragraphs 0001, 0062 and 0069) (an epitaxial structure). Kawai teaches to provide a SiC silicon carbide substate (pargraph 0056, figure 1), Kawai teaches an amorphous AlN buffer layer (amorphous structure layer) is provided on the surface of the substate for deposit the GaN based stack (paragraph 0056). Since first layer of the GaN stack (layer 11) is formed wholly on the substrate, the amorphous AlN buffer layer is reasonably expected to be wholly formed on the SiC substrate (paragraph 0056, figure 1). Kawai teaches the layers grow in C-plane orientation on the substate (paragraph 0056) (an amorphous structure layer on the C-face of the SiC substrate the amorphous structure layer is connected to the SiC substrate, wherein the amorphous structure layer is wholly formed on the SiC substrate). Kawai teaches to deposit a first group III nitride layer on the amorphous structure layer (see layer 12, paragraph 0056, figure 1). Kawai teaches to deposit a second group III nitride layer on the first group III nitride layer (see layer 13, paragraph 0056, figure 1).
Kawai does not explicitly teach the substrate have a carbon face without an off-angle. However, Matsushita teaches a method of making a silicon carbide semiconductive device (abstract). Matsushita teaches the crystal insulating film layers, such as AlN, GaN (group III nitride) is preferably formed on the 000-1 plane (C-face) (paragraphs 0053 and 0082). Matsushita teaches it is effective to reduce the off-angle of the SiC substate in order to control the atomic level flatness of SiC surface, and the off angle is 0 to 4 degree (paragraphs 0071-0074). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the group III nitrides films and amorphous structure on the C-face of the SiC substrate without an off-angle (0 off angle) as suggested by Matsushita in the product of Kawai because Matsushita teaches such surface is preferred for formation of the crystal insulating film layers, such as AlN, GaN (group III nitride), and reduced off-angle (no off angle) enhance the flatness of the SiC surface (paragraphs 0082 and 0071-0074).
Kawai in view of Matsushita does not explicitly teach the claimed thickness of the amorphous layer. Kawai teaches the amorphous AlN buffer layer (amorphous structure layer) is required for stacking the GaN layer 11 and other group III nitride layer stacks on the SiC substrate 10 surface (paragraph 0056), thus, Kawai teaches the amorphous structure layer is required to have a minimum thickness to perform such buffer layer function but does not explicitly teach the exact value of the such thickness. However, Ueoka teaches a method of forming a multilayer epitaxial structure (pargraph 0039, abstract). Ueoka teaches to form gallium nitride film on a SiC substrate (paragraphs 0068-0069). Ueoka teaches an amorphous layer is formed on the SiC substrate surface before the deposit the GaN layer (paragraph 0068), wherein the thickness of the amorphous layer governs the crystallinity of the nitride based layer formed on the surface (paragraph 0068). Therefore, it would have been within the skill of the ordinary artisan to adjust and optimize the thickness of the amorphous layer in the process, specifically thick enough to perform the buffer layer function as required by Kawai and thin enough to not affect too much of the crystallinity of the nitride based layer formed on the surface as suggested by Ueoka (paragraph 0068). Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F. 2d 272, 205 USPQ215.
Regarding claim 18, Kawai teaches the second group III nitride layer 13 is gallium nitride (paragraphs 0056 and 0062).
Regarding claim 19, Kawai in view of Matsushita does not explicitly teach the full width at half maximum. Ueoka further teaches the full width at half maximum (FWHM) of the layers controls the crystallinity of the layer (paragraph 0095), and the FWHM is analyzed by X-ray diffractometry (paragraph 0096). Therefore, it would have been within the skill of the ordinary artisan to adjust and optimize the FWHM of the layer in the structure as disclosed by Kawai in view of Matsushita to yield the desired crystallinity layer. Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F. 2d 272, 205 USPQ215.
Regarding claim 20, Kawai in view of Matsushita does not explicitly teach the surface roughness. Ueoka teaches the roughness of the structure is less than 1nm (pargraph 0092), In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exist. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler,116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP 2144.05. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the surface roughness for the structure (second group III nitride layer) as suggested by Ueoka in the structure of Kawai in view of Matsushita because Ueoka teaches such roughness is idea for forming nitride devices (paragraph 0092).
Regarding claim 21, Kawai teaches the amorphous AlN buffer layer (amorphous structure layer) is provided on the surface of the substate for depositing the GaN based stack (paragraph 0056). Since Kawai teaches the AlN buffer layer is directly connected to the SiC substrate and is formed by high temperature (paragraph 0062), the amorphous AlN buffer layer is considered to comprising at least a small amount of silicon (from the SiC substrate) at the interface with the SiC substrate, thus, Kawai teaches the amorphous structure layer is a structure comprising aluminum, silicon and nitrogen.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawai (US20240120404) in view of and Matsushita (JP2021022706A) and Ueoka (US20240194829) as applied to claims 1, 5-11, 15 and 18- 21 above, and further in view of Feng (CN105914270).
Regarding claim 2, Kawai in view of Matsushita and Ueoka teaches all limitations of this claim, except the amorphous structure layer is formed by physical vapor deposition (PVD). However, Feng teaches a method of making silicon based gallium nitride LED epitaxial structure (paragraph 0001) and discloses an amorphous ALN thin film is formed on the substrate by sputtering (PVD) (pargraph 0017). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the amorphous AlN layer on the silicon based substrate by PVD as suggested by Feng in the method of Kawai in view of Matsushita and Ueoka because Feng teaches PVD is a known method to form the amorphous AlN thin layer on silicon substate (paragraph 0017).
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawai (US20240120404) in view of and Matsushita (JP2021022706A) and Ueoka (US20240194829) as applied to claims 1, 5-11, 15 and 18- 21 above, and further in view of Chou (US20190229236).
Regarding claim 12, Kawai teaches the first group III nitride layer is deposited by metal organic chemical vapor deposition (paragraph 0062) and there are multiple group III nitride layers (see figure 1, layers 12, 13, 14 etc). Thus, Kawai in view of Matsushita and Ueoka teaches all limitations of this claim, except the first group III nitride layer is deposited by both PVD and metal organic chemical vapor deposition (MOCVD). However, Chou teaches a method of making an epitaxial structure (paragraphs 0015-0016). Chou teaches to form the first group III nitride layer by PVD and MOCVD (pargraph 0018) and the first group III nitride layer is multilayer structure (paragraph 0019). The invention as a whole would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine the two methods, PVD and MOCVD, to be used as the deposition method of the multilayers first group III nitride (one layer with PVD and the other with MOCVD). It is prima facie obvious to combine two techniques, each of which is taught be the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to forma third technique which is to be used for the very same purpose. In re Kerkhoven, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072.
Regarding claim 13, Chou teaches the first group III nitride layers can be formed from different methods (PVD and MOCVD) (paragraph 0018). Kawai teaches there are different group III nitride layers (see layers 12, 13, 14 etc, figure 1). Thus, the combination of reference would result in forming different group III nitride layers with different methods. The combination of references does not explicitly teach the PVD is formed before the MOCVD. However, it is obvious to choose from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success (MPEP2143 I. E.). In this case, there are only three solutions, forming PVD first, forming MOCVD first or forming PVD and MOCVD at the same time. All of them will result in forming the same structures. Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to form the PVD on the amorphous structure before forming the CVD in light of the teaching of Kawai in view of Chou.
Regarding claim 14, Kawai teaches the group III nitride stacks have different thickness, such as layer 12 is 20nm, layer 13 is 30nm and layer 14 is 20nm, thus, the Kawai does teach a method of forming a group III nitride layer with thinner thickness before forming a group III nitride layer with thicker thickness (paragraph 0062). Kawai further teaches the thickness of the first group III nitride layer is governs the gate threshold voltage (Vth) of the structure (paragraphs 0084, figure 9). Therefore, it would have been within the skill of the ordinary artisan to adjust and optimize the first group III nitride layer thickness (including the PVD vs MOCVD thickness) in the process to yield the desired threshold voltage of the structure. Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F. 2d 272, 205 USPQ215.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawai (US20240120404) in view of and Matsushita (JP2021022706A) and Ueoka (US20240194829) as applied to claims 1, 5-11, 15 and 18- 21 above, and in alternative, further in view of Feng (CN105914270).
Regarding claim 16, It is noted that the instant claim is a product-by-process claim. “Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of the patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in a product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thrope, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Thus, Kawai in view of Matsushita teaches all limitations of this claim.
Nevertheless, Feng teaches a method of making silicon based gallium nitride LED epitaxial structure (paragraph 0001) and discloses an amorphous AlN thin film is formed on the substrate by sputtering (PVD) (pargraph 0017). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the amorphous AlN layer on the silicon based substrate by PVD as suggested by Feng in the product of Kawai in view of Matsushita and Ueoka because Feng teaches PVD is a known method to form the amorphous AlN thin layer on silicon substate (paragraph 0017).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on June 10, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s principal arguments are:
Ueoka explicitly “teaches away” from the claimed thickness range.
The claimed thickness range of 2-5 nm is critical for achieving unexpected results.
Kawai and Matsushita fail to teach the critical range and mechanism.
In response to Applicant’s arguments, please consider the following comments:
While Ueoka teaches example and embodiment of the amorphous layer being less than 1nm (paragraphs 0068 and 0111), Examiner disagrees that Ueoka teaches away from the claimed thickness range of 2nm to 5nm as the substrate and the layers as disclosed by Ueoka and the claimed invention (and also by Kawai in view of Matsushita) are not exactly the same. Specifically, Ueoka teaches the specific amorphous layer thickness is applicable for the SiC substrate with an off angle (paragraphs 0041-0043) (different from the claimed invention) and the group III nitride layer is GaN (different from claimed invention stack: first group III nitride AlN on amorphous structure layer and a second group III nitride layer GaN on the first III nitride layer). Thus, the rejection is not based on applying the exact thickness as suggested by Ueoka (less than 1nm) in Kawai in view of Matsushita. As discussed in the rejection above, the rejection is based on Kawai teaches the amorphous AlN buffer layer (amorphous structure layer) is required for stacking the GaN layer 11 and other group III nitride layer stacks on the SiC substrate 10 surface (paragraph 0056), thus, Kawai teaches the amorphous structure layer is required to have a minimum thickness to perform such buffer layer function but does not explicitly teach the exact value of the such thickness; and Ueoka is used to show the thickness of the amorphous structure layer in similar mechanism (epitaxial structure form by applying gallium nitride film on a SiC substrate) governs the crystallinity of the GaN layer (paragraph 0068). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would not apply the exact amorphous thickness as suggested by Ueoka but would rather apply the logic of optimizing of the layer as disclosed by Ueoka and Kawai. Since Kawai teaches a minimum thickness is needed for the amorphous buffer (structure) layer, by combining with Ueoka’s logic, one of ordinary skill in the art would have motivations to optimize the thickness of the amorphous structure layer to achieve the basic buffering layer function as required by Kawai while keeping it minimum so it wouldn’t affect the crystallinity too much in light of the teaching of Ueoka.
To establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range (716.02(d) II). In this case, Applicant only shows results of an example with no amorphous layer and an example with an unspecific amorphous layer thickness (only recites as between 2nm and 5nm), such data are not enough of showing inside and outside of the claimed range to establish the criticality. Data such as smaller than 2nm and bigger than 5nm are needed to establish the criticality of the claimed range. Thus, Applicant has not established criticality of the claimed range.
As discussed above, Kawai in view of Matsushita teaches the claimed method and the claimed mechanism, while Kawai and Ueoka further provide reasons to optimize the thickness of the amorphous structure layer. The rejection is not based on applying Ueoka’s suggested thickness on the specific mechanism which isn’t exactly the same as the claimed invention or Kawai in view of Matsushita.
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 NGA LEUNG V LAW whose telephone number is (571)270-1115. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am - 5 pm.
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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached at 5712721295. 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.
/NGA LEUNG V LAW/Examiner, Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights