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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on September 2, 2026. has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
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 1-9, 11 and 22-24 are 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.
The newly added limitation to claim 1 of “a period of time of less than or about 20 seconds” is new matter. The basis for this limitation for claim 1 is at paragraph [0050] of the pre-grant publication of this application, US 2024/0290623. Paragraph 50 describes various time periods for the treatment precursor contact having increasing times such as “greater than or about 3 seconds” or “greater than or about 20 seconds” [0050]. This provides basis for the endpoint of the cited range of 20 seconds. However, this fails to describe the full range of less than 3 seconds as in the open-ended range of “less than 20 seconds” that includes durations such as 1 second or 2 seconds not described in the specification. Accordingly, the specification lacks basis for the full range of “a period of time of less than or about 20 seconds” as recited in independent claim 1.
Claims 2-9, 11 and 22-24 fail to cure the new matter and are therefore also rejected.
Claims 1-9, 11, 13 and 22-24 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 19-22, the phrase “having an increased surface roughness” introduces a relative term “increased” that renders the metes and bounds of the claim unclear. Relative to what is the surface roughness increased? Relative to not removing residue [0051], or not conducting oxidizing [0056], removing a native oxide [0010], a combination of these steps, or relative to some other conventional technology step [0011]?
A suggested amendment to overcome this rejection is at
claim 1, line 13, after “etching the silicon-and-germanium-containing material” insert - - thereby forming a portion of the silicon-and-germanium-containing material having an increased surface roughness relative to other etched portions of the silicon-and-germanium-containing material - -
at claim 1, line 19, delete “a portion” and insert - - the portion - - (basis for this amendment is at the PGPub of the instant application, paragraph [0057])
at claim 1, line 19, delete “an increased” and insert - - the increased - - (basis for this amendment is at the PGPub of the instant application, paragraph [0057])
at claim 1, line 21, delete “an” and insert - - the - - .
In claim 13, the term “the first Ra” lacks proper antecedent basis. A suggested amendment to overcome this rejection is to
delete “the first Ra” and
after “10% relative to” insert - - a first Ra of a silicon-and-germanium-containing-material that has not been etched, contacted with the treatment precursor, and removed as recited in claim 12. - - .
Claims 2-9, 11, 13 and 22-24 fail to cure the indefiniteness of the base claim and are therefore also rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1-8, 11 and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi et al (US 2021/0082710 A1) in view of Zhao et al (US 2024/0194487 A1) and Zhang et al (US 2021/0066085 A1).
Takahashi ’710 discloses a semiconductor processing method comprising:
providing a pre-treatment precursor (124, Fig. 5; “H2O, NH3, alcohol or the like” [0065]) to a processing of a remote plasma system (120 [0050] Fig. 5) of a semiconductor processing chamber 61 [0050];
generating plasma effluents (hydrogen radicals, [0065]) of the pre-treatment precursor in the remote plasma system;
flowing plasma effluents of the pre-treatment precursor to a processing region of the semiconductor processing chamber, wherein a substrate W comprising alternating layers of material (“Si/SiGe layers alternatingly stacked on a wafer W” [0023]) is disposed within the processing region (as depicted in Fig. 5), and wherein the alternating layers of material comprise a silicon-and-germanium-containing material [0023];
contacting the substrate with the plasma effluents of the pre-treatment precursor, wherein the contacting removes a residue (“D” Fig. 2B) from a surface of the silicon-and-germanium-containing material (“causing the hydrogen radicals in the generated plasma to act on the residuals D remaining on the arrangement surface Wn of the wafer W after the BT processing” [0065]);
etching the silicon-and-germanium-containing material [0070].
The resulting structure of Takahashi ’710 is a stack of Si and SiGe layers that have SiGe etched and recessed with respect to the Si layers (see Fig. 1, reproduced below). Takahashi ’710 fails to disclose a post-treatment after obtaining this resulting structure.
Zhao teaches a method that controls the amount of SiGe removed in amounts that are aligned uniformly [0064]. Zhao teaches to alternately and repeatedly oxidize and then remove the oxidized portion to obtain the desired removal amount [0064]. More specifically, Zhao teaches:
providing a post-treatment precursor (oxygen gas [0062]) to the processing region 313 [0062] of the semiconductor processing chamber 301 (Fig.3);
generating plasma effluents 504 of the post-treatment precursor in the processing region (“The oxygen plasma 504 is generated in the decompression chamber lower area 313” [0062]);
contacting the substrate with the post-treatment precursor, wherein the contacting oxidizes a portion of the silicon-and-germanium-containing material 506 (Fig.5C, [0062]); and
removing the portion of the silicon-and-germanium-containing material (Step 603b, [0063]).
The removal of the oxidized portion of the SiGe is uniform in the depth direction of the grooves 510 [0063]. The amount removed depends on the number of repeated cycles [0064].
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide post-treatment as taught by Zhao in the method of Takahashi ’710 because Zhao teaches that oxidizing and removal of the oxide provides for uniform removal to a desired depth by controlling the number of cycles, which is expected to increase the yield of the final device by providing structures with desired dimensions with respect to the etched amount of SiGe.
Further as to claim 1, Takahashi ’710 fails to disclose an increased surface roughness. However, this “increased” surface roughness, as best understood, is the result of removing residue ([0051] of the instant specification) or oxidation [0058], or both. The modified method of Takahashi ’710 teaches both removing residue and oxidation, and thus is expected to remove increased surface roughness areas, as cited, inherently because where the same steps are conducted, the same results are expected.
In the alternative, Zhang teaches that oxidizing a surface and then etching provides for a surface with improved surface roughness [0022]. The method of Takahashi ’710 as modified by Zhao oxidizes a surface and then etches to remove the oxidized surface (see rejection above). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to oxidize and remove silicon-and-germanium-containing materials to a desired depth, thus providing improved surface roughness as cited in the modified method of Takahashi ’710 because Zhang teaches that oxidizing and etching improves surface roughness.
As to amended claim 1, Takahashi ’710 fails to disclose the duration of contacting to remove the residue. However, the amount of time is relative depending on the materials present, their thickness, desired removal amount, and composition used to remove the residue. The method of Takahashi ’710 discloses the same steps as in the instant invention, broadly claimed, and therefore it is expected that the time is similar to that claimed. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to contact for the cited time in the method of Takahashi ’710 in order to remove a desired amount of residue and because time can be optimized for best results depending on the desired removal amount.
As to claim 2, Takahashi ’710 discloses that the pre-treatment precursor comprises a hydrogen-containing precursor, nitrogen-containing precursor, or an oxygen-containing precursor (H2O, NH3 [0065]).
As to claim 3, Takahashi ’710 discloses a plasma power is maintained at 300 W to 1000 W [0067], which is less than or about 5,000 W, as cited.
As to claim 4, Takahashi ’710 discloses providing an inert precursor with the pre-treatment precursor (helium may be included with the reducing gas [0056]).
As to claim 5, Zhao teaches that the post-treatment precursor comprises molecular oxygen O2 [0062]. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include molecular oxygen O2 in the modified method of Takahashi ’710 because Zhao teaches that this is a useful gas to provide oxidation, and such is expected to give the predictable result of an oxidized surface.
As to claim 6, both Takahashi ’710 and Zhao disclose the alternating layers of material comprise a silicon-containing material (Si/SiGe, see rejection of claim 1).
As to claim 7, Takahashi ’710 discloses that the residue comprises a carbon-containing material [0065].
As to claim 8, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the cited temperature range in the modified method of Takahashi ’710 because Yang ’280 teaches that it is a useful temperature range for radical irradiation and such is expected to give the predictable result of removed residue. Still further, the temperature can be optimized for best results. MPEP 2144.05, II. A.
As to claim 11, see the discussion of surface roughness from claim 1, which also applies here. Zhao fails to disclose the average surface roughness of the silicon-and-germanium-containing material. However, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the cited surface roughness because the same steps are conducted, and therefore the same results are expected, and because Zhang teaches to expect improved surface roughness.
As to claim 22, Takahashi ’710 fails to disclose the duration of contacting to remove the residue. However, the amount of time is relative depending on the materials present, their thickness, desired removal amount, and composition used to remove the residue. The method of Takahashi ’710 discloses the same steps as in the instant invention, broadly claimed, and therefore it is expected that the time is similar to that claimed. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to contact for the cited time in the method of Takahashi ’710 in order to remove a desired amount of residue and because time can be optimized for best results depending on the desired removal amount.
As to claims 23-24, Takahashi ’710 discloses to provide helium [0068] or H2 [0065], which are either a diluent or a hydrogen-containing precursor.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi et al (US 2021/0082710 A1), Zhao et al (US 2024/0194487 A1) and Zhang et al (US 2021/0066085 A1), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Yang et al (2016/0064519 A1).
As to claim 9, Takahashi ’710 fails to disclose that the pressure within the processing region of the semiconductor processing chamber. Yang ’519 teaches that during hydrogen radical treatment with a remove plasma, that the chamber pressure is less than 5 Torr [0066]. Yang ’519 is used as a general teaching of useful pressures in processing regions while using hydrogen radicals produced in a remote chamber. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the cited pressure in the modified method of Takahashi ’710 because Yang ’519 teaches that such is a useful pressure range from hydrogen radical processing, and such is expected to give the predictable result of a treated surface.
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao et al (US 2024/0194487 A1) in view of Marchegiani (US 2023/0197465 A1).
As to claim 12, Zhao discloses a semiconductor processing method comprising:
etching a silicon-and-germanium-containing material 503 from a substrate 502 (as depicted in Fig. 5B, to form groove 510, [0060]) disposed within a processing region of a semiconductor process chamber, wherein the silicon-and-germanium-containing material is one material of one or more alternating layers of material 502 on the substrate [0058];
providing a treatment precursor (“oxygen but also a gas containing oxygen” [0068], oxygen radicals, “radical irradiation” [0052], [0067] oxidation process 603a) to the processing region 313 [0062] of the semiconductor processing chamber 301 (Fig.3);
contacting the substrate with the treatment precursor, wherein the contacting oxidizes a portion of the silicon-and-germanium-containing material (Fig.9B, [0062], “at Step 603a, radical irradiation may be used” [0067]), and wherein the contacting is, broadly interpreted, a thermal, plasma-free treatment (plasma-free by radical irradiation [0052]); and
removing the portion of the silicon-and-germanium-containing material (Step 603b, [0063]).
As to amended claim 12, Zhao fail to disclose that the treatment precursor comprises steam or hydrogen peroxide. Rather, Zhao discloses to use an oxygen-containing gas other than O2, but fails to specify the composition of the other oxygen-containing gases. Marchegiani teaches that oxidizers may include O2 as in Zhao but also other oxygen-containing gases such as steam and hydrogen peroxide [0240]. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use steam or hydrogen peroxide as the oxygen-containing gas in the method of Zhao because Zhao teaches that gases other than O2 may be used, and Marchegiani teaches that they useful alternative gases for oxygen gas for oxidizing surfaces and such are expected to give the predictable result of an oxidized surface.
As to claim 13, Zhao fails to disclose the average surface roughness of the silicon-and-germanium-containing material. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the cited improved surface roughness in the method of Zhao because the same steps are conducted and therefore the same results are expected.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao et al (US 2024/0194487 A1) in view of Marchegiani (US 2023/0197465 A1), as applied to claim 12, and further in view of Yang et al (US 2019/0103280 A1) and Yang et al (2016/0064519 A1).
As to claim 14, Zhao fails to disclose the temperature within the processing region of the semiconductor processing chamber.
Yang ’280 teaches to control a wafer temperature within the range of 20 °C and 400 °C [0063]. More specifically, Yang ’280 teaches providing a substrate 54 with Si and SiGe thin films 53 and a carbon-containing layer 52 [0022], Fig. 1; generating radicals (the organic radical based surface treatment process, [0026]) by inducing a plasma [0026] in a remote plasma chamber and filtering ions by a separation grid and allowing passage of neutrals through holes in the separation grid for exposure to the workpiece [0027], [0031].
Yang ’280 teaches a broad temperature range at which radical treatment is effective. Thus, Yang ’280 is a general teaching that hydrogen radical treatment may be conducted at a temperature range of 20 °C to 400 °C, which encompasses the cited temperature range.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the cited temperature range in the method of Zhao because Yang ’280 teaches that it is a useful temperature range for radical treatment and such is expected to give the predictable result of a treated surface. Still further, the temperature can be optimized for best results. MPEP 2144.05, II. A.
Still further as to claim 14, Zhao fails to disclose that the pressure within the processing region of the semiconductor processing chamber. Yang ’519 teaches that during hydrogen radical treatment with a remove plasma, that the chamber pressure is less than 5 Torr [0066]. Yang ’519 is used as a general teaching of useful pressures in processing regions while using hydrogen radicals produced in a remote chamber. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the cited pressure in the modified method of Zhao because Yang ’519 teaches that such is a useful pressure range from hydrogen radical processing, and such is expected to give the predictable result of a treated surface.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao et al (US 2024/0194487 A1) in view of Marchegiani (US 2023/0197465 A1), as applied to claim 12, and further in view of Yang et al (US 2019/0103280 A1).
As to claim 16, Yang ’280 teaches providing an inert precursor (helium, argon, xenon, [0026]) with the treatment precursor. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include an inert precursor in the method of Zhao because Yang ’280 teaches that to so is useful and such is expected to give the predictable result of a treated surface.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Zhao et al (US 2024/0194487 A1) in view of Marchegiani (US 2023/0197465 A1), as applied to claim 12, and further in view of Zheng et al (US 2016/0079062 A1).
As to claim 17, Zhao fails to disclose to remove a native oxide layer. Zheng teaches that hydrogen radicals and/or energetically excited neutral species of hydrogen remove native oxides from Si or SiGe [0039]. Zheng also teaches that before processing substrates with Si and SiGe [0005], to clean the substrate 204 [0040] to remove native oxides of Si and SiGe by plasma etching [0041] or a high temperature bake process [0044]. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to remove native oxides as cited in the method of Zhao because Zheng teaches that hydrogen radicals of Zhao remove native oxides, or still further that it is a useful to remove native oxides as part of a cleaning process prior to processing, which is expected to improve the properties of the final device.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-9, 11-14, 16-20, 22-24 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/112,252 in view of Zhao et al (US 2024/0194487 A1) and Zhang et al (US 2021/0066085 A1).
Claim 1 of the ’252 application is nearly identical to the first four steps cited in claim 1 of the instant invention because a “treatment precursor” has the same meaning as a “pre-treatment precursor.” However, the ’252 application fails to disclose the final four steps of etching, providing, generating, contacting and removing. The discussion of Zhao and Zhang from above is repeated here. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide post-treatment as taught by Zhao in the method of the ’252 application because Zhao teaches that oxidizing and removal of the oxide provides for uniform removal, which is expected to increase the yield of the final device by providing structures with desired dimensions with respect to the etched amount of SiGe, and provide the cited surface roughness as taught by Zhang.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Response to Amendment
The rejection of claims 18-20 over the prior art is withdrawn. Applicant’s remarks filed September 2, 2026, at pages 8-9 are persuasive in that Zhao teaches contacting for 30-60 seconds, not the cited range of less than 20 seconds. Times less than 30 seconds are not expected to saturate and therefore not provide the desired results in the method of Zhao.
The rejections from the office action mailed on June 2, 2026, have been modified in view of the claim amendments, but remain largely the same.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 2, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive, to the extent they still apply.
Applicant argues that
the phrase "having an increased surface roughness" modifies the "a portion of the silicon-and-germanium-containing material" that is oxidized. As such, the portion of the silicon-and-germanium-containing material that is oxidized is clearly a portion of the silicon- and-germanium-containing material having an increased surface roughness relative to another, non-oxidized portion of the silicon-and-germanium-containing material.
In response, this does not address that the term “increased” is a relative term as it relates to the claim as a whole. A proposed amendment to overcome the rejection is above in the rejection.
As to claim 1, the reliance upon Zhao to teach the time duration is withdrawn and replaced by an obviousness rejection, see the rejection above. Takahashi teaches the contacting step in claim 1, not Zhao. Moreover, time is a relative term that is hard to determine when it rises to nonobviousness, especially when the claims are broadly interpreted. The rejection above explains this further.
As to claim 12, applicant argues that Zhao fails teach or suggest steam or hydrogen peroxide. In response, Zhao teaches that the gas is not limited to molecular oxygen, but may include other gases that contain oxygen. This suggests that other oxidizing gases that contain oxygen may be utilized. Marchegiani (US 2023/0197465 A1) is newly relied upon to teach the obviousness of water or hydrogen peroxide as examples of oxygen-containing gases other than oxygen gas.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANITA K ALANKO whose telephone number is (571)270-0297. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9 am-5pm.
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, Joshua Allen can be reached on 571-270-3176. 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.
/ANITA K ALANKO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713
