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 .
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.
Status of Claims
3. This action is in response to Applicant’s RCE dated 06/29/2026.
4. Claims 1-7 and 9-20 are currently pending.
5. Claims 1, 16, and 18 have been amended.
6. Claim 8 has been cancelled.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
7. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 06/04/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. Claim(s) 1-4, 6, 9, 11-12, 15, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Citla et al (US 2021/0384040) in view of Madsen et al (US 2017/0301515) and Kulshreshtha et al (US 2016/0307752).
Regarding claim 1:
Citla teaches a gas-delivery assembly (lid assembly, 112) [fig 1 & 0024] comprising: a transport tube (120) comprising: a first end (top of 120) having a first end cross-sectional dimension (cross sectional dimension through which 108 passes), and a second end (bottom of 120) having a second end cross-sectional dimension (cross sectional dimension through which 108 passes), wherein the first end cross-sectional dimension is smaller than the second end cross-sectional dimension (see fig 1) [fig 1 & 0024]; a showerhead assembly (114/116/118) coupled to the second end (bottom of 120), the showerhead assembly (114/116/118) comprising: a top plate (114) [fig 1 & 0024]; a showerhead plate (118) coupled (coupled via 116) to the top plate (114) [fig 1 & 0024]; and a plenum region (radical cavity, 110) between the top plate (114) and the showerhead plate (118) [fig 1 & 0024].
Citla does not specifically disclose a baffle interposed between the plenum region and the second end, the baffle comprising: a first region comprising a substantially cylindrical portion having a plurality of holes therethrough; and a second region radially exterior the first region.
Madsen teaches a baffle (baffle plate, 250) interposed between the plenum region and the second end (see fig 4), the baffle (250) comprising: a first region (region defined by D2) comprising a substantially cylindrical portion having a plurality of holes (holes, 270) therethrough [fig 4-5 & 0040]; and a second region (region defined by D1) radially exterior the first region (region defined by D2) [fig 4-5 & 0040].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the gas-delivery assembly of Citla to comprise a baffle, as in Madsen, to restrict, distribute, and/or mix gases and precursors within the showerhead [Madsen – 0004].
Citla modified by Madsen does not specifically teach wherein holes of the plurality of holes near a center of the baffle are closer together relative to other holes of the plurality of holes away from the center of the baffle.
Kulshreshtha teaches holes of a plurality of holes near a center of the baffle are closer together relative to other holes of the plurality of holes away from the center of the baffle (inner region 522 is circular in shape and has a greater density of holes 520 relative to the density of holes 520 of the outer region 524) [fig 5A & 0049].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the plurality of holes in the first region of the baffle of modified Citla to be closer together near a center of the baffle relative to other holes of the plurality of holes away from the center of the baffle, as in Kulshreshtha, to modulate the gas flow profile to compensate for local stress and overlay error [Kulshreshtha – 0049].
The claim limitations “wherein a fluid conductance between the second end of the transport tube and the plenum of the second region is greater than a fluid conductance between the second end of the transport tube and the plenum of the first region” are functional limitations and do not impart any additional structure. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Since the structure of the prior art teaches all structural limitations of the claim, the same is considered capable of meeting the functional limitations. Where the claimed and prior art apparatus are identical or substantially identical in structure, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding claim 2:
Citla teaches a first flange (bottom flange of 120) coupled to the second end (bottom of 120) and to the top plate (114) [fig 1 & 0024].
Regarding claim 3:
Citla teaches the first flange (bottom flange of 120) is integral with (see fig 1) the second end (bottom of 120) [fig 1 & 0024].
It is noted that the limitations “wherein the first flange is welded to the second end” are directed to the process of making the first flange integral with the second end. "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the 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 Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985)
Regarding claim 4:
Modified Citla teaches the baffle (250) is welded to the first flange (friction stir welded) [Madsen - fig 5-6 & 0044].
Regarding claim 6:
Citla teaches a second flange (top flange of 120) coupled to the first end (top of 120) [fig 1 & 0024].
Regarding claims 9:
Modified Citla teaches the second region (region defined by D1) comprises a plurality of arcuate-shaped regions (regions between 254) [Madsen - fig 4-5 & 0040].
Regarding claims 11-12:
Citla teaches the transport tube (120) further comprises a tube coating (108) on an interior surface of the transport tube (120) [fig 1 & 0024]; and the tube coating (108) comprises a material selected from the group consisting of aluminum oxide, electroless nickel phosphorous, and yttrium oxide (Al2O3) [fig 1 & 0024].
Regarding claim 15:
Citla teaches the transport tube (120) comprises a first substantially straight section and an adjacent second frustoconical section that terminates at the second end (see fig 1) [fig 1 & 0024].
Regarding claim 18:
Citla teaches a gas-delivery assembly (lid assembly, 112) [fig 1 & 0024] comprising: a transport tube (120) comprising: a first end (top of 120) having a first end cross-sectional dimension (cross sectional dimension through which 108 passes), a second end (bottom of 120) having a second end cross-sectional dimension (cross sectional dimension through which 108 passes), wherein the first end cross-sectional dimension is smaller than the second end cross-sectional dimension (see fig 1) [fig 1 & 0024], a showerhead assembly (114/116/118) coupled to the second end (bottom of 120), the showerhead assembly (114/116/118) comprising: a top plate (114) [fig 1 & 0024]; a showerhead plate (118) coupled (coupled via 116) to the top plate (114) [fig 1 & 0024]; and a plenum region (radical cavity, 110) between the top plate (114) and the showerhead plate (118) [fig 1 & 0024].
Citla does not specifically teach a baffle interposed between the plenum region and the second end, a first region of the baffle comprising a substantially cylindrical portion having a plurality of holes, and wherein a second region of the baffle comprises a plurality of arcuate-shaped regions.
Madsen teaches a baffle (baffle plate, 250) interposed between the plenum region and the second end (see fig 4), a first region of the baffle (region defined by D2) comprising a substantially cylindrical portion having a plurality of holes (holes, 270), and wherein a second region of the baffle (region defined by D1) comprises a plurality of arcuate-shaped regions (regions between 254) [fig 4-5 & 0040].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the gas-delivery assembly of Citla to comprise a baffle, as in Madsen, to restrict, distribute, and/or mix gases and precursors within the showerhead [Madsen – 0004].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the gas-delivery assembly of Citla to comprise a baffle, as in Madsen, to restrict, distribute, and/or mix gases and precursors within the showerhead [Madsen – 0004].
Citla modified by Madsen does not specifically teach the plurality of holes near a center of the baffle are closer together relative to other holes of the plurality of holes away from the center of the baffle.
Kulshreshtha teaches holes near a center of the baffle are closer together relative to other holes of the plurality of holes away from the center of the baffle (inner region 522 is circular in shape and has a greater density of holes 520 relative to the density of holes 520 of the outer region 524) [fig 5A & 0049].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the plurality of holes in the first region of the baffle of modified Citla to be closer together near a center of the baffle relative to other holes of the plurality of holes away from the center of the baffle, as in Kulshreshtha, to modulate the gas flow profile to compensate for local stress and overlay error [Kulshreshtha – 0049].
The claim limitations “wherein a fluid conductance between the second end of the transport tube and the plenum of a second region of the baffle is greater than a fluid conductance between the second end of the transport tube and the plenum of a first region of the baffle” are functional limitations and do not impart any additional structure. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Since the structure of the prior art teaches all structural limitations of the claim, the same is considered capable of meeting the functional limitations. Where the claimed and prior art apparatus are identical or substantially identical in structure, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
11. Claim(s) 5 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Citla et al (US 2021/0384040) in view of Madsen et al (US 2017/0301515) and Kulshreshtha et al (US 2016/0307752) as applied to claims 1-4, 6, 9, 11-12, 15, and 18 above, and further in view of Kurokawa et al (JP-H01283315).
The limitations of claims 1-4, 6, 9, 11-12, 15, and 18 have been set forth above.
Regarding claim 5:
Modified Citla does not specifically teach the first flange comprises a first flange cooling fluid channel.
Kurokawa teaches a first flange (flange, 4) comprises a first flange cooling fluid channel (8 cools) [fig 2-3 & abstract].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the first flange of modified Citla to comprise a first flange cooling fluid channel, as in Kurokawa, to provide a cooling and sealing device for a flange to prevent air leakage when an O-ring crack occurs [Kurokawa – 0001].
Regarding claim 19:
Modified Citla teaches a first flange (bottom flange of 120) [Citla - fig 1 & 0024].
Modified Citla does not specifically teach the first flange comprising a first flange cooling fluid channel.
Kurokawa teaches a first flange (flange, 4) comprising a first flange cooling fluid channel (8 cools) [fig 2-3 & abstract].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the first flange of modified Citla to comprise a first flange cooling fluid channel, as in Kurokawa, to provide a cooling and sealing device for a flange to prevent air leakage when an O-ring crack occurs [Kurokawa – 0001].
12. Claim(s) 7 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Citla et al (US 2021/0384040) in view of Madsen et al (US 2017/0301515) and Kulshreshtha et al (US 2016/0307752) as applied to claims 1-4, 6, 9, 11-12, 15, and 18 above, and further in view of Tong (US 2022/0122819).
The limitations of claims 1-4, 6, 9, 11-12, 15, and 18 have been set forth above.
Regarding claim 7:
Modified Citla does not specifically teach the second flange comprises a second flange cooling fluid channel.
Tong teaches a second flange (406) comprises a second flange cooling fluid channel (fluid tube, 505, may deliver a fluid for cooling) [fig 3, 5 & 0045].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the second flange of modified Citla to comprise a second flange cooling fluid channel, as in Tong, to cool the base of the remote plasma unit seated thereabove [Tong – 0045].
Regarding claim 20:
Modified Citla teaches a second flange (top flange of 120) [Citla - fig 1 & 0024].
Modified Citla does not specifically teach the second flange comprising a second flange cooling fluid channel.
Tong teaches a second flange (406) comprising a second flange cooling fluid channel (fluid tube, 505, may deliver a fluid for cooling) [fig 3, 5 & 0045].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the second flange of modified Citla to comprise a second flange cooling fluid channel, as in Tong, to cool the base of the remote plasma unit seated thereabove [Tong – 0045].
13. Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Citla et al (US 2021/0384040) in view of Madsen et al (US 2017/0301515) and Kulshreshtha et al (US 2016/0307752) as applied to claims 1-4, 6, 9, 11-12, 15, and 18 above, and further in view of Meinhold et al (US 2009/0095220).
The limitations of claims 1-4, 6, 9, 11-12, 15, and 18 have been set forth above.
Regarding claim 10:
Modified Citla does not specifically teach the top plate comprises a top plate conduit and a heater therein.
Meinhold teaches a top plate (back plate, 306) comprises a top plate conduit and a heater therein (heater 314 may be embedded in 306) [fig 3A & 0041].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the top plate of modified Citla to comprise a top plate conduit and a heater therein, as in Meinhold, to maintain the showerhead at the desired temperature for a given process [Meinhold – 0047].
14. Claim(s) 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Citla et al (US 2021/0384040) in view of Madsen et al (US 2017/0301515) and Kulshreshtha et al (US 2016/0307752) as applied to claims 1-4, 6, 9, 11-12, 15, and 18 above, and further in view of Shanbhag et al (US 2019/0185999).
The limitations of claims 1-4, 6, 9, 11-12, 15, and 18 have been set forth above.
Regarding claims 13-14:
Modified Citla does not specifically teach the baffle further comprises a baffle coating on a surface of the baffle; and the baffle coating comprises a material selected from the group consisting of aluminum oxide or electroless nickel phosphorous.
Shanbhag teaches a baffle (chamber component) further comprises a baffle coating (protective coating) on a surface of the baffle (chamber component) [abstract & 0005]; and the baffle coating (protective coating) comprises a material selected from the group consisting of aluminum oxide or electroless nickel phosphorous (aluminum oxide) [abstract & 0005].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the baffle of modified Citla to comprise a coating, as in Shanbhag, to help reduce contamination on wafers processed using the coated baffle [Shanbhag - abstract].
15. Claim(s) 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Citla et al (US 2021/0384040) in view of Rathi et al (US 2022/0310360), Madsen et al (US 2017/0301515), and Kulshreshtha et al (US 2016/0307752).
Regarding claim 16:
Citla teaches a reactor system (processing chamber, 100) [fig 1 & 0022] comprising: a remote plasma unit (remote plasma source, 104) [fig 1 & 0023]; a transport tube (120), the transport tube (120) comprising: a first end (top of 120) having a first end cross-sectional dimension (cross sectional dimension through which 108 passes), and a second end (bottom of 120) having a second end cross-sectional dimension (cross sectional dimension through which 108 passes), wherein the first end cross-sectional dimension is smaller than the second end cross-sectional dimension (see fig 1) [fig 1 & 0024]; a showerhead assembly (114/116/118) coupled to the second end (bottom of 120), the showerhead assembly (114/116/118) comprising: a top plate (114) [fig 1 & 0024]; a showerhead plate (118) coupled (coupled via 116) to the top plate (114) [fig 1 & 0024]; and a plenum region (radical cavity, 110) between the top plate (114) and the showerhead plate (118) [fig 1 & 0024]; and a reaction chamber (chamber body, 130) adjacent the showerhead plate (118) fig 1 & 0026].
Citla does not specifically disclose the transport tube fluidly coupled to an outlet of the remote plasma unit.
Rathi teaches a transport tube (218) fluidly coupled to an outlet of the remote plasma unit (RPS unit, 210) [fig 2 & 0028].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the transport tube of Citla to be fluidly coupled to an outlet of the remote plasma unit, as in Rathi, to provide additional stability and support against the remote plasma unit which may otherwise damage the tube coating from the support weight [Rathi – 0028].
Citla modified by Rathi does not specifically disclose a baffle interposed between the plenum region and the second end, the baffle comprising: a first region comprising a substantially cylindrical portion having a plurality of holes therethrough; and a second region radially exterior the first region.
Madsen teaches a baffle (baffle plate, 250) interposed between the plenum region and the second end (see fig 4), the baffle (250) comprising: a first region (region defined by D2) comprising a substantially cylindrical portion having a plurality of holes (holes, 270) therethrough [fig 4-5 & 0040]; and a second region (region defined by D1) radially exterior the first region (region defined by D2) [fig 4-5 & 0040].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the gas-delivery assembly of Citla to comprise a baffle, as in Madsen, to restrict, distribute, and/or mix gases and precursors within the showerhead [Madsen – 0004].
Citla modified by Rathi and Madsen does not specifically teach wherein holes of the plurality of holes near a center of the baffle are closer together relative to other holes of the plurality of holes away from the center of the baffle.
Kulshreshtha teaches holes of a plurality of holes near a center of the baffle are closer together relative to other holes of the plurality of holes away from the center of the baffle (inner region 522 is circular in shape and has a greater density of holes 520 relative to the density of holes 520 of the outer region 524) [fig 5A & 0049].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the plurality of holes in the first region of the baffle of modified Citla to be closer together near a center of the baffle relative to other holes of the plurality of holes away from the center of the baffle, as in Kulshreshtha, to modulate the gas flow profile to compensate for local stress and overlay error [Kulshreshtha – 0049].
The claim limitations “wherein a fluid conductance between the second end of the transport tube and the plenum of the second region is greater than a fluid conductance between the second end of the transport tube and the plenum of the first region” are functional limitations and do not impart any additional structure. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Since the structure of the prior art teaches all structural limitations of the claim, the same is considered capable of meeting the functional limitations. Where the claimed and prior art apparatus are identical or substantially identical in structure, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding claim 17:
Citla teaches the transport tube (120) is coated with a material (108) selected from the group consisting of aluminum oxide or electroless nickel phosphorous (Al2O3) [fig 1 & 0024].
Response to Arguments
16. Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 06/04/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim(s) 1-20 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Madsen provides no reason to further modify the baffle arrangement using Kulshreshtha’s denser inner-region hole pattern, which is directed to stress/overlay control and is not aligned with the claimed arrangement in which conductance to the radially exterior second region is greater than conductance to the first region. Nor has the Office shown that the resulting structure would necessarily exhibit the claimed comparative conductance relationship. See In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255 (CCPA 1977); In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
In response, it is noted that Madsen need NOT suggest or state the need for its own modification. As set forth in the rejection of record, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the plurality of holes in the first region of the baffle of modified Citla to be closer together near a center of the baffle relative to other holes of the plurality of holes away from the center of the baffle, as in Kulshreshtha, to modulate the gas flow profile to compensate for local stress and overlay error [Kulshreshtha – 0049].
It is unclear why applicant believes Kulshreshtha is “not aligned” with the claimed functional arrangement. Kulshreshtha was only used to modify the structure of the first region of the baffle. The rejection of record does NOT suggest modifying the second region of the baffle of Madsen. It is noted that this is entirely consistent with Kulshreshtha, which teaches that the blocker plate may comprise additional regions not shown of varying density of holes (e.g. the second region of Madsen) [0053].
Therefore, the proposed modification results in an identical structure to that which is claimed. Since the structure of the prior art teaches all structural limitations of the claim, the same is considered capable of meeting the functional limitations. Where the claimed and prior art apparatus are identical or substantially identical in structure, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977) [MPEP 2112.01(I)]. If a prima facie case of obviousness is established, the burden shifts to the applicant to come forward with arguments and/or evidence to rebut the prima facie case. See, e.g., In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 692, 16 USPQ2d 1897, 1901 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (en banc) [MPEP 2145]. Applicant has failed to show (let alone attempted to show) that the claimed comparative conductance relationship would not be present in the resulting modified structure.
Applicant argues that the rejection does not explain how Madsen’s ring supported baffle would be incorporated into Citla’s different lid assembly architecture.
In response, it is noted that this is the second consecutive time applicant has presented a bodily incorporation argument (see Remarks dated 02/03/2026). The test for obviousness is NOT whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). One of ordinary skill in the art would simply support the baffle of Madsen at the outlet of 108 in Citla in the same manner it is supported in Madsen. This is hardly a complex modification. "A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton. "KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397.
Conclusion
17. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Zhou et al (US 9,484,202), Chandrasekharan et al (US 10,378,107), and Chandrasekharan et al (US 2015/0315706) teach a transport tube comprising: a first end having a first end cross-sectional dimension, and a second end having a second end cross-sectional dimension [fig 2, 1, and 1, respectively].
18. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN R KENDALL whose telephone number is (571)272-5081. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thurs 9-5 EST.
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, William F Kraig can be reached at (571)272-8660. 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.
/Benjamin Kendall/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896
