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 .
Status of the Claims
Examiner acknowledges receipt of Applicant’s amendments and arguments filed with the Office on October 7th, 2025 in response to the Non-Final Office Action mailed on June 12th, 2025. Per Applicant's response, Claims 1-2 & 11-12 have been amended. Claims 21-25 have been newly-added. Claims 16-20 have been cancelled. All other claims have been left in their previously-presented form. Consequently, Claims 1-15 & 21-25 remain pending in the instant application. The Examiner has carefully considered each of Applicant’s amendments and/or arguments, and they will be addressed below.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-15 & 21-25 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1, 11, and 21 each recite the limitation “sides of the body slope radially outward”; this should instead read “a circumferential side of the body slopes radially outward”. As far as the examiner understands the invention, the body (112, for example, in Fig. 2) forms a conical wall/side that slopes radially outward from one end to the other. In other words, there does not appear to be multiple sides sloping outward; only a singular circumferential side/wall that slopes outwardly. If the Examiner is mistaken, Applicant’s clarification is required.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 2 was 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. Applicant’s amendments have remedied this issue, thus obviating this rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-15 & 21-25 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 9-12, 15, & 21-23, & 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2014/0174108 to Oikawa.
PNG
media_image1.png
862
957
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regards to independent Claims 1, 11, & 21, and with particular reference to Figure 1 shown immediately above, Oikawa discloses:
1. A cryogenic pump (“evacuation system”; “cold trap”; Fig. 1; paras. 4 & 14) for semiconductor processing (this is a statement of intended use that does not limit the apparatus claim in any patentable sense; see also “vacuum processing apparatus” at para. 14), comprising: a body (24) having a flange (26), configured to be coupled to a process chamber (16) (Fig. 1), and an opening (15) defined at a first end of the body (Fig. 1, as annotated by the Examiner), wherein a longitudinal axis of the body (Fig. 1, as annotated by the Examiner) is defined from the first end of the body to a second end of the body (Fig. 1, as annotated by the Examiner), wherein a first lateral dimension (L1, as annotated by the Examiner above) of the opening is less than a second lateral dimension (L2, as annotated by the Examiner above) of the body (apparent in Fig. 1, as annotated by the Examiner), the first and second lateral dimensions being defined perpendicular to the longitudinal axis (Fig. 1), and wherein the second lateral dimension is defined at the second end (Fig. 1); and wherein sides (27) of the body slope radially outward, in relation to the longitudinal axis, from the first end to the second end (apparent in Fig. 1); one or more capture plate modules (20) disposed in the body between the first end and the second end (Fig. 1); a cold header (22) thermally coupled to the one or more capture plate modules (paras. 21, 30-31)
11. A cryogenic pump (“evacuation system”; “cold trap”; Fig. 1; paras. 4 & 14) for semiconductor processing (this is a statement of intended use that does not limit the apparatus claim in any patentable sense; see also “vacuum processing apparatus” at para. 14), comprising: a body (24) having a flange (26), configured to be coupled to a process chamber (16), and an opening (15) defined at a first end of the body (Fig. 1, as annotated by the Examiner), wherein a longitudinal axis of the body is defined from the first end of the body to a second end of the body (Fig. 1, as annotated by the Examiner), and wherein the body has a non-cylindrical shape with sides (27) sloping radially outward, in relation to the longitudinal axis, from the first end to the second end (Fig. 1); one or more capture plate modules (20) disposed in the body; and a cold header (22) thermally coupled to the one or more capture plate modules (paras. 21, 30-31).
21. A cryogenic pump (“evacuation system”; “cold trap”; Fig. 1; paras. 4 & 14) for semiconductor processing (this is a statement of intended use that does not limit the apparatus claim in any patentable sense; see also “vacuum processing apparatus” at para. 14), comprising: a body (24) having a flange (26), configured to be coupled to a process chamber (16), and an opening (15) defined at a first end of the body (Fig. 1, as annotated by the Examiner), wherein a longitudinal axis of the body (Fig. 1, as annotated by the Examiner) is defined from the first end of the body to a second end of the body (Fig. 1, as annotated by the Examiner), and wherein sides (27) of the body slope radially outward, in relation to the longitudinal axis, from the first end to the second end (Fig. 1, as annotated by the Examiner); one or more capture plate modules (20) disposed in the body between the first end and the second end (Fig. 1, as annotated by the Examiner); and a cold header (22) thermally coupled to the one or more capture plate modules (paras. 21, 30-31)
In regards to Claim 4, the one or more capture plate modules comprise a pair of fixed capture plate modules (30, 32; Fig. 1; paras. 26-27).
In regards to Claim 9, the opening (15) in the body (24) is elongated (i.e. longer in lateral dimension in comparison to the fixed capture plate 30), and wherein the first lateral dimension corresponds to a maximum length of the opening (Fig. 1).
In regards to Claim 10, the process chamber (16) is a vacuum chamber associated with a process or apparatus selected from the group consisting of: extreme ultraviolet (EUV) lithography, physical vapor deposition (PVD), atomic layer deposition (ALD), chemical vapor deposition (CVD), an etch process, a transfer room, a buffer room, an attached/hooked chamber in a multi-chamber structure, an implanter tool, and a measurement tool (“a vacuum chamber 16 of a vacuum processing apparatus” reads upon transfer room, as claimed).
In regards to Claim 12, the sides (27) of the body (24) slope radially outward at an angle of 15 degrees to 60 degrees (it is apparent from Fig. 1 that the sides 27 slope outward at an angle greater than 15 degrees and less than 60 degrees).
In regards to Claim 15, the one or more capture plate modules comprise first and second capture plate modules (30, 32) having respective first and second outer dimensions (apparent in Fig. 1) that increase in the direction away from the first end and towards the second end (it is apparent in Fig. 1 that the outer dimension of second capture plate module 32 has a larger outer diameter than the first capture plate module 30; see also para. 27).
In regards to Claim 22, a first lateral dimension (L1) of the opening is less than a second lateral dimension (L2) of the body at the second end (Fig. 1 above).
In regards to Claim 23, the body is conical (Fig. 1 above).
In regards to Claim 25, see Claim 15 above.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 9-12, 15, & 21-23, & 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 4,791,791 to Flegal et al.
PNG
media_image2.png
1067
768
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In regards to independent Claims 1, 11, & 21, and with particular reference to Figure 1 shown immediately above, Oikawa discloses:
1. A cryogenic pump (Fig. 1; “cryosorption pump”; Abstract) for semiconductor processing (this is a statement of intended use that does not limit the apparatus claim in any patentable sense), comprising: a body (12-14) having a flange (upper flange, seen at the top of Fig. 1), configured to be coupled to a process chamber (“upper end 13 of the housing is open to permit communication with the chamber to be evacuated”; col. 2, lines 45-46), and an opening (“upper end 13 of the housing is open”; see also opening 29) defined at a first end (radially inner end 13) of the body (apparent in Fig. 1), wherein a longitudinal axis of the body (Fig. 1, as annotated by the Examiner) is defined from the first end of the body to a second end (radially outer end 14) of the body (Fig. 1, as annotated by the Examiner), wherein a first lateral dimension (i.e. inner diameter) of the opening is less than a second lateral dimension (i.e. inner diameter) of the body (apparent in Fig. 1; “the central portion 14 of the side wall bulges outwardly in the radial direction”), the first and second lateral dimensions being defined perpendicular to the longitudinal axis (Fig. 1), and wherein the second lateral dimension is defined at the second end (as labeled by the Examiner above; Fig. 1); and wherein sides (i.e. walls) of the body slope radially outward, in relation to the longitudinal axis, from the first end to the second end (“the central portion 14 of the side wall bulges outwardly in the radial direction”); one or more capture plate modules (41, 42) disposed in the body between (i.e. axially between) the first end and the second end (Fig. 1); a cold header (16, 17, 19) thermally coupled to the one or more capture plate modules (col. 3, lines 50-61)
11. A cryogenic pump (Fig. 1; “cryosorption pump”; Abstract) for semiconductor processing (this is a statement of intended use that does not limit the apparatus claim in any patentable sense), comprising: a body (12-14) having a flange (upper flange, seen at the top of Fig. 1), configured to be coupled to a process chamber (“upper end 13 of the housing is open to permit communication with the chamber to be evacuated”; col. 2, lines 45-46), and an opening (“upper end 13 of the housing is open”; see also opening 29) defined at a first end of the body (radially inner end 13), wherein a longitudinal axis of the body is defined from the first end of the body to a second end of the body (Fig. 1, as annotated by the Examiner), and wherein the body has a non-cylindrical shape with sides sloping radially outward, in relation to the longitudinal axis, from the first end to the second end (Fig. 1; “the central portion 14 of the side wall bulges outwardly in the radial direction”); one or more capture plate modules (41, 42) disposed in the body; and a cold header (16, 17, 19) thermally coupled to the one or more capture plate modules (col. 3, lines 50-61).
21. A cryogenic pump (Fig. 1; “cryosorption pump”; Abstract) for semiconductor processing (this is a statement of intended use that does not limit the apparatus claim in any patentable sense), comprising: a body (12-14) having a flange (upper flange, seen at the top of Fig. 1), configured to be coupled to a process chamber (“upper end 13 of the housing is open to permit communication with the chamber to be evacuated”; col. 2, lines 45-46), and an opening (“upper end 13 of the housing is open”; see also opening 29) defined at a first end of the body (radially inner end 13), wherein a longitudinal axis of the body (Fig. 1, as annotated by the Examiner) is defined from the first end of the body to a second end of the body (Fig. 1, as annotated by the Examiner), and wherein sides of the body slope radially outward, in relation to the longitudinal axis, from the first end to the second end (Fig. 1; “the central portion 14 of the side wall bulges outwardly in the radial direction”); one or more capture plate modules (41, 42) disposed in the body between the first end and the second end (Fig. 1, as annotated by the Examiner); and a cold header (16, 17, 19) thermally coupled to the one or more capture plate modules (col. 3, lines 50-61)
In regards to Claim 4, the one or more capture plate modules comprise a pair of fixed capture plate modules (41, 42; Fig. 1; col. 3, lines 19-65).
In regards to Claim 9, the opening in the body is elongated (i.e. longer in lateral dimension in comparison to the fixed capture plates 41 & 42), and wherein the first lateral dimension corresponds to a maximum length of the opening (Fig. 1).
In regards to Claim 10, the process chamber is a vacuum chamber (“high vacuum environment“) associated with a process or apparatus selected from the group consisting of: extreme ultraviolet (EUV) lithography, physical vapor deposition (PVD), atomic layer deposition (ALD), chemical vapor deposition (CVD), an etch process, a transfer room, a buffer room, an attached/hooked chamber in a multi-chamber structure, an implanter tool, and a measurement tool (“the chamber to be evacuated” reads upon transfer room, as claimed).
In regards to Claim 12, the sides of the body slope radially outward at an angle of 15 degrees to 60 degrees (it is apparent from Fig. 1 that the sides slope outward at an angle greater than 15 degrees and less than 60 degrees).
In regards to Claim 15, the one or more capture plate modules comprise first and second capture plate modules (41, 42) having respective first and second outer dimensions (apparent in Fig. 1) that increase in the direction away from the first end and towards the second end (outer dimension of second capture plate module 42 has a larger outer diameter than the first capture plate module 41).
In regards to Claim 22, a first lateral dimension (L1) of the opening is less than a second lateral dimension (L2) of the body at the second end (Fig. 1 above).
In regards to Claim 23, the body is conical (Fig. 1 above).
In regards to Claim 25, see Claim 15 above.
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 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 factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oikawa (applied above).
In regards to Claim 2, Oikawa discloses the invention of Claim 1, wherein the second lateral dimension is defined at the second end (Fig. 1). However, Oikawa does not specify that a ratio of the second lateral dimension (L2) to the first lateral dimension (L1) is equal to or greater than 1.5. While it appears from Oikawa’s Figure 1 that the second lateral dimension L2 is more than 1.5 times greater the first lateral dimension L1, Oikawa does not disclose this specifically. However, the courts have held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is the recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, the device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device and is therefore not patentably distinct (See MPEP § 2144.04 - Paragraph IV.A). In this case, Oikawa definitively discloses that a ratio of the second lateral dimension (L2) to the first lateral dimension (L1) is equal to or greater than 1.0. Furthermore, it has been held by the courts that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges (see In re AIler, 105 USPQ 233) or an optimum value of a result effective variable (see In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)) involves only routine skill in the art. Please note that in para. 32 of the instant application, this optimum ratio value has been disclosed, but the applicant has failed to disclose any criticality for the claimed limitation. Therefore, Applicant’s claimed invention is not patentably distinct from that disclosed in Oikawa.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Flegal (applied above).
In regards to Claim 2, Flegal discloses the invention of Claim 1, wherein the second lateral dimension is defined at the second end (Fig. 1). However, Flegal does not specify that a ratio of the second lateral dimension (L2) to the first lateral dimension (L1) is equal to or greater than 1.5. While it appears from Flegal’s Figure 1 that the second lateral dimension L2 is more than 1.5 times greater the first lateral dimension L1, Flegal does not disclose this specifically. However, the courts have held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is the recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, the device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device and is therefore not patentably distinct (See MPEP § 2144.04 - Paragraph IV.A). In this case, Flegal definitively discloses that a ratio of the second lateral dimension (L2) to the first lateral dimension (L1) is equal to or greater than 1.0. Furthermore, it has been held by the courts that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges (see In re AIler, 105 USPQ 233) or an optimum value of a result effective variable (see In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)) involves only routine skill in the art. Please note that in para. 32 of the instant application, this optimum ratio value has been disclosed, but the applicant has failed to disclose any criticality for the claimed limitation. Therefore, Applicant’s claimed invention is not patentably distinct from that disclosed in Flegal.
Claim(s) 3 & 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Flegal (applied above) in view of CN 207847882 to Wu (attached to previous office action).
In regards to Claim 3, Flegal discloses the cryogenic pump of claim 1, but does not further disclose that the one or more capture plate modules comprise at least one array of blades that is movable via vibration, rotation, or tilting.
However, Wu discloses yet another cryogenic pump (Fig. 1; “low temperature pump”; Abstract)
comprising: a body (2) having a flange (at lead line 2a; Fig. 1), configured to be coupled to a process chamber (“suction port 1 for receiving the gas in the vacuum chamber”), and an opening (“suction port 1”) defined at a first end of the body (i.e. upper end, as seen in Fig. 1), wherein a longitudinal axis of the body (i.e. a vertical axis thereof) is defined from the first end of the body to a second end of the body (Fig. 1), one or more capture plate modules (71; “a plurality of cryopanels 71 which are coaxially arranged with the cryopump and have gaps between them”; para. 17) disposed in the body (Figs. 1); and a cold header (4) thermally coupled to the one or more capture plate modules (Fig. 1). Wu goes on to specifically disclose rotation of the capture plate modules (see paras. 10-12, 17), and discloses that such rotation allows the capture plate modules to more evenly condense incoming gasses (para. 17). Therefore, to one of ordinary skill desiring a cryopump with more effective capture plate modules, it would have been obvious to utilize the techniques disclosed in Wu in combination with those seen in Flegal in order to obtain such a result. Consequently, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Flegal’s capture plate modules (41, 42) with the rotation driving mechanism of Wu in order to obtain predictable results; those results being a cryogenic pump with rotational capture plate modules, thereby ensuring that the capture plate modules can be manipulated such that they are evenly utilized for condensing incoming gasses (as taught in Wu).
In regards to Claim 14, Flegal discloses the cryogenic pump of claim 11, but does not further disclose that the one or more capture plate modules (41, 42) comprise at least one capture plate module that is movable via rotation at a rate of about 1000 RPM or less, wherein a direction of rotation is clockwise or counterclockwise.
However, as described previously above, Wu discloses yet another cryogenic pump (Fig. 1; “low temperature pump”; Abstract) comprising: a body (2) having a flange (at lead line 2a; Fig. 1), configured to be coupled to a process chamber (“suction port 1 for receiving the gas in the vacuum chamber”), and an opening (“suction port 1”) defined at a first end of the body (i.e. upper end, as seen in Fig. 1), wherein a longitudinal axis of the body (i.e. a vertical axis thereof) is defined from the first end of the body to a second end of the body (Fig. 1), one or more capture plate modules (71; “a plurality of cryopanels 71 which are coaxially arranged with the cryopump and have gaps between them”; para. 17) disposed in the body (Figs. 1); and a cold header (4) thermally coupled to the one or more capture plate modules (Fig. 1). Wu goes on to specifically disclose rotation of the capture plate modules (see paras. 10-12, 17), and discloses that such rotation allows the capture plate modules to more evenly condense incoming gasses (para. 17). Therefore, to one of ordinary skill desiring a cryopump with more effective capture plate modules, it would have been obvious to utilize the techniques disclosed in Wu in combination with those seen in Flegal in order to obtain such a result. Consequently, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Flegal’s capture plate modules (41, 42) with the rotation driving mechanism of Wu in order to obtain predictable results; those results being a cryogenic pump with rotational capture plate modules, thereby ensuring that the capture plate modules can be manipulated such that they are evenly utilized for condensing incoming gasses (as taught in Wu). Wu does not specifically disclose a rotation rate of about 1000 rpm or less. However, Wu makes clear that rotation of the capture plate modules (71) provides improved gas condensing and absorbing efficiency (paras. 17, 31). In other words, the purpose of Wu’s rotation is not speed, but precise circumferential adjustment of the capture plate modules. Those of ordinary skill in the art of cryopumps would have recognized that such rotation would likely be low speed rotation, likely far below 1000 RPM, as claimed. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have rotated Flegal’s capture plate modules at a speed of less than 1000 RPM, as claimed, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
In regards to Claim 24, refer to Claims 3 & 14 above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-8 & 13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the best available prior art fails to disclose the features of Claims 5-8, which define various combinations of fixed and movable capture plate modules placed in specific arrangements within the cryogenic pump. The best available prior art also fails to disclose the features of Claim 13, which requires the one or more capture plate modules to comprise a movable capture plate module that is movable via vibration at a rate of about 20 Hz or less. The best available prior art fails to disclose the particular combinations of capture plate modules recited by Applicant.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendments filed October 7th, 2025 have 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 ALEXANDER BRYANT COMLEY whose telephone number is (571)270-3772. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-6PM CST.
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, Mark Laurenzi can be reached at 571-270-7878. 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.
/ALEXANDER B COMLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
ABC