DETAILED ACTION
This is the first office action regarding application number 18/159744, filed on 01/26/2023, which claims priority from Japanese patent application JP 2022-046024 filed on March 22, 2022.
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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Japan on 03/22/2022. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the English translation of JP2022-046024 application.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 1-4, 6-19 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.
The following highlighted limitations are indefinite because “a board”, “a surface”, “a plated layer” have been mentioned before. It is not clear if there are multiple boards, surfaces, and plated layers.
PNG
media_image1.png
429
672
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
538
670
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
617
674
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
575
900
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
278
877
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Dependent claims 2-4, 6-12 are rejected based on their dependency on claim 1, claims 15-16 are rejected based on their dependency on claim 14, claims 18-19 are rejected based on their dependency on claim 17.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Oya et al., US 20200288577 (hereafter Oya).
Regarding claim 1,
A method for manufacturing a board with a surface roughened for wiring formation, (Abstract teaches “A picosecond laser beam having a pulse duration on the order of a picosecond or a femtosecond laser beam having a pulse duration on the order of a femtosecond is emitted at a surface of a platable layer (2) in order to roughen the surface, a wiring pattern is formed using a mask (13),”)
the method for manufacturing a board comprising performing laser ablation on a board (Abstract teaches “A picosecond laser beam having a pulse duration on the order of a picosecond or a femtosecond laser beam having a pulse duration on the order of a femtosecond is emitted at a surface of a platable layer (2) in order to roughen the surface”)
containing a resin at least on a surface of the board, (Paragraph [66] teaches “the to-be metallized layer may contain a material selected from the group consisting of acrylic resins, PET, PTFE, glass, epoxy resins, liquid-crystal polymers, and polyimide resins.”)
wherein a laser light irradiated in the laser ablation is a laser light having a pulse width of 1 ps or less, (Paragraph [64] teaches a laser with pulse width of “1 femtosecond to 1000 femtosecond.” MPEP 2131.03-I sets forth “"If the prior art discloses a point within the claimed range, the prior art anticipates the claim." UCB, Inc. v. Actavis Labs. UT, Inc., 65 F.4th 679, 687, 2023 USPQ2d 448 (Fed. Cir. 2023).”)
a wavelength of 320 nm or more, (Paragraph [64] teaches “The wavelength of the beam that the femtosecond green laser emits preferably is 500 nm to 530 nm.” MPEP 2131.03-I sets forth “"If the prior art discloses a point within the claimed range, the prior art anticipates the claim." UCB, Inc. v. Actavis Labs. UT, Inc., 65 F.4th 679, 687, 2023 USPQ2d 448 (Fed. Cir. 2023).”)
and an output of 1 W or less. (Table 2 teaches output power of 0.25 Watt which is within the claimed range. MPEP 2131.03-I sets forth “"If the prior art discloses a point within the claimed range, the prior art anticipates the claim." UCB, Inc. v. Actavis Labs. UT, Inc., 65 F.4th 679, 687, 2023 USPQ2d 448 (Fed. Cir. 2023).”)
Regarding claim 2,
The method for manufacturing a board according to claim 1, wherein the laser light is a laser light having a pulse width of 0.1 ps or more. (Paragraph [64] teaches a laser with pulse width of “1 femtosecond to 1000 femtosecond which is within the claimed range.” MPEP 2131.03-I sets forth “"If the prior art discloses a point within the claimed range, the prior art anticipates the claim." UCB, Inc. v. Actavis Labs. UT, Inc., 65 F.4th 679, 687, 2023 USPQ2d 448 (Fed. Cir. 2023).”)
Regarding claim 3,
The method for manufacturing a board according to claim 1, wherein the laser light is a laser light having a wavelength of 1064 nm or less. (Paragraph [64] teaches “The wavelength of the beam that the femtosecond green laser emits preferably is 500 nm to 530 nm” which is within the claimed range. MPEP 2131.03-I sets forth “"If the prior art discloses a point within the claimed range, the prior art anticipates the claim." UCB, Inc. v. Actavis Labs. UT, Inc., 65 F.4th 679, 687, 2023 USPQ2d 448 (Fed. Cir. 2023).”)
Regarding claim 4,
The method for manufacturing a board according to claim 1, wherein the laser light is a laser light having an output of 0.05 W or more. (Table 2 teaches output power of 0.25 Watt which is within the claimed range. MPEP 2131.03-I sets forth “"If the prior art discloses a point within the claimed range, the prior art anticipates the claim." UCB, Inc. v. Actavis Labs. UT, Inc., 65 F.4th 679, 687, 2023 USPQ2d 448 (Fed. Cir. 2023).”)
Regarding claim 6,
A method for manufacturing a board having a plated layer, comprising: (Abstract in Oya teaches “A picosecond laser beam having a pulse duration on the order of a picosecond or a femtosecond laser beam having a pulse duration on the order of a femtosecond is emitted at a surface of a platable layer (2) in order to roughen the surface, a wiring pattern is formed using a mask (13), and a plated part (12) is formed on the surface of the wiring pattern.”)
forming an electroless plated layer by performing electroless plating on a surface of a board acquired by the method for manufacturing a board according to claim 1; (Fig. 2)
PNG
media_image6.png
562
602
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Fig. 2 in Oya teaches a metallization process
forming an electrolytic plated layer by performing electrolytic plating on the electroless plated layer; and performing an annealing treatment on the board on which the electrolytic plated layer is formed. (Fig. 2)
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) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oya as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee at al., US 9491866 (hereafter Lee).
A method for manufacturing a board having a plated layer, comprising: (Abstract in Oya)
… and performing an annealing treatment on the board on which the electrolytic plated layer is formed.(Oya teaches a baking step after electrolytic plating in Fig. 2.)
forming a dry plated layer by performing dry plating on a surface of a board acquired by the method for manufacturing a board according to claim 1; ( Primary combination of references is silent about this.
Column 5, lines 1-5 in Lee teaches “Alternatively, the process for forming the electroless copper plating layer, i.e., the conductive seed layer 170, may be performed using a sputtering process in which ion particles (e.g., Ar+) of gas generated by plasma collide with a copper target to form a metal layer on the substrate.” Here sputtering process corresponds to dry plating.)
forming an electrolytic plated layer by performing electrolytic plating on the dry plated layer; (Primary combination of references is silent about this.
Fig. 2 and column 5, lines 10-15 in Lee teach “Also, in a process (S4-1-2), the entire surfaces of the circuit pattern 30, the via hole 70, and the pad part 40 may be filled using the electro plating process.”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add the step of dry plating as taught in Lee to replace the electroless plating in Oya. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “the conductive seed layer 170 may be formed of Cu using the electroless plating or sputtering process” as taught in column 5, lines 5-10 in Lee.
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oya, and Lee as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Shindou et al., US 20180007800 (hereafter Shindou).
Regarding claim 8,
The method for manufacturing a board having a plated layer according to claim 7, comprising before the forming of the dry plated layer, performing a plasma treatment on a surface of the board. (Primary combination of references is silent about this.
Shindou teaches performing plasma treatment before dry plating in paragraphs [154-155].)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add the step of plasma treatment before dry plating as taught in Shindou to the method taught in Oya. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “the removal of resin residue in a via hole in the fifth step is performed by plasma treatment;” as taught in paragraph [11] in Shindou.
Regarding claim 9,
The method for manufacturing a board having a plated layer according to claim 8, wherein the plasma treatment is at least one kind of plasma treatment selected from an H2/Ar plasma treatment and an O2/Ar plasma treatment. (Paragraph [115] in Shindou teaches “a conventionally known plasma can be used as the plasma, such as oxygen plasma or other plasma using a reactive gas, argon plasma, helium plasma or other plasma using an inert gas, or plasma of mixed gases thereof.”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add the step of plasma treatment before dry plating as taught in Shindou to the method taught in Oya. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “the removal of resin residue in a via hole in the fifth step is performed by plasma treatment;” as taught in paragraph [11] in Shindou.
Claim(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oya as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tan et al., “The Evolution of Microstructure and Resistance in Electroplated Copper Films by Linear Integrated Laser Scanning Annealing,” Electronic Materials Letters, vol. 17, pp. 207–214, September 2020 (hereafter Tan).
Regarding claim 10,
A method for manufacturing a board having a plated layer, comprising: forming a plated layer by performing plating on a surface of a board acquired by the method for manufacturing a board according to claim 1; (Similar scope to claim 1 and therefore rejected under the same argument.)
and performing a laser annealing treatment on the formed plated layer. (Primary combination of references is silent about this.
Tan teaches laser annealing of electroplated Cu films in abstract.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add the step of laser annealing of the plated layer as taught in Tan to the method taught in Oya. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “The laser annealing process with a local temperature gradient caused a significant decline in Cu electrical resistance compared to the conventional annealing process, indicating its extraordinary potential in improving Cu wire conductivity” as taught in abstract in Tan.
Regarding claim 11,
The method for manufacturing a board having a plated layer according to claim 10, wherein the forming of the plated layer includes: forming an electroless plated layer by performing electroless plating on a surface of the board and forming an electrolytic plated layer by performing electrolytic plating on the electroless plated layer; or forming a dry plated layer by performing dry plating on a surface of the board and forming an electrolytic plated layer by performing electrolytic plating on the dry plated layer. (The claim is interpreted as “forming an electroless plated layer by performing electroless plating on a surface of the board and forming an electrolytic plated layer by performing electrolytic plating on the electroless plated layer;”. Fig. 2 in Oya)
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oya, and Tan as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Kang, US 20220165634 (hereafter Kang).
The method for manufacturing a board having a plated layer according to claim 10, wherein a wavelength of a laser light irradiated on the plated layer is 600 nm or less when the laser annealing treatment is performed. (Primary combination of references is silent about this.
Kang teaches a laser annealing process with “wavelength ranging from about 300 nm to about 360 nm” in paragraph [75]. Here the claimed ranges of 600nm or less overlaps the range taught in Kang and hence obvious. MPEP 2144.05-I sets forth “ In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.)”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add the step of laser annealing with a wavelength of less than 600nm as taught in Kang to the method taught in Oya. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “the wavelength of the light source of the laser beam may be selected according to the type of material forming the second insulating layer 151 of a transparent or translucent material. In an example embodiment, the laser beam of the laser annealing process (LAP) may have various shapes such as a spot beam or a line beam” as taught in paragraph [75] in Kang.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oya, and further in view of Hashizume et al., US 20170347464 (hereafter Hashizume), Iwashita, US 20150289384 (hereafter Iwashita).
Regarding claim 5,
A board comprising a resin at least on a surface of the board, (Paragraph [66] in Oya teaches “the to-be metallized layer may contain a material selected from the group consisting of acrylic resins, PET, PTFE, glass, epoxy resins, liquid-crystal polymers, and polyimide resins.”)
wherein the surface has an arithmetic mean height Sa of 50 to 200 nm (Primary combination of references is silent about this.
Hashizume teaches resin base in title. Paragraph [56] teaches the arithmetic mean height of resin base is preferably from 0.04 to 0.2 µm. Here the claimed ranges of 50 to 200nm overlaps the range taught in Hashizume and hence obvious. MPEP 2144.05-I sets forth “ In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.)”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the surface roughness in Oya to an arithmetic mean height of 50 to 200nm as taught in Hashizume. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “When the arithmetical mean height Sa is less than the lower limit, adhesion strength between the conductive layer 2 and the base film 1 may become insufficient. On the other hand, when the arithmetical mean height Sa is more than or equal to the upper limit, it may become difficult to uniformly remove the conductive layer 2 by etching, and it may not be possible to form a fine conductive pattern. The arithmetical mean height Sa can be adjusted by, for example, performing surface treatment, such as plasma treatment, alkali treatment, or wet-blasting treatment. For example, the arithmetical mean height Sa may be adjusted to be in the aforementioned range when producing the base film 1.”
and a functional group amount (area ratio) in a C1s spectrum obtained from an XPS spectrum of 10% or more. (Paragraph [29] of the original disclosure describes “The functional group amount (area ratio) in the C1s spectrum obtained from the XPS spectrum can be calculated by performing peak splitting on a peak of the C1s (1s orbital of carbon atoms) in the XPS spectrum, calculating the peak area derived from the COO group and the peak area derived from the C=O group, and dividing the sum of the peak areas by the peak area of all C1s, as shown in the following formula.
Functional group amount (area ratio) = [(peak area derived from COO group + peak area derived from C=O group)/peak area of all C1s] × 100”. Based on this the limitation is interpreted as area ratio of COO and C=O groups is 10% or more in XPS.
Primary combination of references is silent about this.
Iwashita teaches XPS measurement to calculate abundance ratio of oxygen atoms wherein “The “abundance ratio of oxygen atoms” indicates the ratio (atom %) of oxygen atoms to all atoms (excluding hydrogen atoms) measured by XPS measurement. The “oxygen atoms in C—O bonds %” indicates the ratio (atom %) of oxygen atoms included in C—O bonds to all atoms measured by XPS measurement. The “oxygen atoms in C═O bonds %” indicates the ratio (atom %) of oxygen atoms included in C═O bonds to all atoms measured by XPS measurement. In this case, “the abundance ratio of oxygen atoms”=“oxygen atoms in C—O bonds %”+“oxygen atoms in C═O bonds %” as taught in paragraph [189]. Thus, Iwashita teaches calculating area ratio of COO and C=O groups in XPS.
Table 2 teaches an abundance ratio of oxygen atoms between 12.6 to 23.2% , thus Iwashita teaches area ratio of COO and C=O groups is more than 10%. Here the claimed ranges of more than 10% overlaps the range taught in Iwashita and hence obvious. MPEP 2144.05-I sets forth “ In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.)”)
Even though Iwashita teaches calculating area ratio of oxygen atoms instead of Carbon atoms, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the area ratio of COO and C=O groups in Oya to an area ratio of 10% or more as taught in Iwashita. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “the amount of oxygen atoms introduced into the resin surface was measured by XPS analysis. The measured oxygen atom amount indicates the degree of progress in surface modification” as taught in paragraph [186] in Iwashita.
Regarding claim 13,
A method for manufacturing a board having a plated layer, comprising: forming an electroless plated layer by performing electroless plating on a surface of the board according to claim 5; forming an electrolytic plated layer by performing electrolytic plating on the electroless plated layer; and performing an annealing treatment on the board on which the electrolytic plated layer is formed. (Similar scope to claim 6 and therefore rejected under the same argument.)
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oya, Hashizume, Iwashita as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Lee.
A method for manufacturing a board having a plated layer, comprising: forming a dry plated layer by performing dry plating on a surface of the board according to claim 5; forming an electrolytic plated layer by performing electrolytic plating on the dry plated layer; and performing an annealing treatment on the board on which the electrolytic plated layer is formed. (Similar scope to claim 7 and therefore rejected under the same argument.)
Claim(s) 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oya, Hashizume, Iwashita, Lee as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Shindou.
Regarding claim 15,
The method for manufacturing a board having a plated layer according to claim 14, comprising before the forming of the dry plated layer, performing a plasma treatment on a surface of the board. (Similar scope to claim 8 and therefore rejected under the same argument.)
Regarding claim 16,
The method for manufacturing a board having a plated layer according to claim 15, wherein the plasma treatment is at least one kind of plasma treatment selected from an H2/Ar plasma treatment and an O2/Ar plasma treatment. (Similar scope to claim 9 and therefore rejected under the same argument.)
Claim(s) 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oya, Hashizume, Iwashita as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Tan.
Regarding claim 17,
A method for manufacturing a board having a plated layer, comprising: forming a plated layer by performing plating on a surface of the board according to claim 5; (Similar scope to claim 13 and therefore rejected under the same argument.)
and performing a laser annealing treatment on the formed plated layer. (Similar scope to claim 10 and therefore rejected under the same argument.)
Regarding claim 18,
The method for manufacturing a board having a plated layer according to claim 17, wherein the forming of the plated layer includes: forming an electroless plated layer by performing electroless plating on a surface of the board and forming an electrolytic plated layer by performing electrolytic plating on the electroless plated layer; or forming a dry plated layer by performing dry plating on a surface of the board and forming an electrolytic plated layer by performing electrolytic plating on the dry plated layer. (Similar scope to claim 11 and therefore rejected under the same argument.)
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oya, Hashizume, Iwashita, Tan as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Kang.
The method for manufacturing a board having a plated layer according to claim 17, wherein a wavelength of a laser light irradiated on the plated layer is 600 nm or less when the laser annealing treatment is performed. (Similar scope to claim 12 and therefore rejected under the same argument.)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FAHMIDA FERDOUSI whose telephone number is (303)297-4341. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday; 9:00AM-3:00PM; PST.
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, Steven Crabb can be reached at (571)270-5095. 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.
/FAHMIDA FERDOUSI/ Examiner, Art Unit 3761