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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicants’ election, without traverse of Group I (claims 1-17) and Species A (Fig. 3) in the reply, filed on 03/12/2026 is acknowledged. Applicants designate claims 1-13 and 15-17 as reading into the elected Species 1 (Fig. 3) under Group I. Claims 14 and 18-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 03/12/2026.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
(1) The two “an upper end closed and a lower end opened” of Claim 1 would have a better form if amended to be:
“a closed upper end and an opened lower end”.
(2) The “configured such that a substrate is capable of being processed in a process chamber formed in the inner tube” of Claim 1 would have a better form if amended to be:
“configured to process a substrate in a process chamber formed in the inner tube”.
(3) The “configured such that a gas is capable of passing between the annular space and the exhaust space, and configured to be capable of changing a passage conductance of the gas” of Claim 1 would have a better form if amended to be:
“and configured to pass a gas between the annular space and the exhaust space and change a passage conductance of the gas”.
(4) The “configured such that the inner tube is capable of being inserted through an opening of the manifold formed in the cylindrical shape, and the mounter is capable of being attached to or detached” of Claim 2 would have a better form if amended to be:
“configured such that the inner tube is inserted through an opening of the manifold formed in the cylindrical shape, and the mounter is configured to be attached to or detached”.
(5) The “a gas is capable of passing” of Claims 11-12 would have a better form if amended to be:
“a gas is configured to pass”.
(6) The “configured to be capable of controlling” of Claim 13 would have a better form if amended to be:
“configured to control”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim interpretation
(1) In regards to the “wherein the deposit is silicon” of Claim 6 and “wherein a film with a thickness of 2μm or more is deposited on the substrate” of Claim 17,
The applicants claim an apparatus. The feature related with “the deposit is silicon” and “a film with a thickness of 2μm or more is deposited on the substrate” means a feature of the product obtained by use of the claimed apparatus.
Obtaining a product “A” or a product “B” by use of the apparatus and further a physical, chemical, electrical (or etc.) property of the obtained product do not make the claimed apparatus to be distinguished from an apparatus of a prior art, in other words, it is mere an intended use of an apparatus.
Consequently, when an apparatus of a prior art is capable of depositing, it is sufficient to meet the claimed requirement, see the MPEP citations below.
MPEP citations:
It has been held that claim language that simply specifies an intended use or field of use for the invention generally will not limit the scope of a claim (See MPEP 2106; Walter, 618 F.2d at 769, 205 USPQ at 409). When apparatus is capable of performing such functions, it is considered to meet the claim limitations. Additionally, in apparatus claims, intended use must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim (See MPEP 2111.02, 2115; In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458,459 (CCPA 1963). When the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent (See MPEP 2112.01; In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430,433 (CCPA 1977). It has further been held that expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim. Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969); and the inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. In re Young, 75 F.2d 966, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)). While features of an apparatus may be described either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus MUST be distinguished from prior art in terms of structure rather than function (See MPEP §2114).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-13 and 15-17 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
(1) The “an exhaust space isolated from an annular space between the inner tube and the outer tube” of Claim 1 is not clear, because of the term “isolated”.
Based on the applicants’ disclosures, see the applicants’ Figs. 1 and 3 and further the paragraph [0041] of the published instant application disclosing “the gas flows from the annular space 18 to the exhaust space ES”,
It is considered that the exhaust space (ES) is not isolated from the annular space 18 formed between the outer tube 11 and the inner tube 12, thus it is not clear how the metes and bounds of the term “isolated” is determined.
For the purpose of examination, it will be examined inclusive of:
“an exhaust space below an annular space between the inner tube and the outer tube”
(2) Claim 1 recites “a process chamber formed in the inner tube”, “an internal space of the inner tube” and “an inside of the inner tube”.
It is not clear what structural difference is required among the recited three features.
According to the applicants’ disclosure, see the paragraph [0021] disclosing “An internal space of the inner tube 12 serves as a process chamber 13”,
It is considered that the three features indicate the same structural component, however, the claim recites them as three different structural components, thus it is not clear how they should be distinguished in the claim.
For the purpose of examination, they will be examined as the same feature.
(3) A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c).
In the present instance, claim 1 recites the broad recitation “a gas” and “the gas”, and the claim also recites “a process gas” and “purge gas” which are the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
(4) The “the inner tube is a sintered body containing silicon carbide as a main precursor” of Claim 6 is not clear.
First, it is not clear to determine the degree of the “main”. The term is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Second, it is not clear what the “main precursor” means. The claim is constructed such that when the inner tube is manufactured, the SiC is used as the main precursor to manufacture the inner tube. However, the inner tube should be manufacture by other apparatus (it cannot be made by the claimed apparatus).
The metes and bounds of the term cannot be clearly determined.
(5) The “a gas” of Claims 11-12 and 16 is not clear.
Claims 11-12 and 16 are dependent from Claim 1.
Claim 1 recites “a gas”, “the gas”, “a process gas” and “purge gas”, thus it is not clear what difference between the “a gas” of claims 11-12, 16 and the gases of claim 1 is required.
(6) The “a cylinder of the manifold” and “the inward flange, which is installed at an inner periphery of the cylinder” of Claim 15 are not clear.
Claim 15 is dependent from Claim 2.
Claim 2 recites “the manifold formed in the cylindrical shape” and “an inward flange formed in an annular shape at an inner periphery of the manifold”, thus it appears that the same features are presented with two different names.
The limitations of Claim 15 will be examined as “the manifold” and “the inward flange formed at the inner periphery of the manifold”.
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 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.
Claims 1, 13 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sato et al. (US 20110306212, hereafter ‘212).
Regarding to Claim 1, ‘212 teaches:
substrate processing apparatus (title, the claimed “A substrate processing apparatus”);
The reaction tube 42 is formed in a cylindrical shape with a sealed top end and an open bottom end (Fig. 2, [0036], the claimed “comprising: a cylindrical outer tube with an upper end closed and a lower end opened”);
A processing chamber 43 surrounded by an induction target 48 (which will be described below) is defined by the tubular hollow space inside the reaction tube 42. The processing chamber 43 is configured to accommodate the wafers 14 as substrates ([0036], the claimed “an inner tube that is installed inside the outer tube, formed in a cylindrical shape with an upper end closed and a lower end opened, and configured such that a substrate is capable of being processed in a process chamber formed in the inner tube”);
A manifold 46 (used as a support member) is provided below the reaction tube 42 ([0037]), and The processing gas supplied into the processing chamber 43 is discharged from the exhaust port 98 mostly through the opening 290 provided in the manifold 46 ([0058], note Fig. 2 shows the exhaust space in the manifold 46 is below the annular gap 45, see the 112 rejection above, the claimed “a manifold that is installed below the outer tube and the inner tube, in fluid communication with an internal space of the inner tube, and formed in a cylindrical shape with an exhaust space isolated from an annular space between the inner tube and the outer tube”);
The downstream portions of the Si atom-containing gas supply nozzle 260 and the C atom-containing gas supply nozzle 270 are arranged within the processing chamber 43 ([0047], the claimed “a process gas nozzle configured to supply a process gas that processes the substrate to an inside of the inner tube”);
The downstream portions of the inert gas supply nozzles 220a, 220b and 220c are arranged in the second gap 45 formed between the reaction tube 42 and the internal heat-insulating member 54 ([0048]), and This makes it possible to purge the second gap 45 with the inert gas ([0063], the claimed “a purge gas nozzle configured to supply a purge gas to the annular space”);
Since the total cross-sectional area of the second exhaust ports 230a, 230b and 230c is set to be smaller than the cross-sectional area of the opening 290 of the manifold 46, the discharging speed of the inert gas is controlled more than that of the processing gas. The reduced gas conductance makes it possible to prolong the time of the inert gas staying in the second gap 45 ([0062], note the ports 230 are installed at a partition wall, see also [0136] disclosing “The gas conductance can be controlled to be a small value by adjusting the total aperture area of the first exhaust ports 250a, 250b and 250c”, the claimed “and a conductance changer that is installed at a partition wall between the annular space and the exhaust space, configured such that a gas is capable of passing between the annular space and the exhaust space, and configured to be capable of changing a passage conductance of the gas”).
Regarding to Claim 13,
‘212 teaches Further, the pressure control unit 93 of the controller 152 may control the amount of the inert gas being supplied so that the pressure in the first gap 44 and the second gap 45 can be kept higher than the pressure within the processing chamber 43 in which the wafers 14 are being processed ([0064], the claimed “further comprising: a pressure controller configured to be capable of controlling a pressure of the purge gas which is supplied to the purge gas nozzle, in cooperation with a target pressure pattern of the process chamber”).
Regarding to Claim 16,
‘212 teaches The processing gas supplied into the processing chamber 43 is discharged from the exhaust port 98 mostly through the opening 290 provided in the manifold 46 ([0058], the claimed “wherein the exhaust space of the manifold is in direct communication with the internal space of the inner tube without passing through the annular space, and wherein an exhaust port configured to discharge a gas inside the inner tube is installed at the manifold”).
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 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 2-3, 8, 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘212, in view of Miyata et al. (JP 2005-209668, hereafter ‘668, filed in IDS).
Regarding to Claim 2,
Fig. 2 of ‘212 shows the inner tube 48 is above the manifold 46, thus ‘212 does not explicitly teach the other limitations (BOLD and ITALIC letter) of:
Claim 2: wherein a mounter is installed at the lower end of the inner tube and configured such that the inner tube is capable of being inserted through an opening of the manifold formed in the cylindrical shape, and the mounter is capable of being attached to or detached from an inward flange formed in an annular shape at an inner periphery of the manifold.
‘668 is analogous art in the field of substrate treatment equipment (English title). Fig. 1, 3 or 5 of ‘668 clearly shows the lower end of the inner tube 2 is inserted through an opening of the manifold 6, and the lower end of the inner tube 2 is attached to an inward flange formed at an inner periphery of the manifold, thus the lower end of the inner tube is a mounter.
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified ‘212, such that the lower end of the inner tube of ‘212 is inserted through an opening of the manifold 46 of ‘212 and the lower end of the inner tube is attached to an inward flange formed at an inner periphery of the manifold, thus the connection is the partition wall of the claim 1, for its suitability as known structure with predictable result. The selection of something based on its known suitability for its intended use has been held to support a prima facie case of obviousness, see MPEP 2144.07, and/or further since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of a component, and one of ordinary skill in the art will find obvious to provide based on the suitability for the intended final application and a change of shape is generally recognized as being within the ordinary level of skill in the art, see MPEP 2144.04.
Regarding to Claim 3,
‘212 teaches the pressure in the processing chamber 43 is detected by the pressure sensor ([0085], the claimed “further comprising: a first pressure gauge configured to detect a pressure of the internal space”);
‘212 is silent about the “and a second pressure gauge configured to detect a pressure of the annular space”, however, ‘212 clearly teaches the pressure in the processing chamber 43 is controlled to be less than the pressure in the first gap 44, which is again controlled to be less than the pressure in the second gap 45 ([0086]), therefore, it is obvious that a pressure sensor is required in the gap.
Regarding to Claim 8,
As discussed in the claim 2 rejection above, the partition wall is formed by the connection part with the lower end of the inner tube and the inward flange formed at an inner periphery of the manifold (the claimed “wherein the inward flange and the mounter constitute the partition wall”).
Regarding to Claim 15,
‘212 teaches The manifold 46 is installed to support the reaction tube 42 from below. An O-ring (not shown) (used as a seal member) is provided between the manifold 46 and the reaction tube 42. The manifold 46 is supported by a holder (not shown in the drawings), so that the reaction tube 42 is kept in a vertically-mounted state. As described above, an air-tight sealed reaction vessel is mainly made up of the combination of the reaction tube 42 and the manifold 46 ([0037], note Fig. 2 of ‘212 and/or Fig. 1 or 3 of ‘668 clearly shows the upper flange of the manifold is connected to the outer tube and the lower flange is connected to a housing supporting the outer tube. Further, both are sealed by the seal member, the claimed “wherein the manifold includes an upper flange that is installed at one end of a cylinder of the manifold and connected to the outer tube via a first seal material, a lower flange that is installed at the other end of the cylinder and connected to a housing supporting the outer tube via a second seal material”);
As discussed in the claim 2 rejection above, the partition wall is formed by the connection part with the lower end of the inner tube and the inward flange formed at an inner periphery of the manifold, thus the second exhaust holes are formed in the partition wall with through-holes (the claimed “and the inward flange, which is installed at an inner periphery of the cylinder and configured to support the inner tube, and wherein the conductance changer is installed at the inward flange or the mounter”).
Regarding to Claim 17,
‘212 teaches the SiC films of a desired thickness epitaxially grow after a predetermined time ([0103], see also the claim interpretation above, the claimed “wherein a film with a thickness of 2μm or more is deposited on the substrate, which is accommodated inside the inner tube”).
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘212, in view of Hamaguchi et al. (US 20020017242, hereafter ‘242).
Regarding to Claims 4-6, ‘212 teaches:
the induction target 48 may be made of, e.g., graphite, and is provided to surround the processing chamber 43 ([0039], note the material intrinsically has coefficient of linear expansion, the claimed “wherein the inner tube is made of material with a coefficient of linear expansion” of Claims 4-5);
SiC films on the wafers 14 (used as substrates) made of, e.g., Si or SiC, using the substrate processing apparatus 10 ([0074], note the material intrinsically has coefficient of linear expansion, which is different from the coefficient of linear expansion of the inner tube, further note see the claim interpretation above, the claimed “a coefficient of linear expansion of a deposit deposited on an inner surface of the inner tube when the substrate is processed with the process gas” of Claims 4-5 and “wherein the deposit is silicon” of Claim 6).
‘212 does not explicitly teach the other limitations (BOLD and ITALIC letter) of:
Claim 4: wherein the inner tube is made of material with a coefficient of linear expansion being different with a difference of ±8% or less from a coefficient of linear expansion of a deposit deposited on an inner surface of the inner tube when the substrate is processed with the process gas.
Claim 5: wherein the inner tube is made of material with a coefficient of linear expansion that is substantially equal to a coefficient of linear expansion of a deposit deposited on an inner surface of the inner tube when the substrate is processed with the process gas.
Claim 6: wherein the deposit is silicon, and the inner tube is a sintered body containing silicon carbide as a main precursor.
‘212 further teaches the processing furnace 40 includes a reaction tube 42, e.g., made of a heat-resistant material such as quartz (SiO2) or silicon carbide (SiC) ([0036]), and The boat 30 may be made of a heat-resistant material, such as carbon graphite or silicon carbide (SiC) ([0031], note ‘212 clearly acknowledged the SiC is used as a material for structural components of the processing apparatus of ‘212).
‘242 is analogous art in the field of substrate processing apparatus (abstract). ‘242 teaches if the inner tube is made of a material having a coefficient of thermal expansion close to that of CVD film constituents, then the possibility that CVD film constituents peel off from the surface of the inner tube and contamination with particles occurs, can be significantly reduced even in an environment where a large temperature difference exits as mentioned above ([0027]).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have formed the inner tube of ‘212, with a material to be deposited by the apparatus of ‘212, for the purpose of preventing the deposited film from peeling off from the surface of the inner tube, thus contamination with the peeled particles on the substrate to be processed. Consequently, when the SiC film is deposited in the apparatus of ‘212, it would be obvious to form the inner tube of ‘212 with the SiC material, which is a sintered body of the SiC, such that they have substantially equal coefficient of linear expansion (close to 0% difference).
Claims 7 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘212, in view of Endo et al. (US 20120193216, hereafter ‘216).
Regarding to Claims 7 and 10-12, ‘212 teaches:
‘212 clearly teaches Since the total cross-sectional area of the second exhaust ports 230a, 230b and 230c is set to be smaller than the cross-sectional area of the opening 290 of the manifold 46, the discharging speed of the inert gas is controlled more than that of the processing gas. The reduced gas conductance makes it possible to prolong the time of the inert gas staying in the second gap 45 ([0062], note the ports 230 are installed at a partition wall, see also [0136] disclosing “The gas conductance can be controlled to be a small value by adjusting the total aperture area of the first exhaust ports 250a, 250b and 250c”, the claimed “wherein the conductance changer includes at least one hole formed to penetrate the partition wall and the at least one hole” of Claim 7 and “wherein the at least one hole of the conductance changer includes a plurality of holes, and any one of the plurality of holes).
‘212 does not explicitly teach the other limitations (BOLD and ITALIC letter) of:
Claim 7: wherein the conductance changer includes at least one screw hole formed to penetrate the partition wall and one or more screws configured to be screwed into the at least one screw hole.
Claim 10: wherein the at least one screw hole of the conductance changer includes a plurality of screw holes, and the one or more screws are screwed into any one of the plurality of screw holes.
Claim 11: wherein each of the one or more screws is formed with a vent hole through which a gas is capable of passing along an axial center of each of the one or more screws.
Claim 12: wherein a vented screw with a vent hole through which a gas is capable of passing along an axial center of the vented screw or one of the one or more screws without the vent hole is screwed into each of the plurality of screw holes.
‘216 is analogous art in the field of substrate processing apparatus (abstract). ‘216 teaches the screws 501 and 502 as conductance control members (Fig. 5, [0041]) and Instead of the screws 501 and 502, screws provided with a through hole parallel to the screw rotation axis, such as through-hole screws 503, may be used. If through-hole screws 503 having different through-hole diameters are provided in the coolant gas inlet openings 113 and the coolant gas outlet openings 114, then the gas pressure on the rear face of the substrate W can be controlled ([0042]).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the second exhaust holes of ‘212, so to be screw holes, then to have used them for the conductance control member, such as either through-hole screws or screws having no through-hole, to be inserted into the screw holes, for the purpose of providing easy conductance control.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘212 and ‘668, as being applied to Claim 8 rejection above, further in view of ‘216.
Regarding to Claim 9, ‘212 teaches:
As discussed in the claim 8 rejection above, the partition wall is formed by the connection part with the lower end of the inner tube and the inward flange, therefore, the second exhaust holes of ‘212, which are the “conductance changer” of Claim 1, would have been formed on the partition wall of the modified ‘212, further note the exhaust hole is a through hole to penetrate the partition wall (the claimed “wherein the conductance changer includes a hole, which is formed in one of the inward flange and the mounter, and a through-hole formed in the other of the inward flange and the mounter such that the through-hole faces the hole”).
‘212 and ‘668 do not explicitly teach the other limitations (BOLD and ITALIC letter) of:
Claim 9: wherein the conductance changer includes a screw hole, which is formed in one of the inward flange and the mounter, and a through-hole formed in the other of the inward flange and the mounter such that the through-hole faces the screw hole.
The teaching of screw holes and screw was discussed in the claims 4-6 rejection with ‘216 above, thus the untaught limitation of Claim 9 is rejected for substantially the same reason as claims 4-6 rejection above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AIDEN Y LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-1440. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 9am-5pm PT.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached on 571-272-5166. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/AIDEN LEE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights