DETAILED ACTION
Table of Contents
I. Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 3
II. Claim Objections 3
III. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 3
A. Claims 1-4, 7, 8, 25, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. 3
B. Claim 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. 5
IV. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 6
A. Claims 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 2024/0021676 (“Kim”). 6
V. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 8
A. Claims 1-3, 7, 8, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of US 2022/0059668 (“Mokhtarzadeh”) and US 2021/0328021 (“Hone”) and as evidenced by US 2006/0057085 (“Lezer”). 8
B. Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Mokhtarzadeh and Hone and as evidenced by Lezer, as applied to claim 1, and further in view of US 2025/0166992 (“Park”). 13
VI. Allowable Subject Matter 14
VII. Response to Arguments 15
Conclusion 16
[The rest of this page is intentionally left blank.]
I. 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 .
II. Claim Objections
Claims 1-4 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, penultimate line, replace “the the” with “the” to correct typographical error.
In each of claims 2-4, replace “performing plasma treatments” with “the performing the plasma treatments” to provide clear antecedent basis.
In claim 4, line 2, before “at least one sublayer” insert “the” to provide clear antecedent basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
III. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
A. Claims 1-4, 7, 8, 25, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 was amended to include the following limitations:
1. (currently amended) A method for manufacturing a semiconductor device, comprising:
[1a] forming a low-dimensional material (LDM) layer on a semiconductor substrate,
[1b] wherein the LDM layer includes sublayers stacked upon one another,
[1c] the sublayers include a first sublayer and a second sublayer stacked on the first sublayer;
[2a] performing plasma treatments to the LDM layer to transform at least one sublayer into a first oxidized portion and a second oxidized portion,
[2b] wherein the second oxidized portion has a thickness larger than that of the first oxidized portion, and
First, there is not support in the Instant Application for a single sub-layer, i.e. a monolayer of the LDM, e.g. 116 to have two oxide portions, i.e. 1200, and 1400, of different thicknesses. The only support for the second portion 1400 having the greater thickness requires at least two sublayers, i.e. 114 and 116, as shown in Fig. 14 of the Instant Application. Therefore, there is not support for features [2a] and [2b], as currently drafted.
Second, there is not support for using any kind of “plasma treatments”, i.e. more than one plasma treatment, to produce the first and second oxidized portions to two different thicknesses. For example, one plasma treatment may be an oxidation plasma treatment of the LDM, e.g. WS2 or WSe2, to form first and second oxide portions, i.e. WO3, of equal thickness and then a second plasma treatment may be a reduction plasma treatment of, e.g. sulfur or selenium, to convert a portion of the first oxide portion back into the original LDM. The Instant Application only discloses oxygen plasma treatments but the claim is broad enough to include both oxidizing and reducing plasma treatments to achieve the same first and second portions with different thicknesses. As such, the breadth allowed by any “plasma treatments” includes scope beyond that for which there is written descriptive support.
The invention is, for purposes of the “written description” inquiry, whatever is now claimed. Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563-64 (Fed. Cir. 1991). One shows “possession” by descriptive means such as words, structures, figures, diagrams, and formulas that fully set forth the claimed invention. Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1997). It is not sufficient for purposes of the written description requirement that the disclosure, when combined with the knowledge in the art, would lead one to speculate as to modifications that the inventor might have envisioned, but failed to disclose. Id. Here, using any “plasma treatments” to form the first and second oxidized portions would be, at best, obvious, but more likely, an entirely different method invention.
Claims 2-4, 7, 8, 25, and 26 are rejected for including the same indefinite feature by depending from claim 1 either directly or indirectly.
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.
B. Claim 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 21 recites the limitation “a first direction” in the last two lines. There is unclear antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because “a first direction” is also cited in line 4 of claim 21.
Claims 22-24 are rejected for including the same indefinite feature by depending from claim 21, either directly or indirectly.
For the purposes of examination, it will be presumed that Applicant means, instead, “the first direction”.
IV. 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.
(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.
A. Claims 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 2024/0021676 (“Kim”).
With regard to claim 21, Kim discloses, generally in Figs. 1, 4-6, and 12A-12F,
21. (currently amended) A method for manufacturing a semiconductor device, comprising:
[1a] forming a low-dimensional material (LDM) layer 120, 220, 420 [¶¶ 67-68, 94, 125] disposed on a semiconductor substrate 210, SU [¶¶ 91, 123] along a first direction Z [¶ 92],
[1b] wherein the LDM layer 120, 220, 420 includes a first oxidized portion [i.e. portion of 130, 230, 430 (¶¶ 67, 93-94, 133) on top surface of 120, 220, 420, respectively] and a second oxidized portion [i.e. portion of 130, 230, 430 on either side surface of 120, 220, 420, respectively] arranged adjacent to the first oxidized portion along a second direction X perpendicular to the first direction Z [as shown in Fig. 6 but also present in Figs. 12D-12F, as evidence by Figs. 4-6]; and
[2] forming at least one electrode 160, 260, 460 [¶¶ 70, 94, 136] disposed over the LDM layer 120, 220, 420,
[1c] wherein the second oxidized portion [i.e. portion of 130, 230, 430 on either side surface of 120, 220, 420, respectively] of the LDM layer 120, 220, 420 has a thickness along a first direction Z larger than that of the first oxidized portion of the LDM layer 120, 220, 420 [as shown in Fig. 6 but also present in Figs. 12D-12F, as evidence by Figs. 4-6]
With regard to features [1a]-[1c] of claim 21, each nanosheet channel 120 (and consequently 220 (¶ 94) and 420 (¶ 124)) is made of a two-dimensional (2D) transition-metal dichalcogenide (TMD) that may have a thickness 120T as large as 10 nm (¶ 72; Fig. 1) after oxidation to form the oxidized portions 130, 230, 430 of the channels 120, 220, 420, respectively, which may correspond to a thickness of a monolayer of the 2D-TMD channel: “The thickness of the transition metal oxide layer 130 may be a thickness corresponding to a monolayer of a 2D material included in the channel 120 or in a similar range.” (¶ 77) Therefore, the thickness of the claimed “first oxidized portion”, i.e. the portion of 130, 230, 430 on the top surface of 120, 220, 420, respectively, has a thickness of a single monolayer of oxidized 2D-TMD while the claimed “second oxidized portion”, i.e. the portion of 130, 230, 430 on either side surfaces of 120, 220, 420, respectively, has a thickness of at least three monolayers of oxidized 2D-TMD, in order to have at least one monolayer of 2D-TMD remaining after oxidation for the channel 120, 220, 420, as shown in Fig. 6. For example, nanosheet channel 420 may be a trilayer of MoS2 (¶ 125).
This is all of the limitations of claim 21.
With regard to claims 22-24, Kim further discloses,
22. (previously presented) The method of claim 21, wherein the at least one electrode 160, 260, 460 covers the first oxidized portion and the second oxidized portion [i.e. Fig. 6 shows that the gate electrode 260 covers the first and second oxidized portions 230 because it is a gate-all-around transistor].
23. (previously presented) The method of claim 21, wherein a low-dimensional material of the LDM layer includes WSe2, WS2, WTe2, MoSe2, or PdSe2 [¶ 67: “Thus, for example, TMD may include MoS2, MoSe2, MoTe2, WS2, WSe2, WTe2, …, and so forth”].
24. (previously presented) The method of claim 23, wherein a material of the first or the second oxidized portion includes tungsten oxide, molybdenum oxide, or palladium oxide [¶ 75; because oxidation of either of the Mo or W 2D-TMD materials in ¶ 67 will form MoOx or WOx].
V. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
A. Claims 1-3, 7, 8, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of US 2022/0059668 (“Mokhtarzadeh”) and US 2021/0328021 (“Hone”) and as evidenced by US 2006/0057085 (“Lezer”).
Claim 1 reads,
1. (currently amended) A method for manufacturing a semiconductor device, comprising:
[1a] forming a low-dimensional material (LDM) layer on a semiconductor substrate,
[1b] wherein the LDM layer includes sublayers stacked upon one another,
[1c] the sublayers include a first sublayer and a second sublayer stacked on the first sublayer;
[2a] performing plasma treatments to the LDM layer to transform at least one sublayer into a first oxidized portion and a second oxidized portion,
[2b] wherein the second oxidized portion has a thickness larger than that of the first oxidized portion, and
[2c] the plasma treatments are performed under a temperature equivalent to or lower than about 80 degrees Celsius; and
[3] disposing at least one electrode over the the first oxidized portion and the second oxidized portion.
With regard to claim 1, Kim discloses, generally in Figs. 1, 4-6, and 12A-12F,
1. (currently amended) A method for manufacturing a semiconductor device, comprising:
[1a] forming a low-dimensional material (LDM) layer 120, 220, 420 [¶¶ 67-68, 94, 125] on a semiconductor substrate 210, SU [¶¶ 91, 123],
[1b] wherein the LDM layer 120, 220, 420 includes sublayers stacked upon one another [i.e. stacks of at least 3 monolayers of 2D-TMD as explained under claim 21, supra],
[1c] the sublayers include a first sublayer and a second sublayer stacked on the first sublayer [e.g. the second sublayer is the topmost and the first sublayer is any one or more monolayers below the topmost monolayer];
[2a] performing plasma treatment … [e.g. “oxygen plasma processing” (¶ 133)] to the LDM layer 120, 220, 420 to transform at least one sublayer into a first oxidized portion [i.e. portion of 130, 230, 430 (¶¶ 67, 93-94, 133) on top surface of 120, 220, 420, respectively] and a second oxidized portion [i.e. portion of 130, 230, 430 on either side surface of 120, 220, 420, respectively] [as explained under claim 21, supra],
[2b] wherein the second oxidized portion has a thickness larger than that of the first oxidized portion [as explained under claim 21, supra], and
[2c] … [not taught] …
[3] disposing at least one electrode 160, 260, 460 [¶¶ 70, 94, 136] over the the first oxidized portion and the second oxidized portion [as shown in Fig. 6 and explained under claim 22, supra].
With regard to feature [2a] of claim 1,
[2a] performing plasma treatments …
As explained above, Kim discloses “oxygen plasma processing” (¶ 133) to oxidize the surface portions of 2D-TMD channels 120, 220, 420 to provide the oxidized portion 130, 230, 430.
Kim does not teach that said “oxygen plasma processing” includes and oxygen plasma treatments, i.e. more than one plasma treatment, as required by feature [2a].
Kim does, however, state that the plasma oxidation process shown in Fig. 12D (¶ 133) may be omitted (¶¶ 134, 135) because the deposition process of the high-k gate dielectric layer 140, 240, 440 directly on the 2D-TMD channels 120, 22, 420 causes oxidation of said channels to form oxidized portions 130, 230, 430:
To form the dielectric layer 440, for example, CVD, ALD, physical vapor deposition (PVD), etc., may be used. In some example embodiments, for example where the processing of FIG. 12D is omitted, a transition metal oxide layer 430 may be formed between a dielectric layer 440 and a channel layer 420 based on the process of forming the dielectric layer 440 on the channel layer 420. For example, in some example embodiments the processing at FIG. 12E includes forming a dielectric layer 440 on one or more exposed surfaces (e.g., one or more exposed outer surfaces) of a channel layer 420, where the forming of the dielectric layer 440 on the exposed outer surface(s) of the channel layer 420 causes oxidation of at least an outer portion of the channel layer 420 which includes the exposed outer surface(s) of the channel layer 420 such that the channel layer 420 and the transition metal oxide layer 430 are respective inner and outer portions of a single, unitary (e.g., continuous) piece of material and where the dielectric layer 440 is a separate layer on the single unitary piece of material, …
(Kim: ¶ 135; emphasis added )
Kim does not provide the details of the deposition of the gate dielectric layer 440 but indicates the ALD, i.e. atomic layer deposition, can be used (id.).
Mokhtarzadeh, like Kim, teaches a gate-all-around transistor 100 including nanoribbon channels 110 Fig. 7A; ¶ 36) surrounded by a gate dielectric 116 deposited using ALD using a rare earth pincer ligand complex and an oxygen source which may be an oxygen plasma:
[0051] In the IC structure 100, a gate dielectric 116 may be disposed on and all around each nanowire 110. In some embodiments, the gate dielectric 116 may include a rare-earth material, and may be formed by ALD using any suitable ones of the rare-earth pincer ligand complexes 302 disclosed herein. For example, the gate dielectric 116 may include a high-k rare-earth oxide film (including a rare-earth element and oxygen). Such a rare-earth oxide film may be formed using the ALD processes and systems discussed above with reference to FIGS. 1 and 6, with the co-reactants 303 including water, an oxygen plasma, or hydrogen peroxide, for example. …
(Mokhtarzadeh: ¶ 51; emphasis added)
Fig. 6 of Mokhtarzadeh shows that the ALD process is cyclic and includes alternating pulses of the rare-earth precursor and the oxygen co-reactant. Therefore, there are several exposures of the nanochannel to the oxygen plasma.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, use the ALD process of Mokhtarzadeh as the ALD process in Kim to deposit the gate dielectric 140, 204, 440 because Kim is silent as to the ALD process such that one having ordinary skill in the art would use known processes suitable for ALD of a gate dielectric in a gate-all-around, nanoribbon-channel transistor, such as the process taught in Mokhtarzadeh.
So modified, because the ALD process is cyclic and includes alternating pulses of the rare-earth precursor and the oxygen co-reactant, as explained in Fig. 6 of Mokhtarzadeh, there would be several oxygen plasma treatments of the nanochannel to the oxygen plasma, as required by feature [2a].
Because the formation of the high-k dielectric 140, 240, 440 in Kim causes oxidation of the 2D-TMD channels 120, 220, 420 to form the oxidized layer 130, 230, 430, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to start with an oxygen plasma pulse, given that Kim teaches use of oxygen plasma to form said oxidized layer 130, 230, 430.
With regard to feature [2c] of claim 1 and claims 2 and 3,
[2c] the plasma treatments are performed under a temperature equivalent to or lower than about 80 degrees Celsius; and
2. (currently amended) The method according to claim 1, wherein performing a plasma treatments includes performing an oxygen plasma treatment, and the temperature ranges from about -40 degrees Celsius to about 80 degrees Celsius.
3. (currently amended) The method according to claim 1, wherein performing a plasma treatments includes performing an oxygen plasma treatment, and the temperature ranges from about -40 degrees Celsius to about 25 degrees Celsius.
Neither of Kim and Mokhtarzadeh gives a temperature for the ALD deposition of the high-k gate dielectric.
Hone, like Kim, teaches a method of making a semiconductor device made by depositing a 2D TMD, e.g. a monolayer of WSe2, and at least partially oxidizing it using, e.g., an oxygen plasma (Hone: ¶¶ 7, 11, 12). Hone further teaches that the oxidation can be performed at “room temperature (Hone: abstract: ¶¶ 7, 9, 11, claims 1-3), which is understood to be 25 ℃ as evidenced by, e.g., Lezer. Lezer states that “[t]he expression ‘room temperature’ should be understood as being a temperature of 25℃., at normal atmospheric pressure (760 mmHg).” (Lezer: ¶ 17).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use room temperature in the ALD deposition of the gate dielectric of Kim/ Mokhtarzadeh at least for performing the oxygen plasma pulses because Hone teaches that room temperature, i.e. about 25 ℃ is suitable for performing the oxidation of a 2D TMD monolayer, as desired in Kim.
Moreover, the claimed temperature ranges are prima facie obvious without showing that the claimed ranges achieve unexpected results relative to the prior art range. See In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Huang, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688(Fed. Cir. 1996)(claimed ranges of a result effective variable, which do not overlap the prior art ranges, are unpatentable unless they produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art). See also In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious).
Here, there is no evidence of unexpected results for the claimed temperature ranges, since Kim and Hone achieve the same results as in the Instant Application, i.e. oxidation of the exposed surfaces of the 2D-TMD channel layer.
This is all of the limitations of claims 1-3.
Claims 7, 8, and 25 read,
7. (original) The method according to claim 1, wherein a low-dimensional material of the LDM layer includes WSe2, WS2, WTe2, MoSe2, or PdSe2.
8. (original) The method according to claim 7, wherein a material of the oxide layer includes tungsten oxide, molybdenum oxide, or palladium oxide.
25. (new) The method of according to claim 1, wherein the at least one electrode covers the first oxidized portion and the second oxidized portion.
See discussion under claims 23, 24, and 22, respectively.
B. Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Mokhtarzadeh and Hone and as evidenced by Lezer, as applied to claim 1, and further in view of US 2025/0166992 (“Park”).
Claim 26 reads,
26. (new) The method of according to claim 1, wherein each of the first plasma treatment and the second plasma treatment is applied at a power ranging from about 5 W to about 500 W.
The prior art of Kim in view of Mokhtarzadeh and Hone and as evidenced by Lezer, as explained above, teaches each of the features of claim 1.
None of Kim, Mokhtarzadeh, and Hone gives a plasma power for the oxidation of the 2D-TMD.
Park teaches that a 2D-MoSe2 stack (Fig. 2) can have a controlled oxygen plasma oxidation of an outer sublayer of MoOx using a power of 10.5 W (Park: ¶ ), which falls within the claimed range.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use a plasma power of, e.g. 10.5 W, to perform the oxygen plasma co-reactant pulses for each cycle in the ALD of the gate dielectric of Kim/Mokhtarzadeh that causes oxidation of the 2D-TMD channels 120, 220, 420, because none of Kim, Mokhtarzadeh, and Hone gives a plasma power such that one having ordinary skill in the art would use plasma powers known to be suitable for the intended purpose of oxidizing the 2D-TMD channels 120, 220, 420, such as the 10.5 W power taught to be suitable in Park.
This is all of the limitations of claim 26.
VI. Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-11, 15, 16, and 27-29 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With regard to claim 9, Applicant incorporated the features from dependent claim 14 into claim 9, the features of claim 14 having been previously indicated to include allowable subject matter (Non-Final Rejection mailed 01/05/2026 at pp. 17-18). Claims 10, 11, 15, 16, and 27-29 are allowable at least for including the same allowable limitations by depending from claim 9 either directly or indirectly.
Pending overcoming the objections and rejection under 35 USC 112(a), claim 4 is 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:
Claim 4 reads,
4. (currently amended) The method according to claim 1, wherein performing plasma treatments to the LDM layer to transform at least one sublayer into a first oxidized portion and a second oxidized portion includes:
[1] forming a buffer layer over the LDM layer to expose a portion of the LDM layer; and
[2] performing a first plasma treatment to the exposed portion of the LDM layer to transform the second sublayer in the exposed portion to form the first oxidized portion.
The prior art does not reasonably teach or suggest—in the context of claim4—the use of a buffer layer over a portion of the LDM layer, leaving another portion of said LDM exposed, to perform the plasma treatment to form the first oxidized portion.
VII. Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 04/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are moot because the new grounds of rejection do not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendment 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIK KIELIN whose telephone number is (571)272-1693. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 10:00 AM-7:00 PM.
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, Wael Fahmy can be reached on 571-272-1705. 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.
Signed,
/ERIK KIELIN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2814
Prosecution Insights