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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on August 26, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 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. Applicant argues that the prior art of Kwon et al (US 10,629,467) fails to teach a dielectric constant controller comprising particles or pores dispersed across an interior of the ceramic material of the base material body. Furthermore, applicant argues that the prior art of Kwon et al teaches that the particles or each of the pores is completely surrounded by the ceramic material of the base material body as introduced to amended claims 1, 6, and 20. The amendments to claims 1, 6, and 20 necessitated the introduction of the prior art of Horiuchi Michio et al (KR20200145726).
The prior of Horiuchi Michio et al teaches an electrostatic chuck with a base body 31A which is comprised of three stacked porous dielectric layers 311A, 312A, and 313A with porosity (where pores create such porosity) see Fig. 3. Dielectric layer 311A is made of ceramic mainly composed of alumina. The dielectric layer 312A made of the same ceramic material as 311A but the porosity of dielectric layer 312A is different than dielectric layer 312A. The porosity of dielectric layer 312A is greater than dielectric layer 313A. The porosity of dielectric layer 311A can be equal to dielectric layer 312A and dielectric layer 311A can be equal to dielectric layer 313A. Fig. 4 of Horiuchi Michio et al illustrates a relationship between porosity and dielectric constant.
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, 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.
Claims 1-4, 6-9, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwon et al (US 10,629,467) view of Horiuchi Michio et al (KR20200145726 using the Machine Generated English Translation provided herewith).
Regarding claim 1. The prior art of Kwon et al teaches a chamber insulation plate 300 to be disposed under a substrate support (base plate 200) for supporting a substrate in a plasma processing chamber, the chamber insulation plate 300 is configured to electrically insulate the substrate support from the chamber, the chamber insulation plate comprising See Fig. 3A of Kwon et al where the insulation body 310 (base material) includes (void holes VH) see col. 6 lines 53-63. Kwon et al also teaches that the insulation sink 320 that is disposed in the base material body can be made of a second insulation material with a lesser dielectric constant see col. 5 lines 1-17 of Kwon et al.
PNG
media_image1.png
746
617
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The prior art of Kwon et al fails to teach the dielectric constant controller comprises particles or pores where each of the pores is completely surrounded by the ceramic material of the base material body.
The prior of Horiuchi Michio et al teaches an electrostatic chuck with a base body 31A which is comprised of three stacked porous dielectric layers 311A, 312A, and 313A see Fig. 3. Dielectric layer 311A is made of ceramic mainly composed of alumina. The dielectric layer 312A made of the same ceramic material as 311A but the porosity of dielectric layer 312A is different than dielectric layer 312A. The porosity of dielectric layer 312A is greater than dielectric layer 313A. The porosity of dielectric layer 311A can be equal to dielectric layer 312A and dielectric layer 311A can be equal to dielectric layer 313A. Fig. 4 of Horiuchi Michio et al illustrates a relationship between porosity and dielectric constant. The prior art of Horiuchi Michio et al suggests that a porosity of about 15% and 4% or less is known. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to ensure that the chamber insulation plate of Kwon et al comprises pores as suggested by Horiuchi Michio et al by swapping the insulation plate 300 of Kwon et al with base body 31A of Horiuchi Michio et al.
PNG
media_image2.png
808
680
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2. Recall the rejection of claim 1 and note that the dielectric controller of Horiuchi Michio et al comprises pores (thus discusses porosity). Fig. 4 of Horiuchi Michio et al illustrates a relationship between porosity and dielectric constant.
Regarding claim 4. The chamber insulation plate of claim 1, wherein the ceramic material having the first dielectric constant comprises at least one of aluminum nitride (AIN), silicon carbide (SiC), yttria (Y2O3), sapphire, yttrium oxyfluoride (YOF), and alumina (Al2O3). See col. 2 lines 54-65 of Kwon et al where aluminum nitride (AIN), yttria (Y2O3), and alumina (Al2O3) are recited. The prior art of Horiuchi Michio et al teaches alumina as the porous ceramic material.
Regarding claim 6. A substrate processing apparatus comprising: a chamber (see col. 1 lines 51-67 of Kwon et al ) having a processing space for processing a substrate with plasma The prior art of Kwon et al teaches a chamber insulation plate 300 to be disposed under a substrate support (base plate 200) for supporting a substrate in a plasma processing chamber, the chamber insulation plate 300 is configured to electrically insulate the substrate support from the chamber, the chamber insulation plate comprising: a base material body (insulation body 310) made of a ceramic material having a first dielectric constant.
The prior art of Kwon et al fails to teach a dielectric constant controller comprising particles or pores dispersed across an interior of the ceramic material of the base material body and wherein each of the particles or each of the pores is completely surrounded by the ceramic material of the base material body .The prior art of Kwon et al fails to teach a dielectric constant controller and that the base material has a first dielectric constant and a second dielectric constant.
The prior of Horiuchi Michio et al teaches an electrostatic chuck with a base body 31A which is comprised of three stacked porous dielectric layers 311A, 312A, and 313A see Fig. 3. Dielectric layer 311A is made of ceramic mainly composed of alumina. The dielectric layer 312A made of the same ceramic material as 311A but the porosity of dielectric layer 312A is different than dielectric layer 312A. Fig. 4 of Horiuchi Michio et al illustrates a relationship between porosity and dielectric constant. Because each layer can have a different dielectric constant than one abutting it, the dielectric constant of each layer is different based on its porosity. The porosity of dielectric layer 312A is greater than dielectric layer 313A. The porosity of dielectric layer 311A can be equal to dielectric layer 312A and dielectric layer 311A can be equal to dielectric layer 313A, thus the dielectric constant of ,layer 312A can be less than that of layer 313 as there is an inversely proportional relationship between porosity and dielectric constant. As the porosity decreases the dielectric constant increases. The prior art of Horiuchi Michio et al suggests that a porosity of about 15% and 4% or less is known. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to ensure that the chamber insulation plate of Kwon et al comprises pores as suggested by Horiuchi Michio et al by swapping the insulation plate 300 of Kwon et al with base body 31A of Horiuchi Michio et al.
Regarding claim 7. The substrate processing apparatus of Kwon et al wherein the substrate support comprises a dielectric plate (dielectric body 110) for placing the substrate thereon, and an electrode plate (base plate 200 with electrode 120) disposed under the dielectric plate, and wherein the insulation plate 300is disposed in contact with a bottom surface of the electrode plate (see the recitation of this configuration in the last paragraph of col. 4 of Kwon et al) to reduce loss of the RF bias power applied to the electrode plate. See Fig. 1 of Kwon et al.
Regarding claim 8. The substrate processing apparatus of claim 6, wherein the ceramic material having the first dielectric constant comprises at least one of aluminum nitride (AIN), silicon carbide (SiC), yttria (Y2O3), sapphire, yttrium oxyfluoride (YOF), and alumina (Al2O3). See col. 2 lines 54-65 of Kwon et al where aluminum nitride (AIN), yttria (Y2O3), and alumina (Al2O3) are recited. The prior art of Horiuchi Michio et al teaches alumina as the porous ceramic material.
Regarding claim 9. The prior art of Kwon et al fails to teach a dielectric constant controller and that the base material has a first dielectric constant and a second dielectric constant.
The prior of Horiuchi Michio et al teaches an electrostatic chuck with a base body 31A which is comprised of three stacked porous dielectric layers 311A, 312A, and 313A see Fig. 3. Dielectric layer 311A is made of ceramic mainly composed of alumina. The dielectric layer 312A made of the same ceramic material as 311A but the porosity of dielectric layer 312A is different than dielectric layer 312A. Fig. 4 of Horiuchi Michio et al illustrates a relationship between porosity and dielectric constant. Because each layer can have a different dielectric constant than one abutting it, the dielectric constant of each layer is different based on its porosity. The porosity of dielectric layer 312A is greater than dielectric layer 313A. The porosity of dielectric layer 311A can be equal to dielectric layer 312A and dielectric layer 311A can be equal to dielectric layer 313A, thus the dielectric constant of ,layer 312A can be less than that of layer 313 as there is an inversely proportional relationship between porosity and dielectric constant. As the porosity decreases the dielectric constant increases. The prior art of Horiuchi Michio et al suggests that a porosity of about 15% and 4% or less is known. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to ensure that the chamber insulation plate of Kwon et al comprises pores as suggested by Horiuchi Michio et al by swapping the insulation plate 300 of Kwon et al with base body 31A of Horiuchi Michio et al.
PNG
media_image3.png
740
656
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 3 and 20: The teaching of Kwon et al also illustrates a chamber in Fig. 6.
See col. 6 lines 47-52 where Kwon et al teaches that the number and size of the pores (VH voids holes) may be varied or can be adjusted.
The prior art of Kwon et al fails to specifically teach that the porosity (dispersing or distribution of the pores) of the chamber insulation plate is 2-20 %.
The prior of Horiuchi Michio et al teaches an electrostatic chuck with a base body 31A which is comprised of three porous stacked dielectric layers 311A, 312A, and 313A see Fig. 3. Dielectric layer 311A is made of ceramic mainly composed of alumina. The dielectric layer 312A made of the same ceramic material as 311A but the porosity of dielectric layer 312A is different than dielectric layer 312A. The porosity of dielectric layer 312A is greater than dielectric layer 313A. The porosity of dielectric layer 311A can be equal to dielectric layer 312A and dielectric layer 311A can be equal to dielectric layer 313A. Fig. 4 of Horiuchi Michio et al illustrates a relationship between porosity and dielectric constant. The prior art of Horiuchi Michio et al suggests that a porosity of about 15% and 4% or less is known. The prior art of Horiuchi Michio et al suggests that the porosity of the material of construction is an optimizable parameter that would be optimized in order to improve the dielectric constant of the dielectric layer(s). Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to ensure that the chamber insulation plate of Kwon et al has a porosity of 2-20% as suggested by Horiuchi Michio et al.
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwon et al (US 10,629,467) in view of Horiuchi Michio et al (KR20200145726 using the Machine Generated English Translation provided herewith) as applied to claims 1-4, 6-9, and 20 and in further view of Moriya et al (US 2009/0223450).
The combined teachings of Kwon et al and Horiuchi Michio et al where discussed above.
Recall Horiuchi Michio et al suggests stacking layers but the combined teachings of Kwon et al and Horiuchi Michio et al fails to teach that the chamber insulation plate is specifically a laminated structure.
The prior art of Moriya et al teaches the advantage of laminating the layers of the member (such as chamber insulation plate) of the substrate processing apparatus. According to Moriya et al lamination is suggested as a way to couple the layers so the coupling between the layers won’t be damaged during plasma process see [0012]. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the apparatus resulting from the combined teachings of Kwon et al and Horiuchi Michio et al to laminate the layers together as suggested by Moriya et al.
Regarding claim 13. The substrate processing apparatus resulting from the combined teachings
of Kwon et al and Horiuchi Michio et al teaches the insulation plate has different porosities,
where the porosity in an upper layer and a lower layer of the insulation plate is different from a
porosity in a middle layer interposed between the upper and lower layers.
Recall in the rejection of claim 12 the prior art of Moriya et al teaches the advantage of laminating
the layers of the member (such as chamber insulation plate) of the substrate processing apparatus.
According to Moriya et al lamination is suggested as a way to couple the layers so the coupling
between the layers won’t be damaged during plasma process see [0012]. Thus, it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed
invention, to further modify the apparatus resulting from the combined teachings of Kwon et al
and Horiuchi Michio et al to laminate the layers together as suggested by Moriya et al.
Regarding claim 14. The substrate processing apparatus resulting from the combined teachings
of Horiuchi Michio et al and Xie et al teaches the porosity in the upper and lower layers is lower than the porosity in the middle layer. See Fig. 1C and 1D of Xie et al. The prior art of Moriya et al teaches the advantage of laminating the layers of the member (such as chamber insulation plate) of the substrate processing apparatus. According to Moriya et al lamination is suggested as a way to couple the layers so the coupling between the layers won’t be damaged during plasma process see [0012]. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the apparatus resulting from the combined teachings of Kwon et al and Horiuchi Michio et al to laminate the layers together as suggested by Moriya et al.
Regarding claim 15. The apparatus resulting from the combined teachings of Kwon et al and Horiuchi Michio et al. Recall the prior art of Horiuchi Michio et al teaches that the porosity of dielectric layer 312A is greater than dielectric layer 313A. The porosity of dielectric layer 311A can be equal to dielectric layer 312A and dielectric layer 311A can be equal to dielectric layer 313A, thus the dielectric constant of ,layer 312A can be less than that of layer 313 as there is an inversely proportional relationship between porosity and dielectric constant. As the porosity decreases the dielectric constant increases. The porosity of the layers is deemed a matter of optimization as the porosity is inversely proportional to the dielectric constant as taught by Horiuchi Michio et al in Fig. 4. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the apparatus resulting from the combined teachings of Kwon et al and Horiuchi Michio et al to laminate the layers together as suggested by Moriya et al.
Claims 5, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwon et al (US 10,629,467) in view of Horiuchi Michio et al (KR20200145726 using the Machine Generated English Translation provided herewith) as applied to claims 1-4, 6-9, and 20 and in further view of Larson et al (US 2010/0304571).
The combined teachings of Kwon et al and Horiuchi Michio et al are discussed above.
The apparatus resulting from combined teachings of Kwon et al and Horiuchi Michio et al fails to teach that the ceramic materials comprises particles.
Regarding claim 5: Namely the combined teachings of the prior art of Kwon et al and Horiuchi Michio et al fails to teach the particles having the second dielectric constant comprise at least one of aluminum nitride (AIN), silicon carbide (SiC), yttria (Y2O3), sapphire, yttrium oxyfluoride (YOF), and alumina (Al2O3).
Regarding claim 16. Namely the combined teachings of the prior art of Kwon et al and Horiuchi Michio et al fails to teach the dielectric constant controller having the second dielectric constant comprises particles having the second dielectric constant.
Regarding claim 17. Namely the combined teachings of the prior art of Kwon et al and Horiuchi Michio et al fails to teach the particles having the second dielectric constant comprise at least one of aluminum nitride (AIN), silicon carbide (SiC), yttria (Y2O3), sapphire, yttrium oxyfluoride (YOF), and alumina (Al2O3).
The prior art of Larson et al teaches a vacuum chamber with an adhesive in the substrate support or chamber component having a composite layer of sheet adhesive with different physical properties see abstract. In [0042] the prior art of Larson et al teaches using a sheet adhesive made of silicon matrixed around alumina (Al2O3) microbeads (particles). In [0043] of Larson et al it is recited that areas of the sheet adhesive in the joint interface exposed to ions or radicals that have migrated through passages or gaps can be unfilled (filler particle free) while other areas of the sheet adhesive not exposed to the ions or radicals can include filler particles. In [0046] and [0061] Larson et al teaches that the introduction of the particles further improves thermal conductivity. The dispersion of these particles is a matter of design choice such that the dispersion of particles would be optimized to ensure optimal desire thermal conductivity. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the apparatus resulting from the combined teachings of Kwon et al and Horiuchi Michio et al with the suggestion of Larson et al to introduce particles and to disperse them optimally to improve thermal conductivity.
It also would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the resulting from combined teachings of Kwon et al and Horiuchi Michio et al with the suggestion of Larson et al to introduce particles to improve thermal conductivity and to laminate layers together so that their joints (coupled surfaces) will be protected from plasma.
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwon et al (US 10,629,467) in view of Horiuchi Michio et al (KR20200145726 using the Machine Generated English Translation provided herewith) as applied to claims 1-4, 6-9, and 20 and in further view of Yoshimura et al (JP2022022831A using the Machine Generated English Translation provided herewith).
The combined teachings of Kwon et al and Horiuchi Michio et al are discussed above.
The apparatus resulting from combined teachings of Kwon et al and Horiuchi Michio et al fails to teach that porosity is different between the center and edge region of the insulation.
Moreover, the apparatus resulting from combined teachings of Kwon et al and Horiuchi Michio et al fails to teach:
Regarding claim 10. The substrate processing apparatus of claim 9, wherein a porosity in a central region of the insulation plate corresponding to a central portion of the substrate is different from a porosity in an edge region of the insulation plate corresponding to an edge portion of the substrate.
Regarding claim 11. The substrate processing apparatus of claim 10, wherein the porosity in the central region of the insulation plate is lower than the porosity in the edge region of the insulation plate.
Regarding claim 12: The substrate processing apparatus of claim 10, wherein that the porosity in the central region of the insulation plate is higher than the porosity in the edge region of the insulation plate.
The prior art of Yoshimura et al teaches a cutting device and a chuck table 34 includes a porous plate 35. According to Yoshimura et al the porous plate 35 is made a porous semix. See Fig. 3 which illustrates that porous plate 35 comprises a central region 35a and an outer peripheral region 35c with a partition wall 35b. The prior art of Yoshimura et al teaches the central region 35a is porous with a coarser grain than the outer region 35c and the peripheral wall which are porous but having a finer mesh (smaller pore size). Yoshimura et al suggests that the suction surface is also 35a thus the larger pores for ease of suction while the finer mesh inhibits or lessens suction at the edge. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify the apparatus resulting from combined teachings of Kwon et al and Horiuchi Michio et al with the suggestion of Yoshimura et al to ensure that the porosity of the insulation plate at the center region is different from the edge in order ton ensure chucking is more effective at the center of the support chamber insulation plate to enhance support thereupon.
PNG
media_image4.png
636
558
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwon et al (US 10,629,467) in view of Horiuchi Michio et al (KR20200145726 using the Machine Generated English Translation provided herewith) and Larson et al (US 2010/0304571)as applied to claims 5, 16, and 17 above, and in further view of Yoshimura et al (JP2022022831A using the Machine Generated English Translation provided herewith).
The combined teachings of Kwon et al, Horiuchi Michio et al, and Larson et al are discussed above.
The apparatus resulting from combined teachings of Kwon et al, Horiuchi Michio et al, and Larson et al fails to teach
Regarding claim 18. The substrate processing apparatus of claim 16, wherein the insulation plate comprises a central region corresponding to the central portion of the substrate, and an edge region corresponding to an edge portion of the substrate, and wherein a dispersion density of the particles having the second dielectric constant in the central region is different from a dispersion density of the particles having the second dielectric constant in the edge region.
The prior art of Yoshimura et al teaches a cutting device and a chuck table 34 includes a porous plate 35. According to Yoshimura et al the porous plate 35 is made a porous semix. See Fig. 3 which illustrates that porous plate 35 comprises a central region 35a and an outer peripheral region 35c with a partition wall 35b. The prior art of Yoshimura et al teaches the central region 35a is porous with a coarser grain than the outer region 35c and the peripheral wall which are porous but having a finer mesh (smaller pore size). Yoshimura et al suggests that the suction surface is also 35a thus the larger pores for ease of suction while the finer mesh inhibits or lessens suction at the edge.
Furthermore, the dispersion of these particles is a matter of design choice such that the dispersion of particles would be optimized to ensure optimal desire thermal conductivity. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify resulting from combined teachings of Kwon et al, Horiuchi Michio et al, and Larson et al with the suggestion of Yoshimura et al to disperse the grains over the insulation differently between the center (coarse) and peripheral regions (fine) to improved suction.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwon et al (US 10,629,467) in view of Horiuchi Michio et al (KR20200145726 using the Machine Generated English Translation provided herewith) and Larson et al (US 2010/0304571) as applied to claims 5, 16, and 17, and in further view of Moriya et al (US 2009/0223450).
See the rejection of claim 16 above where the discussion of the combined teachings of Kwon et al, Horiuchi Michio et al, and Larson et al were provided above.
The apparatus resulting from the combined teachings of Kwon et al, Horiuchi Michio et al, and Larson et al fails to teach that the chamber insulation plate is a laminated structure.
Regarding claim 19: The prior art of Moriya et al teaches the advantage of laminating the layers of the member (such as chamber insulation plate) of the substrate processing apparatus. According to Moriya et al lamination is suggested as a way to couple the layers so the coupling between the layers won’t be damaged during plasma process see [0012]. See the abstract, [0042], [0061], [0071] with the discussion of electrostatic chucking laminate 124 and [0075] of Larson et al where lamination of composite layered structures is suggested. In [0075] Larson et al teaches that the introduction of the particles as the ceramic material are in the ceramic material and that these particles further improves thermal conductivity and the lamination protects the layers that are joined from plasma damage. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the apparatus of resulting from the combined teachings of Kwon et al and Horiuchi Michio et al with suggestion of Larson et al to introduce particles to improve thermal conductivity and to laminate layers together so that their joints (coupled surfaces) will be protected from plasma.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hao et al US 2018/0240688 teaches plugs 46, 236 which comprise a dielectric material such as a porous ceramic.
Shim KR20180078067A teaches a hybrid electrostatic chuck using the porous dielectric having pores 210 see the abstract. The material of construction of dielectric is alumina, yttria, aluminum oxide, and zirconium oxide.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SYLVIA MACARTHUR whose telephone number is (571)272-1438. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5 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, Parviz Hassanzadeh can be reached at 571-272-1435. 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.
/SYLVIA MACARTHUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
