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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because of the following informalities:
Add reference number 70s1 to Figure 1. See discussion of Figure 1 in applicants’ specification, page 9, paragraph 51.
PNG
media_image1.png
464
693
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In Figure 2B, label the drawing as “R”, as a detail of Figure 2A.
PNG
media_image2.png
464
651
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In Figure 10, label reference number 70s1. See applicants’ specification, page 16, paragraph 79, line 3.
PNG
media_image3.png
470
692
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In Figure 17B, label reference number 70s1. See applicants’ specification, page 19, paragraph 96, line 2.
PNG
media_image4.png
391
783
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Page 6, paragraph 40, line 3 of the page: Change “laterals” to “lateral”.
Page 11, paragraph 58, line 2: Change 31s2 to 32s1 to indicate the surface of dielectric layer 32.
Page 19, paragraph 95, line 2: Change 10s2 to 10s1, if this is what applicants intended.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 4, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Fang, U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2018/0061805, Figures 3, 7-11, and 17-22.
PNG
media_image5.png
278
393
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
682
968
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
978
989
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1: Fang Figures 3, 7-11, and 17-22 disclose a package structure (1a), comprising: an electronic component (12) having an active surface (121); an encapsulant (16) encapsulating the electronic component (12) and exposing the active surface (121) of the electronic component (12) (at the points of connection to the pillars (14)); a first conductive pillar (14) over the active surface (121) of the electronic component (12), wherein an upper surface (lower surface of electronic component (12)) becomes the upper surface once the package structure is turned upside down) of the first conductive pillar (14) includes a concave portion (148); and a first dielectric layer (24) over the encapsulant (16) and the active surface (121) of the electronic component (12), wherein the first dielectric layer (24) defines an opening (246) exposing the concave portion (148) of the first conductive pillar (14). Fang specification ¶¶ 53, 39-52; 56-67, 76-82.
Regarding claim 3, which depends from claim 1: Fang discloses that the upper surface of the first conductive pillar (14) is closer to an upper surface of the first dielectric layer (24) than to the active surface (121) of the electronic component (12). See Fang Figure 3; cf. Fang Figure 2.
Regarding claim 4, which depends from claim 1: Fang discloses a first conductive via (224) disposed over the first dielectric layer (24), wherein a thickness of the first dielectric layer (24) is greater than a depth of the first conductive via (224). See Fang Figure 3.
Regarding claim 6, which depends from claim 1: Fang discloses the first dielectric layer (24) extends into the concave portion (148) of the first conductive pillar 14). See id.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Chen, U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2019/0237423, Figure 2E.
PNG
media_image8.png
394
504
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 14: Chen Figure 2E discloses a package structure (50b), comprising: an electronic component (20a) having an active surface; and a redistribution structure (28) over the active surface of the electronic component (20a), wherein the redistribution structure (28) comprises: a first dielectric layer (PM1) over the active surface of the electronic component (20a), wherein the first dielectric layer (28) defines an opening; a conductive pillar (19a) under the opening; and a second dielectric layer (PM2) over the first dielectric layer (PM1), wherein a first thickness of the first dielectric layer (PM1) is greater than a second thickness of the second dielectric layer (PM2). Chen specification ¶¶ 10-67.
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 5, 7-10, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fang.
Regarding claim 5, which depends from claim 1: Fang discloses a redistribution structure (22) disposed over the encapsulant (16) and the electronic component (12) and comprising the first dielectric layer (24) and the first conductive pillar (14), see Fang Figure 3, Fang specification ¶ 46, but Fang does not disclose that the redistribution structure (22) is tapered along a direction far away from the electronic component (12). However, applicants’ disclosure does not indicate the patentable significance of this shape requirement. Because the shape requirement is not patentably significant, claim 5 is rejected as an obvious variant over the prior art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See also MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(B).
Regarding claim 7, which depends from claim 5: Fang discloses that the redistribution structure (22) further comprises a second conductive via (224) connected to the concave portion (148) of the first conductive pillar (14), and a portion of the upper surface (141) of the first conductive pillar (14) is higher than a bottom of the second conductive via (224). See Fang Figure 3.
Regarding claim 8, which depends from claim 5: Fang discloses the redistribution structure (22) further comprises a first circuit layer (metallization layer at first circuit structure (22)), but Fang does not disclose that the first circuit layer includes a dimple over the concave portion (148) of the first conductive pillar (14). However, applicants’ disclosure does not indicate the patentable significance of this shape requirement. Because the shape requirement is not patentably significant, claim 8 is rejected as an obvious variant over the prior art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See also MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(B).
Regarding claim 9, which depends from claim 8: Fang does not disclose that the first circuit layer includes a protruded portion surrounding the dimple. However, applicants’ disclosure does not indicate the patentable significance of this shape requirement. Because the shape requirement is not patentably significant, claim 9 is rejected as an obvious variant over the prior art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See also MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(B).
Regarding claim 10, which depends from claim 9: Fang does not disclose that an edge of the encapsulant (16) exceeds an edge of the first dielectric layer (24). However, applicants’ disclosure does not indicate the patentable significance of this shape requirement. Because the shape requirement is not patentably significant, claim 10 is rejected as an obvious variant over the prior art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See also MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(B).
Regarding claim 12, which depends from claim 1: Fang discloses a second conductive pillar (14) over the active surface (121) of the electronic component (12), but does not disclose that a dimple depth of a concave portion (148) of the second conductive pillar (14) is different from a dimple depth of the concave portion (148) of the first conductive pillar (14). From Figure 3, the dimples (high points at the perimeter of the upper surface of the pillars (14)) appears to be the same. However, applicants’ disclosure does not indicate the patentable significance of this shape requirement. Because the shape requirement is not patentably significant, claim 12 is rejected as an obvious variant over the prior art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See also MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(B).
Regarding claim 13, which depends from claim 1: Fang discloses a second conductive via (224) connected to the concave portion (148) of the first conductive pillar (14), but Fang does not disclose that a center axis of the second conductive via (224) is misaligned with a center axis of the first conductive pillar (14). However, applicants’ disclosure does not indicate the patentable significance of this shape/positioning requirement. Because the shape/positioning requirement is not patentably significant, claim 13 is rejected as an obvious variant over the prior art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See also MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(B).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fang, and further in view of Huang, Chinese Pat. Pub. No. CN113948490A (published Jan. 18, 2022), Figures 2 and 3.
PNG
media_image9.png
338
615
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
286
630
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, which depends from claim 1: Fang does not disclose that a thickness of the first dielectric layer (24) is greater than a thickness of the first conductive pillar (14).
Huang Figures 2 and 3, directed to similar subject matter, disclose a semiconductor package in which a capacitor (120), which is an electronic component, is embedded in a substrate (100), a first conductive pillar (110) is electrically connected to the capacitor (120), and a first dielectric layer (200) is over the substrate (100) and the capacitor (120), wherein the first dielectric layer (200) defines an opening exposing the first conductive pillar (110), wherein a thickness of the first dielectric layer (200) is greater than a thickness of the first conductive pillar (110). Huang specification ¶¶ 45-47. One having ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date would be motivated to modify Fang to include the Huang arrangement because the modification would have involved the substitution of an equivalent known for the same purpose.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fang, and further in view of Chen Figure 2E.
Regarding claim 11, which depends from claim 1: Fang discloses a second dielectric layer (28) over the first dielectric layer (24), Fang specification ¶ 39, but is silent as to whether a thickness of the first dielectric layer (24) is greater than a thickness of the second dielectric layer (28).
Chen Figure 2E, directed to similar subject matter, discloses an electronic component (20a) having an active surface; an encapsulant (22a) encapsulating the electronic component (20a) and exposing the active surface of the electronic component (20a); a first connector (19a), which can be a conductive pillar, over the active surface of the electronic component (20a); and a first dielectric layer (PM1) over the encapsulant (22a) and the active surface of the electronic component (20a), wherein the first dielectric layer (PM1) defines an opening exposing the first connector/conductive pillar (19a); a second dielectric layer (PM2) over the first dielectric layer (PM1), wherein a thickness of the first dielectric layer (PM1) is greater than a thickness of the second dielectric layer (PM2). Chen specification ¶¶ 10-67. One having ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date would be motivated to modify Fang to include the Chen dielectric arrangement because the modification would have involved the substitution of an equivalent known for the same purpose.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen, and further in view of Fang.
Regarding claim 15, which depends from claim 14: Chen does not disclose that an upper surface of the conductive pillar (14) includes a concave portion.
Fang, directed to similar subject matter, discloses an upper surface of its conductive pillar (14) includes a concave surface (148). Fang specification ¶ 53. One having ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date would be motivated to modify Chen to replace its upper conductive pillar surface with the Fang conductive pillar concave surface because the modification would have involved the substitution of an equivalent known for the same purpose.
Claims 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen.
Regarding claim 16, which depends from claim 14: Chen discloses the conductive pillar (19a) includes a lateral surface protruding from the active surface of the electronic component (20a), wherein the redistribution structure (28) further comprises a conductive via (V) over the conductive pillar (19a), the conductive via (V) includes a lateral surface extending between an upper surface of the first dielectric layer (PM1) and an upper surface of the conductive pillar (19a). See Chen Figure 2E. Chen does not disclose that the lateral surface of the conductive via (V) is steeper than the lateral surface of the conductive pillar (19a). However, applicants’ disclosure does not indicate the patentable significance of this shape relationship requirement. Because the shape relationship requirement is not patentably significant, claim 16 is rejected as an obvious variant over the prior art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See also MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(B).
Regarding claim 17, which depends from claim 14: Chen discloses the redistribution structure (28) further comprises a conductive via (V) connected to the conductive pillar (19a), wherein the conductive via overlaps a portion of the conductive pillar (19a). See Chen Figure 2E. Chen does not disclose that the conductive via (V) laterally overlaps a portion of the conductive pillar (19a). However, applicants’ disclosure does not indicate the patentable significance of this shape/positional relationship requirement. Because the shape/positional relationship requirement is not patentably significant, claim 17 is rejected as an obvious variant over the prior art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See also MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(B).
Regarding claim 18: Chen Figure 2E discloses a package structure (50b), comprising: a first electronic component (20a) including a first active surface; a second electronic component (20b) including a second active surface; an encapsulant (22a) encapsulating the first electronic component (20a) and the second electronic component (20b); and a first dielectric layer (PM1) disposed over the encapsulant (22a) and exposing the first active surface and the second active surface. Chen specification ¶¶ 10-67. Chen does not specifically disclose that the first dielectric layer (PM1) includes a concave portion between the first electronic component (20a) and the second electronic component (20b). However, applicants’ disclosure does not indicate the patentable significance of this shape relationship requirement. Because the shape relationship requirement is not patentably significant, claim 18 is rejected as an obvious variant over the prior art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See also MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(B).
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen, and further in view of Fang.
Regarding claim 19, which depends from claim 18: Chen discloses a first conductive pillar (19a) over the first active surface of the first electronic component (20a); and a second conductive pillar (19b) over the second active surface of the second electronic component (20b). See Chen Figure 2E. Chen does not disclose wherein an upper surface of the first conductive pillar (19a) includes a first concave portion, or wherein an upper surface of the second conductive pillar (19b) includes a second concave portion.
Fang, directed to similar subject matter, discloses an upper surface of its conductive pillar (14) includes a concave surface (148). Fang specification ¶ 53. One having ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date would be motivated to modify Chen to replace its upper conductive pillar surface with the Fang conductive pillar concave surface because the modification would have involved the substitution of an equivalent known for the same purpose. Once combined, the combination discloses an upper surface of the first conductive pillar (19a) includes a first concave portion, and an upper surface of the second conductive pillar (19b) includes a second concave portion.
Regarding claim 20, which depends from claim 19: The combination does not disclose that a dimple depth of the first concave portion is different from a dimple depth of the second concave portion. However, applicants’ disclosure does not indicate the patentable significance of this shape relationship requirement. Because the shape relationship requirement is not patentably significant, claim 20 is rejected as an obvious variant over the prior art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See also MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(B).
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen, and further in view of Fang.
Regarding claim 1: Chen Figure 2E discloses a package structure (50b), comprising: an electronic component (20a) having an active surface; an encapsulant (22a) encapsulating the electronic component (20a) and exposing the active surface of the electronic component (20a); a first conductive pillar (19a) over the active surface of the electronic component (20a), wherein an upper surface of the first conductive pillar (19a) includes a flat portion; and a first dielectric layer (PM1) over the encapsulant (22a) and the active surface of the electronic component (20a), wherein the first dielectric layer (PM1) defines an opening exposing the flat portion of the first conductive pillar (19a). Chen specification ¶¶ 10-67. Chen does not disclose that an upper surface of the first conductive pillar (19a) includes a concave portion.
Fang, directed to similar subject matter, discloses an upper surface of its conductive pillar (14) includes a concave surface (148). Fang specification ¶ 53. One having ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date would be motivated to modify Chen to replace its upper conductive pillar surface with the Fang conductive pillar concave surface because the modification would have involved the substitution of an equivalent known for the same purpose.
Regarding claim 2, which depends from claim 1: Chen Figure 2E discloses that a thickness of the first dielectric layer (PM1) is greater than a thickness of the first conductive pillar (19a).
Regarding claim 3, which depends from claim 1: Fang discloses that the upper surface of the first conductive pillar (14) is closer to an upper surface of the first dielectric layer (24) than to the active surface (121) of the electronic component (12). See Fang Figure 3; cf. Fang Figure 2.
Regarding claim 4, which depends from claim 1: Fang discloses a first conductive via (224) disposed over the first dielectric layer (24), wherein a thickness of the first dielectric layer (24) is greater than a depth of the first conductive via (224). See Fang Figure 3.
Regarding claim 5, which depends from claim 1: Chen discloses a redistribution structure (28) disposed over the encapsulant (22a) and the electronic component (20a) and comprising the first dielectric layer (PM1) and the first conductive pillar (19a), Chen specification ¶ 10-67, but Chen does not disclose that the redistribution structure (28) is tapered along a direction far away from the electronic component (20a). Fang discloses a redistribution structure (22) disposed over the encapsulant (16) and the electronic component (12) and comprising the first dielectric layer (24) and the first conductive pillar (14), see Fang Figure 3, Fang specification ¶ 46, but Fang does not disclose that the redistribution structure (22) is tapered along a direction far away from the electronic component (12). However, applicants’ disclosure does not indicate the patentable significance of this shape requirement. Because the shape requirement is not patentably significant, claim 5 is rejected as an obvious variant over the prior art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See also MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(B).
Regarding claim 6, which depends from claim 1: Fang discloses the first dielectric layer (24) extends into the concave portion (148) of the first conductive pillar 14). See Fang Figure 2.
Regarding claim 7, which depends from claim 5: Fang discloses that the redistribution structure (22) further comprises a second conductive via (224) connected to the concave portion (148) of the first conductive pillar (14), and a portion of the upper surface (141) of the first conductive pillar (14) is higher than a bottom of the second conductive via (224). See Fang Figure 3.
Regarding claim 8, which depends from claim 5: Chen discloses that the redistribution structure (28) further comprises a first circuit layer (RDL1), Chen specification ¶ 41, but Chen does not disclose that the first circuit layer (RDL1) includes a dimple over the flat portion of the first conductive pillar (19a). Fang discloses the redistribution structure (22) further comprises a first circuit layer (metallization layer at first circuit structure (22)), but Fang does not disclose that the first circuit layer includes a dimple over the concave portion (148) of the first conductive pillar (14). However, applicants’ disclosure does not indicate the patentable significance of this shape requirement. Because the shape requirement is not patentably significant, claim 8 is rejected as an obvious variant over the prior art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See also MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(B).
Regarding claim 9, which depends from claim 8: Neither Chen nor Fang discloses that the first circuit layer includes a protruded portion surrounding the dimple. However, applicants’ disclosure does not indicate the patentable significance of this shape requirement. Because the shape requirement is not patentably significant, claim 9 is rejected as an obvious variant over the prior art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See also MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(B).
Regarding claim 10, which depends from claim 9: Neither Chen nor Fang discloses that an edge of the encapsulant (Chen: 22a; Fang: 16) exceeds an edge of the first dielectric layer (Chen: PM1; Fang: 24). However, applicants’ disclosure does not indicate the patentable significance of this shape requirement. Because the shape requirement is not patentably significant, claim 10 is rejected as an obvious variant over the prior art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See also MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(B).
Regarding claim 11, which depends from claim 1: Chen Figure 2E discloses a second dielectric layer (PM2) over the first dielectric layer (PM1), wherein a thickness of the first dielectric layer (PM1) is greater than a thickness of the second dielectric layer (PM2). See Chen Figure 2E.
Regarding claim 12, which depends from claim 1: Chen discloses a second conductive pillar (19a) over the active surface of the electronic component (20a), but Chen does not disclose that a dimple depth of a flat portion of the second conductive pillar (19a) is different from a dimple depth of the flat portion of the first conductive pillar (19a). See Chen Figure 2E. Fang discloses a second conductive pillar (14) over the active surface (121) of the electronic component (12), but does not disclose that a dimple depth of a concave portion (148) of the second conductive pillar (14) is different from a dimple depth of the concave portion (148) of the first conductive pillar (14). From Figure 3, the dimples (high points at the perimeter of the upper surface of the pillars (14)) appears to be the same. However, applicants’ disclosure does not indicate the patentable significance of this shape requirement. Because the shape requirement is not patentably significant, claim 12 is rejected as an obvious variant over the prior art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See also MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(B).
Regarding claim 13, which depends from claim 1: Chen discloses a second conductive via (V) connected to the flat portion of the first conductive pillar (19a), but Chen does not disclose that a center axis of the second conductive via (V) is misaligned with a center axis of the first conductive pillar (19a). Fang discloses a second conductive via (224) connected to the concave portion (148) of the first conductive pillar (14), but Fang does not disclose that a center axis of the second conductive via (224) is misaligned with a center axis of the first conductive pillar (14). However, applicants’ disclosure does not indicate the patentable significance of this shape/positioning requirement. Because the shape/positioning requirement is not patentably significant, claim 13 is rejected as an obvious variant over the prior art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See also MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(B).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VICTORIA KATHLEEN HALL whose telephone number is (571)270-7567. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8 a.m.-5 p.m.
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, Fernando Toledo can be reached at 571-272-1867. 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.
/Victoria K. Hall/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2897