Attorney Docket Number: 01.AF0953-US
Filing Date: 6/30/2023
Inventors: Mallik et al.
Examiner: Thomas McCoy
DETAILED ACTION
This Office action responds to the application filed 6/30/2023.
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 . In the event the determination of the status of the application as
subject to 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 a 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.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the system level metal region comprises a thickness that is substantially the same as a thickness of the bridge structure, and wherein the inorganic dielectric layer is between the system level metal region and a second die active area must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: “…an inorganic dielectric layer is between the bridge structure a second side of the dielectric spacer” is improper. For the purposes of examination, “…an inorganic dielectric layer is between the bridge structure a second side of the dielectric spacer” will be construed to recite “…an inorganic dielectric layer is between the bridge structure and a second side of the dielectric spacer”. 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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pietambaram (US 20200006232 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Pietambaram (see, e.g., fig. 3N) shows all aspects of the instant invention including an apparatus (e.g., electronic device package 100) comprising:
A first die (e.g., first die 340A) comprising a first side (e.g., bottom surface of first die 340A) and a second side (e.g., top surface of first die 340A);
A second die (e.g., first die 340B) adjacent the first die (e.g., first die 340A), the second die (e.g., first die 340B) comprising a first side (e.g., bottom surface of first die 340B) and a second side (e.g., top surface of first die 340B);
A dielectric spacer (e.g., encapsulation layer 360 + paragraph 57 “…the encapsulation layer 360 may be a dielectric material…”) in a space between the first die (e.g., first die 340A) and the second die (e.g., first die 340B);
A bridge structure (e.g., bridge 310) interconnecting the first die (e.g., first die 340A) and the second die (e.g., first die 340B), wherein the bridge structure (e.g., bridge 310) spans the space between the first die (e.g., first die 340A) and the second die (e.g., first die 340B), a first portion (e.g., left-side of bridge 310) of the bridge structure (e.g., bridge 310) is directly on a first metal feature (e.g., left-side TSVs 346 + solder bumps 312) of the first side (e.g., bottom surface of first die 340A) of the first die (e.g., first die 340A), and a second portion (e.g., right-side of bridge 310) of the bridge structure (e.g., bridge 310) is directly on a second metal feature (e.g., right-side TSVs 346 + solder bumps 312) of the first side (e.g., bottom surface of first die 340B) of the second die (e.g., first die 340B); and
A package substrate (e.g., build-up layer 320), wherein the first side (e.g., bottom surface of first die 340A) of the first die (e.g., first die 340A) and the first side (e.g., top surface of first die 340B) of the second die (e.g., first die 340B) are coupled (e.g., note electric coupling between the first die and second die with the build-up layer 320, as TSVs 346 connect both first sides of the dies to the first side of the build-up layer 320) to a first side (e.g., top surface of build-up layer 320) of the package substrate (e.g., build-up layer 320).
PNG
media_image1.png
249
771
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 1
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 2, 12-13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pietambaram in view of Chen (US 20180019385 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Pietambaram (see, e.g., fig. 3N) shows a die-bonding film (e.g., DBF 345) is on the second sides (e.g., top surfaces of first die 340A and first die 340B) of the first die (e.g., first die 340A) and the second die (e.g., first die 340B).
Pietambaram (see, e.g., fig. 3N), however, fails to show this die-bonding film is a thermal solution.
Chen (see, e.g., paragraph 121), in a similar device to Pietambaram, teaches a die-bonding film (e.g., thermosetting die-bond insulating adhesive) is a thermal solution (see, e.g., paragraph 121).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include the thermal configuration of Chen within the die-bonding film of Pietambaram, in order to improve the strength and toughness within the die-bonding film of the device (see, e.g., paragraph 121 of Chen).
Regarding claim 12, Pietambaram (see, e.g., fig. 3N) shows most aspects of the instant invention including a system (e.g., electronic device package 100) comprising:
A first side (e.g., top surface of first die 340A) of a first die (e.g., first die 340A) on a surface of a die-bonding film (e.g., DBF 345);
A first side (e.g., top surface of first die 340B) of a second die (e.g., first die 340B) adjacent the first die (e.g., first die 340A);
A bridge structure (e.g., bridge 310) on a second side (e.g., bottom surface of first die 340A) of the first die (e.g., first die 340A) and on a second side (e.g., bottom surface of first die 340B) the second die (e.g., first die 340B), wherein a first portion (e.g., left-side of bridge 310) of the bridge structure (e.g., bridge 310) is directly on a first metal feature (e.g., left-side TSVs 346) of the second side (e.g., bottom surface of first die 340A) of the first die (e.g., first die 340A), and a second portion (e.g., right-side of bridge 310) of the bridge structure (e.g., bridge 310) is directly on a second metal feature (e.g., right-side TSVs 346) of the second side (e.g., bottom surface of first die 340B) of the second die (e.g., first die 340B); and
A package substrate (e.g., build-up layer 320), wherein the second side (e.g., bottom surface of first die 340A) of the first die (e.g., first die 340A) and the second side (e.g., top surface of first die 340B) of the second die (e.g., first die 340B) are coupled (e.g., note electric coupling between the first die and second die with the build-up layer 320, as TSVs 346 connect both first sides of the dies to the first side of the build-up layer 320) to the package substrate (e.g., build-up layer 320).
Pietambaram (see, e.g., fig. 3N), however, fails to show this die-bonding film is a thermal solution.
Chen (see, e.g., paragraph 121), in a similar device to Pietambaram, teaches a die-bonding film (e.g., thermosetting die-bond insulating adhesive) is a thermal solution (see, e.g., paragraph 121).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include the thermal configuration of Chen within the die-bonding film of Pietambaram, in order to improve the strength and toughness within the die-bonding film of the device (see, e.g., paragraph 121 of Chen).
Regarding claim 13, Pietambaram shows wherein the bridge structure (e.g., bridge 310) comprises a plurality of conductive traces (e.g., conductive traces 311), wherein a dielectric spacer (e.g., encapsulation layer 360 + paragraph 57 “…the encapsulation layer 360 may be a dielectric material…”) is between the first die (e.g., first die 340A) and the second die (e.g., first die 340B) and wherein the bridge structure (e.g., bridge 310) is over (e.g., flip orientation of fig. 3N) the dielectric spacer (e.g., encapsulation layer 360 + paragraph 57 “…the encapsulation layer 360 may be a dielectric material…”).
Regarding claim 15, Pietambaram (see, e.g., fig. 3N) shows wherein the first metal feature (e.g., left-side TSVs 346) comprises a first integrated circuit (IC) contact structure (see, e.g., annotated fig. 2 below) and the second metal feature (e.g., right-side TSVs 346) comprises a second IC contact structure (see, e.g., annotated fig. 2 below), wherein a first via structure (e.g., trace 311 connected to first IC contact structure) of an individual one of the plurality of conductive traces (e.g., conductive traces 311) is directly on the first IC contact structure (see, e.g., annotated fig. 2 below) and a second via structure (e.g., trace 311 connected to second IC contact structure) of the individual one of the plurality of conductive traces (e.g., conductive traces 311) is directly on the second IC contact structure (see, e.g., annotated fig. 2 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
319
435
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 2
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pietambaram in view of Chen further in view of Yu (US 20220099887 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Pietambaram in view of Chen fails to teach the thermal solution comprises a bulk silicon wafer.
Yu (see, e.g., fig. 10), in a similar device to Pietambaram in view of Chen, teaches a die-adhesive layer (e.g., adhesive layer 127) attached to a bulk silicon wafer (e.g., support 128 + paragraph 38 “The support 128 may comprise…a silicon wafer, bulk silicon…”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include the bulk silicon wafer of Yu within the thermal solution of Pietambaram in view of Chen, in order to achieve the expected result of providing a large silicon platform for additional IC fabrication, for any desired individual circuit units attached to the first die and second die.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pietambaram in view of Zhou (CN 114446920 A).
Regarding claim 4, Pietambaram (see, e.g., fig. 3N) shows wherein the bridge structure (e.g., bridge 310) comprises a plurality of conductive traces (e.g., conductive traces 311), wherein a first terminal end (see, e.g., left-side conductive trace 311 terminating at the end of bridge 310, see fig. 3N) of an individual one of the plurality of conductive traces (e.g., conductive traces 311) is coupled to the first metal feature (e.g., left-side TSVs 346) and a second terminal end (see, e.g., right-side conductive trace 311 terminating at the end of bridge 310, see fig. 3N) of the individual one of the plurality of conductive traces (e.g., conductive traces 311) is coupled to the second metal feature (e.g., right-side TSVs 346).
Pietambaram (see, e.g., fig. 3N), however, fails to show wherein the plurality of conductive traces are on an inorganic dielectric layer.
Zhou (see, e.g., fig. 12), in a similar device to Pietambaram, teaches a plurality of conductive traces (e.g., conductive trace 15) is on an inorganic dielectric material (e.g., paragraph text “The first dielectric layer 17 is made of inorganic insulating material such as silicon dioxide or silicon nitride, and can be formed on the first conductive trace 15…”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include the inorganic dielectric material of Zhou around the plurality of conductive traces of Pietambaram, in order to achieve the expected result of providing electrical insulative protection around the conductive traces of the device.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pietambaram in view of Chen further in view of Han (US 20230163079 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Pietambaram in view of Chen teaches wherein a first side (e.g., surface of encapsulation layer 360 in contact with DBF 345) of the dielectric spacer (e.g., encapsulation layer 360 + paragraph 57 “…the encapsulation layer 360 may be a dielectric material…”) is directly on the thermal solution (e.g., DBF 345 + thermal modification of Chen).
Pietambaram in view of Chen, however, fails to teach an inorganic dielectric layer is between the bridge structure and a second side of the dielectric spacer.
Han (see, e.g., 26), in a similar device to Pietambaram in view of Chen, teaches an inorganic dielectric layer (e.g., first dielectric layer 21a + paragraph 44 “The dielectric layer 21a may comprise…inorganic dielectric materials (e.g., Si.sub.3N.sub.4, …”) directly under a dielectric spacer (e.g., first encapsulating material 26 + paragraph 35).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include the inorganic dielectric layer of Han directly beneath the dielectric spacer (see, e.g., annotated fig. 1) and between the bridge structure and the dielectric spacer of Pietambaram in view of Chen, in order to achieve the expected result of diversifying the dielectric material profile within the encapsulating layer and improving the electrical insulative properties within the device.
Claims 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pietambaram in view of Chen further in view of Zhou.
Regarding claim 17, Pietambaram (see, e.g., fig. 3N) shows most aspects of the instant invention including a method comprising:
Providing a die-bonding film (e.g., DBF 345) comprising a first side (e.g., top surface of first die 340A) of a first die (e.g., first die 340A) and a first side (e.g., top surface of first die 340B) of a second die (e.g., first die 340B) on a surface thereof, wherein a second side (e.g., bottom surface of first die 340A) of the first die (e.g., first die 340A) comprises a first integrated circuit (IC) contact structure (see, e.g., annotated fig. 2 above) and wherein a second side of the second die (e.g., first die 340B) comprises a second IC contact structure (see, e.g., annotated fig. 2 above), and wherein a dielectric spacer (e.g., encapsulation layer 360 + paragraph 57 “…the encapsulation layer 360 may be a dielectric material…”) is between the first die (e.g., first die 340A) and the second die (e.g., first die 340B);
Forming a plurality of conductive traces (e.g., top two conductive traces 311) on a bridge structure (e.g., bridge 310), wherein a first terminal end (see, e.g., left-side conductive trace 311 terminating at the end of bridge 310, see fig. 3N) of an individual one of the plurality of conductive traces (e.g., top two conductive traces 311) are on the first integrated circuit (IC) contact structure (see, e.g., annotated fig. 2 above) and a second terminal end of the individual one of the plurality of conductive traces (e.g., top two conductive traces 311) are on the second IC contact structure (see, e.g., annotated fig. 2 above).
Pietambaram (see, e.g., fig. 3N), however, fails to show this die-bonding film is a thermal solution, while it also fails to show forming an inorganic dielectric layer on the second side of the first die and on the second side of the second die and on the dielectric spacer.
Chen (see, e.g., paragraph 121), in a similar device to Pietambaram, teaches a die-bonding film (e.g., thermosetting die-bond insulating adhesive) is a thermal solution (see, e.g., paragraph 121).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to provide the thermal configuration of Chen within the die-bonding film of Pietambaram, in order to improve the strength and toughness within the die-bonding film of the device (see, e.g., paragraph 121 of Chen).
Pietambaram in view of Chen, however, fails to teach forming an inorganic dielectric layer on the second side of the first die and on the second side of the second die and on the dielectric spacer.
Zhou (see, e.g., fig. 12), in a similar device to Pietambaram in view of Chen, teaches a plurality of conductive traces (e.g., conductive trace 15) is on an inorganic dielectric material (e.g., paragraph text “The first dielectric layer 17 is made of inorganic insulating material such as silicon dioxide or silicon nitride, and can be formed on the first conductive trace 15…”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include the inorganic dielectric material of Zhou around the plurality of conductive traces of Pietambaram in view of Chen, in order to achieve the expected result of providing electrical insulative protection around the conductive traces of the device. Note that placing the inorganic dielectric layer in this fashion would lay it on the first die active area and the second active area of the first die and second die, respectively. Also note the plurality of conductive traces would thus be configured on the inorganic dielectric layer within the bridge structure.
Regarding claim 18, Pietambaram in view of Chen further in view of Zhou teaches forming an additional plurality of conductive traces (e.g., bottom conductive traces 311) adjacent to the plurality of conductive traces (e.g., top two conductive traces 311) on the inorganic dielectric layer (e.g., modified bridge 310).
Regarding claim 19, Pietambaram (see, e.g., fig. 3N) shows forming one or more conductive bumps (e.g., solder bumps 312) on the additional plurality of conductive traces (e.g., bottom conductive traces 311).
Regarding claim 20, Pietambaram (see,e.g., fig. 3N) shows attaching a package substrate (e.g., build-up layer 320) to the one or more conductive bumps (e.g., solder bumps 312).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pietambaram in view in view of Han (US 20230163079 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Pietambaram (see, e.g., fig. 3N) shows wherein the first side (e.g., bottom surface of first die 340A) of the first die (e.g., first die 340A) comprises a first die active area (see, e.g., paragraphs 54-55) and the first side (e.g., bottom surface of first die 340B) of the second die (e.g., first die 340B) comprises a second die active area (see, e.g., paragraphs 54-55).
Pietambaram (see, e.g., fig. 3N), however, fails to show wherein an inorganic dielectric layer is on the first die active area and is on the second die active area.
Han (see, e.g., fig. 3A), in a similar device to Pietambaram in view of Chen, teaches an inorganic dielectric layer (e.g., first dielectric layer 21a + paragraph 44 “The dielectric layer 21a may comprise…inorganic dielectric materials (e.g., Si.sub.3N.sub.4, …”) directly under a dielectric spacer (e.g., first encapsulating material 26 + paragraph 35).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include the inorganic dielectric layer of Han directly beneath the dielectric spacer (see, e.g., annotated fig. 1) and between the bridge structure and the dielectric spacer of Pietambaram in view of Chen, in order to achieve the expected result of diversifying the dielectric material profile within the encapsulating layer and improving the electrical insulative properties within the device. Note that placing the inorganic dielectric layer in this fashion would lay it on the first die active area and the second active area of the first die and second die, respectively.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pietambaram in view in view of Han further in view of Cheah (US 20200083170 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Han (see, e.g., fig. 3A), teaches the inorganic dielectric layer (e.g., first dielectric layer 21a + paragraph 44 “The dielectric layer 21a may comprise…inorganic dielectric materials (e.g., Si.sub.3N.sub.4, …”) comprises at least one of silicon, oxygen, nitrogen, or carbon (see, e.g., paragraph 44).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include the silicon of Han within the inorganic dielectric layer of Pietambaram in view of Han, as Si3N4 was a well known material at the time of filing the invention to include as a dielectric material, and because many are recognized in the semiconductor art for their usage in dielectric materials, as taught by Han, and selecting between known equivalents would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v.
Pietambaram in view of Han, however, fails to teach wherein the bridge structure comprises copper or copper alloys.
Cheah (see, e.g., fig. 1), in a similar device to Pietambaram in view of Han, teaches a bridge structure (e.g., interconnect bridge 110) comprises copper (see, e.g., paragraph 16 “…the interconnect bridge 110 is formed from…metals, such as copper, for other conductors for traces 112).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include the copper of Cheah within the conductive traces of the bridge of Pietambaram in view of Han, as copper was a well known material at the time of filing the invention to include as a trace material, and because many are recognized in the semiconductor art for their usage in conductive materials, and selecting between known equivalents would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v.
Claims 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pietambaram in view of Chen further in view of Vora (US 20120061856 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Pietambaram in view of Chen fails to explicitly teach wherein a length of an individual one of the plurality of conductive traces comprises less than about 200 microns, and wherein a pitch between a first individual one of the plurality of conductive traces and a second individual one of the plurality of conductive traces comprises less than about 2 microns.
Vora (see, e.g., fig. 7), in a similar device to Pietambaram in view of Chen, teaches a length of a plurality of conductive traces comprises less than 200 microns (see, e.g., paragraph 35 “…conductive trace lines that extend along bridge chips or wafers may be short (e.g., 20 microns)), and the conductive trace lines have a pitch less than 2 microns (see, e.g., paragraph 5 “conductive pads having a pitch of 0.5 microns” + paragraph 32 “the pitch of the conductive trace lines 408 is the same as the pitch of the conductive pads on the chips”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include the conductive trace length and pitches of Vora within the plurality of conductive traces configuration of Pietambaram in view of Chen, in order to reduce the travel distance between different circuitry within the device and improve signal speed between the dies through the bridge structure.
Regarding claim 16, Pietambaram in view of Chen fails to explicitly teach wherein a pitch between the first integrated circuit IC contact structure and the second IC contact structure is less than about 9 microns, and wherein a power supply is coupled with the first die and the second die.
Vora (see, e.g., fig. 7), in a similar device to Pietambaram in view of Chen, teaches conductive trace lines have a pitch less than 9 microns (see, e.g., paragraph 5 “conductive pads having a pitch of 0.5 microns” + paragraph 32 “the pitch of the conductive trace lines 408 is the same as the pitch of the conductive pads on the chips”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include the conductive pitch length of Vora within the plurality of conductive traces configuration of Pietambaram in view of Chen, in order to reduce the travel distance between different circuitry within the device and improve signal speed between the dies through the bridge structure. Note that the first integrated circuit IC contact structure and the second IC contact structure are connected to the conductive traces, hence the pitch between the conductive traces is also the pitch between the first integrated circuit IC contact structure and the second IC contact structure.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-9 are 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.
Regarding claim 6: the primary art of record, Pietambaram in view of Zhou fails to teach wherein the system level metal region comprises a thickness that is substantially the same as a thickness of the bridge structure, and wherein the inorganic dielectric layer is between the system level metal region and a second die active area. These features in combination with other elements in the claim are neither
disclosed nor suggested by the prior art of record.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Thomas McCoy at (571) 272-0282 and between the hours of 9:30 AM to 6:30 PM (Eastern Standard Time) Monday through Friday or by e-mail via Thomas.McCoy@uspto.gov. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Wael Fahmy, can be reached on (571) 272-1705.
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.
/THOMAS WILSON MCCOY/ Examiner, Art Unit 2814 /WAEL M FAHMY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2814
Prosecution Insights