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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election with traverse of Species C in the reply filed on 31 December 2025 is acknowledged. The argument that the species are not mutually exclusive is found to be persuasive, because the species can exist in a single implementation. Therefore, they are not patentably distinct, and the restriction is hereby withdrawn.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) submitted on 29 August 2023 and 1 July 2025 have been considered by the examiner and made of record in the application file.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 16-20 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 16 recites the limitation: --a stage configured a first die and a substrate--, which has no verb. For the purpose of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as --a stage configured to support a first die and a substrate--.
Claims 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for their dependency on claim 16.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4-5, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kang (WO 2005122706 A2, hereinafter “Kang”).
Regarding Claim 1 - Kang discloses a die bonding apparatus comprising: a stage ([11]) configured to support a first die (Wafer 100 having die 102 [43] and Fig. 30); a pickup head (pick and place equipment [63]) configured to pick up a second die (250 [54] and Fig. 30); regions of magnetic material (110a [44] and 210a [54] and Fig. 30) arranged on the first die and the second die (Fig. 30); an electromagnet (290 [67]) arranged on a surface of the pickup head or the stage (Fig. 30); and a controller configured to apply a current to the electromagnet to generate a magnetic field (Applying current after components to be bonded are positioned inherently requires a controller to switch on and off [68]. See MPEP 2112(I & II).), when the first die and the second die are disposed at a predetermined distance (placed in rough alignment [68]) from each other in a vertical direction, wherein, because of the magnetic field generated by the electromagnet, the regions of magnetic material arranged on the first die and the second die are aligned with one another in the vertical direction (magnetic force causes the two to move into alignment [68]).
PNG
media_image1.png
231
312
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
235
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 4 - Kang further discloses the electromagnet comprises a solenoid coil (290 [67]).
Regarding Claim 5 - Kang further discloses the electromagnet generates a magnetic field in the vertical direction (The central axis of coil 290 perpendicular to the bonding surface as shown in Fig. 30).
Regarding Claim 7 - Kang further discloses the regions of magnetic material include soft magnetic materials ([43]).
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang (WO 2005122706 A2, hereinafter “Kang”), in view of Safabakhsh (US 5,169,196 A, hereinafter “Safabakhsh”).
Regarding Claim 2 - Kang discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Kang fails to disclose the pickup head is configured to pick up the second die in a non-contact manner.
However, Safabakhsh discloses the pickup head is configured to pick up the second die in a non-contact manner (Safabakhsh column 1, lines 44-46 and Fig. 2).
Safabakhsh discloses a non-contact pickup head relevant to the die bonding apparatus of Kang. Safabakhsh teaches a system of air supply and vacuum lines in the pickup head for the benefit of contactless positioning of a die (Safabakhsh column 1, lines 6-9). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Safabakhsh and Kang to utilize a system of air supply and vacuum lines at the pickup headed for the benefit of contactless positioning of a die.
PNG
media_image3.png
558
531
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang (WO 2005122706 A2, hereinafter “Kang”), in view of Warner et al (US 20170330805 A1, hereinafter “Warner”).
Regarding Claim 3 - Kang discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Kang fails to disclose a stage driver configured to move the stage in the vertical direction or a horizontal direction perpendicular to the vertical direction.
However, Warner discloses a stage driver (613, Warner [0118]) configured to move the stage in the vertical direction or a horizontal direction perpendicular to the vertical direction (616 has six-axis movement, Warner [0117]).
Warner discloses an apparatus related to Kang for alignment of semiconductor structures to be bonded. Warner teaches using a stage that can move with six degrees of freedom for the benefit of capturing alignment mark images accurately during semiconductor structure alignment (Warner, [0124]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Kang and Warner to use a stage with the ability to move in three dimensions for the benefit of capturing alignment mark images accurately during alignment of semiconductor structures to be bonded.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang (WO 2005122706 A2, hereinafter “Kang”), in view of Hartleroad et al (US 3,887,997 A, hereinafter “Hartleroad”).
Regarding Claim 6 - Kang discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Kang fails to disclose the pickup head further comprises a die adhesive surface facing an upper surface of the second die, and a horizontal area of the die adhesive surface is less than a horizontal area of the second die.
However, Hartleroad discloses the pickup head further comprises a die adhesive surface facing an upper surface of the second die, and a horizontal area of the die adhesive surface is less than a horizontal area of the second die (Effective area of pickup head (probe tip) 14 less than chip 10, but large enough to properly support for bonding placement, Hartleroad column 6, line 62 to column 7, line 2 and Fig. 2).
Hartleroad discloses an apparatus using an electromagnet for die bonding, analogous to Kang. Hartleroad teaches making the adhesive surface area of the pickup head less than the area of the die for the benefit of concentrating magnetic flux lines in the magnetic features on the die to ensure precise alignment (Hartleroad, column 6, line 65 to column 7, line 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Kang and Hartleroad to make the adhesive surface area of the pickup head less than the area of the die for the benefit of precise alignment. Furthermore, the exact ratio of the area of the die adhesive surface to the upper surface of the second die is a matter of routine optimization. See MPEP 2144.06(II)(A)).
PNG
media_image4.png
200
274
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claims 8, 13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang (WO 2005122706 A2, hereinafter “Kang”), in view of Warner et al (US 20170330805 A1, hereinafter “Warner”), and further in view of Hartleroad et al (US 3,887,997 A, hereinafter “Hartleroad”).
Regarding Claim 8 - Kang discloses a die bonding apparatus comprising: a stage ([11]) configured to support a first die (Die 102 [43] and Fig. 30); a pickup head (pick and place equipment [63]) configured to pick up a second die (250 [64] and Fig. 30); regions of magnetic material (110a [44] and 210a [54] and Fig. 30) arranged on the first die and the second die (Fig. 30); an electromagnet (290 [67] and Fig. 30) arranged on a surface of the pickup head or the stage (Fig. 30); and, a controller configured to apply a current to the electromagnet to generate a magnetic (Applying current after components to be bonded are positioned inherently requires a controller to switch on and off [68]. See MPEP 2112(I & II).) when the first die and the second die are disposed at a predetermined distance (placed in rough alignment [68]) from each other in the vertical direction, wherein the pickup head further comprises a die adhesive surface that faces an upper surface of the second die (like standard pick and place equipment [63]), and wherein because of the magnetic field generated by the electromagnet, the regions of magnetic material arranged on the first die and the second die are aligned with one another in the vertical direction (magnetic force causes the two to move into alignment [68]).
Kang fails to disclose a stage driver configured to move the stage in a horizontal direction and a vertical direction perpendicular to the horizontal direction.
However, Warner discloses a stage driver (613, Warner [0118]) configured to move the stage in the horizontal direction and a vertical direction perpendicular to the horizontal direction (616 has six-axis movement, Warner [0117]).
Warner discloses an apparatus related to Kang for alignment of semiconductor structures to be bonded. Warner teaches using a stage that can move with six degrees of freedom for the benefit of capturing alignment mark images accurately during semiconductor structure alignment (Warner, [0124]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Kang and Warner to use a stage with the ability to move in three dimensions for the benefit of capturing alignment mark images accurately during alignment of semiconductor structures to be bonded.
The combination of Kang and Warner fails to disclose the pickup head further comprises a die adhesive surface that faces an upper surface of the second die.
However, Hartleroad discloses the pickup head further comprises a die adhesive surface that faces an upper surface of the second die (Pickup head adhesive surface 14 facing die 10, Hartleroad column 3, lines 41-43 and Fig. 2).
Hartleroad discloses an apparatus using an electromagnet for die bonding, analogous to Kang. Hartleroad teaches using a pickup head with an adhesive surface that faces an upper surface of the die to be bonded for the benefit of placing it in the right position to be magnetically drawn to its bonding site (Hartleroad column 5, lines 59-63). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Kang and Hartleroad to use a pickup head with an adhesive surface that faces an upper surface of the die to be bonded for the benefit of placing it in the right position to be magnetically drawn to its bonding site.
PNG
media_image5.png
473
611
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 13 - Kang modified by Warner and Hartleroad discloses all the limitations of claim 8.
The combination of Kang, Warner, and Hartleroad further discloses a range of a ratio of a second width, which is a horizontal width of the die adhesive surface, to a first width, which is a horizontal width of the second die, is greater than or equal to about 50 % and less than or equal to about 100 % (Effective area of pickup head (probe tip) 14 less than chip 10, but large enough to properly support for bonding placement, Hartleroad column 6, line 62 to column 7, line 2 and Fig. 2).
Hartleroad discloses an apparatus using an electromagnet for die bonding, analogous to Kang. Hartleroad teaches making the adhesive surface area of the pickup head less than the area of the die for the benefit of concentrating magnetic flux lines in the magnetic features on the die to ensure precise alignment (Hartleroad, column 6, line 65 to column 7, line 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Kang and Hartleroad to make the adhesive surface area of the pickup head less than the area of the die for the benefit of precise alignment. Furthermore, the exact ratio of the area of the die adhesive surface to the upper surface of the second die is a matter of routine optimization. See MPEP 2144.06(II)(A)).
Regarding Claim 15 - Kang modified by Warner and Hartleroad discloses all the limitations of claim 8.
The combination of Kang, Warner, and Hartleroad further discloses the regions of magnetic material are arranged on at least one of a dummy pad, an alignment key, and a scribe lane of each of the first die and the second die (as alignment keys of various potential shapes, Kang [44] and Fig. 5).
PNG
media_image6.png
144
304
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Claims 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang (WO 2005122706 A2, hereinafter “Kang”), in view of Warner et al (US 20170330805 A1, hereinafter “Warner”), and further in view of Hartleroad et al (US 3,887,997 A, hereinafter “Hartleroad”), and further in view of Safabakhsh (US 5,169,196, hereinafter “Safabakhsh”).
Regarding Claim 9 - Kang modified by Warner and Hartleroad discloses all the limitations of claim 8.
The combination of Kang, Warner, and Hartleroad fails to disclose a lower surface of the die adhesive surface of the pickup head is spaced apart from an upper surface of the second die in the vertical direction.
However, Safabakhsh discloses a lower surface of the pickup head is spaced apart from an upper surface of the second die (27 in Safabakhsh Fig. 2) in the vertical direction (Safabakhsh column 1, lines 44-46).
Safabakhsh discloses a non-contact pickup head relevant to the die bonding apparatus of Kang. Safabakhsh teaches a system of air supply and vacuum lines in the pickup head for the benefit of contactless positioning of the die (Safabakhsh column 1, lines 6-9). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Safabakhsh and Kang to utilize a system of air supply and vacuum lines at the pickup headed for the benefit of contactless positioning of the die.
Regarding Claim 10 - Kang modified by Warner and Hartleroad discloses all the limitations of claim 8.
The combination of Kang, Warner, and Hartleroad fails to disclose an air line configured to supply air to the second die and a suction line configured to suck in the air, wherein the air line and the suction line are formed in the pickup head.
However, Safabakhsh discloses an air line (23, Safabakhsh column 2, lines 64-67 and Fig. 2) configured to supply air to the second die and a suction line (25, Safabakhsh column 3, lines 2-5 and Fig. 2) configured to suck in the air, wherein the air line and the suction line are formed in the pickup head (Safabakhsh Fig. 2).
Safabakhsh discloses a non-contact pickup head relevant to the die bonding apparatus of Kang. Safabakhsh teaches a system of air supply and vacuum lines in the pickup head for the benefit of contactless positioning of the die (Safabakhsh column 1, lines 6-9). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Safabakhsh and Kang to utilize a system of air supply and vacuum lines at the pickup headed for the benefit of contactless positioning of the die.
Regarding Claim 11 - Kang modified by Warner, Hartleroad, and Safabakhsh discloses all the limitations of claim 10.
The combination of Kang, Warner, Hartleroad, and Safabakhsh discloses one or more air injection nozzles connected to the air line (22, Safabakhsh column 2, lines 64-67 and Fig. 2) and one or more vacuum holes connected to the suctionline (24, Safabakhsh column 3, lines 2-5 and Fig. 2), wherein the one or more air injection nozzles and the one or more vacuum holes are arranged on the die adhesive surface (Safabakhsh Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 12 - Kang modified by Warner, Hartleroad, and Safabakhsh discloses all the limitations of claim 11.
The combination of Kang, Warner, Hartleroad, and Safabakhsh further discloses a flow rate of air provided to each of the one or more air injection nozzles or a flow rate of air sucked into each of the one or more vacuum holes is independently controlled (Source of pressurized air different than vacuum source, Safabakhsh and Fig. 2).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang (WO 2005122706 A2, hereinafter “Kang”), in view of Warner et al (US 20170330805 A1, hereinafter “Warner”), and further in view of Hartleroad et al (US 3,887,997 A, hereinafter “Hartleroad”), and further in view of Swaminathan (US 20210066240 A1, hereinafter “Swaminathan”).
Regarding Claim 14 - Kang modified by Warner and Hartleroad discloses all the limitations of claim 8.
The combination of Kang, Warner, and Hartleroad fails to disclose the electromagnet generates a magnetic field of at least about 2000 Gauss in the vertical direction.
However, Swaminathan discloses the electromagnet generates a magnetic field of at least about 2000 Gauss in the vertical direction (one to two Tesla (10,000-20,000 Gauss), Swaminathan [0020]).
Swaminathan discloses an apparatus for electromagnetic alignment of semiconductor components analogous to Kang. Swaminathan teaches the magnetic field strength for assembly may be as high as one to two Tesla for the benefit of adjusting the attractive force between magnetic interconnects based on their size to draw them together (Saminathan [0020]-[0021]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Kang and Swaminathan to set the magnetic field strength to as much as one to two Tesla for the benefit of adjusting the attractive force between magnetic interconnects based on their size to draw them together.
Claims 16-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang (WO 2005122706 A2, hereinafter “Kang”), in view of Warner et al (US 20170330805 A1, hereinafter “Warner”), and further in view of Safabakhsh (US 5,169,196 A, hereinafter “Safabakhsh”).
Regarding Claim 16 - Kang discloses a die bonding apparatus comprising: a stage ([11]) configured to support a first die (Die 102 [43] and Fig. 30) and a substrate (Wafer 100 [43] and Fig. 30); a pickup head (pick and place equipment [63]) configured to pick up a second die (250 [64] and Fig. 30); regions of magnetic material (110a [44] and 210a [54] and Fig. 30) arranged on the first die and the second die (Fig. 30); an electromagnet (290 [67] and Fig. 30) arranged on a surface of each of the pickup head or the stage (Fig. 30); and a controller configured to apply a current to the electromagnet to generate a magnetic field (Applying current after components to be bonded are positioned inherently requires a controller to switch on and off [68]. See MPEP 2112(I & II).) when the first die and the second die are disposed at a predetermined distance from each other in a vertical direction (placed in rough alignment [68]), wherein the pickup head further comprises a die adhesive surface that is opposite to an upper surface of the second die (like standard pick and place equipment [63]), and wherein because of the magnetic field generated by the electromagnet, the regions of magnetic material arranged on the first die and the second die are aligned in the vertical direction (magnetic force causes the two to move into alignment [68]).
Kang fails to expressly disclose a stage driver configured to move the stage in a horizontal direction and a vertical direction perpendicular to the horizontal direction, and a pickup head driver configured to move the pickup head in the horizontal direction.
However, Warner discloses a stage driver (613, Warner [0118]) configured to move the stage in a horizontal direction and a vertical direction perpendicular to the horizontal direction (616 has six-axis movement, Warner [0117]), and a pickup head driver configured to move the pickup head in the horizontal direction (X-Y stage 618 effects relative horizontal between pickup head 540 and stage, and 618 controlled by driver 615, Warner [0112]).
Warner discloses an apparatus related to Kang for alignment of semiconductor structures to be bonded. Warner teaches using a stage that can move with six degrees of freedom as well as an X-Y stage for relative movement between pickup head and substrate for the benefit of capturing alignment mark images accurately during semiconductor structure alignment (Warner, [0112] and [0124]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Kang and Warner to use stage drivers controlling the ability to move in three dimensions for the benefit of capturing alignment mark images accurately during alignment of semiconductor structures to be bonded.
The combination of Kang and Warner fails to disclose a lower surface of the die adhesive surface of the pickup head is spaced apart from an upper surface of the second die in the vertical direction.
However, Safabakhsh discloses a lower surface of the pickup head is spaced apart from an upper surface of the second die in the vertical direction (Safabakhsh column 1, lines 44-46).
Safabakhsh discloses a non-contact pickup head relevant to the die bonding apparatus of Kang. Safabakhsh teaches a system of air supply and vacuum lines in the pickup head for the benefit of contactless positioning of the die (Safabakhsh column 1, lines 6-9). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Safabakhsh and Kang to utilize a system of air supply and vacuum lines at the pickup headed for the benefit of contactless positioning of the die.
Regarding Claim 17 - Kang modified by Warner and Safabakhsh discloses all the limitations of claim 16.
The combination of Kang, Warner, and Safabakhsh further discloses the controller applies the current to the electromagnet when a distance between the second die and the first die is less than or equal to about 100 micrometers (apparently in direct contact, Kang [68] and Fig. 31).
PNG
media_image7.png
229
379
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 20 - Kang modified by Warner and Safabakhsh discloses all the limitations of claim 16.
The combination of Kang, Warner, and Safabakhsh further discloses the regions of magnetic material include soft magnetic materials and at least one of NiFe, FeCo, and FeCoB (Fe, Ni, Co, and their allows are included as options, Kang [43]. Although the alloys are not explicitly disclosed, all three of the above are known equivalents in the industry, presenting a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2244.06(II)).
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang (WO 2005122706 A2, hereinafter “Kang”), in view of Warner et al (US 20170330805 A1, hereinafter “Warner”), and further in view of Safabakhsh (US 5,169,196 A, hereinafter “Safabakhsh”), and further in view of Swaminathan (US 20210066240 A1, hereinafter “Swaminathan”).
Regarding Claim 18 - Kang modified by Warner and Safabakhsh discloses all the limitations of claim 16.
The combination of Kang, Warner, and Safabakhsh fails to disclose the first die and the second die, which are aligned with one another in the vertical direction, have an error distance that is less than or equal to about 50 nanometers.
However, Swaminathan discloses the first die and the second die, which are aligned with one another in the vertical direction, have an error distance that is less than or equal to about 50 nanometers (Interconnect widths less than ten nanometers requires alignment even finer than ten nanometers, Swaminathan [0013]).
Swaminathan describes a similar apparatus to Kang for electromagnetic alignment of semiconductor components. Swaminathan teaches the use of electromagnetism with embedded magnetic material features for the benefit of finer alignment than can be achieved manually (Swaminathan [0013]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Kang and Swaminathan to use embedded magnetic material features in semiconductor components to be aligned for the benefit of alignment error less than 50 nm.
Regarding Claim 19 - Kang modified by Warner and Safabakhsh discloses all the limitations of claim 16.
The combination of Kang, Warner, and Safabakhsh fails to disclose the widths of the regions of magnetic material are less than or equal to about 2 micrometers.
However, Swaminathan discloses the widths of the regions of magnetic material are less than or equal to about 2 micrometers (Interconnects incorporating magnetic material less than one micrometer, Swaminathan [0013]).
Swaminathan describes a similar apparatus to Kang for electromagnetic alignment of semiconductor components. Swaminathan teaches the use interconnects with added magnetic features for the benefit of smaller width interconnects than can be achieved without the use of magnetism (Swaminathan [0013]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Kang and Swaminathan to use embedded alignment features made of magnetic material for the benefit of interconnects with regions of magnetic material less than two micrometers wide.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON MCDONALD whose telephone number is (571) 272-5944. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8a-6p Eastern, alternating Fridays out of office.
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, Julio Maldonado can be reached at (571) 272-1864. 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.
/JASON MCDONALD/Examiner, Art Unit 2898 /JULIO J MALDONADO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2898
Prosecution Insights