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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/02/2026.The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Status of the Claims
In the amendment dated 06/05/2026, claims 1-7 and 9-17 are pending.
Claims 1, 10 and 17 have been amended.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: Claim 1 recites the limitation: “a back-reflection sensing system configured to capture a back-reflection signal corresponding to a portion of laser energy directed to the workpiece and reflected by the first material and generate a sensor signal based on the captured back-reflection signal”;
Claim 9 recites the limitation: “a beam modulator operative to modulate the laser energy” uses a generic placeholder “modulator” that is coupled with functional language “to modulate the laser energy” without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
With regards to the corresponding structure of the claimed “back-reflection sensing system”, Applicant’s Specification, para.0082: “Referring to FIG. 5 , the back-reflection sensing system 124 can, for example, include a polarizing beam splitter 500, a wave plate 502 (e.g., a quarter-wave plate), a lens 504 and a detector 506 (e.g., a photodetector).”
With regards to the corresponding structure of the claimed “beam modulator” , Applicant’s Specification, para.0037 discloses: “the beam modulator 106 can include one or more systems such as a variable neutral density filter, an acousto-optical (AO) modulator (AOM), an AO deflector (AOD), a liquid crystal variable attenuator (LCVA), a micro-electro-mechanical system (MEMS)-based VOA, an optical attenuator wheel, a polarizer/waveplate filter, or the like or any combination thereof.”
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 7, 10, 11, 16 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Ukira (US 20020008093 A1)
Regarding claim 1, Ukita discloses
A laser-processing apparatus (see laser processing apparatus in fig.13) comprising:
a laser source (103, see fig.13 and para.0103) configured to direct a laser energy (107, see fig.13) onto a workpiece (104, see fig.13) such that the laser energy (107, see fig.13) is incident upon a first material (106, see fig.13) of the workpiece (104) wherein the workpiece (104) comprises the first material (106) formed on a second material (105, see fig.13):
wherein the laser energy (107, see fig.13) has a wavelength to which the first material (106) is more reflective than the second material (105): and
a back-reflection sensing system (combo 110 and 111, see fig.13) operative configured to capture a back-reflection signal (109) corresponding to a portion of laser energy (107, see fig.13 and para.0103) directed to the workpiece (104) and reflected by the first material (106) and generate a sensor signal (amplified detection signal 1101, see fig.13 and para.0103) based on the captured back-reflection signal (109);
a controller (combo 102 and 112, see fig.13) communicatively coupled to an output of the back-reflection sensing system (combo 110 and 111, see fig.13),
wherein the laser-processing apparatus (see laser processing apparatus in fig.13) is configured for carrying out a process to form a via in the workpiece (see abstract: “ in this laser processing method or apparatus, the insulating layer corresponding to the hole is processed when the detected value of the reflected light conforms to the desired value”), and
wherein the controller (combo 102 and 112, see fig.13) is configured to:
compare at least one characteristic of the back-reflection signal to at least one associated characteristic of a reference back-reflection signal (see para.0103: “the detection judging means 112 compares the amplified detection signal 1101 with a specified criterion 1131 preset in reference setting means 113, and judges if the amplified detection signal 1101 is within the specified criterion 1131 or not”):
control a remainder of the process by which the via (hole, see para.0103) is formed based on the comparison of the at least one characteristic of the captured back- reflection signal to the at least one associated characteristic of the reference back-reflection signal (See para.0103: “The control means 102 stops the laser processing if the amplified detection signal 1101 is out of the specified criterion 1131, and on the other hand, continues hole making in the insulating layer 105 of the circuit board 104 when the amplified detection signal 1101 is within the specified criterion 1131”).
Regarding claim 2, Ukita further discloses the laser energy (107, see fig.13) directed to the workpiece (104) is manifested as at least one laser pulse (see para.0091: “The laser may generate laser beam in pulse train”) and wherein the controller (combo 102 and 112, see fig.13) is operative to control the process (see fig.3), at least in part, by controlling a pulse energy of the least one laser pulse (See fig.3 and para.0051: “ the laser processing apparatus stops laser processing of the insulating layer corresponding to an abnormal hole in the conductive layer when the detection of reflected laser beam is an abnormal value out of the desired value”).
Regarding claim 4, Ukita further discloses the laser energy directed to the workpiece is manifested as at least one laser pulse (see para.0091: “The laser may generate laser beam in pulse train”), and wherein the controller is operative to control the process (see fig.3),, at least in part, by controlling the number of laser pulses to be directed to the workpiece (see para.0103: “ The control means 102 stops the laser processing if the amplified detection signal 1101 is out of the specified criterion 1131”).
Regarding claim 7, Ukita further discloses the laser energy directed to the workpiece is manifested as a laser pulse (see para.0091: “The laser may generate laser beam in pulse train”), and wherein the controller is operative to control the process (see fig.3) by which the via is formed while the laser pulse is directed to the workpiece (see para.0103: “ The control means 102 …continues hole making in the insulating layer 105 of the circuit board 104 when the amplified detection signal 1101 is within the specified criterion 1131” and see para.0091: “The laser may generate laser beam in pulse train”).
Regarding claim 10, Ukita discloses
A method (see abstract) comprising:
carrying out a process to form a via in a workpiece (hole in 105, see fig.13 and para.0103: “The control means 102 continues hole making in the insulating layer 105 of the circuit board 104 when the amplified detection signal 1101 is within the specified criterion 1131”), by directing laser energy (107, see fig.13) onto the workpiece (104) such that the laser energy is incident upon a first material (106) of the workpiece (104);
wherein the workpiece comprises the first material (106) formed on a second material (105);
wherein the laser energy (107, see fig.13) has a wavelength to which the first material (106) is more reflective than the second material (105);
capturing a back-reflection signal (109) corresponding to a portion of laser energy (107, see fig.13 and para.0103) directed to the workpiece (104) and reflected by the first material (106);
comparing at least one characteristic of the captured back-reflection signal to at least one associated characteristic of a reference back-reflection signal (see para.0103: “the detection judging means 112 compares the amplified detection signal 1101 with a specified criterion 1131 preset in reference setting means 113, and judges if the amplified detection signal 1101 is within the specified criterion 1131 or not”);
carrying out a remainder of the process based on the comparison of the at least one characteristic of the captured back-reflection signal to the at least one associated characteristic of the reference back-reflection signal (See para.0103: “The control means 102 stops the laser processing if the amplified detection signal 1101 is out of the specified criterion 1131, and on the other hand, continues hole making in the insulating layer 105 of the circuit board 104 when the amplified detection signal 1101 is within the specified criterion 1131”). .
Regarding claim 11, Ukita further discloses
the laser energy (107, see fig.13) directed to the workpiece (104) is manifested as at least one laser pulse see para.0091: “The laser may generate laser beam in pulse train”) and wherein carrying out the remainder of the process includes adjusting a pulse energy of the least one laser pulse (See fig.3 and para.0051: “ the laser processing apparatus stops laser processing of the insulating layer corresponding to an abnormal hole in the conductive layer when the detection of reflected laser beam is an abnormal value out of the desired value”).
Regarding claim 16, Ukita further discloses the laser energy directed to the workpiece is manifested as a laser pulse see para.0091: “The laser may generate laser beam in pulse train”) and wherein the remainder of the process is carried out while the laser pulse is directed to the workpiece (see para.0103: “ The control means 102 …continues hole making in the insulating layer 105 of the circuit board 104 when the amplified detection signal 1101 is within the specified criterion 1131” and see para.0091: “The laser may generate laser beam in pulse train”).
Regarding claim 17, Ukita discloses
A non-transitory computer-readable medium (113, see fig.13) for use with a laser- processing apparatus (combo 110, 111, 102 and 112, see fig.13) operative to carry out a process (See abstract) to form a via in a workpiece (see abstract: “ in this laser processing method or apparatus, the insulating layer corresponding to the hole is processed when the detected value of the reflected light conforms to the desired value”), comprising a first material (106) formed on a second material (105, see fig.13), by:
directing a laser energy (107) onto the workpiece (104) such that the laser energy is incident upon the first material (106, see fig.13),
wherein the laser energy (107, see fig.13) has a wavelength to which the first material (106) is more reflective than the second material (105),
wherein the laser-processing apparatus (combo 110, 111, 102 and 112, see fig.13) comprises:
a back-reflection sensing system (combo 110 and 111, see fig.13) configured to capture a back-reflection signal (109) corresponding to a portion of laser energy (107, see fig.13 and para.0103) directed to the workpiece (104) and reflected by the first material (106, see fig.13); and a controller ( combo 102 and 112, see fig.13) communicatively coupled to an output of the back-reflection sensing system (combo 110 and 111), wherein the non-transitory computer-readable medium (113, see fig.13) has stored thereon instructions (see para.0134) which, when executed by the controller (combo 102 and 112), causes the controller (combo 102 and 112) to:
compare at least one characteristic of the captured back-reflection signal to at least one associated characteristic of a reference back-reflection signal (see para.0103: “the detection judging means 112 compares the amplified detection signal 1101 with a specified criterion 1131 preset in reference setting means 113, and judges if the amplified detection signal 1101 is within the specified criterion 1131 or not”):;
control a remainder of the process by which the via is formed based on the comparison of the at least one characteristic of the captured back-reflection signal to the at least one associated characteristic of the reference back- reflection signal (See para.0103: “The control means 102 stops the laser processing if the amplified detection signal 1101 is out of the specified criterion 1131, and on the other hand, continues hole making in the insulating layer 105 of the circuit board 104 when the amplified detection signal 1101 is within the specified criterion 1131”).
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 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 3 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ukita in view of Nakai (US 20010052659 A1)
Regarding claim 3, Ukita further discloses the laser energy directed to the workpiece is manifested as at least one laser pulse (see para.0091: “The laser may generate laser beam in pulse train”), except the controller is operative to control the process, at least in part, by controlling a pulse width of the least one laser pulse.
Nakai discloses Method and Apparatus for Laser Drilling, comprising:
the controller (10, see fig.1) is operative to control the process, at least in part, by controlling a pulse width of the least one laser pulse (see para.0030: “pulse energy is controlled by controlling the pulse width”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the controller of Ukita to be “operative to control the process, at least in part, by controlling a pulse width of the least one laser pulse” as taught by Nakai. Doing so allows for precise manipulation of the energy delivered to the workpiece, directly impacting the quality, speed, and precision of the hole-making process.
Regarding claim 12, Ukita further discloses the laser energy directed to the workpiece is manifested as at least one laser pulse (see para.0091: “The laser may generate laser beam in pulse train”), except carrying out the remainder of the process includes adjusting a pulse width of the least one laser pulse.
Nakai discloses Method and Apparatus for Laser Drilling, comprising:
carrying out the remainder of the process includes adjusting a pulse width of the least one laser pulse (see para.0030: “pulse energy is controlled by controlling the pulse width”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Ukita to incorporate the step of “carrying out the remainder of the process includes adjusting a pulse width of the least one laser pulse” as taught by Nakai. Doing so allows for precise manipulation of the energy delivered to the workpiece, directly impacting the quality, speed, and precision of the hole-making process.
Regarding claim 13, Ukita further discloses the laser energy directed to the workpiece is manifested as at least one laser pulse (see para.0091: “The laser may generate laser beam in pulse train”) , and wherein carrying out the remainder of the process (see fig.3) includes adjusting the number of laser pulses to be directed to the workpiece (see para.0103: “ The control means 102 stops the laser processing if the amplified detection signal 1101 is out of the specified criterion 1131”).
Claims 5 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ukita in view of Edme (US 20040164057 A1)
Regarding claim 5, Ukita discloses the claimed limitations as set forth, except the controller is operative to control the process, at least in part, by controlling an average power of the laser energy.
Edme discloses Arrangement and Method for Processing Electrical Substrates Using Lasers, comprising:
the controller (controller, see para.0021) is operative to control the process (laser process, see para.0021), at least in part, by controlling an average power of the laser energy (see para.0021: “a controller which is in a position, depending on the application for the laser. to operate the laser with different combinations of average laser power and repetition rates”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the controller of Ukita to be “operative to control the process, at least in part, by controlling an average power of the laser energy” as taught by Edme. Doing so allows to optimize the drilling process, leading to improved efficiency, reduced downtown and enhanced product quality.
Regarding claim 14, Ukita discloses the claimed limitations as set forth, except carrying out the remainder of the process includes adjusting an average power of the laser energy.
Sun discloses an improved method and apparatus for drilling vias, comprising:
carrying out the remainder of the process includes adjusting a peak power of the laser energy (See claim 7: “said tailored pulse including at least one power spike characterized by a peak power greater than about 20% above the average power of the pulse with a duration less than about 50% of the duration of the pulse.”) .
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Iso to incorporate the step of “carrying out the remainder of the process includes adjusting a peak power of the laser energy” of Sun. Doing so provides an “improved ability to micromachine high quality vias in workpieces” (see para.007 of Sun). It also minimizes the thickness of the heat affected zone and obtain cleaner holes.
Claims 6 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ukita in view of Sun (US 20090236323 A1)
Regarding claim 6, Ukita discloses the claimed limitations as set forth, except the controller is operative to control the process, at least in part, by controlling a peak power of the laser energy.
Sun discloses an improved method and apparatus for drilling vias, comprising:
the controller (controller, see claim 7) is operative to control the process, at least in part, by controlling a peak power of the laser energy (See claim 7: “said tailored pulse including at least one power spike characterized by a peak power greater than about 20% above the average power of the pulse with a duration less than about 50% of the duration of the pulse.”)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the controller of Ukita to be “operative to control the process, at least in part, by controlling a peak power of the laser energy” as taught by Sun. Doing so provides an “improved ability to micromachine high quality vias in workpieces” (see para.007 of Sun). It also minimizes the thickness of the heat affected zone and obtain cleaner holes.
Regarding claim 15, Ukita discloses the claimed limitations as set forth, except carrying out the remainder of the process includes adjusting a peak power of the laser energy.
Sun discloses an improved method and apparatus for drilling vias, comprising:
carrying out the remainder of the process includes adjusting a peak power of the laser energy (See claim 7: “said tailored pulse including at least one power spike characterized by a peak power greater than about 20% above the average power of the pulse with a duration less than about 50% of the duration of the pulse.”) .
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Ukita to incorporate the step of “carrying out the remainder of the process includes adjusting a peak power of the laser energy” of Sun. Doing so provides an “improved ability to micromachine high quality vias in workpieces” (see para.007 of Sun). It also minimizes the thickness of the heat affected zone and obtain cleaner holes.
Claim 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ukita in view of Deshi (US 20060169677 A1)
Regarding claim 9, Ukita discloses the claimed limitations as set forth, except a beam modulator operative to modulate the laser energy.
Deshi discloses method and apparatus for via drilling and selective material removal using an ultrafast pulse laser, comprising:
a beam modulator (3H, see fig.6) operative to modulate the laser energy (see para.0095: “The acousto optic modulator may have the following specifications, and it may be used to control the laser pulse from the ultrafast laser oscillator to minimize or eliminate the cumulative heating effect and to improve the machining quality”.)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Ukita to incorporate the “beam modulator operative to modulate the laser energy” as taught by Deshi. Doing so allows to “minimize or eliminate the cumulative heating effect and to improve the machining quality” (see para.0095 of Deshi).
Response to Arguments
Claim Objections: the amendments have overcome the previous objection. The claim objections are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 U. S.C. § 102 and 103:
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 10 and 17 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.
Claims 2-9 and 11-16 are rejected by the same reasons as discussed in claims 1 and 10.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20090007933 A1 discloses removing a coating from a surface using a laser and light sensing system, comprising:
[0046] A reflected light path is defined as the path the reflected light traverses from the coated surface 50 to the photosensitive sensor 20. In reference to FIG. 1, the reflected light path includes the path through the scanning optics 16 and the beam splitter 14. In the coating removal device 10, the reflected light path includes the optics that comprise the laser path.
[0047] The comparator 22 compares the measured characteristics of the reflected light to previously defined parameters and thresholds.
[0048] The results of the comparison made by the comparator 22 are sent to the control logic circuit 24 via a data line 42. The comparison determines if the coating is sufficiently removed from the position 52.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIFFANY T TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3673. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 10am - 6pm.
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, Edward Landrum can be reached on (571) 272-5567. 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 or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TIFFANY T TRAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights