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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 8, 9 and 21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references/or references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Specifically, the Applicant has amended the claim 8 to detect at a position closest to the upper surface of the chuck and the RF voltage value being a peak-to-peak voltage of the ceramic material layer wherein the bias voltage value is a direct DC bias value, such that the scope of the claims has changed, thus requiring further search and consideration. The resulting rejection, based on United States Patent Application No. 2014/0349417 to O’Neill et al in view of United States Patent Application No. 2005/0264219 to Dhindsa et al and United States Patent Application No. 2006/0226786 to Lin et al, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of United States Patent Application No. 2019/0393021 to Hironaka and United States Patent Application No. 2007/0210032 to Nishio et al is presented below. Claim 9 has also been modified with Nishio to address the Remarks from 07/22/2026.
The Applicant has not made any arguments or amends to claims 1-7 and 10, the rejections for those claims remain unchanged and are maintained and the rejection is made FINAL.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claim(s) 1-7 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application No. 2014/0349417 to O’Neill et al in view of United States Patent Application No. 2005/0264219 to Dhindsa et al and United States Patent Application No. 2006/0226786 to Lin et al.
In regards to Claim 1, O’Neill teaches a semiconductor process apparatus Fig. 2B, 3A comprising: a process chamber 102 including a chuck 104 configured to carry a wafer 103; an upper electrode assembly 108 configured to excite a process gas 148 in the process chamber to form a plasma 116A; and a power adjustment assembly 134, 124, 130 connected to the upper electrode assembly 108 and configured to detect a bias voltage value on an upper surface of the chuck in real-time (as 130 is connected to a VI-sensor 134A corrected to the chuck [0043] and measured voltage at this point during plasma and pointed to measure the top surface of the chuck as shown in Fig. 2B) after the plasma is formed and while the plasma is sustained in the process chamber (as it can be used in golden processing but as a process test), the bias voltage value being directly related to a sheath voltage with a same change trend (which is implicit, as the plasma generated creates a current of voltage and creates a plasma slope [0059-0067]), adjust output power of the upper electrode assembly in real-time according without changing power of a lower electrode (as the controller is not connected to the bias 162 or the power 160 connected to the chuck); wherein the lower electrode is arranged on the chuck (as it is chuck 104); and an RF bias power supply 160 and a matching device 162 of the lower electrode are connected to the chuck and load RF energy to the chuck without being connected to and impacted by the power adjustment assembly, as shown in Fig. 2B and 3A [0023-0080].
O’Neill does not expressly teach the bias voltage is detected on an upper surface of the electrostatic chuck, even though it is suggested or that the bias voltage is detected in real time after the plasma is formed and while the plasma is sustained in the process chamber.
Dhindsa teaches a semiconductor processing apparatus Fig. 1, wherein the upper surface of the chuck 16 is a central metal bottom electrode [0028] that is connected to a DC chucking voltage for clamping the substrate which has a DC bias voltage detector 70, the DC bias being formed from the plasma, the DC bias voltage detector being connected to a controller 24 [0027-0068]. Dhindsa further teaches that detecting the DC bias voltage of the electrode provides improved control over the electric fields over the RF voltage which provides improved control over the features of a workpiece being processed [0021]. Dhindsa also teaches that this is for directly measuring the plasma density [0029-0036] in relation to a target plasma density by monitoring a bias voltage profile (and not a measured ion current).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the apparatus of O’Neill with the voltage sensor is configured to detect a DC voltage on an upper surface of the electrostatic chuck in real-time, the DC voltage being the bias voltage value, as per the teachings of Dhindsa. One would be motivated to do so for the predictable result of improving control over the features of a workpiece being processed. See MPEP 2143 Motivation A.
O’Neill in view of Dhindsa does not expressly teach the power adjustment assembly calculates a difference between the bias voltage value and a target bias voltage value, and in response to the difference being greater than a preset threshold, adjust output power of the upper electrode assembly in real-time according to the difference until the difference is less than or equal to the preset threshold to cause a density of the plasma to be within a normal range.
Lin teaches a semiconductor process apparatus Fig. 1, comprising: a process chamber 110 including a chuck 150 configured to carry a wafer 151; an upper electrode assembly 131 configured to excite a process gas in the process chamber to form a plasma [0044-0049]; and a power adjustment assembly (180, 170, 140, 200) connected to the upper electrode assembly through 140, 200 configured to detect a bias voltage value of the chuck in real-time (as there is feedback control [0050-0052]), the bias voltage value being directly related to a sheath voltage with a same change trend (as the RF voltage is proportional to the sheath voltage [0058]), calculate a difference between the bias voltage value (measured for the electrostatic chuck, i.e., the substrate/wafer) and a target bias voltage value (or a predefined value [0052]), and in response to the difference being greater than a preset threshold (which is implicit, as the difference is used to create a first and a second control signal that is used to control the plasma power generator and an RF bias voltage power (see claims 1-7), adjust output power of the upper electrode assembly in real time (i.e., feedback) according to the difference until the difference is less than or equal to the preset threshold to cause a density of the plasma to be within a normal range, without changing power of a lower range, wherein the lower electrode is arranged on the chuck (as it is part of the electrostatic chuck) [0048; 0043-0087], Claims 1-8. Lin teaches that the method therein controls the energy and density of the ions impacting the surface of the wafer to create a desired plasma status [0028-0033].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the method applied to the apparatus of O’Neill in view of Dhindsa, with the method of calculating a difference between the bias voltage value and a target bias voltage value, and in response to the difference being greater than a preset threshold, adjust output power of the upper electrode assembly in real-time according to the difference until the difference is less than or equal to the preset threshold to cause a density of the plasma to be within a normal range, as per the teachings of Lin. One would be motivated to do so for the predictable result of to create a desired plasma status. See MPEP 2143 Motivation A.
The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claim.
In regards to Claim 2, O’Neill teaches the power adjustment assembly includes: a voltage sensor 134A configured to detect the bias voltage value on the upper surface of the chuck in real-time (as it is provided for feedback, [0028, 0037, 0038]) and, as per the teachings of Lin transfer the bias voltage value to a voltage comparator 180; and the voltage comparator configured to calculate the difference between the bias voltage value and the target/predetermined bias voltage value S102, and in response to the difference being greater than the preset threshold, compare the bias voltage value to the target bias voltage value, in response to the bias voltage value being lower than the target bias voltage value, reduce the output power of the upper electrode assembly, in response to the bias voltage value being higher than the target bias voltage value, increase the output power value of the upper electrode assembly, and in response to the difference being less than or equal to the preset threshold, maintain the output power of the upper electrode assembly unchanged, which is the implied functionality that is expressed in how the control signals control the plasma power generator from the detected bias as a feedback mechanism to achieve a desired etching rate [0056-0087]. Specifically, the additional teachings of Lin calculate the difference of a measured bias vs a target/predetermined bias and then control the plasma power generator based on said difference calculated via another control signal to create a desired plasma etch rate, which would implicitly raise, lower, or keep the power at a certain level, as per the rejection of Claim 1 above.
In regards to Claim 3, O’Neill in view of Dhindsa and Lin teaches that the upper electrode assembly has its voltage adjusted in a feedback manner, but O’Neill in view of Dhindsa and Lin does not expressly teach an adjustment amplitude of the output power of the upper electrode assembly adjusted by the voltage comparator and the difference between the bias voltage value and the target bias voltage value is positively correlated.
However, this is a functional limitation based on the power applied to the upper electrode and the plasma functioning/processing of the system. It has been held that claims directed to apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959). Also, a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). MPEP 2115. As the apparatus of O’Neill in view of Dhindsa and Lin is substantially the same as the claimed apparatus, the apparatus of O’Neill in view of Dhindsa and Lin would be capable of fulfilling the limitations of the claim and thus be able to have an adjustment amplitude of the output power of the upper electrode assembly adjusted by the voltage comparator and the difference between the bias voltage value and the target bias voltage value is positively correlated, there being no structural difference between the apparatus of O’Neill in view of Dhindsa and Lin and that of the claim, and as O’Neill in view of Dhindsa and Lin teaches the adjustment of the plasma power as a direct relation to the RF bias difference with a target bias.
In regards to Claim 4, O’Neill in view of Dhindsa and Lin teaches the voltage comparator is configured to determine the adjustment amplitude/current/voltage corresponding to the difference according to a difference interval corresponding to the difference and a preset correspondence (as shown in the steps in Fig. 2-5d of Lin) between the difference interval and the adjustment amplitude; and adjust the output power of the upper electrode assembly according to the adjustment amplitude, as per the feedback control of the RF power and RF bias, as per the teachings of Lin above.
In regards to Claim 5, O’Neill in view of Dhindsa and Lin does not expressly teach the correspondence between the difference interval and the adjustment amplitude includes
PNG
media_image1.png
5
6
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a first difference interval, the difference being greater than or equal to 50% of the target bias voltage value; a second difference interval, the difference being greater than or equal to 20% of the target bias voltage value and less than 50% of the target bias voltage value; a third difference interval, the difference being greater than or equal to 5% of the target bias voltage value and less than 20% of the target bias voltage value; and a fourth difference interval, the difference being greater than or equal to 1% of the target bias voltage value and less than 5% of the target bias voltage value; wherein: a first adjustment amplitude corresponding to the first difference interval is larger than a second adjustment amplitude corresponding to the second difference interval; the second adjustment amplitude is larger than a third adjustment amplitude corresponding to the third difference interval; and the third adjustment amplitude is greater than a fourth adjustment amplitude corresponding to the fourth difference interval.
However, this is a functional limitation based on the power applied to the upper electrode and the plasma functioning/processing of the system. It has been held that claims directed to apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959). Also, a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). MPEP 2115. As the apparatus of O’Neill in view of Dhindsa and Lin is substantially the same as the claimed apparatus, the apparatus of O’Neill in view of Dhindsa and Lin would be capable of fulfilling the limitations of the claim and thus be able to have a plasma process where the correspondence between the difference interval and the adjustment amplitude includes
PNG
media_image1.png
5
6
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a first difference interval, the difference being greater than or equal to 50% of the target bias voltage value; a second difference interval, the difference being greater than or equal to 20% of the target bias voltage value and less than 50% of the target bias voltage value; a third difference interval, the difference being greater than or equal to 5% of the target bias voltage value and less than 20% of the target bias voltage value; and a fourth difference interval, the difference being greater than or equal to 1% of the target bias voltage value and less than 5% of the target bias voltage value; wherein: a first adjustment amplitude corresponding to the first difference interval is larger than a second adjustment amplitude corresponding to the second difference interval; the second adjustment amplitude is larger than a third adjustment amplitude corresponding to the third difference interval; and the third adjustment amplitude is greater than a fourth adjustment amplitude corresponding to the fourth difference interval, there being no structural difference between the apparatus of O’Neill in view of Dhindsa and Lin and that of the claim, and as O’Neill in view of Dhindsa and Lin teaches real time feedback control of the apparatus that would allow for feedback control and adjustments to the power/voltages over a course of many different time intervals.
In regards to Claim 6, O’Neill in view of Dhindsa and Lin does not expressly teach the first adjustment amplitude is greater than or equal to 50W; the second adjustment amplitude is greater than or equal to 20W; the third adjustment amplitude is greater than or equal to 5W; and the fourth adjustment amplitude is greater than or equal to 1W.
However, this is a functional limitation based on the power applied to the upper electrode and the plasma functioning/processing of the system. It has been held that claims directed to apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959). Also, a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). MPEP 2115. As the apparatus of O’Neill in view of Dhindsa and Lin is substantially the same as the claimed apparatus, the apparatus of O’Neill in view of Dhindsa and Lin would be capable of fulfilling the limitations of the claim and thus be able to have the first adjustment amplitude is greater than or equal to 50W; the second adjustment amplitude is greater than or equal to 20W; the third adjustment amplitude is greater than or equal to 5W; and the fourth adjustment amplitude is greater than or equal to 1W, there being no structural difference between the apparatus of O’Neill in view of Dhindsa and Lin and that of the claim.
In regards to Claim 7, O’Neill in view of Dhindsa and Lin teaches wherein the preset threshold is within 1% of the target bias voltage value, as the difference is used to create a signal to minimize the difference to create a desired plasma etching, as per the rejection of Claim 1 above.
In regards to Claim 21, O’N
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application No. 2014/0349417 to O’Neill et al in view of United States Patent Application No. 2005/0264219 to Dhindsa et al and United States Patent Application No. 2006/0226786 to Lin et al, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of United States Patent Application No. 2019/0393021 to Hironaka and United States Patent Application No. 2007/0210032 to Nishio et al.
The teachings of O’Neill in view of Dhindsa and Lin are relied upon as set forth in the above 103 rejection.
In regards to Claim 8, O’Neill teaches a semiconductor process apparatus Fig. 2B, 3A which gives feedback control with a substrate support/electrostatic chuck 104 attached to a voltage sensor 134a that obtains an ion current measured data and an RF voltage data, the voltage sensor converting the voltage data into the bias voltage value as per the teachings of Lin [0051-0052] as a result of using the Power/Voltage equation and submits it to the controller to change the output power of the plasma power generator 140 so that etching/plasma reaction speed is monitored and is more accurate as per the teachings of Lin [0043-0087].
O’Neill in view of Dhindsa and Lin does not expressly teach the upper surface of the chuck is an upper surface made of a ceramic material layer, but Lin does expressly teach that the top surface of the support 150 can be an electrostatic chuck.
Hironaka teaches a substrate support/chuck 107 can be made with an electrode 107 covered by a dielectric film made out of ceramic [0029].
It has been held that an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982). See MPEP 2144.06 II. Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the apparatus of O’Neill in view of Dhindsa and Lin with the support/chuck of Hironaka.
Additionally, it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.07. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). Therefore, because it is known to make a chuck and its upper surface analogous to that of O’Neill in view of Dhindsa and Lin out of ceramic, as taught by Hironaka, it would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to do so.
Nishio teaches the probe 31 in Fig. 1 on the surface of the chuck as shown in Fig. 1 [0055], which as shown in Fig. 1 is on the upper surface of the chuck/lower electrode.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to make the probe on the surface as shown in Nishio to the apparatus of O’Neill in view of Dhindsa and Lin, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975). MPEP 2144.04-VI (c). The Examiner notes that this rearrangement of the probe or positioning of the probe is well known to that of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention and as such, regardless of the intended use of the probe, would be able to perform the functions of measuring and the functions claimed, there being no other structural limitation to prevent thus.
O’Neill in view of Dhindsa, Lin, Hironaka, and Nishio do not expressly teach the RF voltage value is a peak to peak voltage of the ceramic material layer or that the bias voltage value is DC bias voltage value.
However, these are functional values that are measured as a result of plasma formation, and not structural limitations that would positively limit an apparatus claim. It has been held that claims directed to apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959). Also, a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). MPEP 2115. As the apparatus of O’Neill in view of Dhindsa, Lin, Hironaka, and Nishio is substantially the same as the claimed apparatus, the apparatus of O’Neill in view of Dhindsa, Lin, Hironaka, and Nishio would be capable of fulfilling the limitations of the claim, there being no structural difference between the apparatus of O’Neill in view of Dhindsa, Lin, Hironaka, and Nishio and that of the claim.
The resulting apparatus would fulfill the limitations of Claim 8.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application No. 2014/0349417 to O’Neill et al in view of United States Patent Application No. 2005/0264219 to Dhindsa et al and United States Patent Application No. 2006/0226786 to Lin et al, as applied to Claim 2 above, and in further view of United States Patent Application No. 2007/0210032 to Nishio et al.
The teachings of O’Neill in view of Dhindsa and Lin are relied upon as set forth in the above 103 rejection.
In regards to Claim 9, it can be argued that O’Neill in view of Dhindsa and Lin does not expressly teach the voltage is measured “on” an upper surface of the metal layer in real time.
Nishio teaches the probe 31 in Fig. 1 on the surface of the chuck as shown in Fig. 1 [0055], which as shown in Fig. 1 is on the upper surface of the chuck/lower electrode.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to make the probe on the surface as shown in Nishio to the apparatus of O’Neill in view of Dhindsa and Lin, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975). MPEP 2144.04-VI (c). The Examiner notes that this rearrangement of the probe or positioning of the probe is well known to that of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention and as such, regardless of the intended use of the probe, would be able to perform the functions of measuring and the functions claimed, there being no other structural limitation to prevent thus. As such, the resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claim.
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application No. 2014/0349417 to O’Neill et al in view of United States Patent Application No. 2005/0264219 to Dhindsa et al and United States Patent Application No. 2006/0226786 to Lin et al, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of United States Patent Application No. 2023/0230805 to Drewery et al.
The teachings of O’Neill in view of Dhindsa and Lin are relied upon as set forth in the above 103 rejection.
In regards to Claim 10, O’Neill in view of Dhindsa and Lin does not expressly teach the power adjustment assembly further includes: an analog-to-digital converter-configured to convert the bias voltage value transferred by the voltage sensor in an analog signal into a digital signal and transfer the digital signal to the voltage comparator.
Drewery teaches a plasma processing system with a bias matching Fig. 1,4 that has a voltage sensor system 410 that has a voltage sensor that senses the voltage at the substrate support/chuck and an ADC that is coupled to the controller 412/voltage comparator [0175; 0046-0321]. Drewery further teaches that this is advantageous in co-locating the centralized synchronization device without needing to download recipes and finding ways to synchronizing generators and allows for real time metrics [0006-0020].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the apparatus of O’Neill in view of Dhindsa and Lin with the teachings of Drewery by adding an ADC to the voltage sensor and the voltage comparator. One would be motivated to do so for the predictable result of real time metrics. See MPEP 2143 Motivation A.
The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claim.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIFFANY Z NUCKOLS whose telephone number is (571)270-7377. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10AM-7PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, PARVIZ HASSANZADEH can be reached at (571)272-1435. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TIFFANY Z NUCKOLS/Examiner, Art Unit 1716
/Jeffrie R Lund/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights