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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 7-8, 10, and 18-20 are rejected are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kogure (JP 2015/002334 A, published 05 Jan. 2015, hereinafter Kogure) and evidence provided by Ikeda et al. (“Superiority of syndiotactic polystyrene as an electrical insulating polymer,” MVP1-22, Conf.Proceedings ISEIM 2011, pp. 309-312, published 2011, hereinafter Ikeda), Hess (“Viscoelastic properties of polymer – Short Course POLYCHAR 25,” published 2017, hereinafter Hess), and Kaliappan et al. (“Temperature dependent elastic-plastic behavior of polystyrene studied using AFM force-distance curves,” Polymer, Vol. 46, pp. 11416-11423, published 2005, hereinafter Kaliappan).
Regarding claims 1, 7-8, 10, and 18-20, Kogure teaches a laminate for an electronic circuit board comprising a central first resin (Item 3c) (layer A) laminated to two second resin layers (Items 4c and 7c) (layers B and C), with metal layers attached to the second resin layers (Items 5c, 6c, 8c, and 9c) (Abstract, paragraph 0067, and Figure 1c (reproduced below from original Japanese patent document). Kogure teaches that the second resin layers (layers B and C) comprise syndiotactic polystyrene resin (Abstract), and the thermoplastic resin in the first resin layer (layer A) is syndiotactic polystyrene (SPS) resin (claim 4). Kogure teaches the second resin layers (layers B and C) contain an elastomer (an additive) (paragraph 0026). Kogure teaches laminate structures SPS1/SPS2/SPS1 (B/A/C) and SPS4/SPS2/SPS4 (B/A/C), in which SPS1 comprises 90 mass% syndiotactic polystyrene and 10 mass% hydrogenated styrene-butadiene-styrene block copolymer (SEBS), SPS2 comprises 100% SPS, and SP4 comprises 60 mass% SPS and 40 mass% SEBS (paragraphs 0051-0052 and 0055). Kogure teaches the peel strength between the first metal layer and the second resin layer is 0.3 kN/m or larger (Abstract), and the second metal layer contains copper (claim 9).
PNG
media_image1.png
462
774
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As evidenced by Ikeda, the dielectric loss of syndiotactic polystyrene at high frequencies is less than 0.01 (page 311, Figure 4, symbols labelled “SPS”). Ikeda does not present values at a frequency of 10 GHz. However, the dielectric loss values are decreasing with increasing frequency; therefore, it is the examiner’s position that the dielectric loss of syndiotactic polystyrene would be less than 0.01 at a frequency of 10 GHz.
As evidenced by Hess, the elastic modulus as a function of temperature for a polymer includes several inflection points, one related to the glass transition temperature of a polymer and another inflection point in the region of the melting point of a polymer (page 24, Figure 17, lowest set of graphs).
It is the examiner’s position that the elastic modulus of syndiotactic polystyrene as a function of temperature necessarily has the inflection points as illustrated by Hess.
As evidenced by Kaliappan, the modulus of polystyrene drops below 1 MPa at about 95°C (page 11421, Figure 5); therefore, the modulus of polystyrene would necessarily be well below 1 MPa at both 160°C and 300°C.
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected peel strength from the overlapping portion of the range taught by Kogure because overlapping ranges have been held to be prima facie obviousness.
In light of the overlap between the claimed polymer film and that disclosed by Kogure, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a polymer film that is both disclosed by Kogure and is encompassed within the scope of the present claims, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 7, 9, and 18 are rejected are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arai et al. (JP 2010/238990 A, published 21 Oct. 2010, hereinafter Arai) in view of Sethumadhavan et al. (US Patent Application 2004/0262739 A1, published 30 Dec. 2004, hereinafter Sethumadhavan) and evidence provided by Li et al. (“Mechanical enhancement and dielectric properties of SiO2 contained polyimides under high frequency,” J.Mater.Sci: Mater.Electron., Vol. 34:2310, pp. 1-10, published 2023, hereinafter Li), Thompson et al. (“Characterization of liquid crystal polymer (LCP) material and transmission lines on LCP substrates from 30 to 110 GHz,” IEEE Trans.Microwave, Vol. 52, pp. 1343-1352, published 2004, hereinafter Thompson), Hess (“Viscoelastic properties of polymer – Short Course POLYCHAR 25,” published 2017, hereinafter Hess), and Ramirez et al. (“Thermal behaviour of a polyhedral oligomeric silsesquioxane with epoxy resin cured by diamines,” J.Therm.Analy.Calor., Vol. 72, pp. 421-429, published 2003, hereinafter Ramirez).
Regarding claims 1, 7, 9, and 18, Arai teaches a compound adhesive film comprising a central polyimide resin layer (Item 1) (layer A) and two liquid crystal polymer layers (Items 2A and 2B) (layers B and C), and his compound adhesive film is used as a multi-layer circuit substrate (Abstract and Figure 4, reproduced below from original Japanese patent document). Arai teaches the liquid crystal polymer layers contain a lubricant, an antioxidant, a filler, etc. (paragraph 0037). Arai teaches the polyimide resin layer may contain additives (paragraph 0022); therefore, Arai teaches embodiments in which his polyimide layer is 100 mass% polyimide.
PNG
media_image2.png
290
488
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As evidenced by Li, the dielectric loss tangent of polyimide is about 0.000787 at a frequency of 10 GHz (page 8, Figure 9, bar labelled “PI”).
As evidenced by Thompson, the dielectric loss tangent of a liquid crystal polymer (LCP) is 0.002-0.0045 at a frequency less than 105 GHz (page 1344, Table 1).
As evidenced by Hess, the elastic modulus as a function of temperature for a polymer includes several inflection points, one related to the glass transition temperature of a polymer and another inflection point in the region of the melting point of a polymer (page 24, Figure 17, lowest set of graphs).
Specifically for liquid crystal polymers, as evidenced by Zhou, the modulus of a liquid crystal polymer as a function of temperature has at least one inflection point in the temperature region below the melting point of the liquid crystal polymer (page 274, Figure 3).
Arai does not disclose the inclusion of an additive with a melting point between 130 and 180°C.
Sethumadhavan teaches the inclusion of a polyhedral oligomeric silsesquioxane (POSS) filler in a liquid crystalline polymer-containing dielectric material for circuits (Abstract). Sethumadhavan teaches the amount of filler is less than or equal to about 70 wt.% of the LCP dielectric material, and POSS may comprise 1 to 100 wt.% of the filler composition depending on the desired properties (paragraph 0038).
Given that Arai and Sethumadhavan are drawn to circuit material containing a liquid crystal polymer and a filler, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a POSS filler and in the amount as taught by Sethumadhavan in the liquid crystal layers of the multi-layer circuit substrate taught by Arai. Since Arai and Sethumadhavan are both drawn to circuit material containing a liquid crystal polymer and a filler, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in incorporating the POSS filler and in the amount as taught by Sethumadhavan in the liquid crystal layers of the multi-layer circuit substrate taught by Arai. Further, Sethumadhavan teaches the POSS imparts isotropy to the liquid polymer layers without biaxial stretching (paragraph 0056), and the amount of the POSS filler depends on the desired properties of the composition (paragraph 0038).
As evidenced by Ramirez, POSS has two well defined melting peaks at 112.4 and 133.4°C (page 423, last paragraph – page 424, first paragraph and Figure 2).
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected relative amounts of POSS from the overlapping portion of the range taught by Sethumadhavan because overlapping ranges have been held to be prima facie obviousness.
Claims 19-20 are rejected are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arai et al. (JP 2010/238990 A, published 21 Oct. 2010, hereinafter Arai) in view of Sethumadhavan et al. (US Patent Application 2004/0262739 A1, published 30 Dec. 2004, hereinafter Sethumadhavan) and further in view of Khoo et al. (“Effect of copper lamination on the rheological and copper adhesion properties of a thermotropic liquid crystalline polymer used in PCB applications,” IEEE Trans.Comp.Pack.Manuf.Tech.C, Vol. 20, pp. 219-226, published Jul. 1997, hereinafter Khoo) and evidence provided by Li et al. (“Mechanical enhancement and dielectric properties of SiO2 contained polyimides under high frequency,” J.Mater.Sci: Mater.Electron., Vol. 34:2310, pp. 1-10, published 2023, hereinafter Li), Chen et al. (“Dielectric property and space charge behavior of polyimide/silicon nitride nanocomposite films,“ Polymers, pp. 1-12, published 2020, hereinafter Chen), Thompson et al. (“Characterization of liquid crystal polymer (LCP) material and transmission lines on LCP substrates from 30 to 110 GHz,” IEEE Trans.Microwave, Vol. 52, pp. 1343-1352, published 2004, hereinafter Thompson), Hess (“Viscoelastic properties of polymer – Short Course POLYCHAR 25,” published 2017, hereinafter Hess), Ramirez et al. (“Thermal behaviour of a polyhedral oligomeric silsesquioxane with epoxy resin cured by diamines,” J.Therm.Analy.Calor., Vol. 72, pp. 421-429, published 2003, hereinafter Ramirez), and ISO (“ISO 8510-2:1990(E) Adhesive – peel test for a flexible-bonded-to-rigid test specimen assembly – Part 2: 180° peel”, published 1990, hereinafter ISO).
Regarding claims 19-20, Arai in view of Sethumadhavan teaches the elements of claim 1, and Arai teaches his compound adhesive film is a layer in a multi-layer circuit substrate (Abstract), and his composite adhesive film is an adhesive layer in a multilayer circuit board in which a plurality of wiring boards is stacked (claim 1).
Arai in view of Sethumadhavan does not disclose specifically bonding his compound adhesive film to a copper layer or wire nor the peel strength of this bond.
Khoo teaches the bonding of thermotropic liquid crystalline polymers to copper foils for use in advanced printed circuit boards (PCB) (Abstract).
Given that Arai and Khoo are drawn to multilayer circuit laminates with liquid crystal polymer layers on the outer layer being bonded to circuits, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a copper foil as taught by Khoo as a component in the wiring boards of the multilayer circuit laminate taught by Arai in view of Sethumadhavan. Since Arai and Khoo are both drawn to multilayer circuit laminates with liquid crystal polymer layers on the outer layer being bonded to circuits, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in using a copper foil as taught by Khoo as a component in the wiring boards of the of the multilayer circuit laminate taught by Arai in view of Sethumadhavan. Further, Khoo teaches advanced printed circuit boards comprise copper foils laminated to liquid crystal polymers (Abstract).
Khoo teaches copper-liquid crystal polymer peel strengths of 40-48 N, according to Swedish standards SS ISO 8510:1990 and SS-EN 28510-2:1993 (page 220, 2nd column, D. Peel Testing section, first paragraph and page 221, Table II).
As evidenced by ISO, the width of the strip in a peel test is 25 mm (page 4, 5.1.1 Rigid adherend section, first paragraph).
Thus, the peel strength of the LCP-copper interface in the laminate taught by Arai in view of Khoo is about 1.8 kN/m (44 N/25 mm*1000 mm/m*1 kN/1000 N).
Claims 1, 7, 11, and 18 are rejected are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arai et al. (JP 2010/238990 A, published 21 Oct. 2010, hereinafter Arai) in view of Chang et al. (US Patent Application 2010/0314160 A1, published 16 Dec. 2010, hereinafter Chang) and evidence provided by Li et al. (“Mechanical enhancement and dielectric properties of SiO2 contained polyimides under high frequency,” J.Mater.Sci: Mater.Electron., Vol. 34:2310, pp. 1-10, published 2023, hereinafter Li), Thompson et al. (“Characterization of liquid crystal polymer (LCP) material and transmission lines on LCP substrates from 30 to 110 GHz,” IEEE Trans.Microwave, Vol. 52, pp. 1343-1352, published 2004, hereinafter Thompson), Hess (“Viscoelastic properties of polymer – Short Course POLYCHAR 25,” published 2017, hereinafter Hess), Mitsubishi (“PPS plastics,” accessed 05 Dec. 2025, hereinafter Mitsubishi), and Sabreen (“Methods of adhesion bonding of polyphenylene sulfide,” accessed 05 Dec. 2025, hereinafter Sabreen).
Regarding claims 1, 7, 11, and 18, Arai teaches a compound adhesive film comprising a central polyimide resin layer (Item 1) (layer A) and two liquid crystal polymer layers (Items 2A and 2B) (layers B and C), and his compound adhesive film is used as a multi-layer circuit substrate (Abstract and Figure 4, reproduced above from original Japanese patent document). Arai teaches the liquid crystal polymer layers contain a lubricant, an antioxidant, a filler, etc. (paragraph 0037). Arai teaches the polyimide resin layer may contain additives (paragraph 0022); therefore, Arai teaches embodiments in which his polyimide layer is 100 mass% polyimide.
As evidenced by Li, the dielectric loss tangent of polyimide is about 0.000787 at a frequency of 10 GHz (page 8, Figure 9, bar labelled “PI”).
As evidenced by Thompson, the dielectric loss tangent of a liquid crystal polymer (LCP) is 0.002-0.0045 at a frequency less than 105 GHz (page 1344, Table 1).
As evidenced by Hess, the elastic modulus as a function of temperature for a polymer includes several inflection points, one related to the glass transition temperature of a polymer and another inflection point in the region of the melting point of a polymer (page 24, Figure 17, lowest set of graphs).
Specifically for liquid crystal polymers, as evidenced by Zhou, the modulus of a liquid crystal polymer as a function of temperature has at least one inflection point in the temperature region below the melting point of the liquid crystal polymer (page 274, Figure 3).
Arai does not disclose the inclusion of an additive with a melting point between 270 and 320°C.
Chang teaches the inclusion of polyphenylene sulfide (PPS) as an exemplary filler and the inclusion of thermoplastic polymers as fillers that impart hydrophobicity in a resin for a multi-layer metal-clad laminate (Abstract and paragraphs 0061 and 0064). Chang teaches that fillers are present in the range of 50 parts by weight to about 400 parts by weight relative to the total weight of the resin components (paragraph 0059). That is, the content of the PPS is 33 (50/(50+100)) to 80 mass% (400/(400+100))
As evidenced by Mitsubishi, the melting point of PPS is 280°C (page 2, PPS melting point section, first paragraph).
As evidenced by Sabreen, polyphenylene sulfide is hydrophobic (page 4, second paragraph).
Given that Arai and Chang are drawn to multilayer circuit laminates with resin layers containing fillers, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate PPS as a filler as taught by Chang as a filler in the liquid crystal layers of the compound adhesive film taught by Arai. Since Arai and Chang are both drawn to multilayer circuit laminates with resin layers containing fillers, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in incorporating PPS as the filler in the liquid crystal layers of the compound adhesive film taught by Arai. Further, Chang teaches the inclusion of thermoplastic fillers that impart hydrophobicity (paragraph 0064), and Chang teaches PPS is an exemplary filler (paragraph 0061). As presented above, PPS is hydrophobic
Claims 19-20 are rejected are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arai et al. (JP 2010/238990 A, published 21 Oct. 2010, hereinafter Arai) in view of Chang et al. (US Patent Application 2010/0314160 A1, published 16 Dec. 2010, hereinafter Chang) and further in view of Khoo et al. (“Effect of copper lamination on the rheological and copper adhesion properties of a thermotropic liquid crystalline polymer used in PCB applications,” IEEE Trans.Comp.Pack.Manuf.Tech.C, Vol. 20, pp. 219-226, published Jul. 1997, hereinafter Khoo) and evidence provided by Li et al. (“Mechanical enhancement and dielectric properties of SiO2 contained polyimides under high frequency,” J.Mater.Sci: Mater.Electron., Vol. 34:2310, pp. 1-10, published 2023, hereinafter Li), Chen et al. (“Dielectric property and space charge behavior of polyimide/silicon nitride nanocomposite films,“ Polymers, pp. 1-12, published 2020, hereinafter Chen), Thompson et al. (“Characterization of liquid crystal polymer (LCP) material and transmission lines on LCP substrates from 30 to 110 GHz,” IEEE Trans.Microwave, Vol. 52, pp. 1343-1352, published 2004, hereinafter Thompson), Hess (“Viscoelastic properties of polymer – Short Course POLYCHAR 25,” published 2017, hereinafter Hess), and ISO (“ISO 8510-2:1990(E) Adhesive – peel test for a flexible-bonded-to-rigid test specimen assembly – Part 2: 180° peel”, published 1990, hereinafter ISO), Mitsubishi (“PPS plastics,” accessed 05 Dec. 2025, hereinafter Mitsubishi), and Sabreen (“Methods of adhesion bonding of polyphenylene sulfide,” accessed 05 Dec. 2025, hereinafter Sabreen).
Regarding claims 19-20, Arai in view of Chang teaches the elements of claim 1, and Arai teaches his compound adhesive film is a layer in a multi-layer circuit substrate (Abstract), and his composite adhesive film is an adhesive layer in a multilayer circuit board in which a plurality of wiring boards is stacked (claim 1).
Arai in view of Chang does not disclose specifically bonding his compound adhesive film to a copper layer or wire nor the peel strength of this bond.
Khoo teaches the bonding of thermotropic liquid crystalline polymers to copper foils for use in advanced printed circuit boards (PCB) (Abstract).
Given that Arai and Khoo are drawn to multilayer circuit laminates with liquid crystal polymer layers on the outer layer being bonded to circuits, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a copper foil as taught by Khoo as a component in the wiring boards of the multilayer circuit laminate taught by Arai in view of Chang. Since Arai and Khoo are both drawn to multilayer circuit laminates with liquid crystal polymer layers on the outer layer being bonded to circuits, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in using a copper foil as taught by Khoo as a component in the wiring boards of the of the multilayer circuit laminate taught by Arai in view of Chang. Further, Khoo teaches advanced printed circuit boards comprise copper foils laminated to liquid crystal polymers (Abstract).
Khoo teaches copper-liquid crystal polymer peel strengths of 40-48 N, according to Swedish standards SS ISO 8510:1990 and SS-EN 28510-2:1993 (page 220, 2nd column, D. Peel Testing section, first paragraph and page 221, Table II).
As evidenced by ISO, the width of the strip in a peel test is 25 mm (page 4, 5.1.1 Rigid adherend section, first paragraph).
Thus, the peel strength of the LCP-copper interface in the laminate taught by Arai in view of Khoo is about 1.8 kN/m (44 N/25 mm*1000 mm/m*1 kN/1000 N).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 12 is 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.
None of the applied prior art teaches the elements of claim 12.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04 Mar. 2026 have been fully considered, but they were not persuasive. Applicant’s amendments have necessitated new grounds of rejection, which are presented above.
Applicant amended claims 1 and 7.
Applicant argues that the applied prior art does not teach or disclose the amended claim 1.
However, as presented above, the previously applied prior art does teach the amended claim 1.
Applicant argues that the features of claim 1 of the present application are able to attain unexpected results as compared to existing technologies.
However, the data is not persuasive given that it is not commensurate in scope with the scope of the present claims. Specifically, the data utilizes only four liquid crystal polymers in layers A and B, four polymeric additives in layer B, layer thicknesses of 13-15 µm and 33-46 µm for layers B and A, respectively, while the present claims broadly recite any polymer with a dielectric loss tangent less than 0.01 in layer A, any composition of layer B, as long as it has an inflection point in its elastic modulus and contains the claimed amount of any additive, and layers A and B may have any thicknesses.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kennedy et al. (US Patent Application 2008/0254313 A1, published 16 Oct. 2008) teaches a circuit assembly comprising a poly(arylene ether ketone) layer and another layer comprising a thermoplastic resin with a dissipation loss factor of less than 0.01 at 10 GHz.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN VINCENT LAWLER whose telephone number is 571-272-9603. The examiner can normally be reached on M - F 8:00 am - 5:00 pm ET. 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, Callie Shosho, can be reached at 571-272-1123. 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.
/JOHN VINCENT LAWLER/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787