DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (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.
Status of Claims
3. This action is in response to Applicant’s Request for Reconsideration dated 05/08/2026.
4. Claims 1-7, 9-16, and 21-25 are currently pending.
5. Claims 1, 13, and 21 have been amended.
6. Claims 8 and 17-20 have been cancelled.
7. Claims 22-25 have been added.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. 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.
9. Claim(s) 1-6, 10-16, and 21-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishii et al (US 5,685,942) in view of [Becker et al (US 7,811,941) OR Yoshikawa et al (US 2014/0124478)].
Regarding claim 1:
The embodiment depicted in figure 4 of Ishii teaches an apparatus (plasma etching equipment, 81) for plasma processing a substrate [fig 4 & col 7-8, lines 63-5], the apparatus (81) comprising: a plasma processing chamber (processing housing, 82) having a ceiling (upper plate) comprising a central conductive cover (85) surrounded by a dielectric window (insulating material, 83), a remaining portion of the ceiling being a conductive boundary wall (upper portion of sidewall of 82), the remaining portion of the ceiling (upper portion of sidewall of 82) surrounding the dielectric window (see fig 4) [fig 4 & col 7-8, lines 63-15]; a substrate holder (cylindrical holding base, 4) configured to hold the substrate (W) in the chamber (82) [fig 1, 4 & col 3, lines 36-50 and col 7-8, lines 63-5]; disposed over the dielectric window (83), an antenna (antenna, 81) configured to couple alternating current (AC) electromagnetic (EM) power from an AC EM signal (via 7) to plasma in the chamber (82) [fig 1, 4 & col 3, lines 36-57 and col 7-8, lines 63-5].
The embodiment depicted in figure 4 of Ishiii does not specifically disclose the central conductive cover being a continuous plate.
The embodiment depicted in figure 5 of Ishiii teaches the central conductive cover (104a) being a continuous plate (see fig 5) [fig 5 & col 8, lines 47-63].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the central conductive cover in the embodiment depicted in figure 4 of Ishiii to be a continuous plate, as in the embodiment depicted in figure 5 of Ishiii, because said embodiment enables the bias field at the center of the antenna to be intensified and reaction speed at the center of the object can be increased without influencing the generation of plasma. Besides, since the bias field can be changed arbitrarily and continuously, desired field intensity distribution can be easily obtained [Ishii – col 11, lines 15-21]. It is noted that disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971) [MPEP 2123(II)].
Ishii does not specifically disclose a magnet configured to generate a DC magnetic field in the chamber.
Becker teaches a magnet (magnetic field coil, 21) configured to generate a DC magnetic field in the chamber (direct current generates a magnetic field in the interior of 15) [fig 1 & col 5, lines 54-63].
Yoshikawa, similar to Becker, teaches a magnet (coil, 52) configured to generate a DC magnetic field in the chamber (current from 53 forms a magnetic field in the chamber 1) [fig 1 & 0071, 0195].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Ishii to comprise a magnet, as in Becker OR Yoshikawa, to improve the efficiency of plasma generation to allow for higher etching rates with the same plasma power [Becker – col 2, lines 44-51] and/or to control the electron density distribution of the plasma [Yoshikawa – 0082].
Regarding claims 2-3:
The claim limitations “wherein the AC EM power is absorbed in a heating zone located within a depth directly below the dielectric window, wherein, between the ceiling and the depth directly below the dielectric window within which the heating zone is located, central flux tube is as wide as or narrower than the conductive cover, a backside of the substrate being aligned to be inside a hold area of a horizontal top surface of the holder, the hold area being under the conductive cover, the central flux tube being a magnetic flux tube intercepting the hold area” and “wherein, between the substrate holder and the ceiling, a central flux tube is as wide as or narrower than the conductive cover, a backside of the substrate being aligned to be inside a hold area of a horizontal top surface of the holder, the hold area being under the conductive cover, the central flux tube being a magnetic flux tube intercepting the hold area” are functional limitations and do not impart any additional structure. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Since the structure of the prior art teaches all structural limitations of the claim, the same is considered capable of meeting the functional limitations. Where the claimed and prior art apparatus are identical or substantially identical in structure, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). Furthermore, expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim. Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969).
Regarding claims 4-6:
Ishii teaches the antenna (84) comprises a conductor shaped like a planar coil (see fig 4), the planar coil shaped conductor (84) and the dielectric window (83) sharing a common central axis (see fig 4) [fig 4 & col 7-8, lines 63-5].
The claim limitations “wherein the antenna is configured to inductively couple the AC EM power to the plasma in the chamber” and “wherein the antenna is a resonator configured to have a resonant frequency tuned to match a center frequency of the AC EM signal” are merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. 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).
Regarding claims 10-11:
Ishii does not specifically teach the magnet comprises an electromagnet comprising a conductive wire shaped like a helix, the helix-shaped wire and the dielectric window sharing a common central axis; and wherein the magnet comprises a permanent magnet.
Becker teaches the magnet (21) comprises an electromagnet (supplied a direct current) comprising a conductive wire (copper wire) shaped like a helix (has turns and is wound), the helix-shaped wire (has turns and is wound) and the dielectric window sharing a common central axis (see fig 1) [fig 1 & col 5, lines 41-63]; and wherein the magnet (21) comprises a permanent magnet (permanent magnet may be used) [fig 1 & col 6, lines 4-11].
Yoshikawa, similar to Becker, teaches the magnet (52) comprises an electromagnet (power supply 53 is connected to 52) comprising a conductive wire shaped like a helix (wound in a radius direction around the chamber 1), the helix-shaped wire and the dielectric window sharing a common central axis (see fig 1) [fig 1 & 0071, 0195]; and wherein the magnet (52) comprises a permanent magnet (permanent magnet may be used) [fig 1 & 0072, 0195].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Ishii to comprise a magnet, as in Becker OR Yoshikawa, to improve the efficiency of plasma generation to allow for higher etching rates with the same plasma power [Becker – col 2, lines 44-51] and/or to control the electron density distribution of the plasma [Yoshikawa – 0082].
Regarding claim 12:
Ishii teaches the chamber further comprises a gas inlet (43) and a gas outlet (51) coupled to a gas flow system configured to flow a discharge gas through the chamber (processing chamber) [fig 1 & col 7, lines 42-47].
Regarding claim 13:
The embodiment depicted in figure 4 of Ishii teaches an apparatus (plasma etching equipment, 81) for plasma processing a substrate [fig 4 & col 7-8, lines 63-5], the apparatus (81) comprising: a plasma processing chamber (processing housing, 82) having a ceiling (upper plate) comprising a conductive cover (85) surrounded by a dielectric window (insulating material, 83),
a remaining portion of the ceiling being a conductive boundary wall (upper portion of sidewall of 82), the remaining portion of the ceiling (upper portion of sidewall of 82) surrounding the dielectric window (see fig 4) [fig 4 & col 7-8, lines 63-15]; a substrate holder (cylindrical holding base, 4) configured to hold the substrate (W) in the chamber (82), a backside of the substrate (W) being aligned to be inside a hold area of a horizontal top surface of the holder (top surface of 4), the hold area being an area under the conductive cover (possible to make the distribution width larger than the surface width of the object) [fig 1, 4 & col 3, lines 36-50, col 7-8, lines 63-5, and col 8, lines 31-46]; disposed over the dielectric window (83), an antenna (antenna, 81) [fig 1, 4 & col 3, lines 36-57 and col 7-8, lines 63-5].
The embodiment depicted in figure 4 of Ishii does not specifically teach the conductive cover being wider than the substrate, the conductive cover being a continuous disk.
The embodiment depicted in figure 5 of Ishiii teaches the conductive cover being wider than the substrate (104a is formed to be larger in size than the diameter of the semiconductor wafer 103), the conductive cover (104a) being a continuous disk (see fig 5) [fig 5 & col 8, lines 47-63].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the central conductive cover in the embodiment depicted in figure 4 of Ishiii to be a continuous plate, as in the embodiment depicted in figure 5 of Ishiii, because said embodiment enables the bias field at the center of the antenna to be intensified and reaction speed at the center of the object can be increased without influencing the generation of plasma. Besides, since the bias field can be changed arbitrarily and continuously, desired field intensity distribution can be easily obtained [Ishii – col 11, lines 15-21]. It is noted that disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971) [MPEP 2123(II)].
Ishii does not specifically disclose a magnet.
Becker teaches a magnet (magnetic field coil, 21) [fig 1 & col 5, lines 54-63].
Yoshikawa, similar to Becker, teaches a magnet (coil, 52) [fig 1 & 0071, 0195].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Choi to comprise a magnet, as in Becker OR Yoshikawa, to improve the efficiency of plasma generation to allow for higher etching rates with the same plasma power [Becker – col 2, lines 44-51] and/or to control the electron density distribution of the plasma [Yoshikawa – 0082].
The claim limitations “configured to produce AC electric and magnetic fields in a plasma generated in the chamber, the AC electric field being in a second region laterally separated from a first region of the chamber, the first region being a central tube bounded by and including the hold area at a bottom and bounded by the conductive cover at a top” and “configured to generate a DC magnetic field in the chamber, wherein, between the substrate holder and the ceiling, a maximum width of a central flux tube is less than or equal to a width of the conductive cover, the central flux tube being a magnetic flux tube intercepting the hold area” are merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. 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).
Regarding claim 14:
Modified Ishii teaches the conductive cover (104a), the dielectric window (104), the hold area (area of 102 contacting 103), and the first region share a common central axis (see fig 5) [Ishii - fig 5 & col 8, lines 47-63].
Regarding claim 15:
Modified Ishii teaches the magnet (21/52) is outside the chamber [Becker – fig 1 OR Yoshikawa – fig 1].
Regarding claim 16:
Ishii teaches the conductive cover (104a) is wider than the hold area (104a is formed to be larger in size than the diameter of the semiconductor wafer 103) [fig 5 & col 8, lines 47-63].
Regarding claim 21:
Modified Ishii teaches the conductive cover is wider than the substrate (104a is formed to be larger in size than the diameter of the semiconductor wafer 103), wherein a backside of the substrate is aligned to be inside a hold area of a horizontal top surface of the holder (area of 102 contacting 103), the hold area being an area under the conductive cover (104a is formed to be larger in size than the diameter of the semiconductor wafer 103) [Ishii - fig 5 & col 8, lines 47-63].
The claim limitations “wherein the AC EM power is absorbed in a heating zone located within a depth directly below the dielectric window, and wherein a width of a central flux tube at the ceiling is less than or equal to a width of the conductive cover, the central flux tube being a magnetic flux tube intercepting the hold area” are functional limitations and do not impart any additional structure. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Since the structure of the prior art teaches all structural limitations of the claim, the same is considered capable of meeting the functional limitations. Where the claimed and prior art apparatus are identical or substantially identical in structure, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). Furthermore, expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim. Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969).
Regarding claim 22:
The embodiment depicted in figure 4 of Ishii teaches an apparatus (plasma etching equipment, 81) for plasma processing a substrate [fig 4 & col 7-8, lines 63-5], the apparatus (81) comprising: a plasma processing chamber (processing housing, 82) having a ceiling (upper plate) comprising a top portion of a conductive boundary wall (upper portion of sidewall of 82) surrounding a dielectric window (83) and a conductive plate (85) surrounded by the dielectric window (insulating material, 83) [fig 4 & col 7-8, lines 63-15]; a substrate holder (cylindrical holding base, 4) configured to hold the substrate (W) in the plasma processing chamber (82) [fig 1, 4 & col 3, lines 36-50 and col 7-8, lines 63-5]; disposed over the dielectric window (83), an antenna (antenna, 81) configured to couple alternating current (AC) electromagnetic (EM) power from an AC EM signal (via 7) to plasma in the plasma processing chamber (82) [fig 1, 4 & col 3, lines 36-57 and col 7-8, lines 63-5].
The embodiment depicted in figure 4 of Ishiii does not specifically disclose the dielectric window sharing a continuous bottom surface with the conductive plate.
The embodiment depicted in figure 5 of Ishiii teaches the dielectric window (104) sharing a continuous bottom surface with the conductive plate (104a) [fig 5 & col 8, lines 47-63].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the central conductive cover in the embodiment depicted in figure 4 of Ishiii to be a continuous plate, as in the embodiment depicted in figure 5 of Ishiii, because said embodiment enables the bias field at the center of the antenna to be intensified and reaction speed at the center of the object can be increased without influencing the generation of plasma. Besides, since the bias field can be changed arbitrarily and continuously, desired field intensity distribution can be easily obtained [Ishii – col 11, lines 15-21]. It is noted that disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971) [MPEP 2123(II)].
Furthermore, it is noted that although the proposed modification does not specifically teach “the dielectric window sharing a continuous bottom surface with … the top portion of the conductive boundary wall”, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the shape of the top portion of the conductive boundary wall, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in shape of a component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) [MPEP 2144.04]. Applicant has not disclosed that said shape solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose [MPEP 2144.04].
Ishii does not specifically disclose a magnet configured to generate a DC magnetic field in the plasma processing chamber.
Becker teaches a magnet (magnetic field coil, 21) configured to generate a DC magnetic field in the plasma processing chamber (direct current generates a magnetic field in the interior of 15) [fig 1 & col 5, lines 54-63].
Yoshikawa, similar to Becker, teaches a magnet (coil, 52) configured to generate a DC magnetic field in the plasma processing chamber (current from 53 forms a magnetic field in the chamber 1) [fig 1 & 0071, 0195].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Ishii to comprise a magnet, as in Becker OR Yoshikawa, to improve the efficiency of plasma generation to allow for higher etching rates with the same plasma power [Becker – col 2, lines 44-51] and/or to control the electron density distribution of the plasma [Yoshikawa – 0082].
Regarding claims 23-24:
Ishii teaches the conductive plate (85) is disk-shaped (see fig 4) [fig 4 & col 7-8, lines 63-15]; and wherein the antenna (84) rests directly on the dielectric window (83) [fig 4 & col 7-8, lines 63-15].
Regarding claim 25:
Ishii does not specifically teach the magnet comprises an electromagnet comprising a conductive wire shaped like a helix winding around the plasma processing chamber.
Becker teaches the magnet (21) comprises an electromagnet (supplied a direct current) comprising a conductive wire (copper wire) shaped like a helix winding around the plasma processing chamber (has turns and is wound) [fig 1 & col 5, lines 41-63].
Yoshikawa, similar to Becker, teaches the magnet (52) comprises an electromagnet (power supply 53 is connected to 52) comprising a conductive wire shaped like a helix winding around the plasma processing chamber (wound in a radius direction around the chamber 1) [fig 1 & 0071, 0195].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Ishii to comprise a magnet, as in Becker OR Yoshikawa, to improve the efficiency of plasma generation to allow for higher etching rates with the same plasma power [Becker – col 2, lines 44-51] and/or to control the electron density distribution of the plasma [Yoshikawa – 0082].
10. Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishii et al (US 5,685,942) in view of [Becker et al (US 7,811,941) OR Yoshikawa et al (US 2014/0124478)] as applied to claims 1-6, 10-16, and 21-25 above, and further in view of Comendant et al (US 2007/0181257).
The limitations of claims 1-6, 10-16, and 21-25 have been set forth above.
Regarding claim 7:
The embodiment depicted in figure 4 of Ishii does not specifically disclose a Faraday shield comprising a conductive layer with a pattern of slits.
The embodiment depicted in figure 5 of Ishii teaches a Faraday shield (electrostatic shield, 107) comprising a conductive layer with a pattern of slits (a disc-shaped shield plate provided with slits) [fig 5-6B & col 8, lines 47-63].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the embodiment depicted in figure 4 of Ishii to further comprise a Faraday shield, as in the embodiment depicted in figure 5 of Ishii, to prevent sputtering from occurring [Ishii – col 8-9, lines 64-11].
Modified Ishii does not specifically disclose the shield being disposed in the chamber adjacent below the dielectric window.
Comendant teaches a Faraday shield (Faraday shield, 271) being disposed in the chamber adjacent below the dielectric window (111) [fig 6, 9 & 0064-0065].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the Faraday shield of modified Ishii to be disposed in the chamber adjacent below the dielectric window, as in Comendant, to shunt heat away from the window thereby protecting the window from thermal stresses caused by large temperature gradients [Comendant – 0059].
11. Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishii et al (US 5,685,942) in view of [Becker et al (US 7,811,941) OR Yoshikawa et al (US 2014/0124478)] as applied to claims 1-6, 10-16, and 21-25 above, and further in view of Breitschwerdt et al (US 2002/0046987).
The limitations of claims 1-6, 10-16, and 21-25 have been set forth above.
Regarding claim 9:
Modified Ishii does not specifically teach the magnet comprises a multiplicity of electromagnets, each electromagnet of the multiplicity of electromagnets comprising a conductive wire shaped like a helix, the helix-shaped wire and the dielectric window sharing a common central axis.
Breitschwerdt teaches a multiplicity of electromagnets (21/21’), each electromagnet of the multiplicity of electromagnets (21/21’) comprising a conductive wire shaped like a helix (wound from a copper wire), the helix-shaped wire and the dielectric window sharing a common central axis (see fig 1) [fig 1 & 0031].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the magnet of modified Ishii to comprise a multiplicity of electromagnets, as in Breitschwerdt, to achieve more efficient plasma excitation due to the fact that a weaker and at the same time more homogeneous magnetic field prevails at the site of plasma generation and/or at the site of the substrate to be etched in comparison with the reactor wall and the edge areas than in the case when just one magnetic field coil is used [Breitschwerdt – 0009].
The claim limitations “wherein a first electromagnet of the multiplicity of electromagnets is configured to conduct a first DC current and a second electromagnet of the multiplicity of electromagnets is configured to conduct a second DC current different from the first DC current” are merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. 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).
Response to Arguments
12. Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 05/08/2026, with respect to the drawing objection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The drawing objection has been withdrawn in view of the cancellation of claim 8.
13. Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 05/08/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim(s) 1-16 and 21 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the combination of references being used in the current rejection.
The teachings of Ishii et al (US 5,685,942) remedy anything lacking in the combination of references as applied above to the amended claims.
Conclusion
14. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Tanaka et al (US 6,422,172), Ni et al (US 6,716,303), and Choi (US 2008/0124254) teach a plasma processing chamber having a ceiling comprising a central conductive cover surrounded by a dielectric window [fig 7, 6 and 8, respectively].
15. 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.
16. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN R KENDALL whose telephone number is (571)272-5081. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thurs 9-5 EST.
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, William F Kraig can be reached at (571)272-8660. 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.
/Benjamin Kendall/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896
Prosecution Insights