DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
2. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/04/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
3. This office action is responsive to applicant’s amendment filed on 03/04/2026. Claims 1-7, 9-15, 17-21 are pending. Claims 1 and 19 have been amended. Claims 8, 16 have been cancelled. New ground of rejections under 35 U.S.C 103 were set forth as discussed below with respect to claims 1-7, 9, 19-21 using additional new cited prior arts Nozawa (US 2012/0064726 A1) dues to applicant’s amendment with respect to claims 1 and 19. New ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C 103 was set forth as discussed below with respect to claim 14.
The examiner still maintained the previous ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C 103 with respect to claims 10-13, 15, 17 (See response to argument as discussed below for further detail).
Response to Arguments
4. Regarding to previous ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C 103 with respect to claim 10, the applicants stated:
"First, the Examiner admits that Maruyama fails to disclose any of the specific gases recited in claim 10, but he asserts that the claim is nonetheless obvious. Specifically, there is no explanation for the Examiner's assertion that the disclosure of O2 in Maruyama would lead one skilled in the art to select one of the gases disclosed in Shen to meet the requirement of claim 10.
Additionally, the mere fact that one or more of these alternative gases is disclosed in Shen is not enough; there must be clear motivation in the references for one skilled in the art to combine the relevant disclosures of the primary and secondary references. The Federal Circuit's 2024 decision in Virtek Vision V. Assembly Guidance Sys. is on point. There, the appellate court held the Patent Office Board of Appeals 'findings as to a skilled artisan's motivation to make the proposed combinations were not supported by substantial evidence. According to the Court, "[i]t does not suffice [for two alternative arrangements] to simply be known. A reason for combining must exist." 97 F.4th 882, 885 (Fed. Cir. 2024). The Federal Circuit emphasized that "KSR did not do away with the requirement that there must exist a motivation to combine various prior art references in order for a skilled artisan to make the claimed invention." The mere fact that possible alternative gases are mentioned in secondary reference does not provide a reason that a skilled artisan to combine them with a primary reference. 97 F.4* at 886-87. The Federal Circuit concluded that the Board had erred as a matter of law with regard to the motivation to combine.
Accordingly, one skilled in the art would not combine Maruyama and Shen to meet the requirements of Applicant's claim 10. Applicant therefore asks that the prior art rejection of that claim be reconsidered and withdrawn."
The examiner disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. V. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Maruyama fails to disclose at least one gas selected from the group consisting of CO gas, CO2 gas, O3 gas, COS gas and H2O gas with respect to claim 10. However, Maruyama clearly discloses to use oxygen gas (O2) to etch silicon-containing material (See paragraph 0023, 0039). Shen teaches to use oxygen-containing gas such as O₂, O₃, CO, CO2 to etch silicon-containing material (See paragraph 0106-0110; 0122, 0145). Therefore, both Maruyama and Shen teaches to use oxygen (O2) gas to etch the same silicon-containing material. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Maruyama in view of Shen by using oxygen-containing gas selected from the group consisting of CO gas, CO2 gas, O3 gas because equivalent and substitution of one for the other would produce an expected result (See MPEP 2143(I)(B)).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 19 have been considered but are moot in view of new ground of rejection as discussed below using additional new cited prior art Nozawa et al. (US 2012/0064726 A1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. 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.
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.
7. Claims 1-4, 6, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maruyama eta al. (US 2018/0144948 A1) in view of Nozawa et al. (US 2012/0064726 A1).
Note:
As to claim 1, Maruyama discloses an etching method comprising:
(a) providing a substrate processing apparatus including
a processing chamber (12) configured to form a processing space (Fig 3, paragraph 0025),
a substrate support (14) provided inside the processing chamber and configured to hold a substrate (Fig 3 paragraph 0026), and
a power supply (LFS) configured to supply a bias power to at least the substrate support (Fig 3 paragraph 0027);
(b) providing the substrate on the substrate support, the substrate including an underlying layer and an organic material layer on the underlying layer (paragraph 0022-0023, Fig 1 ST1; Fig 2;
(c) generating plasma in the processing chamber; and
(d) repeating a predetermined cycle including an ON time during which the bias power is supplied to the substrate support and an OFF time during which the bias power is not supplied to the substrate support (Fig 4), wherein, in (d), the ON time is approximately equals to the OFF time (See Fig 4) and the ON time is 0.5 seconds or less (See paragraph 0045, 0088). Therefore, Maruyama discloses the OFF times equals to 0.5 second = 500 msec (read on applicant’s range of 10 msec or longer); and
As to claim 1, Maruyama fails to disclose at least one of a temperature in the processing space, and a ratio of an oxygen-containing gas in the processing gas of the processed space is further controlled. However, Maruyama clearly discloses to etch silicon-containing material. Nozawa discloses to control a temperature in the processing space and a ratio of an oxygen-containing gas in a process gas of the process space during a process of etching silicon containing material in order to suppress damage to target substrate and control the location of the optimum area (63 and 64) (See paragraph 0013, 0058, 0060, 0066, 0084, 0094, fig 12-13). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Maruyama in view of Nozawa by controlling at least one of a temperature in the processing space, and a ratio of an oxygen-containing gas in the processing gas of the processed space because it helps to suppress damage to target substrate and control the location of the optimum area (63 and 64) (See paragraph 0066, 0092, 0094).
As to claims 2-3, Maruyama fails to disclose a frequency defining the cycle is 2 Hz or more and less than 100 Hz (claim 2); or 2 Hz or more and 50 Hz or less (claim 3). However, Maruyama clearly discloses to apply the bias power for 0.5 second or less (paragraph 0045). Nozawa discloses to apply bias power having cycle of bias on and bias off, wherein the frequency defining the cycle is between 10 Hz to about 30 Hz (paragraph 0086-0087; within applicant’s range of 2 Hz or more and less than 100 Hz in claim 2; or 2 Hz or more and 50 Hz or less in claim 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Maruyama in view of Nozawa by having a frequency between 10 Hz to about 30 Hz because in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (See paragraph 2144.05(I)).
As to claim 4, Maruyama discloses a duty ratio of the bias power is set to 50% (See fig 4, ON Time equals 50% of a whole cycle because ON Time = OFF time).
As to claim 6, Maruyama discloses the bias power is a radio-frequency power (paragraph 0027).
As to claim 19, Maruyama discloses an etching apparatus comprising:
a processing chamber (12);
a substrate support in the processing chamber (14);
a plasma generator (paragraph 0036-0037;
and a controller (42) configured to cause:
(a) placing a substrate (W) on the substrate support (14) in the processing chamber, the substrate including an underlying layer and an organic material layer on the underlying layer (Fig 1 ST1; paragraph 0023), and
(b) forming a recess in the organic material layer using a plasma generated from a processing gas including an oxygen-containing gas (Fig 5, paragraph 0039-0045), and wherein in (b), following two periods are repeated:
(b1) a first period, in which a bias power is supplied to the substrate support at a first level to etch the organic material layer, (Fig 4 ST3) and
(b2) a second period, in which the bias power is not supplied to the substrate support or the bias power is supplied to the substrate support at a second level lower than the first level to form a protective film on a side wall of the recess (ST2) (See Fig 4, Fig 7A; Note: the protective film (small dark circle atoms/molecules) is formed on the sidewall in Fig 7A);
As to claim 19, Maruyama fails to disclose controlling at least one of a temperature in the processing space, and a ratio of an oxygen-containing gas in the processing gas of the processed space. However, Maruyama clearly disclose to etch silicon-containing material. Nozawa discloses to control a temperature in the processing space and a ratio of an oxygen-containing gas in a process gas of the process space during a process of etching silicon containing material in order to suppress damage to target substrate and control the location of the optimum area (63 and 64) (See paragraph 0013, 0058, 0060, 0066, 0084, 0094, fig 12-13). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Maruyama in view of Nozawa by controlling at least one of a temperature in the processing space, and a ratio of an oxygen-containing gas in the processing gas of the processed space because it helps to suppress damage to target substrate and control the location of the optimum area (63 and 64) (See paragraph 0066, 0092, 0094).
8. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maruyama (US 2018/0144948 A1) in view of Nozawa et al. (US 2012/0064726 A1) as applied to claims 1, 4, 6, 19 above, and further in view of Tomura et al. (US 2016/0379856 A1).
As to claim 5, Maruyama and Nozawa fail to disclose the duty ratio is adjusted by changing the ON time while maintaining the OFF time constant. However, Maruyama clearly discloses the duty ratio for the bias power including example of duty ratio of 50% (See Fig 4). Tomura discloses the duty ratio is adjusted by changing the ON time while maintaining the OFF time constant (paragraph 0086-0087, Fig 8, Fig 9). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Maruyama and Nozawa in view of Tomura by adjusting the duty ratio by changing the ON time while maintaining the OFF time constant because it helps to control etch rate (ER) and etch selectivity (See Fig 8-9).
9. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maruyama (US 2018/0144948 A1) in view of Nozawa et al. (US 2012/0064726 A1) as applied to claims 1-4, 6, 19 above, and further in view of Ventzek (US 2020/0058470 A1).
As to claim 7, Maruyama and Nozawa fail to disclose the bias power (LFS) is a DC power. However, Maruyama clearly disclose the bias power (LFS) is AC power (See Fig 3; Note the AC power symbol
PNG
media_image1.png
401
437
media_image1.png
Greyscale
). Ventzek discloses the bias power (2) can be either AC or DC power (paragraph 0036). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Maruyama and Nozawa in view of Ventzek by using DC power for the bias power because equivalent and substitution of one for the other would produce an expected result (See MPEP 2143(I)(B)).
10. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maruyama (US 2018/0144948 A1) in view of Nozawa et al. (US 2012/0064726 A1) as applied to claims 1-4, 6, 19 above, and further in view of Jain et al. (US 2020/0194272 A1).
As to claim 9, Maruyama and Nozawa fail to disclose the organic material layer includes an amorphous carbon film. However, Maruyama discloses the substrate comprises an organic layer (i.e. carbon-containing material) or silicon oxide or silicon nitride as an underlying layer. Jain discloses the substrate comprises silicon oxide, silicon nitride or amorphous carbon as an underlying layer (See paragraph 0036-0037). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Maruyama and Nozawa in view of Jain by having the organic material layer includes an amorphous carbon film because equivalent and substitution of one for the other would produce an expected result (See MPEP 2143(I)(B)).
11. Claims 10-13, 15, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maruyama (US 2018/0144948 A1) and further in view of Shen et al. (US 2017/0103901 A1).
Note:
As to claim 10, Maruyama discloses a method for etching a substrate, the method comprising:
(a) providing a substrate (W) on a substrate support (14) in a processing chamber, the substrate including an underlying layer and an organic material layer on the underlying layer (Fig 1, paragraph 0022-0023; and
(b) forming a recess in the organic material layer using a plasma generated from a processing gas including that is at least one of gas selected from the group consisting of
wherein in (b), following two periods are repeated:
(b1) a first period, in which a bias power is supplied to the substrate support at a first level to etch the organic material layer (Fig 4 ST3; paragraph 0036-0043), and
(b2) a second period, in which the bias power is not supplied to the substrate support or is supplied to the substrate support at a second level lower than the first level to form a protective film on a side wall of the recess (Fig 4 ST2, paragraph 0036-0043; Fig 7A; the protective film (small dark circle atoms/molecules) is formed on the sidewall in Fig 7A).
As to claim 10, Maruyama fails to disclose at least one gas selected from the group consisting of CO gas, CO2 gas, O3 gas, COS gas and H2O gas. However, Maruyama clearly disclose to use oxygen gas (O2) to etch silicon-containing material (See paragraph 0023, 0039). Shen teaches to use oxygen-containing gas such as O2, O3, CO, CO2 to etch silicon-containing material (See paragraph0106-0110, 0122 0145). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Maruyama in view of Shen by using oxygen-containing gas selected from the group consisting of CO gas, CO2 gas, O3 gas because equivalent and substitution of one for the other would produce an expected result (See MPEP 2143(I)(B)).
As to claim 11, Maruyama discloses during the first period, the bottom of the recess is etched while protecting the side wall of the recess by the protective layer (Fig 7A-7C, paragraph 0047-0051).
As to claim 12, Maruyama discloses the ON time (first period or ST3) is approximately equals to the OFF time (second period or ST2; See Fig 4) and the ON time is 0.5 seconds or less (See paragraph 0045, 0088). Therefore, Maruyama discloses the OFF times (second period) equals to 0.5 second = 500 msec (read on applicant’s range of 10 msec or longer).
As to claim 13, Maruyama discloses a ratio of the first period (ST3) to a total time of the first period and second periods (total time of ST2 and ST3) is controlled such that the second period is 0.5 second or less (See Fig 4; paragraph 0045, 0088)
As to claim 15, Maruyama discloses a duty ratio of the bias power is set to 50% (See fig 4, ON Time equals 50% of a whole cycle because ON Time = OFF time).
As to claim 17, Maruyama discloses the processing gas further includes an inert gas (He, Ar, Ne or Kr gas in paragraph 0039)
12. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maruyama (US 2018/0144948 A1) in view of Shen (US 2017/0103901 A1) as applied to claims 10-13, 15, 17 above, and further in view of Nozawa (US 2012/0064726)
As to claim 14, Maruyama and Shen fail to disclose a frequency defining the cycle is 2 Hz or more and less than 100 Hz. However, Maruyama clearly discloses to apply the bias power for 0.5 second or less (paragraph 0045). Nozawa discloses the frequency defining the cycle is between 10 Hz to about 30 Hz (paragraph 0086-0087; within applicant’s range of 2 Hz or more and less than 100 Hz). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Maruyama and Shen in view of Nozawa by having a frequency between 10 Hz to about 30 Hz because in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (See paragraph 2144.05(I)).
13. Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maruyama (US 2018/0144948 A1) in view of Shen (US 2017/0103901 A1) as applied to claims 10-13, 15-17 above, and further in view of Takahashi et al. (US 2023/0127597 A1).
As to claim 18, Maruyama and Shen fail to disclose the recessed formed in the organic material layer in (b2) has a roundness of 0.90 or more and a bowing CD value of 40 nm or less. However, Maruyama clearly teaches to formed a recessed feature in the organic layer in step (b2). Takahashi discloses etching to form a recessed feature having a roundness of 1.05, or 1.14 or 1.04 (i.e. ellipticity of value in Table 1 I paragraph 0072; paragraph 073; Note: a perfect circle has a ellipticity value of 1.0; See paragraph 0073; read on applicant’s limitation of a roundness of 0.90 or more) and a bowing CD value of about 40 nm or less (Note: bowing CD value = Max - Bottom CD; See paragraph 0010). Takahashi further discloses bowing CD value of 36 nm in Table 1 (Note: bowing CD value = Max – Bottom CD; See paragraph 0072; within applicant’s range of 40 nm or less). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Maruyama and Shen in view of Takahashi by having a roundness of 1.05 or 1.04 or 1.14 and a bowing CD of less than 40 nm including example of bowing CD value of 36 nm because in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (See paragraph 2144.05(I)).
14. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maruyama (US 2018/0144948 A1) in view of Nozawa (US 2012/0064726 A1) as applied to claims 1-4, 6, 19 above, and further in view of Mishra (US 2014/0199833 A1).
As to claims 20, Maruyama and Nozawa fail to disclose the OFF time is 10 msec or longer and 50 msec or less. However, Maruyama clearly disclose the ON time is approximately equals to the OFF time (See Fig 4) and the ON time is 0.5 seconds or less (See paragraph 0045, 0088). Therefore, Maruyama implicitly discloses the OFF times equals to 0.5 second = 500 msec or less (read on applicant’s range of 10 msec or longer). Mishra discloses the OFF time is 15 msec (See paragraph 0026, within applicant’s range of 10 msec or longer and 50 msec or less). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Maruyama and Nozawa in view of Mishra by having an OFF time of 15 msec because in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (See paragraph 2144.05(I)).
15. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maruyama (US 2018/0144948 A1) and Nozawa (US 2012/0064726 A1) as applied to claims 1-4, 6, 19 above, and further in view of McNie et al. (US 2015/0011088 A1)
As to claims 20, Maruyama and Nozawa fail to disclose the OFF time is 10 msec or longer and 50 msec or less. However, Maruyama clearly disclose the ON time is approximately equals to the OFF time (See Fig 4) and the ON time is 0.5 seconds or less (See paragraph 0045, 0088). Therefore, Maruyama implicitly discloses the OFF times equals to 0.5 second = 500 msec or less (read on applicant’s range of 10 msec or longer). McNie discloses the OFF time is 50 msec (See paragraph 0148, within applicant’s range of 10 msec or longer and 50 msec or less). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Maruyama and Nozawa in view of McNie by having an OFF time of 50 msec because in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (See paragraph 2144.05(I)).
16. Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maruyama (US 2018/0144948 A1) and Shen (US 2017/0103901 A1) as applied to claims 10-13, 15-17 above, and further in view of Mishra (US 2014/0199833 A1).
As to claims 21, Maruyama and Shen fail to disclose the OFF time is 10 msec or longer and 50 msec or less. However, Maruyama clearly disclose the ON time is approximately equals to the OFF time (See Fig 4) and the ON time is 0.5 seconds or less (See paragraph 0045, 0088). Therefore, Maruyama implicitly discloses the OFF times equals to 0.5 second = 500 msec or less (read on applicant’s range of 10 msec or longer). Mishra discloses the OFF time is 15 msec (See paragraph 0026, within applicant’s range of 10 msec or longer and 50 msec or less). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Maruyama and Shen in view of Mishra by having an OFF time of 15 msec because in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (See paragraph 2144.05(I)).
17. Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maruyama (US 2018/0144948 A1) and Shen (US 2017/0103901 A1) as applied to claims 10-13, 15-17 above, and further in view of McNie et al. (US 2015/0011088 A1)
As to claims 20-21, Maruyama and Shen fail to disclose the OFF time is 10 msec or longer and 50 msec or less. However, Maruyama clearly disclose the ON time is approximately equals to the OFF time (See Fig 4) and the ON time is 0.5 seconds or less (See paragraph 0045, 0088). Therefore, Maruyama implicitly discloses the OFF times equals to 0.5 second = 500 msec or less(read on applicant’s range of 10 msec or longer). McNie discloses the OFF time is 50 msec (See paragraph 0148, within applicant’s range of 10 msec or longer and 50 msec or less). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Maruyama and Shen in view of McNie by having an OFF time of 50 msec because in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (See paragraph 2144.05(I)).
Conclusion
18. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BINH X TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1469. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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, Joshua Allen can be reached at 571-270-3176. 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.
BINH X. TRAN
Examiner
Art Unit 1713
/BINH X TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713
Prosecution Insights