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 .
Claims 12-20 are pending
Claims 12, 14, 17, 19 and 20 have been amended
Claims 1-11 are withdrawn due to restriction
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 14 is allowable based on the amendments made to claim 14 to make it an independent claim. Applicants’ amendments and arguments regarding claim 14 has overcome the prior art, as discussed in the office action mailed 11-24-25.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mayumi Satoshi JP 2007059494 (JP’494) (machine translation used for citations) in view of Ono Tsuyoshi JP 2003209102 (JP’102) (machine translation used for citations) and Sugiyama US 2005/0001527 (US’527).
Regarding claim 12, JP’494 teaches a method of treating a surface with plasma (a normal-pressure plasma processing for performing surface treatment on a substrate, page 1), comprising: igniting the plasma wherein the plasma (the process gas is turned into plasma, page 6-7, see fig. 1 and 3) is formed by one or more plasma heads of a plasma reactor (processing unit 10 for delivering atmospheric plasma, page 4-6, see fig. 3a-b); and moving the plasma reactor over a central opening of an assistant plate (a frame is connected to the aluminum stage to hold the substrate to be processed, the processing unit 10 is scanned left and right by the moving mechanism 4, page 4-6) with a metallic top most surface while maintaining the plasma (the stage 21 is made of aluminum, page 4-5, see fig. 3a-b).
JP’494 does not teach igniting the plasma over an ignition plate, wherein the ignition plate has a metallic top most surface, and wherein the plasma is formed by two or more plasma heads of a plasma reactor positioned above the ignition plate wherein the two or more plasma heads of the plasma reactor is wider than the central opening in the assistant plate.
JP’102 teaches delivering atmospheric pressure plasma to a substrate using a plasma generating head (see fig. 1-2, abstract). The stage includes stainless steep plates 31 and 32. Plasma generation is started over the stainless steel plates until the plasma flow blown out is made to flow uniformly and is stabilized once the plasma is made to flow uniformly and stabilized the plasma generating head is moved over the surface to be processed (page 4 and 6, see fig. 2 and 3). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would know that they could apply the teachings of JP‘102 of providing an area connected to the stage and away from the substrate for initiating the atmospheric plasma flow till it is uniform and stabilized in the process of JP’207. According to JP’102 stainless steel would be an appropriate type of material to be used for this area to exposed to the plasma discharge, and stainless-steel reads on metallic.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of JP’494 to include igniting the plasma over an ignition plate, wherein the ignition plate has a metallic top most surface, and wherein the plasma is formed by one or more plasma heads of a plasma reactor positioned above the ignition plate to include because JP’102 teaches it provides the ability to make the plasma flow uniform and stable before processing the substrate and use of known technique to improve similar methods in the same way is obvious, see MPEP 2141 III (C).
The modified method of JP’207 does not teach wherein the plasma is formed by two or more plasma heads of the plasma reactor and the two or more plasma heads are wider than the central opening in the assistant plate.
US’527 teaches an atmospheric plasma process (para. 5-6 and 26) that includes a plasma heads of the plasma reactor is wider than the a substrate being processed (para 25, 58, 62, see fig. 1-3), which would correspond to the central opening in the assistant plate in the method of US’527. In this manner, it is possible to supply the processing gas entirely to the surface of the object to be processed (para. 62). Referring to FIG. 14, plasma processing apparatus 105 includes a plurality of plasma processing apparatuses 101 in accordance with the first embodiment. In plasma processing apparatus 105 structured as described above, the speed of plasma processing can be increased by increasing effective area of the region where plasma generates (para. 113-118, fig. 14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of US’756 to include wherein the plasma is formed by two or more plasma heads of the plasma reactor and the two or more plasma heads are wider than the central opening in the assistant plate because US’527 teaches it ensures supply of the processing gas entirely to the surface of the object to be processed and the speed of plasma processing can be increased by increasing effective area of the region where plasma generates.
Claim(s) 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP’494 in view of JP’102 and US’527 as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Swanson et al. US 2013/0306101 (US’101) and Utlaut et al. US 2013/0250293 (US’293).
Regarding claim 13, the modified method of JP’494 teaches the method of treating a surface with plasma of claim 12.
The modified method of JP’494 does not teach monitoring the plasma to determine an endpoint of a treatment of the surface disposed in the central opening based on an oxygen peak level.
US’101 teaches using atmospheric plasma to clean organic layers of defects on a photomask to extend the mask lifetime including using a carrier gas such as argon and oxygen plasma (para. 2-9, and 92,119-121, 135-136 and 140). US’293 teaches monitoring the emission spectrum for and oxygen based plasma and the intensity of the oxygen spectrum provides an endpointing of the cleaning process because overexposure to cleaning methods, such as oxygen cleaning plasmas, can be harmful to the plasma source (para. 49).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified method of JP’494 to include monitoring the plasma to determine an endpoint of a treatment of the surface disposed in the central opening based on an oxygen peak level because US’101 teaches the lifetime of a photomask can be increased but using an atmospheric plasma to clean the surface and US’293 teaches endpoint detection can prevent overexposure of the equipment to the cleaning gases and combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is obvious, see MPEP 2141 III (A).
Claim(s) 15-17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP’494 in view of JP’102 and US’527 as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Swanson et al. US 2013/0306101 (US’101).
Regarding claims 15-16, the modified method of JP’494 teaches the method of treating a surface with plasma of claim 12.
The modified method of JP’494 does not teach wherein a sample disposed in the central opening is a photomask, with regard to claim 15, and modifying a surface of the photomask; removing a photoresist layer on top of the photomask; or removing organic defects, with regard to claim 16.
US’101 teaches using atmospheric plasma to clean organic layers of defects on a photomask to extend the mask lifetime (para. 2-9, and 119-121).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified method of JP’494 to include wherein a sample disposed in the central opening is a photomask, with regard to claim 15, and modifying a surface of the photomask; removing a photoresist layer on top of the photomask; or removing organic defects, with regard to claim 16 because US’101 teaches the lifetime of a photomask can be increased but using an atmospheric plasma to clean the surface and combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is obvious, see MPEP 2141 III (A).
Regarding claim 17, the modified method of JP’494 teaches the method of treating a surface with plasma of claim 12. The modified method of JP’494 further teaches flowing a gas mixture around an RF electrode of at least one of the two or more plasma heads (electrode 11 connected to power supply 1, see fig. 1, page 4).
The modified method of JP’494 does not teach a gas mixture of argon gas and oxygen-based gas.
US’101 teaches using atmospheric plasma to clean organic layers of defects on a photomask to extend the mask lifetime including using a carrier gas such as argon and oxygen plasma (para. 2-9, and 92,119-121, 135-136 and 140).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified method of JP’494 to include a gas mixture of argon gas and oxygen-based gas because US’101 teaches the lifetime of a photomask can be increased but using an atmospheric plasma to clean the surface and combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is obvious, see MPEP 2141 III (A).
Regarding claim 19, the modified method of JP’494 teaches the method of treating a surface with plasma of claim 12. The modified method of JP’494 further teaches flowing a gas mixture around an RF electrode of at least one of the two or more plasma heads (electrode 11 connected to power supply 1, see fig. 1, page 4).
The modified method of US’756 does not teach a gas mixture of argon gas and hydrogen-based gas.
US’101 teaches using atmospheric plasma to clean organic layers of defects on a photomask to extend the mask lifetime including using a carrier gas such as argon and hydrogen plasma (para. 2-9, and 92,119-121, 135-136 and 140).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified method of JP’494 to include a gas mixture of argon gas and hydrogen-based gas because US’101 teaches the lifetime of a photomask can be increased but using an atmospheric plasma to clean the surface and combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is obvious, see MPEP 2141 III (A).
Claim(s) 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP’494 in view of JP’102 and US’527 as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Jackson US 2004/0011378 (US’378).
Regarding claims 17-18, the modified method of JP’494 teaches the method of treating a surface with plasma of claim 12. The modified method of JP’494 further teaches flowing a gas mixture around an RF electrode of at least one of the two or more plasma heads (electrode 11 connected to power supply 1, see fig. 1, page 4).
The modifie
d method of JP’494 does not teach a gas mixture of argon gas and oxygen-based gas, with regard to claim 17 and flowing water vapor with the gas mixture to produce hydroxyl, with regard to claim 18.
US’378 teaches atmospheric plasma cleaning of glass substrates can include argon, oxygen (para. 2-9) and water vapor which produces hydroxyl (OH radicals) providing surface cleaning and modification effects (para. 54).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified method of JP’494 to include a gas mixture of argon gas and oxygen-based gas, with regard to claim 17 and flowing water vapor with the gas mixture to produce hydroxyl, with regard to claim 18 because US’378 teaches these are known gases for performing cleaning using atmospheric plasma processes and combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is obvious, see MPEP 2141 III (A).
Claim(s) 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mayumi Satoshi JP 2007059494 (JP’494) (machine translation used for citations) in view of Ono Tsuyoshi JP 2003209102 (JP’102) (machine translation used for citations), Sugiyama US 2005/0001527 (US’527) and Jindo et al. US 2020/0060017 (US’017).
Regarding claim 20, JP’494 teaches a method of treating a surface with plasma (a normal-pressure plasma processing for performing surface treatment on a substrate, page 1), to be performed, the method comprising: igniting plasma, the plasma (the process gas is turned into plasma, page 6-7, see fig. 1 and 3) is formed by one or more plasma heads of a plasma reactor (processing unit 10 for delivering atmospheric plasma, page 4-6, see fig. 3a-b); and moving the plasma reactor over a central opening of an assistant plate (a frame is connected to the aluminum stage to hold the substrate to be processed, the processing unit 10 is scanned left and right by the moving mechanism 4, page 4-6) and wherein the assistant plate has a metallic top most surface while maintaining the plasma (the stage 21 is made of aluminum, page 4-5, see fig. 3a-b).
JP’494 does not teach igniting the plasma over an ignition plate, wherein the ignition plate has a metallic top most surface, and wherein the plasma is formed by two or more plasma heads of a plasma reactor positioned above the ignition plate, and wherein the two or more plasma heads of the plasma reactor are wider than the central opening in the assistant plate and a non-transitory, computer readable medium having instructions stored thereon that, when executed, cause the method.
JP’102 teaches delivering atmospheric pressure plasma to a substrate using a plasma generating head (see fig. 1-2, abstract). The stage includes stainless steep plates 31 and 32. Plasma generation is started over the stainless steel plates until the plasma flow blown out is made to flow uniformly and is stabilized once the plasma is made to flow uniformly and stabilized the plasma generating head is moved over the surface to be processed (page 4 and 6, see fig. 2 and 3). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would know that they could apply the teachings of JP‘102 of providing an area connected to the stage and away from the substrate for initiating the atmospheric plasma flow till it is uniform and stabilized in the process of JP’207. According to JP’102 stainless steel would be an appropriate type of material to be used for this area to exposed to the plasma discharge, and stainless-steel reads on metallic.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of JP’494 to include igniting the plasma over an ignition plate, wherein the ignition plate has a metallic top most surface, and wherein the plasma is formed by one or more plasma heads of a plasma reactor positioned above the ignition plate to include because JP’102 teaches it provides the ability to make the plasma flow uniform and stable before processing the substrate and use of known technique to improve similar methods in the same way is obvious, see MPEP 2141 III (C).
The modified method of JP’207 does not teach wherein two or more plasma heads of the plasma reactor are wider than the central opening in the assistant plate a non-transitory, computer readable medium having instructions stored thereon that, when executed, cause the method.
US’527 teaches an atmospheric plasma process (para. 5-6 and 26) that includes a plasma heads of the plasma reactor is wider than the a substrate being processed (para 25, 58, 62, see fig. 1-3), which would correspond to the central opening in the assistant plate in the method of US’527. In this manner, it is possible to supply the processing gas entirely to the surface of the object to be processed (para. 62). Referring to FIG. 14, plasma processing apparatus 105 includes a plurality of plasma processing apparatuses 101 in accordance with the first embodiment. In plasma processing apparatus 105 structured as described above, the speed of plasma processing can be increased by increasing effective area of the region where plasma generates (para. 113-118, fig. 14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of US’756 to include wherein two or more plasma heads of the plasma reactor are wider than the central opening in the assistant plate because US’527 teaches it ensures supply of the processing gas entirely to the surface of the object to be processed and the speed of plasma processing can be increased by increasing effective area of the region where plasma generates.
The modified method of JP’207 does not teach a non-transitory, computer readable medium having instructions stored thereon that, when executed, cause the method.
US’017 teaches plasma generation system for generating a plasma gas by converting a processing gas into plasma under atmospheric pressure to target object (para. 1-14). control device 29 included in plasma generation system 10 will be described. As shown in FIG. 5, control device 29 includes controller 150, multiple drive circuits 152, control circuit 154, and memory device 156. The multiple drive circuits 152 are connected to conveyance device 20, moving device 24, emitting head 26, temperature measuring device 28, processing gas supply device 103, heating-use gas supply device 121, and the like. Controller 150 is provided with a CPU, ROM, RAM, and so on, is formed mainly from a computer, and is connected to the multiple drive circuits 152. As a result, operation of emitting head 26, temperature measuring device 28, and the like is controlled by controller 150. Further, controller 150 is connected to display device 158 via control circuit 154. Display device 158 is, for example, a touchscreen panel, and includes a liquid crystal panel, a light source such as LEDs for emitting light from the rear surface of the liquid crystal panel, a touch-sensitive film bonded to the surface of the liquid crystal panel, and the like. Thus, controller 150 can display various types of information on display device 158. In addition, controller 150 can receive instructions from a user via display device 158. Further, controller 150 is connected to memory device 156. As a result, various data are stored in memory device 156 (para. 29). Therefore, US’017 teaches that it is conventional to use a non-transitory, computer readable medium having instructions stored thereon to perform the modified method of JP’494.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified method of JP’494 to include a non-transitory, computer readable medium having instructions stored thereon that, when executed, cause the method because the court has held that broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art, see MPEP2144.04 III.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments to independent claim 12 to modify the limitations to include two or more plasma heads has changed the scope of claim 12. However, the teachings of US’527 still reads on the limitation recited. Therefore, a new ground(s) of rejection of claim 12 is made under 103 as obvious over JP’494 in view of JP’102 and US’527 which includes both the rejection of claim 12 as stated in the non-final office action mailed 11-24-25 and additional discussion of US’527 regarding the newly added subject matter. Similar amendments have ben made to claim 20 and as a result a new rejection is applied of claim 20 for the same reasons as claim 12 discussed above.
Applicants amendments to place claim 14 in independent form has overcome the objections to claim 14 regarding it being an allowable dependent claim, as a result the objection is withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2-24-26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants’ arguments regarding “Satoshi does not disclose an assistant plate with an opening and a metallic top most surface” have been full considered but are not deemed persuasive. Applicants argues that JP’494’s dielectric frame forms the topmost surface and that aluminum stage 21 therefore does not satisfy the “metallic top most surface” limitations. This is not found persuasive. The claims recite “an assistant plate” with “a metallic top most surface”; it does not require that the metallic surface be the highest point of the entire plate structure, nor does it exclude the presence of any surrounding dielectric frame at a different elevation. JP’494’s aluminum stage 21 has an upper surface that is metallic and that constitutes the top most surface of the stage 21 itself, which is the structure mapped to the assistant plate as discussed above. The recited dimensional/spatial top most relationship need only hold for at least one reasonable partition of the disclosed structure. The aluminum state 21 is a metallic plate with a top most (upper) surface that is metallic, which satisfies the limitation. Applicant’s argument improperly limits the topmost limitation to include the highest surface in the entire apparatus which does not appear in the claim. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Additionally, Applicant’s contention that “the entire upper surface of stage body 21 must be covered by the substrate” is an operational preference of JP’494’s preferred embodiment, not a structural exclusion. The recited limitation is structural and is satisfied by the disclosed metallic upper surface of stage 21 regardless of whether a substrate covered it during operation. a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Applicants’ arguments regarding “the two plasma generation designs are not compatible” have been full considered but are not deemed persuasive. Applicant argues that JP’494 requires the grounding electrode to be covered by dielectric (the substrate) and that adding JP’102’s exposed stainless-steel plate 31/32 would defeat plasma generation. This is not found persuasive. JP’102 is cited for the known technique of providing a metallic ignition area adjacent to the substrate-receiving area for stabilizing plasma flow before processing. The combination does not require bodily incorporation of JP’102’s specific electrode geometry into JP’494’s apparatus; it requires only application of the known technique of pre-stabilizing plasma over a metallic surface. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Both JP’494’s and JP’102 are atmospheric plasma processing methods that delivers plasma to the stage area, as discussed above. JP’494’s processing unit generates atmospheric plasma that is delivered to the substrate area, and the plasma delivered is fully capable of being initiated and stabilized over an adjacent metallic ignition region in the manner taught by JP’102 prior to scanning over the substrate, as tough by JP’102 because it provides the ability to make the plasma flow uniform and stable before processing the substrate. The arguments that “Satoshi requires a dielectric surface covering a grounding electrode” overstates the discloser. JP’494 discloses one mode of operation; nothing in JP’494 prevents the teachings of JP’102 from being combined to providing an adjacent metallic plate area used solely for ignition and stabilization, as JP’102 expressly teaches that providing such a metallic stabilization region (stainless steel plates 31, 32) provides the recognized benefits of producing a uniform and stabilized plasma flow before processing the substrate. The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the atmospheric plasma processing art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Applicants’ arguments that the purposed combination would cause “arcing” is unsupported attorney argument. Atmospheric plasma source, including those of JP’494 and JP’102, are designed to deliver plasma to a target surface that may be a substrate or a metallic stabilization plate; both JP’102 and US’527 disclose atmospheric plasma operation over metallic stages without arcing concerns. Where the proposed combination uses a metallic ignition plate sized and configured per JP’102’s teaching of stabilize plasma flow over stainless steel plates, the combination does not introduce arcing. In order for evidence of secondary considerations to be accorded substantial weight, there must be a nexus, i.e., a legally and factually sufficient connection or correspondence between the submitted evidence and the claimed invention, see MPEP 2145.
In response to applicants’ arguments that the cited prior art does not teaches the newly added limitations of two or more plasma heads is full considered but not deemed persuasive. As discussed above, US’5727 teaches plasma processing apparatus 105 includes a plurality of plasma processing apparatuses 101 in accordance with the first embodiment. In plasma processing apparatus 105 structured as described above, the speed of plasma processing can be increased by increasing effective area of the region where plasma generates (para. 113-118, fig. 14).
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 ERIN FLANAGAN BERGNER whose telephone number is (571)270-1133. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00.
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 on 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.
/ERIN F BERGNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713
Prosecution Insights