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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2-4, 6-10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2 cites the limitation “a plurality of the functional electrodes” and “a plurality of resonators each including the plurality of functional electrodes.” It is not clear how the plurality of functional electrodes, which includes all of the electrodes of the “plurality of the functional electrodes,” is incorporated into “a plurality of resonators.” The specification discloses separate resonators of S1 and P1, and separate split-type resonators of S1a and S1b. While it is clear that a split-type resonator may include a plurality of functional electrodes, it is not clear how two separate resonators such as series resonator S1 and parallel resonator P1 meet the limitation of “each including the plurality of functional electrodes.” Furthermore, it is not clear how the individual resonators S1a and S1b of series S1 can meet the limitation of “each including the plurality of functional electrodes,” as they are two separate resonators. Claim 2 is thus rendered indefinite.
Claim 4 cites similar limitations to that of claim 2, and is indefinite for the same reasons.
Claim 6 cites similar limitations to that of claim 2, however the limitation “a plurality of resonators each including the functional electrodes” is used such that the plurality of resonators include all functional electrodes as per claim 1, and not just the plurality of functional electrodes.
Claims 3 & 7-10 are rejected as being dependent upon indefinite claims 2 & 6, respectively.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1-11, & 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatakeyama et al. (US PGPub 20170346463) in view of Matsuda (US PGpub 20100148887), both references of record.
As per claim 1:
Hatakeyama et al. discloses in Figs. 1-3:
An acoustic wave device, comprising:
a piezoelectric substrate including a support (10a) and a piezoelectric layer (10b), the support including a support substrate (10a), the piezoelectric layer being provided on the support and including a first main surface and a second main surface opposed to each other;
one or more functional electrodes (IDT 15 of acoustic wave resonator 12) provided on the first main surface or the second main surface of the piezoelectric layer, and including at least one pair of electrodes (comb-shaped electrodes 14 as seen in Fig. 2a);
a first support (ring-shaped electrode 44) provided on the piezoelectric substrate so as to surround the functional electrodes;
one or more second supports (ground pads Pg1, comprising metal layers 17 & 18, [0024] with bumps 36) provided on the piezoelectric substrate, and located on a portion surrounded by the first support; and
a cover (substrate 20) provided on the first support and the second supports;
wherein a direction in which the electrodes adjacent to each other face each other is an electrode facing direction (horizontal direction of Fig. 3, wherein the electrode fingers face each other and overlap), and a region in which the electrodes adjacent to each other overlap each other when viewed from the electrode facing direction is an intersecting region; and
the second supports at least partially overlap the intersecting region when viewed from the electrode facing direction (as seen in Fig. 3).
Hatakeyama et al. does not disclose:
an entirety or substantially an entirety of at least one of the second supports overlaps the intersecting region when viewed from the electrode facing direction.
Matsuda discloses in Figs. 1b, 3, 6A, 7A, & 8-13:
Splitting a resonator (combined series resonator S1 formed by first split resonator S11 and second split resonator S12) into two transducer electrodes (first excitation electrode 36a and second excitation electrode 36b) and providing a second support (bump 45 and metal film 44) in between the transducer electrode regions of the split resonator wherein an entirety or substantially an entirety of at least one of the second supports overlaps an intersecting region when viewed from the electrode facing direction (as seen in Fig. 3).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form at least one of the resonators of Hatakeyama et al. as a split resonator with an internal second support as per Matsuda to provide the benefit of increasing power durability as taught by Matsuda ([0113]).
As a consequence of the combination, an entirety or substantially an entirety of at least one of the second supports overlaps the intersecting region when viewed from the electrode facing direction.
As per claim 2:
Hatakeyama et al. discloses in Figs. 1-3:
a plurality of the functional electrodes (acoustic wave resonators 12, comprising series and parallel resonators S11-12 & P11-12);
wherein a plurality of resonators each including the plurality of functional electrodes is provided (as seen in Fig. 3); and
at least one of the second supports is between two of the plurality of resonators (right side support of Fig. 3 is shown between P12 and S11).
Matsuda discloses in Figs. 1b, 3, 6A, 7A, & 8-13:
Splitting a resonator (combined series resonator S1 formed by first split resonator S11 and second split resonator S12) into two transducer electrodes (first excitation electrode 36a and second excitation electrode 36b) and providing a second support (bump 45 and metal film 44) in between the transducer electrode regions of the split resonator wherein an entirety or substantially an entirety of at least one of the second supports overlaps an intersecting region when viewed from the electrode facing direction (as seen in Fig. 3).
As a further consequence of the combination of claim 1, a plurality of the functional electrodes (electrodes of Hatakeyama including the excitation electrodes of Matsuda); wherein a plurality of resonators each including the plurality of functional electrodes is provided; and at least one of the second supports is between two of the plurality of resonators (as per Matsuda Fig. 3).
As per claim 3:
Hatakeyama et al. does not disclose:
the plurality of resonators includes a plurality of resonators with a split structure; and
at least one of the second supports is between two of the plurality of resonators with the split structure.
Matsuda et al. discloses in Fig. 3:
The use of a second support (metal film 44, inner bump 45) formed between a split resonator (first split resonator S11 and second split resonator S12 of combined series resonator S1) for heat removal purposes ([0107]).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form a plurality of resonators of Hatakeyama et al. with a split structure wherein at least one of the second supports is between at least two of the plurality of resonators with the split structure to provide the benefit of removing heat from the circuit and improving power durability as taught by Matsuda et al. ([0113])
As per claim 4:
Hatakeyama et al. discloses in Figs. 1-3:
a plurality of the functional electrodes (acoustic wave resonators 12, comprising series and parallel resonators S11-12 & P11-12);
wherein a plurality of resonators each including the functional electrodes is provided (as seen in Fig. 3); and
at least one of the second supports is located on a portion other than an interval between two of the plurality of resonators, on the piezoelectric substrate (the support on the left is shown to not be between S12 and P12).
As per claim 5:
Hatakeyama et al. discloses in Figs. 1-3:
at least one of the second supports is electrically connected to the functional electrodes (P11 and P12 are shown to be electrically connected to the nearby Pg1 support).
As per claim 6:
Hatakeyama et al. discloses in Figs. 1-3:
a plurality of the functional electrodes (acoustic wave resonators 12, comprising series and parallel resonators S11-12 & P11-12); and
a plurality of the second supports (as seen in Fig. 3);
wherein a plurality of resonators each including the functional electrodes is provided (as seen in Fig. 3); and
at least one pair of the second supports sandwich one of the plurality of resonators (left and right side Pg1 supports sandwich both P11 and S11).
As per claim 7:
Hatakeyama et al. discloses in Figs. 1-3:
the plurality of resonators includes one or more series arm resonators (S11, S12) and one or more parallel arm resonators (P11-P12); and
at least one pair of the second supports (left and right side Pg1 supports sandwich both P11 and S11) sandwich one of the series arm resonators (S11).
As per claim 8:
Hatakeyama et al. discloses in Figs. 1-3:
the plurality of resonators includes one or more series arm resonators (S11, S12) and one or more parallel arm resonators (P11-P12); and
at least one pair of the second supports (left and right side Pg1 supports sandwich both P11 and S11) sandwich one of the parallel arm resonators (P11).
As per claim 9:
Hatakeyama et al. discloses in Figs. 1-3:
at least one pair of the second supports (Fig. 3 shows the second supports each as a Pg1 with bump sandwiching a plurality of resonators) sandwich the resonators (S12, P12, P11) closest to an input terminal (transmit pad 1 pt1) to which a signal is inputted ([0060]).
As per claim 10:
Hatakeyama et al. discloses in Figs. 1-3:
an axis passing through a center of the intersecting region of the resonators in the electrode facing direction and extending in a direction orthogonal to the electrode facing direction is a symmetric axis, the at least one pair of second supports sandwiching the one of the resonators are not line- symmetric (as seen in Fig. 3, wherein an axis in the described center of either P11 or S11 results in the sandwiching supports not being line symmetric).
As per claim 11:
Hatakeyama et al. discloses in Figs. 1-3:
a wiring electrode is provided between at least one of the second supports and at least one of the resonators (wiring lines are shown between P11 and the left side Pg1, and P12 and the right side Pg1, as seen in Fig. 3).
As per claim 16:
Hatakeyama et al. discloses in Figs. 1-3:
the cover includes a cover body (substrate 20) including a semiconductor as a main component ([0026]).
As per claim 17:
Hatakeyama et al. discloses in Figs. 1-3:
the piezoelectric layer is a lithium tantalate layer or a lithium niobate layer ([0023]).
As per claim 18:
Hatakeyama et al. discloses in Figs. 1-3:
the functional electrodes each include first and second busbars facing each other, one or more first electrode fingers connected to the first busbar, and one or more second electrode fingers connected to the second busbar (as seen in Fig. 2).
As per claim 19:
Hatakeyama et al. discloses in Figs. 1-3:
the functional electrodes are each an IDT electrode (15) including a plurality of the first electrode fingers and a plurality of the second electrode fingers (as seen in Fig. 2).
Claim(s) 12-15 & 20-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the resultant combination of Hatakeyama et al. (US PGPub 20170346463) in view of Matsuda (US PGpub 20100148887), as applied to claims 1, 18, & 19 above, and further in view of Plesski (US PGPub 20190386633), all references of record.
The resultant combination discloses the acoustic wave device of claims 1, 18 & 19, as rejected above.
As per claim 12:
The resultant combination discloses in Hatakeyama et al. Figs. 1-3:
a second cavity portion (air gap 26) surrounded by the piezoelectric substrate, the first support and the cover is provided.
The resultant combination does not disclose:
at least one first cavity portion is provided in the support and at least partially overlaps the functional electrodes in plan view;
and when a dimension along a direction in which the piezoelectric substrate, the first support and the cover are laminated is a height, a height of the first cavity portion is greater than a height of the second cavity portion.
Plesski discloses in Figs. 1-4:
Acoustic resonators (XBAR 100 [0024]) wherein a plate wave (bulk shear mode, [0030]) is excited in a piezoelectric substrate using an interdigitated transducer electrode (IDT 130), wherein each resonator comprises at least one first cavity portion (cavity 140) provided in a support (cavity is a recess provided in substrate 120, [0026]) and at least partially overlaps functional electrodes (IDT 130) in plan view (as seen by cavity perimeter 145 in Fig. 1).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to replace the acoustic wave elements of The resultant combination for the acoustic resonators of Plesski to provide the benefit of providing suitability for filters above 3 GHz, as taught by Plesski ([0024]).
As a consequence of the combination, at least one first cavity portion is provided in the support and at least partially overlaps the functional electrodes in plan view.
It would be further obvious for when a dimension along a direction in which the piezoelectric substrate, the first support and the cover are laminated is a height, a height of the first cavity portion is greater than a height of the second cavity portion as the height of the second cavity may be measured from the upper surface of the IDT to the bottom of the shield electrode, and further reduced due to additional height of protective film 13 as per Hatakeyama or front side dielectrics as per Plesski ([0037]), providing the further benefit of reducing the overall height of the filter package as is well understood in the art, and further as one of a limited number of options (greater than, equal than, less than).
As per claim 13:
The resultant combination discloses in Hatakeyama et al. Figs. 1-3:
a second cavity portion (air gap 26) surrounded by the piezoelectric substrate, the first support and the cover is provided.
The resultant combination does not disclose:
at least one first cavity portion is provided in the support and at least partially overlaps the functional electrodes in plan view;
and when a dimension along a direction in which the piezoelectric substrate, the first support and the cover are laminated is a height, a height of the second cavity portion is greater than a height of the first cavity portion.
Plesski discloses in Figs. 1-4:
Acoustic resonators (XBAR 100 [0024]) wherein a plate wave (bulk shear mode, [0030]) is excited in a piezoelectric substrate using an interdigitated transducer electrode (IDT 130), wherein each resonator comprises at least one first cavity portion (cavity 140) provided in a support (cavity is a recess provided in substrate 120, [0026]) and at least partially overlaps functional electrodes (IDT 130) in plan view (as seen by cavity perimeter 145 in Fig. 1).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to replace the acoustic wave elements of the resultant combination for the acoustic resonators of Plesski to provide the benefit of providing suitability for filters above 3 GHz, as taught by Plesski ([0024]).
As a consequence of the combination, at least one first cavity portion is provided in the support and at least partially overlaps the functional electrodes in plan view.
It would be further obvious for when a dimension along a direction in which the piezoelectric substrate, the first support and the cover are laminated is a height, a height of the second cavity portion is greater than a height of the first cavity portion to provide for the space used by the piezoelectric material, the IDTs, and the shield electrode and further as one of a limited number of options (greater than, equal than, less than).
As per claim 14:
The resultant combination does not disclose:
the support includes an intermediate layer between the support substrate and the piezoelectric layer.
Plesski discloses in Figs. 1-4:
Acoustic resonators (XBAR 100 [0024]) wherein a plate wave (bulk shear mode, [0030]) is excited in a piezoelectric substrate using an interdigitated transducer electrode (IDT 130), wherein each resonator comprises at least one first cavity portion (cavity 140) provided in a support (cavity is a recess provided in substrate 120, [0026]) and at least partially overlaps functional electrodes (IDT 130) in plan view (as seen by cavity perimeter 145 in Fig. 1), and the support includes an intermediate layer between the support substrate and the piezoelectric layer ([0027]).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to replace the acoustic wave elements of the resultant combination for the acoustic resonators of Plesski to provide the benefit of providing suitability for filters above 3 GHz, as taught by Plesski ([0024]).
As a consequence of the combination, the support includes an intermediate layer between the support substrate and the piezoelectric layer.
As per claim 15:
The resultant combination does not disclose:
the support includes an intermediate layer provided between the support substrate and the piezoelectric layer, and the first cavity portion is at least partially provided in the intermediate layer.
Plesski discloses in Figs. 1-4:
the support includes an intermediate layer between a support substrate (120) and a piezoelectric layer (110) ([0027]), and the first cavity portion is at least partially provided in the intermediate layer (intermediate layer may be applied to the bonding surface of the substrate, thus including the cavity, [0061]).
As a consequence of the combination, the support includes an intermediate layer provided between the support substrate and the piezoelectric layer, and the first cavity portion is at least partially provided in the intermediate layer.
As per claim 20:
The resultant combination does not disclose:
the acoustic wave device is structured to generate a plate wave.
Plesski discloses in Figs. 1-4:
Acoustic resonators (XBAR 100 [0024]) wherein a plate wave (bulk shear mode, [0030]) is excited in a piezoelectric substrate using an interdigitated transducer electrode (IDT 130).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to replace the acoustic wave elements of The resultant combination for the acoustic resonators of Plesski to provide the benefit of providing suitability for filters above 3 GHz, as taught by Plesski ([0024]).
As a consequence of the combination, the acoustic wave device is structured to generate a plate wave.
As per claim 21:
The resultant combination does not disclose:
the acoustic wave device is structured to generate a bulk wave in a thickness shear mode.
Plesski discloses in Figs. 1-4:
Acoustic resonators (XBAR 100 [0024]) wherein a thickness shear mode (bulk shear mode, [0030,0042] Fig. 4) is excited in a piezoelectric substrate using an interdigitated transducer electrode (IDT 130).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to replace the acoustic wave elements of The resultant combination for the acoustic resonators of Plesski to provide the benefit of providing suitability for filters above 3 GHz, as taught by Plesski ([0024]).
As a consequence of the combination, the acoustic wave device is structured to generate a bulk wave in a thickness shear mode.
As per claim 22:
The resultant combination does not disclose:
d/p is equal to or less than about 0.5, where d is a thickness of the piezoelectric layer, and p is an electrode finger center- to-center distance between the first and second electrode fingers adjacent to each other.
Plesski discloses in Figs. 1-4:
Acoustic resonators (XBAR 100 [0024]) wherein a thickness shear mode (bulk shear mode, [0030,0042] Fig. 4) is excited in a piezoelectric substrate using an interdigitated transducer electrode (IDT 130), and d/p is equal to or less than about 0.5, where d is a thickness of the piezoelectric layer, and p is an electrode finger center-to-center distance between the first and second electrode fingers adjacent to each other ([0035]).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to replace the acoustic wave elements of The resultant combination for the acoustic resonators of Plesski to provide the benefit of providing suitability for filters above 3 GHz, as taught by Plesski ([0024]).
As a consequence of the combination, the acoustic wave device is structured to have d/p is equal to or less than about 0.5, where d is a thickness of the piezoelectric layer, and p is an electrode finger center- to-center distance between the first and second electrode fingers adjacent to each other.
As per claim 23:
The resultant combination does not disclose:
d/p is equal to or less than about 0.24.
Plesski discloses in Figs. 1-4:
Acoustic resonators (XBAR 100 [0024]) wherein a thickness shear mode (bulk shear mode, [0030,0042] Fig. 4) is excited in a piezoelectric substrate using an interdigitated transducer electrode (IDT 130), and d/p is equal to or less than about 0.24, where d is a thickness of the piezoelectric layer, and p is an electrode finger center-to-center distance between the first and second electrode fingers adjacent to each other ([0035]).
As a consequence of the combination of claim 22, the acoustic wave device is structured to have d/p is equal to or less than about 0.24, where d is a thickness of the piezoelectric layer, and p is an electrode finger center- to-center distance between the first and second electrode fingers adjacent to each other.
As per claim 24:
The resultant combination does not disclose:
MR ≤ about 1.75(d/p) + 0.075 is satisfied, where a region in which the first and second electrode fingers adjacent to each other overlap each other when viewed from the electrode facing direction is an excitation region; and
MR is a metallization ratio of the one or more first electrode fingers and the one or more second electrode fingers relative to the excitation region.
Plesski discloses in Figs. 1-4:
Acoustic resonators (XBAR 100 [0024]) wherein a thickness shear mode (bulk shear mode, [0030,0042] Fig. 4) is excited in a piezoelectric substrate using an interdigitated transducer electrode (IDT 130), wherein MR ≤ about 1.75(d/p) + 0.075 is satisfied, where a region in which the first and second electrode fingers adjacent to each other overlap each other when viewed from the electrode facing direction is an excitation region; and MR is a metallization ratio of the one or more first electrode fingers and the one or more second electrode fingers relative to the excitation region (metallization ratio being the ratio of width to pitch, wherein the pitch is 2-20 times the width of the fingers, and pitch is 2-20 times the thickness of the piezoelectric, thus meeting the stated equation within the described ranges [0035]).
As a consequence of the combination of claim 22, the acoustic wave device is structured such that MR ≤ about 1.75(d/p) + 0.075 is satisfied, where a region in which the first and second electrode fingers 42 adjacent to each other overlap each other when viewed from the electrode facing direction is an excitation region; and MR is a metallization ratio of the one or more first electrode fingers and the one or more second electrode fingers relative to the excitation region.
As per claim 25:
The resultant combination discloses in Hatakeyama et al. Figs. 1-3:
the piezoelectric layer is a lithium tantalate layer or a lithium niobate layer ([0023]).
The resultant combination does not disclose:
Euler angles (φ,θ,ψ) of lithium niobate or lithium tantalate of the piezoelectric layer are within a range defined by Expression (1), Expression (2) or Expression (3), see the claim sheet of 09/28/2023 for the individual expressions.
Plesski discloses in Figs. 1-4:
Acoustic resonators (XBAR 100 [0024]) wherein a thickness shear mode (bulk shear mode, [0030,0042] Fig. 4) is excited in a piezoelectric substrate using an interdigitated transducer electrode (IDT 130), wherein
the piezoelectric layer is a lithium tantalate layer or a lithium niobate layer ([0032]); and
Euler angles (φ,θ,ψ) of lithium niobate or lithium tantalate of the piezoelectric layer are within a range defined by Expression (1), Expression (2) or Expression (3) ([0052]), see the claim sheet of 09/28/2023 for the individual expressions.
As a consequence of the combination of claim 22, the acoustic wave device is structured such that Euler angles (φ,θ,ψ) of lithium niobate or lithium tantalate of the piezoelectric layer are within a range defined by Expression (1), Expression (2) or Expression (3), see the claim sheet of 09/28/2023 for the individual expressions.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see applicant’s remarks, filed 06/23/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under Hatakeyama or Iwabuchi in view of Takano have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Hatakeyama in view of Matsuda.
With regard to the interview of 06/16/2026, the examiner notes that the examiner agreed that the amendment appeared to overcome the prior art of record with regard to claim 1, and has appropriately withdrawn the rejection of claim 1. The examiner further notes that the interview agenda only discussed claim 1 and the references of Hatakyama and Iwabuchi in view of Takano, with the applicant not presenting an argument in regards to Matsuda. The examiner did mention Matsuda as a potential future reference, which was not further entered into the record due to already being in the record as per claim 3 of the previous rejection.
The applicant further presents anticipatory arguments regarding a rejection with the combination of Matsuda, but the examiner respectfully disagrees. The rejection of claim 1 over Hatakeyama in view of Matsuda details the limitations of claim 1 found in each reference, as provides and provides an appropriate conclusion of obviousness based on reasoning provided in Matsuda, such that applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMUEL S OUTTEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7123. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:30AM-6:00PM.
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, Andrea Lindgren Baltzell can be reached at (571) 272-1988. 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.
/Samuel S Outten/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2843
Prosecution Insights