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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/5/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s argument A. (beginning on page 8) that the Office combined two separate embodiments of Nishimura and combined them without conducting any obviousness analysis; the Non-Final Rejection 11/17/2025 (on page 3) cites the embodiment illustrated in figures 1(a) and 1(b) of Nishimura for teaching every limitation of independent claim 1. Claim 1 includes a limitation “… such that the light beam reflects at least twice off the facing surface up-beam, with respect to the light path, of being incident on the portion of the surface of the sample”. Figure 1(b), which is “an expanded view of a portion of FIG. 1(a)” [col. 3; lines 60-62], illustrates that the light beam 8 reflects a first time off the surface 9 (in the circled potion, below):
PNG
media_image1.png
336
492
media_image1.png
Greyscale
And then figure 1(b) illustrates that light beam 8 reflects a second time off the surface 9 (in the circled potion, below):
PNG
media_image2.png
336
492
media_image2.png
Greyscale
And these portions of facing surface 9 are up-beam, with respect to the light path, of being incident on the portion of the surface of the sample 11 (as illustrated in figure 1(b)).
The Non-Final Rejection 11/17/2025 (on page 3) cites a portion of Nishimura (“The light 8 reflected by the reflecting mirror 9 passes through the light transmission substance 27, and then it is reflected again by the reflecting mirror 9 and irradiated onto the charged beam irradiation area” [col. 10; lines 24-31]) which corresponds to a description of figure 8, but clearly describes the illustrated situation of figure 1(b), with reference to both the light beam 8 and the reflecting mirror 9, as illustrated in the annotated copies of this figure, above.
Therefore, since all of the limitations of claim 1 are anticipated by the singular embodiment of figures 1(a) and 1(b), the Office does not rely upon any combination of embodiments, as suggested by Applicant.
Applicant does not provide additional arguments with respect to claims 2-8, 13, and 16-20 and no additional response is necessary.
Applicant’s amendment to claim 15 have overcome the §112 rejection of claim 15.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 13, 15, 17, 18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nishimura et al. U.S. Patent No. 6,476,387.
Regarding claim 1, Nishimura discloses a charged particle assessment system comprising: a sample holder 12 configured to hold a sample 11 having a surface (illustrated in figures 1(a) and 1(b)); a charged particle-optical device 16 configured to project a charged particle beam 2 towards the sample 11, the charged particle beam 2 having a field of view corresponding to a portion of the surface of the sample (as illustrated in figure 1(b)), the charged particle-optical device 16 having a facing surface 9 facing the sample holder 12; and a projection assembly 7 arranged to direct a light beam 8 along a light path such that the light beam reflects at least twice off the facing surface 9 up-beam, with respect to the light path, of being incident on the portion of the surface of the sample 11 (“The light 8 reflected by the reflecting mirror 9 passes through the light transmission substance 27, and then it is reflected again by the reflecting mirror 9 and irradiated onto the charged beam irradiation area” [col. 10; lines 24-31]).
Figure 1(b), which is “an expanded view of a portion of FIG. 1(a)” [col. 3; lines 60-62], illustrates that the light beam 8 reflects a first time off the surface 9 (in the circled potion, below):
PNG
media_image1.png
336
492
media_image1.png
Greyscale
And then figure 1(b) illustrates that light beam 8 reflects a second time off the surface 9 (in the circled potion, below):
PNG
media_image2.png
336
492
media_image2.png
Greyscale
And these portions of facing surface 9 are up-beam, with respect to the light path, of being incident on the portion of the surface of the sample 11 (as illustrated in figure 1(b)).
Regarding claim 2, Nishimura discloses that the light beam 8 when incident on the portion of the surface of the sample 11 at least covers the portion of the surface of the sample 11 corresponding to the field of view of the charged particle beam 2 (as illustrated in figure 1(b)).
Regarding claim 3, Nishimura discloses that the projection assembly 7 comprises: light source configured to emit the light beam (“The light 8 is emitted from the exciting light source 7 attached to the process chamber 15 and is irradiated on the sample in a uniform manner” [col. 4; lines 59-63]).
Regarding claim 4, Nishimura discloses that the projection assembly 7 comprises an optical system configured to focus the light beam to be narrower in a direction perpendicular to the facing surface than in a direction parallel to the facing surface and perpendicular to an axis of the light beam (figure 1(b) illustrates that the reflecting mirror causes a focusing effect such that the light beam 8 is narrower in a direction perpendicular to the facing surface than in a direction parallel to the facing surface and perpendicular to an axis of the light beam).
Regarding claim 5, Nishimura discloses the projection assembly is configured such that an axis angle of the light beam (illustrated in figure 1(b) as 90°) is greater than a focus angle of the light beam (illustrated in figure 1(b) as less than 45°), wherein the axis angle is defined between a surface of the sample holder facing the charged particle-optical device and the axis of the light beam immediately up-beam of its entry between the charged particle-optical device and the sample holder (as illustrated in figure 1(b)), and the focus angle is defined as a taper angle of the light beam caused by the optical system focusing the light beam (as illustrated in figure 1(b)).
Regarding claim 6, Nishimura discloses that the facing surface 9 comprises a surface topography so as to reflect the light beam 8 towards the sample 11 (“The light 8 reflected by the reflecting mirror 9 passes through the light transmission substance 27, and then it is reflected again by the reflecting mirror 9 and irradiated onto the charged beam irradiation area” [col. 10; lines 24-31]).
Regarding claim 8, Nishimura illustrates in figure 1(b) that the projection assembly is positioned relative to the charged particle-optical device and the sample holder so that the projection assembly directs the light beam such that its most down-beam, with respect to the light path, reflection off the facing surface up-beam of being incident on the portion of the surface of the sample is at a topographical region facing the portion.
Regarding claim 13, Nishimura discloses a detector 6 configured to detect signal particles emitted by the sample.
Regarding claim 15, Nishimura discloses the light beam comprises coherent light (“The light 8 is emitted from the exciting light source 7 attached to the process chamber 15 and is irradiated on the sample in a uniform manner” [col. 4; lines 59-62]).
Regarding claim 17, Nishimura illustrates in figure 1(a) that the facing surface 9 is a surface of the electron-optical device 16 most proximate to the sample holder 12.
Regarding claim 18, Nishimura discloses a method of operating a charged particle assessment system, comprising: holding a sample 11 in a sample holder 12; projecting a charged particle beam 2 towards the sample 11 using a charged particle- optical device 16, the charged particle beam 2 having a field of view corresponding to a portion of a surface of the sample 11 (as illustrated in figures 1(a) and 1(b)), the charged particle-optical device 16 having a facing surface 9 facing the sample 11; and directing a light beam 8 along a light path using a projection assembly 7 such that the light beam 8 reflects at least twice off the facing surface 9 up-beam, with respect to the light path, of being incident on the portion (“The light 8 reflected by the reflecting mirror 9 passes through the light transmission substance 27, and then it is reflected again by the reflecting mirror 9 and irradiated onto the charged beam irradiation area” [col. 10; lines 24-31]).
Regarding claim 20, Nishimura discloses a charged particle assessment system comprising: a sample holder 12 configured to hold a sample 11 having a surface; a charged particle-optical device 16 configured to project a charged particle beam 2 towards the sample 11, the charged particle beam 2 having a field of view corresponding to a portion of the surface of the sample 11 (as illustrated in figures 1(a) and 1(b)), the charged particle-optical device 16 having a facing surface 9 facing the sample holder 12; and a projection assembly 7 arranged to direct a light beam 8 along a light path between an optical system 27 and the sample holder 12 so as to be incident on the portion of the sample surface 11 and such that along the path the light beam reflects off the facing surface 9 at least twice (“The light 8 reflected by the reflecting mirror 9 passes through the light transmission substance 27, and then it is reflected again by the reflecting mirror 9 and irradiated onto the charged beam irradiation area” [col. 10; lines 24-31]).
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.
Claim(s) 7, 16, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishimura et al. U.S. Patent No. 6,476,387 in view of Goldenshtein U.S. PGPUB No. 2016/0336146.
Regarding claim 7, Nishimura discloses the claimed invention except that there is no explicit disclosure that the surface topography comprises sawtooth shaped elements angled to reflect the light beam to the portion of the surface of the sample.
Goldenshtein discloses a charged particle assessment system comprising: a sample holder 190 configured to hold a sample 90 having a surface (as illustrated in figure 1A); a charged particle-optical device 110 configured to project a charged particle beam 119 towards the sample 90, the charged particle beam 119 having a field of view corresponding to a portion of the surface of the sample 90 (as illustrated in figure 1A), the charged particle-optical device 110 having a facing surface (formed by the bottom surface 171, 115”, 115, 115’, as illustrated in the annotated copy of figure 3, below) facing the sample holder;
PNG
media_image3.png
472
690
media_image3.png
Greyscale
and a projection assembly 130 arranged to direct a light beam 139 along a light path such that the light beam reflects at least twice off the facing surface up-beam (as illustrated in figure 3), with respect to the light path, of being incident on the portion of the surface of the sample 90; wherein the facing surface comprises a surface topography so as to reflect the light beam towards the sample (as illustrated in figure 3); and the surface topography comprises sawtooth shaped elements 115” and 115’ angled to reflect the light beam to the portion of the surface of the sample.
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nishimura with the reflector geometry disclosed in Goldenshtein in order to adapt the guiding of a light beam to a sample surface region to different charged particle beam devices (Nishimura performs imaging using an ion beam column, while Goldenshtein performs imaging using an electron beam column) based on the specific geometry of the device, so as to ensure that the light beam is sufficiently guided to the sample surface while the projection optics are sufficiently removed from the path of the charged particle beam so that the charged particle beam is capable of reaching the sample unencumbered.
Regarding claim 16, Nishimura discloses the claimed invention except that there is no explicit disclosure that the facing surface is planar.
Goldenshtein discloses a charged particle assessment system comprising: a sample holder 190 configured to hold a sample 90 having a surface (as illustrated in figure 1A); a charged particle-optical device 110 configured to project a charged particle beam 119 towards the sample 90, the charged particle beam 119 having a field of view corresponding to a portion of the surface of the sample 90 (as illustrated in figure 1A), the charged particle-optical device 110 having a facing surface (formed by the bottom surface 171, 115”, 115, 115’, as illustrated in the annotated copy of figure 3, below) facing the sample holder;
PNG
media_image3.png
472
690
media_image3.png
Greyscale
and a projection assembly 130 arranged to direct a light beam 139 along a light path such that the light beam reflects at least twice off the facing surface up-beam (as illustrated in figure 3), with respect to the light path, of being incident on the portion of the surface of the sample 90; wherein the facing surface is planar (figure 3 illustrates that the facing surface comprises several planar surfaces).
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nishimura with the reflector geometry disclosed in Goldenshtein in order to adapt the guiding of a light beam to a sample surface region to different charged particle beam devices (Nishimura performs imaging using an ion beam column, while Goldenshtein performs imaging using an electron beam column) based on the specific geometry of the device, so as to ensure that the light beam is sufficiently guided to the sample surface while the projection optics are sufficiently removed from the path of the charged particle beam so that the charged particle beam is capable of reaching the sample unencumbered.
Regarding claim 19, Nishimura discloses the claimed invention except that there is no explicit disclosure that the directing comprises controlling the light beam by controlling the projection assembly.
Goldenshtein discloses a charged particle assessment system comprising: a sample holder 190 configured to hold a sample 90 having a surface (as illustrated in figure 1A); a charged particle-optical device 110 configured to project a charged particle beam 119 towards the sample 90, the charged particle beam 119 having a field of view corresponding to a portion of the surface of the sample 90 (as illustrated in figure 1A), the charged particle-optical device 110 having a facing surface (formed by the bottom surface 171, 115”, 115, 115’, as illustrated in the annotated copy of figure 3, below) facing the sample holder;
PNG
media_image3.png
472
690
media_image3.png
Greyscale
and a projection assembly 130 arranged to direct a light beam 139 along a light path such that the light beam reflects at least twice off the facing surface up-beam (as illustrated in figure 3), with respect to the light path, of being incident on the portion of the surface of the sample 90; wherein the light beam is controlled by the projection assembly (since the locations of the mirrors 115’ and 115” can be changed: “System 103 of FIG. 1E differs from system 102 of FIG. 1D by the location of the metal mirror 115′” [0095]).
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nishimura with the reflector geometry disclosed in Goldenshtein in order to adapt the guiding of a light beam to a sample surface region to different charged particle beam devices (Nishimura performs imaging using an ion beam column, while Goldenshtein performs imaging using an electron beam column) based on the specific geometry of the device, so as to ensure that the light beam is sufficiently guided to the sample surface while the projection optics are sufficiently removed from the path of the charged particle beam so that the charged particle beam is capable of reaching the sample unencumbered.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9, 10, 11, 12 and 14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 9; Nishimura et al. U.S. Patent No. 6,476,387 discloses a charged particle assessment system comprising: a sample holder 12 configured to hold a sample 11 having a surface (illustrated in figures 1(a) and 1(b)); a charged particle-optical device 16 configured to project a charged particle beam 2 towards the sample 11, the charged particle beam 2 having a field of view corresponding to a portion of the surface of the sample (as illustrated in figure 1(b)), the charged particle-optical device 16 having a facing surface 9 facing the sample holder 12; and a projection assembly 7 arranged to direct a light beam 8 along a light path such that the light beam reflects at least twice off the facing surface 9 up-beam, with respect to the light path, of being incident on the portion of the surface of the sample 11 (“The light 8 reflected by the reflecting mirror 9 passes through the light transmission substance 27, and then it is reflected again by the reflecting mirror 9 and irradiated onto the charged beam irradiation area” [col. 10; lines 24-31]). However, there is no explicit disclosure that the facing surface comprises a scattering region, a surface topography of the scattering region being configured to scatter the light beam when reflecting the light beam towards the sample.
Goldenshtein U.S. PGPUB No. 2016/0336146 discloses a charged particle assessment system comprising: a sample holder 190 configured to hold a sample 90 having a surface (as illustrated in figure 1A); a charged particle-optical device 110 configured to project a charged particle beam 119 towards the sample 90, the charged particle beam 119 having a field of view corresponding to a portion of the surface of the sample 90 (as illustrated in figure 1A), the charged particle-optical device 110 having a facing surface (formed by the bottom surface 171, 115”, 115, 115’, as illustrated figure 3) facing the sample holder; and a projection assembly 130 arranged to direct a light beam 139 along a light path such that the light beam reflects at least twice off the facing surface up-beam (as illustrated in figure 3), with respect to the light path, of being incident on the portion of the surface of the sample 90. However, there is no explicit disclosure that the facing surface comprises a scattering region, a surface topography of the scattering region being configured to scatter the light beam when reflecting the light beam towards the sample.
The prior art fails to teach or reasonably suggest, in combination with the other claim limitations, a charged particle assessment system comprising: a charged particle-optical device configured to project a charged particle beam towards a sample, the charged particle-optical device having a facing surface facing a sample holder; and a projection assembly arranged to direct a light beam along a light path such that the light beam reflects at least twice off the facing surface up-beam, with respect to the light path, of being incident on the portion of the surface of the sample; wherein the facing surface comprises a scattering region, a surface topography of the scattering region being configured to scatter the light beam when reflecting the light beam towards the sample.
Regarding claims 10 and 11; these claims are allowable at least for their dependence, either directly or indirectly, upon claim 9.
Regarding claim 12; Nishimura et al. U.S. Patent No. 6,476,387 discloses a charged particle assessment system comprising: a sample holder 12 configured to hold a sample 11 having a surface (illustrated in figures 1(a) and 1(b)); a charged particle-optical device 16 configured to project a charged particle beam 2 towards the sample 11, the charged particle beam 2 having a field of view corresponding to a portion of the surface of the sample (as illustrated in figure 1(b)), the charged particle-optical device 16 having a facing surface 9 facing the sample holder 12; and a projection assembly 7 arranged to direct a light beam 8 along a light path such that the light beam reflects at least twice off the facing surface 9 up-beam, with respect to the light path, of being incident on the portion of the surface of the sample 11 (“The light 8 reflected by the reflecting mirror 9 passes through the light transmission substance 27, and then it is reflected again by the reflecting mirror 9 and irradiated onto the charged beam irradiation area” [col. 10; lines 24-31]). However, there is no explicit disclosure that the projection assembly is arranged to direct the light beam such that the light beam reflects off the surface of the sample up-beam, with respect to the light path, of reflecting off the facing surface.
Goldenshtein U.S. PGPUB No. 2016/0336146 discloses a charged particle assessment system comprising: a sample holder 190 configured to hold a sample 90 having a surface (as illustrated in figure 1A); a charged particle-optical device 110 configured to project a charged particle beam 119 towards the sample 90, the charged particle beam 119 having a field of view corresponding to a portion of the surface of the sample 90 (as illustrated in figure 1A), the charged particle-optical device 110 having a facing surface (formed by the bottom surface 171, 115”, 115, 115’, as illustrated figure 3) facing the sample holder; and a projection assembly 130 arranged to direct a light beam 139 along a light path such that the light beam reflects at least twice off the facing surface up-beam (as illustrated in figure 3), with respect to the light path, of being incident on the portion of the surface of the sample 90. However, there is no explicit disclosure that the projection assembly is arranged to direct the light beam such that the light beam reflects off the surface of the sample up-beam, with respect to the light path, of reflecting off the facing surface.
Uto et al. U.S. PGPUB No. 2007/0057184 discloses a charged particle assessment system comprising: a sample holder 120 configured to hold a sample 100 having a surface; wherein a projection assembly arranged to direct a light beam along a light path such that the light beam reflects off the surface of the sample 100 up-beam, with respect to a light path, of reflecting off a facing surface 38a. However, the facing surface comprising reflectors 38a and 38b is part of a defect detection device 140, which is separate from a charged particle-optical device 110, and is therefore not a facing surface of a charged particle-optical device configured to project a charged particle beam towards a sample wherein the facing surface faces the sample holder, and Uto does not disclose directing a light beam along a light path such that the light beam reflects at least twice off such a facing surface up-beam, with respect to the light path, of being incident on a portion of the surface of the sample.
The prior art fails to teach or reasonably suggest, in combination with the other claim limitations, a charged particle assessment system comprising: a charged particle-optical device configured to project a charged particle beam towards a sample, the charged particle-optical device having a facing surface facing a sample holder; and a projection assembly arranged to direct a light beam along a light path such that the light beam reflects at least twice off the facing surface up-beam, with respect to the light path, of being incident on the portion of the surface of the sample; wherein the projection assembly is arranged to direct the light beam such that the light beam reflects off the surface of the sample up-beam, with respect to the light path, of reflecting off the facing surface.
Regarding claim 14; Nishimura et al. U.S. Patent No. 6,476,387 discloses a charged particle assessment system comprising: a sample holder 12 configured to hold a sample 11 having a surface (illustrated in figures 1(a) and 1(b)); a charged particle-optical device 16 configured to project a charged particle beam 2 towards the sample 11, the charged particle beam 2 having a field of view corresponding to a portion of the surface of the sample (as illustrated in figure 1(b)), the charged particle-optical device 16 having a facing surface 9 facing the sample holder 12; and a projection assembly 7 arranged to direct a light beam 8 along a light path such that the light beam reflects at least twice off the facing surface 9 up-beam, with respect to the light path, of being incident on the portion of the surface of the sample 11 (“The light 8 reflected by the reflecting mirror 9 passes through the light transmission substance 27, and then it is reflected again by the reflecting mirror 9 and irradiated onto the charged beam irradiation area” [col. 10; lines 24-31]). However, there is no explicit disclosure that the surface facing the sample holder is comprised at least in part by a detector.
Goldenshtein U.S. PGPUB No. 2016/0336146 discloses a charged particle assessment system comprising: a sample holder 190 configured to hold a sample 90 having a surface (as illustrated in figure 1A); a charged particle-optical device 110 configured to project a charged particle beam 119 towards the sample 90, the charged particle beam 119 having a field of view corresponding to a portion of the surface of the sample 90 (as illustrated in figure 1A), the charged particle-optical device 110 having a facing surface (formed by the bottom surface 171, 115”, 115, 115’, as illustrated figure 3) facing the sample holder; and a projection assembly 130 arranged to direct a light beam 139 along a light path such that the light beam reflects at least twice off the facing surface up-beam (as illustrated in figure 3), with respect to the light path, of being incident on the portion of the surface of the sample 90. However, there is no explicit disclosure that the surface facing the sample holder is comprised at least in part by a detector.
Sugimoto et al. U.S. Patent No. 5,877,498 discloses a charged particle assessment system comprising: a charged particle-optical device (illustrated in figure 11) configured to project a charged particle beam 1 towards a sample 2, the charged particle-optical device having a facing surface 10 facing a sample holder 28 (as illustrated in figure 7); wherein the surface facing the sample holder is comprised at least in part by the detector 10 (as illustrated in figure 7). However, there is no explicit disclosure that the facing surface comprises a detector and reflects a light beam at least twice off the facing surface up-beam, with respect to a light path, of being incident on a portion of the surface of the sample.
The prior art fails to teach or reasonably suggest, in combination with the other claim limitations, a charged particle assessment system comprising: a charged particle-optical device configured to project a charged particle beam towards a sample, the charged particle-optical device having a facing surface facing a sample holder; and a projection assembly arranged to direct a light beam along a light path such that the light beam reflects at least twice off the facing surface up-beam, with respect to the light path, of being incident on the portion of the surface of the sample; wherein the surface facing the sample holder is comprised at least in part by a detector configured to detect signal particles emitted by the sample.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JASON L MCCORMACK whose telephone number is (571)270-1489. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:00AM-5:00PM 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, Robert Kim can be reached at 571-272-2293. 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.
/JASON L MCCORMACK/Examiner, Art Unit 2881