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 .
Elections/Restrictions
2. This office action is a response to Applicant's election filed on 04/23/2026 with traverse of Group I, claims 1-10 for further examination. Claims 11-12 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
3. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 04/23/2026. Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-10, first apparatus specie.
The traversal is on the grounds that all of the claims are properly presented in the same application; undue diverse searching should not be required; and all claims should be examined together. This is not found persuasive because regardless of the search method, inventions with different limitations will require different search strategies, and the times to consider the relevancy of collective references would increase proportionality as well.
Thus a prior art that satisfies the limitations of Group I would not necessarily satisfy the limitations of Groups II-III, a prior art that satisfies the limitations of Group II would not necessarily satisfy the limitations of Groups I & III and a prior art that satisfies the limitations of Group III would not necessarily satisfy the limitations of Groups I-II as they all contain different combinations of structural components with different functional limitations (see bolded text indicating different structural components with different functional limitations in each of Groups I-III). That is, to further demonstrate independent inventions with a serious search burden, Group I requires the electrical equipment box is disposed in front of the liquid feeder in a depth direction of the carrier block, and a mechanism is provided to pivot the electrical equipment box forward in the depth direction of the carrier block, features not required in Groups II-III. Group II requires the electrical equipment box is disposed above the liquid feeder, and a rail is provided to slide move the electrical equipment box forward in a depth direction of the carrier block, features not required in Groups I & III. Group III requires a rail is provided to slide move the liquid feeding unit forward in a depth direction of the carrier block, features not required in Groups I-II.
Even though a few U.S. Patents disclosing a substrate processing apparatus may have some of the common features of all species, it is recognized that the electrical equipment box is disposed in front of the liquid feeder in a depth direction of the carrier block, and a mechanism is provided to pivot the electrical equipment box forward in the depth direction of the carrier block; the electrical equipment box is disposed above the liquid feeder, and a rail is provided to slide move the electrical equipment box forward in a depth direction of the carrier block; and a rail is provided to slide move the liquid feeding unit forward in a depth direction of the carrier block are characterized as separate and distinct subject for inventive efforts. Thus, regardless of the search method, inventions with different limitations will require different search strategies, and the times to consider the relevancy of collective references would increase proportionality as well and it is necessary to search for one of the inventions in a manner that is not likely to result in finding art pertinent to the other invention. The findings of separate and distinct structural limitations and configurations would justify a serious burden on the examiner if restriction is not required. See MPEP 808.02.
Thus far, applicant has not proved or provided convincing argument that there is no material difference between the three species currently on the record. Therefore, the requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Priority
4. Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
5. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/03/2023 is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
6. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “liquid feeding unit” in claim 10; “mechanism… to pivot” in claim 10.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner' s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
7. 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.
8. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
As regards to claim 6, lines 3-4 recite “of the interface block is” which is unclear as recited what “is” is referencing or what limitation is being referred to. For examination purposes, examiner is interpreting “of the interface block is” as “of the interface block”. To correct this problem, amend claim 6 to recite “of the interface block”.
Claim Rejections
9. 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 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.
10. 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
11. 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 of this title, 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.
12. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
13. Claims 1-10 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakashima (US 2020/0064741 A1) hereinafter Nakashima (the terminology of the claims in the application is used, but the references of Nakashima are included between parentheses).
As regards to claim 1, Nakashima discloses a substrate processing apparatus (abs; fig 1-22), comprising:
a carrier block (D1) into which a carrier storing a substrate (W) is carried ([0021]; [0024]-[0026]; [0028]; [0054]-[0055]; [0057]; [0066]; [0078]; [0097]; [0099]; [0100]; [0110]; [0122]-[0123]; [0129]; fig 1-3, 17-19);
a processing block (D3) including a liquid processing module (33) that supplies a processing liquid to the substrate (W) transferred from the carrier block (D1), thereby performing a liquid processing ([0018]; [0021]; [0024]-[0026]; [0028]; [0054]-[0055]; [0057]; [0059]; [0065]-[0067]; [0078]; [0080]; [0092]-[0094]; [0097]; [0099]; [0100]; [0110]; [0112]; [0122]-[0123]; [0129]; fig 1-3, 9, 17-19; clm 1); and
an interface block (D2/D2f+D4) to which the substrate (W) is transferred from the processing block (D3), wherein the interface block (D2/D2f+D4) includes a liquid storage (50) in which a bottle storing the processing liquid is disposed ([0018]; [0021]; [0024]-[0026]; [0028]; [0054]-[0055]; [0057]; [0059]; [0065]-[0077]; [0079]-[0089]; [0091]-[0099]; [0100]-[0103]; [0110]-[0126]; [0129]-[0142]; fig 1-3, 9, 17-19; clm 1);
the carrier block (D1) includes a liquid feeder (681+682) that feeds the processing liquid supplied from the liquid storage (50), to the liquid processing module (33) ([0018]; [0021]; [0024]-[0026]; [0028]; [0054]-[0055]; [0057]; [0059]; [0065]-[0077]; [0079]-[0089]; [0091]-[0099]; [0100]-[0103]; [0110]-[0126]; [0129]-[0142]; fig 1-3, 9, 17-19; clm 1), and
the liquid feeder (681+682) includes the processing liquid supplied from the liquid storage (50), and a first pump (681) that pumps the processing liquid toward the liquid processing module (33) ([0018]; [0021]; [0024]-[0026]; [0028]; [0054]-[0055]; [0057]; [0059]; [0065]-[0077]; [0079]-[0089]; [0091]-[0099]; [0100]-[0103]; [0110]-[0126]; [0129]-[0142]; fig 1-3, 9, 17-19; clm 1), however Nakashima does not disclose a filter that filters the processing liquid supplied from the liquid storage. However, Nakashima does disclose a filter (632) provided on the inert gas supply line (631) and configured to remove particles in an inert gas to be supplied to a container ([0087]; [0090]; fig 7-8). Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a filter that filters the processing liquid supplied from the liquid storage in the apparatus of Nakashima, because Nakashima teaches the use of a filter provided on the a fluid supply line and configured to remove particles in a fluid to be supplied to a container, wherein both filters would have the purpose to filter fluids to remove particles in a fluid to be supplied to a container ([0087]; [0090]).
As regards to claim 2, Nakashima discloses the apparatus (abs; fig 1-22), wherein the liquid storage (50) is provided in a bottle cart (69) drawable out from the interface block (D2/D2f+D4) ([0018]; [0021]; [0024]-[0026]; [0028]; [0054]-[0055]; [0057]; [0059]; [0065]-[0077]; [0079]-[0089]; [0091]-[0099]; [0100]-[0103]; [0110]-[0126]; [0129]-[0142]; fig 1-3, 9, 17-19; clm 1).
As regards to claim 3, Nakashima discloses the apparatus (abs; fig 1-22), wherein the liquid storage (50) is disposed at one end or both ends (fig 1-3, 9, 17-19) of the interface block (D2/D2f+D4) in a depth direction (fig 1-3, 9, 17-19) of the interface block (D2/D2f+D4) ([0018]; [0021]; [0024]-[0026]; [0028]; [0054]-[0055]; [0057]; [0059]; [0065]-[0077]; [0079]-[0089]; [0091]-[0099]; [0100]-[0103]; [0110]-[0126]; [0129]-[0142]; fig 1-3, 9, 17-19; clm 1).
As regards to claim 4, Nakashima discloses the apparatus (abs; fig 1-22), wherein a transfer region (see fig 2) is provided inside the interface block (D2/D2f+D4) to transfer the substrate (W), and an entry/exit door (641) is provided between the transfer region (see fig 2) and the bottle cart (69), to allow an operator to enter and exit the transfer region (see fig 2) ([0018]; [0021]; [0024]-[0026]; [0028]; [0054]-[0055]; [0057]; [0059]; [0065]-[0077]; [0079]-[0089]; [0091]-[0099]; [0100]-[0103]; [0110]-[0126]; [0129]-[0142]; fig 1-3, 9, 17-19; clm 1).
Regarding claim 5, the recitation “to perform a peripheral exposure processing or a post-exposure cleaning processing on the substrate”, this recitation is a statement of process expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and intended use which does not patentably distinguish over Nakashima since Nakashima meets all the structural elements of the claim and is capable of performing a peripheral exposure processing or a post-exposure cleaning processing on the substrate, if so desired, and does not add structure to the claim. Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and intended use of a known apparatus does not give it patentable weight. See In re Thuau, 57 USPQ 324, CCPA 979 135 F2d 344, 1943. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus shows all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). It is additionally noted that it is well settled that the intended use of a claimed apparatus is not germane to the issue of the patentability of the claimed structure. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the claimed use then it meets the claim. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235, 238 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 459 (CCPA 1963). Furthermore, “expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666,667 (Bd. App. 1969). Thus, the “inclusion of material or article worked upon does not impart patentability to the claims.” In re Young, 75 F.2d 966, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 (USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)). Therefore, Examiner is disregarding any structural limitations to the apparatus based on process expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and the process intended to be used with the apparatus. See MPEP 2114 & 2115.
As regards to claim 5, Nakashima discloses the apparatus (abs; fig 1-22), wherein a processing module (see fig 2, 17, 19) is disposed above (see fig 2, 17, 19) the liquid storage (50), capable of performing a peripheral exposure processing or a post-exposure cleaning processing on the substrate (W) ([0018]; [0021]; [0024]-[0026]; [0028]; [0054]-[0055]; [0057]; [0059]; [0065]-[0077]; [0079]-[0089]; [0091]-[0099]; [0100]-[0103]; [0110]-[0126]; [0129]-[0142]; fig 1-3, 9, 17-19; clm 1).
As regards to claim 6, Nakashima discloses the apparatus (abs; fig 1-22), wherein a rear end of the bottle cart (69) in the depth direction (see fig 2, 17, 19) of the interface block (D2/D2f+D4) is positioned closer to a front side than a rear end (see fig 2, 17, 19) of the processing module (see fig 2, 17, 19) in the depth direction (see fig 2, 17, 19) of the interface block (D2/D2f+D4) ([0018]; [0021]; [0024]-[0026]; [0028]; [0054]-[0055]; [0057]; [0059]; [0065]-[0077]; [0079]-[0089]; [0091]-[0099]; [0100]-[0103]; [0110]-[0126]; [0129]-[0142]; fig 1-3, 9, 17-19; clm 1).
As regards to claim 7, Nakashima discloses the apparatus (abs; fig 1-22), further comprising: a controller (8) configured to control an operation of supplying the processing liquid from the liquid storage (50) to the liquid feeder (681+682), wherein the bottle cart (69) includes a second pump (681) that pumps the processing liquid from the liquid storage (50) toward the liquid feeder (681+682), a cover body (6) that covers a region (see fig 2-10) where the second pump (681) is stored, and a detector ([0112]-[0116]) that detects a mounted state (whether or not there is a completely used chemical liquid container) of the cover body (6), and the controller (8) is configured to, when the detector detects that the cover body (6) is in a non-mounted state (whether or not there is a completely used chemical liquid container), stop supplying of the processing liquid ([0018]; [0021]; [0024]-[0026]; [0028]; [0054]-[0055]; [0057]; [0059]; [0065]-[0077]; [0079]-[0089]; [0091]-[0099]; [0100]-[0103]; [0110]-[0126]; [0129]-[0142]; fig 1-3, 9, 17-19; clm 1).
As regards to claim 8, Nakashima discloses the apparatus (abs; fig 1-22), wherein above (see fig 2-4, 17-19) the bottle cart (69) including the liquid storage (50), another liquid storage (50) is provided (see fig 2-4, 17-19) ([0018]; [0021]; [0024]-[0026]; [0028]; [0054]-[0055]; [0057]; [0059]; [0065]-[0077]; [0079]-[0089]; [0091]-[0099]; [0100]-[0103]; [0110]-[0126]; [0129]-[0142]; fig 1-3, 9, 17-19; clm 1).
As regards to claim 9, Nakashima discloses the apparatus (abs; fig 1-22), wherein a plurality of liquid processing modules (33) and a plurality of liquid feeders (681+682) are provided (see fig 2-4, 9, 17-19), an ejector (336) is provided in each of the plurality of liquid processing module (33), and a pipe length (see fig 2-4, 9, 17-19) from the ejector (336) to the filter (see claim 1 above) on a supply path (see fig 2-4, 9, 17-19), through which a resist liquid is supplied to the ejector (336), is constant (depends on the particular placement of each filter in each supply path - before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to place each filter to have a constant pipe length since “the particular placement of structural components was held to be an obvious matter of design choice.” In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).) ([0018]; [0021]; [0024]-[0026]; [0028]; [0054]-[0055]; [0057]; [0059]; [0065]-[0077]; [0079]-[0089]; [0091]-[0099]; [0100]-[0103]; [0110]-[0126]; [0129]-[0142]; fig 1-3, 9, 17-19; clm 1).
Regarding claim 10, the recitation “storing electrical components for operating the liquid feeder”, this recitation is a statement of process expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and intended use which does not patentably distinguish over Nakashima since Nakashima meets all the structural elements of the claim and is capable of storing electrical components for operating the liquid feeder, if so desired, and does not add structure to the claim. Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and intended use of a known apparatus does not give it patentable weight. See In re Thuau, 57 USPQ 324, CCPA 979 135 F2d 344, 1943. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus shows all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). It is additionally noted that it is well settled that the intended use of a claimed apparatus is not germane to the issue of the patentability of the claimed structure. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the claimed use then it meets the claim. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235, 238 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 459 (CCPA 1963). Furthermore, “expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666,667 (Bd. App. 1969). Thus, the “inclusion of material or article worked upon does not impart patentability to the claims.” In re Young, 75 F.2d 966, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 (USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)). Therefore, Examiner is disregarding any structural limitations to the apparatus based on process expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and the process intended to be used with the apparatus. See MPEP 2114 & 2115.
As regards to claim 10, Nakashima discloses the apparatus (abs; fig 1-22), further comprising a liquid feeding unit (68+T1) including the liquid feeder (681+682), and an electrical equipment box (69+box enclosing 8) capable of storing electrical components for operating the liquid feeder (681+682), wherein in the liquid feeding unit (68+T1), the electrical equipment box (69+box enclosing 8) is disposed in front (see fig 2-4, 17-19) of the liquid feeder (681+682) in a depth direction (see fig 2-4, 17-19) of the carrier block (D1), and a mechanism is provided to pivot the electrical equipment box (69+box enclosing 8) forward (horizontally moved) in the depth direction (see fig 2-4, 17-19) of the carrier block (D1) ([0018]; [0021]; [0024]-[0026]; [0028]; [0054]-[0055]; [0057]; [0059]; [0065]-[0077]; [0079]-[0089]; [0091]-[0099]; [0100]-[0103]; [0110]-[0126]; [0129]-[0142]; fig 1-3, 9, 17-19; clm 1).
Conclusion
14. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: all references cited on the attached PTO-892 Notice of References Cited excluding the above relied upon references.
15. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jethro M Pence whose telephone number is (571)270-7423. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 8:00 A.M. - 6:30 P.M..
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, Dah-Wei D. Yuan can be reached on 571-272-1295. 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.
/Jethro M. Pence/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights