DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 5/30/24 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim(s) 11 and 16-18 is/are 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 11 recites the limitation “wherein the sonic energy has a frequency of about 20 kHz or more.” The metes and bounds of the claimed limitation can not be determined for the following reasons:
The term "about" is a relative term that renders the claim indefinite. It is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term “about” defines a target (20 kHz) and implicitly requires boundary different than the target beyond which one is not “about” the target any more. Neither the claims, nor the specification, defines this boundary. For example, it is unclear which values of the following list are close enough to 20 kHz to be “about 20 kHz” and which are not: 5 kHz, 10kHz, 12.5 kHz, 15 kHz, 17 kHz, 18.5 kHz, 19 kHz, 19.5 kHz, 19.8 kHz. Thus, determining whether one is infringing the limitation is subjective, rather than objective, and the claim is unclear.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “the workpiece comprises a plurality of first devices and a plurality of second devices directly bonded to the plurality of first devices”. The metes and bounds of the claimed limitation can not be determined for the following reasons: the instances of “a plurality of first devices” and “a plurality of second devices” in claim 16 overlap with the terms used in claim 1 of “a first device” and “a second device”. It is unclear how the “plurality of first devices” needs to relate to the “first device” and how the “plurality of second devices” needs to relate to the “second device”. For example, it is unclear if the “first device” needs to be among the “plurality of first devices”, if it needs to be separate from the plurality, or if they are unrelated.
Claims 17-18 depend from claim 16 and inherit its deficiencies.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102, some of which 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 6, and 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over US 2019/0363068 A1 (“Hotta”).
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Hotta, as evidenced by US 2022/0336405 A1 (“Liu”).
Hotta teaches, for example:
PNG
media_image1.png
165
348
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
246
339
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
377
340
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
359
338
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
178
346
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
261
305
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Hotta teaches and/or would have suggested as obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention:
1. A method of forming direct hybrid bonds between a first device and a second device (e.g. bonding one or more of “semiconductor elements” 12, 14, and/or 16 together, see e.g. Figs. 5, 6; or bonding 12, 14, and/or 16 to “first semiconductor wafer 60” before it is diced, see e.g. Figs. 16-18 and 26-28; or bonding semiconductor wafers 60 and 62 together, see e.g. Figs. 29-30), the method comprising:
(a) heating (see e.g. para 204-209, 214-217, 251-253, etc.) a workpiece (e.g. “stacked structure 15” that comprises 12 and 14, or the combination of e.g. 14 and 60 as shown in Figs. 16-18) to a temperature between 40 C and 150 C (see e.g. para 209, for heating to a temperature in the range of 100-400 degrees C, wherein the heating can be cone stepwise so would pass through the claimed range; or see e.g. para 251, for temporary bonding in the range of preferably 23-100 C), wherein the workpiece comprises the first device and the second device directly bonded to the first device through a dielectric material interface (bonding of the electrode material 30a to 30a, or 30b to 30b, and the insulating material 36 to 36 when e.g. 12 and 14 are bonded together as seen in e.g. Figs. 4-6; 36 is insulating and may be e.g. SiN or polyimide, see e.g. para 141; see also e.g. para 198 wherein SiO film interface between 14 and 60 is activated by plasma and then bonded); and
(b) directing sonic energy towards the heated workpiece (see e.g. para 214).
Regarding the 102 status of this rejection: The disclosure of Hotta is sufficient to read on the claimed invention, because the claimed invention does not specify how long the heating to 40-150 needs to occur, or at what temperature the sonic energy needs to be applied. Thus, the temporary bonding between 23 and 100 C that can be performed “while applying ultrasonic waves” would read thereon for the entire disclosed range of 40-100 C. The main bonding step would read thereon while ramping the temperature, over the range of 100-150C, and even though Hotta does not explicitly disclose at what temperatures the ultrasonic waves are applied (e.g. during ramping or only at the maximum temperature), the claim does not specify the heated workpiece’s temperature during the directing of sonic energy. Thus, the disclosure reads specifically as a 102 on the claims.
Regarding the 103 status of this rejection: Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention would have found it obvious to apply ultrasonic energy both during ramping of temperature and at the maximum temperature, and during temporary bonding and during main bonding, because the ultrasonic energy is an added energy that can decrease the required thermal energy for bonding.
It has been established that “the [obviousness] analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim” because the Office or “a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR Int’ Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). It is also well settled that a reference stands for all of the specific teachings thereof as well as the inferences one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably been expected to draw therefrom. See In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264-65 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Hotta teaches and/or would have suggested as obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention:
2. The method of claim 1, wherein:
the first device comprises a first substrate (e.g. 32 in e.g. device 12, which may be Si, SiC, Ge, GaAs, or GaN);
the second device comprises a second substrate (e.g. 32 in e.g. device 14, which may be Si, SiC, Ge, GaAs, or GaN); and
a CTE of the first substrate is 2X or greater than a CTE of the second substrate (there is no explicit disclosure for the various materials to be mixed, but one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention would have recognized that it would have been obvious to try one material from the disclosed list in one chip/wafer and a different material from the disclosed list in another chip/wafer; it is well-known that silicon has a CTE of about 2.6 * 10-6 /K, whereas Ge and GaAs have CTEs of about 5.7-5.8 * 10-6 /K, thus meeting the CTE requirement for these choices of materials; see for example para 8 of Liu).
It has been established that “the [obviousness] analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim” because the Office or “a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR Int’ Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). It is also well settled that a reference stands for all of the specific teachings thereof as well as the inferences one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably been expected to draw therefrom. See In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264-65 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
3. The method of claim 2, wherein:
the first substrate comprises crystalline silicon (e.g. 32 in e.g. device 12, which may be Si, SiC, Ge, GaAs, or GaN); and
the second substrate comprises a non-silicon semiconductor, a compound semiconductor, or a dielectric having a non-silicon semiconductor or a compound semiconductor formed thereon or bonded thereto (e.g. 32 in e.g. device 14, which may be Si, SiC, Ge, GaAs, or GaN) (there is no explicit disclosure for the various materials to be mixed, but one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention would have recognized that it would have been obvious to try one material from the disclosed list in one chip/wafer and a different material from the disclosed list in another chip/wafer).
It has been established that “the [obviousness] analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim” because the Office or “a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR Int’ Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). It is also well settled that a reference stands for all of the specific teachings thereof as well as the inferences one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably been expected to draw therefrom. See In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264-65 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
6. The method of claim 1, wherein: the workpiece comprises an at least partially solid material disposed over one or both of the first and second devices; and the sonic energy is transmitted to the first and second devices through the at least partially solid material (see e.g. Fig. 5, wherein the devices comprise solid material 36, over devices such as transistors in the substrates 32).
8. The method of claim 1, wherein the workpiece comprises: a plurality of first devices each comprising a portion of a first substrate; and a plurality of singulated second devices directly bonded to the plurality of first devices (see e.g. Figs. 4-5 and 16-18).
9. The method of claim 1, wherein the workpiece comprises: a plurality of first devices each comprising a portion of a first substrate; and a plurality of second devices directly bonded to the plurality of first devices, the plurality of second devices each comprising a portion of a second substrate (see e.g. Figs. 4-5 and 16-18).
10. The method of claim 1, wherein: the first and second devices each comprise metal features disposed in the dielectric material; and prior to (a), the metal features of the first device are in direct contact with the metal features of the second device or are separated from each other by about 2 nm or less (see e.g. Figs. 4-5, wherein 30b and 30a are flush to the top surface of 36, and then two such devices are directly bonded together).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Hotta in view of US 2022/0336405 A1 (“Liu”).
Hotta teaches claim 2, but does not explicitly teach wherein the first substrate comprises crystalline silicon and the second substrate comprises sapphire.
Liu teaches and/or would have suggested as obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention, in combination with Hotta wherein the first substrate comprises crystalline silicon and the second substrate comprises sapphire (see e.g. para 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the invention of Liu to the invention of Hotta. The motivation to do so is that the combination produces the predictable results of hybrid bonding devices of dissimilar CTE together (see e.g. para 8).
Claims 5 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Hotta in view of US 2022/0223494 A1 (“Lee 494”).
Re claim 5, Hotta teaches claim 2, but does not explicitly teach wherein the sonic energy is transmitted to the workpiece through a liquid having a boiling point greater than 100 C.
Lee 494 teaches and/or would have suggested as obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention, in combination with Hotta wherein the sonic energy is transmitted to the workpiece through a liquid having a boiling point greater than 100 C (see e.g. para 220, wherein the ultrasonic compression occurs at a temperature below the boiling point of the liquid medium 732).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the invention of Lee 494 to the invention of Hotta. The motivation to do so is that the combination produces the predictable results of using a liquid that will not boil, when the heating is done at temperatures in the portion of the claimed range of 100-150 C (see e.g. para 220).
It has been established that “the [obviousness] analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim” because the Office or “a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR Int’ Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). It is also well settled that a reference stands for all of the specific teachings thereof as well as the inferences one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably been expected to draw therefrom. See In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264-65 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Re claim 12, Hotta teaches claim 2, but does not explicitly teach wherein (b) comprises: generating ultrasonic vibrations using one or more transducers; and transmitting the ultrasonic vibrations through a liquid disposed between the workpiece and the one or more transducers.
Lee 494 teaches and/or would have suggested as obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention, in combination with Hotta wherein (b) comprises: generating ultrasonic vibrations using one or more transducers; and transmitting the ultrasonic vibrations through a liquid disposed between the workpiece and the one or more transducers (see e.g. para 220, wherein the ultrasonic compression occurs at a temperature below the boiling point of the liquid medium 732).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the invention of Lee 494 to the invention of Hotta. The motivation to do so is that the combination produces the predictable results of using a liquid that will not boil, when the heating is done at temperatures in the portion of the claimed range of 100-150 C (see e.g. para 220).
It has been established that “the [obviousness] analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim” because the Office or “a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR Int’ Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). It is also well settled that a reference stands for all of the specific teachings thereof as well as the inferences one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably been expected to draw therefrom. See In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264-65 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Hotta in view of US 2017/0186627 A1 (“Chylak”).
Re claim 7, Hotta teaches claim 1, but does not explicitly teach that the sonic energy is directed towards the first and second devices from a transducer assembly directly contacting the workpiece or one or more solid materials disposed in direct contact with the workpiece. Chylak teaches and/or would have suggested as obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention, in combination with Hotta that the sonic energy is directed towards the first and second devices from a transducer assembly directly contacting the workpiece or one or more solid materials disposed in direct contact with the workpiece (see e.g. Fig. 4A and corresponding text, wherein ultrasonic transducers for bonding comprise e.g. a holding portion 410 that directly contacts the semiconductor device 408).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the invention of Chylak to the invention of Hotta. The motivation to do so is that the combination produces the predictable results of allowing the ultrasonic transducer to hold the device by a vacuum (see e.g. para 44-45).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Hotta in view of US 2015/0270238 A1 (“Oshima”).
Re claim 11, Hotta teaches claim 1, but does not explicitly teach wherein the sonic energy has a frequency of about 20 kHz or more.
Oshima teaches and/or would have suggested as obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention, in combination with wherein the sonic energy has a frequency of about 20 kHz or more (see e.g. para 59, 50kHz or less).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the invention of Oshima to the invention of Hotta. The motivation to do so is that the combination produces the predictable results of using frequencies well known in the art to be able to bond metals together (see e.g. para 39).
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Hotta in view of Lee and US 2019/0371695 A1 (“Hatano”).
Re claims 13-14, Hotta and Lee teach and/or would have suggested as obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention of claim 12, but do not explicitly teach :
(claim 13) (c) concurrent with (b), moving the workpiece, the one or more transducers, or both to provide a relative scanning motion between the workpiece and the one or more transducers; or
(claim 14) (d) concurrently with (b), periodically moving the workpiece, the one or more transducers, or both to provide a relative stepping motion between the workpiece and the one or more transducers.
Hatano teaches and/or would have suggested as obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention, in combination with Hotta and Lee
(claim 13) (c) concurrent with (b), moving the workpiece, the one or more transducers, or both to provide a relative scanning motion between the workpiece and the one or more transducers and (claim 14) (d) concurrently with (b), periodically moving the workpiece, the one or more transducers, or both to provide a relative stepping motion between the workpiece and the one or more transducers (see e.g. Fig. 9A and para 175, wherein a probe 29 can be moved to “scan” the sample; any two locations of use of 29 would also mark a “step” between these locations).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the invention of Hatano to the invention of Hotta and Lee. The motivation to do so is that the combination produces the predictable results of allowing the probe to move and apply the ultrasound to different areas of the device.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Hotta in view of Lee and US 2018/0340858 A1 (“Jahanbin”).
Re claim 15, Hotta and Lee teaches and/or would have suggested as obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention claim 12, but do not explicitly teach
(e) moving the workpiece, the one or more transducers, or both; and
(f) changing one or more processing parameters based on a relative position of the workpiece and the one or more transducers,
wherein the one or more processing parameters determine an amount of sonic energy directed towards the workpiece.
Jahanbin teaches and/or would have suggested as obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention, in combination with Hotta and Lee
(e) moving the workpiece, the one or more transducers, or both; and
(f) changing one or more processing parameters based on a relative position of the workpiece and the one or more transducers,
wherein the one or more processing parameters determine an amount of sonic energy directed towards the workpiece (see e.g. Figs. 11-12B and para 75-87, wherein ultrasound waves are generated, measured, and based on the data it is determined whether there is damage or not, and if there is damage it can be repaired or replaced; the replacing or repairing would involve determining the amount of sonic energy, in the form of reapplying the energy after the bonding is complete and measured and determined to be deficient).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the invention of Jahanbin to the invention of Hotta and Lee. The motivation to do so is that the combination produces the predictable results of making corrections to the workpiece based on measured data to reduce the number of bonding defects (see e.g. para 9, 75-87).
It has been established that “the [obviousness] analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim” because the Office or “a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR Int’ Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). It is also well settled that a reference stands for all of the specific teachings thereof as well as the inferences one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably been expected to draw therefrom. See In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264-65 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Hotta in view of US 2018/0340858 A1 (“Jahanbin”).
Re claim 16-17, Hotta teaches claim 1, and further teaches or suggests wherein the workpiece comprises a plurality of first devices and a plurality of second devices directly bonded to the plurality of first devices (see e.g. Figs. 18 or 28), but does not explicitly teach or suggest:
(claim 16) wherein the method further comprises: (g) after (b), measuring one or more characteristics of the workpiece; (h) comparing the one or more characteristics to a process control limit; and (i) repeating (a) and (b) when the one or more characteristics are outside of the process control limit; or
(claim 17) wherein the one or more characteristics comprises bond strength and/or voiding between the plurality of first devices and the plurality of second devices;
Jahanbin teaches and/or would have suggested as obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention, in combination with Hotta:
(claim 16) (g) after (b), measuring one or more characteristics of the workpiece; (h) comparing the one or more characteristics to a process control limit (see e.g. para 11); and (i) repeating (a) and (b) when the one or more characteristics are outside of the process control limit (see e.g. Figs. 11-12B and para 75-87, wherein ultrasound waves are generated, measured, and based on the data it is determined whether there is damage or not, and if there is damage it can be repaired or replaced; the replacing or repairing would involve determining the amount of sonic energy, in the form of reapplying the energy after the bonding is complete and measured and determined to be deficient); and
(claim 17) wherein the one or more characteristics comprises bond strength and/or voiding between the plurality of first devices and the plurality of second devices (see e.g. para 9 “interfacial damages of hybrid structure”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the invention of Jahanbin to the invention of Hotta and Lee. The motivation to do so is that the combination produces the predictable results of making corrections to the workpiece based on measured data to reduce the number of bonding defects (see e.g. para 9, 75-87).
It has been established that “the [obviousness] analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim” because the Office or “a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR Int’ Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). It is also well settled that a reference stands for all of the specific teachings thereof as well as the inferences one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably been expected to draw therefrom. See In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264-65 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Hotta in view of US 2018/0340858 A1 (“Jahanbin”) and US 2020/0381316 a1 (“Lee 316”).
Re claim 18, Hotta and Jahanbin teaches and/or would have suggested as obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention claim 16, but do not further teach or suggest wherein the one or more characteristics comprise electrical properties of direct hybrid bonds formed between the plurality of first devices and the plurality of second devices.
Lee 316 teaches and/or would have suggested as obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention, in combination with Hotta and Jahanbin wherein the one or more characteristics comprise electrical properties of direct hybrid bonds formed between the plurality of first devices and the plurality of second devices (see e.g. para 107 and Figs. 9D-9E).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the invention of Lee 316 to the invention of Hotta and Jahanbin. The motivation to do so is that the combination produces the predictable results of determining if the bonded devices are accurately aligned and bonded properly to allow for correction processes to be done rapidly (see e.g. para 27-28, 107).
Conclusion
Conclusion / Prior Art
The prior art made of record, because it is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, but which is not relied upon specifically in the rejections above, is listed on the Notice of References Cited.
Conclusion / Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kevin Parendo who can be contacted by phone at (571) 270-5030 or by direct fax at (571) 270-6030. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 9 am to 4 pm ET.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Billy Kraig, can be reached at (571) 272-8660. The fax 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.
/Kevin Parendo/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896
Prosecution Insights