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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s arguments filed on Feb. 20, 2026 have been fully considered.
Claim Interpretation
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.
Claim limitation(s) being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph is/are: means for determining a height value, means for measuring a reflectivity value and means for determining at least one optical property in claim 19.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 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 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter by reciting "a computer-readable medium". "Since claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, and the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer readable medium typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media, particularly when the specification is silent (see MPEP 2111.01). When the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim covers a signal per se, the claim must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter. Thus, a claim drawn to such a computer readable medium that covers both transitory and non-transitory embodiments may be amended to narrow the claim to
cover only statutory embodiments to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 by adding the limitation "non-transitory" to the claim."
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 1-25 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.
Regarding claims 1, 2, 18-21 and 25, the limitation, “optical lithographic inspection system” is unclear. The specification does not disclose the particulars of optical lithographic inspection system and how it is distinguished form other inspection system. In order to expedite prosecution, it is assumed that an optical lithographic inspection system is optical inspection system used in the semiconductor industry.
The remaining claims, not specifically mentioned, are rejected for incorporating the defects from the base claim by dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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) 1-4, 7-15, 17, 19, 20 and 21-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Seo et al. (Seo) (“Effects of Mask Absorber Structures on the Extreme Ultraviolet Lithography” in IDS).
Regarding claim 1, Seo discloses a method for determining at least one optical property of at least one deposition material used for a lithographic mask (Section II, EUVL mask blanks consist of a TaN absorber and 2.5 nm thick Ru capping layer), the method comprising the steps: a. determining a height value of the at least one deposition material deposited on a substrate for each of at least three different deposition heights of the at least one deposition material (Section II, patterned masks with different TaN thickness), wherein the at least three different deposition heights are in a nanoscale range (Section II, 40, 50, 60 and 80 nm); b. determining a reflectivity value of the at least one deposition material for each of the at least three different deposition heights, wherein determining the reflectivity values comprises using photons generated by an optical lithographic inspection system (Section II, Fig. 2(c), reflectivities at the 13.5 nm wavelength as a function of TaN absorber thickness, experimental data with an EUV coherent scattering microscope, Fig. 8, inherently EUV coherent scattering microscope uses photons); and c. determining the at least one optical property of the at least one deposition material by adapting simulated reflectivity data to the measured reflectivity values for each of the at least three different deposition heights (Fig. 2(c) simulation and measurement results as a function of TaN absorber thickness, Section II, simulation results calculated from both aerial and resist image profiles are compared to the experimental data with EUV coherent scattering microscope, Section III. A, the reflectivity measurements are fitted using a least-square procedure to obtain the index of refraction, measure reflectivities on the absorber area of the EUVL mask blanks at EUV wavelengths and compare them with simulation results).
Regarding claim 2, Seo discloses wherein determining the height values of the at least one deposition material comprises measuring the height values of the at least one deposition material, and/or wherein determining the reflectivity values of the at least one deposition material comprises measuring the reflectivity values of the at least one deposition material using photons generated by the optical lithographic inspection system (Section II, Fig. 2(c), reflectivities at the 13.5 nm wavelength as a function of TaN absorber thickness, experimental data with an EUV coherent scattering microscope, Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 3, Seo discloses wherein determining the at least one optical property comprises determining at least one of: a refractive index or an absorption constant (Section III, a refractive index).
Regarding claim 4, Seo discloses wherein the deposition material comprises an absorbing material (abstract, Section II, absorber).
Regarding claim 7, Seo discloses wherein an overall height difference of the at least three different deposition heights (selecting 40, 60 and 80 nm in Section II) is larger than a wavelength of the photons used for determining the reflectivity values (the wavelength of the photons is 13.5 nm (see Fig. 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 8, Seo discloses wherein a height difference between the at least three different deposition heights does not have a periodicity of a half wavelength or integer multiples thereof of the photons used for determining the reflectivity values (Section II, Fig. 1 and 2, wavelength of 13.5 nm, and height difference of 10 nm or 20 nm).
Regarding claim 9, Seo discloses wherein the photons comprise photons of the extreme ultraviolet wavelength range (EUVL discussed in abstract and Sections I-III).
Regarding claim 10, Seo discloses wherein the optical lithographic inspection system (Fig. 8) comprises at least one of: an inspection system for the lithographic mask, an aerial image metrology system, an optical scanning microscope, or a microscope that uses an actinic wavelength of the lithographic mask (Fig. 8, Section III. C).
Regarding claim 11, Seo discloses step of depositing the at least one deposition material for creating the at least three deposition heights on the substrate (Section II, TaN and Ru used as absorber and capping materials are deposited using the ion-beam deposition process).
Regarding claim 12, Seo discloses wherein adapting the simulated reflectivity data to the measured reflectivity values comprises varying the at least one optical property of the at least one deposition material and simulating the reflectivity data as a function of a deposition height (section III. B., reflectivity measurements are fitted by varying δ, refractive index, and β, absorption constant).
Regarding claim 13, Seo discloses wherein adapting the simulated reflectivity data to the measured reflectivity values comprises comparing simulated reflectivity data of various simulation runs having at least two different numerical values of the at least one optical property with the measured reflectivity values (Section II, varying δ, refractive index, and β, absorption constant, implies at least two different numerical values).
Regarding claim 14, Seo discloses wherein the step of determining the at least one optical property comprises extracting the at least one optical property from simulated reflectivity data having a best fit to the measured reflectivity values (Section II, measure reflectivities on the absorber area of the EUVL mask blanks at EUV wavelengths and compare them with simulation results).
Regarding claim 15, Seo discloses step of calculating a deposition height of the at least one deposition material based on the determined at least one optical property in order to correct at least one clear defect of the lithographic mask (Section I and Section II. B. shadowing effect corrected).
Regarding claim 17, Seo discloses in abstract a lithographic photomask for which the optical property of the absorber is determined (also see Section II).
According to MPEP 2113, product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps and once a product appearing to be substantially identical is found and a prior art rejection is made, the burden shifts to the applicant to show a nonobvious difference.
Regarding claim 19, Seo discloses an apparatus (abstract, Section I, Fig. 8) for determining at least one optical property of at least one deposition material for a lithographic mask (Section II, EUVL mask blanks consist of a TaN absorber and 2.5 nm thick Ru capping layer), comprising: a. means for determining a height value of the at least one deposition material deposited on a substrate for each of at least three different deposition heights, wherein the at least three different deposition heights are in a nanoscale range (Section II, patterned masks with different TaN thickness, Section II, 40, 50, 60 and 80 nm); b. means for measuring a reflectivity value of the at least one deposition material for each of the at least three different deposition heights, wherein measuring the reflectivity values comprises using photons generated by an optical lithographic inspection system (Section II, Fig. 2(c), reflectivities at the 13.5 nm wavelength as a function of TaN absorber thickness, experimental data with an EUV coherent scattering microscope, inherently EUV coherent scattering microscope uses photons, Fig. 8, inherently EUV coherent scattering microscope uses photons); and c. means for determining the at least one optical property of the at least one deposition material by adapting simulated reflectivity data to the measured reflectivity values for each of the at least three different deposition heights (Fig. 2(c) simulation and measurement results as a function of TaN absorber thickness, Section II, simulation results calculated from both aerial and resist image profiles are compared to the experimental data with EUV coherent scattering microscope, Section III. A, the reflectivity measurements are fitted using a least-square procedure to obtain the index of refraction, measure reflectivities on the absorber area of the EUVL mask blanks at EUV wavelengths and compare them with simulation results).
Regarding claim 20, Seo discloses the apparatus claim of 19 (see above), wherein the apparatus is operable to perform a. determining a height value of the at least one deposition material deposited on a substrate for each of at least three different deposition heights of the at least one deposition material (Section II, patterned masks with different TaN thickness), wherein the at least three different deposition heights are in a nanoscale range (Section II, 40, 50, 60 and 80 nm); b. determining a reflectivity value of the at least one deposition material for each of the at least three different deposition heights, wherein determining the reflectivity values comprises using photons generated by an optical lithographic inspection system (Section II, Fig. 2(c), reflectivities at the 13.5 nm wavelength as a function of TaN absorber thickness, experimental data with an EUV coherent scattering microscope, Fig. 8, inherently EUV coherent scattering microscope uses photons); and c. determining the at least one optical property of the at least one deposition material by adapting simulated reflectivity data to the measured reflectivity values for each of the at least three different deposition heights (Fig. 2(c) simulation and measurement results as a function of TaN absorber thickness, Section II, simulation results calculated from both aerial and resist image profiles are compared to the experimental data with EUV coherent scattering microscope, Section III. A, the reflectivity measurements are fitted using a least-square procedure to obtain the index of refraction, measure reflectivities on the absorber area of the EUVL mask blanks at EUV wavelengths and compare them with simulation results).
Regarding claim 21, Seo discloses a method comprising: determining at least one optical property of at least one deposition material used for a lithographic mask having a substrate (Section II, EUVL mask blanks consist of a TaN absorber and 2.5 nm thick Ru capping layer over bilayers of Mo/Si), wherein the determining the at least one optical property of the at least one deposition material comprises: receiving measured reflectivity values of at least one deposition material deposited on the substrate of the lithographic mask for at least three different deposition heights of the at least one deposition material, wherein the at least three different deposition heights are in a nanoscale range (Section II, Fig. 2(c), reflectivities at the 13.5 nm wavelength as a function of TaN absorber thickness, experimental data with an EUV coherent scattering microscope, Fig. 8, Section II, patterned masks with different TaN thickness, Section II, 40, 50, 60 and 80 nm), and the reflectivity values were measured using photons generated by an optical lithographic inspection system (Fig. 8, inherently EUV coherent scattering microscope uses photons); and adapting simulated reflectivity data to the measured reflectivity values for each of the at least three different deposition heights (Fig. 2(c) simulation and measurement results as a function of TaN absorber thickness, Section II, simulation results calculated from both aerial and resist image profiles are compared to the experimental data with EUV coherent scattering microscope, Section III. A, the reflectivity measurements are fitted using a least-square procedure to obtain the index of refraction, measure reflectivities on the absorber area of the EUVL mask blanks at EUV wavelengths and compare them with simulation results).
Regarding claim 22, Seo discloses determining the reflectivity value of the at least one deposition material for each of the at least three different deposition heights, including: generating the photons by using the optical lithographic inspection system, and using the photons to measure the reflectivity values (Section II, Fig. 2(c), reflectivities at the 13.5 nm wavelength as a function of TaN absorber thickness, Section III. C. Fig. 8, inherently EUV coherent scattering microscope uses photons and is used to measure reflectivity).
Regarding claim 23, Seo discloses determining the height value of the at least one deposition material deposited on the substrate for each of the at least three different deposition heights of the deposition material (Section II, patterned masks with different TaN thickness, Section II, 40, 50, 60 and 80 nm).
Regarding claim 24, Seo discloses wherein adapting the simulated reflectivity data to the measured reflectivity values comprises varying the at least one optical property of the at least one deposition material and simulating the reflectivity data as a function of a deposition height (Fig. 2(c) simulation and measurement results as a function of TaN absorber thickness, Section II, simulation results calculated from both aerial and resist image profiles are compared to the experimental data, Section III. B., reflectivity measurements are fitted by varying δ, refractive index, and β, absorption constant).
Regarding claim 25, Seo discloses a method for supporting determining at least one optical property of at least one deposition material used for a lithographic mask (Section II, EUVL mask blanks consist of a TaN absorber and 2.5 nm thick Ru capping layer over bilayers of Mo/Si), the method comprising: a. determining a reflectivity value of the at least one deposition material for each of at least three different deposition heights (Section II, Fig. 2(c), reflectivities at the 13.5 nm wavelength as a function of TaN absorber thickness, experimental data with an EUV coherent scattering microscope, Fig. 8, Section II, patterned masks with different TaN thickness), wherein determining the reflectivity values comprises using photons generated by an optical lithographic inspection system (Fig. 8, inherently EUV coherent scattering microscope uses photons), and wherein the at least three different deposition heights are in a nanoscale range (Section II, 40, 50, 60 and 80 nm); and b. providing the reflectivity value of the at least one deposition material for each of the at least three different deposition heights for determining the at least one optical property of the at least one deposition material (Fig. 2(c) simulation and measurement results as a function of TaN absorber thickness, Section II, simulation results calculated from both aerial and resist image profiles are compared to the experimental data with EUV coherent scattering microscope, Section III. A, the reflectivity measurements are fitted using a least-square procedure to obtain the index of refraction, measure reflectivities on the absorber area of the EUVL mask blanks at EUV wavelengths and compare them with simulation results).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 5, 6, 16 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seo et al. (Seo).
Regarding claim 5, Seo does not disclose wherein a top surface of the deposition heights of the at least one deposition material comprises an area of equal to or less than: 64 μm2, preferably 16 μm2, more preferred 4 μm2, even more preferred 1 μm2, and most preferred 0.5 μm2. Although Seo does not disclose the size or area of the top surface of the deposition heights, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the top surface of the deposition material having the claimed area since the changing of the size, where needed involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 6, Although Seo does not disclose wherein the at least three different deposition heights of the at least one deposition material comprises at least 10, preferably at least 20, more preferred at least 30, and most preferred at least 40 different deposition heights of the at least one deposition material, Seo discloses at least five different deposition heights in Fig. 2(c) and the simulation value shows a plurality of reflectivity values for a plurality of different heights. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to increase the number of different height measurements as claimed to obtain improved accuracy.
Regarding claim 16, although Seo does not disclose a computer program as claimed, Seo discloses the steps involving simulation clearly requires a computing apparatus and further, the steps of Seo is commonly implemented using a computer apparatus, and therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a non-transitory computer readable media storing a set of instructions executable on a programmable device to carry out the methods of Seo in order to improve efficiency.
Regarding claim 18, Seo discloses a method for determining at least one optical property of at least one deposition material used for a lithographic mask (Section II, EUVL mask blanks consist of a TaN absorber and 2.5 nm thick Ru capping layer), comprising steps to: a. determine a height value of the at least one deposition material for each of at least three different deposition heights, wherein the at least three different deposition heights are in a nanoscale range (Section II, patterned masks with different TaN thickness, Section II, 40, 50, 60 and 80 nm); b. determine a reflectivity value of the at least one deposition material for each of the at least three deposition heights, wherein the reflectivity values are measured by using photons generated by an optical lithographic inspection system (Section II, Fig. 2(c), reflectivities at the 13.5 nm wavelength as a function of TaN absorber thickness, experimental data with an EUV coherent scattering microscope, inherently EUV coherent scattering microscope uses photons, Fig. 8); and c. determine the at least one optical property of the at least one deposition material by adapting simulated reflectivity data to the determined reflectivity values for the at least three different deposition heights (Fig. 2(c) simulation and measurement results as a function of TaN absorber thickness, Section II, simulation results calculated from both aerial and resist image profiles are compared to the experimental data with EUV coherent scattering microscope, Section III. A, the reflectivity measurements are fitted using a least-square procedure to obtain the index of refraction, measure reflectivities on the absorber area of the EUVL mask blanks at EUV wavelengths and compare them with simulation results). Although Seo does not explicitly disclose a computing apparatus for performing the method, the steps involving simulation clearly requires a computing apparatus and further, the steps of Seo is commonly implemented using a computer apparatus, and therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a computer apparatus to carry out the methods of Seo in order to improve efficiency.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that the cited reference does not disclose “determining the at least one optical property of the at least one deposition material by adapting simulated reflectivity data to the measured reflectivity values for each of the at least three different deposition heights”. Applicant argues that Seo does not involve determination of the refractive index involving measure reflectivity value and that Seo merely determines the reliability of the refractive index. Seo discloses masks with four difference TaN thickness in Section 2 and measurements of reflectivity at different thickness in Fig. 2(b). The language of the claim is “adapting simulated reflectivity data to the measured reflectivity values”. Comparing the simulation and measurement results and matching the results is interpreted as “adapting”.
Regarding “optical lithographic inspection system”, 35 U.S.C. 112 rejection is made, since it is unclear what is considered an optical lithographic inspection system and how it is distinguished from the EUV CSM of synchrotron facilities disclosed in Seo. Applicant cites page 4 of the specification, and argues that Seo does not disclose EUV photon source to avoid external measurement. The claim language does not exclude an external measurement.
Because 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections were not presented in the previous Office Action, this Office Action is made non-final.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER B KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-2120. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM - 4:00 PM.
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, Toan Ton can be reached at (571) 272-2303. 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.
/PETER B KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2882 March 9, 2026