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 .
Drawings
The drawings submitted on 10/26/2023 have been accepted by the examiner.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/26/2023 has been considered by the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
[0076] of the application describes “The reflective absorption layer 150 may have a thickness in the Z direction of 10 nm or less (e.g., about 0.01 nm to about 10 nm, about 1 nm to about 10 nm, or the like).” However, the examiner notes that a 0.01nm layer would be less than the diameter of a metal atom, such as W, Ti, or Al. The examiner presumes this is a typographical error and should read 1nm or something like that.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Applicant recites “wherein the color filter includes a plurality of dielectric layers extending in a first direction that is parallel to a rear surface of the substrate, the plurality of dielectric layers having different thicknesses in a second direction that is perpendicular to the rear surface of the substrate and perpendicular to the first direction….” However, the examiner cannot resolve the comparison of different thickness, specifically what to compare the thickness of the plurality of dielectric layers to.
For the sake of compact prosecution, the examiner presumes that the thickness difference is between some of the individual dielectric layers in a single-color filter associated with a single pixel.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 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.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toda (US # 20200408598) in view of Kim (US # 20220003906) and Huang (US # 20200403023).
PNG
media_image1.png
446
333
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 1, Toda (US # 20200408598) teaches an image sensor (see example in Fig. 6 and corresponding text), comprising:
a substrate (24) including a plurality of photoelectric conversion devices (23);
a color filter (42, 43a; dielectric multilayer films) on the substrate;
a reflective absorption layer (43b; half-mirror layers are optionally implemented as metal thin films, in addition to dielectric multilayer films ([0084])) on the color filter (shown);
an anti-reflective layer (30) on the reflective absorption layer (indirectly on top); and wherein
the color filter includes
a plurality of dielectric layers extending in a first direction (across the page in Fig. 6) that is parallel to a rear surface of the substrate (the layers of 43a, 42 are parallel, as claimed), and there is thickness modulation to filter wavelengths of light ([0097]).
Although Toda discloses much of the claimed invention, it does not explicitly teach the image sensor comprising the reflective absorption layer including at least one of tungsten, titanium, or aluminum; a plurality of micro lenses on the anti-reflective layer; the plurality of dielectric layers having different thicknesses in a second direction that is perpendicular to the rear surface of the substrate and perpendicular to the first direction, such that the plurality of dielectric layers includes at least one dielectric layer having a thickness in the second direction that varies along the first direction.
Nonetheless the prior art at the time the application was filed renders such non-explicit feature differences obvious, as explained below.
For example, Kim (US # 20220003906) is in the same or analogous field, and it teaches an image sensor comprising a reflective absorption layer (132) including at least one of tungsten, titanium, or aluminum (see [0090]). Also, Kim teaches disposing mico lenses on the top of the optical stack (see Fig. 17, microlens array 1150 provided above the first and second filter arrays 1110 and 1120).
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that modifying the thin metal layer material of Toda with the material suggested by Kim would be obvious. Specifically, the modification suggested by Kim would be to employ an image sensor comprising the reflective absorption layer including at least one of tungsten, titanium, or aluminum; and a plurality of micro lenses on the anti-reflective layer. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made to make these modifications since 1) it has been held by the courts that selection of a prior art material on the basis of its suitability for its intended purpose is within the level of ordinary skill. In re Leshing, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) and Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 65 USPQ 297 (1945). It would have been obvious to combine Toda’s optical stack with a metal reflective layer of the type disclosed in Kim to increase optical efficiency. 2) Toda discloses an image sensor architecture including a color filter and multilayer dielectric optical stack. Toda further teaches that the optical stack may include anti-reflective structures. Kim is evidence that it was known in the art to employ a microlens to improve light collection efficiency, and selecting a microlens represents a predictable design choice for image sensors.
Furthermore, Toda does not explicitly teach the plurality of dielectric layers having different thicknesses in a second direction that is perpendicular to the rear surface of the substrate and perpendicular to the first direction, such that the plurality of dielectric layers includes at least one dielectric layer having a thickness in the second direction that varies along the first direction.
Nonetheless the prior art at the time the application was filed renders such non-explicit feature differences obvious, as explained below.
PNG
media_image2.png
368
384
media_image2.png
Greyscale
For example, Huang (US # 20200403023) is in the same or analogous field, and it teaches a distributed Bragg reflectors (DBRs) (see Fig. 1) wherein each of dielectric layers comprising those DBRs have a thickness varies along a lateral direction (horizontal direction) above and across different photodiodes (106).
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that modifying the thicknesses of the dielectric layers of Toda with the configuration suggested by Huang would be obvious. Specifically, the modification suggested by Huang would be to employ an image sensor comprising a plurality of dielectric layers having different thicknesses in a second direction that is perpendicular to the rear surface of the substrate and perpendicular to the first direction, such that the plurality of dielectric layers includes at least one dielectric layer having a thickness in the second direction that varies along the first direction. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the lateral thickness variation to achieve pixel-dependent spectral filtering, as lateral thickness variation was a known design choice in narrow band and interference filter design and is a predictable use of known optical variables.
Regarding Claim 2, Toda teaches the image sensor of claim 1, wherein the plurality of photoelectric conversion devices is arranged to define a matrix ([0062] explains that the pixels 22 are arranged in an array of pixels).
Although Toda’s Figure 6 shows fewer than eight layers, it recognizes the principle that varying the quantity of dielectric layers causes other variations, for example spectral selectivity and optical efficiency. The claimed first to eighth dielectric layers constitute a result-effective variable because the specification describes that eight layers provide optimized optical performance, including improved color selectivity and quantum efficiency, while minimizing interference loss. One skilled in the art would have recognized that increasing the number of layers would predictably improve color separation and light transmission, and selecting eight layers falls within a routine optimization of a result-effective variable. Combining all these prior art reference teachings, it would have been obvious to optimize the number of layers to eight to achieve improved optical efficiency. The claimed eight-layer stack is therefore obvious as a predictable and result-effective optimization of known multilayer dielectric color filters. There is no evidence of unexpected results in the prior art that would require a non-obvious step.
Regarding Claim 3, Toda teaches the multilayer CFA stacks over pixels in a matrix where lower dielectric layers may be formed with constant thickness while upper layers vary to optimize spectral performance. Kim and Huang further show selective layer thickness variation for spectral tuning. Maintaining constant thickness for the first to third layers is a predictable design choice to stabilize the optical interference pattern at the base of the CFA. This feature constitutes a result-effective variable, but it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art in light of the combined teachings of these references to form the lower dielectric layers with uniform thickness while varying upper layers to tune color selectivity.
Regarding Claim 11, applicant recites a reflective absorption layer that extends in a first direction and has a width in a third direction perpendicular to the first direction. Toda in combination with Kim teaches using metal thin-film layers (e.g., tungsten, titanium) in a color filter stack to reflect or absorb undesired light. Kim teaches that aluminum or other metal layers can be patterned or continuous over pixels to improve optical efficiency. Huang further discloses metallic or reflective layers over pixel areas, with lateral dimensions and widths selected to cover or span specific pixel regions for optical enhancement.
The claimed lateral dimensions (width and extension) of the reflective absorption layer are predictable design parameters, as the layer must cover the underlying CFA stack to achieve optical reflection or absorption effects. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the reflective layer can be patterned or sized according to pixel pitch to maximize optical efficiency, as taught by the cited references.
Accordingly, the limitation of claim 11 (that the reflective absorption layer extends in the first direction and has a width in the third direction) would have been obvious in view of the combined teachings of Toda, Samsung, and Huang, in light of conventional knowledge regarding metal reflective layers over CFA stacks.
Regarding Claim 12, applicant recites a reflective absorption layer patterned in circular, quadrangular, or triangular structures, arranged in a matrix over the pixel array. Toda in combination with Kim teaches using metal thin-film layers over CFA stacks and suggests that the metal layers may be patterned for pixel-level optical control. Kim and Huang further disclose that reflective metal layers can be patterned in various shapes to cover portions of a pixel or an array to enhance optical efficiency and reduce unwanted reflections ([0060]). Standard CMOS design practice also teaches that the shape of patterned metal features can vary (circular, square, triangular) depending on pixel pitch, layout, and optical requirements.
The selection of specific geometric shapes (circular, quadrangular, triangular) is a routine design choice guided by pixel geometry, optical simulation, and manufacturing considerations, and thus constitutes a predictable, result-effective variable. Arranging these features in a matrix corresponding to the pixel array is conventional for pixel-level optical enhancement.
Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to pattern the reflective absorption layer using any of these common geometric shapes over the pixels. Therefore, the claimed patterned reflective absorption layer would have been obvious in view of the combined teachings of Toda, Samsung, Huang, and conventional CMOS pixel layout practices.
Regarding Claim 13, applicant recites that the reflective absorption layer is “configured to re-reflect light” from the dielectric layers back toward the dielectric layers. Toda, Kim, and Huang all disclose metal reflective layers positioned adjacent to dielectric CFA layers over a pixel matrix. It is well-known in the art that metal layers with high reflectivity (e.g., Al, Ti, W) reflect incident light, including light reflected from adjacent dielectric layers. Thus, the claimed “re-reflection” is a predictable optical outcome of positioning a reflective metal layer under the dielectric stack.
The function of re-reflecting light does not require additional structural modification beyond what is taught in the prior art. The positioning, thickness, and material of the metal layer are already disclosed. Accordingly, the claimed functional limitation is inherent or a routine result-effective optimization of the known structures. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to implement a reflective layer to enhance optical efficiency, making the claimed re-reflection obvious in view of the combined prior art.
Claims 4-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toda (US # 20200408598) in view of Kim (US # 20220003906), Huang (US # 20200403023), and Lee (US # 20160204143).
Regarding Claim 4, applicant recites a plurality of photoelectric conversion devices separated by device isolation layers and a fourth dielectric layer whose thickness differs among the first, second, and third devices. Toda teaches a matrix of pixels over which multilayer dielectric color filter arrays are formed. Toda further teaches varying the thickness of individual dielectric layers to optimize transmission of specific wavelengths to different pixels, e.g., for RGB color separation.
PNG
media_image3.png
328
427
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Device isolation layers are conventional features in CMOS image sensors. Lee (US # 20160204143) teaches shallow trench isolation (200, see Fig. 2B) and patterned isolation structures formed in a substrate to electrically and physically separate adjacent photodiodes (PD), preventing electrical crosstalk. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that including such conventional device isolation layers between the plurality of pixels while applying pixel-specific dielectric thickness variations would have been routine.
Accordingly, forming a fourth dielectric layer with a thickness that is smaller on a first pixel and greater on second and third pixels would have been obvious in view of Toda in combination with Kim or Huang, and in view of conventional pixel isolation as taught by Lee. The thickness difference between pixels is a result-effective variable, affecting optical performance, but the variation is a predictable outcome of the combined teachings, and would have been within the skill of the art at the time of the invention
Lee discloses a device isolation pattern in the substrate defining adjacent pixel regions. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to employ known isolation structures between the plurality of photodiodes as claimed, as such isolation layers were conventional in CMOS image sensors to prevent electrical and optical crosstalk.”
Regarding Claim 5, applicant recites that the thickness of the fourth dielectric layer on the second pixel is greater than that on the third pixel. Toda (US20200408598A1) teaches forming dielectric layers over pixels with thicknesses that vary across the pixel array to optimize spectral selectivity, e.g., to match red, green, and blue pixel responses. Kim and Huang further teach that dielectric layer thickness can be independently adjusted for each pixel to tune the transmission of specific wavelengths.
The claimed ordering (thickness on the second pixel greater than on the third pixel) is a predictable outcome of the combined teachings. Adjusting individual pixel layer thickness to achieve desired spectral transmission is a routine optimization of a result-effective variable, as recognized in the specification. Accordingly, one skilled in the art would have been motivated to select the thicknesses for each pixel to match color filter requirements, making the claimed relative thickness difference obvious.
Regarding Claim 6, applicant recites that the eighth dielectric layer on the second pixel is thicker than on the first and third pixels. Toda teaches forming multilayer dielectric color filters over a matrix of pixels, with per-pixel variation in layer thickness to selectively transmit red, green, and blue light. Kim and Huang further teach varying the thickness of upper dielectric layers (such as the eighth layer in an N-layer stack) across different pixels to control spectral response.
The specific ordering (thickness of the eighth layer on the second pixel greater than that on the first and third pixels) is a predictable result-effective optimization, intended to maximize transmission of the desired wavelength to the second pixel while blocking or minimizing crosstalk to neighboring pixels. Accordingly, one skilled in the art would have been motivated to select the thickness values for the upper dielectric layers to achieve the desired spectral performance, making the claimed thickness arrangement obvious in view of the combined teachings.
Regarding Claim 7, applicant recites that the thickness of the eighth dielectric layer on the first pixel is greater than that on the third pixel. Toda teaches multilayer dielectric CFA stacks over a matrix of pixels, with layer thickness variation across pixels to selectively transmit red, green, and blue wavelengths. Kim and Huang further teach adjusting the thickness of upper dielectric layers, such as the eighth layer in an N-layer stack, for each pixel to tune the spectral response.
The claimed relative thickness ordering (eighth dielectric layer on the first pixel greater than that on the third pixel) is a predictable outcome of combining known teachings. Adjusting layer thickness per pixel to achieve the desired spectral filtering is a result-effective variable, and selecting the specific relative thicknesses for the first and third pixels is a routine optimization to enhance color separation and reduce crosstalk.
Therefore, the claimed limitation of claim 7 would have been obvious in view of the combined teachings of Toda, Samsung, Huang, and conventional device isolation as taught in Lee.
Regarding Claims 8–10, applicant recites that portions of the dielectric layer stack over the first, second, and third pixels act as blue, green, and red filters, respectively. Toda teaches multilayer dielectric CFA stacks over a pixel matrix, in which the thickness of the dielectric layers is adjusted for each pixel to selectively transmit a target wavelength while suppressing others. Specifically, Toda discloses dielectric stacks for blue, green, and red pixels in a Bayer arrangement, where layer thicknesses are tuned to optimize spectral transmission.
Kim and Huang further teach that individual dielectric layers, including upper layers, can be varied in thickness on a per-pixel basis to optimize color channel selectivity.
The selection of dielectric layer thicknesses to achieve transmission of blue, green, or red light is a predictable outcome of thin-film interference principles. These thicknesses represent result-effective variables, and the specific per-pixel adjustments for each color channel would have been obvious to optimize color separation.
Accordingly, forming the dielectric stacks so that the first pixel acts as a blue filter, the second pixel as a green filter, and the third pixel as a red filter would have been obvious in view of the combined teachings of Toda, Samsung, Huang, and conventional device isolation as taught in Lee.
Claims 14-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toda (US # 20200408598) in view of Kim (US # 20220003906), Huang (US # 20200403023), and Hong (US # 20060199295).
Regarding Claim 14, many of the limitations are repeated from claim 1, and those limitations are not discussed again here.
Some limitations are not found in the previously cited prior art references. However, those features are still found in the prior art, and that is explained below.
The claimed “plurality of conductive patterns configured to define at least one conductive path to output electrical signals generated by the plurality of photoelectric conversion devices” and an “interlayer insulating layer covering the plurality of conductive patterns” are conventional elements found in typical CMOS image sensor architectures. Prior art such as Hong teaches stacked interconnection layers and interlayer dielectric layers over a sensor substrate, with conductive wiring patterns formed and covered by insulating layers configured to route pixel signals to output circuitry. Combining these teachings with any of the other references in the obviousness rejection (e.g., Toda for CFA structures) would have made the claimed arrangement of conductive patterns and an overlying interlayer insulating layer obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Other limitations different from claim 1 are rejected for the same reasons as dependent claims of claim 1. This is true for limitations similar to claims 2 (regarding eight dielectric layers stacked) and 13 (re-reflection function). Those repeated limitations do not merit additional explanation.
Regarding Claim 15, the applicant recites splitting the fourth dielectric layer into per-pixel portions (4 1st over the second pixel, 4 2nd over the third pixel) and omitting the fourth layer entirely over the first pixel. Toda discloses per-pixel variation of dielectric layer thicknesses to achieve selective wavelength transmission for blue, green, and red pixels. Kim and Huang further teach per-pixel tuning of dielectric stacks, including selective omission of layers or varying thickness to optimize the color response of each pixel. Device isolation layers enable independent control of dielectric layers per pixel.
The pixel-specific variation or omission of the fourth dielectric layer is a predictable result-effective design variable to optimize color separation. A skilled artisan would recognize that omitting the fourth layer over the blue pixel reduces optical path length, enhancing blue transmission, while adjusting thicknesses over the green and red pixels tunes the interference effects for those colors.
Therefore, the claimed limitation (splitting the fourth dielectric layer into 4 1st and 4 2nd portions and omitting it over the first pixel) would have been obvious in view of the combined teachings of Toda, Kim, and Huang.
Regarding Claim 16, which is similar to the reasoning of claim 5. Prior art image sensor CFA stacks disclosed per-pixel dielectric variation to tune RGB responses. References (such as Huang) show lateral thickness differences in dielectric layers across pixel regions to achieve different spectral bands. It was well known that the thickness of dielectric layers in a CFA stack influences the constructive and destructive interference patterns that determine color selectivity. Therefore, selecting specific relative thicknesses for the fourth and eighth dielectric layers across the first, second, and third pixels (as recited in claim 16) would have been a routine and predictable optimization to achieve the desired spectral filtering, making these claims obvious in view of the combined teachings.
Regarding Claim 17, which is similar to the reasoning of claim 7. Prior art image sensor CFA stacks disclosed per-pixel dielectric variation to tune RGB responses. References (such as Huang) show lateral thickness differences in dielectric layers across pixel regions to achieve different spectral bands. It was well known that the thickness of dielectric layers in a CFA stack influences the constructive and destructive interference patterns that determine color selectivity. Therefore, selecting specific relative thicknesses for the fourth and eighth dielectric layers across the first, second, and third pixels (as recited in claim 17) would have been a routine and predictable optimization to achieve the desired spectral filtering, making these claims obvious in view of the combined teachings.
Regarding Claim 18, many of the limitations are repeated from claim 14, and those limitations are not discussed again here.
Some limitations were not previously discussed and are not found in the previously cited prior art references. However, those features are still found in the other prior art, and that is explained below.
The claimed “plurality of conductive patterns configured to define at least one conductive path to output electrical signals generated by the plurality of photoelectric conversion devices” and an “interlayer insulating layer covering the plurality of conductive patterns” are conventional elements found in typical CMOS image sensor architectures. Prior art such as Hong (US # 20060199295) teaches stacked interconnection layers and interlayer dielectric layers over a sensor substrate, with conductive wiring patterns formed and covered by insulating layers configured to route pixel signals to output circuitry. Combining these teachings with any of the other references in the obviousness rejection (e.g., Toda for CFA structures) would have made the claimed arrangement of conductive patterns and an overlying interlayer insulating layer obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Other limitations different from claim 1 are rejected for the same reasons as dependent claims of claim 1. This is true for limitations similar to claims 2 (regarding eight dielectric layers stacked) and 13 (re-reflection function). Those repeated limitations do not merit additional explanation.
Regarding Claim 20, Kim, as applied to claim 18 (which was originally applied to claim 1), the image sensor of claim 18, wherein a thickness of the reflective absorption layer is 10 nm or less ([0090] teaches overlapping range of thicknesses)
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toda (US # 20200408598) in view of Kim (US # 20220003906), Huang (US # 20200403023), Hong (US # 20060199295), and Rosenblum (US # 20220375986).
Regarding Claim 19, applicant recites an image sensor in which the anti-reflective layer comprises a substance having a refractive index of 1.5 or more. Toda, Kim, Huang, and Hong do not render this clearly obvious.
However, Rosenblum (US # 20220375986) discloses an image sensor pixel (see Fig. 3 and corresponding text) that includes a photodiode and an anti-reflective coating (314) disposed between the photodiode and an overlying lens, wherein the anti-reflective coating is a multilayer stack including alternating higher- and lower-refractive-index materials. Specifically, the anti-reflective coating comprises layers of higher-refractive-index materials such as tantalum pentoxide (Ta2O5) or hafnium dioxide (HfO2) in combination with lower-index materials such as silicon dioxide (SiO2). These high-index materials have refractive indices well above 1.5, and are selected to reduce reflection and improve transmission of light into the underlying photodiode.
In the claimed image sensor, the anti-reflective layer (e.g., layer 314 in Fig. 3) serves the same optical function of reducing reflection at an interface between the optical stack and incident light, just as in Rosenblum where the multilayer AR stack is positioned to reduce reflections at the photodiode surface. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to employ high-refractive-index materials in an anti-reflective layer to improve light transmission into an image sensor, as taught by Rosenblum, because materials such as Ta2O5 and HfO2 were well known for this purpose in image sensor AR coatings. The use of such materials with refractive indices ≥ 1.5 in the claimed anti-reflective layer represents a predictable substitution of known materials to achieve lower reflectance, consistent with the ordinary optics design principles. Therefore, the limitation reciting an anti-reflective layer including a substance having a refractive index of 1.5 or more is obvious in view of Rosenblum in combination with the other cited references of Toda, Kim, Huang, and Hong.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER A JOHNSON whose telephone number is (571)272-9475. The examiner can normally be reached normally working Monday to Friday between 9 am and 6 pm Eastern Time.
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, Brent Fairbanks can be reached on (408) 918-7532. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER A JOHNSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2899