DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed October 26, 2023 and November 20, 2024 fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which require a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “forming … second transistors in the peripheral region, … the second transistors being buried channel array transistors, forming … second trenches in the peripheral region, forming … second gate insulating films along inner sidewalls of the second trenches, and filling … portions of the second trenches with second metal layers … the second metal layers on the second gate insulating films” (claim 16) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “22” has been used to designate both “cell isolation film” and “cell isolation region”; reference character “190” has been used to designate both “information storage section” and “data storage section”; and reference character “191” has been used to designate both “lower electrode” and “first lower electrode”. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. There appears to be no adequate description in the specification for the claim limitation of "the wordline trenches have a width of 20 nm or less", as recited in claim 12 (note: paragraph [0088] discloses the wordline trenches of 10 nm to 20 nm and an example of 20 nm (narrow term/limitation when compared with claimed limitation of “20 nm or less”)).
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 1-19 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.
The claimed limitation of "forming a plurality of wordline trenches, …, by removing portions of the active regions and portions of the device isolation film", as recited in claims 1 and 13, is unclear as to whether each wordline trench is formed through both portions of active regions and portions of the device isolation film or some wordline trenches formed in the active regions, others in the device isolation film.
The claimed limitation of "portions of the active regions", as recited in claims 1 and 13, is unclear as to whether said limitation is in one-to-one, one-to-multiple or multiple-to-one relationship between the portion and the active region applicant refers.
The claimed limitation of "gate insulating films along inner sidewalls of the wordline trenches", as recited in claims 1 and 13, is unclear as to whether said limitation is in one-to-one, one-to-multiple or multiple-to-one relationship between the gate insulating film and the inner sidewall, and between the inner sidewall and the wordline trench applicant refers.
The claimed limitation of "wordlines, which fill portions of the wordline trenches", as recited in claims 1 and 13, is unclear as to whether said limitation is in one-to-one, one-to-multiple or multiple-to-one relationship between the wordline and the portion, and between the portion and the wordline trench applicant refers.
The claimed limitation of "fill the portions of the wordline trenches with metal layers", as recited in claim 1, is unclear as to whether said limitation is in one-to-one, one-to-multiple or multiple-to-one relationship between the portion and the metal layer applicant refers.
The claimed limitation of "the filling the portions of the wordline trenches using the SFD method", as recited in claims 2 and 7, is unclear as to whether said limitation is the same as or different from “filling the portions of the wordline trenches with metal layers using a supercritical fluid deposition (SFD) method, as recited in claim 1.
The claimed limitation of "a supercritical state", as recited in claims 3 and 13 (line 20, is unclear as to whether said limitation is the same as or different from "a supercritical state", as recited in claims 2 and 13 (line 15).
The claimed limitations of “pre-metal layers” and “metal layers”, as recited in claim 9, is unclear as to whether said limitations are the same as or different from "metal layers", as recited in claim 2.
The claimed limitation of "forming metal layers, which fill the portions of the wordline trenches, by removing portions of the pre-metal layers …", as recited in claims 9 and 13, is unclear as to whether “metal layers” formed after the step of removing is a different layer or a remainer of the pre-metal layers applicant refers.
The claimed limitation of "portions of the pre-metal layers", as recited in claim 13, is unclear as to whether said limitation is in one-to-one, one-to-multiple or multiple-to-one relationship between the portion and the pre-metal layer applicant refers.
The claimed limitation of "capping conductive films on the wordlines within the wordline trenches", as recited in claims 10, 14 and 19, is unclear as to whether said limitation is in one-to-one, one-to-multiple or multiple-to-one relationship between the capping conductive film and the wordline trench applicant refers.
The claimed limitation of "capping insulating films on the capping conductive film within the wordline trenches", as recited in claims 11, 15 and 19, is unclear as to whether said limitation is in one-to-one, one-to-multiple or multiple-to-one relationship between the capping insulating film and the wordline trench applicant refers.
The claimed limitation of "inner sidewalls of the … trenches", as recited in claim 17, is unclear as to whether said limitation is in one-to-one, one-to-multiple or multiple-to-one relationship between the inner sidewall and the … trench applicant refers.
The claimed limitation of "portions of the … trenches with … metal layers", as recited in claim 17, is unclear as to whether said limitation is in one-to-one, one-to-multiple or multiple-to-one relationship between the portion and the … trench and between the portion and the … metal layer applicant refers.
Claim 19 recites the limitations of “the forming the wordlines”, “the wordlines” and “the wordline trenches” in lines 1-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-8 and 10-12, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (2022/0077154) in view of Gopinath et al. (6,951,765).
As for claims 1-8, Kim et al. show in Figs. 1, 7A-7H and related text a method of fabricating a semiconductor device, comprising:
providing a substrate 101 having defined thereon a plurality of active regions ACT, which are spaced apart from one another by a device isolation film 110 (Fig. 7A; [0059]);
forming a plurality of wordline trenches GT, which extend longitudinally in one direction, by removing portions of the active regions and portions of the device isolation film (Fig. 7B);
forming gate insulating films 120 along inner sidewalls of the wordline trenches (Fig. 7C); and
forming wordlines 132, which fill portions of the wordline trenches, on the gate insulating films (Fig. 7D),
wherein the forming the wordlines, comprises filling the portions of the wordline trenches with metal layers ([0027]).
Kim et al. do not disclose the filling the portions of the wordline trenches with the metal layers using a supercritical fluid deposition (SFD) method (claim 1), comprises placing the substrate with the wordline trenches formed therein within a reactor, supplying a metal precursor and carbon dioxide into the reactor such that the metal precursor penetrates into the wordline trenches, and supplying a reduction gas into the reactor such that a metal of the metal precursor is deposited within the wordline trenches, and the metal precursor and the carbon dioxide are in a supercritical state within the reactor (claim 2); the reduction gas is in a supercritical state within the reactor (claim 3); a ligand of the metal precursor consists of one of Cx, Hy, and CxHy (where x and y are natural numbers) (claim 4); the metal layers include at least one of Ru, Mo, Cu, and TiN (claim 5); the reduction gas includes H2 or NH3 (claim 6); repeating both the supplying the metal precursor and the carbon dioxide into the reactor and the supplying the reduction gas into the reactor multiple times (claim 7); rinsing the interior of the reactor with supercritical carbon dioxide after the repeating both the supplying the metal precursor and the carbon dioxide into the reactor and the supplying the reduction gas into the reactor multiple times (claim 8).
Gophinath et al. teach in Figs. 1A-1C (or 1A, 1B, 1D), 2A-2E and related text:
As for claim 1, using a SFD method to fill metal layers in a trench 207.
As for claim 2, placing the substrate with the trench formed therein within a reactor 201, supplying a metal precursor and carbon dioxide into the reactor such that the metal precursor penetrates into the trench 209/211, and supplying a reduction gas into the reactor such that a metal of the metal precursor is deposited within the trench 213, and
the metal precursor and the carbon dioxide are in a supercritical state within the reactor (Cols. 10-11; Fig. 2A).
As for claim 3, the reduction gas is in a supercritical state within the reactor 211 (Fig. 2A).
As for claim 4, a ligand of the metal precursor consists of one of Cx, Hy, and CxHy (where x and y are natural numbers) (Col. 4, lines 31-38).
As for claim 5, the metal layers include at least one of Ru, Mo, Cu, and TiN (Col. 4, lines 15-32).
As for claim 6, the reduction gas includes H2 or NH3 (Col. 4, line 10).
As for claim 7, repeating both the supplying the metal precursor and the carbon dioxide into the reactor and the supplying the reduction gas into the reactor multiple times (Fig. 2A; Col. 3, lines 30-39).
As for claim 8, rinsing the interior of the reactor with supercritical carbon dioxide 217 after the repeating both the supplying the metal precursor and the carbon dioxide into the reactor and the supplying the reduction gas into the reactor multiple times (Fig. 2A; Col. 4, lines 11-14).
Kim et al. and Gophinath et al. are analogous art because they are directed to a method of forming metal layers in a trench and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Kim et al. with the specified feature(s) of Gophinath et al. because they are from the same field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include detail steps of using a SFD method to form metal layers in a trench, as taught by Gophinath et al., in Kim et al.'s device, in order to improve uniformity, performance and reduce cost of the device.
As for claim 10, the combined device shows forming capping conductive films 134P/136P on the wordlines within the wordline trenches after the forming the wordlines (Kim: Fig. 7F; [0070]).
As for claim 11, the combined device shows forming capping insulating films 128 on the capping conductive films within the wordline trenches after the forming the capping conductive films (Kim: Fig. 7H; [0074]).
As for claim 12, Kim et al. and Gophinath et al. disclosed substantially the entire claimed invention, as applied to claim 1 above, except the wordline trenches have a width of 20 nm 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 include the wordline trenches having a width of 20 nm or less, in order to optimize the performance of the device. Furthermore, it has been held that where then general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Furthermore, it has been held in that the applicant must show that a particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Note that the law is replete with cases in which when the mere difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some dimensional limitation or other variable within the claims, patentability cannot be found. The instant disclosure does not set forth evidence ascribing unexpected results due to the claimed dimensions. See Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 1984), which held that the dimensional limitations failed to point out a feature which performed and operated any differently from the prior art.
Claim(s) 9, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (2022/0077154) and Gopinath et al. (6,951,765) in view of Ko et al. (2022/0375760).
Kim et al. and Gophinath et al. disclosed substantially the entire claimed invention, as applied to claim 1 above, including the forming the wordlines, comprises forming pre-metal layers, which completely fill the wordline trenches, using the SFD method, and forming metal layers, which fill the portions of the wordline trenches, by removing portions of the pre-metal layers.
Kim et al. and Gophinath et al. do not disclose removing portions of the pre-metal layers by using an atomic layer etching (ALE) method.
Ko et al. teach in Figs. 1-7 and related text removing portions of the pre-metal layers 20 by using an atomic layer etching (ALE) method.
Kim et al., Gophinath et al. and Ko et al. are analogous art because they are directed to a method of forming metal layers in a trench and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Kim et al. and Gophinath et al. with the specified feature(s) of Ko et al. because they are from the same field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an atomic layer etching (ALE) method to remove portions of the pre-metal layers, as taught by Ko et al., in Kim et al. and Gophinath et al.'s device, in order to produce smoother surface, better uniformity in high-aspect-ratio features, and improve the performance of the device.
Claim(s) 13-15, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (2022/0077154) in view of Gopinath et al. (6,951,765) and Ko et al. (2022/0375760).
As for claim 13, Kim et al. show in Figs. 1, 7A-7H and related text a method of fabricating a semiconductor device, comprising:
providing a substrate 101 having defined thereon a plurality of active regions ACT, which are spaced apart from one another by a device isolation film 110 (Fig. 7A; [0059]);
forming a plurality of wordline trenches GT, which extend longitudinally in one direction, by removing portions of the active regions and portions of the device isolation film (Fig. 7B);
forming gate insulating films 120 along inner sidewalls of the wordline trenches (Fig. 7C); and
forming wordlines 132, which fill portions of the wordline trenches, on the gate insulating films (Fig. 7D),
wherein the forming the wordlines, comprises filling the portions of the wordline trenches with metal layers ([0027]), and
the forming the wordlines, comprises forming pre-metal layers, which completely fill the wordline trenches, and forming metal layers, which fill the portions of the wordline trenches, by removing portions of the pre-metal layers.
Kim et al. do not disclose the forming the wordlines, comprises placing the substrate with the wordline trenches formed therein within a reactor, supplying a metal precursor and carbon dioxide into the reactor such that the metal precursor penetrates into the wordline trenches, and supplying a reduction gas into the reactor such that a metal of the metal precursor is deposited within the wordline trenches, the metal precursor and the carbon dioxide are in a supercritical state within the reactor, the metal of the metal precursor is at least one of Ru, Mo, Cu, and TiN, a ligand of the metal precursor consists of one of Cx, Hy, and CxHy (where x and y are natural numbers),the reduction gas is in a supercritical state within the reactor, and the forming the wordlines, comprises forming the pre-metal layers, which completely fill the wordline trenches, by repeating both the supplying the metal precursor and the carbon dioxide into the reactor and the supplying the reduction gas into the reactor multiple times, and forming metal layers, which fill the portions of the wordline trenches, by removing portions of the pre-metal layers using an atomic layer etching (ALE) method.
Gophinath et al. teach in Figs. 1A-1C (or 1A, 1B, 1D), 2A-2E and related text detail steps of forming metal layers in a trench by placing the substrate with the trench formed therein within a reactor, supplying a metal precursor and carbon dioxide into the reactor such that the metal precursor penetrates into the trench, and supplying a reduction gas into the reactor such that a metal of the metal precursor is deposited within the trench, the metal precursor and the carbon dioxide are in a supercritical state within the reactor, the metal of the metal precursor is at least one of Ru, Mo, Cu, and TiN, a ligand of the metal precursor consists of one of Cx, Hy, and CxHy (where x and y are natural numbers), the reduction gas is in a supercritical state within the reactor, and repeating both the supplying the metal precursor and the carbon dioxide into the reactor and the supplying the reduction gas into the reactor multiple times (Cols. 3-4, 10-14).
Ko et al. teach in Figs. 1-7 and related text removing portions of the pre-metal layers 20 by using an atomic layer etching (ALE) method.
Kim et al., Gophinath et al. and Ko et al. are analogous art because they are directed to a method of forming metal layers in a trench and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Kim et al. with the specified feature(s) of Gophinath et al. and Ko et al. because they are from the same field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a SFD method to form metal layers in a trench, as taught by Gophinath et al., and an atomic layer etching (ALE) method to remove portions of the pre-metal layers, as taught by Ko et al., in Kim et al.'s device, in order to improve uniformity, reduce cost, produce smoother surface, better uniformity in high-aspect-ratio features, and improve the performance of the device.
As for claim 14, the combined device shows forming capping conductive films 134P/136P on the wordlines within the wordline trenches after the forming the wordlines (Kim: Fig. 7F; [0070]).
As for claim 15, the combined device shows forming capping insulating films 128 on the capping conductive films within the wordline trenches after the forming the capping conductive films (Kim: Fig. 7H; [0074]).
Claim(s) 16-19, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (2014/0327087) in view of Gopinath et al. (6,951,765).
As for claims 16-18, Kim et al. show in Figs. 7, 9A-9C, 3A-3C, 4A4, 5A-5C, 6A-6C and related text a method of fabricating a semiconductor device, comprising:
providing a substrate 1, which includes a cell region CAR and a peripheral region PCR defined around the cell region (Fig. 7); and
forming first transistors CTR in the cell region and second transistors TR1 (and/or TR2) in the peripheral region, the first transistors and the second transistors being buried channel array transistors (BCATs),
wherein the forming the first transistors and the second transistors, comprises s forming first trenches T1 in the cell region and second trenches T2 in the peripheral region (Figs. 4A and 5B), forming first gate insulating films 9a along inner sidewalls of the first trenches and second gate insulating films 9b along inner sidewalls of the second trenches (Figs. 9A-9C), and filling portions of the first trenches with first metal layers 30 and portions of the second trenches with second metal layers 30 by forming the first metal layers on the first gate insulating films and the second metal layers on the second gate insulating films (Figs. 9A-9C)
Kim et al. al. do not disclose using filling the portions of the first trenches with the first metal layers and the portions of the second trenches with the second metal layers by using a supercritical fluid deposition (SFD) method (claim 16) and comprises placing the substrate within a reactor, supplying a metal precursor and carbon dioxide into the reactor such that the metal is precursor penetrates into the first trenches, and supplying a reduction gas into the reactor such that a metal of the metal precursor is deposited within the first trenches (claim 17); and a ligand of the metal precursor consists of one of Cx, Hy, and CxHy (where x and y are natural numbers) (claim 18).
Gophinath et al. teach in Figs. 1A-1C (or 1A, 1B, 1D), 2A-2E and related text:
As for claim 16, using a SFD method to fill metal layers in a trench 207.
As for claim 17, placing the substrate within a reactor 201, supplying a metal precursor and carbon dioxide into the reactor such that the metal precursor penetrates into the trench 209/211, and supplying a reduction gas into the reactor such that a metal of the metal precursor is deposited within the trench 213.
As for claim 18, a ligand of the metal precursor consists of one of Cx, Hy, and CxHy (where x and y are natural numbers) (Col. 4, lines 31-38).
Kim et al. and Gophinath et al. are analogous art because they are directed to a method of forming metal layers in a trench and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Kim et al. with the specified feature(s) of Gophinath et al. because they are from the same field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include detail steps of using a SFD method to form metal layers in a trench, as taught by Gophinath et al., in Kim et al.'s device, in order to improve uniformity, performance and reduce cost of the device.
As for claim 19, the combined device shows after the forming the wordlines:
forming capping conductive films 30 on the wordlines within the wordline trenches (Kim: Fig. 9A); and
forming capping insulating films 13a on the capping conductive films within the wordline trenches (Fig. 9A).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MEIYA LI whose telephone number is (571)270-1572. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7AM-3PM.
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, LYNNE GURLEY can be reached at (571)272-1670. 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.
/MEIYA LI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2811