DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 2, 5-10, and 13-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsao et al. (US 2020/0091146) (hereafter Tsao), in view of Liaw et al. (US 2020/0357739) (hereafter Liaw739).
Regarding claim 1, Tsao discloses a semiconductor device structure, comprising:
a substrate 102 (Fig. 1B, paragraph 0020) having a first fin structure 110a (Fig. 1B, paragraph 0024);
a first source/drain structure 128a (Fig. 3G, paragraph 0044) over the first fin structure 110a (Fig. 3G);
a first dielectric layer 134 (Fig. 3G, paragraph 0046) over the first source/drain structure 128a (Fig. 3G) and the substrate (not shown in Fig. 3G but see 102 in Fig. 1B);
a first conductive contact structure (145 and 150a in Fig. 3G, paragraph 0057) in the first dielectric layer 134 (Fig. 3G) and over the first source/drain structure 128a (Fig. 3G), wherein a first width (vertical length of 150a in Fig. 2B) of the first conductive contact structure (145 and 150a in Fig. 3G) is greater than a first length (horizontal length of 150a in Fig. 2B) of the first conductive contact structure (145 and 150a in Fig. 3G) in a top view of the first conductive contact structure (145 and 150a in Fig. 3G);
a second dielectric layer 152 (Fig. 3G, paragraph 0060) over the first dielectric layer 134 (Fig. 3G) and the first conductive contact structure (145 and 150a in Fig. 3G); and
a first conductive via structure 166a (Fig. 3G, paragraph 0066) passing through the second dielectric layer 152 (Fig. 3G) and connected to the first conductive contact structure (145 and 150a in Fig. 3G).
Tsao does not disclose a second width of the first conductive via structure is greater than a second length of the first conductive via structure in a top view of the first conductive via structure, and a first width direction of the first conductive contact structure is substantially parallel to a second width direction of the first conductive via structure.
Liaw739 discloses a second width (horizontal length of 163 in Fig. 3) of the first conductive via structure 163 (Fig. 3, paragraph 0027) is greater (see Fig. 4C and paragraph 0047, wherein “The longitudinal length X3 is larger than twice of the transversal length Y3.”) than a second length (vertical length of 163 in Fig. 3) of the first conductive via structure 163 (Fig. 3) in a top view (see Fig. 3) of the first conductive via structure 163 (Fig. 3), and a first width direction (direction of horizontal length of 143 in Fig. 3) of the first conductive contact structure 143 (Fig. 3, paragraph 0044) is substantially parallel to a second width direction (direction of horizontal length of 163 in Fig. 3) of the first conductive via structure 163 (Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Tsao to form a second width of the first conductive via structure is greater than a second length of the first conductive via structure in a top view of the first conductive via structure, and a first width direction of the first conductive contact structure is substantially parallel to a second width direction of the first conductive via structure, as taught by Liaw739, since a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed ranges or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 f.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 2, Tsao further discloses the semiconductor device structure as claimed in claim 1, wherein the first conductive via structure 166a (Fig. 3G) is in direct contact with the first conductive contact structure (145 and 150a in Fig. 3G).
Regarding claim 5, Tsao in view of Liaw739 discloses the semiconductor device structure as claimed in claim 1, however Tsao does not disclose the first length of the first conductive contact structure is greater than the second length of the first conductive via structure.
Liaw739 discloses the first length (vertical length of 143 in Fig. 3) of the first conductive contact structure 143 (Fig. 3, paragraph 0027) is greater than the second length (vertical length of 163 in Fig. 3) of the first conductive via structure 163 (Fig. 3, paragraph 0027).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Tsao to form the first length of the first conductive contact structure is greater than the second length of the first conductive via structure, as taught by Liaw739, since a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed ranges or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 f.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 6, Tsao further discloses the semiconductor device structure as claimed in claim 1, wherein the first source/drain structure 128a (Fig. 3G) has a first side (left side of lower portion of 128a in Fig. 3G) and a second side (right side of lower portion of 128a in Fig. 3G), the second side (right side of lower portion of 128a in Fig. 3G) is opposite to the first side (left side of lower portion of 128a in Fig. 3G), and the first conductive via structure 166a (Fig. 3G) continuously extends across the first side (left side of lower portion of 128a in Fig. 3G) and the second side (right side of lower portion of 128a in Fig. 3G).
Regarding claim 7, Tsao further discloses the semiconductor device structure as claimed in claim 1, further comprising: a conductive line (170 and 172 in Fig. 3G, paragraph 0065) over the first conductive via structure 166a (Fig. 3G) and the second dielectric layer 152 (Fig. 3G), wherein the conductive line (170 and 172 in Fig. 3G) is electrically connected to the first source/drain structure 128a (Fig. 3G) through the first conductive contact structure (145 and 150a in Fig. 3G) and the first conductive via structure 166a (Fig. 3G).
Regarding claim 8, Tsao further discloses the semiconductor device structure as claimed in claim 7, wherein the second width direction (direction of vertical length of 166a in Fig. 2B) of the first conductive via structure 166a (Fig. 2B) is substantially perpendicular to a sidewall (horizontal sidewall of 170 in Fig. 2B) of the conductive line (170 and 172 in Fig. 2B) close to the first conductive via structure 166a (Fig. 2B).
Regarding claim 9, Tsao further discloses the semiconductor device structure as claimed in claim 7, wherein the substrate 102 (Fig. 1B) further has a second fin structure 110b (Fig. 1B, paragraph 0024), and the semiconductor device structure further comprises: a second source/drain structure 128b (Fig. 5F, paragraph 0044) over the second fin structure 110b (Fig. 5F), wherein the first dielectric layer 134 (Fig. 5F) is further over the second source/drain structure 128b (Fig. 5F), and the conductive line (170 and 172 in Fig. 5F) is further electrically connected to the second source/drain structure 128b (Fig. 5F).
Regarding claim 10, Tsao further discloses the semiconductor device structure as claimed in claim 9, wherein the first fin structure 110a (Fig. 5F) is connected to the second fin structure 110b (Fig. 5F).
Regarding claim 13, Tsao discloses a semiconductor device structure, comprising:
a substrate 102 (Fig. 1B, paragraph 0020) having a fin structure 110a (Fig. 1B, paragraph 0024);
a source/drain structure 128a (Fig. 3G, paragraph 0044) over the fin structure 110a (Fig. 3G);
a first dielectric layer 134 (Fig. 3G, paragraph 0046) over the source/drain structure 128a (Fig. 3G) and the substrate (not shown in Fig. 3G but see 102 in Fig. 1B);
a conductive contact structure (145 and 150a in Fig. 3G, paragraph 0057) in the first dielectric layer 134 (Fig. 3G) and over the source/drain structure 128a (Fig. 3G);
a second dielectric layer 152 (Fig. 3G, paragraph 0060) over the first dielectric layer (145 and 150a in Fig. 3G) and the conductive contact structure (145 and 150a in Fig. 3G);
a conductive via structure 166a (Fig. 3G, paragraph 0066) passing through the second dielectric layer 152 (Fig. 3G) and connected to the conductive contact structure (145 and 150a in Fig. 3G); and
a conductive line 170 (Fig. 3G, paragraph 0066) over the conductive via structure 166a (Fig. 3G) and the second dielectric layer 152 (Fig. 3G).
Tsao does not disclose a first width of the conductive via structure is greater than a first length of the conductive via structure in a top view of the conductive via structure.
Liaw739 discloses a first width (horizontal length of 163 in Fig. 3) of the conductive via structure 163 (Fig. 3, paragraph 0027) is greater (see Fig. 4C and paragraph 0047, wherein “The longitudinal length X3 is larger than twice of the transversal length Y3.”) than a first length (vertical length of 163 in Fig. 3) of the conductive via structure 163 (Fig. 3) in a top view (see Fig. 3) of the conductive via structure 163 (Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Tsao to form a first width of the conductive via structure is greater than a first length of the conductive via structure in a top view of the conductive via structure, as taught by Liaw739, since a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed ranges or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 f.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 14, Tsao further discloses the semiconductor device structure as claimed in claim 13, wherein a second width (vertical length of 170 in Fig. 2B) of the conductive line 170 (Fig. 2B) is less than a second length (horizontal length of 170 in Fig. 2B) of the conductive line 170 (Fig. 2B) in a top view (see Fig. 2B) of the conductive line 170 (Fig. 2B), and a width direction (direction of vertical length of 170 in Fig. 2B) of the conductive via structure 166a (Fig. 3G) is substantially perpendicular to a length direction (direction of horizontal length of 170 in Fig. 2B) of the conductive line 170 (Fig. 2B).
Regarding claim 15, Tsao in view of Liaw739 discloses the semiconductor device structure as claimed in claim 13, however Tsao does not disclose the conductive via structure has a substantially oval shape.
Liaw739 discloses the conductive via structure 163 (Fig. 3, paragraph 0027) has a substantially oval shape.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Tsao to form the conductive via structure has a substantially oval shape, as taught by Liaw739, since such a modification would have involved a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed invention was significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 16, Tsao in view of Liaw739 discloses the semiconductor device structure as claimed in claim 13, however Tsao does not disclose the first width of the conductive via structure is greater than a second width of the source/drain structure, and a first width direction of the conductive via structure is substantially parallel to a second width direction of the source/drain structure.
Liaw739 discloses the first width (horizontal length of 163 in Fig. 3) of the conductive via structure 163 (Fig. 3, paragraph 0027) is greater than a second width of the source/drain structure (portion of 116 above 122 in Fig. 3), and a first width direction (direction of horizontal length of 163 in Fig. 3) of the conductive via structure 163 (Fig. 3) is substantially parallel to a second width direction (direction of horizontal length of portion of 116 above 122 in Fig. 3) of the source/drain structure (portion of 116 above 122 in Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Tsao to form the first width of the conductive via structure is greater than a second width of the source/drain structure, and a first width direction of the conductive via structure is substantially parallel to a second width direction of the source/drain structure, as taught by Liaw739, since a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed ranges or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 f.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 17, Tsao discloses a semiconductor device structure, comprising:
a substrate 102 (Fig. 1B, paragraph 0020) having a fin structure 110a (Fig. 1B, paragraph 0024), wherein a first width (vertical length of 110a in Fig. 2B) of the fin structure 110a (Fig. 2B) is less than a first length (horizontal length of 110a in Fig. 2B) of the fin structure 110a (Fig. 2B) in a top view (see Fig. 2B) of the fin structure 110a (Fig. 2B);
a source/drain structure 128a (Fig. 3G, paragraph 0044) over the fin structure 110a (Fig. 3G);
a first dielectric layer 134 (Fig. 3G, paragraph 0046) over the source/drain structure 128a (Fig. 3G) and the substrate (not shown in Fig. 3G but see 102 in Fig. 1B);
a conductive contact structure (145 and 150a in Fig. 3G, paragraph 0057) in the first dielectric layer 134 (Fig. 3G) and over the source/drain structure 128a (Fig. 3G);
a second dielectric layer 152 (Fig. 3G, paragraph 0060) over the first dielectric layer 134 (Fig. 3G) and the conductive contact structure (145 and 150a in Fig. 3G); and
a conductive via structure 162 (Fig. 3G, paragraph 0066) passing through the second dielectric layer 152 (Fig. 3G) and connected to the conductive contact structure (145 and 150a in Fig. 3G).
Tsao does not disclose a second width of the conductive via structure is greater than a second length of the conductive via structure in a top view of the conductive via structure, and a length direction of the fin structure is substantially perpendicular to a width direction of the conductive via structure.
Liaw739 discloses a second width (horizontal length of 163 in Fig. 3) of the conductive via structure 163 (Fig. 3, paragraph 0027) is greater (see Fig. 4C and paragraph 0047, wherein “The longitudinal length X3 is larger than twice of the transversal length Y3.”) than a second length (vertical length of 163 in Fig. 3) of the conductive via structure 163 (Fig. 3) in a top view (see Fig. 3) of the conductive via structure 163 (Fig. 3), and a length direction (direction of vertical length of 116 in Fig. 3) of the fin structure 116 (Fig. 3, paragraph 0030) is substantially perpendicular to a width direction (direction of horizontal length of 163 in Fig. 3) of the conductive via structure 163 (Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Tsao to form a second width of the conductive via structure is greater than a second length of the conductive via structure in a top view of the conductive via structure, and a length direction of the fin structure is substantially perpendicular to a width direction of the conductive via structure, as taught by Liaw739, since a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed ranges or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 f.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 18, Tsao in view of Liaw739 discloses the semiconductor device structure as claimed in claim 17, however Tsao does not disclose the first length of the fin structure is greater than the second length of the conductive via structure.
Liaw739 discloses the first length (vertical length of 116 in Fig. 3) of the fin structure 116 (Fig. 3, paragraph 0030) is greater than the second length (vertical length of 163 in Fig. 3) of the conductive via structure 163 (Fig. 3, paragraph 0027).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Tsao to form the first length of the fin structure is greater than the second length of the conductive via structure, as taught by Liaw739, since a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed ranges or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 f.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 19, Tsao further discloses the semiconductor device structure as claimed in claim 17, further comprising: a first conductive line 170 (Fig. 3G, paragraph 0065) over the conductive via structure 166a (Fig. 3G) and the second dielectric layer 152 (Fig. 3G), wherein the first conductive line 170 (Fig. 3G) is electrically connected to the source/drain structure 128a (Fig. 3G) through the conductive contact structure (145 and 150a in Fig. 3G) and the conductive via structure 166a (Fig. 3G).
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsao in view of Liaw739 as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Yang et al. (US 2020/0105938) (hereafter Yang).
Regarding claim 3, Tsao discloses the semiconductor device structure as claimed in claim 2, however Tsao does not disclose the first conductive contact structure wraps around an upper portion of the first source/drain structure.
Yang discloses the first conductive contact structure 254 (Fig. 14B, paragraph 0037) wraps around an upper portion of the first source/drain structure 252 (Fig. 14B, paragraph 0037).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Tsao in view of Liaw739 to form the first conductive contact structure wraps around an upper portion of the first source/drain structure, as taught by Yang, since source/drain contact resistance (Yang, paragraph 0037) can be reduced by cladding source/drain structures 250 (Yang, Fig. 14B, paragraph 0037) due to the increasing contact area between silicide layers 254 (Yang, Fig. 14B, paragraph 0037) and EPI S/D features 252 (Yang, Fig. 14B, paragraph 0037).
Regarding claim 4, Tsao further discloses the semiconductor device structure as claimed in claim 3, wherein the first conductive contact structure (145 and 150a in Fig. 3G) is in direct contact with the first source/drain structure 128a (Fig. 3G).
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsao in view of Liaw739 as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Liaw et al. (US 2019/0067131) (hereafter Liaw131).
Regarding claim 11, Tsao further discloses the semiconductor device structure as claimed in claim 9, further comprising: a second conductive contact structure (145 and 150b of 110b in Fig. 5F) in the first dielectric layer 134 (Fig. 5F) and over the second source/drain structure 128b (Fig. 5F), wherein the second dielectric layer 152 (Fig. 5F) is further over the second conductive contact structure (145 and 150b of 110b in Fig. 5F); and a second conductive via structure 166b (Fig. 5F, paragraph 0073) passing through the second dielectric layer 152 (Fig. 5F) and connected to the second conductive contact structure (145 and 150b of 110b in Fig. 5F).
Tsao and Liaw739 do not disclose the second conductive via structure has a second substantially strip shape in a top view of the second conductive via structure.
Liaw131 discloses the second conductive via structure 70D (Fig. 1A, paragraph 0043) has a second substantially strip shape (“rectangular-shaped” in paragraph 0043) in a top view (see Fig. 1A) of the second conductive via structure 70D (Fig. 1A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Tsao in view of Liaw739 to form the second conductive via structure has a second substantially strip shape in a top view of the second conductive via structure, as taught by Liaw131, since such a modification would have involved a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed invention was significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 12, Tsao further discloses the semiconductor device structure as claimed in claim 11, wherein in a top view of the first conductive via structure 166a (Fig. 2B) and the second conductive via structure 166b (Fig. 2B).
Tsao does not disclose a third width of the second conductive via structure is greater than a third length of the second conductive via structure, and the second width direction of the first conductive via structure is substantially parallel to a third width direction of the second conductive via structure.
Liaw739 discloses a third width (horizontal length of 164 in Fig. 3) of the second conductive via structure 164 (Fig. 3, paragraph 0027) is greater than a third length (vertical length of 164 in Fig. 3) of the second conductive via structure 164 (Fig. 3), and the second width direction (direction of horizontal length of 163 in Fig. 3) of the first conductive via structure 163 (Fig. 3, paragraph 0027) is substantially parallel to a third width direction (direction of horizontal length of 163 in Fig. 3) of the second conductive via structure 164 (Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Tsao to form a third width of the second conductive via structure is greater than a third length of the second conductive via structure, and the second width direction of the first conductive via structure is substantially parallel to a third width direction of the second conductive via structure, as taught by Liaw739, since a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed ranges or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 f.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsao in view of Liaw739 as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (US 2021/0134784) (hereafter Kim).
Regarding claim 20, Tsao further discloses the semiconductor device structure as claimed in claim 19, further comprising: a second conductive line 172 (Fig. 5F, paragraph 0065) over the second dielectric layer 152 (Fig. 5F) and adjacent to the first conductive line 170 (Fig. 5F).
Tsao and Liaw739 do not disclose a first linewidth of the first conductive line is greater than a second linewidth of the second conductive line.
Kim discloses a first linewidth (W3 in Fig. 6, paragraph 0064) of the first conductive line M1_VDD (Fig. 6, paragraph 0064) is greater than a second linewidth (W4 in Fig. 6, paragraph 0064) of the second conductive line M1_S (Fig. 6, paragraph 0064).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Tsao in view of Liaw739 to form a first linewidth of the first conductive line is greater than a second linewidth of the second conductive line, as taught by Kim, since a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed ranges or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 f.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAMONT B KOO whose telephone number is (571)272-0984. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00 AM - 3:30 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, Steven Gauthier can be reached on (571)270-0373. 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.
/L.B.K/Examiner, Art Unit 2813
/SHAHED AHMED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2813