DETAILED ACTION
Foreign Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: Wiring structure for display panel having air gaps
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(B) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 2-3, 6-8, 10-18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant) regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the metal wiring”. The metes and bounds of the claimed limitation cannot be determined for the following reasons: the limitation lacks proper antecedent basis, and it is unclear if it refers to the “plurality of metal wirings”, or to one member of the plurality, or to another metal wiring.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the insulating layer”. The metes and bounds of the claimed limitation cannot be determined for the following reasons: the limitation lacks proper antecedent basis, and it is unclear if it refers to the “one or more insulating layer[s]”, or to one member of the “the one or more insulating layer[s]”, or to another insulating layer.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “a metal nitride based on Ru, Co, and Mn.” The metes and bounds of the claimed limitation cannot be determined for the following reasons: the specification appears to support the limitation meaning “a metal nitride based on Ru, Co, or Mn,” and to not support a Ru-Co-Mn-type material. Hence, it is unclear, specifically, what the claim requires.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “the bonding improvement layer comprises one or more nitrides of TaN, TiN, WN, RuTaN or phosphides of CoWP or NiMoP”. The metes and bounds of the claimed limitation cannot be determined for the following reasons:
The claim specifically require a “nitride of” TaN, TiN, WN, RuTaN; but TaN, TiN, WN, and RuTaN are already nitrides, so the phrasing does not make sense. The claim specifically require a “phosphide of” CoWP or NiMoP; but CoWP and NiMoP are already phosphides, so the phrasing does not make sense.
The claim is missing, at the very least, an “or” before “RuTaN”. However, the claim does not use the proper language for Markush listing (see e.g. MPEP 803.02, 2117) and it is recommended to use such language.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “the insulating layer”. The metes and bounds of the claimed limitation cannot be determined for the following reasons: the limitation lacks proper antecedent basis, and it is unclear if it refers to the “one or more insulating layer[s]”, or to one member of the “the one or more insulating layer[s]”, or to another insulating layer.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the wiring layer”. The metes and bounds of the claimed limitation cannot be determined for the following reasons: the limitation lacks proper antecedent basis, and it is unclear if it refers to the “wiring structure”, the “plurality of metal wirings”, or to one member of the plurality of metal wirings, or to another layer.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “the metal wiring”. The metes and bounds of the claimed limitation cannot be determined for the following reasons: the limitation lacks proper antecedent basis, and it is unclear if it refers to the “plurality of metal wirings”, or to one member of the plurality, or to another metal wiring.
Claim 11 recites the limitations “an air gap disposed between the spaced apart metal wirings” and “wherein the air gap comprises a first through air gap configured to penetrate at least two of the plurality of insulating layers in a vertical direction; and a second air gap disposed in at least one of the insulating layers”.
The metes and bounds of the claimed limitations cannot be determined for the following reasons: the claim equates “an air gap” (single) with plural air gaps (“a first through air gap” and “a second air gap”).
While the claim could have used terminology such as “one or more air gaps” or “a plurality of air gaps”, which make it clear that a set of plural gaps is covered, because the claim equates a single claimed air gap with plural air gaps, it makes the number of air gaps unclear, and it makes the connectedness or non-connectedness of the air gap(s) unclear, and it makes the overall requirements of the geometry of the air gap(s) unclear.
Claims 12-18 and 20 depend from claim 11 and inherit its deficiencies, while certain claims introduce further unclarity. For example, claims 13, 14, and 16 each recite limitations about overlap in horizontal or vertical directions, which is unclear due to the unclarity about the number and geometry of air gaps; and claim 17 discusses first and second widths of the second air gap, which is unclear if a first width can be in a completely different air gap than the second width.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “the insulating layers”.
The metes and bounds of the claimed limitation cannot be determined for the following reasons: the limitation lacks proper antecedent basis, and it is unclear if it refers to the “plurality of insulating layer[s]”, or to one member of the plurality, or to other insulating layers.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “wherein the first through air gap comprises: a first-first through air gap configured to vertically penetrate the first insulating layer and the second insulating layer; and a first-second through air gap configured to penetrate the second insulating layer and the third insulating layer in a vertical direction.”
The metes and bounds of the claimed limitation cannot be determined for the following reasons: the claim equates “first through air gap” (single) with plural air gaps (“a first-first through air gap” and “a second first-second through air gap”).
While the claim could have used terminology such as “one or more air gaps” or “a plurality of air gaps”, which make it clear that a set of plural gaps is covered, because the claim equates a single claimed air gap with plural air gaps, it makes the number of air gaps unclear, and it is unclear if the air gaps need to have certain properties, such as interconnectedness.
Claims 13-16 depend from claim 12 and inherit its deficiencies.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “wherein the second air gap comprises a second-first air gap configured to overlap the first-first through air gap in the horizontal direction, and a second-second air gap configured to overlap the first-second through air gap in the horizontal direction.”
The metes and bounds of the claimed limitation cannot be determined for the following reasons: the claim equates “second air gap” (single) with plural air gaps (“a second-first air gap” and “a second-second air gap”).
While the claim could have used terminology such as “one or more” air gaps or “a plurality of” air gaps, which make it clear that a set of plural gaps is covered, because the claim equates a single claimed air gap with plural air gaps, it makes the number of air gaps unclear, and it is unclear if the air gaps need to have certain properties, such as interconnectedness.
Claim 16 depend from claim 15 and inherits its deficiencies.
Claim 18 recites the limitation “the metal wiring” twice. The metes and bounds of the claimed limitation cannot be determined for the following reasons: the limitation lacks proper antecedent basis, and it is unclear if it refers to the “plurality of metal wirings”, or to one member of the plurality, or to another metal wiring.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102, some of which form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 2021/0098292 A1 (“Nguyen”).
Nguyen teaches, for example:
PNG
media_image1.png
566
810
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Nguyen teaches:
1. A wiring structure 300 (see e.g. Fig. 10) of a transistor (in 104) for driving a display panel (the disclosure does not discuss displays explicitly, but could certainly be used “for” a display; the limitation does not require a display, as it is only in the preamble and the text of the claim body does not require anything further about a display), comprising:
a substrate (e.g. 102);
a device layer (e.g. 104) including a plurality of transistors (see e.g. para 20-21) and disposed on the substrate;
at least one insulating layer (e.g. 106 and/or 116/118) disposed on the device layer;
a plurality of metal wirings (e.g. 114A-114D and wirings in the FEOL/MOL) that electrically connect the plurality of transistors and are spaced apart from each other and disposed on the insulating layer;
an air gap (e.g. 126) disposed between spaced apart metal wirings; and
an oxidation prevention layer (e.g. “diffusion oxidation barrier” 116, see e.g. para 28-32) disposed on the plurality of metal wirings.
2. The wiring structure according to claim 1, wherein the oxidation prevention layer is disposed on top and side surfaces of the metal wiring and the insulating layer (see e.g. Fig. 10).
5. The wiring structure according to claim 1, further comprising: a bonding improvement layer (e.g. 118) disposed on the oxidation prevention layer.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5, 7-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2009/0134517 A1 (“Usui”) in view of Nguyen.
Usui teaches, for example:
PNG
media_image2.png
432
543
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Usui teaches and/or would have suggested as obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention:
1. A wiring structure (see e.g. Fig. 7B) of a transistor (see discussion below) for driving a display panel (the disclosure does not discuss displays explicitly, but could certainly be used “for” a display; the limitation does not require a display, as it is only in the preamble and the text of the claim body does not require anything further about a display), comprising:
a substrate (e.g. 1);
a device layer (e.g. 2) including a plurality of transistors (it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that this wiring structure if for transistors, given the teaches of a “semiconductor device”, see e.g. para 6, “LSI”, see e.g. para 3, etc; see also the combination with Nguyen discussed below) and disposed on the substrate;
at least one insulating layer (e.g. one or more of 11, 12, 6, 13, 14, 15, 16) disposed on the device layer;
a plurality of metal wirings (e.g. 5, 9) that electrically connect the plurality of transistors and are spaced apart from each other and disposed on the insulating layer;
an air gap (e.g. 321, 722, 723) disposed between spaced apart metal wirings; and
an oxidation prevention layer (e.g. diffusion barrier 6, 16) disposed on the plurality of metal wirings.
Usui does not explicitly teach that the device layer has a plurality of transistors. Though, noted above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that this wiring structure if for transistors, given the teaches of a “semiconductor device”, see e.g. para 6, “LSI”, see e.g. para 3, etc. Furthermore, Nguyen teaches a plurality of transistors in the device layer (see e.g. para 20-21).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the invention of Nguyen to the invention of Usui. The motivation to do so is that the combination produces the predictable results of creating an integrated circuit chip (see e.g. para 1) comprising devices such as FETs, bipolar transistors, etc. (see e.g. para 20).
Usui and Nguyen together further teach and/or would have suggested as obvious at the time of invention to one of ordinary skill in the art:
2. The wiring structure according to claim 1, wherein the oxidation prevention layer is disposed on top and side surfaces of the metal wiring and the insulating layer (see e.g. Fig. 7B).
5. The wiring structure according to claim 1, further comprising: a bonding improvement layer disposed on the oxidation prevention layer (various layers may increase bonding to other elements, such as 13 or 13/14, which are on layer 6, see e.g. Fig. 7A).
7. The wiring structure according to claim 1, wherein the insulating layer comprises a first insulating layer (e.g. 11) disposed on the device layer; and a second insulating layer (e.g. 13) and a third insulating layer (e.g. 14) disposed on the oxidation preventing layer.
8. The wiring structure according to claim 7, wherein the wiring layer comprises: a first metal wiring (e.g. left 321) disposed on the first insulating layer; a second metal wiring (e.g. left 9) disposed on the second insulating layer; and a third metal wiring (e.g. right 9) disposed on the third insulating layer.
9. The wiring structure according to claim 1, wherein a first width of a lower side of the air gap is larger than a second width of an upper side of the air gap (see e.g. Fig. 7B, wherein the bottom of 722 is wider than the space 723).
10. The wiring structure according to claim 1, wherein a first width of a lower side of the metal wiring is smaller than a second width of an upper side of the metal wiring (see wherein 9 is “capital T-shaped” with a width in the horizontal direction that is larger at the width in the horizontal direction of the very lowermost part of 9).
Usui teaches and/or would have suggested as obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention:
11. A wiring structure (see e.g. Fig. 7B) of a transistor (see discussion below) for driving a display panel (the disclosure does not discuss displays explicitly, but could certainly be used “for” a display; the limitation does not require a display, as it is only in the preamble and the text of the claim body does not require anything further about a display), comprising:
a substrate (e.g. 1);
a device layer (e.g. 2) including a plurality of transistors (it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that this wiring structure if for transistors, given the teaches of a “semiconductor device”, see e.g. para 6, “LSI”, see e.g. para 3, etc; see also the combination with Nguyen discussed below) and disposed on the substrate;
a plurality of insulating layers (e.g. a combination of one or more of 11, 12, 6, 13, 14, 15, 16) disposed on the device layer;
a plurality of metal wirings (e.g. 5, 9) that electrically connect the plurality of transistors and are spaced apart from each other and disposed on the insulating layers;
an air gap (e.g. 321, 722, 723) disposed between the spaced apart metal wirings; and
an oxidation prevention layer (e.g. diffusion barrier 6, 16) disposed on the metal wiring,
wherein the air gap comprises a first through air gap configured to penetrate at least two of the plurality of insulating layers in a vertical direction (each 9 penetrates at least 13, 14, and 15; each 5 penetrates at least 11 and 12); and a second air gap disposed in at least one of the insulating layers (each 9 is in at least 13, 14, and 15; each 5 is in at least 11 and 12) (see e.g. Fig. 7B).
Usui does not explicitly teach that the device layer has a plurality of transistors. Though, noted above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that this wiring structure if for transistors, given the teaches of a “semiconductor device”, see e.g. para 6, “LSI”, see e.g. para 3, etc. Furthermore, Nguyen teaches a plurality of transistors in the device layer (see e.g. para 20-21).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the invention of Nguyen to the invention of Usui. The motivation to do so is that the combination produces the predictable results of creating an integrated circuit chip (see e.g. para 1) comprising devices such as FETs, bipolar transistors, etc. (see e.g. para 20).
12. The wiring structure according to claim 11, wherein the insulating layers comprise a first insulating layer (e.g. 11) disposed on the device layer; and a second insulating layer (e.g. 13) and a third insulating layer (e.g. 14) disposed on the oxidation preventing layer (e.g. lower 6),
wherein the first through air gap comprises: a first-first through air gap configured to vertically penetrate the first insulating layer and the second insulating layer; and a first-second through air gap configured to penetrate the second insulating layer and the third insulating layer in a vertical direction (the exact geometry of the air gaps is unclear, see the 112 rejections; there are complex air gaps such as 722/723, and air gaps such as 321, which can individually or in combination be reasonably be interpreted as individual or plural air gaps, meeting the claimed limitation, see e.g. Fig. 7B).
13. The wiring structure according to claim 12, wherein the first-first through air gap and the first-second through air gap do not overlap in the vertical direction (the exact geometry of the air gaps is unclear, see the 112 rejections; there are complex air gaps such as 722/723, and air gaps such as 321, which can individually or in combination be reasonably be interpreted as individual or plural air gaps, meeting the claimed limitation, see e.g. Fig. 7B).
14. The wiring structure according to claim 12, wherein the first-first through air gap and the first-second through air gap overlap at least partially in a horizontal direction (the exact geometry of the air gaps is unclear, see the 112 rejections; there are complex air gaps such as 722/723, and air gaps such as 321, which can individually or in combination be reasonably be interpreted as individual or plural air gaps, meeting the claimed limitation, see e.g. Fig. 7B).
15. The wiring structure according to claim 12, wherein the second air gap comprises a second-first air gap configured to overlap the first-first through air gap in the horizontal direction, and a second-second air gap configured to overlap the first-second through air gap in the horizontal direction (the exact geometry of the air gaps is unclear, see the 112 rejections; there are complex air gaps such as 722/723, and air gaps such as 321, which can individually or in combination be reasonably be interpreted as individual or plural air gaps, meeting the claimed limitation, see e.g. Fig. 7B).
16. The wiring structure according to claim 15, wherein the second-first air gap is configured to overlap the first-second through air gap in the vertical direction, and the second-second air gap is configured to overlap the first-first through air gap in the vertical direction (the exact geometry of the air gaps is unclear, see the 112 rejections; there are complex air gaps such as 722/723, and air gaps such as 321, which can individually or in combination be reasonably be interpreted as individual or plural air gaps, meeting the claimed limitation, see e.g. Fig. 7B).
17. The wiring structure according to claim 11, wherein a first width of a lower side of the second air gap is larger than a second width of an upper side of the second air gap (the exact geometry of the air gaps is unclear, see the 112 rejections; there are complex air gaps such as 722/723, and air gaps such as 321, which can individually or in combination be reasonably be interpreted as individual or plural air gaps, meeting the claimed limitation, see e.g. Fig. 7B).
18. The wiring structure according to claim 11, wherein a first width of a lower side of the metal wiring is smaller than a second width of an upper side of the metal wiring (see wherein 9 is “capital T-shaped” with a width in the horizontal direction that is larger at the width in the horizontal direction of the very lowermost part of 9).
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Usui in view of US 6171957 B1 (“Maekawa”).
Usui teaches the invention of claim 1, as discussed above, but does not explicitly teach wherein the oxidation prevention layer comprises a metal layer including one or more of Ru, Co, and Mn, or a metal oxide or a metal nitride based on Ru, Co, and Mn (claim 3) or wherein the oxidation prevention layer comprises: a metal layer including one or more of Ru, Co, and Mn disposed on the insulating layer; and a Ru, Co or Mn-based metal oxide layer or a metal nitride layer disposed on the metal layer (claim 4).
Maekawa teaches and/or would have suggested as obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention, in combination with Usui wherein the oxidation prevention layer comprises a metal layer including one or more of Ru, Co, and Mn, or a metal oxide or a metal nitride based on Ru, Co, and Mn (claim 3) (see e.g. col 3, lines 56-65) and wherein the oxidation prevention layer comprises: a metal layer including one or more of Ru, Co, and Mn disposed on the insulating layer; and a Ru, Co or Mn-based metal oxide layer or a metal nitride layer disposed on the metal layer (claim 4) (see e.g. col 3, lines 56-65).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the invention of Maekawa to the invention of Usui. The motivation to do so is that the combination produces the predictable results of forming well-known materials, such as W, Ta, Mn, etc., or composites such as a nitrides of these materials and the materials themselves (e.g. TiN/Ti, MnN/Mn), to prevent oxidation of the interconnections (see e.g. col 3, lines 56-65).
Applicant has not disclosed that the claimed material is for a particular unobvious purpose, produces an unexpected result, or is otherwise critical, which are criteria that have been held to be necessary for material limitations to be prima facie unobvious. The claimed material is considered to be a "preferred" or "optimum" material out of a plurality of well known materials that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have found obvious to provide to the invention of the cited prior art reference, using routine experimentation and optimization of the invention. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
It has been established that “the [obviousness] analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim” because the Office or “a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR Int’ Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). It is also well settled that a reference stands for all of the specific teachings thereof as well as the inferences one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably been expected to draw therefrom. See In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264-65 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Usui in view of US 2021/0028115 A1 (“Bao”).
Usui teaches the invention of claim 1, as discussed above, but does not explicitly teach wherein the bonding improvement layer comprises one or more nitrides of TaN, TiN, WN, RuTaN or phosphides of CoWP or NiMoP.
Bao teaches and/or would have suggested as obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention, in combination with Usui wherein the bonding improvement layer comprises one or more nitrides of TaN, TiN, WN, RuTaN or phosphides of CoWP or NiMoP (see e.g. para 19).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the invention of Bao to the invention of Usui. The motivation to do so is that the combination produces the predictable results of using a layer of an adhesion layer made from a material such as TiN to improvie bonding between the various interconnections and other elements (see e.g. para 19).
Applicant has not disclosed that the claimed material is for a particular unobvious purpose, produces an unexpected result, or is otherwise critical, which are criteria that have been held to be necessary for material limitations to be prima facie unobvious. The claimed material is considered to be a "preferred" or "optimum" material out of a plurality of well known materials that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have found obvious to provide to the invention of the cited prior art reference, using routine experimentation and optimization of the invention. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
It has been established that “the [obviousness] analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim” because the Office or “a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR Int’ Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). It is also well settled that a reference stands for all of the specific teachings thereof as well as the inferences one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably been expected to draw therefrom. See In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264-65 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Usui in view of Nguyen and US 2020/0044191 A1 (“Kishi”).
Usui and Nguyen together teaches and/or would have suggested as obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention of claims 1 and 11, see above. Neither further explicitly teaches or suggests display driver IC comprising the wiring structure according to claim 1 (claim 19) or a display driver IC comprising the wiring structure according to claim 11 (claim 20).
Kishi teaches and/or would have suggested as obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention, in combination with Usui and Nguyen to use the invention of Usui and Nguyen in a display driver (see e.g. para 3, 63, Fig. 1, etc.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the invention of Kishi to the invention of Usui and Nguyen. The motivation to do so is that the combination produces the predictable results of using the metallic interconnection structures of Usui and Nguyen in a display in order to allow wirings to carry signals to operate the device (see e.g. para 3, 63, Fig. 1, etc.).
Conclusion
Conclusion / Prior Art
The prior art made of record, because it is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, but which is not relied upon specifically in the rejections above, is listed on the Notice of References Cited.
Conclusion / Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kevin Parendo who can be contacted by phone at (571) 270-5030 or by direct fax at (571) 270-6030. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 9 am to 4 pm ET.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Billy Kraig, can be reached at (571) 272-8660. The fax number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Kevin Parendo/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896
Prosecution Insights