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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 2-3, 13-14, and 21, and those depending therefrom, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 2 and 13, the claimed “is configured to reversibly change its state depending on a wavelength of light directed to the light reactive material” is meant to convey a material and/or material property in regards to the “light reactive material.” In other words, Applicant defines a “light reactive material” in claim 1 and then moves to further specify the “light reactive material” in claim 2 via functional limitations that are meant to invoke structure. However, Applicant merely discuses a “light reactive material” in the specification and doesn’t specify any structure beyond that.
As such, either all “light reactive materials” are capable of the claimed function or only specific “light reactive materials” are capable of the claimed function. If the latter, then the specific “light reactive materials” responsible for the claimed function must be described in the specification.
Regarding claims 3 and 14, the claimed “wherein the light reactive material comprises an ultraviolet-curable resin” is indefinite. Applicant defines a “light reactive material” in claim 1 and then moves to further specify the “light reactive material” in claim 3 via functional limitations that are meant to invoke structure. However, Applicant merely discuses a “light reactive material” in the specification and doesn’t specify any structure beyond that. Applicant does not describe uv-curable resins. While resins are known, “uv-curable” is a specific type of resin capable of the function of being cured by ultraviolet (i.e. uv). These resins should be described and included in the specification if they are being claimed. Claiming inherently implies the importance of the structure and, therefore, this structure is consequential for determining what structures (absent of UV light, which isn’t being claimed) meet the claimed functional structure.
As such, either all “light reactive materials” are capable of the claimed function or only specific “light reactive materials” are capable of the claimed function. If the latter, then the specific “light reactive materials” responsible for the claimed function must be described in the specification.
Regarding claim 21, the claimed “hardly absorbs ultraviolet light” is indefinite as the term “hardly” is a relative term. For the purpose of examination, the examiner will consider this to be blocks ultraviolet light, which means any amount of blocking of ultraviolet light will be considered to meet the claim limitation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 12, which depends from claim 11, recites “the polishing pad comprises a light transmissive material; and a light reactive material mixed into the light transmissive material, at least a part of the polishing pad being made of the light transmissive material and the light reactive material,” while claim 11 recites “the polishing-pad structure includes a polishing pad having a polishing surface for polishing the substrate, and at least a part of the polishing-pad structure is made of a light transmissive material and a light reactive material, the light reactive material being mixed into the light transmissive material.” The term “polishing-pad structure” is understood to be a ”polishing pad having a polishing surface.”
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 5, 11, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim (US-2012/0178349).
Regarding claim 1 (Original), Kim (US-2012/0178349) discloses a polishing pad having a polishing surface for polishing a substrate, comprising:
a light transmissive material (polyurethane pad 402, 502) (“the materials used in the polishing pad and the wavelength range of the laser beams may be selected in such a manner that the polymer material, such as polyurethane, forming the polishing pad absorbs less or no light in the wavelength range of the laser beams and the light-absorbing materials absorb light well in the same wavelength range”) [Kim; paragraph 0036]; and
a light reactive material (“light-absorbing materials 401, 501) mixed into the light transmissive material (polyurethane pad 402, 502) (Figs. 4a-5c), at least a part of the polishing pad being made of the light transmissive material and the light reactive material (polyurethane pad 402, 502) (Figs. 4a-5c).
Regarding claim 4 (Previously Presented), Kim discloses the polishing pad according to claim 1, wherein the light transmissive material (polyurethan pad 402, 502) is configured to be able to pass light having a wavelength in a range from a wavelength of ultraviolet light to a wavelength of visible light (Fig. 3) (“the polymer material, such as polyurethane, forming the polishing pad absorbs less or no light in the wavelength range of the laser beams and the light-absorbing materials absorb light well in the same wavelength range”) [Kim; paragraph 0036].
Regarding claim 5 (Previously Presented), Kim discloses the polishing pad according to claim 1, wherein the light transmissive material (polyurethane pad 402, 502) comprises resin including a base material (pad 402, 502) which is one or a mixture of two or more of acrylic resin, polyethylene terephthalate, polycarbonate, olefin resin, fluorine resin, nylon, and polyurethane (“the polymer material, such as polyurethane, forming the polishing pad absorbs less or no light in the wavelength range of the laser beams and the light-absorbing materials absorb light well in the same wavelength range”) [Kim; paragraph 0036].
Regarding claim 11 (Original), Kim discloses a polishing apparatus for polishing a substrate, comprising:
a polishing-pad structure (polishing pad 102);
a polishing table (flat table 101) configured to support the polishing-pad structure (polishing pad 102);
a polishing head (carrier 104) configured to press the substrate (wafer 103) against the polishing-pad structure (polishing pad 102) (Fig. 1); and
a light source (source of laser beam 302 shown in Figs. 3 and 6) configured to emit light to the polishing-pad structure (“the laser beams may be generated by a pulse laser”) [Kim; paragraph 0019],
wherein the polishing-pad structure (polishing pad 102) includes a polishing pad (polishing pad 102) having a polishing surface for polishing the substrate (wafer 103) (Fig. 1), and
at least a part of the polishing-pad structure is made of a light transmissive material (polyurethane) (“the materials used in the polishing pad and the wavelength range of the laser beams may be selected in such a manner that the polymer material, such as polyurethane, forming the polishing pad absorbs less or no light in the wavelength range of the laser beams and the light-absorbing materials absorb light well in the same wavelength range”) [Kim; paragraph 0036] and
a light reactive material (“light-absorbing materials” 401, 501), the light reactive material being mixed into the light transmissive material (Figs. 4a-5c).
Regarding claim 12 (Currently Amended), Kim discloses the polishing apparatus according to claim 11, wherein the polishing pad comprises:
a light transmissive material (polyurethane) (“the materials used in the polishing pad and the wavelength range of the laser beams may be selected in such a manner that the polymer material, such as polyurethane, forming the polishing pad absorbs less or no light in the wavelength range of the laser beams and the light-absorbing materials absorb light well in the same wavelength range”) [Kim; paragraph 0036]; and
a light reactive material (“light-absorbing materials” 401, 501), the light reactive material being mixed into the light transmissive material (Figs. 4a-5c), at least a part of the polishing pad being made of the light transmissive material and the light reactive material (Figs. 4a-5c).
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.
Claim(s) 2-3 and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US-2012/0178349) in view of Bajaj (US-2015/0044951).
Regarding claim 2 (Original), Kim discloses the polishing pad according to claim 1. As to “wherein the light reactive material is configured to reversibly change its state depending on a wavelength of light directed to the light reactive material,” Applicant describes the light reactive material as an “ultraviolet-curable resin” [Application Publication; paragraphs 0014, 0025, 0165]. While the Applicant discusses the function of the “light reactive material” (see paragraph 0108), there is little to nothing mentioned about its actual structure except that it is an “ultraviolet-curable resin.” Therefore, it’s understood that a “ultraviolet-curable resin” in is capable of the claimed function as an “ultraviolet-curable resin [can be] used as the light reactive material 35” as claimed.
While Kim doesn’t disclose using ultraviolet-curable resin, Bajaj teaches the use of similar polymers, also reactive to lasers, that are reactive to energy not just in the visible spectrum and the infrared spectrum, but also in the ultraviolet spectrum (“the polymers are chosen to have properties that provide a different reactivity to laser energy at wavelengths within the ultraviolet (UV) spectrum, the visible spectrum, the infrared (IR) spectrum, among other wavelength ranges”) [Bajaj; paragraph 0049]. In both Kim and Bajaj, the lasers are used to activate reactive elements within the polishing pad and, as such, it would’ve been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use ultraviolet-curable resins, as taught by Bajaj, for the laser-curable resins of Kim in order to make the material of a different reactivity in order to effect different patterns and different rates of ablation, as taught by Bajaj [Bajaj; paragraph 0047].
Regarding claim 3 (Original), Kim discloses the polishing pad according to claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the light reactive material comprises an ultraviolet-curable resin
However, Bajaj teaches wherein the light reactive material comprises an ultraviolet-curable resin (“the polymers are chosen to have properties that provide a different reactivity to laser energy at wavelengths within the ultraviolet (UV) spectrum, the visible spectrum, the infrared (IR) spectrum, among other wavelength ranges”) [Bajaj; paragraph 0049]. In both Kim and Bajaj, the lasers are used to activate reactive elements within the polishing pad and, as such, it would’ve been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use ultraviolet-curable resins, as taught by Bajaj, for the laser-curable resins of Kim in order to make the material of a different reactivity in order to effect different patterns and different rates of ablation, as taught by Bajaj [Bajaj; paragraph 0047].
Regarding claim 16 (Previously Presented), Kim discloses the polishing apparatus according to claim 11, but fails to disclose wherein the light source is configured to be able to change a wavelength of the light in at least a range of a wavelength of ultraviolet light to a wavelength of visible light, or the light source is configured to emit ultraviolet light.
However, Bajaj (US-2015/0044951) teaches a light source is configured to be able to change a wavelength of the light in at least a range of a wavelength of ultraviolet light to a wavelength of visible light, or the light source is configured to emit ultraviolet light (“In one aspect, the polymers are chosen to have properties that provide a different reactivity to laser energy at wavelengths within the ultraviolet (UV) spectrum, the visible spectrum, the infrared (IR) spectrum, among other wavelength ranges.”) [Bajaj; paragraph 0049]. Since Kim is in the same field of endeavor, it therefore would’ve been obvious to provide a light source configured to be able to change a wavelength of the light in at least a range of a wavelength of ultraviolet light to a wavelength of visible light, or the light source is configured to emit ultraviolet light as taught by Bajaj such that different materials could be used within the pad, each having different reactivities to light, to provide certain surface desired properties caused by the light [(“[O]ne or more of the materials within the composite material of the polishing article may be reactive with laser energy within one or more of these spectrums while another of the materials within the composite material of the polishing article is substantially non-reactive with the laser energy. The reactivity of select materials within the composite material of the polishing article with the laser energy over other materials within the composite material of the polishing article may be used to create a patterned polishing surface on the polishing pad.”) [Bajaj; paragraph 0049].
Regarding claim 17 (Previously Presented), Kim discloses the polishing apparatus according to claim 11, but fails to disclose wherein the light source is disposed in the polishing table or above the polishing table.
However, Bajaj teaches use of the light (120) over the polishing pad (100), which sits overtop a polishing table for rotation during polishing [Bajaj; paragraphs 0005-0006]. Bajaj also teaches that the use of the laser, which effects a conditioning of the surface, can be used during polishing of the substrates (“methods of polishing substrates and conditioning of the polishing articles before, during and after polishing of substrates”) [Bajaj; paragraph 0023]. Therefore, it would’ve been obvious, in view of Bajaj, to include a light source disposed above the polishing table of Kim in order to form the pores and condition the surface during polishing (“The present disclosure is directed to providing a CMP polishing pad having pores formed therein, wherein the pores have a controlled size and distribution.”) [Kim; paragraph 0008] (“As shown in FIG. 2B, the pores 205 shown in FIG. 2A may be formed in one or more regions of the second material 125B when exposing the body 123 to laser energy.”) [Bajaj; paragraph 0027].
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US-2012/0178349) in view of Bajaj (US-2015/0044951) and further in view of Bachand (US-2002/0006770).
Regarding claim 18 (Currently Amended), Kim discloses the polishing apparatus according to claim 11, but fails to disclose wherein the polishing table includes a support plate configured to support the polishing-pad structure, and the support plate is made of transparent ceramic or quartz glass.
However, Bachand (US-2002/0006770) teaches a platen top comprising an insulator material such as glass because it is “substantially impervious to the slurry” [Bachand; paragraph 0025] used in the CMP process. Therefore, in view of Bachand, it would’ve been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a platen top comprising glass to the polishing table of Kim in order to prevent it from being damaged due to the slurry [Bachand; paragraph 0025]. While Bachand does not disclose a “quartz glass” or “transparent ceramic,” Washino (US-2005/0250334) states that quartz is a material known to be resistant to polishing liquid (“Although a quartz jig is exemplified as the jig for attaching the semiconductor substrate, the kind of material is of no matter, only if the material is corrosion-resistant against the polishing liquid used (i.e., only if the material is resistant to corrosion/polishing). For example, the material may be glass or a ceramic material.”) [Washino; paragraph 0024] and, therefore, it would’ve been an obvious alternative to use quartz, as taught by Washino, for the glass material taught by Bachand as it is a known material known to provide the same result as glass [Washino; paragraph 0024].
Claim(s) 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US-2012/0178349) in view of Bajaj (US-2015/0044951) and further in view of Kessel (US-2008/0014532).
Regarding claim 19 (Currently Amended), Kim discloses the polishing apparatus according to claim 11, wherein a part of the polishing apparatus is covered with a coating layer that blocks or absorbs ultraviolet light.
However, Kessel (US-2008/0014532) teaches wherein a part of a polishing apparatus (1) is covered with a coating layer (“photothermal conversion layer” 4) that blocks or absorbs ultraviolet light (“photothermal conversion layer can be formed by mixing the light absorbing agent such as carbon black”) [Kessel; paragraph 0054]. Kessel teaches that a photothermal conversion layer made of a coating that blocks or absorbs ultraviolet light can help with the separation of a substrate from its support and, therefore, it would’ve been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to put a coating layer, in the form of a photothermal conversion layer as taught by Kessel, onto the back of the polishing pad of Kim in order to remove the pad (pad 102) from the support/platen (platen 101) more easily when there is a need for replacement (“carbon black is particularly useful, because the carbon black significantly decreases the force necessary for separating the substrate from the support after the irradiation and accelerates the separation”) [Kessel; paragraph 0049]
Regarding claim 20 (Original), Kim, as modified by Kessel, discloses the polishing apparatus according to claim 19, wherein the coating layer contains an ultraviolet blocking agent, and the ultraviolet blocking agent comprises carbon black or inorganic pigment (“carbon black is particularly useful, because the carbon black significantly decreases the force necessary for separating the substrate from the support after the irradiation and accelerates the separation”) [Kessel; paragraph 0049].
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US-2012/0178349) in view of Bajaj (US-2015/0044951) and further in view of Mok (US-5964413).
Regarding claims 21 (Previously Presented) and 22 (Original), Kim discloses the polishing apparatus according to claim 11, but fails to disclose herein a part of the polishing apparatus is made of plastic material that hardly absorbs ultraviolet light, wherein the plastic material comprises one of polymethyl methacrylate, polycarbonate, polyvinyl chloride, and polytetrafluoroethylene
However, Mok (US-5964413) discloses the polishing apparatus according to claim 21, wherein the plastic material comprises one of polymethyl methacrylate, polycarbonate, polyvinyl chloride, and polytetrafluoroethylene (“The housing, the wheel assembly and any surface that comes into contact with the slurry, can be constructed from material (e.g., polycarbonate, polypropylene, or any material with a teflon coating on exposed surfaces) which is chemically inert with respect to the slurry.”) [Mok; col. 2, lines 8-12]. Since Mok’s disclose is pertinent to CMP (“The present invention relates to dispensing a liquid. In particular, the present invention relates to dispensing slurry in a chemical-mechanical polishing (CMP) application.”) [Mok; col. 1, lines 6-8], it therefore would’ve been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make a part of the polishing apparatus of Kim, particularly housings, out of a plastic material, wherein the plastic material comprises polycarbonate, a material which meets the functional limitation of hardly absorbing ultraviolet light, in order to prevent the slurry from damaging parts of the CMP device of Kim (“The housing, the wheel assembly and any surface that comes into contact with the slurry, can be constructed from material (e.g., polycarbonate, polypropylene, or any material with a teflon coating on exposed surfaces) which is chemically inert with respect to the slurry.”) [Mok; col. 2, lines 8-12].
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US-2012/0178349) in view of Bajaj (US-2015/0044951) and further in view of Lin (TW I229381B).
Regarding claim 23 (Currently Amended), Kim discloses the polishing apparatus according to claim 11, but fails to disclose further comprising a rigidity measuring device configured to measure a rigidity of the polishing pad.
However, Lin (TW I229381B) teaches “detecting the rigidity of the polishing pad” in order to “determine the local abrasion status” [Lin; page 21]. Since Lin is pertinent to polishing wafers, it therefore would’ve been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to measure the rigidity of the polishing pad to determine the local abrasion status for polishing uniformity as made obvious by Lin [Lin; page 21]. While Lin does not disclose a rigidity measuring device, Lin does mention the word “detecting” and, therefore, it would’ve been obvious to use a rigidity detector/measuring device as a relatively easy and quick way for determining rigidity, as is well-known in the use of measurement automation.
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US-2012/0178349) in view of Bajaj (US-2015/0044951) and further in view of Menk (US-2012/0009847).
Regarding claim 24 (Previously Presented), Kim discloses the polishing apparatus according to claim 11, but fails to disclose a thickness measuring device configured to measure a thickness of the polishing pad.
However, Menk (US-2012/0009847) teaches a thickness measuring device (“displacement sensor 260”) configured to measure a thickness of a polishing pad (“the displacement sensor 260 may take thickness measurements of the polishing surface 230 and the polishing pad 236”) [Menk; paragraph 0028]. Since Menk is pertinent to CMP apparatus, it therefore would’ve been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate a thickness measuring device, as taught by Menk, into the device of Kim in order to determine if the pad needs replacement (“By measuring the pad thickness more often, it can be easier to identify when the pad needs replacement.”) [Menk; paragraph 0035].
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US-2012/0178349) in view of Bajaj (US-2015/0044951) and further in view of Yamaguchi (US-2007/0049166).
Regarding claim 25 (Previously Presented), Kim discloses the polishing apparatus according to claim 11, but fails to disclose further comprising an operation controller configured to count the number of processed substrates after replacement of the polishing pad.
However, Yamaguchi teaches an operation controller configured to count the number of processed substrates after replacement of the polishing pad (“In the database is stored data on the counted number of substrates which have been polished since the latest replacement of the old polishing pad 101 with a new one.”) [Yamaguchi; paragraph 0117]. Since Yamaguchi is pertinent to CMP machines, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Kim with an operation controller as claimed in order to determine the wear of the polishing pad [Yamaguchi; paragraph 0117].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6, and those depending therefrom including claims 7-10 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art fails to anticipate or render obvious, in combination with all other claim limitations, “a light reactive layer.” The prior art only make the polishing pad light reactive and does not anticipate or make obvious a second layer and/or sheet that is “light reactive.”
Claim 13, and those claims depending therefrom including claims 14-15, would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art fails to anticipate or render obvious, in combination with all other claim limitations, “a light reactive sheet.” The prior art only makes the polishing pad light reactive and does not anticipate or make obvious a second layer and/or sheet that is “light reactive.”
Claim 26, and those depending therefrom including claims 27-28, are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art fails to anticipate, in combination with all other claim limitations, “calculating an optimum value of the wavelength of the light, the intensity of the light, or the irradiation time of the light based on a correlation between the physical quantity and one of the wavelength of the light, the intensity of the light, and the irradiation time of the light, and changing the wavelength of the light, the intensity of the light, or the irradiation time of the light to the optimum value; and when the physical quantity is within the physical-quantity reference range, polishing the substrate, wherein the target value of the physical quantity is a value of the physical quantity when the light is directed to the polishing-pad structure under a condition that the wavelength of the light, the intensity of the light, or the irradiation time of the light has the initial set value” as claimed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOEL DILLON CRANDALL whose telephone number is (571)270-5947. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:30 - 5:30.
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, Monica Carter can be reached at 571-270-5947. 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.
/JOEL D CRANDALL/ Examiner, Art Unit 3723