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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-7, 13, and 16, in the reply filed on 09/29/2025 is acknowledged. Claim 16 has been canceled.
Claims 8-12 and 14-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 09/29/2025.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 01/12/2024 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires 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.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 2, 4, and 13 is/are objected to because of the following informalities: claim 2 contains a misplaced parenthesis after “arrangement.” Claim 4 is missing a period at the end of the claim. Claim 13 contains a misplaced comma after the preamble. Appropriate correction is required.
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) 4-5 and 13 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 4 recites the limitations “the water inlets of the top face,” “corresponding water inlets of the bottom face,” “the water outlet of the top face,” and “the water outlet of the bottom face.” Claim 1 introduces two internal water channel arrangements but only a single set of water inlets and a water outlet which are not specific to a particular face (the top and bottom face each comprise an internal water channel arrangement – i.e., two water channel arrangements – for providing a flow path between a set of inlets and a water outlet – i.e., one set of water inlets and one water outlet is introduced, neither of which is specific to the top or bottom face; this appears to be confirmed by claims 3 and 6) such that the noted limitations lack sufficient antecedent basis.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the first carrier" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The indicated dependent claims are rejected for the reasons provided above.
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.
(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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lue, US 20070000441 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Lue discloses a chuck (substrate support 1100, Fig. 11A) for use in an imprinting apparatus (for supporting a substrate 1104 on its upper surface 1102a, Fig. 11A, [0123], and thus capable of being used in an imprinting apparatus) and configured to carry a substrate having a resist layer (configured to carry a substrate 1100, [0123], the substrate being, e.g., a wafer, [0110], therefore capable of carrying a substrate having a resist layer) wherein the chuck comprises a hollow cylindrical body (Figs. 11A-11D) having a top face and a bottom face (upper and lower faces, Figs. 11A-11G), wherein the top face and the bottom face each comprise an internal water channel arrangement (for top face – internal region 1120, Fig. 11A, [0125]; for bottom face – internal region 1122, Fig. 11A, [0126]) for providing a flow path between a set of water inlets and a water outlet (e.g., inlets from openings 1108a, outlet to drain, Figs. 11A, 11D-G).
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) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lue, US 20070000441 A1, as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 2, Lue discloses the chuck of claim 1. In the same embodiment Lue does not disclose a lattice arrangement. However, Lue further discloses an additional configuration wherein the chuck comprises a lattice arrangement between the top and bottom faces (Figs. 12A-12B). Lue teaches the raised partitions 1202 forming the lattice arrangement can provide the capability to preclude mixing of thermal control fluid between different inlet/outlet hole pairs ([0134]).
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 chuck of Lue to include a lattice arrangement between the top and bottom faces in order to provide an arrangement that could preclude mixing of the thermal control fluid between different inlet/outlet hole pairs, as taught by Lue.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lue, US 20070000441 A1, as applied to claim 1, in view of Tsuda et al., US 20210302846 A1.
Regarding claim 3, Lue discloses the chuck of claim 1, wherein the set of water inlets is arranged around a periphery of the chuck (outer water inlets 1108a of the top face being arranged around periphery, Fig. 11D). Lue broadly depicts the water outlet as directed to a side (Fig. 11A, 11E) and thus does not disclose the water outlet is arranged in the center of the chuck.
In the analogous art, Tsuda discloses a cooled substrate stage (Abstract) with multiple internal water channel arrangements (Figs. 1-2) wherein the water outlet is arranged in the center of the chuck such that it can be discharged to the outside from a lower end of the shaft (Figs. 1-2, return flow path through hollow 42 in shaft 4b, [0025], [0035]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify the water outlet of Lue is arranged in the center of the chuck in order to implement a suitable discharge configuration for the outlet for removing the return flow of the coolant from the system, as taught by Tsuda.
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lue, US 20070000441 A1, as applied to claim 1, in view of Parkhe, US 20160148828 A1.
Regarding claims 4-5, Lue discloses the chuck of claim 1, wherein the chuck comprises a set of ducts extending between the top and bottom faces (structures in region 1114 for flowing thermal control fluid, Figs. 11A, 11D, [0125]), with ducts between the water inlets of the top face and corresponding water inlets of the bottom face (boss structures 1124, Fig. 11D, [0126]), and with a duct between the water outlet of the top face and the water outlet of the bottom face (boss structures 1124, Fig. 11D, [0126]). Lue does not disclose the ducts each comprise a stress reduction feature comprising a bellows structure.
In the analogous art, Parkhe teaches providing fluid conduits for a chuck assembly with a bellows structure (bellows 110, Fig. 8, [0048]-[0049]). Parkhe teaches that bellows structures enable axial extension and retraction to accommodate vertical movement of the chuck body that may occur during loading or unloading from the chucking surface while maintaining fluid tight connections ([0048]).
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 ducts of Lue to include a stress reduction feature such as a bellows structure in order to provide the capability of axial extension or retraction to accommodate movement during loading or unloading of a substrate from the chuck surface while maintaining fluid connections, as taught by Parkhe.
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lue, US 20070000441 A1, as applied to claim 2, and further in view of Kataoka, US 20190355598 A1.
Regarding claim 6, Lue discloses the chuck of claim 2, wherein the internal water channel arrangement of the top face comprises a set of ridges for defining meandering paths between the water inlets and the water outlet (raised boss structures defining openings 1108a, Figs. 11A, 11D, [0125]). Lue is silent as to the internal water channel arrangement of the bottom face also comprising a set of ridges.
In the analogous art, Kataoka discloses a temperature-controlled mounting table (Figs. 2-3). Kataoka discloses the table includes multiple stages of cooling flow paths (Figs. 2-3, flow paths 12 and 13 associated with the upper and lower faces, respectively, [0040]-[0042]). Kataoka teaches the internal water channel arrangement of the bottom face comprises a set of ridges (Fig. 5, valve plates 13b-13d, [0071]) for defining meandering paths between a water inlet and water outlet (Fig. 5, for deflecting the flow of coolant in the cooling flow path 13, [0071]) so that the coolant stays for a longer time and its temperature is made more uniform ([0071]).
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 internal water channel arrangement of the bottom face of Lue to comprise a set of ridges defining meandering paths between the water inlets and the water outlet in order to enable deflection of the coolant in the flow path so that its temperature is made more uniform, as taught by Kataoka.
Regarding claim 7, modified Lue discloses the chuck of claim 6, and Lue further discloses the internal water channel arrangement of the top face further comprises a set of pillars along the meandering paths (internal reinforcements 1103, Fig. 11C, [0123]). The combination as set forth above further discloses the internal water channel arrangement of the bottom face comprises a set of pillars along the meandering paths (Kataoka: rotation shafts 13b1-13d1 provided with the corresponding valve plates 13b-13d, Fig. 5, [0071]).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lue, US 20070000441 A1, as applied to claim 1, in view of Yoshida, US 20100273114 A1.
Regarding claim 13, Lue discloses the chuck of claim 1. Lue does not disclose the chuck comprises a set of position sensors for measuring a distance from a surface of the chuck to the first carrier.
In the analogous art, Yoshida discloses providing a chuck (wafer stage 10, Fig. 1) with a set of position sensors for measuring a distance from a surface of the chuck to a first carrier (two-dimensional positions of a reticle stage, i.e., carrier, and wafer stage are measured by measurement devices each including a reference mirror 11 and laser interferometer 12, [0037], Fig. 1). Yoshida teaches the measurement devices enable synchronous control of positions of the stage and other elements moving relative to the stage ([0036]-[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 chuck to include a set of position sensors for measuring a distance from a surface of the chuck to the first carrier in order to provide the capability of accurate and synchronous control of the chuck position relative to other moving elements of the processing system, as taught by Yoshida.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-2 and 13 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2 and 14 of copending Application No. 18/579565 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Regarding instant claim 1, reference claim 14 of the reference application includes a chuck for use in an imprinting apparatus and configured to carry a substrate having a resist layer (claim 1) wherein the chuck comprises a hollow cylindrical body having a top face and a bottom face (claim 14), and an internal water channel arrangement for providing a flow path between a set of water inlets and a water outlet (claim 14). Reference claim 14 does not recite two internal water channel arrangements but mere duplication of an existing part has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B)).
Regarding instant claim 2, reference claim 14 recites the chuck comprises a lattice arrangement between the top and bottom faces.
Regarding instant claim 13, reference claim 2 recites the chuck comprises a set of position sensors for measuring a distance from a surface of the chuck to the first carrier.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 3 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 14 of copending Application No. 18/579565 in view of Tsuda et al., US 20210302846 A1.
Regarding instant claim 3, reference claim 14 includes the features of claim 1 but does not recite a particular arrangement of the water inlets and outlet. Analogous art Tsuda teaches arranging a set of water inlets around a periphery of a chuck and the water outlet is arranged in the center of the chuck (Figs. 1-3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to recite the claimed configuration as a suitable arrangement for establishing coolant flow in a chuck, as taught by Tsuda.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Note that the remaining dependent claims are considered patentably distinct from the claims of the reference application and thus are not rejected under double patenting.
Claims 1-2 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 10, and 12 of copending Application No. 18/580176 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Regarding instant claim 1, claim 12 of the reference application includes a chuck for use in an imprinting apparatus and configured to carry a substrate having a resist layer (claim 1) wherein the chuck comprises a hollow cylindrical body having a top face and a bottom face (claim 10), wherein the top face and the bottom face each comprise an internal water channel arrangement for providing a flow path between a set of water inlets and a water outlet (claim 12).
Regarding instant claim 2, reference claim 11 recites the chuck comprises a lattice arrangement between the top and bottom faces.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 3 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 12 of copending Application No. 18/580176 in view of Tsuda et al., US 20210302846 A1.
Regarding instant claim 3, reference claim 12 includes the features of claim 1 but does not recite a particular arrangement of the water inlets and outlet. Analogous art Tsuda teaches arranging a set of water inlets around a periphery of a chuck and the water outlet is arranged in the center of the chuck (Figs. 1-3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to recite the claimed configuration as a suitable arrangement for establishing coolant flow in a chuck, as taught by Tsuda.
Claim 13 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 12 of copending Application No. 18/580176 in view of Yoshida, US 20100273114 A1.
Regarding instant claim 3, reference claim 12 includes the features of present claim 1, and reference claim 1 includes a first carrier, where the chuck is movable relative to the first carrier. The reference claims do not recite a set of position sensors for measuring a distance as presently claimed. Analogous art, Yoshida discloses providing a chuck (wafer stage 10, Fig. 1) with a set of position sensors for measuring a distance from a surface of the chuck to a first carrier (two-dimensional positions of a reticle stage, i.e., carrier, and wafer stage are measured by measurement devices each including a reference mirror 11 and laser interferometer 12, [0037]). Yoshida teaches the measurement devices enable synchronous control of positions of the stage and other elements moving relative to the stage ([0036]-[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 chuck to include a set of position sensors for measuring a distance from a surface of the chuck to the first carrier in order to provide the capability of accurate and synchronous control of the chuck position relative to other moving elements of the system, as taught by Yoshida.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Note that the remaining dependent claims are considered patentably distinct from the claims of the reference application and thus are not rejected under double patenting.
Claims 1-2 and 13 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 6, 13, and 14 of copending Application No. 18/578763 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Regarding instant claim 1, claim 14 of the reference application includes a chuck for use in an imprinting apparatus and configured to carry a substrate having a resist layer (claim 1) wherein the chuck comprises a hollow cylindrical body having a top face and a bottom face (claim 13), wherein the top face and the bottom face each comprise an internal water channel arrangement for providing a flow path between a set of water inlets and a water outlet (claim 14).
Regarding instant claim 2, reference claim 13 recites the chuck comprises a lattice arrangement between the top and bottom faces.
Regarding instant claim 13, reference claim 6 recites the chuck comprises a set of position sensors for measuring a distance from a surface of the chuck to the first carrier.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 3 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 14 of copending Application No. 18/578763 in view of Tsuda et al., US 20210302846 A1.
Regarding instant claim 3, reference claim 14 includes the features of claim 1 but does not recite a particular arrangement of the water inlets and outlet. Analogous art Tsuda teaches arranging a set of water inlets around a periphery of a chuck and the water outlet is arranged in the center of the chuck (Figs. 1-3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to recite the claimed configuration as a suitable arrangement for establishing coolant flow in a chuck, as taught by Tsuda.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Note that the remaining dependent claims are considered patentably distinct from the claims of the reference application and thus are not rejected under double patenting.
Claims 1 and 13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 10, and 14 of U.S. Patent No. US 12468223 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Regarding instant claim 1, reference claim 14 discloses a chuck for use in an imprinting apparatus and configured to carry a substrate having a resist layer (claim 1) wherein the chuck comprises a hollow cylindrical body having a top face and a bottom face (claim 14), wherein the top face and the bottom face each comprise an internal water channel arrangement for providing a flow path between a set of water inlets and a water outlet (claim 14).
Regarding instant claim 13, reference claim 10 recites the chuck comprises a set of position sensors for measuring a distance from a surface of the chuck to the first carrier.
Claim 2 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 14 of U.S. Patent No. US 12468223 B2 in view of Lue, US 20070000441 A1.
Regarding instant claim 2, reference claim 14 includes the features of claim 1 but does not recite a lattice arrangement. Analogous art Lue teaches a chuck comprising a lattice arrangement between the top and bottom faces (Figs. 12A-12B) wherein the raised partitions 1202 forming the lattice arrangement can preclude mixing of thermal control fluid between different inlet/outlet hole pairs ([0134]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further recite the chuck comprises a known lattice arrangement between the top and bottom faces in order to provide an arrangement that could preclude mixing of the thermal control fluid between different regions, as taught by Lue.
Claim 3 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 14 of U.S. Patent No. US 12468223 B2 in view of Tsuda et al., US 20210302846 A1.
Regarding instant claim 3, reference claim 14 includes the features of claim 1 but does not recite a particular arrangement of the water inlets and outlet. Analogous art Tsuda teaches arranging a set of water inlets around a periphery of a chuck and the water outlet is arranged in the center of the chuck (Figs. 1-3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to recite the claimed configuration as a suitable arrangement for establishing coolant flow in a chuck, as taught by Tsuda.
Note that the remaining dependent claims are considered patentably distinct from the claims of the reference application and thus are not rejected under double patenting.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20180218886 A1, Yamaguchi et al. disclose a relevant cooled mounting table with internal water channel arrangements for top and bottom faces and elastic members around fluid ducts (Figs. 1-3).
US 20060274298 A1, Akaike teaches providing baffle plates along coolant flow paths to force the cooling liquid to become turbulent and thereby make the temperature more uniform, [0050].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER L GROUX whose telephone number is (571)272-7938. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9am - 5pm ET.
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, Susan Leong can be reached at (571) 270-1487. 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.
/J.L.G./Examiner, Art Unit 1754
/SUSAN D LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1754