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 § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 10-11, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable by Mather et al. (US-20080232002-A1 referred as Mather).
Regarding claim 10. Mather discloses a magnetic device comprising:
a first magnetic layer ([0018], figure 3, a first magnetic layer #104);
a second magnetic layer ([0018], figure 3, a second magnetic layer #108); and
a nonmagnetic layer between the first and second magnetic layers ([0018], figure 3, a nonmagnetic layer #106 in between the first and second magnetic layers #104/108) and including:
a first layer in contact with the first magnetic layer and including a magnesium oxide ([0020], figure 3, a first layer #302 in contact with the first magnetic layer #104 and includes magnesium oxide as described),
a second layer in contact with the second magnetic layer and including a magnesium oxide ([0020], figure 3, a second layer #306 in contact with the second magnetic layer #108 and including magnesium oxide as described), and
a third layer between the first and second layers and including a nitride having a smaller bandgap than that of a magnesium oxide and a smaller enthalpy of formation than that of a boron nitride ([0020], figure 3, a third layer #305 is in between the first and second layers #302/306 which is made of yttrium nitride (YN) as described. Its known in the art for YN to have a smaller bandgap than magnesium oxide. The enthalpy of YN is -315 kJmol which is less than the enthalpy of boron nitride being -254 kJmol), wherein
the third layer includes at least one selected from the group consisting of a scandium nitride, a hafnium nitride, a titanium nitride, an yttrium nitride, a zirconium nitride, and a lanthanum nitride ([0020], figure 3, the third layer #305 includes yttrium nitride (YN)).
Regarding claim 11. Mather discloses wherein each of the first, second, and third layers includes a crystal having a rock salt structure ([0020], figure 3, it is known in the art for the first and second layer #302/306 made of magnesium oxide to have a rock crystal structure and also for the third layer #305 made of YN to have a rock crystal structure).
Regarding claim 17. Mather discloses wherein a total thickness of the first, second, and third layers is within a range of 0.8 nm or more and 2.1 nm or less ([0023], figure 3, the total thickness of the first, second, and third layers #302/306/305 is in between 0.8 – 2.1 nm which is 8 – 21 angstroms).
Regarding claim 18. Mather discloses wherein at least a portion of the first magnetic layer and at least a portion of the second magnetic layer include cobalt, iron, and boron ([0019], figure 3, at least a portion of the first magnetic layer #104 and a portion of the second magnetic layer #108 contains cobalt, iron and boron as described).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1 and 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mather et al. (US-20080232002-A1 referred as Mather) in view of Incorvia et al. (US-20220077233-A1 referred as Incorvia).
Regarding claim 1. Mather discloses a magnetic device comprising:
a first magnetic layer ([0018], figure 3, a first magnetic layer #104);
a second magnetic layer ([0018], figure 3, a second magnetic layer #108); and
a nonmagnetic layer between the first and second magnetic layers ([0018], figure 3, a nonmagnetic layer #106 in between the fist and second magnetic layers #104/108) and including:
a first layer in contact with the first magnetic layer and including a magnesium oxide ([0020, 0024], figure 3, a first layer #302 in contact with the first magnetic layer #302 and including magnesium oxide as described),
a second layer in contact with the second magnetic layer and including a magnesium oxide ([0020, 0024], figure 3, a second layer #306 in contact with the second magnetic layer #108 and including magnesium oxide as described), and
a third layer between the first and second layers ([0020, 0024], figure 3, a third layer #305 is in between first layer #302 and second layer #306).
Mather lacks a third layer including a scandium nitride.
Incorvia discloses a third layer including a scandium nitride ([0084], figure 10, the third layer #1006 in between includes scandium nitride).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application for Mather to include a third layer including a scandium nitride as taught by Incorvia in order to enhance the corrosion resistance, allow for electrical tunability, and to enhance the insulation therein.
Regarding claim 5. Mather as modified lacks wherein the third layer further includes at least one selected from the group consisting of argon, krypton, cobalt, iron, platinum, and boron.
Mather discloses each barrier layer 302, 305, and 306 comprises a metal oxide, a metal nitride, or a metal oxynitride material--that is, a metal (e.g., Mg, Ti, Gd, Hf, Al, Zr, Y, Ta and the alloys thereof) that has been suitably oxidized, nitridized, or oxynitridized via exposure to various compositions of oxygen and/or nitrogen quoted from paragraph 20.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application for Mather as modified to further include wherein the third layer further includes the group consisting of argon, krypton, cobalt, iron, platinum, and boron in order to have an enhanced device versatility, greater range of thermal protection, and to reduce manufacturing costs of materials.
Regarding claim 6. Mather as modified lacks wherein at least one of the first and second layers includes at least one selected from the group consisting of aluminum, zinc, gallium, argon, krypton, cobalt, iron, platinum, and boron.
Mather as modified discloses each barrier layer 302, 305, and 306 comprises a metal oxide, a metal nitride, or a metal oxynitride material--that is, a metal (e.g., Mg, Ti, Gd, Hf, Al, Zr, Y, Ta and the alloys thereof) that has been suitably oxidized, nitridized, or oxynitridized via exposure to various compositions of oxygen and/or nitrogen quoted from paragraph 20.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application for Mather as modified to further include wherein at least one of the first and second layers includes at least one selected from the group consisting of aluminum, zinc, gallium, argon, krypton, cobalt, iron, platinum, and boron in order to have an enhanced device versatility, greater range of thermal protection, and to reduce manufacturing costs of materials.
Regarding claim 7. Mather discloses wherein the total thickness of the first, second, and third layers is 4-30 Angstroms (paragraph 23).
Mather lacks specifically disclosing wherein where x is a total thickness of the first, second, and third layers in nanometers, and y is a composition ratio of the nitride in a composite material of the first, second, and third layers in percentages, a lower limit value α of the composition ratio y is 20% when the total thickness x is 0.5≤x<1.25 (nm), the lower limit value α of the composition ratio y is α=74.2x-72.53 (%) when the total thickness x is 1.25≤x<1.84 (nm), and the lower limit value α of the composition ratio y is 64% when the total thickness x is 1.84≤x≤2.5 (nm), and an upper limit value β of the composition ratio y is 60% when the total thickness x is 0.5≤x<1.37 (nm), the upper limit value β of the composition ratio y is β=87.5x-59.88 (%) when the total thickness x is 1.37≤x<1.61 (nm), and the upper limit value β of the composition ratio y is 81% when the total thickness x is 1.61≤x≤2.5 (nm).
MPEP 2144.05 – describes overlapping, approaching, and similar ranges, amounts, and proportions: In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of "about 1-5%" while the claim was limited to "more than 5%." The court held that "about 1-5%" allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (Claim reciting thickness of a protective layer as falling within a range of "50 to 100 Angstroms" considered prima facie obvious in view of prior art reference teaching that "for suitable protection, the thickness of the protective layer should be not less than about 10 nm [i.e., 100 Angstroms]." The court stated that "by stating that ‘suitable protection’ is provided if the protective layer is ‘about’ 100 Angstroms thick, [the prior art reference] directly teaches the use of a thickness within [applicant’s] claimed range."). See also In re Bergen, 120 F.2d 329, 332, 49 USPQ 749, 751-52 (CCPA 1941) (The court found that the overlapping endpoint of the prior art and claimed range was sufficient to support an obviousness rejection, particularly when there was no showing of criticality of the claimed range).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application for Mather as modified to include wherein the total thickness of the first, second, and third layers is in the higher part of the range, thus between 2.6 – 3.0 nm (26-30 Angstroms), which in the case the range is on the high side, the when clause is never initiated as taught by Mather in order to increase the versatility to have thicker large scale devices, reduced cost in manufacturing, and to increase the devices lifetime.
Regarding claim 8. Mather as modified discloses wherein a total thickness of the first, second, and third layers is within a range of 0.8 nm or more and 2.1 nm or less ([0023], figure 3, the total thickness of the first, second, and third layers #302/306/305 is in between 0.8 – 2.1 nm which is 8 – 21 angstroms).
Regarding claim 9. Mather as modified discloses wherein at least a portion of the first magnetic layer and at least a portion of the second magnetic layer include cobalt, iron, and boron ([0019], figure 3, atleast a portion of the first magnetic layer #104 and a portion of the second magnetic layer #108 contains cobalt, iron and boron as described).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mather et al. (US-20080232002-A1 referred as Mather) and Incorvia et al. (US-20220077233-A1 referred as Incorvia) in further view of Kim et al. (US-20120112298-A1 referred as Kim).
Regarding claim 2. Uchida as modified lacks a substrate, wherein the first layer is closer to the substrate than the second layer, and the first layer is thicker than the second layer.
Kim discloses a substrate, wherein the first layer is closer to the substrate than the second layer, and the first layer is thicker than the second layer ([0074], figure 5, the first layer #135a is closer to the substrate #100 than the second layer #235a, and the first layer #135a is thicker than the second layer #235a).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application for Uchida as modified to further modify the first layer and the second layer as taught by Kim in order to enhance the devices integrity, distribute weight across the device, and to reduce stress points.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mather et al. (US-20080232002-A1 referred as Mather) and Incorvia et al. (US-20220077233-A1 referred as Incorvia) in further view of Tseng et al. (US-20170133584-A1 referred as Tseng).
Regarding claim 3. Uchida as modified lacks wherein the third layer further includes a scandium oxide.
Tseng discloses wherein the third layer further includes a scandium oxide ([0027], figure 1a, a third layer #140 further includes scandium nitride and scandium oxide in combination as described).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application for Uchida as modified to further include wherein the third layer further includes a scandium oxide as taught by Tseng in order to contain lightweight alloys, advantages reduced fuel consumption in aircraft applications, and for enhanced durability.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mather et al. (US-20080232002-A1 referred as Mather) and Incorvia et al. (US-20220077233-A1 referred as Incorvia) and Tseng et al. (US-20170133584-A1 referred as Tseng), in further view of Hwang et al. (US-20150048299-A1 referred as Hwang).
Regarding claim 4. Uchida as modified lacks wherein a concentration of the scandium oxide at at least any one of an interface of the third layer with the first layer and an interface of the third layer with the second layer is higher than a concentration of the scandium oxide inside the third layer.
Hwang discloses wherein a concentration of the scandium oxide at at least any one of an interface of the third layer with the first layer and an interface of the third layer with the second layer is higher than a concentration of the scandium oxide inside the third layer ([0041], figure 1, the concentration of oxide is greater on the third layers #25a interface closest to the layer #25b than the center of the third layer #25a as described. Please note that the concentration of oxide could also gradually change).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application for Uchida as modified to further include wherein the concentration of oxide is greater on an interface than the center of the third layer as taught by Hwang in order to have an enhanced electrical isolation, improved protection to the underlying layers, and with an enhanced chemical stability.
Claims 12 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mather et al. (US-20080232002-A1 referred as Mather).
Regarding claim 12. Mather lacks wherein the third layer further includes at least one oxide selected from the group consisting of a scandium oxide, a hafnium oxide, a titanium oxide, an yttrium oxide, a zirconium oxide, and a lanthanum oxide.
Mather discloses each barrier layer 302, 305, and 306 comprises a metal oxide, a metal nitride, or a metal oxynitride material--that is, a metal (e.g., Mg, Ti, Gd, Hf, Al, Zr, Y, Ta and the alloys thereof) that has been suitably oxidized, nitridized, or oxynitridized via exposure to various compositions of oxygen and/or nitrogen quoted from paragraph 20 (So Mather clearly teaches either of a metal oxide or a metal nitride, but lacks the combination of both besides the statement of ‘exposure to various compositions of oxygen and/or nitrogen).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application for Mather to further include wherein the third layer includes both a scandium oxide and a scandium nitride in order to have enhanced electrical properties, a thermal stability, and to expand for versatile functionalities.
Regarding claim 14. Mather lacks wherein the third layer further includes at least one selected from the group consisting of argon, krypton, cobalt, iron, platinum, and boron.
Mather as modified discloses each barrier layer 302, 305, and 306 comprises a metal oxide, a metal nitride, or a metal oxynitride material--that is, a metal (e.g., Mg, Ti, Gd, Hf, Al, Zr, Y, Ta and the alloys thereof) that has been suitably oxidized, nitridized, or oxynitridized via exposure to various compositions of oxygen and/or nitrogen quoted from paragraph 20.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application for Mather to further include wherein the third layer further includes the group consisting of argon, krypton, cobalt, iron, platinum, and boron in order to have an enhanced device versatility, greater range of thermal protection, and to reduce manufacturing costs of materials.
Regarding claim 15. Mather lacks wherein at least one of the first and second layers includes at least one selected from the group consisting of aluminum, zinc, gallium, argon, krypton, cobalt, iron, platinum, and boron.
Mather discloses each barrier layer 302, 305, and 306 comprises a metal oxide, a metal nitride, or a metal oxynitride material--that is, a metal (e.g., Mg, Ti, Gd, Hf, Al, Zr, Y, Ta and the alloys thereof) that has been suitably oxidized, nitridized, or oxynitridized via exposure to various compositions of oxygen and/or nitrogen quoted from paragraph 20.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application for Mather as modified to further include wherein at least one of the first and second layers includes at least one selected from the group consisting of aluminum, zinc, gallium, argon, krypton, cobalt, iron, platinum, and boron in order to have an enhanced device versatility, greater range of thermal protection, and to reduce manufacturing costs of materials.
Regarding claim 16. Mather discloses wherein the total thickness of the first, second, and third layers is 4-30 Angstroms (paragraph 23).
Mather lacks specifically disclosing wherein where x is a total thickness of the first, second, and third layers in nanometers, and y is a composition ratio of the nitride in a composite material of the first, second, and third layers in percentages, a lower limit value α of the composition ratio y is 20% when the total thickness x is 0.5≤x<1.25 (nm), the lower limit value α of the composition ratio y is α=74.2x-72.53 (%) when the total thickness x is 1.25≤x<1.84 (nm), and the lower limit value α of the composition ratio y is 64% when the total thickness x is 1.84≤x≤2.5 (nm), and an upper limit value β of the composition ratio y is 60% when the total thickness x is 0.5≤x<1.37 (nm), the upper limit value β of the composition ratio y is β=87.5x-59.88 (%) when the total thickness x is 1.37≤x<1.61 (nm), and the upper limit value β of the composition ratio y is 81% when the total thickness x is 1.61≤x≤2.5 (nm).
MPEP 2144.05 – describes overlapping, approaching, and similar ranges, amounts, and proportions: In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of "about 1-5%" while the claim was limited to "more than 5%." The court held that "about 1-5%" allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (Claim reciting thickness of a protective layer as falling within a range of "50 to 100 Angstroms" considered prima facie obvious in view of prior art reference teaching that "for suitable protection, the thickness of the protective layer should be not less than about 10 nm [i.e., 100 Angstroms]." The court stated that "by stating that ‘suitable protection’ is provided if the protective layer is ‘about’ 100 Angstroms thick, [the prior art reference] directly teaches the use of a thickness within [applicant’s] claimed range."). See also In re Bergen, 120 F.2d 329, 332, 49 USPQ 749, 751-52 (CCPA 1941) (The court found that the overlapping endpoint of the prior art and claimed range was sufficient to support an obviousness rejection, particularly when there was no showing of criticality of the claimed range).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application for Mather as modified to include wherein the total thickness of the first, second, and third layers is in the higher part of the range, thus between 2.6 – 3.0 nm (26-30 Angstroms), which in the case the range is on the high side, the when clause is never initiated as taught by Mather in order to increase the versatility to have thicker large scale devices, reduced cost in manufacturing, and to increase the devices lifetime.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mather et al. (US-20080232002-A1 referred as Mather) and in further view of Hwang et al. (US-20150048299-A1 referred as Hwang).
Regarding claim 13. Mather discloses wherein a concentration of the oxide at at least any one of an interface of the third layer with the first layer and an interface of the third layer with the second layer is higher than a concentration of the oxide inside the third layer.
Hwang discloses wherein a concentration of the oxide at at least any one of an interface of the third layer with the first layer and an interface of the third layer with the second layer is higher than a concentration of the oxide inside the third layer ([0041], figure 1, the concentration of oxide is greater on the third layers #25a interface closest to the layer #25b than the center of the third layer #25a as described. Please note that the concentration of oxide could also gradually change).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application for Uchida as modified to further include wherein the concentration of oxide is greater on an interface than the center of the third layer as taught by Hwang in order to have an enhanced electrical isolation, improved protection to the underlying layers, and with an enhanced chemical stability.
Claim 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uchida et al. (US-20230352070-A1 referred as Uchida), in view of Mather et al. (US-20080232002-A1 referred as Mather) and Incorvia et al. (US-20220077233-A1 referred as Incorvia).
Regarding claim 19. Uchida discloses a magnetic storage device comprising:
a plurality of first wirings extending along a first direction ([0173], figure 2 and figure 4, a plurality of first wirings #42 extend along a first direction);
a plurality of second wirings extending along a second direction intersecting the first direction ([0173], figure 4, a plurality of second wirings #61 extend along a second direction intersecting the first direction); and
a plurality of magnetic devices each electrically connected to a corresponding one of the first wirings and a corresponding one of the second wirings therebetween ([0173], figure 2, figure 4, and figure 6a, a plurality of magnetic devices #30/35 are each connected to a corresponding one of the first wirings #42 and a corresponding second wiring #61 in between).
Uchida lacks wherein each of the magnetic devices includes:
a first magnetic layer, a
second magnetic layer, and
a nonmagnetic layer between the first and second magnetic layers and including:
a first layer in contact with the first magnetic layer and including a magnesium oxide,
a second layer in contact with the second magnetic layer and including a magnesium oxide, and
a third layer between the first and second layers and including a scandium nitride.
Mather discloses wherein each of the magnetic devices includes:
a first magnetic layer ([0018], figure 3, a first magnetic layer #104);
a second magnetic layer ([0018], figure 3, a second magnetic layer #108); and
a nonmagnetic layer between the first and second magnetic layers ([0018], figure 3, a nonmagnetic layer #106 in between the first and second magnetic layers #104/108) and including:
a first layer in contact with the first magnetic layer and including a magnesium oxide ([0020, 0024], figure 3, a first layer #302 in contact with the first magnetic layer #302 and including magnesium oxide as described),
a second layer in contact with the second magnetic layer and including a magnesium oxide ([0020, 0024], figure 3, a second layer #306 in contact with the second magnetic layer #108 and including magnesium oxide as described), and
a third layer between the first and second layers ([0020, 0024], figure 3, a third layer #305 is in between first layer #302 and second layer #306).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application for Uchida to include a magnetic device and all the multiple layers within as taught by Mather in order to have a wider bandgap, to achieve higher spin polarization, and to prevent diffusion between electrodes.
Uchida as modified by Mather still lacks a third layer including a scandium nitride.
Incorvia discloses a third layer including a scandium nitride ([0084], figure 10, the third layer #1006 in between includes scandium nitride).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application for Uchida as modified by Mather to include a third layer including a scandium nitride as taught by Incorvia in order to enhance the corrosion resistance, allow for electrical tunability, and to enhance the insulation therein.
Regarding claim 20. Uchida as modified discloses wherein the first and second magnetic layers and the nonmagnetic layer are stacked along a third direction intersecting the first and second directions ([0173], figure 2, figure 4, and figure 6a, the first magnetic layer #33 and the second magnetic layer #31 and the nonmagnetic layers #32 are stacked in a third direction intersecting the first and second directions).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure includes Nomoto et al. (US-20240298549-A1) and Nakayama et al. (US-20130099337-A1) for teaching the magnetic layers, nonmagnetic layers and a plurality of wirings.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB R MARIN whose telephone number is (571)272-5887. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday from 8:30am - 5:00pm 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, Jeff Natalini can be reached at (571) 272 - 2266. 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.
/JACOB RAUL MARIN/Examiner, Art Unit 2818
/JEFF W NATALINI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2818
Prosecution Insights