DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-20 are pending
Claims 8, 10, and 13 have been amended
Drawings and Specification have been amended
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.
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.
Claims 1-6, 8-9, and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Korolik et al. (US 2022/0293430 A1) in view of Yokoyama et al. (US 2022/0199412 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Korolik teaches a semiconductor processing method comprising:
flowing a fluorine-containing precursor into a processing region of a semiconductor processing chamber, wherein a substrate is positioned within the processing region and comprises alternating layers of silicon nitride and silicon oxide (abstract, claim 1, paragraph [0006]);
forming plasma effluents of the fluorine-containing precursor (claim 1, paragraph [0006]);
contacting the substrate with the plasma effluents of the fluorine-containing precursor, wherein the contacting selectively etches an exposed portion of silicon nitride relative to silicon oxide (Abstract, claim 1, paragraphs [0006, 0023]);
Korolik teaches the use of a fluorine-containing precursor in a plasma process to selectively etch silicon nitride in a substrate comprising alternating silicon nitride and silicon oxide layers.
Korolik does not teach introducing a phosphorous-and-fluorine-containing precursor into the processing region while maintaining a flow of the fluorine-containing precursor; forming plasma effluents of the phosphorous-and-fluorine-containing precursor; and contacting the substrate with the plasma effluents of the fluorine-containing precursor and the phosphorous-and-fluorine-containing precursor, wherein the contacting selectively etches an exposed portion of silicon oxide.
Yokoyama teaches supplying a process gas that includes both a fluorine gas component and a phosphorus gas component, including phosphorus trifluoride (PF3), during plasma etching (paragraphs [0087], [0092]).
Yokoyama further teaches that the combined use of fluorine-containing and phosphorus-containing precursors in a plasma process selectively enhances etching of silicon oxide relative to silicon nitride by forming protective P-O containing film on side wall, thereby improving selectivity and profile control (paragraphs [0137]–[0140]).
Yokoyama additionally teaches etching of alternating silicon oxide and silicon nitride layers using such process gases (paragraph [0141])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the semiconductor process method of Korolik, which teaches selectively etching silicon nitride using a fluorine-containing precursor in a plasma process, to further include introducing a phosphorus-and-fluorine-containing precursor such as PF3 while maintaining the fluorine-containing precursor, as taught by Yokoyama, in order to selectively etch silicon oxide and silicon nitride in an alternating layer structure. Such a modification represents a predictable use of known plasma etching chemistries to alternately etch different materials within a multilayer structure. Furthermore, the claimed limitations are obvious because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results. See MPEP § 2143(A).
Regarding claim 2, Korolik further teaches wherein the fluorine-containing precursor comprises hydrogen fluoride (HF) (paragraph [0049]).
Regarding claim 3, Korolik as modified by Yokoyama teaches that the phosphorus gas component supplied during plasma etching may include phosphorus trifluoride (PF3) (Yokoyama, paragraph [0088]).
Regarding claim 4, Korolik further teaches wherein a flow rate of the fluorine-containing precursor is greater than or about 100 sccm (that precursor flow rates, including halogen-containing precursors, additive precursors, and total precursor flow, may be controlled in units of standard cubic centimeters per minute (sccm), including values below or about 100 sccm, to control dissociation and etching behavior (paragraph[0060]). It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP § 2144.05 (I).
Regarding claim 5, Korolik teaches controlling additive precursor, halogen-containing precursor, and total precursor flow rates in units of sccm, including flow rates below or about 50 sccm, to control plasma dissociation and etching selectivity (paragraph [0060]).
Korolik doesn’t teach supplying a phosphorous-and-fluorine-containing precursor at a low proportional flow rate relative to a total processing gas flow because Korolik does not disclose phosphorus containing precursors.
Yokoyama teaches supplying a phosphorus-and-fluorine containing precursor, including phosphorus trifluoride (PF3), at controlled flow rates during plasma etching and experimentally evaluates the effect of PF3 flow rate on silicon oxide etching behavior (paragraphs [0136], figs. 8-10). Accordingly, selecting a PF3 flow rate less than or about 50 sccm would have been an obvious matter of routine optimization in view of Yokoyama’s teachings. See MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 6, Korolik teaches the use of hydrogen fluoride (HF) as the fluorine-containing precursor(paragraph [0049]). Hydrogen fluoride does not contain carbon and is therefore carbon-free.
Regarding claim 8, which recites applying a bias power during plasma processing, Korolik teaches applying a bias power during plasma processing, including a power supply electrically coupled with the processing chamber to provide electric power to the faceplate, ion suppressor, showerhead, and/or pedestal to generate plasma in the first plasma region, and further reaches igniting plasma using RF voltage applied between conductive chamber components (paragraphs [0035]-[0036]). Korolik further teaches plasma power values including below or about 100 W while plasma is sustained (paragraph [0046]).
Regarding claim 9, Korolik further teaches plasma power values including below or about 100W while plasma is sustained (paragraph [0046]). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 11, Korolik teaches performing plasma etching at a chamber operating pressure between about 10 mTorr and about 5 Torr, claim 7 (claim 7). It would have been obvious to operate the process at a chamber pressure less than or about 500 mTorr, because selecting a pressure value within a disclosed range constitutes routine optimization of a result-effective variable. See MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 12, Korolik teaches performing plasma etching at reduced substate temperatures, including temperatures less than or about 0° C (paragraphs [0046],[0059]). Selection of a substrate operating temperature less than or about 0° C within the disclosed temperature condition would have been a matter of routine optimization. See MPEP § 2144.05
Regarding claim 13, Korolik teaches a semiconductor processing method comprising:
i) flowing a fluorine-containing precursor into a processing region of a semiconductor processing chamber, wherein a substrate positioned within the processing region comprises alternating layers of silicon nitride and silicon oxide and further comprises a patterned resist material overlying the alternating layers (claim 13);
ii) forming plasma effluents of the fluorine-containing precursor (claim 13);
iii) contacting the alternating layers with the plasma effluents of the fluorine-containing precursor, wherein the contacting selectively etches an exposed layer of silicon nitride (claim 13);
vii) repeating the above operations for at least a second cycle. (claims 13, 16).
Korolik does not teach flowing a phosphorous-and-fluorine-containing precursor into the processing region with the fluorine-containing precursor; v) forming plasma effluents of the fluorine-containing precursor and the phosphorous-and-fluorine-containing precursor; or vi) contacting the alternating layers with the plasma effluents of the fluorine-containing precursor and the phosphorous-and-fluorine-containing precursor, wherein the contacting selectively etches an exposed layer of silicon oxide.
Yokoyama teaches supplying a process gas including both a fluorine-containing precursor and a phosphorus trifluoride (PF3), forming plasma effluents thereof , and selectively etching silicon oxide in an alternating silicon oxide and silicon nitride structure (paragraphs [0089], [0092], [0137]-[0141]). Yokoyama further teaches applying such plasma chemistry to alternately layered silicon oxide and silicon nitride films (paragraph [0141]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the cyclic semiconductor processing method of Korolik by incorporating the oxide-selective plasma chemistry taught by Yokoyama in order to alternately etch silicon nitride and silicon oxide layers within an alternating structure. Such modification represents the predictable use of known plasma etching techniques for processing multilayer silicon-containing films and would have yielded predictable etching results.
Regarding claim 14, Korolik teaches that fluorine-containing precursor further comprises hydrogen. Korolik discloses the use of hydrogen fluoride (HF) as a fluorine-containing precursor during plasma etching (paragraph [0049]). Because HF contains hydrogen, Korolik therefore teaches a fluorine-containing precursor that further comprises hydrogen.
Regarding claims 15-16, Korolik teaches that etching behavior of silicon nitride is controlled through adjustment of known plasma power and precursor flow conditions, and that reducing total flow and/or adjusting pressure may increase etch rate (paragraphs [0046], [0059] - [0060]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to maintain the fluorine-containing precursor taught by Korolik while additionally introducing a phosphorus-and-fluorine containing precursor, such as PF3, as taught by Yokoyama, and to adjust known plasma process parameters to achieve an etch rate of the exposed layer greater than or about 250 nm/min or greater than or about 400 nm/min as a matter of routine optimization. See MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 17, Korolik teaches repeating plasma etching operations for at least ten cycles (claim 16). Accordingly, repeating operations i) through vi) for at least ten cycles would have been obvious.
Regarding claim 18, Korolik teaches performing plasma etching at reduced substrate operating temperatures, including temperatures less than or about 0°C (paragraphs [0046], [0059]). Selecting a substrate operating temperature less than or about −20 °C would have been a matter of routine optimization. See MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 19, Korolik teaches a semiconductor processing method comprising:
flowing a fluorine-containing precursor into a processing region of a semiconductor processing chamber, wherein a substrate positioned within the processing region comprises alternating layers of silicon nitride and silicon oxide (paragraph [0007]);
forming plasma effluents of the fluorine-containing precursor (paragraph [0007]);
contacting the substrate with the plasma effluents of the fluorine-containing precursor, wherein the contacting etches an exposed portion of silicon nitride relative to silicon oxide at a selectivity greater than or about 5:1; (paragraph [0007]).
Korolik does not teach introducing a phosphorous-and-fluorine-containing precursor into the processing region while maintaining a flow of the fluorine-containing precursor; forming plasma effluents of the fluorine-containing precursor and the phosphorous-and-fluorine-containing precursor; and contacting the substrate with the plasma effluents of the fluorine-containing precursor and the phosphorous-and-fluorine-containing precursor, wherein the contacting etches an exposed portion of silicon oxide relative to silicon nitride
Yokoyama teaches supplying a fluorine-containing precursor together with a phosphorus-and-fluorine-containing precursor, including PF3, forming plasma effluents thereof, and selectively enhancing etching of silicon oxide relative to silicon nitride by formation of a protective P-O containing film (paragraphs [0137]-[0140]). Yokoyama further demonstrates etching selectivity values greater than 5 when using PF3 in combination with fluorine-containing precursor, as shown in Fig. 11 and the corresponding description in paragraph [0148].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the semiconductor processing method of Korolik by introducing the phosphorus-and-fluorine-containing precursor taught by Yokoyama in order to selectively etch silicon oxide in addition to silicon nitride. Korolik teaches etching silicon nitride relative to silicon oxide with an etching selectivity greater than or about 5:1 using a fluorine-containing plasma chemistry. Yokoyama teaches selectivity etching silicon oxide relative to silicon nitride with an etching selectivity greater than 5 using a phosphorus-and-fluorine containing precursor, including PF3 (See figure 11). Because Korolik and Yokoyama independently teach etching selectivity greater than 5 for their respective plasma chemistries, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect an etching selectivity greater than or about 5:1 when combining the fluorine-containing precursor of Korolik with the phosphorus-and-fluorine containing precursor of Yokoyama. See MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 20, Korolik teaches flowing a fluorine-containing precursor into a processing region of a semiconductor processing chamber and forming plasma effluents thereof to etch silicon-containing materials (paragraph [0007]).
Korolik does not teach a flow rate ratio of a fluorine-containing precursor to a phosphorous-and-fluorine-containing precursor, because Korolik does not disclose introducing a phosphorous-and-fluorine-containing precursor.
Yokoyama teaches supplying PF3 at low flow rates relative to fluorine-containing gases during plasma etching of silicon-containing films and provides example process gas compositions in which PF3 constitutes a minor portion of the total gas flow (paragraphs [0128]-[0139]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select a flow-rate ratio of fluorine-containing precursor to the phosphorus-and fluorine-containing precursor greater than or about 30:1 as a matter of routine optimization, because gas flow-rate ratios are known result-effective variables in plasma etching processes. See MPEP § 2144.05.
Claims 7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Korolik in view of Yokoyama, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Orui et al. (US 2022/0148884 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Korolik teaches a plasma processing system including a power supply configured to deliver an adjustable amount of power for generating plasma and controlling plasma characteristics during processing (paragraph[0035]).
Korolik does not teach pulsing the source plasma power during plasma generation.
Orui teaches a plasma etching method for silicon-containing semiconductor substrates in which electrical power is applied in an intermittent or periodic (pulsed) manner to control ion behavior during plasma processing (paragraph [0074]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to pulse the source plasma power in the method of Korolik as predictable variation of controlling plasma characteristics during etching of silicon-containing films, yielding predictable results such as controlled plasma density and etch behavior. Furthermore, the claimed limitations are obvious because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results. See MPEP § 2143(A).
Regarding claim 10, Korolik teaches applying a bias power during plasma processing (paragraphs [0035]-[0036]).
Korolik does not teach pulsing the bias power while contacting the substrate.
Orui teaches intermittently or periodically applying a pulse bias power during plasma processing to control ion behavior at the substrate surface (paragraph [0074]).
Furthermore, the claimed limitations are obvious because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results. See MPEP § 2143(A).
Response to Amendment
Applicants’ amendments overcome the objection to the drawings. Therefore, the objections to the drawings are withdrawn.
Applicants’ amendments overcome the claims 112(b) rejection of claims 8-10 and 13-18. Therefore, the 112 rejection of claims 8-10 and 13-18 is withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/04/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the present application relates to a directional etch performed at a low temperature that increases directionality of the etch. This argument is not persuasive because the features relied upon by Applicant, i.e., a directional etch, an anisotropic etch, and a low temperature that increases directionality of the etch, are not recited in independent claims 1, 13, or 19. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Independent claims 1, 13, and 19 broadly recite selectively etching silicon nitride using plasma effluents of a fluorine-containing precursor and selectively etching silicon oxide using plasma effluents of the fluorine-containing precursor and the phosphorous-and-fluorine-containing precursor. The claims do not require that the etch be directional, anisotropic, or performed at a low temperature that increases directionality.
Applicant further argues that the present application forms plasma effluents locally in the processing region of the semiconductor processing chamber. This argument is not persuasive because the rejection is based on the combined teachings of Korolik and Yokoyama. Korolik is relied upon for teaching selective etching of silicon nitride using fluorine-containing plasma effluents in a substrate comprising alternating layers of silicon nitride and silicon oxide. Yokoyama is relied upon for teaching supplying a fluorine-containing gas component and a phosphorus gas component, including phosphorus trifluoride (PF3), during plasma etching and forming plasma from the process gas in a chamber containing the substrate. Therefore, Applicant’s argument does not address the combined teachings of Korolik and Yokoyama.
In response to Applicant’s arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The rejection does not rely on Korolik alone to teach every limitation of independent claims 1, 13, and 19. Rather, Korolik is relied upon for teaching the fluorine-containing plasma process for selectively etching silicon nitride, and Yokoyama is relied upon for teaching the phosphorous-and-fluorine-containing precursor chemistry used to selectively etch silicon oxide.
Applicant’s argument that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to use Korolik as a primary reference, would not have combined Korolik and Yokoyama, or would not have arrived at the claimed invention is not persuasive. Korolik is reasonably relied upon as a starting point because Korolik teaches selective etching of silicon nitride using fluorine-containing plasma effluents in a substrate comprising alternating layers of silicon nitride and silicon oxide. The claims do not require the etch to be directional, anisotropic, or performed at a low temperature that increases directionality. Yokoyama is relied upon for teaching the phosphorus-and-fluorine-containing plasma chemistry used to selectively etch silicon oxide. Thus, the rejection is based on the combined teachings of Korolik and Yokoyama and does not require Yokoyama to be physically incorporated into Korolik exactly as disclosed.
Applicant further argues that Korolik teaches phosphorus compounds may produce passivation or protective material on exposed silicon oxide surfaces to protect the surface from additional fluorination. This argument is not persuasive because the rejection does not rely on Korolik for teaching selectively etching silicon oxide using the phosphorous-and-fluorine-containing precursor. Yokoyama is relied upon for teaching supplying a process gas including a fluorine gas component and a phosphorus gas component, including PF3, during plasma etching, and for teaching silicon oxide etching using such plasma chemistry. Thus, Applicant’s argument regarding Korolik’s oxide passivation does not overcome the rejection based on the combined teachings of Korolik and Yokoyama.
Applicant also argues that Yokoyama fails to suggest the specific cyclic exposure claimed to toggle between selectively etching an exposed portion of silicon nitride and selectively etching an exposed portion of silicon oxide. This argument is not persuasive. Claim 1 does not recite repeating a cyclic exposure. To the extent Applicant’s argument is directed to claim 13, Korolik is relied upon for teaching repeated processing of alternating silicon nitride and silicon oxide layers, and Yokoyama is relied upon for teaching the phosphorous-and-fluorine-containing plasma chemistry used to selectively etch silicon oxide. The rejection is based on the combined teachings of the references and does not require Yokoyama alone to teach the entire repeated sequence.
Applicant’s arguments regarding independent claims 13 and 19 are not persuasive for at least the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1. Claims 13 and 19 recite similar features directed to selectively etching silicon nitride using plasma effluents of a fluorine-containing precursor and selectively etching silicon oxide using plasma effluents of the fluorine-containing precursor and the phosphorous-and-fluorine-containing precursor. As discussed above, Korolik teaches the fluorine-containing plasma process for selectively etching silicon nitride in alternating silicon nitride and silicon oxide layers, and Yokoyama teaches the phosphorous-and-fluorine-containing plasma chemistry used to selectively etch silicon oxide.
Applicant's arguments filed 05/04/2026 regarding claims 8-10 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Korolik avoids directional ions to facilitate isotropic etching and therefore does not provide a prima facie showing of using bias power. This argument is not persuasive because the features relied upon by Applicant, i.e., using bias power to increase directionality of the plasma effluents to directionally bombard and etch into the alternating layers, are not recited in claim 8. Claim 8 recites applying a bias power during plasma processing, but does not require that the bias power increase directionality, does not require a particular bias-power structure, and does not require a particular mechanism by which the bias power is applied.
Korolik teaches a processing system including a power supply electrically coupled with the processing chamber to provide electric power to the faceplate, ion suppressor, showerhead, and/or pedestal to generate a plasma in the first plasma region or processing region, wherein the power supply is configured to deliver an adjustable amount of power depending on the process performed (Korolik, paragraph [0035]). Korolik further teaches that a plasma may be ignited in the chamber plasma region above the showerhead or in the substrate processing region below the showerhead, and that an RF voltage may be applied between conductive chamber components to ignite plasma (Korolik, paragraph [0036]). Korolik also teaches that the extent of plasma interaction may be related to the power of the plasma used to form the fluorine-containing plasma effluents, and discusses plasma power values including below or about 500 W, 400 W, 300 W, 200 W, and 100 W while plasma is sustained (Korolik, paragraph [0046]). Therefore, Korolik teaches applying power during plasma processing, and claim 8 does not require a specific structure or mechanism for how the bias power is applied.
Applicant’s argument that bias power would frustrate Korolik’s intended isotropic etch is not persuasive because claim 8 does not require that the bias power produce directional etching or frustrate isotropic etching. Korolik is relied upon for teaching applying power during plasma processing, including power supplied to chamber components and/or the pedestal to generate plasma in the first plasma region or processing region. As to claim 10, Orui is further relied upon for teaching pulsed bias power during plasma processing. Therefore, applying bias power and pulsing the bias power would have been a predictable use of known plasma-processing controls in the modified process.
Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments do not overcome the rejection of claims 8-10.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN CARTER whose telephone number is (571)272-8176. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 6:00 AM - 3:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joshua L Allen can be reached at (571) 272-3176. 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.
/JONATHAN L CARTER/Examiner, Art Unit 1713 /ERIN F BERGNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713
Prosecution Insights