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 .
Response to Amendments
2. The Amendments filed April 29th, 2026 are noted. Applicant’s amendments to the Specification to overcome the objections set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 03/05/2026 are noted. Applicant’s amendment(s) to the Specification have overcome the objection(s) to the Title previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 03/05/2026, so the objection(s) to the Title has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendment(s) to the Drawings have overcome the objection(s) previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 03/05/2026, so the objection(s) to the Drawings has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendment(s) to the Claims have overcome the objection(s) to minor grammatical informalities previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 03/05/2026, so the objection(s) to minor grammatical informalities have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendment(s) to the claims have overcome the 35 U.S.C. § 112 rejection(s)
previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 03/05/2026, so the 35 U.S.C. § 112
rejection(s) have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims are noted.
3. Claims 1-15 are now amended; Claims 1-15 remain pending in the application.
4. Claims 1-15 have been fully considered in examination.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 06/25/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1-3, 7, and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gupta (U.S. PG Pub No US2012/0103249A1) (of record) in view of Schmitt (U.S. PG Pub No US2021/0002785A1) (of record) and Itou (U.S. PG Pub No US2023/0243063A1).
Regarding claim 1, Gupta teaches a sublimation system [see fig. 8, 0097, 0104] for growing at least one single crystal of semiconductor material (73) fig. 8 [0101] (SiC) by means of a sublimation growing process [0104], the sublimation system [see fig. 8] comprising:
a crucible (70) fig. 8 [0098] having a longitudinal axis (vertical-axis) and a sidewall (right/left sidewall of 70) along the (vertical) longitudinal axis, wherein the crucible (70) comprises a fixing means (74) fig. 8 [0108] for at least one seed crystal (72) fig. 8 [0101, 0108] and at least one source material compartment (space within 70, beneath 75) fig. 8 [0100] for containing a source material (91) fig. 8 [0097]; and
a heating system (83) fig. 8 [0091, 0111] for generating a temperature field (83 disposed beside both sidewalls of 70 generate non-zero temperature field throughout surrounded crucible 70) around a circumference of the crucible (70 may be cylindrical) [0085] along the longitudinal (vertical) axis (212) of the crucible (70);
a unit (90) fig. 8 [0097] (graphite) [0097] arranged within the source material compartment (space within 70, beneath 75) fig. 8 [0100] at the sidewall (right/left inner sidewalls) of the crucible (70).
However, Gupta does not explicitly disclose the unit (90) (graphite) as a thermally insulating unit (thermal conductivity properties not specified),
a/the thermally insulating unit (90) (graphite) protruding from the sidewall into the source material compartment (space within 70, beneath 75) so that the source material (91) is arranged directly adjacent to a bottom part of the crucible (70).
Schmitt teaches a sublimation system (100) fig. 1 [0028-0029] wherein the unit (114) fig. 1 [0029] (graphite) is a thermally insulating unit (explicitly disclosed as thermally-insulative graphite [0029], due to porosity [0029]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the sublimation system of Gupta such that the graphite layer beside the graphite crucible is provided as porous, thermally insulating graphite [0029] in order to improve thermal management of the crucible system [0029] to allow the production of a single single crystal at a time [0029], as taught by Schmitt.
However, Gupta in view of Schmitt does not explicitly disclose a/the thermally insulating unit (90) (graphite) protruding from the sidewall into the source material compartment (space within 70, beneath 75) so that the source material (91) is arranged directly adjacent to a bottom part of the crucible (70).
Itou teaches a sublimation system [see fig. 8, 0032, 0122] comprising a/the thermally insulating unit (112a) fig. 1 [0044, 0128] (carbon [0042]; thermally insulating when modified by Schnitt) protruding [0044] from the sidewall into the source material compartment (space within 11, beneath 12) [0037, 0122] so that the source material (M) fig. 8 [0121] is arranged directly adjacent to a bottom part of the crucible (bottom of 11).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the crucible of Gupta in view of Schmitt such that the thermally insulating carbon material [0044, 0128] to comprise the protruding portion of Itou [0044-0045] in order to enhance the amount of material to provide structural support [0041-0045] to internal crucible components [0044-0049], as taught by Itou.
Regarding claim 2, Gupta in view of Schmitt and Itou teaches the sublimation system [see fig. 8, 0097, 0104] of claim 1. Gupta in view of Schmitt also teaches wherein the thermally insulating unit (90) fig. 8 [0097] (graphite) [0097] is arranged adjacent to an area (comprising source material 91) [0097] in which during operation the temperature is higher [0091, 0111] than at the remaining (upper sidewall of 70 beside 75) fig. 8 [0100] part of the sidewall (218) of the source material compartment (SiC source material 91/71 temperature may be higher than that of higher membrane area beside 75 [0091, 0111]).
Regarding claim 3, Gupta in view of Schmitt and Itou teaches the sublimation system [see fig. 8, 0097, 0104] of claim 1. Gupta also teaches wherein the system [see fig. 8, 0097, 0104] further comprises an outer insulation unit (78) fig. 8 [0098] (formed of silica [0111], SiO2, widely-recognized in the art as an insulator), which surrounds the crucible (70) fig. 8 [0111, 0098].
Regarding claim 7, Gupta in view of Schmitt and Itou teaches the sublimation system [see fig. 8, 0097, 0104] of claim 1. Gupta in view of Schmitt (with reference to Schmitt) also teaches wherein a thermal conductivity of the thermally insulating unit (114) fig. 1 [0029] is lower than a thermal conductivity of a material of the sidewall (sidewall of graphite crucible 102) fig. 1 [0029] (114 is referred to as a “thermal insulation layer” [0029], while 102 is distinguished as a “thermally conductive graphite crucible” [0029] – implying that the thermal conductivity of 114 is distinctly lower than 102 [0029]).
Regarding claim 12, Gupta in view of Schmitt and Itou teaches the sublimation system [see fig. 8, 0097, 0104] of claim 1. Gupta in view of Schmitt (with reference to Schmitt) also teaches wherein the thermally insulating unit (114) fig. 1 [0029] comprises at least one of: porous graphite [0029].
Regarding claim 13, Gupta in view of Schmitt and Itou teaches the sublimation system [see fig. 8, 0097, 0104] of claim 1. Gupta in view of Schmitt also teaches wherein the thermally insulating unit (90) fig. 8 [0097] (graphite) [0097] forms a ring along the sidewall (218) of the crucible (70) fig. 8 [0097] (70 may be cylindrical [0085], 90 lines inner sidewall(s) of 70, giving it a cylindrical shape with ring-circumference).
Regarding claim 14, Gupta in view of Schmitt and Itou teaches the sublimation system [see fig. 8, 0097, 0104] of claim 13. Gupta in view of Schmitt also teaches wherein an inner wall of the thermally insulating unit (90) fig. 8 [0097] (graphite) [0097] forms a concave cylinder (inner walls of 90, conforming to cylindrical shape of 70 [0085], have L-shape in cross-section, due to partially-hollow space, making 90 a concave polygon).
Regarding claim 15, Gupta teaches a method [0106-0113] (using sublimation system [see fig. 8, 0097, 0104]) of growing at least one single crystal of semiconductor material (73) fig. 8 [0101] (SiC) by means of a sublimation growing process [0104], the method (using sublimation system [see fig. 8]) comprising:
providing a crucible (70) fig. 8 [0098] having a longitudinal axis (vertical-axis) and a sidewall (right/left sidewall of 70) along the (vertical) longitudinal axis, fixing at least one seed crystal (72) fig. 8 [0101, 0108] at a fixing means (74) fig. 8 [0108] of the crucible (70), and filling a source material (91) fig. 8 [0097] into at least one source material compartment (space within 70, beneath 75) fig. 8 [0100];
wherein, during a least a part of the growing process, a unit (90) fig. 8 [0097] (graphite) [0097] is present within the source material compartment (space within 70, beneath 75) fig. 8 [0100] at the sidewall of the crucible (70);
generating, by means of a heating system (83) fig. 8 [0091, 0111], a temperature field (83 disposed beside both sidewalls of 70 generate non-zero temperature field throughout surrounded crucible 70) around a circumference of the crucible (70 may be cylindrical) [0085] along the longitudinal (vertical) axis (212) of the crucible (70).
However, Gupta does not explicitly disclose the unit (90) (graphite) as a thermally insulating unit (thermal conductivity properties not specified),
a/the thermally insulating unit (90) (graphite) protruding from the sidewall into the source material compartment (space within 70, beneath 75) so that the source material (91) is arranged directly adjacent to a bottom part of the crucible (70).
Schmitt teaches a method [0085] using a sublimation system (100) fig. 1 [0028-0029] wherein the unit (114) fig. 1 [0029] (graphite) is a thermally insulating unit (explicitly disclosed as thermally-insulative graphite [0029], due to porosity [0029]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the sublimation system of Gupta such that the graphite layer beside the graphite crucible is provided as porous, thermally insulating graphite [0029] in order to improve thermal management of the crucible system [0029] to allow the production of a single single crystal at a time [0029], as taught by Schmitt.
However, Gupta in view of Schmitt does not explicitly disclose a/the thermally insulating unit (90) (graphite) protruding from the sidewall into the source material compartment (space within 70, beneath 75) so that the source material (91) is arranged directly adjacent to a bottom part of the crucible (70).
Itou teaches a method using a sublimation system [see fig. 8, 0032, 0122] comprising a/the thermally insulating unit (112a) fig. 1 [0044, 0128] (carbon [0042]; thermally insulating when modified by Schnitt) protruding [0044] from the sidewall into the source material compartment (space within 11, beneath 12) [0037, 0122] so that the source material (M) fig. 8 [0121] is arranged directly adjacent to a bottom part of the crucible (bottom of 11).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the crucible of Gupta in view of Schmitt such that the thermally insulating carbon material [0044, 0128] to comprise the protruding portion of Itou [0044-0045] in order to enhance the amount of material to provide structural support [0041-0045] to internal crucible components [0044-0049], as taught by Itou.
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gupta (U.S. PG Pub No US2012/0103249A1) (of record) modified by Schmitt (U.S. PG Pub No US2021/0002785A1) (of record) and Itou (U.S. PG Pub No US2023/0243063A1), as applied in claim 1 above, and further in view of Wang (U.S. PG Pub No US2007/0256630A1) (of record).
Regarding claim 4, Gupta in view of Schmitt and Itou teaches the sublimation system [see fig. 8, 0097, 0104] of claim 1. However, Gupta does not explicitly disclose wherein at least one pillar is arranged along the longitudinal (vertically) axis within the source material compartment (space within 70, beneath 75) fig. 8 [0100].
Wang teaches a sublimation system [see fig. 9, 0086] wherein at least one pillar (vertically-extending portion of 31) fig. 9 [0083, 0086] (see fig. 6 for label [0083]) is arranged along the longitudinal (vertical) axis within the source material compartment (space within 6, between 34 and 34’) fig. 9 [0086].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the sublimation system of Gupta to include the source holder of Wang in order to subdivide the source material for the formation of two single crystal boules [0086] in a single crucible at the same time [0086], improving crucible productivity [0086], as taught by Wang.
Regarding claim 5, Gupta in view of Schmitt and Itou teaches the sublimation system [see fig. 8, 0097, 0104] of claim 1. However, Gupta does not explicitly disclose wherein the source material compartment (space within 70, beneath 75) fig. 8 [0100] is divided into two separate compartments by a barrier which extends across the longitudinal (vertical) axis; and
wherein the crucible (70) fig. 8 [0098] comprises a fixing means for at least two seed crystals (72) fig. 8 [0101, 0108].
Wang teaches a sublimation system [see fig. 9, 0086] wherein the source material compartment (space within 6, between 34 and 34’) fig. 9 [0086] is divided into two separate compartments (right, left sections of source material 7) fig. 9 [0086] by a barrier (vertically-extending portion of 31) fig. 9 [0083, 0086] (see fig. 6 for label [0083]) which extends across the longitudinal (vertical) axis; and
wherein the crucible (6) fig. 9 [0086] comprises a fixing means (34 and 34’) fig. 9 [0086] for at least two seed crystals (35 and 35’, respectively) fig. 9 [0086].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the sublimation system of Gupta to include the source holder of Wang in order to subdivide the source material for the formation of two single crystal boules [0086] in a single crucible at the same time [0086], improving crucible productivity [0086], as taught by Wang.
Regarding claim 6, Gupta in view of Schmitt, Itou, and Wang teaches the sublimation system [see fig. 8, 0097, 0104] of claim 5. Gupta in view of Schmitt, Itou, and Wang (with reference to Wang) also teaches wherein the heating system [0074] is arranged so that during operation the temperature (midsection of 6) [0077, 0080] at the barrier (31 bordering 7) fig. 9 [0086, 0083] (see fig. 6 for label [0086]) extending across the longitudinal axis (vertically) is higher than at the remaining part (upper/lower portion of sidewall of 6) of the sidewall (sidewall of 6, beside upper/lower end of 6 where nucleation occurs [0077, 0080]) fig. 9 [0086] of the source material compartment (space within 6, between 34 and 34’) fig. 9 [0086] (source material, in direct contact with and at 31, may be 3-300 degrees centigrade higher [0077] than nucleation site where single crystal growth occurs at top/bottom of crucible 6 [0077]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gupta (U.S. PG Pub No US2012/0103249A1) (of record) modified by Schmitt (U.S. PG Pub No US2021/0002785A1) (of record) and Itou (U.S. PG Pub No US2023/0243063A1), as applied in claim 1 above, and further in view of Polidor (U.S. Patent No 4,877,705) (of record).
Regarding claim 8, Gupta in view of Schmitt and Itou teaches the sublimation system [see fig. 8, 0097, 0104] of claim 1. However, Gupta in view of Schmitt does not explicitly disclose a porosity of the thermally insulating unit (114) fig. 1 [0029] (formed of graphite in Schmitt) [0029] is higher than a porosity of the source material (91 of Gupta) and/or a porosity of a material (silica) of the outer insulation unit (78) fig. 8 [0098] (formed of silica [0111], SiO2, in Gupta).
Polidor teaches ceramic materials compositions applicable to sublimation systems [see fig. 1, col 3, lines 38-67] wherein a porosity of the thermally insulating unit (comprising 4) fig. 1 [col 4, lines 40-49, col 5, lines 40-64] (when 4 is formed of graphite-based base material with porosity of 17% [col 5, lines 40-43]) is higher than a porosity of a (silica-based) material of the outer insulation unit (silica-based base material with porosity of 11% [col 6, lines 40-43]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the sublimation systems of Gupta in view of Schmitt and Itou such that the graphite-based material has a higher porosity (~17%) [col 5, lines 40-43] than the silica based material (~11%) [col 6, lines 40-43] in order to, along with other features, optimize the potential corrosion resistance properties of the graphite [col 5, lines 60-65] and silica [col 6, lines 50-58] materials when exposed to high temperatures, as taught by Polidor.
Claims 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gupta (U.S. PG Pub No US2012/0103249A1) (of record) modified by Schmitt (U.S. PG Pub No US2021/0002785A1) (of record) and Itou (U.S. PG Pub No US2023/0243063A1), as applied in claim 1 above, and further in view of Chen (CN Pub No CN 213172679 U) (of record) (see translation of record 03/05/2026).
Regarding claim 9, Gupta in view of Schmitt and Itou teaches the sublimation system [see fig. 8, 0097, 0104] of claim 1. However, Gupta in view of Schmitt does not explicitly disclose wherein a volume of the thermally insulating unit (90) fig. 8 [0097] (graphite) [0097] is between 10% and 50% of a volume of the crucible (70) fig. 8 [0098] (volumes not specified).
Chen teaches a sublimation system [see fig. 3, fig. 4, lines 134-147] wherein a volume of the thermally insulating unit (innermost porous graphite 40) fig. 4 [lines 327-345] is between 10% and 50% of a volume of the (cylindrical) crucible (second 41 bordering and surrounding circumference of innermost 41) fig. 4 [lines 327-345] (innermost porous graphite 40 has outer diameter of 20 mm [line 335], so radius r40 = 10 mm, second 41 has inner diameter of 20 mm and thickness of 5 mm [line 337], making outer diameter 30 mm, so radius r41 = 15 mm, ratio of volumes enclosed by outer diameters ~ [(r40)/(r41)]^2 = 100/225~ 44.44% ratio of enclosed volumes, which is between 10-50%).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the graphite layers in the crucible of Gupta in view of Schmitt and Itou to have the porosity and thickness/volume characteristics prescribed by Chen [lines 327-345] in order to reduce the formation of silicon and carbon defects [lines 340-345] during growth so as to improve the quality of the produced silicon carbide crystals [lines 325-326], as taught by Chen.
Regarding claim 11, Gupta in view of Schmitt and Itou teaches the sublimation system [see fig. 8, 0097, 0104] of claim 1. However, Gupta in view of Schmitt does not explicitly disclose wherein a porosity of the thermally insulating unit (90) fig. 8 [0097] (graphite) [0097] is between 50% and 90% of a porosity of graphite used to construct the crucible (70) fig. 8 [0098] (graphite).
Chen teaches a sublimation system [see fig. 3, fig. 4, lines 134-147] wherein a porosity of the thermally insulating unit (innermost porous graphite 40) fig. 4 [lines 327-345] (porosity of 35%) [line 336] is between 50% and 90% of a porosity of graphite used to construct the crucible (outermost / fifth layer of 40) fig. 4 [lines 327-345] (porosity of 50%) [line 339] (35/50 = 70%, which is halfway between 50 and 90%).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the graphite layers in the crucible of Gupta in view of Schmitt and Itou to have the porosity and thickness/volume characteristics prescribed by Chen [lines 327-345] in order to reduce the formation of silicon and carbon defects [lines 340-345] during growth so as to improve the quality of the produced silicon carbide crystals [lines 325-326], as taught by Chen.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gupta (U.S. PG Pub No US2012/0103249A1) (of record) modified by Schmitt (U.S. PG Pub No US2021/002785A1) (of record) and Itou (U.S. PG Pub No US2023/0243063A1), as applied in claim 1 above, and further in view of Kindaichi (JP Pub No JP 2021088476 A) (see translation of record 03/05/2026).
Regarding claim 10, Gupta in view of Schmitt and Itou teaches the sublimation system [see fig. 8, 0097, 0104] of claim 1. However, Gupta in view of Schmitt does not explicitly disclose wherein the thermal conductivity of the thermally insulating unit (90) fig. 8 [0097] (porous graphite) [0097] is at least 20% smaller than a thermal conductivity of a material of the crucible (70) fig. 8 [0098] (graphite) (thermal conductivity not specified).
Kindaichi teaches a sublimation system [see fig. 3, 0004, 0044-0048] wherein the thermal conductivity of the thermally insulating unit (50) fig. 3 [0044] (graphite) is (10 W/mK) [0044] at least 20% smaller than a thermal conductivity (40 W/mK) [0048] of a material of the crucible (10) fig. 3 [0040, 0048] (graphite) (thermal conductivity not specified) (10 is 75% smaller than 40) [0044, 0048].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the sublimation system of Gupta in view of Schmitt such that the thermally-conductive graphite of the crucible explicitly has a significantly higher thermal conductivity value that the thermally insulative graphite [0044, 0048] ensure thermally-conductive [0048] and thermally-insulative [0044] behavior of the appropriate materials for improved thermal management and distribution [0048, 0054] in the sublimation system, as taught by Kindaichi.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-15 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Remaining references made available on the PTO-892 form (of record) are considered relevant to the present disclosure because they all feature graphite-based sublimation systems.
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 SEAN AYERS WINTERS whose telephone number is (571)270-3308. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:30 am - 7:00 pm (EST).
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, N. Drew Richards can be reached at (571) 272-1736. 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.
/SEAN AYERS WINTERS/Examiner, Art Unit 2892 07/20/2026
/NORMAN D RICHARDS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2892
Prosecution Insights