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 .
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.
Claim Status
Claims 1-20 are pending, with claims 1, 7, and 20 independent.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 4, “rotabable” should be corrected to: “rotatable”.
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.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mustafa (US Pub. 2019/0390337).
Regarding claim 1, Mustafa teaches a susceptor assembly for supporting a substrate ([0022] and Fig. 1, support #108 and related components for substrate #112), the susceptor assembly comprising: a support shaft having a top distal end and a bottom distal end ([0022] and Fig. 1, support shaft #116 with upper/lower ends, continues as rotating shaft #132 below adapter #130); a susceptor connected to the top distal end of the support shaft ([0022] and Fig. 1, pedestal #110), the susceptor comprising: a substrate support surface (Fig. 1, upper surface of #110 contacting #112); a bottom surface opposite the substrate support surface (Fig. 1, bottom surface of #110); an outer ledge disposed radially outward of the substrate support surface (Fig. 1, shoulder radially outward), the outer ledge surrounding an outer edge of the substrate support surface (see Fig. 1), the outer ledge vertically offset below the substrate support surface (see Fig. 1); and a shaft coupling disposed on the bottom surface (Fig. 1, upper portion of #116 is rigidly connected to #110), the shaft coupling the susceptor to the top distal end of the support shaft (see Fig. 1); and a movement assembly connected to the bottom distal end of the support shaft ([0037] and Figs. 1, 5: rotation module #128), the movement assembly comprising: a bearing feedthrough assembly ([0037] and Fig. 5, bearing #504, spacer #502, and ferrofluid seal #230), the bottom distal end of the support shaft at least partially disposed within the bearing feedthrough assembly (Fig. 2, with rotating shaft #232 disposed therein).
Regarding claim 2, Mustafa teaches wherein the bearing feedthrough assembly ([0037] and Fig. 5, bearing #504, spacer #502, and ferrofluid seal #230) is a ferrofluidic feedthrough assembly ([0037]).
Regarding claim 3, Mustafa teaches wherein the movement assembly further comprises: a shaft extending through the bearing feedthrough assembly (see Fig. 1, shaft #132 extends through #128; Fig. 2 depicts portion below #128 as rotating shaft #232), the shaft coupled to the bottom distal end of the support shaft (see Fig. 1), the shaft rotatable within the bearing feedthrough assembly ([0030]); and a motor coupled to the shaft and a bottom of the bearing feedthrough assembly ([0024] and Fig. 1, motor #136 coupled to shaft and #134 via coupler #146), the motor configured to rotate the shaft, linearly displace the shaft, or both rotate the shaft and linearly displace the shaft ([0024]: rotate).
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.
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 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mustafa (US Pub. 2019/0390337), as applied to claims 1-3 above, further in view of Caveney (US Pub. 2012/0128450).
The limitations of claims 1-3 are set forth above.
Regarding claims 4-5, Mustafa does not teach the added limitations of the claim.
However, Caveney teaches wherein a movement assembly further comprises: a first linear spline connected to the shaft and at least partially disposed within the bearing feedthrough assembly and a second linear spline connected to the shaft and disposed within the bearing feedthrough assembly (Caveney – [0054] and Fig. 5, first and second splines #208F/C and #209F/C located between the shaft and housing to maintain ferrofluid seal #500).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the Mustafa apparatus to comprise the splines of Caveney in order to control a gap around the shaft to maintain the ferrofluidic seal (Caveney – [0054]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mustafa (US Pub. 2019/0390337), as applied to claims 1-3 above, further in view of Komatsu (US Pub. 2012/0031889).
The limitations of claims 1-3 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 6, Mustafa does not teach wherein the susceptor is formed of an optically transparent material (Mustafa is silent as to the possible materials; par. [0050] of the instant PG-Pub lists quartz or glass as exemplary materials).
However, Komatsu teaches wherein a susceptor is formed of quartz (Komatsu – [0038]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to select quartz as a material for the construction of the Mustafa susceptor to provide heat resistance without causing metal contamination (Mustafa – [0038]).
Additionally, it has been held that the selection of a known material based upon its suitability for its intended use is supportive of an obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.07.
Claims 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carlson (US Patent 8,980,005) in view of Mustafa (US Pub. 2019/0390337) and Chacin (US Patent 8,852,349).
Regarding claim 7, Carlson teaches a process chamber for substrate processing (C3, L28 and Fig. 1A, chamber #100) comprising: an upper lamp module (C3, L47 and Fig. 1A, upper lamp modules #118A); a lower lamp module (C3, L48 and Fig. 1A, lower lamp modules #118B); a susceptor assembly disposed between the upper lamp module and the lower lamp module (C3, L8 and Fig. 1A, substrate support #104); an upper window disposed between the upper lamp module and the substrate support (C3, L51 and Fig. 1A, upper quartz window #120); a lower window disposed between the lower lamp module and the substrate support (C3, L52 and Fig. 1A, lower quartz window #122); a chamber body assembly disposed between the upper lamp module and the lower lamp module and forming a portion of a process volume (C3, L58 and Fig. 1A, body formed around processing volume #110), the chamber body assembly comprising: a substrate transfer passage disposed through the chamber body assembly (C4, L53 and Fig. 1B, space near slit valve liner #132H); one or more upper chamber exhaust passages (C4, L38 and Fig. 1A, plenum #137), each of the one or more upper chamber exhaust passages having an upper chamber exhaust passage opening disposed above the lower chamber (see Fig. 1A); and one or more injector passages disposed through the chamber body assembly and above the substrate transfer passage (C4, L25 and Fig. 1A-B, openings #136A appear to be formed vertically higher than the slit valve).
Carlson does not teach wherein the susceptor is the susceptor assembly of claim 1.
However, Mustafa teaches the susceptor assembly of claim 1 (see rejection above, text omitted for brevity but should be considered as present here in its entirety).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the susceptor of Carlson to that of Mustafa in order to facilitate uniform deposition and reduced unwanted particle deposition (Mustafa – [0019]).
Modified Carlson does not appear to teach a lower chamber exhaust passage disposed opposite the substrate transfer passage and through the chamber body assembly; nor wherein the lower chamber exhaust passage is disposed below the upper chamber exhaust passage opening.
However, Chacin teaches a lower chamber exhaust passage (Chacin – C12, L34 and Fig. 11, lower exhaust port #1117); wherein the lower chamber exhaust passage is disposed below the upper chamber exhaust passage opening (Chacin – C12, L34 and Fig. 11, lower exhaust port #1117 located below #1115/#1116).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the exhaust system of modified Carlson to comprise that of Chacin in order to separate and isolate reactant gases and inert gases from the top/bottom surfaces of the substrate in order to reduce deleterious extraneous deposition (Chacin - C12, L37-43). Thus, as a combination, modified Carlson would teach wherein the lower chamber exhaust passage is disposed opposite the substrate transfer passage and through the chamber body assembly, as the substrate transfer passage and upper exhaust passage are taught by Carlson with the upper/lower exhaust modification of Chacin.
Regarding claim 9, Carlson teaches wherein the chamber body assembly comprises an inject ring (C4, L20 and Fig. 2, inject insert liner #132F forms portion of a ring structure), the inject ring comprising the one or more injector passages (C5, L41 and Fig. 2, terminating in plurality of outlets #210A, see also Fig. 5C) and one or more indents (C5, L28 and Fig. 2, recessed area #204) disposed between an inner inject ring surface and a bottom inject ring surface (see Fig. 2), the one or more indents disposed above the one or more upper chamber exhaust passage openings (see Fig. 2 in relation to 1A, upper surface of the indent is above at least the lower part of the upper exhaust passage opening) and fluidly coupled to the one or more upper chamber exhaust passages (see Fig. 1A).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carlson (US Patent 8,980,005), Mustafa (US Pub. 2019/0390337), and Chacin (US Patent 8,852,349), as applied to claims 7 and 9 above, further in view of Lau (US Pub. 2014/0137801).
The limitations of claims 7 and 9 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 8, Carlson teaches one or more gas injectors (Fig. 5A, unlabeled injector connection from inject cap #129 to gas sources #135) disposed within the one or more injector passages (C4, L25 and Fig. 1A-B, openings #136A).
Modified Carlson does not teach wherein one or more gas outlets of each of the one or more gas injectors disposed at an angle greater than about 5 degrees from a horizontal.
However, Lau teaches wherein one or more gas outlets of each of the one or more gas injectors are disposed at an angle greater than about 5 degrees from a horizontal (Lau – [0030] and Fig. 3C, angled 70-90 degrees from vertical, which is 30-0 degrees from horizontal).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to angle the gas outlets of modified Carlson to greater than about 5 degrees from horizontal, since Lau teaches such a modification improves mixing between processing gases to enhance process uniformity (Lau – [0030]-[0031]). In addition, the courts have held that overlapping ranges between the prior art and the instant invention is supportive of an obviousness determination. See n re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) and MPEP 2144.05.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carlson (US Patent 8,980,005), Mustafa (US Pub. 2019/0390337), and Chacin (US Patent 8,852,349), as applied to claims 7 and 9 above, further in view of Johnsgard (US Patent 6,902,622).
The limitations of claims 7 and 9 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 10, modified Carlson does not teach wherein the one or more upper chamber exhaust passages includes two upper chamber exhaust passages.
However, Johnsgard teaches wherein the one or more upper chamber exhaust passages includes two upper chamber exhaust passages (Johnsgard – C4, L25-35).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to further modify the modified Carlson apparatus to comprise two (or more) exhaust passages in order to selectively control the flow of process gas over the substrate (Johnsgard – C4, L31-35).
Regarding claim 11, modified Carlson does not teach wherein the two upper chamber exhaust passages are disposed on opposite sides of the lower chamber exhaust passage.
However, Johnsgard teaches wherein the one or more upper chamber exhaust passages includes two upper chamber exhaust passages (Johnsgard – C4, L25-35, see also Fig. 9, exhaust tubes #832).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to further modify the modified Carlson apparatus to comprise two (or more) exhaust passages in order to selectively control the flow of process gas over the substrate (Johnsgard – C4, L31-35). As such, the combination of references would teach wherein the two upper chamber exhaust passages are disposed on opposite sides of the lower chamber exhaust passage (see Fig. 9, circumferential placement of exhaust tubes #832 relative to where the lower chamber exhaust passage would be of modified Carlson).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carlson (US Patent 8,980,005), Mustafa (US Pub. 2019/0390337), and Chacin (US Patent 8,852,349), as applied to claims 7 and 9 above, and further in view of Parke (US Patent 6,098,637).
The limitations of claims 7 and 9 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 15, modified Carlson does not teach the added limitations of the claim.
However, Parke teaches a lift arm assembly positioned to raise or lower a substrate from the susceptor of the susceptor assembly (Parke – Fig. 1, transport arm #68, shaft #70, rotary actuator #72).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to further modify the modified Carlson apparatus with the lift arm assembly of Parke in order to transport materials between adjacent chambers, for cleaning or other purposes, which provides faster cleaning processes and eliminates shut-down time for cleaning (Parke – C7, L8-19).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carlson (US Patent 8,980,005), Mustafa (US Pub. 2019/0390337), Chacin (US Patent 8,852,349), and Parke (US Patent 6,098,637), as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Davis (US Patent 4,687,542).
The limitations of claim 15 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 16, modified Carlson does not teach the added limitations of the claim.
However, Davis teaches wherein an arm assembly would be disposed in an exhaust passage (Davis – C3, L34-40).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to locate the arm assembly of Parke in the lower chamber exhaust passage of modified Carlson in order to exhaust particles generated by the moving mechanical elements so they do not reach the processed wafers (Davis – C3, L34-40).
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carlson (US Patent 8,980,005), Mustafa (US Pub. 2019/0390337), Chacin (US Patent 8,852,349), Parke (US Patent 6,098,637), and Davis (US Patent 4,687,542), as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Gilchrist (US Pub. 2003/0035711).
The limitations of claim 16 are set forth above.
Regarding claims 17-18, modified Carlson does not teach the added limitations of the claims.
However, Gilchrist teaches wherein the lift arm assembly comprises a plurality of arms (Gilchrist – [0023] and Fig. 2, tines #18 and #20), wherein the lift arm assembly further comprises a lift pin extending upward from each arm of the plurality of arms (Gilchrist – [0023] and Fig. 2, seats #21 and #23, shown as post-like in Fig. 2A) and configured to pass through the susceptor and contact a substrate ([0023]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to further modify the modified Carlson apparatus to utilize the lift arm assembly of Gilchrist in order to provide for stable wafer holding with high throughput and minimal contamination concerns (Gilchrist – [0006]).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carlson (US Patent 8,980,005), Mustafa (US Pub. 2019/0390337), Chacin (US Patent 8,852,349), and Parke (US Patent 6,098,637), as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Chen (US Patent 9,457,476).
The limitations of claim 15 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 19, modified Carlson does not teach the added limitations of the claim.
However, Chen teaches wherein the lift arm assembly further comprises an alignment sensor (Chen – C4, L49-61 and Fig. 5, signal reception assemblies #563a on each finger #543).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to further modify the modified Carlson apparatus to comprise the sensors of Chen in order to accurately position and carefully transfer substrates to avoid damage (Chen – C1, L27-35).
The Examiner notes the remainder of the claim is an intended use, which Chen would be capable of by virtue of the sensors located on the fingers (see above) when combined/used with the modified Carlson apparatus.
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.
Claim 12 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,060,651 (hereinafter- ‘651 patent) in view of Mustafa (US Pub. 2019/0390337).
Regarding claim 12, claim 6 of the ‘651 patent (which includes limitations of dependent claims 1-3 and 5 of ‘651) teaches the process chamber, upper/lower lamp modules, upper/lower windows, chamber body, substrate transfer passage, lower/upper chamber exhaust passages, injector passages (instant claim 7), inject ring (instant claim 9), upper/lower liners, base ring (instant claim 12).
Claim 6 of ‘651 does not teach the susceptor assembly of instant claim 1.
However, Mustafa teaches the susceptor assembly of instant claim 1 (see the §102(a)(1) rejection of claim 1 as presented herein, which is omitted here for brevity but should be considered as present in its entirety).
Claim 13 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,060,651 (hereinafter- ‘651 patent) in view of Mustafa (US Pub. 2019/0390337).
Regarding claim 13, claim 7 of the ‘651 patent (which includes limitations of dependent claims 1-3 and 5 of ‘651) teaches the process chamber, upper/lower lamp modules, upper/lower windows, chamber body, substrate transfer passage, lower/upper chamber exhaust passages, injector passages (instant claim 7), inject ring (instant claim 9), upper/lower liners, base ring (instant claim 12), and lower heater (instant claim 13).
Claim 7 of ‘651 does not teach the susceptor assembly of instant claim 1.
However, Mustafa teaches the susceptor assembly of instant claim 1 (see the §102(a)(1) rejection of claim 1 as presented herein, which is omitted here for brevity but should be considered as present in its entirety).
Claim 14 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,060,651 (hereinafter- ‘651 patent) in view of Mustafa (US Pub. 2019/0390337).
Regarding claim 14, claim 8 of the ‘651 patent (which includes limitations of dependent claims 1-3 and 5 of ‘651) teaches the process chamber, upper/lower lamp modules, upper/lower windows, chamber body, substrate transfer passage, lower/upper chamber exhaust passages, injector passages (instant claim 7), inject ring (instant claim 9), upper/lower liners, base ring (instant claim 12), lower heater (instant claim 13), and upper/lower cooling rings (instant claim 14).
Claim 8 of ‘651 does not teach the susceptor assembly of instant claim 1.
However, Mustafa teaches the susceptor assembly of instant claim 1 (see the §102(a)(1) rejection of claim 1 as presented herein, which is omitted here for brevity but should be considered as present in its entirety).
Claim 20 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,060,651 (hereinafter- ‘651 patent) in view of Mustafa (US Pub. 2019/0390337).
Regarding claim 20, claim 1 of the ‘651 patent (which includes limitations of dependent claims 1-3 and 5 of ‘651) teaches the process chamber, upper/lower lamp modules, upper/lower windows, chamber body, base ring, substrate transfer passage, lower/upper chamber exhaust passages/openings, injector passages, and inject ring.
Claim 6 of ‘651 does not teach the susceptor assembly of instant claim 1.
However, Mustafa teaches the susceptor assembly of instant claim 1 (see the §102(a)(1) rejection of claim 1 as presented herein, which is omitted here for brevity but should be considered as present in its entirety).
Conclusion
The instant application is a continuation of appn#: 17/317,363 (now issued as US Patent 12,060,651), and Applicant has cited all references previously cited in the parent case. Additionally, the Examiner has not uncovered further prior art documents beyond the previously cited references considered to be relevant enough to cite herein as additional prior art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kurt Sweely whose telephone number is (571)272-8482. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at (571)-272-5166. 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.
/Kurt Sweely/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718