DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to the amendment filed on Jun 26th, 2026. Claims 1-13 and 15-21 are pending, with claim 21 being new.
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 20 recites a controller with instructions “for obtaining ion conductance of the plasma using ion beams having different properties produced from the plasma by the apertures.” It is unclear what instructions are required as no process for obtaining ion conductance is specified by the claim. Although the claim as now been amended to recite that the process “uses” ion beams having different properties it still does not specify what steps are required to convert the data collected through the steps of the parent claim (energy and flux) into a measurement of ion conductance.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 20 recites a controller with instructions for obtaining ion conduction “using ion beams having different properties produced from the plasma by the apertures.” It is unclear how the ions beams are “used”. Using is not a specific action or process step. See MPEP 2173.05(q), directed to “use” claims, which states, in part, “Attempts to claim a process without setting forth any steps involved in the process generally raises an issue of indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. For example, a claim which read: "[a] process for using monoclonal antibodies of claim 4 to isolate and purify human fibroblast interferon" was held to be indefinite because it merely recites a use without any active, positive steps delimiting how this use is actually practiced. Ex parte Erlich, 3 USPQ2d 1011 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1986).”
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 9245726 (Herrero).
Regarding claim 1, Herrero discloses an ion energy detector comprising:
an ion shield comprising an aperture configured to produce an ion beam from incident ions, the ion beam traveling behind the ion shield along an axis of the aperture (fig. 1, element 130);
an ion collector disposed in a fixed position behind the ion shield and offset from the axis of the aperture (“A detector may be positioned behind the exit plate 140 to detect the particles that exit via the exit aperture 142 after the small angular deflection induced by the energy analyzer 100.”); and
an ion deflector comprising a pair of parallel plates disposed behind the ion shield and configured to generate an electric field to deflect the ion beam off the axis of the aperture and toward the ion collector (fig. 1, elements 110 & 120), the ion beam traveling along an unobstructed grid-less path from the ion shield to the ion collector (fig. 1 as a whole).
Regarding claim 2, Herrero discloses the ion energy detector of claim 1, further comprising: a front plate comprising an opening, a front side comprising a grounded electrically conductive surface, and a back side comprising an electrically insulating surface facing the ion deflector, the ion beam traveling through the opening of the front plate before reaching the ion deflector (fig. 1, element 130).
Regarding claim 3, Herrero discloses the ion energy detector of claim 2, wherein the ion shield comprises the front plate (fig. 1, element 130).
Regarding claim 5, Herrero discloses the ion energy detector of claim 1, wherein the pair of parallel plates comprises a first plate configured to be coupled to a ground potential and a second plate configured to be coupled to a nonzero voltage (“In an implementation, the voltage potential of the top deflection plate 110 is +1 volt and the voltage potential of the bottom deflection plate 120 is 0 volts”).
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.
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herrero as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 6, Herrero discloses the claimed invention except coupling the ion collector to a negative voltage to suppress secondary electrons. Coupling an ion collector to a voltage is common in the art, and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to couple the ion collector to a voltage to adjust the electric field as desired.
Regarding claim 7, Herrero discloses the claimed invention except it is silent as to whether the ion collector is a faraday cup. Faraday cups are well-known in the art, and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to use a faraday cup because they are highly robust charged particle detectors.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herrero as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2013/0112858 (Schwieters et al.).
Regarding claim 4, Herrero discloses the claimed invention except for the ion shield being an enclosure containing the ion collector and the ion deflector. Schwieters et al. disclose an ion energy detector where the ion shield is an enclosure containing the ion collector and the ion deflector (“Beneficially, the shielding arrangement further comprises a housing that is arranged to shield the ion deflector from other parts of the mass spectrometer, particularly other ion deflectors.” P 18). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to substitute the shielding enclosure of Schwieters for the shielding plate of Herrero to provide shielding on all sides.
Claim(s) 1, 4-15, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2007/0227231 (Koo et al.).
Regarding claim 1, Koo et al. discloses an ion energy detector comprising:
an ion shield comprising an aperture configured to produce an ion beam from incident ions, the ion beam traveling behind the ion shield along an axis of the aperture (“The housing 102 may be biased at a same or similar potential (e.g., 0V--0 kV) as the wafer 504.” P 20);
an ion collector disposed in a fixed position behind the ion shield and offset from the axis of the aperture (“On the detector side, a detector assembly 112 may be used to detect the ions. The detector assembly 112 may be any type of commercially available or customized ion detection device (e.g., micro-channel plate (MCP) assembly).” P 30, where it must be offset from the axis of the aperture in the case of a 45 degree energy analyzer, see below); and
an ion deflector comprising a pair of parallel plates disposed behind the ion shield and configured to generate an electric field to deflect the ion beam off the axis of the aperture and toward the ion collector, the ion beam traveling along a path from the ion shield to the detector (“In another embodiment, the drift tube 104 includes a parallel-plate energy analyzer as part of the drift path to the detector assembly 112. For example, the energy analyzer can be a 45 degree type energy analyzer." P 43).
Koo et al. does not clearly disclose an embodiment where the path is an unobstructed grid-less path. Koo et al. discloses a grid in the path from the ion shield to the ion collector in at least some embodiments (see element 124). Koo et al. discloses this element as optional, hence an embodiment that fails to include this would be within the scope of Koo et al. (“A detector side of the drift tube 104 may have a grid 124 that allows ions to exit while shielding out external electric fields.” P 21). However, for clarity, examiner will also note that even if Koo et al. did not describe the grid as optional, removal of the grid would be obvious is the function of the grid was not desired. Koo et a. discloses that the grid functions to shield the drift tube from the high voltage used for multi-channel plate detectors (“On the detector side, the detector assembly 112 may be biased at a high voltage VMCP. The grid 124 may electrostatically shield the drift tube 104 from the high voltage VMCP.” P 38). It would therefore have been obvious to a eliminate the grid when using a detector that does not require a high voltage, such as a Faraday cup.
Regarding claim 4, Koo et al. discloses the ion energy detector of claim 1, wherein the ion shield is an enclosure containing the ion collector and the ion deflector (“The housing 102 may be biased at a same or similar potential (e.g., 0V--0 kV) as the wafer 504.” P 20).
Regarding claim 5, Koo et al. discloses the ion energy detector of claim 1, wherein the pair of parallel plates comprises a first plate configured to be coupled to a ground potential and a second plate configured to be coupled to a nonzero voltage (coupling the parallel plates to a voltage source is inherent in parallel plate energy analyzers, the specific values of ground and nonzero voltage are intended use).
Regarding claim 6, Koo et al. discloses the ion energy detector of claim 1, wherein the collector is coupled to a voltage (“Detection and/or collection of the ions may be controlled, for example, with one or more voltage biases such as VMCP.” P 30).
Koo does not disclose the use of a negative voltage to suppress secondary electrons, however Koo discloses the use of a variety of commercial ion detectors, which would include Faraday cups. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to use the coupling of Koo et al. to connect to a small negative voltage for suppressing secondary electrons if the detector were a Faraday cup.
Regarding claim 7, Koo et al. disclose the claimed invention except for the ion collector being a faraday cup. Faraday cups are well-known in the art, and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to use a faraday cup for the ion collector because they are very robust ion collectors.
Regarding claim 8, Koo et al. discloses an ion energy detection system comprising:
a substrate (fig. 7, 7a, 7b, element 502); and
an ion energy detector in physical contact with the substrate (fig. 7, 7a, 7b, element 702), the ion energy detector comprising
an enclosure comprising an ion shield comprising an outer shield surface and an aperture configured to produce an ion beam from incident ions, the outer shield surface having the same electric potential as the substrate, the ion beam traveling into the enclosure along an axis of the aperture (“The housing 102 may be biased at a same or similar potential (e.g., 0V--0 kV) as the wafer 504.” P 20),
an ion collector disposed in a fixed position in the enclosure and offset from the axis of the aperture (“On the detector side, a detector assembly 112 may be used to detect the ions. The detector assembly 112 may be any type of commercially available or customized ion detection device (e.g., micro-channel plate (MCP) assembly).” P 30, where it must be offset from the axis of the aperture in the case of a 45 degree energy analyzer, see below), and
an ion deflector comprising a pair of parallel plates disposed in the enclosure and configured to generate an electric field to deflect the ion beam off the axis of the aperture and toward the ion collector, the ion beam traveling along a path from the ion shield to the ion collector (“In another embodiment, the drift tube 104 includes a parallel-plate energy analyzer as part of the drift path to the detector assembly 112. For example, the energy analyzer can be a 45 degree type energy analyzer." P 43).
Koo et al. does not clearly disclose an embodiment where the path is an unobstructed grid-less path. Koo et al. discloses a grid in the path from the ion shield to the ion collector in at least some embodiments (see element 124). Koo et al. discloses this element as optional, hence an embodiment that fails to include this would be within the scope of Koo et al. (“A detector side of the drift tube 104 may have a grid 124 that allows ions to exit while shielding out external electric fields.” P 21). However, for clarity, examiner will also note that even if Koo et al. did not describe the grid as optional, removal of the grid would be obvious is the function of the grid was not desired. Koo et a. discloses that the grid functions to shield the drift tube from the high voltage used for multi-channel plate detectors (“On the detector side, the detector assembly 112 may be biased at a high voltage VMCP. The grid 124 may electrostatically shield the drift tube 104 from the high voltage VMCP.” P 38). It would therefore have been obvious to a eliminate the grid when using a detector that does not require a high voltage, such as a Faraday cup.
Regarding claim 9, Koo et al. discloses the ion energy detection system of claim 8, wherein the pair of parallel plates comprises a first plate configured to be coupled to a ground potential and a second plate configured to be coupled to a nonzero voltage (coupling the parallel plates to a voltage source is inherent in parallel plate energy analyzers, the specific values of ground and nonzero voltage are intended use).
Regarding claim 10, Koo et al. disclose the claimed invention except it is silent as to whether all spatial dimensions of the enclosure are less than about 30 mm. Ion sensor enclosures with dimensions less than 30mm are well-known in the art, and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to make the dimensions less than 30mm to reduce the chances of ions being scattered by random collisions as well as to reduce the volume that needs to be differentially pumped.
Regarding claim 11, Koo et al. disclose the ion energy detection system of claim 8, wherein the enclosure further comprises an outer enclosure surface in direct contact with the substrate (fig. 7, 7a, and 7b, element 702).
Koo et al. is silent as to whether the outer enclosure surface is electrically coupled to the outer shield surface through the direct contact, but does disclose that that same potential is applied (“The housing 102 may be biased at a same or similar potential (e.g., 0V--0 kV) as the wafer 504.” P 20) and the elements are already in direct physical contact, hence it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to make directly electrically couple the elements because it is the simplest method of applying the same potential to both and further avoids any need to electrical insulators to electrically isolate the two elements.
Regarding claim 12, Koo et al. discloses the ion energy detection system of claim 8, wherein the ion energy detector is embedded in the substrate (fig. 7, 7a, 7b).
Regarding claim 13, Koo et al. discloses the ion energy detection system of claim 8, further comprising: an array of ion energy detectors comprising the ion energy detector and a plurality of additional ion energy detectors (fig. 7 & 7b).
Regarding claim 15, Koo et al. discloses a plasma system comprising:
a chamber configured to contain a plasma (fig. 7, 7a, 7b, element 500);
a substrate disposed in the chamber (fig. 7, 7a, 7b, element 502);
an ion energy detector in physical contact with the substrate (fig. 7, 7a, 7b, element 702), the ion energy detector comprising
an enclosure comprising an ion shield comprising an outer shield surface and an aperture configured to produce an ion beam from the plasma, the outer shield surface having the same electric potential as the substrate, the ion beam traveling into the enclosure along an axis of the aperture (“The housing 102 may be biased at a same or similar potential (e.g., 0V--0 kV) as the wafer 504.” P 20),
an ion collector disposed in a fixed position in the enclosure and offset from the axis of the aperture (“On the detector side, a detector assembly 112 may be used to detect the ions. The detector assembly 112 may be any type of commercially available or customized ion detection device (e.g., micro-channel plate (MCP) assembly).” P 30, where it must be offset from the axis of the aperture in the case of a 45 degree energy analyzer, see below), and
an ion deflector comprising a pair of parallel plates disposed in the enclosure, the ion beam travelling along a path from the ion shield to the ion collector (“In another embodiment, the drift tube 104 includes a parallel-plate energy analyzer as part of the drift path to the detector assembly 112. For example, the energy analyzer can be a 45 degree type energy analyzer." P 43); and
a controller operatively coupled to the ion energy detector, the controller comprising a processor and a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a program including instructions that, when executed by the processor, perform a method of measuring ion energy of the plasma (fig. 7a-b, element 706), the method comprising
applying a voltage difference between the pair of parallel plates to generate an electric field deflecting the ion beam off the axis of the aperture and toward the ion collector (“The energy analyzer 114 can be used to select ions within a desired energy range.” P 44, where it is understood this is done by applying a voltage difference between the pair of parallel plates in the case of a parallel-plate energy analyzer),
measuring ion flux from the ion beam deflected by a voltage difference (“The ion sensor 702 may be coupled to a unit 706 that calculates an in-situ ion composition based on detection data received from the ion sensor 702.” P 58), and
obtaining ion energy of ions of the ion flux by scaling the voltage difference with a constant value (“Both the energy distribution and the plasma potential can be determined from the measured data.” P 41).
Regarding claim 19, Koo et al. disclose the plasma system of claim 15, wherein the ion energy is greater than about 10 keV (intended use, the plasma system of Koo et al. will work with any ion energy).
Regarding claim 20, Koo et al. disclose the plasma system of claim 15, further comprising: an array of ion energy detectors comprising the ion energy detector and a plurality of additional ion energy detectors, wherein the ion energy detectors of the array comprise apertures shaped differently from one another (fig. 7 & 7b).
Koo et al. does not disclose the program includes further instructions for obtaining ion conductance of the plasma using ion beams having different properties produced from the plasma by the apertures shaped differently from one another. Conductance is usually found by dividing current by potential, and Koo et al. discloses measuring both ion current and plasma potential using ion beams having different properties produced by the plasma by the apertures shaped differently from one another (“Both the energy distribution and the plasma potential can be determined from the measured data.” P 41) it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the controller of Koo et al. to include calculating the ion conductance of the plasma using these values if information about the ion conductance is desired.
Claim(s) 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koo et al. as applied to claims 15 above and further in view of US 9245726 (Herrero).
Koo et al. does not disclose instructions for sweeping the voltage difference from an initial voltage to a final voltage, measuring the ion flux as a function of the voltage difference while sweeping the voltage difference, and obtaining an ion energy distribution of the plasma by scaling the voltage difference with the constant value.
Herrero discloses an ion energy detection system including instructions for for sweeping the voltage difference on a pair of parallel plates from an initial voltage to a final voltage, measuring the ion flux as a function of the voltage difference while sweeping the voltage difference, and obtaining an ion energy distribution of the plasma by scaling the voltage difference with the constant value (“If the energy analyzer operates with an exit aperture at an exit plane, the energy may be scanned or selected by adjusting the applied voltage V.”). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the controller instructions of Koo et al. to include sweeping the voltage difference as in Herrano so that the energy distribution over a variety of energies could be measured.
Regarding claim 17, Koo et al. in view of Herrano discloses the claimed invention except for repeatedly sweeping the voltage difference between the initial voltage and the final voltage, measuring the ion flux as a function of the voltage difference while repeatedly sweeping the voltage difference, and obtaining the ion energy distribution as a function of time by scaling the voltage difference with the constant value. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the instructions to do the sweep repeatedly so that the effect of changing plasma control parameters could be seen.
Regarding claim 18, Koo et al. in view of Herrano discloses the plasma system of claim 17, wherein the ion energy distribution as a function of time has a resolution on the order of hundreds of nanoseconds (intended result, sweep can be done on any desired time scale).
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koo et al. as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of US 2013/0112858 (Schwieters et al.).
Regarding claim 21, Koo et al. discloses the claimed invention except for a ground plane disposed in the enclosure between the outer enclosure surface and the ion deflector. Schwieters et al. discloses an ion energy detector with a ground plane between the outer enclosure surface and the ion deflector (“Typically, the enclosure 481 of the first ion detection arrangement 480 is grounded and the enclosure 581 of the second ion detection arrangement 580 is grounded.”). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to add the ground plane of Schwieters et al. between the enclosure and ion deflector of Koos et al. to shield the deflector from the fields introduced by any bias or pulses applied to the substrate.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 26, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejection of claim 20 under 112(b) as indefinite, applicant argues both that the original claim is definite and that the amendment adding the phrase “using ion beams having different properties produced from the plasma by the apertures shaped differently from one another” overcomes the rejection.
With regard to the argument that the original claim limitation is definite, applicant does not specify why they believe the claim language sets forth well-defined boundaries of the invention, so examiner cannot respond except to say that she disagrees. Nothing in the claim specifies or even suggests what steps are required to convert the data (ion energy flux and energy at various locations) into a measure of ion conductance. With regard to the amendment, the additional phrase is itself indefinite because it does not specify the “use”, and, to the extent that such ion beams are used in the process, it is in the step of measuring ion flux, not in the step of converting the flux and energy data into an ion conductance.
Regarding the rejections over Herrero, applicant argues that Herrero places obstacles in the path of the ions or electrons, requiring them to pass through apertures to enter and leave the deflection region.
Regarding the aperture at the entrance, the claims actually require there to be an aperture at the entrance (see “an ion shield comprising an aperture”). Regarding the aperture at the exit, it would not obstruct the path from the ion shield to the ion collector. Ions that are on the path to the ion collector will pass through the aperture unimpeded. It is further noted that applicant also includes an aperture in front of the ion collector, they simply use an enclosure around the ion collector rather than an exit plate to form the aperture, see annotated figure below.
PNG
media_image1.png
626
908
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding the rejections over Koo, applicant argues that Koo is directed to a time-of-flight ion sensor and includes various elements in the path of the ion beam, including an extractor electrode, lenses, and grid, and therefore does not disclose the ion beam traveling along an unobstructed grid-less path from the ion shield to the ion collector.
With respect to the extractor electrode and lenses, these elements do not obstruct the path. With respect to the grid, this element is claimed as optional, meaning the disclosure of Koo includes the universe of ion energy detectors that do not include this. Furthermore, as per MPEP 2144.04, the omission of an element and its function is obvious if the function of the element is not desired. In the case of the detector grid, the stated purpose in Koo is to shield the drift tube from the high voltage of the multi-channel plate detector (see “The grid 124 may electrostatically shield the drift tube 104 from the high voltage VMCP.” P 38). It would therefore have been obvious to eliminate the grid when using a detector that does not require a high voltage.
Regarding claim 12, applicant argues that Koo does not teach the ion energy detector is embedded in the substrate, arguing that Koo embeds the ion sensor in the platen supporting the wafer instead.
The platen supporting the wafer is the substrate. Any layer in which the ion energy detection system can be embedded can be a substrate. Applicant even discloses an embodiment where the substrate is a platen, clearly indicating the claimed invention can encompass a platen as the substrate, unless the claim specifies otherwise (see applicant’s specification “Alternatively, a specialized support may be used for the ion energy detector 820 and a different support may be used to support one or more substrates during processing.”). The application also discloses the substrate may be a test substrate set atop the platen in place of a wafer, a substrate set atop a wafer, a separate beam element placed elsewhere, or part of a test chamber. The claim language does not currently differentiate between these forms of substrates.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ELIZA W OSENBAUGH-STEWART whose telephone number is (571)270-5782. The examiner can normally be reached 10am - 6pm Pacific Time M-F.
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, Robert Kim can be reached at 571-272-2293. 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.
/ELIZA W OSENBAUGH-STEWART/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights