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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-8 and 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Amended claim 1 and new claim 25 each recites “direct current (DC) magnetron sputtering” (emphasis added). There does not appear to be specific support in the Specification that the “magnetron” (or a magnet thereof) is applied with the DC (as opposed to the DC being applied to the metal target, which is supported). Claims 2-8 and 22-25 are also rejected as depending on either claims 1 or 21.
Amended claim 5 recites “interspersing a series of negative DC pulses into the series of DC bipolar pulses to selectively deposit the metal shell on upper surfaces of the etch mask” (emphasis added). There is no support in the Specification that the “interspersing” results in the “selectively” depositing. Examiner suggests deleting the term “selectively” to overcome the rejection.
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.
Claims 21-25 are 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.
New claim 21 recites the limitation "the parameters". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim since it is unclear as to whether a singular parameter ( “one or more parameters” as recited in the claim) is intended to be required or plural “parameters” are intended to be required. Claims 22-25 are also rejected as depending on claim 21.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-15, 21-23, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al (KR 20060051802, machine translation cited below) in view of Sellers (US 5,651,865).
With respect to claim 1, Kim discloses a method of etching an underlying layer (Abstract; p. 2), wherein the method depicted in figs. 2a-c comprises: patterning a mask layer of “any suitable composition” (which includes the claimed “nonmetal”) to form an “imaging layer” (i.e. claimed “etch mask”) [20] comprising openings [22] to expose the underlying material [18] (fig. 2c; p. 5), with an example of “any suitable composition” being amorphous carbon (p. 5); depositing a “protective coating” (i.e. claimed “metal shell”) [26] on the etch mask [20] and exposed surfaces of the underlying material [18] (fig. 2c; p. 5); etching the underlying material [18] through the openings [22] of the etch mask [20] after the depositing of the metal shell [26] to form openings [28],[30] (fig. 2c; p. 5 and 7).
However Kim is limited in that while sputtering is suggested to deposit the metal shell [26] (Abstract; p. 5), the sputtering being DC magnetron sputtering using DC bipolar pulses is not specifically suggested.
Sellers teaches a method of depositing a layer of metal onto a substrate of a masked or unmasked semiconductor wafer via DC sputtering with asymmetric DC pulsing power (Abstract; figs. 10 and 12; col. 3, lines 4-30; col. 4, lines 36-63; col. 8, lines 35-67), similar to the sputtering of the metal shell [26] of Kim. Sellers further shows in figs. 10 and 12 the asymmetric DC pulsing power comprises a series of DC bipolar pulses (via DC power structures [14],[40],[50]) applied to a metal target [16] of aluminum, tungsten, titanium, gold, “or another conductive material” (col. 2, lines 30-34; col. 3, lines 24-30; col. 4, lines 24-25, 30-32, and 44-46; col. 8, lines 25-67; col. 9, lines 31-67), wherein fig. 10 further depicts each of the DC bipolar pulses comprises a negative DC pulse and a positive DC pulse (col. 8, lines 25-49).
Since Sellers teaches applying the metal target [16] with the asymmetric DC pulsing power, which necessarily forms an electro-magnetic field, the DC sputtering is considered as DC magnetron sputtering. Alternatively, or in addition thereto, Official Notice is hereby taken that one of ordinary skill would understand DC sputtering with the asymmetric DC pulsing power to necessarily include a magnetron in order to trap plasma against the metal target [16] for sputtering (MPEP 2144.03); Chistyakov (US 10,480,063) supports the Official Notice by teaching in fig. 10 and col. 9, lines 15-67 a “cathode magnetic assembly” (i.e. magnetron) [405] for sputtering a metal target [402] that is applied with “asymmetrical bipolar voltage pulses” via “pulsed DC power supply” [446].
Sellers cites the advantage of the DC magnetron sputtering using the asymmetric DC pulsing power comprising the series of DC bipolar pulses as cleaning a surface of the metal target [16] to reduce arcing during sputtering (Abstract; col. 8, lines 36-67).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the DC magnetron sputtering with the series of DC bipolar pulses taught by Sellers for the sputtering of the metal shell [26] of Kim to gain the advantages of cleaning the surface of the metal target to reduce undesirable arcing during sputtering.
With respect to claim 2, the combination of references Kim and Abraham is cited as discussed for claim 1, with it being held that mere duplication of parts (i.e. repeating the depositing and etching) has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (MPEP 2144.04, VI, C). In this case, repeating the depositing and etching would produce the expected result of providing a protective coating (i.e. metal shell) prior to further etching the underlying material.
With respect to claim 4, modified Kim further depicts in fig. 2b the etch mask [20] is patterned via etching to form the openings [22] to expose the underlying material [18] (p. 5), wherein at least some portion [e.g. atom(s) or molecule(s)] of the underlying layer [18] is etched when forming the openings [22].
With respect to claim 5, Sellers further teaches in fig. 10-11 interspersing a series of negative pulses into the series of DC bipolar pulses, the series of DC bipolar pulses having a higher negative voltage at peaks than the series of negative pulses as suggested by at least fig. 11.
With respect to claim 6, the combination of references Kim and Sellers has: Kim suggesting the metal shell [26] is selected from TiN (titanium nitride), TaN (tantalum nitride), “or the like” (p. 5), with the “or the like” considered to be the other refractory metal nitrides besides the TiN and TaN, such as WN (tungsten nitride), ZrN (zirconium nitride), VN (vanadium nitride), chromium nitride (CrN), niobium nitride (NbN), molybdenum nitride (Mo2N), and hafnium nitride (HfN); and Sellers also suggesting the DC magnetron sputtering is used to deposit TaN, TIN, AlN, or WN (col. 1, lines 24-38; col. 3, lines 24-30; col. 4, lines 44-63).
With respect to claims 7 and 8, modified Kim suggests for the etch mask [20] (of the mask layer) to comprise amorphous carbon (p. 5).
With respect to claim 9, Kim discloses a method of etching an underlying layer (Abstract; p. 2), wherein the method depicted in figs. 2a-c comprises: depositing a “protective coating” (i.e. claimed “metal shell”) [26] directly onto an etch mask [20] of carbon (fig. 2c; p. 5); and etching the underlying material [18] of an oxide, photoresist, or carbon (e.g. claimed “dielectric material”) through the openings [22] of the etch mask [20] after the depositing of the metal shell [26] to form openings [28],[30] (fig. 2c; p. 5 and 7).
However Kim is limited in that while sputtering is suggested to deposit the metal shell [26] (Abstract; p. 5), the sputtering being magnetron sputtering using DC bipolar pulses is not specifically suggested.
Sellers teaches a method of depositing a layer of metal onto a substrate of a masked or unmasked semiconductor wafer via DC sputtering with asymmetric DC pulsing power (Abstract; figs. 10 and 12; col. 3, lines 4-30; col. 4, lines 36-63; col. 8, lines 35-67), similar to the sputtering of the metal shell [26] of Kim. Sellers further shows in figs. 10 and 12 the asymmetric DC pulsing power comprises a series of DC bipolar pulses (via DC power structures [14],[40],[50]) applied to a metal target [16] of aluminum, tungsten, titanium, gold, “or another conductive material” (col. 2, lines 30-34; col. 3, lines 24-30; col. 4, lines 24-25, 30-32, and 44-46; col. 8, lines 25-67; col. 9, lines 31-67), wherein fig. 10 further depicts each of the DC bipolar pulses comprises a higher power negative DC pulse to the metal target [16] to dislodge metal atoms therefrom, and a positive DC pulse to the metal target [16] to accelerate the metal atoms towards the metal target [16] and then onto the substrate [24] ( i.e. Kim’s etch mask [20]) (col. 3, lines 4-24; col. 5, lines 4-19; col. 8, lines 25-49). Sellers cites the advantage of the DC sputtering using the asymmetric DC pulsing power comprising the series of DC bipolar pulses as cleaning a surface of the metal target [16] to reduce arcing during sputtering (Abstract; col. 8, lines 36-67).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the DC sputtering with the series of DC bipolar pulses taught by Sellers for the sputtering of the metal shell [26] of Kim to gain the advantages of cleaning the surface of the metal target to reduce undesirable arcing during sputtering.
With respect to claim 10, the combination of references Kim and Sellers is cited as discussed for claim 9, with it being held that mere duplication of parts (i.e. repeating the depositing and etching) has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (MPEP 2144.04, VI, C). In this case, repeating the depositing and etching would produce the expected result of providing a protective coating (i.e. metal shell) prior to further etching the underlying material.
With respect to claim 11, modified Kim further depicts in fig. 2b the etch mask [20] is patterned via etching to form the openings [22] to expose the underlying material [18] (p. 5), wherein at least some portion [e.g. atom(s) or molecule(s)] of the underlying layer [18] is etched when forming the openings [22].
With respect to claim 12, the combination of references Kim and Sellers has: Sellers further teaches in fig. 10-11 interspersing a series of negative pulses into the series of DC bipolar pulses, the series of DC bipolar pulses having a higher negative voltage at peaks than the series of negative pulses as suggested by at least fig. 11. Since the combination of references Kim and Sellers teaches the claim requirements of claims 9 and 12, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established that the combination of references also teaches the resulting ‘interspersing a series of lower negative pulses into the series of bipolar pulses’ yields the claimed property of “increasing an upper surface deposition rate of the metal shell relative to a sidewall deposition rate of the metal shell” (MPEP 2112.01, I).
With respect to claim 15, the combination of references Kim and Sellers has: Kim suggesting the etch mask [20] (of the mask layer) comprises amorphous carbon, the metal shell [26] is selected from TiN (titanium nitride), TaN (tantalum nitride), “or the like” (p. 5), with the “or the like” considered to be the other refractory metal nitrides besides the TiN and TaN, such as WN (tungsten nitride), ZrN (zirconium nitride), VN (vanadium nitride), chromium nitride (CrN), niobium nitride (NbN), molybdenum nitride (Mo2N), and hafnium nitride (HfN), and the underlying material [18] of the dielectric material is the oxide (p. 5 and 7), wherein a mask (which includes the underlying material [18]) comprises silicon with the oxide (p. 5 and 7), thus the dielectric material of the oxide is silicon oxide; and Sellers also suggesting the DC magnetron sputtering is used to deposit TaN, TIN, AlN, or WN (col. 1, lines 24-38; col. 3, lines 24-30; col. 4, lines 44-63).
With respect to claim 21, Kim discloses a method of etching an underlying layer (Abstract; p. 2), wherein the method depicted in figs. 2a-c comprises: patterning a mask layer of “any suitable composition” (which includes the claimed “nonmetal”) to form an “imaging layer” (i.e. claimed “etch mask”) [20] comprising openings [22] to expose the underlying material [18] (fig. 2c; p. 5), with an example of “any suitable composition” being amorphous carbon (p. 5); depositing a “protective coating” (i.e. claimed “metal shell”) [26] on the etch mask [20] and exposed surfaces of the underlying material [18] (fig. 2c; p. 5); etching the underlying material [18] through the openings [22] of the etch mask [20] after the depositing of the metal shell [26] to form openings [28],[30] (fig. 2c; p. 5 and 7).
However Kim is limited in that while sputtering is suggested to deposit the metal shell [26] (Abstract; p. 5), the sputtering being DC magnetron sputtering using DC bipolar pulses is not specifically suggested.
Sellers teaches a method of depositing a layer of metal onto a substrate of a masked or unmasked semiconductor wafer via DC sputtering with asymmetric DC pulsing power (Abstract; figs. 10 and 12; col. 3, lines 4-30; col. 4, lines 36-63; col. 8, lines 35-67), similar to the sputtering of the metal shell [26] of Kim. Sellers further shows in figs. 10 and 12 the asymmetric DC pulsing power comprises a series of DC bipolar pulses (via DC power structures [14],[40],[50]) applied to a metal target [16] of aluminum, tungsten, titanium, gold, “or another conductive material” (col. 2, lines 30-34; col. 3, lines 24-30; col. 4, lines 24-25, 30-32, and 44-46; col. 8, lines 25-67; col. 9, lines 31-67), wherein fig. 10 further depicts each of the DC bipolar pulses comprises a negative DC pulse and a positive DC pulse (col. 8, lines 25-49), wherein during the depositing dynamically varying parameters of “pulse width”, “pulse repetition rate”, and voltage to each be “tailored to the particular sputtering operation” (Abstract; col. 8, lines 25-57; col. 9, lines 19-61).
Since Sellers teaches applying the metal target [16] with the asymmetric DC pulsing power, which necessarily forms an electro-magnetic field, the DC sputtering is considered as DC magnetron sputtering. Alternatively, or in addition thereto, Official Notice is hereby taken that one of ordinary skill would understand DC sputtering with the asymmetric DC pulsing power to necessarily include a magnetron in order to trap plasma against the metal target [16] for sputtering (MPEP 2144.03); Chistyakov (US 10,480,063) supports the Official Notice by teaching in fig. 10 and col. 9, lines 15-67 a “cathode magnetic assembly” (i.e. magnetron) [405] for sputtering a metal target [402] that is applied with “asymmetrical bipolar voltage pulses” via “pulsed DC power supply” [446].
Sellers cites the advantage of the DC magnetron sputtering using the asymmetric DC pulsing power comprising the series of DC bipolar pulses as cleaning a surface of the metal target [16] to reduce arcing during sputtering (Abstract; col. 8, lines 36-67).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the DC magnetron sputtering with the series of DC bipolar pulses taught by Sellers for the sputtering of the metal shell [26] of Kim to gain the advantages of cleaning the surface of the metal target to reduce undesirable arcing during sputtering.
With respect to claim 22, the combination of references Kim and Sellers has: Kim suggesting the etch mask [20] (of the mask layer) comprises amorphous carbon, the metal shell [26] is selected from TiN (titanium nitride), TaN (tantalum nitride), “or the like” (p. 5), with the “or the like” considered to be the other refractory metal nitrides besides the TiN and TaN, such as WN (tungsten nitride), ZrN (zirconium nitride), VN (vanadium nitride), chromium nitride (CrN), niobium nitride (NbN), molybdenum nitride (Mo2N), and hafnium nitride (HfN), and the underlying material [18] of the dielectric material is the oxide (p. 5 and 7), wherein a mask (which includes the underlying material [18]) comprises silicon with the oxide (p. 5 and 7), thus the dielectric material of the oxide is silicon oxide; and Sellers also suggesting the DC magnetron sputtering is used to deposit TaN, TIN, AlN, or WN (col. 1, lines 24-38; col. 3, lines 24-30; col. 4, lines 44-63).
With respect to claim 23, the combination of references of Kim and Sellers has: Sellers further teaches in fig. 10-11 interspersing a series of negative pulses into the series of DC bipolar pulses, the series of DC bipolar pulses having a higher negative voltage at peaks than the series of negative pulses as suggested by at least fig. 11. Since the combination of references Kim and Sellers teaches the claim requirements of claims 21 and 23, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established that the combination of references also teaches the resulting ‘interspersing a series of lower negative pulses into the series of bipolar pulses’ yields the claimed property of “to increase a deposition rate of the metal shell at upper surfaces of the etch mask relative to a deposition rate of the metal shell at sidewalls of the openings” (MPEP 2112.01, I).
With respect to claim 25, modified Kim further discloses in figs. 2-3 a stack of oxide layers separated by nitride and/or polysilicon layers (p. 4-5).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al (KR 20060051802, machine translation cited below) and Sellers (US 5,651,865) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cai et al (CN 109585280, machine translation cited below).
With respect to claim 3, the combination of references Kim and Sellers is cited as discussed for claim 1. However the combination of references is limited in that a metal-containing layer on etch mask [20] prior to the patterning is not suggested.
Cai teaches a method of etching using a mask (Abstract), similar to the method of Kim. Cai further teaches in figs. 1A-C a dielectric film [116] is deposited as a multi-layer stack on a lower layer [114] to form a patterned etch mask (fig. 1C; p. 6-7), wherein the dielectric film [116] comprises titanium and is deposited via chemical vapor deposition onto the lower layer [114] prior to patterning (fig. 1C; p. 7). Cai further teaches in figs. 1D-F the patterning comprises forming openings in both the dielectric film (i.e. claimed “metal-containing layer”) [116] and lower layer [114] to form the patterned etch mask (p. 12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the metal-containing-layer [116] onto the mask layer [of nonmetal prior to patterning of the combination of references to yield the predictable result of forming an etch mask [20].
In summary, the combination of references Kim, Sellers, and Cai has Cai depositing the dielectric film (i.e. additional metal-containing layer) onto the mask layer of Kim, followed by the patterning of Kim to form openings in both the additional metal-containing layer and mask layer to form the etch mask [20] of Kim, followed by the depositing of the metal shell [26] of Kim (via the DC magnetron sputtering of Sellers) onto the additional-metal containing layer of the etch mask [20]. Since the combination of references teaches the claim requirements of claim 1 and 3, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established that the combination of references also teaches the resulting metal shell [26] on the additional metal-containing layer yield the claimed property of “decreases surface roughness” of the additional metal-containing layer (MPEP 2112.01, I).
Claims 13-14 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al (KR 20060051802, machine translation cited below) and Sellers (US 5,651,865) as applied to claims 9 and 21 above, and further in view of Stowell (US 2016/0215386).
With respect to claims 13-14 and 24, the combination of references Kim and Sellers is cited as discussed for claims 9 and 21.
However the combination of references is limited in that interspersing (i.e. superimposing) AC pulses into the series of DC bipolar pulses is not specifically suggested.
Stowell teaches a method of modulation of a waveform applied to a cathode (i.e. target) of metal for DC magnetron sputtering comprising a pulsed DC waveform (Abstract; para 0022 and 0031-0032), similar to Sellers. Stowell further teaches in fig. 9 the modulation of the waveform comprises the pulsed DC waveform that is bipolar to generate DC bipolar pulses [902],[904],[906] in addition to an AC waveform (i.e. claimed “AC pulse”) comprising a series of AC pulses [908],[910],[912] superimposed on (i.e. interspersed with) the DC bipolar pulses [902],[904],[906] (Abstract; fig. 9; para 0021 and 0081-0082). Fig. 9 further shows that for each of the DC bipolar pulses [902],[904],[906], a negative portion (or entire portion) of an AC pulse of one of the series of AC pulses [908],[910],[912] is applied to the target of metal after a higher power negative DC pulse has been applied but before a positive DC positive pulse (e.g. negative portion or entire portion of the AC pulse [908] is applied after the higher power negative DC pulse [914] but before the DC positive pulse [918]) (para 0082-0083 and 0099). Stowell cites the advantages of superimposing the series of AC pulses on the DC bipolar pulses as increasing ion density in a plasma sheath in addition to finer control of deposition rates and thin film quality (Abstract; para 0098 and 0103).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the series of AC pulses as taught by Stowell interspersed with the DC bipolar pulses of the combination of references to gain the advantages of increasing ion density in a plasma sheath in addition to finer control of deposition rates and thin film quality.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s Remarks on p. 6-8 filed 7/29/2026 are addressed below.
112 Rejections
Claim 5 has been amended to clarify “preferentially” as “selectively”; the previous 112(b) rejection has been withdrawn.
103 Rejections
Applicant’s arguments on p. 6-8 with respect to independent claims 1 and 9 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new combination of references Kim and Sellers being applied in the current rejection.
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 MICHAEL A BAND whose telephone number is (571)272-9815. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 9am-5pm 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, James Lin can be reached at (571) 272-8902. 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.
/MICHAEL A BAND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794
Prosecution Insights