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 .
The amendment filed 5/4/2026 has been entered. New claim 6 has been added. Claims 1-6 are pending in the application. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Interpretation
For examination purposes with respect to prior art, the Examiner has again interpreted the claimed “Young’s modulus” as being one determined by any known method in the art, wherein as discussed previously on the record, the method and conditions utilized affect the results obtained such that values may differ based upon the method and conditions utilized, e.g., thermal change rate or temperature rise rate, even in the case of static/quasi-static methods.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claims 1, 2, and 5 and new claim 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Inayoshi (WO2024/219229A1, please refer to the machine translation for the below cited sections) for generally the reasons recited in the prior office action and restated below with added discussion with respect to new claim 6.
As discussed in the prior office action, Inayoshi discloses an electrostatic chuck or holding device (10) comprising a ceramic plate-shaped portion (20) (Paragraph 0007) that is formed primarily from a ceramic, such as aluminum oxide or aluminum nitride (reading upon the claimed “dielectric substrate”; Paragraph 0016); a base portion (30) that provides a cooling function and contains at least one metal (reading upon the claimed “base plate formed of a metal material”; Paragraph 0018); and an adhesive layer (40) disposed between and bonding together the plate-shaped portion (20) and the base portion (30) (reading upon the claimed “joining layer which is provided between the dielectric substrate and the base plate” as in instant claim 1 as well as the claimed “base plate has an upper surface and the joining layer has a lower surface being in contact with the upper surface of the base plate either directly or via an insulating layer” as in instant claim 6 given that the adhesive layer (40) is disposed on an upper surface of the base portion (30) as the claimed “base plate” as shown in Fig. 2; Paragraphs 0007 and 0015); wherein the adhesive layer (40) contains an adhesive and an inorganic filler (Paragraph 0007), particularly an adhesive layer having a glass transition temperature (Tg) of -100°C or lower making “it possible to obtain an adhesive layer that is flexible even at -100°C and has stress relaxation properties, thereby realizing stable bonding and uniform heat conduction” (Paragraphs 0010 and 0050). Inayoshi discloses that the adhesive layer (40) has a storage modulus of preferably 30 MPa or less at -60°C (Paragraph 0011), more preferably 20 MPa or less, and even more preferably 5 MPa or less (Paragraph 0053), measured using a dynamic mechanical analyzer (DMA) as in the examples (Paragraphs 0061-0062); and given that silicone resin has a relatively low modulus of elasticity and therefore a high function of alleviating thermal stress generated in the adhesive layer (40), Inayoshi disclose that the adhesive layer (40) is preferably formed from a cured silicone resin adhesive composition as described in Paragraphs 0028-0045. Inayoshi specifically discloses working examples wherein the thickness of the adhesive sheet is 0.35 mm (350 µm) with several silicone resin adhesive compositions providing an adhesive having a Tg of -110°C and a storage modulus of less than 1 MPa at -60°C as well as at room temperature (Examples 4-9, e.g., substantially constant slightly higher than Tg through room temperature as is typical in the art), and given that the Tg is obtained by measuring the storage modulus of the adhesive layer using DMA by lowering the temperature to -150°C and increasing at a temperature rise rate of 2°C/min as described in Paragraphs 0061-0063, wherein in a graph thereof, the temperature at the tangent intersection point PI of the part where the storage modulus of the adhesive layer begins to decrease significantly as shown in Fig. 7 is taken as the Tg, the Examiner takes the position that the examples disclosed by Inayoshi having a Tg of -110°C and storage modulus at -60°C of less than 1 MPa as summarized in the tables shown in Figs. 4-5 would inherently have a storage modulus, which corresponds to the “Young’s modulus” (as evidenced by the Japanese Office Action dated 11/15/2024, see pages 17-20), at -100°C meeting the claimed expression at the 350 µm thickness, particularly when the claimed “Young’s modulus” at -100°C is determined by some arbitrary method (and especially in light of Fig. 7). Hence, the Examiner takes the position that Inayoshi discloses the claimed invention with sufficient specificity to anticipate instant claims 1 and 5-6.
With respect to instant claim 2, Inayoshi discloses a plurality of through holes (52) formed in the dielectric body/substrate (20) as shown in Fig. 1 (Paragraph 0021), thereby anticipating instant claim 2.
Claims 1, 2, 4, and 5 and new claim 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Parkhe (US2022/0270864A1) for generally the reasons recited in the prior office action and restated below with added discussion with respect to new claim 6.
As discussed in the prior office action, Parkhe discloses an electrostatic chuck assembly for use in cryogenic applications at a cryogenic processing temperature of about -50°C to about -150°C (Paragraph 0018) comprising an electrostatic chuck (ESC) (180) comprising a dielectric body (182) (“dielectric substrate”, Paragraph 0024), a cooling plate (130) formed of a metal material (“base plate”; Paragraphs 0022-0023), and a bonding (“joining”) layer (170) disposed below the ESC (180) that secures the ESC (180), or dielectric body (182) thereof, to the cooling plate (130); wherein a lower surface of the bonding (joining) layer (170) is in contact with an upper surface of the cooling (base) plate (130) (as in new claim 6) as shown in Figs. 1-2 (Entire document, particularly as noted above, Abstract, Paragraph 0029, and Figs. 1-2). Parkhe discloses that the bonding layer (170) has a thickness of about 0.1 mm (i.e., about 100 µm, reading upon the claimed “equal to or smaller than 100 µm” as recited in instant claim 4) to about 1.2 mm, such as about 0.3 mm to about 0.9 mm, or about 0.5 mm to about 0.7 mm (Paragraph 0040). Parkhe discloses that the bonding layer (170) can be one or more types of silicone materials, particularly one or more alkyl phenyl silicones, wherein the silicone material has a Tg of less than -60°C, such as a Tg of about -100°C to about -150°C, and a Young’s modulus of about 0.5 MPa to about 5 MPa, particularly a Young’s modulus of less than 1 MPa, such as about 0.5 MPa; and in several examples, the bonding layer (170) contains one or more silicone materials commercially available under the tradename NuSil® from Avantor, Inc. as recited in Paragraph 0041, including the exemplary NuSil® silicones of: “NuSil® R3-2160 two-component adhesive/sealant containing a silicone elastomer and useful in applications at a temperature of about 0° C. to about −140° C.; NuSil® R-2655 and NuSil® R-2560 two-component silicones useful in applications at a temperature of about 0° C. to about −115° C.; NuSil® R-2949 thermally conductive two-component adhesive useful in applications at a temperature of about 0° C. to about −115° C.; and NuSil® R-2634 electrically conductive silicone adhesive useful in applications at a temperature of about 0° C. to about −140° C” (Paragraphs 0038-0041; reading upon the claimed “wherein the joining layer is a layer generated by curing a silicone adhesive” as in instant claim 5), and given that one skilled in the art would clearly envisage the above Young’s modulus values as being over the above useful operating temperature ranges including at -100°C, particularly given that the above commercially available NuSil® silicones are known to maintain their elasticity or flexibility over the broad operating temperature ranges (as evidenced by the Avantor™ NuSil® Advanced Technologies – Aviation and Defense Silicones Product Guide brochure), the Examiner takes the position that Parkhe discloses the claimed invention with sufficient specificity to anticipate instant claims 1 and 4-6, given that the above thickness and Young’s modulus values of the bonding layer as disclosed by Parkhe would satisfy the claimed expression as recited in instant claim 1.
With respect to instant claim 2, Parkhe discloses that the ESC (180) also includes lift pin holes for accommodating lift pins (not shown) for elevating the substrate (124) above the substrate support surface (137) of the ESC (180) to facilitate robotic transfer into and out of the plasma processing chamber (100) shown in Fig. 1 (Paragraph 0028). Hence, Parkhe anticipates instant claim 2.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Alternatively, claims 1, 2, 5, and 6 as well as claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inayoshi (WO2024/219229A1) as applied to claims 1, 2, 5 and 6 above, for generally the reasons discussed in the prior office action and restated below.
The teachings of Inayoshi are discussed in detail above and although the Examiner is of the position that the reference is anticipatory for the reasons discussed above, the Examiner alternatively takes the position that based upon the teachings of Inayoshi, particularly with respect to the Tg of the silicone resin adhesive layer being -100°C or lower and the storage modulus at -60°C being more preferably 5 MPa or less with specific working examples having a Tg of -110°C and storage modulus below 1 MPa, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to reasonably expect the silicone resin adhesive layer (40) taught by Inayoshi, particularly as in the cited examples, to exhibit a Young’s modulus at -100°C that would satisfy the claimed expression at the 350 µm thickness taught by Inayoshi, including when determined by the same method and/or conditions as in the instant invention. Further, Inayoshi teaches that there are no particular limitations on the thickness of the adhesive layer (40) (Paragraph 0065), and given that Inayoshi teaches that the average particle size of the filler is preferably 5 nm or more and 50 µm or less, wherein “if the average particle diameter exceeds 50 µm, the particle diameter is large, making it more difficult to control the sheet thickness during sheet molding, etc., compared to when the particle diameter is small, and as a result, the flatness of the surface of the adhesive layer 40 tends to decrease” (Paragraph 0046), with a more preferred average particle size range being 50 nm or more and 40 µm or less, and even more preferably 100 nm or more and 30 µm or less (Paragraph 0046), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize an adhesive layer thickness equal to or larger than the 50 µm or 40 µm or 30 µm average particle diameter of filler, thereby rendering the claimed thickness of “equal to or smaller than 100 µm” as recited in instant claim 4 obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art while still satisfying the claimed expression particularly in light of the working examples having modulus values of less than 1 MPa. Hence, absent any clear showing of criticality and/or unexpected results over the teachings of Inayoshi, the claimed invention as recited in instant claims 1, 2, and 4-6 would have been obvious over Inayoshi given that it is prima facie obviousness to choose from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success.
With respect to instant claim 3, as discussed above with respect to instant claim 2, Inayoshi clearly teaches a plurality of through holes (52) formed in the dielectric body/substrate (20) as shown in Fig. 1 (Paragraph 0021), and although Inayoshi does not specifically teach a diameter at an end thereof on an opposite side to the joining layer of equal to or smaller than 0.2 mm as instantly claimed, given the overall dimensions taught by Inayoshi in the examples and that the drawings appear to suggest a diameter of the holes (52) smaller than the thickness of the adhesive layer (40) (Entire document, particularly Examples, Figures), the claimed diameter range would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, particularly given that diameters of similar magnitude are typical in the art (e.g., as evidenced by JP2006-013256A, Claim 8). Hence, absent any clear showing of criticality and/or unexpected results, the claimed invention as recited in instant claim 3 would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art based upon the teachings of Inayoshi.
Alternatively, claims 1, 2, and 4-6 as well as claim 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parkhe (US2022/0270864A1) as applied to claims 1, 2, and 4-6 above, for generally the reasons recited in the prior office action and restated below.
The teachings of Parkhe are discussed in detail above and although the Examiner is of the position that the reference is anticipatory with respect to instant claims 1, 2, and 4-6, the Examiner alternatively takes the position that based upon the teachings of Parkhe, particularly with respect to the above bonding layer (170) thickness range and the preferred Young’s modulus values in light of the processing temperature range of about -50°C to about -150°C and the operating temperatures of the preferred commercially available silicone resins, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to reasonably expect the recited Young’s modulus values to be exhibited over the processing temperature and/or operating temperature ranges taught by Parkhe such that the thickness and Young’s modulus at -100°C of the invention taught by Parkhe would satisfy the claimed expression even when measured by the same method and/or conditions as in the instant invention. Hence, the claimed invention as recited in instant claims 1, 2, and 4-6 would have been obvious over the teachings of Parkhe, particularly given that it is prima facie obviousness to choose from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success.
With respect to instant claim 3, as discussed above with respect to instant claim 2, Parkhe teaches that the ESC (180) also includes lift pin holes for accommodating lift pins (not shown) for elevating the substrate (124) above the substrate support surface (137) of the ESC (180) to facilitate robotic transfer into and out of the plasma processing chamber (100) shown in Fig. 1 (Paragraph 0028), and although Parkhe does not specifically teach a diameter at an end thereof on an opposite side to the joining layer of equal to or smaller than 0.2 mm as instantly claimed, given that one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to determine the optimum pin hole diameter based upon the robotic utilized for transfer, wherein a “pin hole” diameter within the claimed range would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, the Examiner takes the position that absent any clear showing of criticality and/or unexpected results, the claimed invention as recited in instant claim 3 would have been obvious over the teachings of Parkhe.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/4/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive with respect to the prior art rejections. Specifically with respect to the 102 rejection over Inayoshi, the Applicant argues that the adhesive layer of Inayoshi may have a storage modulus value of 30 MPa or less at -60°C but that the values are measured at -60°C not -100°C, and that given that material properties of polymeric materials are highly temperature-dependent, and values at -60°C cannot be extrapolated to -100°C, the disclosure of Inayoshi at -60°C allegedly cannot anticipate the subject matter of claim 1 (see page 6 of the response). However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that although one may not be able to extrapolate an exact value at -100°C based upon a value at -60°C, given that the claimed invention as recited in instant claim 1 recites an inequality and not an exact value(s), wherein the claimed Young’s modulus (MPa) at -100°C is a condition expressed as E (MPa) ≤ 0.04 x T(µm) - 0.04, and that it is well established in the art that the Young’s modulus of a polymer in the glassy state or region below Tg is higher than the Young’s modulus above Tg and remains substantially constant or slightly decreases with temperature until it drops significantly in the transition region above Tg as generally shown by Inayoshi in Fig. 7; wherein Inayoshi discloses that the adhesive layer (40) has a storage modulus (E’) of even more preferably 5 MPa or less at -60°C and a Tg of -60°C or lower (e.g., the even more preferred storage modulus of 5 MPa or less may be at a temperature of -60°C which may be the Tg of the adhesive layer), preferably -100°C or lower, with 350 µm thick examples having a Tg of -110°C and E’ values at -60°C from 12.6 MPa to as low as 0.23 MPa such that general trends can be established by the data provided by Inayoshi to determine whether said inequality could be met (see also Rey, Influence of the temperature on the mechanical behaviour of filled and unfilled silicone rubbers; or Mower, Thermomechanical behavior of aerospace-grade RTV (silicon adhesive); or Alasfar, A Review on the Modeling of the Elastic Modulus and Yield Stress of Polymers and Polymer Nanocomposites: Effect of Temperature, Loading Rate and Porosity; or Larson, Low Temperature Characteristics of Silicones, Entire documents). Further, given that even in the case as shown in Fig. 7, previously referenced in the rejection, wherein the Tg of the tested adhesive layer, which has a thickness T of 350 µm, is not as low as the preferred -100°C or lower, or the exemplified -110°C disclosed by Inayoshi, the tested adhesive layer shown in Fig. 7 satisfies the claimed inequality given that on the right of the inequality 0.04 x 350 µm – 0.04 = 13.96, and on the left, E ≈ E’ with the measured E’ at -100°C being less than 10 MPa and thus less than the above 13.96, the Examiner maintains her position that Inayoshi discloses the claimed invention with sufficient specificity to anticipate instant claims 1, 2, 5, and 6, especially given the absence of any evidence or showing to the contrary, and/or renders the claimed invention as recited in instant claims 1-6 obvious for the reasons discussed in detail above, particularly given that the Young’s modulus may be determined by any known method under any arbitrary conditions.
With respect to the 102 rejection over Parkhe, the Applicant argues that Parkhe discloses an electrostatic chuck assembly suitable for cryogenic applications, wherein the electrostatic chuck is used at a cryogenic temperature of about -50°C to about -150°C, and although the Applicant acknowledges that Parkhe discloses that the silicone material of a bonding layer has a Young’s modulus value of about 0.5 MPa to about 5 MPa and the bonding layer has a thickness of about 0.1 mm to about 1.2 mm, the Applicant argues that “Young’s modulus is a physical property that varies based on temperature” and that Parkhe does not specify a temperature at which said Young’s modulus is measured and allegedly does not teach or suggest a value of Young’s modulus at -100°C (see paragraph bridging pages 6-7 of the response). However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees and again notes that Parkhe clearly discloses that the bonding layer (170) can be one or more types of silicone materials, particularly one or more alkyl phenyl silicones, wherein the silicone material has a Tg of less than -60°C, such as a Tg of about -100°C to about -150°C, and a Young’s modulus of about 0.5 MPa to about 5 MPa, particularly a Young’s modulus of less than 1 MPa, such as about 0.5 MPa; and more particularly, discloses that in several examples, the bonding layer (170) contains one or more silicone materials commercially available under the tradename NuSil® from Avantor, Inc. including the exemplary NuSil® silicones of: “NuSil® R3-2160 two-component adhesive/sealant containing a silicone elastomer and useful in applications at a temperature of about 0° C. to about −140° C.; NuSil® R-2655 and NuSil® R-2560 two-component silicones useful in applications at a temperature of about 0° C. to about −115° C.; NuSil® R-2949 thermally conductive two-component adhesive useful in applications at a temperature of about 0° C. to about −115° C.; and NuSil® R-2634 electrically conductive silicone adhesive useful in applications at a temperature of about 0° C. to about −140° C;” and given again that one skilled in the art would clearly envisage the above Young’s modulus values as being over the above useful operating temperature ranges which include the claimed measurement temperature of -100°C, particularly given that the above commercially available NuSil® silicones are known to maintain their elasticity or flexibility (e.g., which is characterized or measured by Young’s modulus) over the broad operating temperature ranges as above as evidenced by the Avantor™ NuSil® Advanced Technologies – Aviation and Defense Silicones Product Guide brochure, especially given that one skilled in the art would clearly understand that such properties are typically reported with respect to the operating temperature range and that silicone resins are almost always used above their Tg (see, for example, Larson, Low Temperature Characteristics of Silicones, Entire document, particularly pages 1-7 and Slide 4 on page 11 of the pdf), the Examiner maintains her position that absent any evidence or showing to the contrary, Parkhe discloses the claimed invention with sufficient specificity to anticipate instant claims 1 and 4-6, given that the above thickness and Young’s modulus values of the bonding layer as disclosed by Parkhe would satisfy the claimed expression as recited in instant claim 1.
With respect to the obviousness rejections over Inayoshi or Parkhe, the Applicant argues that allegedly neither Inayoshi nor Parkhe renders the claimed condition obvious, arguing that “there exists a fundamental trade-off between reducing thermal stress caused by differences in thermal expansion between members and maintaining sufficient heat transfer performance,” wherein “[i]f the Young’s modulus of a joining layer is excessively large, stress generated due to differences in thermal expansion cannot be sufficiently absorbed, resulting in deformation and deterioration in flatness” while “[c]onversely, if the Young’s modulus is excessively small, although stress relaxation may be achieved, variations in thickness of the joining layer tend to occur, leading to deterioration in positional accuracy and heat transfer performance” (see page 8, first full paragraph). The Applicant argues that the “subject matter of claim 1 pertains to this trade-off by defining an appropriate upper limit of Young’s modulus in relation to the thickness of the joining layer, which is supported by experimental results disclosed in the specification” and that “[n]either cited reference recognizes or addresses this problem” (see page 8, first full paragraph). However, the Examiner notes that the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). Further, given that said trade-off and performance aspects discussed by the Applicant are generally known in the art as evidenced by Applicant’s own Background section (see paragraphs 0009-0012 of the specification as filed), and that the Applicant has not provided any clear showing of criticality and/or unexpected results with respect to the claimed condition or inequality which does not have any lower limits and thus may actually include values as low as 0 MPa and/or 0 µm, Applicant’s arguments in the first full paragraph of page 8 are not persuasive.
The Applicant also argues that “Young’s modulus is a physical property that varies based on temperature, and values at -60°C and a temperature range of about -50°C to about -150°C [allegedly] does not teach or suggest a Young’s modulus value at -100°C” (see second full paragraph on page 8 of the response), however, as discussed in detail above, although one may not be able to extrapolate an exact value for Young’s modulus at -100°C based upon a value at a temperature of -60°C or temperature range of about -50°C to about -150°C, given that the claimed invention as recited in instant claim 1 recites an inequality and that certain trends are known in the art, particularly in relationship to Tg of the adhesive resin, and with Inayoshi specifically disclosing an example showing E’ at -100°C, and Parkhe specifically disclosing an operating temperature encompassing the claimed -100°C and specifically reciting preferred commercial silicone resins that are clearly described as maintaining their elasticity or flexibility over an operating range encompassing the claimed -100°C, with Young’s modulus and thickness values that would meet the claimed condition or inequality wherein one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have clearly envisaged and/or reasonably expected said Young’s modulus values to be applicable over the operating temperature range of about -50°C to about -150°C, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. Lastly, the Applicant argues that “the advantageous effects achieved by the subject matter of claim 1, including effective stress absorption, suppression of deformation, maintenance of flatness, improved thermal performance, and long-term reliability without peeling, are [allegedly] not predicable from the cited references” in the last paragraph of page 8 of the response. However, given that the instant claims do not require any of said properties argued by the Applicant and that the Applicant provides no clear showing of criticality and/or unexpected results with respect to the claimed invention, the Examiner maintains her position that the claimed invention would have been obvious over the cited prior art references for the reasons discussed in detail in the prior office action and restated above.
With respect to new claim 6, the Applicant further argues that neither Inayoshi nor Parkhe allegedly teaches or suggests an electrostatic chuck having a joining layer with a lower surface being in contact with an upper surface of a base plate either directly or via an insulating layer (see Section V of the response on page 9), however, the Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that each of Inayoshi and Parkhe teaches said limitation as discussed in detail above. Hence, Applicant’s additional arguments with respect to claim 6 are not persuasive.
Any objection or rejection from the prior office action not restated above has been withdrawn by the Examiner in light of Applicant’s response and arguments filed 5/4/2026.
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 MONIQUE R JACKSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1508. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays-Thursdays from 10:00AM-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, Callie Shosho can be reached at 571-272-1123. 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.
/MONIQUE R JACKSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787
Prosecution Insights