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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because is 187 words. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
“virtual single sensor” in claims 4 and 7.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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, 5, 7, 9, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hagiwara et al.(JPH 0961370 A)(hereinafter, “Hagiwara”).
Regarding claim 1, Hagiwara teaches a surface inspection apparatus (defect detecting apparatus, [0001]) comprising:
a stage (XY stage ST, [0052]) configured to support a sample(discloses the XY stage ST supporting a wafer W, [0052-0053]);
a differential interference contrast illumination system (discloses a DIC illumination system includes a light source, polarizer, and Nomarski prism, [0026] and [0043]) configured to emit illumination light(discloses light emitted toward the sample, split into two sheared beams, [0064-0069]);
a differential interference contrast detection system (discloses a Nomarski prism based detection system used for DIC imaging, [0026], [0043], and [0060]) configured to emit the illumination light to positions deviated by a predetermined shear amount (discloses the Nomarski prism or polarizing beam splitter splits the incoming illumination into two rays EO and OE, which are laterally separated by a small shear distance, [0028], and [0064-0069]) as two illumination spots having different phases (discloses the two laterally displaced beams inherently acquire a phase difference after reflecting from the sample, [0065]) and generate light in a first polarization direction and a second polarization direction different from each other (discloses that after interference of EO and OE, the combined light is split into two components i1 and i2, [0030-0033]) from interference light obtained by interfering reflected light of the two illumination spots from a surface of the sample (discloses an optical path where the reflected light from two illumination spots (EO and OE) is made to interfere after passing through the objective lens, Nomarski prism, and wavelength plate, [0028-0030]);
a first sensor(photoelectric conversion element 17, [0030]) configured to photoelectrically convert the light in the first polarization direction (ray i1, [0030]) to generate a first interference signal(discloses the electrical output from element 17 is directly processed into the interference signal, [0030-0031]);
a second sensor (photoelectric conversion element 18, [0030]) configured to photoelectrically convert the light in the second polarization direction (ray i2, [0030]) to generate a second interference signal (discloses the electrical output from element 18 is directly processed into the interference signal, [0030-0031]); and
a signal processing device (differential amplifier and computer 20, [0030-0031]) configured to process the first interference signal and the second interference signal(discloses light components i1 and i2 are converted into electrical signals by photoelectric conversion elements 17 and 18. The differential amplifier with the computer 20 and synchronization device 34, processes the two interference signals, [0030-0031]), wherein
the first polarization direction (ray i1, [0030]) and the second polarization direction (ray i2, [0030]) of the light generated by the differential interference contrast detection system are set(discloses that the polarization directions of the two light components can be set by adjusting the polarizers, [0030-0031]) such that an intensity of the first interference signal and an intensity of the second interference signal are the same(“coefficient k differential signal may be experimentally set to be zero when no object exists”, teaches adjusting polarizer angles (θ1 and θ2), so that the two interference signals have same intensity when there is no phase difference, [0030-0031]) at an operation point (teaches where the phase difference is zero, [0028] and [0030-0031]) at which there is no phase difference between the two illumination spots([0030-0031]).
Regarding claim 2, Hagiwara teaches the first polarization direction and the second polarization direction are not orthogonal to each other (discloses the two polarization directions of the beams (i1 and i2) are distinct, [0030-0031]).
Regarding claim 3, Hagiwara teaches the first polarization direction (ray i1, [0030]) and the second polarization direction(ray i2, [0030]) are set to be symmetrical with respect to a polarization direction of the interference light obtained by interfering the reflected light of the two illumination spots(teaches polarizers adjusted so that i1 and i2 intensities are balanced, [0030-0031]) in the differential interference contrast detection system when there is no phase difference between the two illumination spots obtained by illuminating the surface of the sample(teaches flat sample area, differential signal zero, [0028] and [0030-0031]).
Regarding claim 5, Hagiwara teaches the differential interference contrast detection system includes a wavelength plate(12), a Nomarski prism (6), and an objective lens(10),
the illumination light passes through the wavelength plate, the Nomarski prism, and the objective lens in this order(teaches the light passes through the ¼ wavelength plate, then the Nomarski prism, and then the objective lens, [0032]), and
the Nomarski prism separates the illumination light that has passed through the wavelength plate into light having two polarized components corresponding to the two illumination spots(discloses the Nomarski prism separating the light into two linearly polarized light beams with perpendicular polarization directions, [0028-0032]).
Regarding claim 7, Hagiwara teaches when an intensity of an interference signal generated by photoelectrically converting the interference light obtained by interfering the reflected light of the two
illumination spots in the differential interference contrast detection system (discloses light components i1 and i2 are converted into electrical signals by photoelectric conversion elements 17 and 18, [0030-0031]) by a virtual single sensor(photoelectric conversion elements 17 and 18, the signal from these sensors is used to calculate the phase difference between the two illumination spots, [0030-0031]) in which a polarization direction to be detected is equal to a polarization direction of the interference light is set as an interference signal maximum detection light amount(inherently performs the polarization adjustment to achieve the maximum detection signal by adjusting the polarization direction of the light using polarizers and the half-wave plates, [0029]), the signal processing device calculates a phase difference between the two illumination spots by estimating the interference signal maximum detection light amount based on the intensity of the first interference signal and the intensity of the second interference signal (discloses the differential amplifier with the computer 20 and synchronization device 34, processes the two interference signals, calculates the phase difference between the two illumination spots by using the intensities of the interference signals i1 and i2 detected by the photoelectric conversion elements 17 and 18, [0030-0031]).
Regarding claim 9, Hagiwara teaches the differential interference contrast detection system includes a wavelength plate(12), a Nomarski prism (6), and an objective lens(10),
the illumination light passes through the wavelength plate, the Nomarski prism, and the objective lens in this order (teaches the light passes through the ¼ wavelength plate, then the Nomarski prism, and then the objective lens, [0032]), and
the illumination light from the differential interference contrast illumination system is incident at a pupil position of the objective lens at a predetermined angle with respect to an optical axis of the objective lens(discloses an optical path where light passes through various optical components and is incident on the objective lens, [0028-0031]), and the two illumination spots are incident perpendicularly to the surface of the sample(the optical path implies that the two illumination spots are incident perpendicularly to the sample surface, [0028-0031]).
Regarding claim 11, Hagiwara teaches a surface inspection apparatus (defect detecting apparatus, [0001]) comprising:
a stage (XY stage ST, [0052]) configured to support a sample (discloses the XY stage ST supporting a wafer W, [0052-0053]);
a differential interference contrast illumination system (discloses a DIC illumination system includes a light source, polarizer, and Nomarski prism, [0026] and [0043]) configured to emit first illumination light (discloses light emitted toward the sample, split into two sheared beams, [0064-0069]); and
a differential interference contrast detection system (discloses a Nomarski prism based detection system used for DIC imaging, [0026], [0043], and [0060]) that includes a wavelength plate(12), a Nomarski prism (6), and an objective lens(10), and that is configured to emit the first illumination light at positions deviated by a predetermined shear amount (discloses the Nomarski prism or polarizing beam splitter splits the incoming illumination into two rays EO and OE, which are laterally separated by a small shear distance, [0028], and [0064-0069]) as two first illumination spots having different phases (discloses the two laterally displaced beams inherently acquire a phase difference after reflecting from the sample, [0065]) by causing the first illumination light to pass through the wavelength plate, the Nomarski prism, and the objective lens, configured to cause reflected light of the two first illumination spots from a surface of the sample to pass through the objective lens, the Nomarski prism, and the wavelength plate (teaches the light passes through the ¼ wavelength plate, then the Nomarski prism, and then the objective lens, [0032]), and configured to obtain interference light obtained by interfering the reflected light of the two illumination spots (discloses an optical path where the reflected light from two illumination spots (EO and OE) is made to interfere after passing through the objective lens, Nomarski prism, and wavelength plate, [0028-0030]), wherein
the first illumination light from the differential interference contrast illumination system is incident at a pupil position of the objective lens at a predetermined angle with respect to an optical axis of the objective lens (discloses an optical path where light passes through various optical components and is incident on the objective lens, [0028-0031]), and the two first illumination spots are incident perpendicularly to the surface of the sample (the optical path implies that the two illumination spots are incident perpendicularly to the sample surface, [0028-0031]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hagiwara et al.(JPH 0961370 A)(hereinafter, “Hagiwara”) in view of Ooki et al. (US Patent 5,764,363)(hereinafter, “Ooki”).
Regarding claim 4, Hagiwara teaches all limitations of claim 1, but fails to disclose a sum of the intensity of the first interference signal and the intensity of the second interference signal at the operation point at which there is no phase difference between the two illumination spots is larger than an intensity of an interference signal generated by photoelectrically converting the interference light obtained by interfering the reflected light of the two illumination spots in the differential interference contrast detection system by a virtual single sensor in which a polarization direction to be detected is equal to a polarization direction of the interference light.
Ooki teaches a sum of the intensity of the first interference signal and the intensity of the second interference signal (the sum signal W, Col. 31, lines 12-15) at the operation point at which there is no phase difference between the two illumination spots is larger than an intensity of an interference signal generated by photoelectrically converting the interference light obtained by interfering the reflected light of the two illumination spots in the differential interference contrast detection system(discloses the system produces two signals (the difference signal S and the sum signal W). The sum signal W is larger, Col 31, lines 13-22) by a virtual single sensor in which a polarization direction to be detected is equal to a polarization direction of the interference light(uses two photodetectors to detect different components of light, based on polarization, Col. 31, lines 1-9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to modify to incorporate the sum of the intensities of the first and second interference signals of Ooki to Hagiwara to enhance the signal-to-noise ratio and contrast for flat objects (Col. 31, lines 33-38).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hagiwara et al.(JPH 0961370 A)(hereinafter, “Hagiwara”).
Regarding claim 6, Hagiwara teaches the differential interference contrast detection system (discloses a Nomarski prism based detection system used for DIC imaging, [0026], [0043], and [0060]) to split the interference light (discloses the beam splitter 14 is splitting light into two distinct polarization directions, [0020]), a first polarization filter configured to generate light in the first polarization direction from one of the interference light split by the half beam splitter, and a second polarization filter configured to generate light in the second polarization direction from the other of the interference light split by the half beam splitter (teaches the attenuator 33 as being part of the system that adjusts the polarization direction of the light before it reaches the photoelectric conversion elements, [0050]), and
the first polarization filter and the second polarization filter are rotatable (teaches the rotational movement of the attenuator 33, [0051]).
However, Hagiwara is silent about a half beam splitter.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to modify the beam splitter 14 to a half beam splitter as necessitated by the specific requirements of a given application.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hagiwara et al.(JPH 0961370 A)(hereinafter, “Hagiwara”) in view of de Groot et al. (US Pub 2008/0180694 A1)(hereinafter, “de Groot”).
Regarding claim 8, Hagiwara teaches the signal processing device (differential amplifier and computer 20, [0030-0031]).
However, Hagiwara is silent about stores a predicted interference signal maximum detection light amount and selects, among a plurality of interference signal maximum detection light amount candidates estimated based on the intensity of the first interference signal and the intensity of the second interference signal, an interference signal maximum detection light amount candidate closest to the predicted interference signal maximum detection light amount.
de Groot teaches predicted interference signal maximum detection light amount(teaches prediction and modeling interference signals, [0112]) and selects, among a plurality of interference signal maximum detection light amount candidates (discloses extracting the correct interference signals from multiple layers or interfaces that contribute to the overall signal, [0127]) estimated based on the intensity of the first interference signal and the intensity of the second interference signal (teaches analyze the relative intensities of different interference signals generated from multiple surfaces, [0112]), an interference signal maximum detection light amount candidate closest to the predicted interference signal maximum detection light amount(teaches a process of selecting and isolating the most relevant interference signals, [0113]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to incorporate the interference signal analysis method of de Groot to Hagiwara to improve measurement accuracy ([0069]).
Claims 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hagiwara et al.(JPH 0961370 A)(hereinafter, “Hagiwara”) in view of Chu et al. (US Pub 2020/0132608 A1)(hereinafter, “Chu”).
Regarding claim 10, Hagiwara teaches the illumination spot(EO and OE,[0030-0031]), and
the illumination light from the differential interference contrast illumination system is incident in a plane and the optical axis of the objective lens at the predetermined angle with respect to the optical axis of the objective lens (discloses an optical path where light passes through various optical components and is incident on the objective lens, the optical path implies that the two illumination spots are incident perpendicularly to the sample surface, [0028-0031]).
However, Hagiwara is silent about an illumination intensity distribution long in one direction and including a short diameter direction of the illumination spot.
Chu teaches an illumination intensity distribution long in one direction (teaches the spot is elongated, with radial being much longer than tangential, forming an elliptical shape, [0048]) and including a short diameter direction of the illumination spot(discloses 4 μm (tangential) by 100 μm (radial) with an elliptical spot, [0048]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to incorporate the elliptical spot design of Chu to Hagiwara to enhance spatial resolution, inspection speed, defect detection sensitivity and overall system efficiency ([0040]).
Regarding claim 12, Hagiwara teaches the first illumination spot(EO and OE,[0030-0031]), and
the first illumination light from the differential interference contrast illumination system is incident in a plane and the optical axis of the objective lens at the predetermined angle with respect to the optical axis of the objective lens(discloses an optical path where light passes through various optical components and is incident on the objective lens, the optical path implies that the two illumination spots are incident perpendicularly to the sample surface, [0028-0031]).
However, Hagiwara is silent about an illumination intensity distribution long in one direction and including a short diameter direction of the illumination spot.
Chu teaches an illumination intensity distribution long in one direction (teaches the spot is elongated, with radial being much longer than tangential, forming an elliptical shape, [0048]) and including a short diameter direction of the illumination spot(discloses 4 μm (tangential) by 100 μm (radial) with an elliptical spot, [0048]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to incorporate the elliptical spot design of Chu to Hagiwara to enhance spatial resolution, inspection speed, defect detection sensitivity and overall system efficiency ([0040]).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hagiwara et al.(JPH 0961370 A)(hereinafter, “Hagiwara”) in view of Jingu (US Pub 2015/0109434 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Hagiwara the differential interference contrast detection system (discloses a Nomarski prism based detection system used for DIC imaging, [0026], [0043], and [0060]) further includes a lens configured to condense images of the two first illumination spots formed by the objective lens(10, [0032]), and detects reflected light of the two first illumination spots from the surface of the sample (discloses interference of reflected beams EO and OE at the analyzer or detector, [0028-0030]).
However, Hagiwara is silent about a detection lens, and the detection lens projects light condensed by the lens onto the surface of the sample.
Jingu teaches a detection lens (detection lenses 51L and 51H, [0056]) and the detection lens projects light condensed by the lens onto the surface of the sample (discloses imaging optics directing light onto the surface, [0052]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to integrate a detection lens of Jingu to Hagiwara to enhance the sensitivity of the inspection system ([0021]).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hagiwara et al.(JPH 0961370 A)(hereinafter, “Hagiwara”) in view of Jingu (US Pub 2015/0109434 A1), further in view of Otani et al. (JP 2012026733 A)(hereinafter, “Otani”).
Regarding claim 14, Hagiwara in view of Jingu teaches a dark-field illumination optical system and two illumination spots ,but fail to disclose a dark-field illumination light source configured to emit second illumination light having a wavelength different from a wavelength of the first illumination light from the differential interference contrast illumination system, and that is configured to cause the second illumination light to be incident on the sample obliquely to form a second illumination spot on the surface of the sample, wherein the differential interference contrast detection system further includes a dichroic mirror disposed between the lens and the detection lens, and the dichroic mirror separates the reflected light of the two first illumination spots from scattered light of the second illumination spot.
Otani teaches a dark-field illumination light source configured to emit second illumination light having a wavelength different from a wavelength of the first illumination light from the differential interference contrast illumination system(teaches the use of multiple wavelengths of light being emitted from the illumination light source 112, which is then divided into two different wavelengths by a dichroic mirror, [page 8, lines 4-10]), and that is configured to cause the second illumination light to be incident on the sample obliquely to form a second illumination spot on the surface of the sample(discloses the dark field illumination system where light is incident at an oblique angle to illuminate the sample, [page 3, lines 2-5]), wherein
the differential interference contrast detection system further includes a dichroic mirror(132) disposed between the lens and the detection lens (figure 4), and
the dichroic mirror(132) separates the reflected light from scattered light (discloses the dichroic mirror is used to split light paths based on wavelengths of the incoming light, [page 25, lines 37-39]. MPEP 2114 II recites: "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909. F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a “dichroic mirror” in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim." Here, Otani teaches all structural components of the claim and is capable of being operated as required by claim 14, therefore the claimed device is not differentiated from that of Otani).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to integrate a dichroic mirror of Otani to Hagiwara in view of Jingu to improve sensitivity and selectivity in an optical inspection system([page 26, lines 4-30]).
Regarding claim 15, Hagiwara in view of Jingu fails to disclose a dark-field detection sensor configured to detect the scattered light of the second illumination spot emitted from the dichroic mirror; an image formation lens configured to form an image of the scattered light of the second illumination spot on the dark-field detection sensor; and an epi-illumination optical system including a mirror configured to reflect the second illumination light from the dark-field illumination light source and guide the reflected second illumination light to the dichroic mirror, wherein the detection lens projects the second illumination light guided to the dichroic mirror onto the surface of the sample as a third illumination spot, condenses reflected light of the third illumination spot, and guides the condensed reflected light to the dichroic mirror, and the mirror of the epi-illumination optical system is disposed between the dichroic mirror and the image formation lens, and of the reflected light of the third illumination spot emitted from the dichroic mirror, light that is not blocked by the mirror is detected by the dark-field detection sensor.
Otani teaches a dark-field detection sensor configured to detect the scattered light of the second illumination spot emitted from the dichroic mirror(discloses the system uses dark field illumination to detect light scattered from the sample, which is then captured by the objective lens 105 and imaged onto the image sensor 111, [page 6, lines 42-55]);
an image formation lens(110) configured to form an image of the scattered light on the dark-field detection sensor(discloses the scattered light from the sample is collected by the objective lens 105, [page 6, lines 42-55]); and
an epi-illumination optical system (epi-illumination mirrors 102A and 102B) including a mirror configured to reflect the second illumination light from the dark-field illumination light source and guide the reflected second illumination light to the dichroic mirror(discloses the light emitted from the dark field illumination unit 101 is reflected by the epi-illumination mirrors and directed to the dichroic mirror, [page 7, lines 14-17]), wherein
the detection lens projects the second illumination light guided to the dichroic mirror onto the surface of the sample as a third illumination spot(discloses the epi-illumination mirrors 102A and 102B guide the light onto the surface of the sample, the objective lens 105 then focuses light on the sample, [page 23, lines 48-56]), condenses reflected light of the third illumination spot, and guides the condensed reflected light to the dichroic mirror ([page 23, lines 48-56]), and
the mirror of the epi-illumination optical system(epi-illumination mirrors 102A and 102B) is disposed between the dichroic mirror and the image formation lens, and of the reflected light of the third illumination spot emitted from the dichroic mirror, light that is not blocked by the mirror is detected by the dark-field detection sensor (discloses the epi-illumination mirrors 102A and 102B guide the light onto the surface of the sample, the objective lens 105 then focuses light on the sample, [page 23, lines 48-56]. MPEP 2114 II recites: "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909. F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a “dichroic mirror” in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim." Here, Otani teaches all structural components of the claim and is capable of being operated as required by claim 15, therefore the claimed device is not differentiated from that of Otani).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to integrate an epi-illumination optical system of Otani to Hagiwara in view of Jingu to improve sensitivity and selectivity in an optical inspection system([page 26, lines 4-30]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINA XING whose telephone number is (571)270-7743. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9AM - 5 PM.
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, Kara Geisel can be reached at 571-272-2416. 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.
/CHRISTINA I XING/ Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/Kara E. Geisel/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877