DETAILED ACTIONS
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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.
Status of Claims
Claims 1 – 3, 6 – 10 and 12 – 26 are pending.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 – 3, 6, 14 and 24 – 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miwa (JP Publication No.: JP2018181993A) in view of Park et al. (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0074307 A1).
Regarding Independent Claim 1, Miwa teaches a substrate support (100, Paragraph 14) for disposition in a processing chamber (“vacuum chamber, Paragraph 16), comprising: a support body comprising a ceramic material (10, Paragraph 16); and a measurement assembly (60, Paragraph 14) embedded in the support body, the measurement assembly comprising: a resistor, (60, Paragraph 14 and 612) an input wire (711, Paragraph 36) coupled to the resistor, an input pad (771, Paragraph 36) coupled to the input wire (Paragraph 36), an output wire (712, Paragraph 36) coupled to the resistor, the input wire and the output wire having a lower resistance than the resistor (Paragraph 36 and 46), and an output pad (772, Paragraph 36) coupled to the output wire (Paragraph 36).
Miwa does not explicitly teach a resistor encapsulated by the ceramic material of the support body, the resistor having a coefficient of thermal expansion within a difference of 10% or less relative to a coefficient of thermal expansion of the ceramic material, the input pad and the output pad disposed radially inward of the resistor.
Park, however, teaches a resistor (first and second heating resistors, 150A and B; Fig. 4) encapsulated by the ceramic material of the support body (ceramic body, 110; Paragraph [0034]), the resistor (150A and B) having a coefficient of thermal expansion within a difference of 10% or less relative to a coefficient of thermal expansion of the ceramic material (first and second heating resistors, 150A and B; Fig. 4 are coated with first and second stress relief coating layers 155A and B; Fig. 4A; Paragraphs [0044] – [0050] and [0073] – [0075] Parks teaches aluminum nitride and molybdenum – same as instant application), the input pad (158a and b) and the output pad (159a and b) disposed radially inward (Fig. 3A) of the resistor (150A and B).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the substrate support of Mawa to further include a resistor encapsulated by the ceramic material of the support body, the resistor having a coefficient of thermal expansion within a difference of 10% or less relative to a coefficient of thermal expansion of the ceramic material, the input pad and the output pad disposed radially inward of the resistor, to provide protection for delicate circuits to regulate power, thus ensuring protection to the system.
Regarding Claim 2, Miwa teaches the substrate support (100, paragraph 14), wherein the resistor (612, Paragraph 33) includes a metal coil (metal coil of resistor, 612) encapsulated by the ceramic material of the support body (Paragraph 19), the metal coil comprising molybdenum (Paragraph 19).
Regarding Claim 3, Miwa teaches the substrate support of claim 2 as discussed above.
Miwa does not explicitly teach wherein the metal coil has a coefficient of thermal expansion less than 7.0 ppm/0C.
Park, however, teaches in Paragraphs [0046] The first and second stress relief coating layers 155A and 155B may serve to relieve internal stress due to a difference in a thermal expansion coefficient so that cracks are suppressed in the ceramic body 110. [0047] The first and second stress relief coating layers 155A and 155B may include a material having an intermediate coefficient of thermal expansion relative to the coefficient of thermal expansion of first and second heat generating resistors 150A and 150B (e.g., molybdenum) and the coefficient of thermal expansion of the ceramic body 110 (e.g., AlN), i.e., a coefficient of thermal expansion that is between those of the first and second heat generating resistors 150A, 150B and the ceramic body 110.
Park does not explicitly teach the values of a coefficient of thermal expansion less than 7.0 ppm/0C; however, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the metal coil so that they fall within the claimed ranges of a coefficient of thermal expansion less than 7.0 ppm/0C since the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative coefficient of thermal expansion of the claimed device. A device having the claimed coefficient of thermal expansion would not perform differently than the prior art device and therefore the claimed device is not patentable as the cited reference clearly provided coating layers to remedy or relieve internal stress due to a difference in a thermal expansion coefficient so that cracks are suppressed in the ceramic body. Further, one of the skill in the art would by routine experimentation find the optimum coefficient of thermal expansion to optimize performance of the substrate support.
Regarding Claim 6, Miwa teaches the substrate support (100, Paragraph 14) further comprising one or more conduits (12, Paragraph 36) coupled to the input pad (771, Paragraph 36) and the output pad (772, Paragraph 36).
Regarding Claim 14, Miwa teaches the substrate support (100, Paragraph 14) of claim 13 as discussed above.
Miwa does not explicitly teach wherein the metal coil has a coefficient of thermal expansion within a difference of 10% or less relative to a coefficient of thermal expansion of the ceramic material.
Park, however, teaches a resistor (first and second heating resistors, 150A and B; Fig. 4) encapsulated by the ceramic material of the support body (ceramic body, 110; Paragraph [0034]), the resistor (150A and B) having a coefficient of thermal expansion within a difference of 10% or less relative to a coefficient of thermal expansion of the ceramic material (first and second heating resistors, 150A and B; Fig. 4 are coated with first and second stress relief coating layers 155A and B; Fig. 4A; Paragraphs [0044] – [0050] and [0073] – [0075] Parks teaches aluminum nitride and molybdenum – same as instant application), the input pad (158a and b) and the output pad (159a and b) disposed radially inward (Fig. 3A) of the resistor (150A and B).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the substrate support of Mawa to further include a resistor encapsulated by the ceramic material of the support body, the resistor having a coefficient of thermal expansion within a difference of 10% or less relative to a coefficient of thermal expansion of the ceramic material, the input pad and the output pad disposed radially inward of the resistor, to provide protection for delicate circuits to regulate power, thus ensuring protection to the system.
Regarding Claim 24, Miwa, as modified, teaches the substrate support (100, Paragraph 14) of claim 2 as discussed above.
Miwa does not teach the wherein the ceramic material includes aluminum nitride, and the aluminum nitride is sintered around the resistor.
Park, however, teaches the ceramic material includes aluminum nitride (Paragraph [0006]), and the aluminum nitride is sintered around the resistor (Paragraph [0042]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the substrate support of Miwa to further include the ceramic material includes aluminum nitride, and the aluminum nitride is sintered around the resistor, as taught by Park to provide more precise control over density, microstructure, and mechanical properties thus enabling minimal waste and superior performance.
Regarding Claim 25, Miwa, as modified, teaches the substrate support (100, Paragraph 14) of claim 24 as discussed above.
Miwa does not teach, wherein the resistor, the input wire, and the output wire are encapsulated by the aluminum nitride, and wherein the input pad and the output pad each include an exposed surface for coupling to a respective lead line.
Park, however, teaches the resistor, the input wire, and the output wire are encapsulated by the aluminum nitride (Paragraph [0042]), and wherein the input pad (158a and b) and the output pad (159a and b) each include an exposed surface for coupling to a respective lead line (198a and 198b; Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the substrate support of Miwa to further include the resistor, the input wire, and the output wire are encapsulated by the aluminum nitride, and wherein the input pad and the output pad each include an exposed surface for coupling to a respective lead line, as taught by Park to provide more precise control over density, microstructure, and mechanical properties thus enabling minimal waste and superior performance.
Claims 7 – 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miwa (JP Publication No.: JP2018181993A) in view of Park et al. (U. S. Paten Publication No. 2023/0074307 A1) and Parkhe (US Publication No.: US 2020/0163159).
Regarding Claim 7, Miwa, as modified, teaches the substrate support (100, Paragraph 14) but does not disclose of a buffer material disposed between the support body and the one or more respective conduits.
Parkhe teaches of a buffer material (paragraph 65) disposed between the support body and the one or more respective conduits (paragraph 65).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Miwa with the buffer material as taught by Parkhe in order to reduce defects and create a system with long-term durability.
Regarding Claim 8, Miwa, as modified, teaches the substrate support (100, Paragraph 14) but does not disclose wherein the buffer material has an intermediate coefficient of thermal expansion that is between a coefficient of thermal expansion of the ceramic material and a coefficient of thermal expansion of the one or more conduit.
Parkhe teaches of a buffer material (paragraph 65) which inherently has a coefficient of thermal expansion.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Miwa with a buffer material that has an intermediate coefficient of thermal expansion that is between a coefficient of thermal expansion of the ceramic material and a coefficient of thermal expansion of the one or more conduit as taught by Parkhe in order to reduce defects and create a system with long-term durability.
Regarding Claim 9, Miwa, as modified, teaches the substrate support (100, Paragraph 14) but does not disclose wherein the buffer material comprises copper, and the one or more conduits comprise nickel.
Parkhe teaches wherein the buffer material comprises copper, and the one or more conduits comprise nickel (paragraph 65).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Miwa with the buffer material as taught by Parkhe in order to reduce defects and create a system with long-term durability.
Claims 10, 13 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miwa (JP Publication No.: JP2018181993A)
Regarding Independent Claim 10, Miwa teaches a substrate support (100, Paragraph 14) for disposition in a processing chamber (“vacuum chamber, Paragraph 16), comprising: a support body comprising a ceramic material (10, Paragraph 16); one or more heat elements disposed in the support body (50, Paragraph 19); one or more electrodes disposed in the support body (40, Paragraph 19); and a resistor (610; Paragraph [0014]) disposed in the support body at a first distance relative to the one or more heat elements and at a second distance relative to the one or more electrodes (50 and 60, Paragraph 19).
Miwa does not explicitly teach the first and second distance are respectively at least 2.0 mm.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Miwa to include the first and second distance be at least 2 mm so that they fall within the claimed ranges since the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device. A device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device and therefore the claimed device is not patentable. Further, one of the skill in the art would by routine experimentation find the optimum distance to optimize performance of the substrate support (MPEP 2144.05, Section II).
Regarding Claim 13, Miwa teaches the substrate support (100, Paragraph 14) wherein the resistor (612) includes a metal coil encapsulated by the ceramic material (10, Paragraph 16) of the support body, the metal coil comprising molybdenum (see paragraphs 19 and 33).
Regarding Claim 26, Miwa teaches the substrate support (100, Paragraph 14) wherein the resistor (Paragraph [0014]) is disposed at a third distance (Fig. 8) relative to an outer edge of the support body (Fig. 8) and at a fourth distance relative to an outer surface of the support body (Fig. 8).
Miwa, does not explicitly teach wherein the third distance and the fourth distance are respectively at least 2.0 mm.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Miwa to include the third distance and the fourth distance are respectively at least 2.0 mm so that they fall within the claimed ranges since the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device. A device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device and therefore the claimed device is not patentable. Further, one of the skill in the art would by routine experimentation find the optimum distance to optimize performance of the substrate support (MPEP 2144.05, Section II).
12 and 15 – 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miwa (JP Publication No.: JP2018181993A) in view of Park et al. (U. S. Paten Publication No. 2023/0074307 A1) and Goto (JP Publication No.: 2012069947A).
Regarding Claim 12, Miwa teaches the substrate support (100, Paragraph 14) of claim 10 as discussed above.
Miwa does not teach the substrate support further comprising a shaft coupled to the support body; an input pad disposed in the support body; an output pad disposed in the support body; a first lead line extending through a wall of the shaft, the first lead line coupled to the input pad; and a second lead line extending through the wall of the shaft, the second lead line coupled to the output pad.
Goto, however, teaches a shaft (40, Fig 1) coupled to the support body; an input pad disposed in the support body; an output pad disposed in the support body (20, Fig 1); a first lead line (53, Fig 1) extending through a wall of the shaft (40, Fig 1), the first lead line coupled to the input pad; and a second lead line (54, Fig 1) extending through the wall of the shaft (40, Fig 1), the second lead line (54, Fig 1) coupled to the output pad (53, lines 175-178).
PNG
media_image1.png
421
490
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the substrate support of Miwa with the input and output pads of Goto in order to enable efficient communication with the circuit.
Regarding Independent Claim 15, Miwa teaches a method of forming a substrate support (100, paragraph 14), comprising: disposing a resistor (60, paragraph 14), an input pad (771, paragraph 36), and an output pad (772, paragraph 36) in a ceramic material (paragraph 19); and firing the ceramic material (paragraph 19).
Miwa does not teach initially sintering the ceramic material into a first plate and a second plate; disposing a resistor, an input pad, and an output pad in one or more openings formed in the first plate a ceramic material; positioning the second plate to cover the resistor, the input pad, and the output pad; sintering the ceramic material of the first plate and the second plate to form a support body and to encapsulate the resistor with the ceramic material; and calibrating a sensor coupled to the resistor.
Park, however, teaches initially sintering the ceramic material into a first plate and a second plate (Paragraph [0042]); disposing a resistor, an input pad, and an output pad in one or more openings formed in the first plate a ceramic material (Paragraph [0042]); positioning the second plate to cover the resistor, the input pad, and the output pad (Paragraph [0042]); sintering the ceramic material of the first plate and the second plate to form a support body and to encapsulate the resistor with the ceramic material (Paragraph [0042]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the substrate support of Miwa to further include sintering instead of firing, as taught by Park, to provide more precise control over density, microstructure, and mechanical properties thus enabling minimal waste and superior performance.
Goto, further, teaches calibrating a sensor coupled to the resistor (lines 352-358). The electromotive force is generated where different materials are connected.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of forming a substrate support of Miwa by coupling a sensor to a resistor as taught by Goto in order to ensure stable operation for accurate substrate support measurements.
Regarding Claim 16, Miwa, as modified, teaches the method of claim 15 as discussed above.
Miwa does not teach the method further comprising, prior to the sintering: initially sintering the ceramic material into a first plate and a second plate, wherein the disposing comprises: disposing the resistor, the input pad, and the output pad in one or more openings formed in the first plate, and positioning the second plate to cover the resistor, the input pad, and the output pad.
Park, however, teaches prior to the sintering: initially sintering the ceramic material into a first plate and a second plate (Paragraph [0042]), wherein the disposing comprises: disposing the resistor, the input pad (Paragraph [0042]), and the output pad in one or more openings formed in the first plate (Paragraph [0042]), and positioning the second plate to cover the resistor, the input pad, and the output pad (Paragraph [0042]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the substrate support of Miwa to further include prior to the sintering: initially sintering the ceramic material into a first plate and a second plate, wherein the disposing comprises: disposing the resistor, the input pad, and the output pad in one or more openings formed in the first plate, and positioning the second plate to cover the resistor, the input pad, and the output pad, as taught by Park to provide more precise control over density, microstructure, and mechanical properties thus enabling minimal waste and superior performance.
Regarding Claim 17, Miwa, as modified, teaches the method of claim 15 as discussed above.
Miwa does not teach the method further comprising: forming one or more openings in the ceramic material to expose the input pad and the output pad; and brazing one or more lead lines to the input pad and the output pad, wherein the sintering includes a first temperature that is greater than 1,750 degrees Celsius, and the brazing includes a second temperature that is 1,000 degrees Celsius or less.
Park, however, teaches forming one or more openings in the ceramic material to expose the input pad and the output pad (Paragraph [0042]); and brazing (or bonding as discussed in Paragraph [0042]) one or more lead lines to the input pad and the output pad (Paragraph [0042]), wherein the sintering includes a first temperature that is greater than 1,750 degrees Celsius (Paragraph [0042]).
Park does not explicitly teach the brazing includes a second temperature that is 1,000 degrees Celsius or less.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Park explicitly teach the brazing includes a second temperature that is 1,000 degrees Celsius or less so that they fall within the claimed ranges since the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative temperature of the claimed device. A device having the claimed relative temperature and already performing the function of bonding would not perform differently than the prior art device and therefore the claimed device is not patentable. Further, one of the skill in the art would by routine experimentation find the optimum temperature to optimize performance of the substrate support (MPEP 2144.05, Section II).
Regarding Claim 18, Miwa, as modified, teaches the method of claim 15 as discussed above.
Miwa does not teach bonding one or more lead lines to the input pad and the output pad Miwa as wherein the sintering includes a first temperature that is greater than 1,750 degrees Celsius, and the bonding includes a second temperature that is within a range of 1,300 degrees Celsius to 1,500 degrees Celsius.
Park, however, teaches bonding one or more lead lines to the input pad and the output pad, wherein the sintering includes a first temperature that is greater than 1,750 degrees Celsius (Paragraph [0042]).
Park does not explicitly teach the brazing includes a second temperature that is within a range of 1,300 degrees Celsius to 1,500 degrees Celsius.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Park explicitly teach the brazing includes a second temperature that is within a range of 1,300 degrees Celsius to 1,500 degrees Celsius so that they fall within the claimed ranges since the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative temperature of the claimed device. A device having the claimed relative temperature and already performing the function of bonding would not perform differently than the prior art device and therefore the claimed device is not patentable. Further, one of the skill in the art would by routine experimentation find the optimum temperature to optimize performance of the substrate support (MPEP 2144.05, Section II).
Regarding Claim 19, Miwa, as modified, teaches the method of claim 15 as discussed above.
Miwa does not teach wherein the sintering encapsulates the resistor by the ceramic material and the resistor includes a metal coil encapsulated by the ceramic material.
Park, however, teaches the sintering encapsulates the resistor by the ceramic material (Paragraph [0042]) and the resistor includes a metal coil A(Paragraph [0039]) encapsulated by the ceramic material (Paragraph [0042]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the substrate support of Miwa to further include the sintering encapsulates the resistor by the ceramic material and the resistor includes a metal coil encapsulated by the ceramic material, as taught by Park to provide more precise control over density, microstructure, and mechanical properties thus enabling minimal waste and superior performance.
Regarding Claim 20, Miwa, as modified, teaches wherein the metal coil comprises molybdenum (paragraph 19).
Regarding Claim 21, Miwa, as modified, teaches the method of claim 15 as discussed above.
Miwa does not teach wherein the sintering encapsulates the resistor, an input wire, and an output wire, and encapsulates at least three sides of the input pad and the output pad while leaving bottom surfaces of the input pad and the output pad exposed, and the method further comprises: bonding a shaft to the support body, wherein a first lead line and a second lead line extend through a wall of the shaft, and wherein the bonding couples the first lead line to the input pad and the second lead line to the output pad.
Park, however, teaches the sintering encapsulates the resistor, an input wire, and an output wire, and encapsulates at least three sides of the input pad and the output pad while leaving bottom surfaces of the input pad and the output pad exposed (Paragraph [0042]), and the method further comprises: bonding a shaft (180) to the support body (Fig. 2), wherein a first lead line and a second lead line extend through a wall of the shaft (19a and b; Fig. 2), and wherein the bonding couples the first lead line to the input pad and the second lead line to the output pad (Paragraphs [0035], [0038] and [0042]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the substrate support of Miwa to further include the sintering encapsulates the resistor, an input wire, and an output wire, and encapsulates at least three sides of the input pad and the output pad while leaving bottom surfaces of the input pad and the output pad exposed, and the method further comprises: bonding a shaft to the support body, wherein a first lead line and a second lead line extend through a wall of the shaft, and wherein the bonding couples the first lead line to the input pad and the second lead line to the output pad, as taught by Park to provide more precise control over density, microstructure, and mechanical properties thus enabling minimal waste and superior performance.
Regarding Claim 22, Miwa, as modified, teaches the method of claim 15 as discussed above.
Miwa does not teach the sintering closes the one or more openings to encapsulate the resistor, an input wire, and an output wire while leaving bottom surfaces of the input pad and the output pad exposed.
Park, however, teaches the sintering closes the one or more openings to encapsulate the resistor, an input wire, and an output wire while leaving bottom surfaces of the input pad and the output pad exposed (Paragraph [0042]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the substrate support of Miwa to further include the sintering closes the one or more openings to encapsulate the resistor, an input wire, and an output wire while leaving bottom surfaces of the input pad and the output pad exposed, as taught by Park to provide more precise control over density, microstructure, and mechanical properties thus enabling minimal waste and superior performance.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicants Arguments/Remarks dated July 24, 2026 with respect to the rejection of claims 1 – 20 under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of Park.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATINA N HENSON whose telephone number is (571)272-8024. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday; 5:30am to 3:30pm.
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, Monica Carter can be reached at 571-272-4475. 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.
/KATINA N. HENSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
