DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objection
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informality: in line 5 of claim 1, applicant made a typographical mistake by writing “heled” instead of “held”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 5, 7, 9, 14, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 5 recites discharging “another liquid”. This use of the term “another” makes claim 5 unclear. Is applicant reciting “another” liquid relative to the “a cleaning liquid” recited in line 8 of claim 1? Or is applicant reciting “another” liquid relative to the “a liquid” recited in line 11 of claim 1? Or is applicant reciting “another” liquid relative to both the “a liquid” of claim 1 and the “a cleaning liquid” of claim 1? In other words, the phrase “another liquid” may cause a reader to ask themselves: “another relative to what?”
Claims 7 and 9 also each recite this phrase “another liquid”, and claims 7 and 9 are thus unclear for the same reason as claim 5 discussed above.
Claim 14 recites discharging “another liquid”. This use of the term “another” makes claim 14 unclear. Is applicant reciting “another” liquid relative to the “a liquid” recited in line 2 of claim 10? Or is applicant reciting “another” liquid relative to the “a cleaning liquid” recited in line 5 of claim 10? Or is applicant reciting “another” liquid relative to both the “a liquid” of claim 10 and the “a cleaning liquid” of claim 10? In other words, the phrase “another liquid” may cause a reader to ask themselves: “another relative to what?”
Claim 16 and 18 also each recite this phrase “another liquid”, and claims 16 and 18 are thus unclear for the same reason as claim 14 discussed above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 2, and 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2016/0372320 by Emoto in view of JP2002113429 by Sato.
With regard to claim 1, Emoto teaches a substrate processing apparatus comprising a substrate rotational holding part (comprising clamping members 19) that holds a substrate rotatably, a cleaning nozzle 31 that is provided movably at an upper side of the held substrate such that the cleaning nozzle 31 can be moved from a central part to a peripheral part of the substrate, and a liquid supply nozzle 32 that is provided movably at an upper side of the substrate, wherein the liquid supply nozzle 32 is integrally connected to the cleaning nozzle 31 such that the nozzles move together, wherein the liquid supply nozzle 32 discharges a liquid onto the substrate, and wherein the cleaning nozzle discharges a mixed fluid of a cleaning liquid and a gas onto the substrate (Par.0062, 0071, 0075, 0078, 0084-0086, 0114, 0115, 0120-0136, and 0173). Emoto’s cleaning nozzle is structurally capable of discharging each of the cleaning liquid and the gas independently (Par. 0076-0078). Emoto’s apparatus comprises a computer controller 3 that controls the apparatus’s components in an automated manner (Par. 0107-0136). The controller is configured to have the liquid supply nozzle 32 discharge the liquid to a central portion of the substrate to form a liquid film of the liquid on the substrate (see Figure 15A; Par. 0121 and 0122). The controller is configured to have the cleaning nozzle 31 discharge cleaning liquid to a central portion of the substrate wherein the liquid film was formed (Par. 0128-0136). The controller is configured to have the connected nozzles 31 and 32 reciprocate together between being above a central portion of the substrate and being above a peripheral portion of the substrate (see Figure 15B; Par. 0128-0136).
Emoto does not teach that, as the nozzles move from above a central portion to above the peripheral portion (in accordance with Figure 15B and Par. 0128-0136), the flow rate of the gas changes.
Sato teaches that when scanning a two-fluid nozzle that sprays a mixture of cleaning liquid and gas onto a rotating substrate, the cleaning time per unit area of the substrate becomes shorter as the nozzle scan farther away from the rotational center of the substrate, thus leading to cleaning unevenness (Abstract; page 2 of translation). Sato teaches that one way of preventing such cleaning unevenness is to vary the flow rate of the gas supplied to the two-fluid nozzle with the radial position of the nozzle, with the gas flow rate increasing with increasing radial distance from the substrate’s center and with the gas flow rate decreasing with decreasing radial distance from the substrate’s center (page 8 of translation).
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 apparatus of Emoto such that the controller is configured to vary the flow rate of the gas delivered to the cleaning nozzle 31 and such that, as the nozzles are reciprocated (between being above a central portion of the substrate and being above a peripheral portion of the substrate, as illustrated in Figure 15B of Emoto), the cleaning nozzle 31 is a two-fluid nozzle that can use that varied gas flow rate to compensate (in order to prevent cleaning unevenness) for changes in cleaning time per unit area as the radial position of the cleaning nozzle changes, wherein the flow rate of the gas increases as the cleaning nozzle’s radial position from substrate’s rotational center increases, and wherein the flow rate of the gas decreases as the cleaning nozzle’s radial position from substrate’s rotational center decreases. Sato points out that when scanning a two-fluid nozzle that sprays a mixture of cleaning liquid and gas onto a rotating substrate, the cleaning time per unit area of the substrate becomes shorter as the nozzle scan farther away from the rotational center of the substrate, thus leading to cleaning unevenness, and motivation for performing the modification was provided by Sato, who teaches that one way of preventing such cleaning unevenness is to vary the flow rate of the gas supplied to the two-fluid nozzle with the radial position of the nozzle, with the gas flow rate increasing with increasing radial distance from the substrate’s center and with the gas flow rate decreasing with decreasing radial distance from the substrate’s center.
In this developed combination of Emoto in view of Sato, since the gas flow rate to the cleaning nozzle 31 increases with the cleaning nozzle’s increasing radial distance from the substrate’s rotational center, the gas flow rate is at a first flow rate when the cleaning nozzle 31 is above a central portion of the substrate and the gas flow rate is a second flow rate – greater than the first flow rate – when the cleaning nozzle 31 is above a peripheral portion of the substrate.
With regard to claim 2, in the combination of Emoto in view of Sato, the controller is configured such that, the reciprocal movement of the nozzles (see Figure 15B of Emoto) causes the cleaning nozzle and the liquid supply nozzle to move from above a peripheral portion of the substrate to above a central portion of the substrate while discharging their fluids after the nozzles were moved to above a peripheral portion of the substrate (Par. 0128-0136 of Emoto). In the combination of Emoto in view of Sato, the controller is configured to discharge isopropyl alcohol (IPA; reads on rinse liquid) from the liquid supply nozzle 32 that has moved to a central portion of the substrate (Par. 0085 and 0128 of Emoto).
With regard to claim 4, in the combination of Emoto in view of Sato, the controller is configured such that, the reciprocal movement of the nozzles (see Figure 15B of Emoto) causes the cleaning nozzle and the liquid supply nozzle to move from above a peripheral portion of the substrate to above a central portion of the substrate while discharging their fluids after the nozzles were moved to above a peripheral portion of the substrate (Par. 0128-0136 of Emoto). The developed combination of Emoto in view of Sato decreases the flow rate of the gas discharged from the cleaning nozzle that has moved to a position above a center portion of the substrate to a third flow rate that is less than the second flow rate.
With regard to claim 5, in the combination of Emoto in view of Sato, the apparatus comprises a back surface nozzle 60 that discharges another liquid to a back surface of the substrate that is held by the rotational holding part, and the controller is configured to have said another liquid discharged at a temperature that is higher than a room temperature from the back nozzle 60 to the substrate when executing moving the cleaning nozzle 31 and liquid supply nozzle 32 (Par. 0086, 0115 and 0128-0135 of Emoto).
With regard to claim 6, in the combination of Emoto in view of Sato, the controller is configured such that, the reciprocal movement of the nozzles (see Figure 15B of Emoto) causes the cleaning nozzle and the liquid supply nozzle to move from above a peripheral portion of the substrate to above a central portion of the substrate while discharging their fluids after the nozzles were moved to above a peripheral portion of the substrate (Par. 0128-0136 of Emoto). The developed combination of Emoto in view of Sato decreases the flow rate of the gas discharged from the cleaning nozzle that has moved to a position above a center portion of the substrate to a third flow rate that is less than the second flow rate.
With regard to claim 7, in the combination of Emoto in view of Sato, the apparatus comprises a back surface nozzle 60 that discharges another liquid to a back surface of the substrate that is held by the rotational holding part, and the controller is configured to have said another liquid discharged at a temperature that is higher than a room temperature from the back nozzle 60 to the substrate when executing moving the cleaning nozzle 31 and liquid supply nozzle 32 (Par. 0086, 0115 and 0128-0135 of Emoto).
Claims 3, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2016/0372320 by Emoto in view of JP2002113429 by Sato as applied to claim 2 above, and further in evidence of U.S. 2009/0250079 by Yoshihara.
With regard to claim 3, in the combination of Emoto in view of Sato, the controller is configured to stop the cleaning nozzle 31 from ejecting its cleaning liquid and gas after the discharging of IPA by the liquid supply nozzle 32 (Par. 0135-0139 of Emoto). The combination of Emoto in view of Sato does not teach that when stopping the cleaning nozzle 31 from ejecting its cleaning liquid and gas, the discharge is gas is stopped before the discharge of cleaning liquid is stopped.
Yoshihara provides evidence that when stopping a combination of cleaning liquid and gas from being ejected from a nozzle system, three options are available – stopping the discharges of cleaning liquid and gas simultaneously, stopping the discharge of gas before stopping the discharge of cleaning liquid, or stopping the discharge of cleaning liquid before stopping the discharge of gas (Par. 0080).
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 apparatus of Emoto in view of Sato such that the cleaning nozzle 31’s stopping of the ejection of cleaning liquid and gas is performed by first stopping the discharge of gas and then stopping the discharging of cleaning liquid. In the combination of Emoto in view of Sato, the cleaning liquid (which is IPA) is supposed to be on the substrate (Par. 0076 and 0135-0141 of Emoto), and this having the cleaning nozzle 31 eject an amount of IPA onto the substrate would simply be a way of adding more IPA onto the substrate, which is supposed to have IPA thereon. Yoshihara provides evidence that when stopping a combination of cleaning liquid and gas from being ejected from a nozzle system, a limited number (three) of options are available for the ordering in which cleaning liquid and gas ejection stop – stopping the discharges of cleaning liquid and gas simultaneously, stopping the discharge of gas before stopping the discharge of cleaning liquid, or stopping the discharge of cleaning liquid before stopping the discharge of gas. Having the cleaning nozzle 31 stop its ejection (of cleaning liquid and gas) by first stopping the ejection of gas and then stopping the ejection of cleaning liquid is thus considered obvious in view of the fact that a limited (three) number of options (for the ordering of the stopping cleaning liquid ejection and stopping gas ejection) are available and in view of the fact that the cleaning liquid (IPA) is supposed to be on the substrate and thus adding more IPA thereon would simply serve to contribute to adding IPA to the substrate, as the substrate is supposed to have IPA thereon.
With regard to claim 8, in the combination of Emoto in view of Sato in evidence of Yoshihara, the controller is configured such that, the reciprocal movement of the nozzles (see Figure 15B of Emoto) causes the cleaning nozzle and the liquid supply nozzle to move from above a peripheral portion of the substrate to above a central portion of the substrate while discharging their fluids after the nozzles were moved to above a peripheral portion of the substrate (Par. 0128-0136 of Emoto). The developed combination of Emoto in view of Sato in evidence of Yoshihara decreases the flow rate of the gas discharged from the cleaning nozzle that has moved to a position above a center portion of the substrate to a third flow rate that is less than the second flow rate.
With regard to claim 9, in the combination of Emoto in view of Sato in evidence of Yoshihara, the apparatus comprises a back surface nozzle 60 that discharges another liquid to a back surface of the substrate that is held by the rotational holding part, and the controller is configured to have said another liquid discharged at a temperature that is higher than a room temperature from the back nozzle 60 to the substrate when executing moving the cleaning nozzle 31 and liquid supply nozzle 32 (Par. 0086, 0115 and 0128-0135 of Emoto).
Claims 10, 11, and 13-16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2016/0372320 by Emoto in view of JP2002113429 by Sato.
With regard to claim 10, Emoto teaches a substrate processing method performed with an apparatus comprising a substrate rotational holding part (comprising clamping members 19) that holds a substrate rotatably, a cleaning nozzle 31 that is provided movably at an upper side of the held substrate such that the cleaning nozzle 31 can be moved from a central part to a peripheral part of the substrate, and a liquid supply nozzle 32 that is provided movably at an upper side of the substrate, wherein the liquid supply nozzle 32 is integrally connected to the cleaning nozzle 31 such that the nozzles move together, wherein the liquid supply nozzle 32 discharges a liquid onto the substrate, and wherein the cleaning nozzle discharges a mixed fluid of a cleaning liquid and a gas onto the substrate (Par.0062, 0071, 0075, 0078, 0084-0086, 0114, 0115, 0120-0136, and 0173). Emoto’s cleaning nozzle is structurally capable of discharging each of the cleaning liquid and the gas independently (Par. 0076-0078). Emoto’s apparatus comprises a computer controller 3 that controls the apparatus’s components in an automated manner to perform the method of Emoto (Par. 0107-0136). Then method comprises having the liquid supply nozzle 32 discharge the liquid to a central portion of the substrate to form a liquid film of the liquid on the substrate (see Figure 15A; Par. 0121 and 0122). The method comprises having the cleaning nozzle 31 discharge cleaning liquid to a central portion of the substrate wherein the liquid film was formed (Par. 0128-0136). The controller is configured to have the connected nozzles 31 and 32 reciprocate together between being above a central portion of the substrate and being above a peripheral portion of the substrate (see Figure 15B; Par. 0128-0136).
Emoto does not teach that, as the nozzles move from above a central portion of the substrate to above the peripheral portion of the substrate (in accordance with Figure 15B and Par. 0128-0136), the flow rate of the gas changes.
Sato teaches that when scanning a two-fluid nozzle that sprays a mixture of cleaning liquid and gas onto a rotating substrate, the cleaning time per unit area of the substrate becomes shorter as the nozzle scan farther away from the rotational center of the substrate, thus leading to cleaning unevenness (Abstract; page 2 of translation). Sato teaches that one way of preventing such cleaning unevenness is to vary the flow rate of the gas supplied to the two-fluid nozzle with the radial position of the nozzle, with the gas flow rate increasing with increasing radial distance from the substrate’s center and with the gas flow rate decreasing with decreasing radial distance from the substrate’s center (page 8 of translation).
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 method of Emoto such that the controller is configured to vary the flow rate of the gas delivered to the cleaning nozzle 31 and such that, as the nozzles are reciprocated (between being above a central portion of the substrate and being above a peripheral portion of the substrate, as illustrated in Figure 15B of Emoto), the cleaning nozzle 31 is a two-fluid nozzle that can use that varied gas flow rate to compensate (in order to prevent cleaning unevenness) for changes in cleaning time per unit area as the radial position of the cleaning nozzle changes, wherein the flow rate of the gas increases as the cleaning nozzle’s radial position from substrate’s rotational center increases, and wherein the flow rate of the gas decreases as the cleaning nozzle’s radial position from substrate’s rotational center decreases. Sato points out that when scanning a two-fluid nozzle that sprays a mixture of cleaning liquid and gas onto a rotating substrate, the cleaning time per unit area of the substrate becomes shorter as the nozzle scan farther away from the rotational center of the substrate, thus leading to cleaning unevenness, and motivation for performing the modification was provided by Sato, who teaches that one way of preventing such cleaning unevenness is to vary the flow rate of the gas supplied to the two-fluid nozzle with the radial position of the nozzle, with the gas flow rate increasing with increasing radial distance from the substrate’s center and with the gas flow rate decreasing with decreasing radial distance from the substrate’s center.
In this developed combination of Emoto in view of Sato, since the gas flow rate to the cleaning nozzle 31 increases with the cleaning nozzle’s increasing radial distance from the substrate’s rotational center, the gas flow rate is at a first flow rate when the cleaning nozzle 31 is above a central portion of the substrate and the gas flow rate is a second flow rate – greater than the first flow rate – when the cleaning nozzle 31 is above a peripheral portion of the substrate.
With regard to claim 11, in the combination of Emoto in view of Sato, the controller is configured such that, the reciprocal movement of the nozzles (see Figure 15B of Emoto) causes the cleaning nozzle and the liquid supply nozzle to move from above a peripheral portion of the substrate to above a central portion of the substrate while discharging their fluids after the nozzles were moved to above a peripheral portion of the substrate (Par. 0128-0136 of Emoto). In the combination of Emoto in view of Sato, the controller is configured to discharge isopropyl alcohol (IPA; reads on rinse liquid) from the liquid supply nozzle 32 that has moved to a central portion of the substrate (Par. 0085 and 0128 of Emoto).
With regard to claim 13, in the combination of Emoto in view of Sato, the controller is configured such that, the reciprocal movement of the nozzles (see Figure 15B of Emoto) causes the cleaning nozzle and the liquid supply nozzle to move from above a peripheral portion of the substrate to above a central portion of the substrate while discharging their fluids after the nozzles were moved to above a peripheral portion of the substrate (Par. 0128-0136 of Emoto). The developed combination of Emoto in view of Sato decreases the flow rate of the gas discharged from the cleaning nozzle that has moved to a position above a center portion of the substrate to a third flow rate that is less than the second flow rate.
With regard to claim 14, in the combination of Emoto in view of Sato, the apparatus comprises a back surface nozzle 60 that discharges another liquid to a back surface of the substrate that is held by the rotational holding part, and the controller is configured to have said another liquid discharged at a temperature that is higher than a room temperature from the back nozzle 60 to the substrate when executing moving the cleaning nozzle 31 and liquid supply nozzle 32 (Par. 0086, 0115 and 0128-0135 of Emoto).
With regard to claim 15, in the combination of Emoto in view of Sato, the controller is configured such that, the reciprocal movement of the nozzles (see Figure 15B of Emoto) causes the cleaning nozzle and the liquid supply nozzle to move from above a peripheral portion of the substrate to above a central portion of the substrate while discharging their fluids after the nozzles were moved to above a peripheral portion of the substrate (Par. 0128-0136 of Emoto). The developed combination of Emoto in view of Sato decreases the flow rate of the gas discharged from the cleaning nozzle that has moved to a position above a center portion of the substrate to a third flow rate that is less than the second flow rate.
With regard to claim 16, in the combination of Emoto in view of Sato, the apparatus comprises a back surface nozzle 60 that discharges another liquid to a back surface of the substrate that is held by the rotational holding part, and the controller is configured to have said another liquid discharged at a temperature that is higher than a room temperature from the back nozzle 60 to the substrate when executing moving the cleaning nozzle 31 and liquid supply nozzle 32 (Par. 0086, 0115 and 0128-0135 of Emoto).
Claims 12, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2016/0372320 by Emoto in view of JP2002113429 by Sato as applied to claim 11 above, and further in evidence of U.S. 2009/0250079 by Yoshihara.
With regard to claim 12, in the combination of Emoto in view of Sato, the controller is configured to stop the cleaning nozzle 31 from ejecting its cleaning liquid and gas after the discharging of IPA by the liquid supply nozzle 32 (Par. 0135-0139 of Emoto). The combination of Emoto in view of Sato does not teach that when stopping the cleaning nozzle 31 from ejecting its cleaning liquid and gas, the discharge is gas is stopped before the discharge of cleaning liquid is stopped.
Yoshihara provides evidence that when stopping a combination of cleaning liquid and gas from being ejected from a nozzle system, three options are available – stopping the discharges of cleaning liquid and gas simultaneously, stopping the discharge of gas before stopping the discharge of cleaning liquid, or stopping the discharge of cleaning liquid before stopping the discharge of gas (Par. 0080).
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 method of Emoto in view of Sato such that the cleaning nozzle 31’s stopping of the ejection of cleaning liquid and gas is performed by first stopping the discharge of gas and then stopping the discharging of cleaning liquid. In the method of Emoto in view of Sato, the cleaning liquid (which is IPA) is supposed to be on the substrate (Par. 0076 and 0135-0141 of Emoto), and this having the cleaning nozzle 31 eject an amount of IPA onto the substrate would simply be a way of adding more IPA onto the substrate, which is supposed to have IPA thereon. Yoshihara provides evidence that when stopping a combination of cleaning liquid and gas from being ejected from a nozzle system, a limited number (three) of options are available for the ordering in which cleaning liquid and gas ejection stop – stopping the discharges of cleaning liquid and gas simultaneously, stopping the discharge of gas before stopping the discharge of cleaning liquid, or stopping the discharge of cleaning liquid before stopping the discharge of gas. Having the cleaning nozzle 31 stop its ejection (of cleaning liquid and gas) by first stopping the ejection of gas and then stopping the ejection of cleaning liquid is thus considered obvious in view of the fact that a limited (three) number of options (for the ordering of the stopping cleaning liquid ejection and stopping gas ejection) are available and in view of the fact that the cleaning liquid (IPA) is supposed to be on the substrate and thus adding more IPA thereon would simply serve to contribute to adding IPA to the substrate, as the substrate is supposed to have IPA thereon.
With regard to claim 17, in the combination of Emoto in view of Sato in evidence of Yoshihara, the controller is configured such that, the reciprocal movement of the nozzles (see Figure 15B of Emoto) causes the cleaning nozzle and the liquid supply nozzle to move from above a peripheral portion of the substrate to above a central portion of the substrate while discharging their fluids after the nozzles were moved to above a peripheral portion of the substrate (Par. 0128-0136 of Emoto). The developed combination of Emoto in view of Sato in evidence of Yoshihara decreases the flow rate of the gas discharged from the cleaning nozzle that has moved to a position above a center portion of the substrate to a third flow rate that is less than the second flow rate.
With regard to claim 18, in the combination of Emoto in view of Sato in evidence of Yoshihara, the apparatus comprises a back surface nozzle 60 that discharges another liquid to a back surface of the substrate that is held by the rotational holding part, and the controller is configured to have said another liquid discharged at a temperature that is higher than a room temperature from the back nozzle 60 to the substrate when executing moving the cleaning nozzle 31 and liquid supply nozzle 32 (Par. 0086, 0115 and 0128-0135 of Emoto).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN L COLEMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7376. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5 Monday-Friday.
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, Kaj Olsen can be reached at (571)272-1344. 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.
/RLC/
Ryan L. Coleman
Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1714
/KAJ K OLSEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1714