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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are persuasive. This is a second non-final office action.
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 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(s) 1, 2, 9, 10, 11, 18, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US5706094A (hereinafter Maris) and in view of US7385697B2 (hereinafter Woollam).
Regarding claim 1, Maris teaches a method of performing transient ellipsometry for measuring at least one property of a sample, the method comprising: “generating pump pulses at a first pulse repetition rate with at least one laser” (this is element 12 in fig. 1A, fig. 2 col 6 lines 50-55); “generating probe pulses at a second pulse repetition rate with the at least one laser” (fig. 1 element 14, fig. 7F col 7 lines 8-10), “wherein the second pulse repetition rate is different than the first pulse repetition rate to produce a varying time delay between the pump pulses and the probe pulses” (fig. 4 col 6 line 55-60); producing a polarization state of the probe pulses (col 18 claim 33) causing the pump pulses and the probe pulses to be incident on the sample (this is shown in fig.1A, element 30 is the sample), wherein the pump pulses generate transient perturbations in the sample (col 5 lines 45-50), and reflected probe pulses are modulated in response to a transient perturbation in the sample based on the varying time delay (this is shown in figs. 7A-7E); detecting the reflected probe pulses from the sample (this is shown in fig. 1A, col 8 lines 35-45); and “generating transient ellipsometric measurements from the reflected probe pulses at a plurality of time delays between the pump pulses and probe pulses” (claim 33, col 9 para 4; fig. 10A shows a plurality of time delays, col 13 para 2 first sentence).
Maris does not teach producing a polarization state of the probe pulses with a polarization state generator; and analyzing the reflected probe pulses from the sample with a polarization state analyzer. This limitation is suggested in col 9 para 4 of Maris, modifying Fig. 1A of Maris by implementing “a polarization state generator” and “a polarization state analyzer” in the optical probe light path of Maris.
Woollam, from the same field of endeavor as Maris, teaches “a polarization state of the probe pulses with a polarization state generator; and analyzing the reflected probe pulses from the sample with a polarization state analyzer” (fig. 1 “PSG” and “PSA” along “AL2”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Woollam to Maris to have with a polarization state generator; and analyzing the reflected probe pulses from the sample with a polarization state analyzer in order to analyze the polarization state of the reflected beam from the sample and determine the thickness of the sample (col 38 lines 3-10).
Regarding claim 2, Maris teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising determining the at least one property of the sample based on the transient ellipsometric measurements (col 9 para 4).
Regarding claim 9, Maris teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising digitizing signals received from detected reflected probe pulses from the sample, wherein the transient ellipsometric measurements are generated based on digitized signals (col 17 claim 15).
Regarding claim 10, Maris teaches an optical metrology device configured for performing transient ellipsometry for measuring at least one property of a sample, the optical metrology device comprising: a light source comprising at least one laser, the light source generating pump pulses at a first pulse repetition rate (this is element 12 in fig. 1A, fig. 2 col 6 lines 50-55) and generating probe pulses at a second pulse repetition rate (fig. 1 element 14, fig. 7F col 7 lines 8-10), wherein the second pulse repetition rate is different than the first pulse repetition rate to produce a varying time delay between the pump pulses and the probe pulses (fig. 4 col 6 line 55-60); focusing optics that cause the pump pulses and the probe pulses to be incident on the sample (this is shown in fig. 1A), wherein the pump pulses generate transient perturbations in the sample (col 5 lines 45-50), and reflected probe pulses are modulated in response to a transient perturbation in the sample based on the varying time delay (this is shown in figs. 7A-7E); a detector that detects the reflected probe pulses from the sample (this is shown in fig. 1A, col 8 lines 35-45); and a computer system coupled to receive signals from the detector (claims 15-16) and configured to generate transient ellipsometric measurements from the reflected probe pulses at a plurality of time delays between the pump pulses and probe pulses (claim 33, col 9 para 4; fig. 10A shows a plurality of time delays, col 13 para 2 first sentence).
Maris does not teach a polarization state generator that produces a polarization state in the probe pulses; and a polarization state analyzer that analyzes the reflected probe pulses from the sample. This limitation is suggested in col 9 para 4 of Maris, modifying Fig. 1A of Maris by implementing “a polarization state generator” and “a polarization state analyzer” in the optical probe light path of Maris.
Woollam, from the same field of endeavor as Maris, teaches “a polarization state generator that produces a polarization state in the probe pulses; and a polarization state analyzer that analyzes the reflected probe pulses from the sample” (fig. 1 “PSG” and “PSA” along “AL2”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Woollam to Maris to have with a polarization state generator that produces a polarization state in the probe pulses; and a polarization state analyzer that analyzes the reflected probe pulses from the sample in order to analyze the polarization state of the reflected beam from the sample and determine the thickness of the sample (col 38 lines 3-10).
Regarding claim 11, Maris teaches the optical metrology device of claim 10, wherein the computer system is further configured to determine the at least one property of the sample based on the transient ellipsometric measurements (col 9 para 4).
Regarding claim 18, Maris teaches the optical metrology device of claim 10, further comprising a digitizer that receives signals from the detector and digitizes the signals, wherein the computer system receives digitized signals and generates the transient ellipsometric measurements based on the digitized signals (col 17 claims 15-16; the processor has a digitizer).
Regarding claim 19, Maris teaches an optical metrology device configured for performing transient ellipsometry for measuring at least one property of a sample, the optical metrology device comprising: a means for generating pump pulses at a first pulse repetition rate (this is element 12 in fig. 1A, fig. 2 col 6 lines 50-55) and generating probe pulses at a second pulse repetition rate (fig. 1 element 14, fig. 7F col 7 lines 8-10), wherein the second pulse repetition rate is different than the first pulse repetition rate to produce a varying time delay between the pump pulses and the probe pulses (fig. 4 col 6 line 55-60); focusing optics that cause the pump pulses and the probe pulses to be incident on the sample (this is shown in fig. 1A), wherein the pump pulses generate transient perturbations in the sample (col 5 lines 45-50), and reflected probe pulses are modulated in response to a transient perturbation in the sample based on the varying time delay (this is shown in figs. 7A-7E); a detector that detects the reflected probe pulses from the sample (this is shown in fig. 1A, col 8 lines 35-45); and means for generating transient ellipsometric measurements from the reflected probe pulses at a plurality of time delays between the pump pulses and probe pulses (claim 33, col 9 para 4; fig. 10A shows a plurality of time delays, col 13 para 2 first sentence).
Maris does not teach means for producing a polarization state of the probe pulses; means for analyzing the reflected probe pulses from the sample. This limitation is suggested in col 9 para 4 of Maris, modifying Fig. 1A of Maris by implementing “a polarization state generator” and “a polarization state analyzer” in the optical probe light path of Maris.
Woollam, from the same field of endeavor as Maris, teaches “means for producing a polarization state of the probe pulses; means for analyzing the reflected probe pulses from the sample” (fig. 1 “PSG” and “PSA” along “AL2”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Woollam to Maris to have means for producing a polarization state of the probe pulses; means for analyzing the reflected probe pulses from the sample in order to analyze the polarization state of the reflected beam from the sample and determine the thickness of the sample (col 38 lines 3-10).
Claim(s) 3, 4, 12, 13, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maris and Woollam as applied to claim(s) 1, 10 above, and in view of CN 103134592 A (hereinafter Liu 2).
Regarding claim 3, Maris does not teach the method of claim 1, wherein the polarization state generator comprises a first polarizer and the polarization state analyzer comprises a second polarizer, and wherein at least one of the polarization state generator and the polarization state analyzer comprises a rotating compensator.
Woollam, from the same field of endeavor as Maris, teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the polarization state generator comprises a first polarizer (fig. 1 element P, col 35 lines 62 to col 36 lines 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Woollam to Maris to have in order to properly polarized the light to the sample.
Maris, when modified by Woollam, does not teach the polarization state analyzer comprises a second polarizer, and wherein at least one of the polarization state generator and the polarization state analyzer comprises a rotating compensator.
Liu 2, from the same field of endeavor as Maris, teaches the polarization state analyzer comprises a second polarizer (para [0025] line 6), and wherein at least one of the polarization state generator and the polarization state analyzer comprises a rotating compensator (fig. 1 elements 5, 7; para [0039]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Liu 2 to Maris, when modified by Woollam to have the polarization state analyzer comprises a second polarizer, and wherein at least one of the polarization state generator and the polarization state analyzer comprises a rotating compensator in order to extract the optical constants of the sample piece to be detected and characteristic shape and size information (p. 7 para [0070]).
Regarding claim 4, Marris, when modified by Woollam, does teach the method of claim 3, wherein the polarization state generator comprises a first rotating compensator and the polarization state analyzer comprises a second rotating compensator, and wherein the first rotating compensator and the second rotating compensator rotate with different frequencies, wherein the transient ellipsometric measurements comprise perturbations to all 16 elements of a full Mueller Matrix.
Liu 2, from the same field of endeavor as Maris, teaches the method of claim 3, wherein the “polarization state generator comprises a first rotating compensator and the polarization state analyzer comprises a second rotating compensator, and wherein the first rotating compensator and the second rotating compensator rotate with different frequencies” (p. 5 para [0039]), wherein the transient ellipsometric measurements comprise perturbations to all 16 elements of a full Mueller Matrix (see Liu claim 9, the matrix has 16 elements).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Liu 2 to Maris, when modified by Woollam to have the method of claim 3, wherein the polarization state generator comprises a first rotating compensator and the polarization state analyzer comprises a second rotating compensator, and wherein the first rotating compensator and the second rotating compensator rotate with different frequencies, wherein the transient ellipsometric measurements comprise perturbations to all 16 elements of a full Mueller Matrix in order to extract the optical constants of the sample piece to be detected and characteristic shape and size information (para [0076]).
Regarding claim 12, Maris does not teach the optical metrology device of claim 10, wherein the polarization state generator comprises a first polarizer and the polarization state analyzer comprises a second polarizer, and at least one of the polarization state generator and the polarization state analyzer comprises a rotating compensator.
Woollam, from the same field of endeavor as Maris, teaches the optical metrology device of claim 10, wherein the polarization state generator comprises a first polarizer (fig. 1 element P, col 35 lines 62 to col 36 lines 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Woollam to Maris to have the optical metrology device of claim 10, wherein the polarization state generator comprises a first polarizer in order to properly polarized the light to the sample.
Maris, when modified by Woollam, does not teach the polarization state analyzer comprises a second polarizer, and at least one of the polarization state generator and the polarization state analyzer comprises a rotating compensator.
Liu 2, from the same field of endeavor as Maris, teaches the polarization state analyzer comprises a second polarizer (para [0025] line 6), and at least one of the polarization state generator and the polarization state analyzer comprises a rotating compensator (fig. 1 elements 5, 7; para [0039]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Liu 2 to Maris, when modified by Woollam to have the polarization state analyzer comprises a second polarizer, and at least one of the polarization state generator and the polarization state analyzer comprises a rotating compensator in order to extract the optical constants of the sample piece to be detected and characteristic shape and size information (p. 7 para [0070]).
Regarding claim 13, Marris, when modified by Woollam, does teach the optical metrology device of claim 12, wherein the polarization state generator comprises a first rotating compensator and the polarization state analyzer comprises a second rotating compensator, and wherein the first rotating compensator and the second rotating compensator rotate with different frequencies, wherein the transient ellipsometric measurements comprise perturbations to all 16 elements of a full Mueller Matrix.
Liu 2, from the same field of endeavor as Maris, teaches the optical metrology device of claim 12, “wherein the polarization state generator comprises a first rotating compensator and the polarization state analyzer comprises a second rotating compensator, and wherein the first rotating compensator and the second rotating compensator rotate with different frequencies, wherein the transient ellipsometric measurements comprise perturbations to all 16 elements of a full Mueller Matrix” (p. 5 para [0039]), wherein the transient ellipsometric measurements comprise perturbations to all 16 elements of a full Mueller Matrix (see Liu claim 9, the matrix has 16 elements)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Liu 2 to Maris, when modified by Woollam to have the optical metrology device of claim 12, “wherein the polarization state generator comprises a first rotating compensator and the polarization state analyzer comprises a second rotating compensator, and wherein the first rotating compensator and the second rotating compensator rotate with different frequencies, wherein the transient ellipsometric measurements comprise perturbations to all 16 elements of a full Mueller Matrix” in order to extract the optical constants of the sample piece to be detected and characteristic shape and size information (para [0076]).
Regarding claim 20, Maris, when modified by Woollam, does not teach the optical metrology device of claim 19, wherein at least one of the means for producing a polarization state of the probe pulses and the means for analyzing the reflected probe pulses comprises a rotating compensator.
Liu 2, from the same field of endeavor as Maris, teaches the optical metrology device of claim 19, wherein at least one of the means for producing a polarization state of the probe pulses and the means for analyzing the reflected probe pulses comprises a rotating compensator (p. 5 para [0039]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Liu 2 to Maris, when modified by Woollam to have the optical metrology device of claim 19, wherein at least one of the means for producing a polarization state of the probe pulses and the means for analyzing the reflected probe pulses comprises a rotating compensator in order to extract the optical constants of the sample piece to be detected and characteristic shape and size information (para [0076]).
Claim(s) 5, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maris and Woollam as applied to claim(s) 1, 10 above, and in view of US5548404A (hereinafter Kupershmidt).
Regarding claim 5, the modified device of Maris does not teach the method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving a portion of the probe pulses with a balanced photodetector before the probe pulses are incident on the sample; wherein detecting the reflected probe pulses from the sample comprises receiving the probe pulses reflected from the sample with the balanced photodetector.
Kupershmidt, from the same field of endeavor as Maris, teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving a portion of the probe pulses with a balanced photodetector before the probe pulses are incident on the sample (fig. 1 element 42); wherein detecting the reflected probe pulses from the sample comprises receiving the probe pulses reflected from the sample with the balanced photodetector (fig. 1 element 56).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Kupershmidt to the modified device of Maris to have the method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving a portion of the probe pulses with a balanced photodetector before the probe pulses are incident on the sample; wherein detecting the reflected probe pulses from the sample comprises receiving the probe pulses reflected from the sample with the balanced photodetector in order to enable compensation for noise, drift, ambient light, or other system or environmental causes of inaccuracy (col 5 lines 27-32) and to collect the laser beams reflected or transmitted from the sample (col 5 lines 45-50).
Regarding claim 14, the modified device of Maris does not teach the optical metrology device of claim 10, wherein the detector comprises a balanced photodetector that receives a portion of the probe pulses before the probe pulses are incident on the sample, and receives the reflected probe pulses from the sample.
Kupershmidt, from the same field of endeavor as Maris, teaches the optical metrology device of claim 10, wherein the detector comprises a balanced photodetector that receives a portion of the probe pulses before the probe pulses are incident on the sample (fig. 1 element 42), and receives the reflected probe pulses from the sample (fig. 1 element 56).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Kupershmidt to the modified device of Maris to have the optical metrology device of claim 10, wherein the detector comprises a balanced photodetector that receives a portion of the probe pulses before the probe pulses are incident on the sample, and receives the reflected probe pulses from the sample in order to enable compensation for noise, drift, ambient light, or other system or environmental causes of inaccuracy (col 5 lines 27-32) and to collect the laser beams reflected or transmitted from the sample (col 5 lines 45-50).
Claim(s) 6, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maris and Woollam as applied to claim(s) 1, 10 above, and in view of US 20040189993 A1 (hereinafter Ebert).
Regarding claim 6, the modified device of Maris does not teach the method of claim 1, wherein causing the pump pulses and the probe pulses to be incident on the sample comprises: causing the pump pulses to be incident on the sample at normal incidence using a first set of optical elements; and causing the probe pulses to be incident on the sample at oblique incidence with a second set of optical elements.
Ebert, from the same field of endeavor as Maris, teaches the method of claim 1, wherein causing the pump pulses and the probe pulses to be incident on the sample comprises (fig. 1): causing the pump pulses to be incident on the sample at normal incidence using a first set of optical elements (fig. 1 element 118, para [0018]); and causing the probe pulses to be incident on the sample at oblique incidence with a second set of optical elements (fig. 1 element 102, para [0018]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Ebert to the modified device of Maris to have the method of claim 1, wherein causing the pump pulses and the probe pulses to be incident on the sample comprises: causing the pump pulses to be incident on the sample at normal incidence using a first set of optical elements; and causing the probe pulses to be incident on the sample at oblique incidence with a second set of optical elements in order to provide an ellipsometer that produces an effectively small measurement spot even when operating at large angles of incidence (para [0011] lines 1-3).
Regarding claim 15, the modified device of Maris does not teach the optical metrology device of claim 10, wherein the focusing optics comprise a first set of optical elements that cause the pump pulses to be incident on the sample at normal incidence and a second set of optical elements that cause the probe pulses to be incident on the sample at oblique incidence.
Ebert, from the same field of endeavor as Maris, teaches the optical metrology device of claim 10, wherein the focusing optics comprise a first set of optical elements that cause the pump pulses to be incident on the sample at normal incidence (fig. 1 element 118, para [0018]) and a second set of optical elements that cause the probe pulses to be incident on the sample at oblique incidence (fig. 1 element 102, para [0018]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Ebert to the modified device of Maris to have the optical metrology device of claim 10, wherein the focusing optics comprise a first set of optical elements that cause the pump pulses to be incident on the sample at normal incidence and a second set of optical elements that cause the probe pulses to be incident on the sample at oblique incidence in order to provide an ellipsometer that produces an effectively small measurement spot even when operating at large angles of incidence (para [0011] lines 1-3).
Claim(s) 7, 8, 16, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maris and Woollam as applied to claim(s) 1, 10 above, and in view of US 5748317 A (hereinafter Stoner).
Regarding claim 7, the modified device of Maris does not teach the method of claim 1, wherein causing the pump pulses and the probe pulses to be incident on the sample comprises causing the pump pulses and the probe pulses to be incident on the sample at a same angle of incidence.
Stoner, from the same field of endeavor as Maris, teaches the method of claim 1, wherein causing the pump pulses and the probe pulses to be incident on the sample comprises causing the pump pulses and the probe pulses to be incident on the sample at a same angle of incidence (this is shown in fig. 6, col 17 lines 46-50).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Stoner to the modified device of Maris to have the the method of claim 1, wherein causing the pump pulses and the probe pulses to be incident on the sample comprises causing the pump pulses and the probe pulses to be incident on the sample at a same angle of incidence in order to improve the signal quality (col 17 last sentence) and to have a simple ellipsometry device (col 17 lines 27-28).
Regarding claim 8, the modified device of Maris does not teach the method of claim 1, wherein the at least one laser comprises a first laser and a second laser that is mode locked to the first laser.
Stoner, from the same field of endeavor as Maris, teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the at least one laser comprises a first laser and a second laser that is mode locked to the first laser (fig. 1a, col 20 lines 30-33).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Stoner to the modified device of Maris to have the method of claim 1, wherein the at least one laser comprises a first laser and a second laser that is mode locked to the first laser in order to reduce the cost of the device.
Regarding claim 16, the modified device of Maris does not teach the optical metrology device of claim 10, wherein the focusing optics comprise a set of optical elements that cause the pump pulses and the probe pulses to be incident on the sample at a same angle of incidence (this is shown in fig. 6, col 17 lines 46-50).
Stoner, from the same field of endeavor as Maris, teaches the optical metrology device of claim 10, wherein the focusing optics comprise a set of optical elements that cause the pump pulses and the probe pulses to be incident on the sample at a same angle of incidence (this is shown in fig. 6, col 17 lines 46-50).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Stoner to the modified device of Maris to have the the optical metrology device of claim 10, wherein the focusing optics comprise a set of optical elements that cause the pump pulses and the probe pulses to be incident on the sample at a same angle of incidence in order to improve the signal quality (col 17 last sentence) and to have a simple ellipsometry device (col 17 lines 27-28).
Regarding claim 17, the modified device of Maris does not teach the optical metrology device of claim 10, wherein the light source comprises a first laser and a second laser that is mode locked to the first laser.
Stoner, from the same field of endeavor as Maris, teaches the optical metrology device of claim 10, wherein the light source comprises a first laser and a second laser that is mode locked to the first laser (fig. 1a, col 20 lines 30-33).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Stoner to the modified device of Maris to have the optical metrology device of claim 10, wherein the light source comprises a first laser and a second laser that is mode locked to the first laser in order to reduce the cost of the device.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERTO FABIAN JR whose telephone number is (571)272-3632. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (8-12, 1-5).
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.
/ROBERTO FABIAN JR/ Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/Kara E. Geisel/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights