DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Species 1 (“claims 1-16 and 18-20”) in the reply filed on 23 October 2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Applicant has indicated that claim 17 is not drawn to the elected species. However, claim 17 appears to be substantially similar to claims 3 and 9 and which Applicant has indicated are readable on the elected species, Species 1. Additionally, claim 20 does not appear to be readable on Species 1, rather Species 3; and claim 8 also does not appear to be drawn to Species 1, rather Species 2. In order expedite examination, claim 17 has been considered elected, but claims 8 and 20 have been considered non- elected. Clarification and/or correction is requested.
Presently, claims 8 and 20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the aforementioned reply. Updates may be made after Applicant clarifies and corrects their election and the claims readable thereon.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “the rail configured to move the vacuum apparatus and bring the bottommost surface of the vacuum apparatus AND the slotted opening into contact with the polishing pad” (claim 15) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: vacuum assembly in claim 1 which has been interpreted as an upper portion and a base portion, and equivalents thereof, as set forth in the specification.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
However, the following claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: vacuum apparatus in claims 7 and 15 (further defined by planar bottom surface, slotted opening, cavity, and sidewalls – sufficient structure) for providing he claimed function; and rail assembly in claim 7 (rail defines sufficient structure) for providing the claimed function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Any claim not specifically mentioned is rejected based on its dependency.
The disclosure appears to merely disclose “the rail configured to move the vacuum apparatus and bring the bottommost surface of the vacuum apparatus and the slotted opening into contact with the polishing pad”. Examiner is unable to find the specifics of such a feature in the original disclosure. In particular, there does not appear to be disclosure of the slotted opening itself making contact with respect to the polishing pad like the base portion (i.e. physical contact). In order to expedite examination, the claims have been examined as written, wherein, presumably, the slotted opening may be at least in fluidic contact or indirect physical contact with the polishing pad portion during at least some processing operations.
Clarification and/or correction is requested.
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 15-19 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. Any claim not specifically mentioned is rejected based on its dependency.
Claim 15 recites “the rail configured to move the vacuum apparatus and bring the bottommost surface of the vacuum apparatus and the slotted opening into contact with the polishing pad”. Examiner is unable to find the specifics of such a feature and therefore the bounds of the claim are unclear. The disclosure appears to merely disclose “a base portion” of the momentum vacuum assembly may be positioned over the polishing pad so that it makes contact with the polishing surface of the polishing pad. In particular there is no disclosure of the slotted opening itself making physical contact with respect to the polishing pad like the base portion (i.e. physical contact). In order to expedite examination, the claims have been examined as written, wherein presumably, the slotted opening may be at least in fluidic contact or indirect physical contact with the base portion during at least some processing operations.
Clarification and/or correction is requested.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 6,110,011 to Somekh et al. in view of U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2016/0016283 to Butterfield et al. and Japanese Pub. No. JPH11333722 to Sakurai.
Regarding claim 1: Somekh et al. disclose a device substantially as claimed and comprising: a load lock (see, e.g., Fig. 5, 80); a “high” rate” polishing station (e.g., one of 60); and a “buffing” polishing station (e.g., another one of 60), the “buffing” polishing station comprising: a polishing pad (Fig. 4, 66), a slurry dispenser (e.g. “slurry supply port” or “slurry supply arm”, not illustrated, see, e.g., column 6, rows 9-19), and a wafer holder (Fig. 4, 74).
However, Somekh et al. fail to disclose a slit vacuum apparatus, the slit vacuum apparatus coupled to a suction line, the slit vacuum apparatus attached to a rail, the rail configured to move the slit vacuum apparatus closer to the polishing pad or further from the polishing pad.
Within the same field of art (chemical mechanical polishing, CMP): in at least Figs. 1-3G, Butterfield et al. discloses a polishing station comprising: a polishing pad (Fig. 1A, 44) configured to rotate during a CMP process; a slurry dispenser (16) configured to provide a slurry onto a polishing surface of the polishing pad; a wafer holder (40); and a slit vacuum apparatus (20, body 28 has an upper portion and base portion that is closest to polishing pad), the slit vacuum apparatus coupled to a suction line (e.g., 32 and 63). Additionally, Butterfield et al. disclose that a distance H1 between the polishing pad and the slit vacuum apparatus may vary between be zero (i.e., in contact) and 10mm (i.e. out of contact) (see, e.g., para. 29).
However, Butterfield et al. fail to disclose a rail, the rail configured to move the slit vacuum apparatus closer to the polishing pad or further from the polishing pad.
In a similar polishing device, Sakurai discloses providing a driving unit (Fig. 1, 8) in order to move a suction port so as to be able to approach and retract with respect to a polishing pad (see translation).
Additionally, although, Sakurai does not explicitly disclose a rail, it is noted that the courts have ruled an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982), wherein the driving unit in Sakurai serves to provide the same function (i.e. vertical movement of a suction mechanism with respect to a polishing pad) as the rail.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided a rail or driving unit in modified Somekh et al. in order to move the slit vacuum apparatus so as to be able to approach and retract with respect to a polishing pad as taught by Sakurai.
With respect to claim 4, in modified Somekh et al., Somekh et al. and disclose the high-rate polishing station may further comprise: a second polishing pad (Fig. 4, 66), a second slurry dispenser a slurry dispenser (e.g. “slurry supply port” or “slurry supply arm”, not illustrated, see, e.g., column 6, rows 9-19), and a second slit vacuum apparatus (Butterfield 20, body 28 has an upper portion and base portion that is closest to polishing pad), similar to the “buffing” polishing station as detailed above.
With respect to claim 5, in modified Somekh et al. disclose the device substantially as claimed and as described above. Additionally, in modified Somekh et al., broadly, “a length” of the slit vacuum apparatus (e.g. an arbitrary length associated with the slit vacuum apparatus) and “a length” of the slurry dispenser (e.g. an arbitrary length associated with the slurry dispenser) may be arbitrarily selected according to the claimed relative dimensions. Also, Examiner notes that courts have ruled the following: where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); and selections of shape are a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art will find obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed shape was significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
With respect to claim 6, which is drawn to an intended use of the device, in modified Somekh et al., Somekh et al. disclose that the slit vacuum apparatus is capable of contacting the polishing pad while the slurry dispenser dispenses a polishing slurry to spread the polishing slurry over the polishing pad. Also, with respect to intended use, it is noted that the courts have ruled that a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Somekh et al. as applied to claims 1 and 4-6 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 6,190,236 to Drill.
Modified Somekh et al. disclose the apparatus substantially as claimed and as described above and including a pad dresser arm (50) in Butterfield et al.
However, modified Somekh et al. fail to disclose the slit vacuum apparatus is attached to the slurry dispensing arm or the pad dresser arm.
Drill teaches that a slit vacuum apparatus (Fig. 3A, 320) may be provided attached at various positions in a CMP apparatus, including attached to a dressing arm (313) or a slurry dispensing arm (307), for the purpose of suctioning polishing slurry and debris from the polishing pad (see, e.g., Figs. 3A and 3B; and column 6, row 51 through column 7, row 14, column 8, row 21 through column 9, rows 3).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided the slit vacuum apparatus attached to the dresser arm or slurry dispenser in order to suction polishing slurry and debris from the polishing pad as taught by Drill.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Somekh et al. as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2007/0087672 to Benner et al.
Modified Somekh et al. disclose the apparatus substantially as claimed and as described above. Additionally, Butterfield et al. disclose the pad dresser arm comprising a pad dresser head (14 and 52). The pad dresser head being configured to sweep across the polishing surface of the polishing pad to condition the polishing pad.
However, modified Somekh et al. fail to teach the pad dresser head having holes therein, the holes coupled to a suction line.
Benner et al. teach providing a pad dresser head (see, e.g., Figs. 1 and 4, 30) having holes (34) therein, the holes connected to a second suction line (connected to 37) and a second vacuum source (50) for the purposes of loosening debris lodged within the polishing pad, evacuating conditioning/dresser fluid or effluent and introducing conditioning fluids to the surface of the polishing pad (see, e.g., para. 25).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided in modified Somekh et al., a pad dresser head having holes therein, the holes connected to a second suction line and a second vacuum source in order to loosen debris lodged within the polishing pad, evacuate conditioning/dresser fluid or effluent and introduce conditioning fluids to the surface of the polishing pad as taught by Benner et al.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 7, 9, 13-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 17-19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,409,529 in view of Sakurai. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 17 of ‘529 includes all structural features of claims 7 and 15, besides the rail (assembly) which is disclosed in Sakurai as described above.
Claims 10-11 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 17-19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,409,529 in view of Sakurai and Benner. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 17 of ‘529 includes all structural features of claims 7 and 15, besides the rail (assembly) which is disclosed in Sakurai as described above and one or more crescent shaped holes in the pad conditioner disk around a periphery of the pad conditioner disk which are disclosed in Benner.
Claim 12 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 17-19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,409,529 in view of Sakurai and USP 5,916, 010 (or 6,626,743). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 17 of ‘529 includes all structural features of claims 7 and 15, besides the rail (assembly) which is disclosed in Sakurai as described above, and ‘010 and ’743 disclose an upper manifold comprising two or more vacuum outlets coupled to a vacuum line.
NOTE: While claim 1 of the instant application was a part of the of the restriction requirement of the application related to the ‘529 patent, none of current claim 7 or 15, or ‘529 patented claim 17 was included as part of the original restriction requirement in the ‘529 patent. Therefore, a double patenting rejection is not prohibited. In particular, the claims of the application under examination and claims of the other application/patent are not consonant with the restriction requirement made by the Examiner, since the claims have been changed in material respects from the claims at the time the requirement was made. See MPEP 804.01.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. USP 6,626,743 discloses a vacuum apparatus with a curved sidewall that provides a smaller volume towards a surface to be vacuumed in order to increase suction. Additionally, ‘743 teaches providing a surface surrounding a slotted opening of the vacuum apparatus in physical contact with a polishing pad in order to form a seal therebetween. USP Pub. 2007/0087672 discloses a plurality of holes in a crescent shape. USPs 5,916, 010 and 6,626,743 disclose an upper manifold comprising two or more vacuum outlets coupled to the vacuum line.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KARLA MOORE whose telephone number is (571)272-1440. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-6pm EST.
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, PARVIZ HASSANZADEH can be reached on (571) 272-1435. 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.
/KARLA A MOORE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716