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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 4-14, and 16-20 are pending.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 21 July 2026. These drawings are accepted.
In view of the amendments to the drawings, the previous objections to the drawings are hereby withdrawn.
Claim Objections
In view of the amendments to the claims, the previous objections to claims 1, 4-14, and 16-20 are hereby withdrawn. Claims 2-3 and 15 are canceled, therefore the previous objections are moot.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
In view of the amendments to claim 20, the previous rejection of claim 20 under 35 USC 112(b) is hereby withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-7 of the remarks, filed 21 July 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and 14 under 35 USC 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of US 2011/0096428 to Metzmacher, of record.
Per the applicant’s arguments and disclosure, the claimed carbon layer is not part of the optical system and is rather an operational product of the device. The invention of independent claims 1 and 14 is a generic EUV mirror positioned such that an EUV light beam is incident on the mirror at an angle of not more than 12°.
Because the structure of the prior art system disclosed by Metzmacher is the same as that claimed, it must inherently perform the same function. In this case, the accumulation of a carbon layer on the EUV mirror is understood to be a function of the operation of the device and is expected to form on the EUV mirror of Metzmacher. Furthermore, while features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (The absence of a disclosure in a prior art reference relating to function did not defeat the Board’s finding of anticipation of claimed apparatus because the limitations at issue were found to be inherent in the prior art reference); see also In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 212-13, 169 USPQ 226, 228-29 (CCPA 1971); In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959). “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP §2114.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4-6, 14, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2011/0096428 to Metzmacher, of record (hereafter Metzmacher).
Regarding claims 1 and 4-6, Metzmacher discloses an optical system comprising an extreme ultraviolet (EUV) mirror (see at least paragraph [0006], extreme UV radiation reflecting element), wherein the EUV mirror is provided with an optical surface designed for reflection of EUV radiation (see at least paragraphs [0007]-[0008]), wherein an EUV beam path generated by an EUV radiation source is directed at the optical surface of the EUV mirror, wherein the EUV beam path is incident on the EUV mirror at an angle of not more than 12° (see at least paragraph [0011], where the angle is 10°), wherein the optical surface is covered with a carbon layer, wherein the carbon layer has a thickness of at least 8 nm, wherein the carbon layer is a carbon layer deposited during the operation of the optical system, and wherein the EUV mirror is not covered with a carbon layer prior to be used in the optical system (see at least paragraph [0004], where contamination can occur during operation), wherein the optical surface is formed by a reflection layer having a thickness of between 20 nm and 200 nm (see at least paragraph [0045], where the thickness of the layer of Ruthenium (Ru) is 100 nm); wherein the optical surface is formed by a reflection layer of ruthenium (see at least paragraphs [0020] and [0045], where Ruthenium is one possible material and is the material used in example 1), wherein the angle between the EUV beam path and the optical surface is at least 4° (see at least paragraph [0011], where the angle is 10°).
The examiner notes that a EUV mirror comprising the same or similar materials, such as Ruthenium, is expected to exhibit the same deposition of carbon during operation of the system.
Additionally, because the structure of the prior art system, as identified above, is the same as that claimed, it must inherently perform the same function. Furthermore, while features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (The absence of a disclosure in a prior art reference relating to function did not defeat the Board’s finding of anticipation of claimed apparatus because the limitations at issue were found to be inherent in the prior art reference); see also In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 212-13, 169 USPQ 226, 228-29 (CCPA 1971); In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959). “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP §2114.
Regarding claims 14, Metzmacher discloses a method for operating an optical system in which an extreme ultraviolet (EUV) beam path generated by an EUV radiation source is directed at an optical surface of an EUV mirror (see at least paragraphs [0006]-[0011], extreme UV radiation reflecting element reflects EUV beam), wherein the EUV beam path is directed at the EUV mirror at an angle of not more than 12° (see at least paragraph [0011], where the angle is 10°), wherein the optical surface is covered with a carbon layer, wherein the carbon layer has a thickness of at least 8 nm, wherein the carbon layer is a carbon layer deposited during the operation of the optical system, and wherein the EUV mirror is not covered with a carbon layer prior to be used in the optical system (see at least paragraph [0004], where contamination can occur during operation).
Metzmacher also discloses that the optical surface is formed by a reflection layer of ruthenium having a thickness of between 20 nm and 200 nm (see at least paragraphs [0020] and [0045], where the reflection layer of example 1 is a layer of Ruthenium (Ru) with a thickness of 100 nm).
The examiner notes that a EUV mirror comprising the same or similar materials, such as Ruthenium, is expected to exhibit the same deposition of carbon during operation of the system.
Additionally, because the structure of the prior art system, as identified above, is the same as that claimed, it must inherently perform the same function. Furthermore, while features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (The absence of a disclosure in a prior art reference relating to function did not defeat the Board’s finding of anticipation of claimed apparatus because the limitations at issue were found to be inherent in the prior art reference); see also In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 212-13, 169 USPQ 226, 228-29 (CCPA 1971); In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959). “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP §2114.
Regarding claims 17-18, Metzmacher discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Metzmacher also discloses that the angle between the EUV beam path and the optical surface is at least 6° and at least 8° (see at least paragraph [0011], where the angle is 10°).
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.
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 7-10 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2011/0096428 to Metzmacher, of record (hereafter Metzmacher)as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2022/0107570 to Rostalski et al., of record (hereafter Rostalski).
Regarding claim 7, Metzmacher discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Metzmacher does not specifically disclose a first EUV mirror and a second EUV mirror, wherein the difference between the angle at which the EUV beam path is incident on the first EUV mirror and the angle at which the EUV beam path is incident on the second EUV mirror is smaller than 6°.
However, Rostalski teaches a projection optical unit for EUV (see at least Fig. 2a and paragraph [0036]) comprising a plurality of grazing incidence mirrors, wherein the grazing incidence mirrors have angles of incidence around 80° (see at least Fig. 2A and paragraph [0057], where mirrors M2-M9 are grazing incidence mirrors, where an 80° incidence angle is the same as a 10° angle to the surface of the mirror).
Therefore, 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 optical system of Metzmacher to include the teachings of Rostalski so that the system comprises a first EUV mirror and a second EUV mirror for the purpose of increasing the deflection effect of the mirrors (see at least paragraph [0057] of Rostalski).
Metzmacher as modified by Rostalski does not specifically disclose that the difference between the angle at which the EUV beam path is incident on the first EUV mirror and the angle at which the EUV beam path is incident on the second EUV mirror is smaller than 6°.
The angle of incidence of light on a surface is known to affect the amount of light reflected from the surface and thus how different such angles are between two mirrors would also be a result effective variable.
However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). Among the benefits of the difference between the angle at which the EUV beam path is incident on the first EUV mirror and the angle at which the EUV beam path is incident on the second EUV mirror being smaller than 6° include ensuring similar optical properties of the mirrors, such as reflectance.
Therefore, 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 optical system of Metzmacher as modified by Rostalski so that the difference between the angle at which the EUV beam path is incident on the first EUV mirror and the angle at which the EUV beam path is incident on the second EUV mirror is smaller than 6° for the purpose of ensuring similar optical properties of the mirrors, such as reflectance.
Regarding claim 8, Metzmacher as modified by Rostalski discloses all of the limitations of claim 7.
Rostalski also discloses that the first EUV mirror and the second EUV mirror have the same incidence plane (see at least Fig. 2a).
Therefore, 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 optical system of Metzmacher as modified by Rostalski to include the further teachings of Rostalski so that the first EUV mirror and the second EUV mirror have the same incidence plane for the purpose of maintaining alignment while increasing the deflection angle of the EUV beam.
Regarding claim 9, Metzmacher as modified by Rostalski discloses all of the limitations of claim 7.
Rostalski also discloses that the first EUV mirror and the second EUV mirror jointly affect a beam deflection of the EUV beam path which is between 24° and 48° (see at least Fig. 2a and paragraph [0057], where an incidence angle of 80° will result in a beam deflection of 20°, and when doubled for the effect of being deflected by two mirrors, will result in a total beam deflection of 40°).
Therefore, 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 optical system of Metzmacher as modified by Rostalski to include the further teachings of Rostalski so that the first EUV mirror and the second EUV mirror jointly affect a beam deflection of the EUV beam path which is between 24° and 48° for the purpose of balancing the desired reflectivity and the desired beam deflection.
Regarding claim 10, Metzmacher as modified by Rostalski discloses all of the limitations of claim 7.
Rostalski also discloses that no further optical element that modifies the direction of the EUV beam path is arranged between the first EUV mirror and the second EUV mirror (see at least Fig. 2a).
Therefore, 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 optical system of Metzmacher as modified by Rostalski to include the further teachings of Rostalski so that no further optical element that modifies the direction of the EUV beam path is arranged between the first EUV mirror and the second EUV mirror for the purpose of assembling a projection optical unit as taught by Rostalski (see Fig. 2a of Rostalski).
Regarding claim 19, Metzmacher as modified by Rostalski discloses all of the limitations of claim 7.
Rostalski also teaches that the grazing incidence mirrors have angles of incidence around 80° (see at least Fig. 2A and paragraph [0057], where mirrors M2-M9 are grazing incidence mirrors, where an 80° incidence angle is the same as a 10° angle to the surface of the mirror).
Metzmacher as modified by Rostalski does not specifically disclose that the difference between the angles at which the EUV beam path is incident on the first EUV mirror and the angle at which the EUV beam path is incident on the second EUV mirror is smaller than 4°.
The angle of incidence of light on a surface is known to affect the amount of light reflected from the surface and thus how different such angles are between two mirrors would also be a result effective variable.
However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). Among the benefits of the difference between the angle at which the EUV beam path is incident on the first EUV mirror and the angle at which the EUV beam path is incident on the second EUV mirror being smaller than 4° include ensuring similar optical properties of the mirrors, such as reflectance.
Therefore, 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 optical system of Metzmacher as modified by Rostalski so that the difference between the angle at which the EUV beam path is incident on the first EUV mirror and the angle at which the EUV beam path is incident on the second EUV mirror is smaller than 4° for the purpose of ensuring similar optical properties of the mirrors, such as reflectance.
Regarding claim 20, Metzmacher as modified by Rostalski discloses all of the limitations of claim 7.
Rostalski also teaches that the grazing incidence mirrors have angles of incidence around 80° (see at least Fig. 2A and paragraph [0057], where mirrors M2-M9 are grazing incidence mirrors, where an 80° incidence angle is the same as a 10° angle to the surface of the mirror).
Metzmacher as modified by Rostalski does not specifically disclose that the difference between the angles at which the EUV beam path is incident on the first EUV mirror and the angle at which the EUV beam path is incident on the second EUV mirror is smaller than 2°.
The angle of incidence of light on a surface is known to affect the amount of light reflected from the surface and thus how different such angles are between two mirrors would also be a result effective variable.
However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). Among the benefits of the difference between the angle at which the EUV beam path is incident on the first EUV mirror and the angle at which the EUV beam path is incident on the second EUV mirror being smaller than 2° include ensuring similar optical properties of the mirrors, such as reflectance.
Therefore, 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 optical system of Metzmacher as modified by Rostalski so that the difference between the angle at which the EUV beam path is incident on the first EUV mirror and the angle at which the EUV beam path is incident on the second EUV mirror is smaller than 2° for the purpose of ensuring similar optical properties of the mirrors, such as reflectance.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2011/0096428 to Metzmacher, of record (hereafter Metzmacher)as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2006/0145094 to Van Herpen et al., of record (hereafter Van Herpen).
Regarding claim 11, Metzmacher discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Metzmacher does not specifically disclose that the optical system comprises one or more EUV mirrors on which the EUV beam path is incident at an angle of between 60° and 90°.
However, Van Herpen teaches an optical system comprising an EUV mirror (see at least the abstract and Figs. 2-3), wherein the EUV mirror is provided with an optical surface designed for the reflection of EUV radiation (see at least Fig. 3), wherein an EUV beam path generated by an EUV radiation source is directed at the optical surface of the EUV mirror, wherein the EUV beam path is incident on the EUV mirror at an angle of not more than 12° (see at least Fig. 3 and paragraph [0065], where the grazing angle of incidence is from 5° to 7°), and further comprising one or more EUV mirrors on which the EUV beam path is incident at a larger angle (see at least Fig. 2 and paragraph [0058], where mirrors 13 and 14 are normal incidence reflectors).
Therefore, 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 system of Metzmacher to include the teachings of Van Herpen so that the system further comprises one or more EUV mirrors on which the EUV beam path is incident at a larger angle for the purpose of adjusting the optical path length and geometry of the optical system in order to direct and focus the EUV beam to a desired focal plane (see at least Fig. 2 of Van Herpen).
Metzmacher as modified by Van Herpen does not specifically disclose that the incident angle is between 60° and 90°.
The incident angle of an additional one or more EUV mirrors is a result effective variable since it will affect the geometry of the optical system.
However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). Among the benefits of the incident angle being between 60° and 90° include adjusting the optical path length and geometry of the optical system in order to direct and focus the EUV beam to a desired focal plane (see at least Fig. 2 of Van Herpen).
Therefore, 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 optical system of Metzmacher as modified by Van Herpen so that the incident angle is between 60° and 90° for the purpose of adjusting the optical path length and geometry of the optical system in order to direct and focus the EUV beam to a desired focal plane (see at least Fig. 2 of Van Herpen).
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2011/0096428 to Metzmacher, of record (hereafter Metzmacher) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2014/0168758 to Rose et al., of record (hereafter Rose).
Regarding claims 12-13, Metzmacher discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Metzmacher does not specifically disclose that the optical system comprises a vacuum housing, in the interior of which the EUV mirror is arranged, and that a vacuum atmosphere without hydrogen purge gas is present in the vacuum housing.
However, Rose teaches an optical system comprising an EUV mirror (see at least Fig. 4 and paragraph [0002]), wherein the EUV mirror is provided with an optical surface designed for the reflection of EUV radiation (see at least Fig. 4 and paragraph [0002]), wherein an EUV beam path generated by an EUV radiation source is directed at the optical surface of the EUV mirror, wherein the EUV beam path is incident on the EUV mirror at an angle of not more than 12° (see at least Fig. 4 and paragraph [0007], where the grazing angle of incidence is from 0° to 20°), wherein the optical surface is covered with a carbon layer (see at least paragraphs [0003]-[0004], where carbon deposits occur as a result of hydrocarbon contaminants interaction with EUV), wherein the carbon layer is a carbon layer deposited during the operation of the optical system (see at least paragraphs [0003]-[0004]), the system further comprising a vacuum housing, in the interior of which the EUV mirror is present in the vacuum housing (see at least paragraph [0003], where having an EUV mirror “under vacuum” inherently implies a vacuum housing), wherein a vacuum atmosphere without hydrogen purge being present in the vacuum housing (see at least paragraph [0006]).
Therefore, 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 system of Metzmacher to include the teachings of Rose so that the optical system comprises a vacuum housing, in the interior of which the EUV mirror is arranged, and that a vacuum atmosphere without hydrogen purge gas is present in the vacuum housing for the purpose of minimizing the amount of extraneous material is in the environment during operation, thus reducing contamination of the EUV mirror.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2011/0096428 to Metzmacher, of record (hereafter Metzmacher).
Regarding claim 16, Metzmacher discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Metzmacher discloses that the reflection layer has a thickness of 100 nm (see at least paragraph [0045]).
Metzmacher does not specifically disclose that the optical surface is formed by a reflection layer having a thickness in range from 30 nm to 80 nm.
However, it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). In re Scherl, 156 F.2d 72, 74-75, 70 USPQ 204, 205-206 (CCPA 1946).
Therefore, 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 system of Metzmacher so that the optical surface is formed by a reflection layer having a thickness in range from 30 nm to 80 nm for the purpose of being obvious to try a slightly lower thickness for the purpose of using less material to obtain the same or similar reflection properties.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM W BOOHER whose telephone number is (571)270-0573. The examiner can normally be reached M - F: 8:00am - 4:00pm.
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, Stephone Allen can be reached at 571-272-2434. 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.
/A.W.B./ Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/STEPHONE B ALLEN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights