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 .
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 8, 9, 10 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1/a2) as being anticipated by United States Patent Application No. 2015/0007770 to Chandrasekharan et al.
In regard to Claim 1, Chandrasekharan teaches a showerhead structure Fig. 4 comprising: a showerhead 400 including an inner zone 404, an outer zone 406 (analogous to 306 Fig. 3A,B), and a partitioning wall 454 (analogous to 354 Fig. 3A,B) therebetween, the partitioning wall being configured to isolate the inner zone and the outer zone from each other [0051; seal]; and a first plate (408 in Fig. 4 and 308 in Fig. 3A,B) on top of the showerhead and including a distributor (top holes of 408 Fig. 4 or 308 Fig. 3), a plurality of first holes (436, or 136 in Fig. 1A) in the inner zone of the showerhead, a plurality of second holes in the outer zone of the showerhead (440, or 340 Fig. 3), a plurality of columns (432 Fig. 4, or 132 in Fig. 1A) in each of the inner zone and the outer zone, wherein each of the plurality of columns extends toward the first plate (as it moves vertically between 484 and 410 in Fig. 4) and has a third hole 442 (or 142, 242, 342) and a first fluid passage connected to the third hole therein (plenum of 402, or analogously 302 in Fig. 3A,B), wherein a space 380 under the showerhead is configured to receive a fluid supplied through the first fluid passage and the third hole, wherein the space under the showerhead is configured to receive a first gas supplied through the first hole, wherein the space under the showerhead is configured to receive a second gas supplied through the second hole [0076; 0043-0114].
In regard to Claim 2, Chandrasekharan does not expressly teach the first gas and the second gas are a same gas.
However, it has been held that expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim. Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969). Inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. In re Young, 75 F.2d 966, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)). In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235; In re Rishoi, 94 USPQ 71; In re Young, 25 USPQ 69; In re Dulberg, 129 USPQ 348; and Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647. Thus the type of gas, whether it is the same or different gases is not considered a positive limitation and the apparatus of Chandrasekharan would be capable of processing the same gases, based on user selection of the type of gas, there being no structural limitations in the claims to prevent this otherwise.
In regard to Claim 3, Chandrasekharan does not expressly teach of the first gas and the second gas is borazine (B3N3H6).
However, it has been held that expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim. Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969). Inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. In re Young, 75 F.2d 966, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)). In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235; In re Rishoi, 94 USPQ 71; In re Young, 25 USPQ 69; In re Dulberg, 129 USPQ 348; and Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647. Thus the type of gas, whether it is borazine, is not considered a positive limitation and the apparatus of Chandrasekharan would be capable of processing the borazine, based on user selection of the type of gas, there being no structural limitations in the claims to prevent this otherwise.
In regard to Claim 8, Chandrasekharan teaches the inner zone receives the first gas through a first line 446 (346 Fig. 3B, [0074]) connected to a first gas supply (indicated as 346, second gas in Fig. 3B, with analogous structures Fig. 4), wherein a first inlet 444 of the first line is connected to a first manifold (space in 402 and 420, 428 on top of the first plate), wherein the first manifold is connected to a plurality of first branch pipes (openings for 434 Fig. 4 and analogously in 324, 338 in Fig. 3B) and also extending through the first plate and connected to the inner zone.
In regard to Claim 9, Chandrasekharan teaches the outer zone receives the second gas through a second line 448 Fig. 4 connected to a second gas supply (analogous as Third Gas in Fig. 3B), wherein a second inlet of the second line is connected to a second manifold 474/374 on top of the first plate, wherein the second manifold is connected to a plurality of second branch pipes (passages of 474/374) extending through the first plate and connected to the outer zone (as shown in Fig. 4).
In regard to Claim 10, Chandrasekharan teaches a cross-sectional area of the first manifold increases as the first manifold extends away from the first inlet (as shown by the dome), wherein a cross-sectional area of the second manifold increases as the second manifold extends away from the second inlet (as formed by the plenums from the gas inlets Fig. 6C.
In regard to Claim 19, Chandrasekharan teaches a showerhead structure Fig. 4 comprising: a showerhead 400 including an inner zone 404, an outer zone 406 (analogous to 306 Fig. 3A,B), and a partitioning wall 454 (analogous to 354 Fig. 3A,B) therebetween, the partitioning wall being configured to isolate the inner zone and the outer zone from each other [0051; seal]; and a first plate (408 in Fig. 4 and 308 in Fig. 3A,B) on top of the showerhead and including a distributor (top holes of 408 Fig. 4 or 308 Fig. 3), and a chamber (not shown, [0001]), under the showerhead, wherein a substrate support unit (pedestal, not shown [0001, 0107]) configured to support a substrate is in the chamber, and a treating space 380 configured to treat the substrate therein is in the chamber, a plurality of first holes (436, or 136 in Fig. 1A) in the inner zone of the showerhead, a plurality of second holes in the outer zone of the showerhead (440, or 340 Fig. 3), a plurality of columns (432 Fig. 4, or 132 in Fig. 1A) in each of the inner zone and the outer zone, wherein each of the plurality of columns extends toward the first plate (as it moves vertically between 484 and 410 in Fig. 4) and has a third hole 442 (or 142, 242, 342) and a first fluid passage connected to the third hole therein (plenum of 402, or analogously 302 in Fig. 3A,B), wherein a space 380 under the showerhead is configured to receive a fluid supplied through the first fluid passage and the third hole, wherein the space under the showerhead is configured to receive a first gas supplied through the first hole, wherein the space under the showerhead is configured to receive a second gas supplied through the second hole, wherein treating space is configured to receive radicals supplied through the first fluid passage and the third hole (as plasma is formed in 402/302), wherein the treating space is configured to receive a gas supplied through the plurality of first holes and the plurality of second holes, wherein in the treating space, in use, the gas and the radicals react each other. [0076; 0043-0114].
Chandrasekharan does not expressly teach the gas is borazine (B3H6N3) or that gas reacts to produce amorphous boron nitride (a-BN).
However, it has been held that expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim. Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969). Inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. In re Young, 75 F.2d 966, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)). In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235; In re Rishoi, 94 USPQ 71; In re Young, 25 USPQ 69; In re Dulberg, 129 USPQ 348; and Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647. Thus the type of gas is not considered a positive limitation and the apparatus of Chandrasekharan would be capable of processing borazine, based on user selection of the type of gas, there being no structural limitations in the claims to prevent this otherwise.
Furthermore, it has been held that claims directed to apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959). Also, 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). MPEP 2115. As the apparatus of Chandrasekharan is substantially the same as the claimed apparatus, the apparatus of Chandrasekharan would be capable of fulfilling the limitations of the claim and thus be able to have the borazine react to produce amorphous boron nitride (a-BN), there being no structural difference between the apparatus of Chandrasekharan and that of the claim.
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.
Claims 4-5 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application No. 2015/0007770 to Chandrasekharan et al in view of United States Patent Application No. 2008/0236495 to Tompa.
The teachings of Chandrasekharan are relied upon as set forth in the above 102 rejection.
In regard to Claims 4 and 20, Chandrasekharan does not expressly teach the partitioning wall has: a plurality of fourth holes at a bottom thereof; and a plurality of second fluid passages and respectively connected to the plurality of fourth holes, wherein the space under the showerhead is configured to receive the fluid supplied through the fourth hole and the second fluid passage.
Tompa teaches a showerhead with partition walls 64 Fig. 2a-3b that has holes (bottom of 66) that extend through the plenum and the lower wall (bottom of 32), a plurality of second fluid passages (through holes above the bottom of 66) that are connected to said holes wherein the space under the showerhead is configured to receive the fluid supplied from the fourth hole and the second hole passage, as shown in the bottom of 32 (Fig. 1-3b), which allows the gases to be introduced separately from one another thus minimizing pre-reactions [0025; 0021-0032].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the apparatus of Chandrasekharan, by adding fourth holes and second fluid passages to the partitioning walls, as per the teachings of Tompa. One would be motivated to do so for the predictable result of to allow gases to be introduced separately from one another thus minimizing the pre-reactions.
The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claims.
In regard to Claim 5, Chandrasekharan teaches a plasma generator 490, 488 connected to the distributor (top of 408) through a third line (444) and configured to generate plasma using a third gas supplied from a third gas supply [0078], wherein the first fluid passage and the plurality of second fluid passages are connected to the distributor (as shown in Fig. 4).
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application No. 2015/0007770 to Chandrasekharan et al in view of United States Patent Application No. 2008/0236495 to Tompa, as applied to claim 5 above, and in further view of United States Patent Application No. 2021/0287877 of Kim et al.
The teachings of Chandrasekharan in view of Tompa are relied upon as set forth in the above 103 rejection.
In regard to Claim 6, Chandrasekharan in view of Tompa does not expressly teach the first plate is connected to a ground configured to remove ions from the plasma having passed through the distributor.
Kim teaches a showerhead 500 with an RF powered top plate 530 a a first plate 540 which is connected to the ground to that it is a first plate that blocks ions from passing through the through holes 5410 into the processing space [0072], this removing ions from the plasma having passed through the distributor [0051-0111]. Kim teaches that the removal of ions from the plasma formed prevents damage from ions to electrodes, showerheads, insulators which results in generating particles [0003-0006].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the apparatus of Chandrasekharan in view of Tompa by making the first plate grounded to filter out ions, as per the teachings of Kim. One would be motivated to do so to remove ions from the plasma formed and prevents damage from ions to electrodes, showerheads, insulators which results in generating particles. See MPEP 2143 Motivation A.
In regard to Claim 7, Chandrasekharan teaches the fluid is a radical in the plasma, which is supported by Kim that the plasma refers to an ionized gas composed of ions, electrons and radicals or the like, as per the combined teaches of Chandrasekharan in view of Tompa and Kim.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application No. 2015/0007770 to Chandrasekharan et al in view of United States Patent Application No. 2009/0081878 to Dhindsa.
The teachings of Chandrasekharan are relied upon as set forth in the above 102 rejection.
In regard to Claim 11, Chandrasekharan does not expressly teach a second plate on top of the first plate, wherein the second plate includes a heat exchanger configured to control a temperature of the fluid passing through the second plate.
Dhindsa teaches a showerhead 100 Fig. 1 with a bottom first plate 114 and a cooling plate 152 that is a second plate, the cooling plate having a heat exchanger 175 configured to control a temperature of the fluid through the second plate (as the liquid has a desired temperature and flow rate to provide the desired heat transfer capabilities [0037]) [0013-0068]. Dhindsa further teaches that by controlling the temperature of the top electrode/showerhead, the substrates can be processed more uniformly and improves process yields [0044].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the apparatus of Chandrasekharan by adding a second plate with a heat exchanger, as per the teachings of Dhindsa. One would be motivated to do so for the predictable result of to control the temperature of the showerhead, thus improving process yields. See MPEP 2143 Motivation A.
The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claim.
Claims 12, 13, 15, 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application No. 2015/0007770 to Chandrasekharan et al in view of United States Patent Application No. 2021/0287877 of Kim et al.
In regard to Claim 12, Chandrasekharan teaches substrate treating apparatus Fig. 1-4 comprising: a showerhead 400 including an inner zone 404, an outer zone 406 (analogous to 306 Fig. 3A,B), and a partitioning wall 454 (analogous to 354 Fig. 3A,B) therebetween, the partitioning wall being configured to isolate the inner zone and the outer zone from each other [0051; seal] a plasma generator 488, 489; and a chamber (380, [0112]) under the showerhead, wherein a substrate support unit (pedestal, not shown, [0001, 0107]) configured to support a substrate thereon is in the chamber, and a treating space 380 configured to treat the substrate therein is in the chamber, a plurality of first holes (436, or 136 in Fig. 1A) in the inner zone of the showerhead, a plurality of second holes in the outer zone of the showerhead (440, or 340 Fig. 3), a plurality of third holes (bottom of 442) in each of the inner zone and the outer zone, wherein a plurality of first fluid passages are directly and respectively connect to the third holes (plenum of 402 and through holes of 442); wherein the plasma generator is configured to generate ions that form a plasma, wherein the inner zone is configured to receive a first gas (first gas as shown in Fig. 3) which is supplied to the treating space through the plurality of first holes, wherein the outer zone is configured to receive a second gas which is supplied to the treating space through the plurality of second holes (second gas as shown in Fig. 3; [0076; 0043-0114]).
Chandrasekharan does not expressly teach an ion blocker on top of the showerhead and including a distributor and that the plasma ions are formed with plasma and are removed by the ion blocker.
Kim teaches a showerhead 500 with an RF powered top plate 530 a first plate 540 which is connected to the ground to that it is a first plate that blocks ions from passing through the through holes 5410 into the processing space [0072], this removing ions from the plasma having passed through top holes/distributor [0051-0111]. Kim teaches that the removal of ions from the plasma formed prevents damage from ions to electrodes, showerheads, insulators which results in generating particles [0003-0006].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the apparatus of Chandrasekharan by making the first plate grounded to filter out ions, as per the teachings of Kim. One would be motivated to do so to remove ions from the plasma formed and prevents damage from ions to electrodes, showerheads, insulators which results in generating particles. See MPEP 2143 Motivation A.
In regard to Claim 13, Chandrasekharan in view of Kim teaches the plurality of first fluid passages is connected to the distributor, as shown in the first plate to the first fluid passages of Chandrasekharan in Fig. 3 and 4.
In regard to Claim 15, Chandrasekharan in view of Kim does not expressly teach the first gas and the second gas are borazine (B3N3H6).
However, it has been held that expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim. Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969). Inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. In re Young, 75 F.2d 966, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)). In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235; In re Rishoi, 94 USPQ 71; In re Young, 25 USPQ 69; In re Dulberg, 129 USPQ 348; and Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647. Thus the type of Chandrasekharan in view of Kim is not considered a positive limitation and the apparatus of Chandrasekharan in view of Kim would be capable of processing borazine gas, based on user selection of the type of gas, there being no structural limitations in the claims to prevent this otherwise.
In regard to Claim 16, Chandrasekharan in view of Kim does not expressly teach wherein the chamber, the first gas and the second gas react with radicals to produce amorphous boron nitride (a-BN).
It has been held that claims directed to apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959). Also, 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). MPEP 2115. As the apparatus of Chandrasekharan in view of Kim is substantially the same as the claimed apparatus, the apparatus of Chandrasekharan in view of Kim would be capable of fulfilling the limitations of the claim and thus be able to perform in the chamber, the first gas and the second gas react with radicals to produce amorphous boron nitride (a-BN), there being no structural difference between the apparatus of Chandrasekharan in view of Kim and that of the claim.
In regard to Claim 18, Chandrasekharan the inner zone receives the first gas through a first line 446 (346 Fig. 3B, [0074]) connected to a first gas supply (indicated as 346, second gas in Fig. 3B, with analogous structures Fig. 4), wherein a first inlet of the first line is connected to a first manifold 420, 428 on top of the first plate, wherein the first manifold is connected to a plurality of first branch pipes (openings for 434 Fig. 4 and analogously in 324, 338 in Fig. 3B) and also extending through the first plate and connected to the inner zone.
Chandrasekharan also teaches the outer zone receives the second gas through a second line 448 Fig. 4 connected to a second gas supply (analogous as Third Gas in Fig. 3B), wherein a second inlet of the second line is connected to a second manifold 474/374 on top of the first plate, wherein the second manifold is connected to a plurality of second branch pipes (passages of 474/374) extending through the first plate and connected to the outer zone (as shown in Fig. 4).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application No. 2015/0007770 to Chandrasekharan et al in view of in view of United States Patent Application No. 2021/0287877 of Kim et al, as applied to claim 12 above, and in further view of United States Patent Application No. 2008/0236495 to Tompa.
The teachings of Chandrasekharan in view of Kim are relied upon as set forth in the above 103 rejection.
In regard to Claim 14, Chandrasekharan in view of Kim does not expressly teach the partitioning wall has: a plurality of fourth holes at a bottom thereof; and a plurality of second fluid passages and respectively connected to the plurality of fourth holes, wherein the space under the showerhead is configured to receive the fluid supplied through the fourth hole and the second fluid passage.
Tompa teaches a showerhead with partition walls 64 Fig. 2a-3b that has holes (bottom of 66) that extend through the plenum and the lower wall (bottom of 32), a plurality of second fluid passages (through holes above the bottom of 66) that are connected to said holes wherein the space under the showerhead is configured to receive the fluid supplied from the fourth hole and the second hole passage, as shown in the bottom of 32 (Fig. 1-3b), which allows the gases to be introduced separately from one another thus minimizing pre-reactions [0025; 0021-0032].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the apparatus of Chandrasekharan in view of Kim, by adding fourth holes and second fluid passages to the partitioning walls, as per the teachings of Tompa. One would be motivated to do so for the predictable result of allowing gases to be introduced separately from one another thus minimizing the pre-reactions.
The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claims.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application No. 2015/0007770 to Chandrasekharan et al in view of United States Patent Application No. 2021/0287877 of Kim et al, as applied to Claim 12 above, and in view of United States Patent Application No. 2009/0081878 to Dhindsa.
The teachings of Chandrasekharan in view of Kim are relied upon as set forth in the above 103 rejection.
In regard to Claim 11, Chandrasekharan in view of Kim does not expressly teach a second plate on top of the first plate, wherein the second plate includes a heat exchanger configured to control a temperature of the fluid passing through the second plate.
Dhindsa teaches a showerhead 100 Fig. 1 with a bottom first plate 114 and a cooling plate 152 that is a second plate, the cooling plate having a heat exchanger 175 configured to control a temperature of the fluid through the second plate (as the liquid has a desired temperature and flow rate to provide the desired heat transfer capabilities [0037]) [0013-0068]. Dhindsa further teaches that by controlling the temperature of the top electrode/showerhead, the substrates can be processed more uniformly and improves process yields [0044].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the apparatus of Chandrasekharan in view of Kim by adding a second plate with a heat exchanger, as per the teachings of Dhindsa. One would be motivated to do so for the predictable result of to control the temperature of the showerhead, thus improving process yields. See MPEP 2143 Motivation A.
The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. United States Patent Application No. 2021/0267042 to Uchida, which teaches a cooled showerhead.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIFFANY Z NUCKOLS whose telephone number is (571)270-7377. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10AM-7PM.
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 at (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.
/TIFFANY Z NUCKOLS/Examiner, Art Unit 1716
/Jeffrie R Lund/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
