DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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 § 112
2. 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.
Claim 3 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.
3. Regarding claim 3:
Claim 3 recites that the predetermined voltage signal is based on simulations from a trained machine learning model. However, the instant application does not disclose any sufficient algorithms or description on how the predetermined signal is determined based on such trained machine learning model.
4. 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 1-20 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.
5. Regarding claims 1, 15:
Claims 1 and 15 requires the controller to apply a first excitation signal to a primary deflector to scan the sample, and apply a second excitation signal to cause “the primary deflector” to compensate for an off-axis aberration. Changing the excitation signal for the same deflector is expected to lead to a change in scanning. It is unclear if the signals are applied to the same deflector and how applying excitation signal to the same primary deflector would result in the compensation of an off-axis aberration. For examination purposes, it is interpreted that excitation signals can be applied to different deflectors that work together.
Claims 1 and 15 define the subject matter in terms of the result to be achieved, i.e. compensating for off-axis aberrations, without providing sufficient structure or instructions on how the second excitation signal cause the primary charged-particle beam deflector to compensate for an off-axis aberration, which is vague and indefinite because the claim does not provide a discernable boundary on what performs the function.
6. Regarding claims 5 and 18:
Claims 5 and 18 recite the limitation “wherein the predetermined voltage signal is varied based on a location of a probe spot”, which is vague and indefinite because the claim does not provide a discernable boundary on what performs the function. The recited function does not follow from the structure recited in the claim, and it is unclear whether the function requires some other structures or algorithms to perform this variation. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to draw a clear boundary between what is and is not covered by the claim. See MPEP 2173.05(g) for more information.
7. Claims 2-14 depend on claim 1 and are also rejected as indefinite. Claims 16-20 depend on claim 15 and are also rejected as indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Li (US 20210110994) in view of Ohashi (US 20150348747).
11. Regarding claim 1:
Li teaches a charged-particle beam apparatus (abstract teaches a scanning electron microscope objective lens system) comprising:
a charged-particle source configured to emit charged particles ([0070] teaches the electron source 201 emits a primary electron beam);
an aperture plate configured to form a primary charged-particle beam along a primary optical axis from the emitted charged particles ([0070] teaches an anode 202 that corresponds to the aperture plate. The primary electron beam moves down along the optical axis 203);
a plurality of primary charged-particle beam deflectors configured to deflect the primary charged-particle beam to be incident on a surface of a sample to define a center of a field-of-view (FOV) ([0073] teaches that the deflection device 102 includes sub-deflector 102a, sub-deflector 102b, sub-deflector 102c, sub-deflector 102d. [0070] teaches that the primary electron beam is focused to the surface of the specimen, effectively defining the center of the FOV).
In one embodiment (fig. 5) Li does not specifically note applying a first excitation signal to a primary charged-particle beam deflector of the plurality of primary charged-particle beam deflectors to cause the primary charged-particle beam to scan a portion of the FOV of the sample; and applying a second excitation signal to cause the primary charged-particle beam deflector to compensate for an off-axis aberration of the primary charged-particle beam in the portion of the FOV of the sample.
However, in further embodiments and description, Li teaches applying a first excitation signal to a primary charged-particle beam deflector of the plurality of primary charged-particle beam deflectors to cause the primary charged-particle beam to scan a portion of the FOV of the sample (the claim does not exclude applying excitation signal to multiple deflectors, so as long as one deflector is being applied a voltage, the limitation is fully met. [0087] teaches deflecting the primary electron beam to a starting position of a sub-zone, and then performing fast scanning of this sub fast scanning of this sub-zone with the sub-deflectors 402b and 402c. The sub-zone is a portion of the FOV. The voltages applied to sub-deflectors applied to sub-deflectors to perform the fast scanning corresponds to the first excitation signal); and
applying a second excitation signal to cause the primary charged-particle beam deflector to compensate for an off-axis aberration of the primary charged-particle beam in the portion of the FOV of the sample (the claim does not specify which deflector the second excitation signal is applied to, so it is interpreted as applying to any combination of one or more deflectors. [0085] teaches that the deflection-control electrode 103 is supplied a scanning voltage, and the scanning electric field and a scanning electric field produced by the sub-deflector 402d are coupled. As a consequence, the optical axis 406 of the compound retarding receiving immersion lens field is shifted laterally. The off-axis aberration and deflection aberration are reduced when performing large scanning field imaging. [0018] teaches controlling the voltage of the sub-deflector. Voltages applied to deflectors shift the optical axis to execute scanning, which compensates for and reduces off-axis aberration in that portion of the FOV).
PNG
media_image1.png
872
590
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the base electron microscope apparatus of Li by incorporating the sub-zone scanning steps in embodiment 6. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make such modification so that the off-axis aberration and deflection aberration are reduced when performing large scanning field imaging (Li [0086]).
Li does not specify a controller including circuitry performing the steps of applying excitation signals.
Ohashi teaches a processor that processes control programs and sends signals to the control units ([0054]).
Both Li and Ohashi are directed towards controlling deflectors in the context of a charged particle beam apparatus (Li [0085] and Ohashi [0053]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Li to perform the steps of applying voltages to the deflectors using the processor and control unit as taught by Ohashi. Carrying out the steps of applying signals with processor yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
12. Regarding claim 2:
The modified invention above teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Li further teaches that wherein the second excitation signal comprises a predetermined voltage signal ([0085] teaches that the deflection-control electrode 103 is supplied a scanning voltage, and the scanning electric field and a scanning electric field produced by the sub-deflector 402d are coupled. As a consequence, the optical axis 406 of the compound retarding receiving immersion lens field is shifted laterally. The off-axis aberration and deflection aberration are reduced when performing large scanning field imaging. [0018] teaches controlling the voltage of the sub-deflector. Voltages applied to deflectors shift the optical axis to execute scanning, which compensates for and reduces off-axis aberration in that portion of the FOV).
13. Regarding claim 3:
The apparatus of claim 2, wherein the predetermined voltage signal is based on simulations from a trained machine learning model (how the voltage signal is determined carries no patentable weight. "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2113).
14. Regarding claim 4:
The modified invention above teaches the apparatus of claim 2.
Li teaches that sub-deflectors 402d is used to deflect the beam to the target sub-zone and shift the optical axis to limit off-axis aberration ([0085]-[0086]). Because sub-deflector 402d is holding the beam’s macro position and compensating optical axis shift during the duration of the fast scan, Li suggests that the voltage signal applied to the sub-deflector is constant and uniform at least when a target sub-zone is being scanned to hold the beam at the target sub-zone while sub-deflectors 402b and 402c perform the fast scanning ([0087]).
15. Regarding claim 5:
The modified invention above teaches the apparatus of claim 2, wherein the predetermined voltage signal is varied based on a location of a probe spot in the portion of the FOV, the probe spot being formed by the primary charged-particle beam incident on the sample (Li [0024] and [0083] teaches swing objective retarding receiving immersion lens (SORRIL) where the optical axis 406 swings. Controlling the voltages of the deflection device to synchronize with the scanning beam to maintain off-axis compensation means that the signal is varied based on the coordinate location of the probe spot within the portion of the FOV).
PNG
media_image2.png
906
518
media_image2.png
Greyscale
16. Regarding claim 6:
The modified invention above teaches the apparatus of claim 5, wherein the varying predetermined voltage signal (Li [0024] and [0083] teaches controlling the voltages of the deflection device) enables dynamic compensation for the off-axis aberration of the primary charged-particle beam in the portion of the FOV of the sample (the voltages applied to the deflection device is capable of dynamic compensation for the off-axis aberration. "[T]he fact that a characteristic is a necessary feature or result of a prior-art embodiment (that is itself sufficiently described and enabled) is enough for inherent anticipation, even if that fact was unknown at the time of the prior invention."; Abbott Labs v. Geneva Pharms., Inc., 182 F.3d 1315, 1319, 51 USPQ2d 1307, 1310 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).
17. Regarding claim 7:
The modified invention above teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Li further teaches that wherein the plurality of primary charged- particle beam deflectors comprises electrostatic beam deflectors or magnetic deflectors ([0051] teaches that sub-deflectors can be made up of pure electrostatic deflectors, or pure magnetic deflectors, or a combination of electrostatic and magnetic deflectors).
18. Regarding claim 8:
The modified invention above teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the portion of the FOV comprises a sub-FOV, and wherein the FOV comprises a plurality of sub-FOVs arranged in a two-dimensional array ([0087] teaches firstly deflecting the primary electron beam to a starting position of a sub-zone 507b at the top left corner of 507, and secondly moving to a starting position of a next sub-zone under a deflection field formed by the sub-deflectors. Fig. 10a, 10b depict the large scanning field 507 as a gird layout of individual sub-zones).
19. Regarding claim 9:
The modified invention above teaches the apparatus of claim 8, wherein each sub-FOV of the plurality of sub-FOVs is scanned by the primary charged-particle beam (Li [0087] teaches that the sub-zones are scanned with the primary electron beam).
20. Regarding claim 11:
The modified invention above teaches the apparatus of claim 8, wherein the two-dimensional array comprises a symmetric array of sub-FOVs (Li fig. 10a, 10b depict 3x3 array of sub-zones).
21. Regarding claim 12:
The modified invention above teaches the apparatus of claim 8, applying the second excitation signal to cause the primary charged particle beam deflector to compensate for the off-axis aberration of the primary charged-particle beam while scanning a sub-FOV of the plurality of sub-FOVs (Li [0085] teaches that the deflection-control electrode 103 is supplied a scanning voltage, and the scanning electric field and a scanning electric field produced by the sub-deflector 402d are coupled. As a consequence, the optical axis 406 of the compound retarding receiving immersion lens field is shifted laterally. The off-axis aberration and deflection aberration are reduced when performing large scanning field imaging. [0018] teaches controlling the voltage of the sub-deflector. Voltages applied to deflectors shift the optical axis to execute scanning, which compensates for and reduces off-axis aberration in that portion of the FOV. [0087] teaches that the sub-zones are scanned with the primary electron beam).
Li does not specify a controller including circuitry performing the steps of applying the second excitation signal.
Ohashi teaches a processor that processes control programs and sends signals to the control units.
Both Li and Ohashi are directed towards controlling deflectors in the context of a charged particle beam apparatus (Li [0085] and Ohashi [0053]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Li to perform the steps of applying voltages to the deflectors using the processor and control unit as taught by Ohashi. Carrying out the steps of applying signal with processor yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
22. Regarding claim 13:
The modified invention above teaches the apparatus of claim 8, applying the second excitation signal multiple times during a scan of the sub-FOV, to cause the primary charged-particle beam deflector to compensate for the off- axis aberration of the primary charged-particle beam while scanning the sub-FOV of the plurality of sub-FOVs (Li [0085]-[0086] teaches that the deflection-control electrode 103 is supplied a scanning voltage to generate a scanning electric field, and the scanning electric and a scanning electric field produced by the sub-deflector 402d are coupled. The optical axis 406 swings. In Li’s SORRIL mode, the aberration compensation signal is not static. It is a scanning voltage that continuously swings the optical axis. Generating a continuous varying waveform is updating the applying that voltage state multiple times during the scan).
Li does not specify that the controller includes circuitry performing the steps of applying the second excitation signal multiple times.
Both Li and Ohashi are directed towards controlling deflectors in the context of a charged particle beam apparatus (Li [0085] and Ohashi [0053]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Li to perform the steps of applying voltages to the deflectors using the processor and control unit as taught by Ohashi. Carrying out the steps of applying signal with processor yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
23. Regarding claim 14:
The modified invention above teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Li does not specifically note that wherein the off-axis aberration comprises a field curvature aberration or an astigmatism aberration of the primary charged-particle beam.
Ohashi teaches that control signal is modified so that both of an image field curvature aberration and an astigmatism are decreased ([0130]-[0131]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Li to apply specific signal corrections targeting field curvature aberration or astigmatism aberration. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make such modification to suppress image blurs and ensure high resolution (Ohashi [0131]).
24. Regarding claim 15:
Li teaches activating a charged-particle source to emit charged particles and forming a primary charged-particle beam from the emitted charged particles ([0070] teaches the electron source 201 emits a primary electron beam);
deflecting the primary charged-particle beam to be incident on a surface of the sample to define a center of a field-of-view (FOV) ([0073] teaches that the deflection device 102 includes sub-deflector 102a, sub-deflector 102b, sub-deflector 102c, sub-deflector 102d. [0070] teaches that the primary electron beam is focused to the surface of the specimen, effectively defining the center of the FOV);
In one embodiment (fig. 5) Li does not specifically note applying a first excitation signal to a primary charged-particle beam deflector to cause the primary charged-particle beam to scan a portion of the FOV of the sample; and applying a second excitation signal to cause the primary charged-particle beam deflector to compensate for an off-axis aberration of the primary charged-particle beam in the portion of the FOV.
However, in further embodiments and description, Li teaches applying a first excitation signal to a primary charged-particle beam deflector to cause the primary charged-particle beam to scan a portion of the FOV of the sample; and ([0087] teaches deflecting the primary electron beam to a starting position of a sub-zone, and then performing fast scanning of this sub fast scanning of this sub-zone with the sub-deflectors 402b and 402c. The sub-zone is a portion of the FOV. The voltages applied to sub-deflectors applied to sub-deflectors to perform the fast scanning corresponds to the first excitation signal).
applying a second excitation signal to cause the primary charged-particle beam deflector to compensate for an off-axis aberration of the primary charged-particle beam in the portion of the FOV (the claim does not specify which deflector the second excitation signal is applied to, so it is interpreted as applying to any combination of one or more deflectors. [0085] teaches that the deflection-control electrode 103 is supplied a scanning voltage, and the scanning electric field and a scanning electric field produced by the sub-deflector 402d are coupled. As a consequence, the optical axis 406 of the compound retarding receiving immersion lens field is shifted laterally. The off-axis aberration and deflection aberration are reduced when performing large scanning field imaging. [0018] teaches controlling the voltage of the sub-deflector. Voltages applied to deflectors shift the optical axis to execute scanning, which compensates for and reduces off-axis aberration in that portion of the FOV).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the base electron microscope apparatus of Li by incorporating the sub-zone scanning steps in embodiment 6. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make such modification so that the off-axis aberration and deflection aberration are reduced when performing large scanning field imaging (Li [0086]).
Li does not specify a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a set of instructions that is executable by one or more processors of a charged-particle beam apparatus to cause the charged-particle beam apparatus to perform operations for imaging a sample.
Ohashi teaches control arithmetic and logic unit 221 that controls the overall device includes a processor that processes control programs describing operation procedures and the like registered in advance, and sends control signals to the control units ([0054]).
Both Li and Ohashi are directed towards controlling deflectors in the context of a charged particle beam apparatus (Li [0085] and Ohashi [0053]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Li to perform the steps of applying voltages to the deflectors using the processor and control unit to carry out programs registered in advance, as taught by Ohashi. Carrying out the steps of applying signals with processor yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
25. Regarding claim 16:
The modified invention above teaches the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 15. Li further teaches that wherein applying the second excitation signal comprises applying a predetermined voltage signal to the primary charged-particle beam deflector ([0085] teaches that the deflection-control electrode 103 is supplied a scanning voltage, and the scanning electric field and a scanning electric field produced by the sub-deflector 402d are coupled. As a consequence, the optical axis 406 of the compound retarding receiving immersion lens field is shifted laterally. The off-axis aberration and deflection aberration are reduced when performing large scanning field imaging. [0018] teaches controlling the voltage of the sub-deflector. Voltages applied to deflectors shift the optical axis to execute scanning, which compensates for and reduces off-axis aberration in that portion of the FOV).
26. Regarding claim 17:
The modified invention above teaches the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 16.
Li teaches that sub-deflectors 402d is used to deflect the beam to the target sub-zone and shift the optical axis to limit off-axis aberration ([0085]-[0086]). Sub-deflector 402d is holding the beam’s macro position and compensating optical axis shift during the duration of the fast scan, which suggests that the voltage signal applied to the sub-deflector is constant and uniform at least when a target sub-zone is being scanned to hold the beam at the target sub-zone while sub-deflectors 402b and 402c perform the fast scanning ([0087]).
27. Regarding claim 18:
The modified invention above teaches the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 16. Li further teaches that wherein the predetermined voltage signal is varied based on a location of a probe spot in the portion of the FOV, the probe spot being formed by the primary charged-particle beam incident on the sample (Li [0024] and [0083] teaches swing objective retarding receiving immersion lens (SORRIL) where the optical axis 406 swings. Controlling the voltages of the deflection device to synchronize with the scanning beam to maintain off-axis compensation means that the signal is varied based on the coordinate location of the probe spot within the portion of the FOV).
28. Regarding claim 19:
The modified invention above teaches the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 18. Li further teaches that wherein varying the predetermined voltage signal allows dynamically compensating for the off-axis aberration of the primary charged-particle beam in the portion of the FOV of the sample (the voltages applied to the deflection device is capable of dynamic compensation for the off-axis aberration. "[T]he fact that a characteristic is a necessary feature or result of a prior-art embodiment (that is itself sufficiently described and enabled) is enough for inherent anticipation, even if that fact was unknown at the time of the prior invention."; Abbott Labs v. Geneva Pharms., Inc., 182 F.3d 1315, 1319, 51 USPQ2d 1307, 1310 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).
29. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Ohashi, further in view of Stickel (US 6180947).
30. Regarding claim 20:
The modified invention above teaches the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 15. Li further teaches applying the second excitation signal to a first primary charged-particle beam deflector to cause the first primary charged-particle beam deflector to compensate for an aberration of the primary charged-particle beam ([0085] teaches that the scanning electric field and a scanning electric field produced by the sub-deflector 402d are coupled. As a consequence, the optical axis 406 of the compound retarding receiving immersion lens field is shifted laterally. The off-axis aberration and deflection aberration are reduced when performing large scanning field imaging. [0018] teaches controlling the voltage of the sub-deflector. Voltages applied to deflectors shift the optical axis to execute scanning, which compensates for and reduces off-axis aberration in that portion of the FOV); and
applying a third excitation signal to a second primary charged-particle beam deflector, different from the first primary charged-particle deflector ([0085], [0087] teaches the deflection field formed by sub-deflector 402a. The voltage applied to sub-deflector 402a corresponds to the third excitation signal).
Li in view Ohashi does not specifically note applying the second excitation signal and a third excitation signal to distinct deflectors to cause compensation for a field curvature aberration and an astigmatism aberration respectively.
Stickel teaches assigning different specific aberration corrections to spatially separated correction elements (column 8 lines 47-50 teaches that correction of FSD [feature shape distortion/astigmatism] and SFD [sub-field distortion] can be effectively separated. Column 4 lines 54-63 teaches plural correction elements handling a specific aberration among said plurality of individual correctable aberrations).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Li in view of Stickel to distribute the specific field curvature compensation signal and the specific astigmatism compensation signal to different sub-deflectors. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make such modification so that one can place each of said plural correction elements at a location to achieve optimum correction of a specific aberration (Stickle column 4 lines 54-63)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LARRY LI whose telephone number is (571) 272-5043. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30am-4:30pm. 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, Robert Kim can be reached at (571)272-2293. 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.
/LARRY LI/
Examiner, Art Unit 2881
/WYATT A STOFFA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights