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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/15/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Preliminary Amendment
Preliminary amendments filed on 10/15/2024 have been acknowledged.
Claims 1, 4-6, 8-10 and 13-15 have been amended.
Claims 16-20 are new.
Claims 2,3 7, 11 and 12 are original.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 11, 12 and 13 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. Claims 11 states that the composed image is generated from a series of preprocessing “functions” without stating what exactly these functions are (algorithmically or mathematically) making the claims indefinite. Examiner notes that any and every image processing function can apply. Claims 12 and 13 are subsequently rejected.
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.
Claim 1-3, 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by anticipated by Freed et al (Freed hereinafter US 20200300618 A1)
As per claim 1
Freed teaches a method comprising: obtaining image data of an object with an SEM system (Figure 6, Paragraph [0021] “The processes of the present principles may be used in conjunction with top down SEM semiconductor inspection tools such as, for example, PROVision™ or VeritySEM® inspection tools” ) , the image data acquired at multiple landing energy levels ( Figure 1, Paragraph [0021] “A feature is imaged under multiple conditions, including changing the landing energy of the electrons.”) generating a composed image by performing pixel-by-pixel image processing of the image data (Figure 1 Paragraph [0024] “In block 106, image processing is applied to the first image and the second image to enhance features on the first image and the second image. In some embodiments, the image processing may include grayscale processing.” Paragraph [0025] “In block 108, the first image is aligned with the second image. When different landing energies are used to obtain images, a shift in the features occurs. The alignment of the first image with the second image may be accomplished by using a common reference point such as a particular feature aspect location.” ) determining a metrology characteristic from the composed image (Paragraph [0019] “Measurements of features on the images such as, for example, gap CD (critical dimension) and/or space CD at each landing energy may be utilized to determine the location of the part of the feature being imaged”) and performing metrology on a feature based on the metrology characteristic (Paragraph [0019]“…CD at each landing energy may be utilized to determine the location of the part of the feature being imaged. Multiple data points may then be used to measure leaning and/or twisting of a feature.”) wherein the feature is manufactured on a wafer through a semiconductor manufacturing process. (Fig 4. Paragraph [0003] “As semiconductor substrate processing moves towards increasingly smaller feature…” Paragraph [0019] “The methods and apparatus provide a fast, non-destructive process to locate defects such as leaning and/or twisting of features of semiconductor structures.”)
As per claim 2
Freed teaches all claim limitations previously rejected in claim 1’s 102 rejection. See claim 1’s 102 rejection.
Freed teaches wherein the multiple landing energy levels are selected to obtain the image data from selected depth levels within the object. ( Paragraph [0009] “electron beam landing energy are selected from a range of approximately 500 eV to approximately 300 keV.” Paragraph [0021] “As the landing energy increases, the imaging goes deeper into the profile of the feature to allow imaging of the lower portion of the feature. By controlling the focus and the image quality, enough resolution is obtained to allow measuring of what a feature looks like at a different heights (different depths of electron penetration). The process then uses the fact that the image is changing as a function of depth to determine what the profile is of the feature that is being inspected”)
As per claim 3
Freed teaches all claim limitations previously rejected in claim 1’s 102 rejection. See claim 1’s 102 rejection.
Freed teaches wherein the metrology characteristic is a side wall angle of the feature (Figure 2 and 3 Paragraph [0013] “FIG. 2 illustrates a cross-sectional view and top views relating to detection of lean of a feature of a semiconductor structure in accordance with some embodiments of the present principles.” Paragraph [0027] “ In some embodiments, lean may be determined by measuring a distance 216 (gap or space) between the first feature 204A and the second feature 206A in the first image 208 and measuring a distance 218 (gap or space) between the first feature 204B and the second feature 206B in the second image 210. Differences between the two measurements may indicate that a lean is present in one or more of the features”)
As per claim 14
Claim 14 is the non-transitory computer readable medium claim that parallels claim 1 and will be rejected under the same premise. Furthermore, Freed states in paragraph [0009] “… a non-transitory, computer readable medium may have instructions stored thereon that, when executed, cause a method for inspecting a feature on a substrate to be performed”
As per claim 16
Freed teaches all claim limitations rejected in claim 14’s 102 rejection. See claim 14’s 102 rejection.
Claim 16 is the parallel non transitory computer readable medium claim of claim 2 and will be rejected under the same premise.
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.
Claims 4, 15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Freed et al (Freed hereinafter US 20200300618 A1) In view of Zhou et al (Zhou hereinafter US 20090132992 A1)
As per claim 4
Freed teaches all claim limitations previously rejected in claim 1’s 102 rejection. See claim 1’s 102 rejection.
Freed teaches wherein the metrology characteristic is a critical dimension (Paragraph [0019] “Measurements of features on the images such as, for example, gap CD (critical dimension) and/or space CD at each landing energy may be utilized to determine the location of the part of the feature being imaged”))
Freed does not teach that the critical dimension (CD} is for optical proximity correction (OPC) metrology.
Zhou teaches wherein the metrology characteristic is a critical dimension (CD} for optical proximity correction (OPC) metrology. (Paragraph [0022] “The OPC system as shown in FIG. 1 comprises an OPC simulator 110 which includes a statistical OPC model 114 and a critical dimension (CD) verification module 118…The statistical OPC model… is built from inline process…The inline process data is used to estimate the CD variation of one or more feature types on a mask…the statistical OPC model calculates an overall CD yield (or Cpk) based on the estimated CD variation of the different feature type) Paragraph [0026] “ CD data includes DICD as well as resist sidewall angle measurements”)
Accordingly, a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time this invention was effectively filed would have found it obvious to modify Freed’s workflow with Zhou’s concept of using the CD characteristic for optical proximity correction metrology of a feature within a wafer. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have this motivation because using Freed’s CD measurement within OPC gives a precise quantification of exactly how a pattern will print on a wafer. CD is essentially a ground truth measurement which can be used within OPC to calibrate, verify and fine tune a new, corrected mask based on Freed’s CD taken from the composed image.
As per claim 15
Freed teaches all claim limitations previously rejected in claim 14’s 102 rejection. See claim 14’s 102 rejection.
Freed teaches programmable processor; and the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 14 (Paragraph [0009] “… a non-transitory, computer readable medium may have instructions stored thereon that, when executed, cause a method for inspecting a feature on a substrate to be performed”)
Zhou teaches A system for use with a lithographic process (Paragraph [0015] “FIG. 3 shows a process 300 for mask design which incorporates the OPC model in accordance with one embodiment of the invention. The process begins with photomask design at step 310. At step 315, inline variation of key photolithographic process parameters is measured.” )
As per claim 17
Freed teaches all claim limitations previously rejected in claim 14’s 102 rejection. See claim 14’s 102 rejection.
Freed teaches programmable processor; and the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 14 (Paragraph [0009] “… a non-transitory, computer readable medium may have instructions stored thereon that, when executed, cause a method for inspecting a feature on a substrate to be performed”)
Zhou teaches wherein the metrology characteristic is a side wall angle of the feature, a critical dimension (CD) for optical proximity correction (OPC) metrology (Paragraph [0022] “The OPC system as shown in FIG. 1 comprises an OPC simulator 110 which includes a statistical OPC model 114 and a critical dimension (CD) verification module 118…The statistical OPC model… is built from inline process…The inline process data is used to estimate the CD variation of one or more feature types on a mask…the statistical OPC model calculates an overall CD yield (or Cpk) based on the estimated CD variation of the different feature type) Paragraph [0026] “ CD data includes DICD as well as resist sidewall angle measurements”).
Claim 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Freed et al (Freed hereinafter US 20200300618 A1) In view of Fu et al (Fu hereinafter WO 2020233950 A1 “METHOD FOR DETERMINING STOCHASTIC VARIATION ASSOCIATED WITH DESIRED PATTERN”)
As per claim 5
Fu teaches the metrology characteristic is a line edge roughness (LER} for stochastic edge placement error(SEPE} metrology (Paragraph [0054] “stochastic variation s.sub.SEPE (also referred as stochastic edge placement error). “Paragraph [00187] “the stochastic effects include stochastic variations of characteristics of a resist image….For example, such stochastic variations may include failure rate of a feature, line edge roughness (LER), line width roughness (LWR) and critical dimension uniformity (CDU).”)
Accordingly, a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time this invention was effectively filed would have modified Freed’s pipeline with Fu’s concept of using the images LER metrology for SEPE metrology. Freed already states in paragraph [0024] that “in some embodiments, the image processing may include edge detection or contour processing.” And that “The first image 520 and the second image 522 were processed with a contour-based process to enhance the contours (edges) of the features” in paragraph [0031]. A person of ordinary skill recognizes that Freed’s process uses multiple levels of electrons and there is a need to accurately measure random atomic level defects. A person of ordinary skill in the art is aware that SEPE and LER combination gives the advantage of identifying failures that can lower wafer yield that can be missed in a standard optics method when using higher landing energies for deeper penetration.
As per claim 6
Freed teaches all claim limitations previously rejected in claim 1’s 102 rejection. See claim 1’s 102 rejection.
Fu teaches wherein the metrology characteristic is an edge placement error (EPE) for EPE metrology (Paragraph [0090] “Figure 6 shows an example of determining values of the EPE associated with features of a pattern of the unit cell 531 (e.g., in Figure 5B and 6). For example, the EPE values are determined at a plurality of locations collective referred as points 631L (or 632L/633L) marked around the feature 631 (or 632/633) of the unit cell 531. An example of the determining of the edge placement error values (e.g., dist2EPbase associated with each reference point around a reference contour) is further illustrated and discussed with respect to Figures 7A and 7B.” Paragraph [0096] “…an embodiment, the linear nested model assumes a set of measured edge placement errors EPE.sup.is , wherein i = 1 ... IV, and s = 1 ... S; where N represents number of unit cells in an image and S is number of measurement repeats. In an embodiment, the edge placement errors are measured”)
As per claim 7
Freed teaches all claim limitations previously rejected in claim 1’s 102 rejection. See claim 1’s 102 rejection.
Fu teaches wherein the metrology characteristic is an overlay for overlay metrology. (Paragraph [00137] “the images may be SEM images of the structure…a metrology target, or a portion thereof (e.g., a grating of the metrology target), that is used to measure a parameter (e.g., overlay, focus, dose, etc.) of the patterning process. In an embodiment, the metrology target is a diffractive grating used to measure, e.g., overlay.)
Claim 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Freed et al (Freed hereinafter US 20200300618 A1) In view of Iida et al (Iida hereinafter JP H06103950 “A THREE DIMENSIONAL IMAGE FORMING METHOD IN SCANNING ELECTRON MICROSCOPE”)
As per claim 8
Freed teaches all claim limitations previously rejected in claim 1’s 102 rejection. See claim 1’s 102 rejection.
Freed teaches a detector for backscattered electrons (Paragraph [0032] “The apparatus 600 also includes a first image detection system 610 that receives reflected electrons produced by the electron beam 608 after striking the substrate 602. The first image detection system 610 creates an image from the reflected electrons and performs various image processing on the image. “ and image data at a second landing energy (Paragraph [0031] “View 500B shows a second image 522 obtained with a second landing energy.”) and the first landing energy being higher than the second landing energy (Paragraph [0024] “the second electron beam landing energy is different from the first electron beam landing energy. In some embodiments, the electron beam landing energy may be from approximately 500 eV to approximately 300 keV”)
Freed does not teach wherein the composed image is generated by subtracting the second image data from the first image data.
Iida teaches the SEM system includes one or more backscattered electrons (BSE) detectors that obtain first image data at a first landing energy ( Paragraph [0007] “The backscattered electrons generated…are detected by the backscattered electron detector 5) and second image data at a second landing energy, the first landing energy being higher than the second landing energy, (Paragraph [0006] “the energy of the electron beam incident on the sample is changed to obtain a plurality of scan images based on the electron beams having different energies. “ ) wherein the composed image is generated by subtracting the second image data from the first image data. (Paragraph [0006] “A difference signal between two types of scan images based on adjacent energies is obtained, and a stereoscopic image of the sample is constructed based on the plurality of difference signals.”).
Accordingly, a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time this invention was effectively filed would have found it obvious to modify Freed’s pipeline to incorporate the use of BSE detectors that obtain image data at landing energies of different energies as well as composing an image by subtracting the image data as taught by Iida. A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do this because although Freed already acknowledges the differences between the two images (Paragraph [0027] Differences between the two measurements may indicate that a lean is present in one or more of the features) a person of ordinary skill in the art knows that Iida’s quantitative difference in signal used to make the stereoscopic image is a higher order of efficiency than just a qualitative comparison.
As per claim 18
Freed teaches all claim limitations previously rejected in claim 14’s 102 rejection. See claim 14’s 102 rejection.
Claim 18 is the parallel non transitory computer readable medium claim of claim 8 and will be rejected under the same premise.
Claim 9-13, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Freed et al (Freed hereinafter US 20200300618 A1) In view of Iida et al (Iida hereinafter JP H06103950 A THREE DIMENSIONAL IMAGE FORMING METHOD IN SCANNING ELECTRON MICROSCOPE) in further view of Jiang et al (Jiang hereinafter US 20230104558 A1)
As per claim 9
Freed teaches all claim limitations previously rejected in claim 1’s 102 rejection. See claim 1’s 102 rejection.
Iida wherein the SEM system includes a backscattered electron (BSE} detector (Paragraph [0007] “The backscattered electrons generated…are detected by the backscattered electron detector 5) the BSE detector obtaining first image data at a first landing energy (Paragraph [0007] “The backscattered electrons generated by the irradiation of the sample 2 with the electron beam are detected by the detector 5, and the detection signal is supplied to and stored in the first frame memory…a backscattered electron image is displayed”) and wherein the composed image is generated by subtracting the second image data from the first image data. ((Paragraph [0006] “A difference signal between two types of scan images based on adjacent energies is obtained, and a stereoscopic image of the sample is constructed based on the plurality of difference signals.”). Paragraph[0007] “The arithmetic processing circuit 10 calculates the difference in signal intensity for each pixel for the two types of image data, and supplies the result to the third frame memory 11 for storage.”)
Iida nor Freed teach an energy filter (EF) detector or the EF detector obtaining second image data at a second landing energy.
Jiang teaches an energy filter (EF) detector (Paragraph [0041] “ The embodiments described herein generally relate to bandpass charged particle (e.g., electron) energy filtering detectors for charged particle tools…the embodiments advantageously have the capability to select any specific energy band for returned charged particle signals, which can then be used for generating specimen images”) the EF detector obtaining second image data at a second landing energy. (Paragraph [0049] “One advantage of the embodiments described herein is that they can precisely select any specific energy band of signal electrons to generate images”) In addition, Jiang also teaches wherein the composed image is generated by subtracting the second image data from the first image data. (Paragraph [0116] “ In one such example, a comparison or algebraic operation (e.g., addition, subtraction, averaging, etc.) of two images from two detectors may enhance the contrast of defects in the resulting image. Therefore, two images may be used to generate new, third image that has better contrast for the defects”).
Accordingly, a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time this invention was effectively filed would have found it obvious to incorporate Jiang’s use of an energy filter detector within the previously modified Freed/Iida methodology. A person of ordinary skill would be aware that using an energy filter with a BSE detector instead of using two BSE detectors allows for a more precise energy filtering. A filter allows for an adjustability that lets you select specific band of electron energies. Two BSE detectors can not do this. They only detect what hits them. This is an obvious advantage gained in the Freed/Iida/Jiang system
As per claim 10
Freed teaches all claim limitations previously rejected in claim 1’s 102 rejection. See claim 1’s 102 rejection.
Iida wherein the SEM system includes a backscattered electron (BSE} detector (Paragraph [0007] “The backscattered electrons generated…are detected by the backscattered electron detector 5) the BSE detector obtaining first image data at a first landing energy (Paragraph [0007] “The backscattered electrons generated by the irradiation of the sample 2 with the electron beam are detected by the detector 5, and the detection signal is supplied to and stored in the first frame memory…a backscattered electron image is displayed”)
Jiang teaches an energy filter (EF) detector (Paragraph [0041] “ The embodiments described herein generally relate to bandpass charged particle (e.g., electron) energy filtering detectors for charged particle tools…the embodiments advantageously have the capability to select any specific energy band for returned charged particle signals, which can then be used for generating specimen images”) the EF detector obtaining second image data at a second landing energy. (Paragraph [0049] “One advantage of the embodiments described herein is that they can precisely select any specific energy band of signal electrons to generate images”)) a scattered electron (SE) detector (Paragraph [0042] “The charged particles may also include any of the charged particles described herein and may be “from the specimen” in any manner such as reflected, scattered, transmitted, etc. from or by the specimen.” Paragraph [0048] “Each of the energy band cavities described herein is configured such that it not only stores the electrons with its corresponding, desired energy band but also deflects them into a side detector automatically without adding an additional deflector. “ Paragraph [0049] “In this manner, the energy band cavity is used to create a space that only electrons with energies in the desired energy band stay and are deflected to a side attracting mesh and then accelerate to a detector”) SE detector obtaining third image data at a third landing energy (Paragraph [0055] “each of the detectors described herein may be imaging detectors that are configured to detect charged particles as a function of position across the detectors. “ Paragraph [0058] “include two detectors: one may be used for collecting and detecting the electrons within the desired energy band (i.e., bandpass filtering) while another one may be used for collecting and detecting electrons with energies higher than the high-end energy of the desired energy band (i.e., high pass filtering).” ) wherein the composed image is generated by subtracting the second image data and the third image data from the first image data (Paragraph [0114] “The computer subsystem is also not limited in using the outputs from only the first and second detectors for determining the information but may use the outputs for any of the detectors that are included in the system for determining the information. The computer subsystem may select different sets of outputs for determining different information” Paragraph [0116] “In one such example, a comparison or algebraic operation (e.g., addition, subtraction, averaging, etc.) of two images from two detectors may enhance the contrast of defects in the resulting image.” Examiner notes that a person of ordinary skill in the art would find subtracting a second and third image data from the first image data is an obvious variation that can be done through Jiang’s methodology.)
As per claim 11
Freed teaches all claim limitations previously rejected in claim 1’s 102 rejection. See claim 1’s 102 rejection.
Jiang teaches wherein the composed image is generated from function5(function1(BSE_1), function2(BSE_2), function3(SE), funcation4(EF)), wherein function1, function2, function3, and function4 are image pre-processing functions (Paragraph [0112] The computer subsystem may then apply one or more image processing algorithms or methods to the images to determine one or more characteristics “) and function5 is a mathematical function that combines the image data processed by the image pre-processing functions. (Paragraph [0116] one such example, a comparison or algebraic operation (e.g., addition, subtraction, averaging, etc.) of two images from two detectors may enhance the contrast of defects in the resulting image. Therefore, two images may be used to generate new, third image that has better contrast for the defects, and the computer subsystem may use the third image to detect the defects or determine information for the defects such as one or more defect characteristics.)
As per claim 12
Freed, Iida and Jiang teach all claim limitations previously rejected in claim 11’s 103 rejection. See claim 11’s 103 rejection.
Freed teaches wherein the image pre-processing functions are any combination of denoising functions or grey-level adjustments. (Paragraph [0030] “ FIG. 4 depicts grayscale-based image processing for images obtained with different landing energies. View 400A shows a first image 402 obtained with a first landing energy. View 400B shows a second image 404 obtained with a second landing energy. The first image 402 and the second image 404 were processed with a grayscale-based process to enhance the grayscale gradients in each image.”)
As per claim 13
Freed, Iida and Jiang teach all claim limitations previously rejected in claim 11’s 103 rejection. See claim 11’s 103 rejection
Jiang teaches wherein the mathematical function is a linear or non-linear function, including an addition, a subtraction, multiplication, division, Fourier analysis, or a logarithmic operation. (Paragraph [0112] “The computer subsystem may then apply one or more image processing algorithms or methods to the images to determine…overlay information such as displacement of one pattern on one layer of the specimen with respect to another pattern on another layer of the specimen.” Displacement of overlay information in SEM can be linear or nonlinear. Measurement of overlay shift utilizes a combination of addition or subtraction to show translation of position in a grid. )
As per claim 19
Freed teaches all claim limitations previously rejected in claim 14’s 102 rejection. See claim 14’s 102 rejection.
Claim 19 is the parallel non transitory computer readable claim of claim 9 and will be rejected under the same premise.
As per claim 20
Freed teaches all claim limitations previously rejected in claim 14’s 102 rejection. See claim 14’s 102 rejection.
Claim 20 is the parallel non transitory computer readable medium claim of claim 10 ad will be rejected under the same premise.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHANE WRENSFORD CODRINGTON whose telephone number is (571)272-8130. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00am-5pm.
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, Matthew Bella can be reached at (571) 272-7778. 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.
/SHANE WRENSFORD CODRINGTON/Examiner, Art Unit 2667
/MATTHEW C BELLA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2667
Prosecution Insights