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 § 103
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 1, 3, 5-6, 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kollodge (US 20040137831 A1) in view of Lee (US20020146973A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kollodge (US 20040137831 A1) discloses an apparatus (¶[0025]: a platen of a machine for semiconductor wafer modification) comprising: a top pad (backing 429 in FIG. 4F) comprising a first plurality of protrusions and a first plurality of grooves between the first plurality of protrusions; (fixed abrasives 428 protruding from backing 429 and a plurality of grooves between abrasives 428 identified in Ref. Pic. 1 below)
a first adhesive film underlying the top pad; (adhesive layer 430 underlying backing 429; see also ¶[0031])
an anti-deformation underlying and attached to the top pad through the first adhesive film, (rigid element 431 underlying and attached to backing 429 through adhesive layer 430) wherein the anti-deformation layer has a first hardness; (see ¶[0024]: rigid element 431 has a Shore A hardness)
a second adhesive film underlying the anti-deformation layer; (second adhesive layer 432 underlying rigid element 431)
and a main support layer underlying and attached to the top pad through the second adhesive film (resilient element 433 underlying and attached to backing 429 through adhesive layer 432).
PNG
media_image1.png
547
782
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Ref. Pic. 1: Annotated Kollodge FIG. 4F
Kollodge describes the main support layer (lower layer 433) as “resilient” and the anti-deformation layer (upper layer 431) as “rigid,” but does not explicitly disclose that the main support layer has a second hardness lower than the first hardness.
However, Lee (US20020146973A1) in the same or similar field of endeavor related to multi-layered pads, teaches a polishing pad wherein a lower main support layer has a second hardness lower than a first hardness of an upper anti-deformation layer (FIG. 3 and ¶[0020]-[0021]: the lower soft polishing pad 10 has a hardness of less than about 30 Shore D, which is lower than about 50 to 60 Shore D, which is the hardness of upper hard polishing pad 6).
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 apparatus of Kollodge so that the main support layer has a second hardness lower than the first hardness of the anti-deformation layer, as taught by Lee. One would have been motivated to make such a modification to provide both the advantages of soft polishing pads and hard polishing pads, while “[providing] uniform planarity, extended pad life, and good slurry delivery” (Lee ¶[0003]-[0006]).
Regarding claim 3, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated in this rejection. Kollodge, as modified, further teaches a third adhesive film underlying the main support layer; (FIG. 4F: adhesive layer 434 underlying resilient element 433)
and a stabilizing layer underlying and attached to the main support layer through the third adhesive film (rigid element 435 underlying and attached to resilient layer 433 through adhesive layer 434).
Regarding claim 5, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated in this rejection. Kollodge, as modified, further teaches that the anti-deformation layer is an un-grooved layer (FIG. 4F: rigid element 431 is an un-grooved layer).
Regarding claim 6, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated in this rejection. Kollodge, as modified, further teaches that the main support layer is an un-grooved layer (FIG. 4F: resilient element 433 is an un-grooved layer).
Regarding claim 12, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated in this rejection. Kollodge, as modified, further teaches a unit underlying and attached to the main support layer, wherein the unit comprises an adhesive film and an additional main support layer (a unit of adhesive layer 434 and rigid element 435 underlying and attached to resilient element 433), but does not teach a plurality of units underlying and attached to the anti-deformation layer, wherein each of the plurality of units comprises an adhesive film and an additional anti-deformation layer.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kollodge, as modified, to further comprise a plurality of units underlying and attached to the anti-deformation layer, wherein each of the plurality of units comprises an adhesive film and an additional anti-deformation layer, with reasonable expectation of success. Such a modification is viewed as mere duplication of essential working parts of a device, which has been held to be of routine by one of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.04). Further, when looking to the specification, namely ¶[0045]-[0052] and [0067]-[0069] of the instant application, there is no discussion of criticality or unexpected results concerning the plurality of units, each comprising an adhesive film and an additional anti-deformation layer.
Regarding claim 13, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated in this rejection. Kollodge, as modified, further teaches a unit underlying and attached to the main support layer, wherein the unit comprises an adhesive film and an additional main support layer (a unit of adhesive layer 434 and rigid element 435 underlying and attached to resilient element 433), but does not teach a plurality of units underlying and attached to the main support layer, wherein each of the plurality of units comprises an adhesive film and an additional main support layer.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kollodge, as modified, to further comprise a plurality of units underlying and attached to the main support layer, wherein each of the plurality of units comprises an adhesive film and an additional main support layer, with reasonable expectation of success. Such a modification is viewed as mere duplication of essential working parts of a device, which has been held to be of routine by one of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.04). Further, when looking to the specification, namely ¶[0045]-[0052] and [0067]-[0069] of the instant application, there is no discussion of criticality or unexpected results concerning the plurality of units, each comprising an adhesive film and an additional main support layer.
Regarding claim 14, Kollodge (US 20040137831 A1) discloses an apparatus (¶[0025]: a platen of a machine for semiconductor wafer modification) comprising: a top pad (backing 429 in FIG. 4F) comprising a first plurality of protrusions and a first plurality of grooves between the first plurality of protrusions; (fixed abrasives 428 protruding from backing 429 and a plurality of grooves between abrasives 428 identified in Ref. Pic. 1 in the discussion of claim 1 above)
an anti-deformation layer underlying the top pad, (rigid element 431 underlying backing 429)
and a main support layer underlying the anti-deformation layer (resilient element 433 underlying rigid element 431).
Kollodge describes the main support layer (lower layer 433) as “resilient” and the anti-deformation layer (upper layer 431) as “rigid,” but does not explicitly disclose that the anti-deformation layer has a first compressibility value, wherein the main support layer has a second compressibility value greater than the first compressibility value.
However, Lee (US20020146973A1) in the same or similar field of endeavor related to multi-layered pads, teaches a polishing pad wherein a lower main support layer is softer and therefore more compressible than an upper anti-deformation layer (FIG. 3 and ¶[0020]-[0021]: the lower soft polishing pad 10 has a hardness of less than about 30 Shore D, which is lower than about 50 to 60 Shore D, which is the hardness of upper hard polishing pad 6).
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 apparatus of Kollodge so that the anti-deformation layer has a first compressibility value, wherein the main support layer has a second compressibility value greater than the first compressibility value, as taught by Lee. One would have been motivated to make such a modification to provide both the advantages of soft polishing pads and hard polishing pads, while “[providing] uniform planarity, extended pad life, and good slurry delivery” (Lee ¶[0003]-[0006]).
Regarding claim 15, the rejection of claim 14 is incorporated in this rejection. Kollodge, as modified, teaches that the anti-deformation layer comprises a polymer, (Kollodge ¶[0060]: rigid element 431 is polycarbonate) and has a greater hardness than the main support layer (as modified by Lee in the rejection of claim 14 above, the upper rigid element 431 has a greater hardness than lower resilient element 433).
Claims 2 and 4 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kollodge (US 20040137831 A1) in view of Lee (US20020146973A1), further in view of Mrzyglod (US 20150325451 A1).
Regarding claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated in this rejection. Kollodge, as modified, does not explicitly teach that the first hardness is greater than the second hardness by a shore A difference greater than about 30.
However, Mrzyglod (US20150325451A1) in the same or similar field of endeavor related to multi-layer polishing pads, teaches a polishing pad wherein a first hardness of an upper layer is greater than a second hardness of a lower layer by a shore A difference greater than about 30 (see ¶[0025]-[0026]: a middle layer may have a Shore A hardness of 90 and a bottom layer may have a Shore A hardness of 35, the different in hardness totaling 55 Shore A).
Mrzyglod further teaches that the advantage of multi-layer polishing pads is that each of the layer can be made of different materials with varying chemical and physical properties, including hardness (see Mrzyglod ¶[0017]). It would then have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to simply substitute the pad layers of Kollodge, as modified, for the pad layers of Mrzyglod. It is known in the art to have different levels of pressure applied to abrade work surfaces of different materials. In the unlimited CMP polishing scenarios, each scenario is unique and might yield a different desired elasticity and a different grinding medium. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would arrive at the predictable result of different hardnesses and different grinding mediums leading to polishing the substrate at different rates.
Regarding claim 4, the rejection of claim 3 is incorporated in this rejection. Kollodge, as modified, does not teach that the stabilizing layer has a third hardness greater than the second hardness of the anti-deformation layer.
However, Mrzyglod teaches a polishing with multiple layers wherein a lower layer has a hardness greater than the hardness of an upper layer (¶[0026]: the bottom layer is harder…than the top layer”).
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 apparatus of Kollodge, as modified, such that the stabilizing layer has a third hardness greater than the second hardness of the anti-deformation layer, as taught by Mrzyglod. One would have been motivated to make such a modification to provide yet additional physical or chemical advantages of a harder layer such as providing greater local planarity and greater stability.
Claims 7, 9, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kollodge (US 20040137831 A1) in view of Lee (US20020146973A1), further in view of Eppert (US 20020002027 A1).
Regarding claim 7, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated in this rejection. Kollodge, as modified, does not teach that the main support layer comprises a second plurality of protrusions and a second plurality of grooves between the second plurality of protrusions.
However, Eppert (US 20020002027 A1), in the same or similar field of endeavor related to multi-layer polishing pads, teaches a polishing pad wherein a main support layer comprises a plurality of protrusions and a plurality of grooves between the plurality of protrusions (Ref. Pic. 2 below and ¶[0011]: semi rigid base material 3 comprises a plurality of protrusion and a plurality of grooves between the plurality of protrusions).
PNG
media_image2.png
384
741
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Ref. Pic. 2: Annotated Eppert FIG. 1
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify main support layer of Kollodge, as modified, to comprise a second plurality of protrusions and a second plurality of grooves between the second plurality of protrusions, as taught by Eppert. One would have been motivated to make such a modification to “[eliminate] the problem of air bubbles or pockets that form between the polishing pad and the polishing platen by allowing any entrapped air to escape via the grooves” (Eppert ¶[0010]).
Regarding claim 9, the rejection of claim 7 is incorporated in this rejection. Kollodge, as modified, does not teach that the second adhesive film is a blanket film continuously extending over the second plurality of grooves and the second plurality of protrusions.
However, Eppert further teaches that the adhesive film above the main support layer is a blanket film continuously extending over the second plurality of grooves and the second plurality of protrusions (see ¶[0010]-[0011] and FIG. 1: a pressure sensitive adhesive layer is positioned between cushioning layer 2 and grooved semi-rigid base material 3).
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 second adhesive film of Kollodge, as modified, to be a blanket film continuously extending over the second plurality of grooves and the second plurality of protrusions, as taught by Eppert. One would have been motivated to make such a modification to “[keep] the various layers of pad, cushioning material, and semi rigid base material from moving about during polishing when the resulting pad assembly rotates at relatively high rpm” (Eppert ¶[0010]).
Regarding claim 16, the rejection of claim 14 is incorporated in this rejection. Kollodge, as modified, does not teach that the main support layer comprises a second plurality of protrusions and a second plurality of grooves between the second plurality of protrusions.
However, Eppert (US 20020002027 A1), in the same or similar field of endeavor related to multi-layer polishing pads, teaches a polishing pad wherein a main support layer comprises a plurality of protrusions and a plurality of grooves between the plurality of protrusions (Ref. Pic. 2 above in the discussion of claim 7 and ¶[0011]: semi rigid base material 3 comprises a plurality of protrusion and a plurality of grooves between the plurality of protrusions).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify main support layer of Kollodge, as modified, to comprise a second plurality of protrusions and a second plurality of grooves between the second plurality of protrusions, as taught by Eppert. One would have been motivated to make such a modification to “[eliminate] the problem of air bubbles or pockets that form between the polishing pad and the polishing platen by allowing any entrapped air to escape via the grooves” (Eppert ¶[0010]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kollodge (US 20040137831 A1) in view of Lee (US20020146973A1) and Eppert (US 20020002027 A1), further in view of Yang (CN116061085A).
Regarding claim 8, the rejection of claim 7 is incorporated in this rejection. Kollodge, as modified, does not teach that the first plurality of grooves have a first pitch, and the second plurality of grooves have a second pitch smaller than the first pitch.
However, Yang (CN116061085A) in the same or similar field of endeavor related to polishing pads, teaches a polishing pad with a first plurality of grooves with a first pitch (see Ref. Pic. 3 below: grooves 12 have a pitch of P1) and a second plurality of grooves with a second pitch smaller than the first pitch (vent holes 11 have a pitch P2 that is smaller than P1).
PNG
media_image3.png
486
449
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Ref. Pic. 3: Annotated Yang FIG. 4
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 grooves of Kollodge, as modified, so that that the first plurality of grooves have a first pitch, and the second plurality of grooves have a second pitch smaller than the first pitch, as taught by Yang. One would have been motivated to make such a motivation to provide greater spacings to promote the collection of entrapped air across the polishing pad without compromising the structural integrity of the pad layers.
Additionally, such a modification would be viewed as a change in size, which has been held to be of routine in the art (MPEP 2144.04). Further, when looking to the specification, namely ¶[0058] and [0090] of the instant application, there is no discussion of criticality or unexpected results concerning the pitches of the first and second pluralities of grooves.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kollodge (US 20040137831 A1) in view of Lee (US20020146973A1) and Eppert (US 20020002027 A1), further in view of Norimoto (US 20180043498 A1).
Regarding claim 10, the rejection of claim 7 is incorporated in this rejection. Kollodge, as modified, does not teach that the second adhesive film comprises a plurality of discrete portions overlapping and contacting the second plurality of protrusions.
However, Norimoto (US 20180043498 A1), in the same or similar field of endeavor related to multi-layered polishing pads, teaches a polishing pad with a layer of an adhesive film comprising a plurality of discrete portions overlapping and contacting the plurality of protrusions (FIG. 3B and ¶[0070]: discontinuous adhesive layer 60 only overlapping and contacting ribs 30, not sealing the cavities 20).
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 second adhesive film of Kollodge, as modified, to comprise a plurality of discrete portions overlapping and contacting the second plurality of protrusions, as taught by Norimoto. One would have been motivated to make such a modification to preserve the structure of the grooves to allow elimination of air pockets between the layers.
Regarding claim 11, the rejection of claim 7 is incorporated in this rejection. Kollodge, as modified, does not teach a bottom surface of the anti-deformation layer is exposed to the second plurality of grooves.
However, Norimoto teaches a surface of a layer exposed to a plurality of grooves despite an adhesive film positioned in between said layer and the plurality of grooves (FIG. 3B and ¶[0070]: surface 60b is exposed to cavities 20 due to discontinuous adhesive layer 60 in between only contacting ribs 30).
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 anti-deformation layer of Kollodge, as modified, so a bottom surface of the anti-deformation layer is exposed to the second plurality of grooves, as taught by Norimoto. One would have been motivated to make such a modification to preserve the structure of the grooves to allow the escape of trapped air between the layers.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kollodge (US 20040137831 A1) in view of Lee (US20020146973A1) and Eppert (US 20020002027 A1), further in view of Osterheld (US6273806B1).
Regarding claim 17, the rejection of claim 16 is incorporated in this rejection. Kollodge, as modified, does not teach that the second plurality of protrusions and the second plurality of grooves have concentric ring patterns.
However, Osterheld (US6273806B1) in the same or similar field of endeavor related to apparatuses with polishing pads with grooves and protrusions teaches a layer on a polishing pad with a plurality of protrusions and a plurality of grooves that have concentric ring patterns (FIG. 3: grooves 104 and circular partitions 106 have concentric ring patterns).
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 second plurality of protrusions and the second plurality of grooves of Kollodge, as modified, to have concentric ring patterns, as taught by Osterheld. Such a modification would be viewed as a change in shape, which has been held to be of routine in the art (MPEP 2144.04). Further, when looking to the specification, namely ¶[0082] and [0093] of the instant application, there is no discussion of criticality or unexpected results concerning the patterns of the second plurality of protrusions and the second plurality of grooves.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kollodge (US 20040137831 A1) in view of Lee (US20020146973A1) and Eppert (US 20020002027 A1), further in view of Kato (US12186855B2).
Regarding claim 18, the rejection of claim 16 is incorporated in this rejection. Kollodge, as modified, does not teach that the second plurality of protrusions are discrete features, and wherein the second plurality of grooves are interconnected to form a continuous groove encircling the plurality of protrusions.
However, Kato (US12186855B2) in the same or similar field of endeavor related to polishing pads with a layer with protrusions and grooves, teaches a layer on a polishing pad in which a plurality of protrusions are discrete features, (FIGS. 1A-1B: plurality of island-like land portions 3 are discrete features) and wherein a plurality of grooves are interconnected to form a continuous groove encircling the plurality of protrusions (recesses 2 are interconnected to form a continuous groove encircling the island-like land portions 2).
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 second plurality of protrusions and the second plurality of grooves of Kollodge, as modified, so that the second plurality of protrusions are discrete features, and wherein the second plurality of grooves are interconnected to form a continuous groove encircling the plurality of protrusions, as taught by Osterheld. Such a modification would be viewed as a change in shape, which has been held to be of routine in the art (MPEP 2144.04). Further, when looking to the specification, namely ¶[0082] and [0093] of the instant application, there is no discussion of criticality or unexpected results concerning the shapes and configurations of the second plurality of protrusions and the second plurality of grooves.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kollodge (US 20040137831 A1) in view of Eppert (US 20020002027 A1).
Regarding claim 19, Kollodge (US 20040137831 A1) discloses an apparatus (¶[0025]: a platen of a machine for semiconductor wafer modification) comprising: a top pad (backing 429 in FIG. 4F) comprising a first plurality of protrusions and a first plurality of grooves between the first plurality of protrusions; (fixed abrasives 428 protruding from backing 429 and a plurality of grooves between abrasives 428 identified in Ref. Pic. 1 in the discussion of claim 1 above)
a first adhesive film underlying the top pad; (adhesive layer 430 underlying backing 429; see also ¶[0031])
and a main support layer underlying and attached to the top pad through the first adhesive film, (rigid element 431 underlying and attached to backing 429 through adhesive layer 430).
Kollodge does not disclose that the main support layer is grooved and that the grooved main support layer comprises a second plurality of protrusions and a second plurality of grooves between the second plurality of protrusions.
However, Eppert (US 20020002027 A1), in the same or similar field of endeavor related to multi-layer polishing pads, teaches a polishing pad wherein a grooved main support layer comprises a plurality of protrusions and a plurality of grooves between the plurality of protrusions (Ref. Pic. 2 above in the discussion of claim 7 and ¶[0011]: semi rigid base material 3 comprises a plurality of protrusion and a plurality of grooves between the plurality of protrusions).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify main support layer of Kollodge to comprise a second plurality of protrusions and a second plurality of grooves between the second plurality of protrusions, as taught by Eppert. One would have been motivated to make such a modification to “[eliminate] the problem of air bubbles or pockets that form between the polishing pad and the polishing platen by allowing any entrapped air to escape via the grooves” (Eppert ¶[0010]).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kollodge (US 20040137831 A1) in view of Eppert (US 20020002027 A1), further in view of Yang (CN116061085A).
Regarding claim 20, the rejection of claim 19 is incorporated in this rejection. Kollodge, as modified, does not teach that the first plurality of grooves have a first pitch, and the second plurality of grooves have a second pitch smaller than the first pitch.
However, Yang (CN116061085A) in the same or similar field of endeavor related to polishing pads, teaches a polishing pad with a first plurality of grooves with a first pitch (see Ref. Pic. 3 below: grooves 12 have a pitch of P1) and a second plurality of grooves with a second pitch smaller than the first pitch (vent holes 11 have a pitch P2 that is smaller than P1).
PNG
media_image3.png
486
449
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Ref. Pic. 3: Annotated Yang FIG. 4
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 grooves of Kollodge, as modified, so that that the first plurality of grooves have a first pitch, and the second plurality of grooves have a second pitch smaller than the first pitch, as taught by Yang. One would have been motivated to make such a motivation to provide greater spacings to promote the collection of entrapped air across the polishing pad without compromising the structural integrity of the pad layers.
Additionally, such a modification would be viewed as a change in size, which has been held to be of routine in the art (MPEP 2144.04). Further, when looking to the specification, namely ¶[0058] and [0090] of the instant application, there is no discussion of criticality or unexpected results concerning the pitches of the first and second pluralities of grooves.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ladjias (US20070072526A1) teaches a polishing pad with multiple layers and pluralities of openings in the layers.
Torii (US5876269A) teaches a polishing pad with an upper layer and a lower layer of differing degrees of hardness.
Moyer (US 20200353586 A1) teaches a polishing pad with pluralities of grooves of different sizes.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CATHERINE JOH whose telephone number is (571)272-0410. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8a-5p.
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, David Posigian can be reached at (313) 446-6546. 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.
/C.J./Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/TOM RODGERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
