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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after allowance or after an Office action under Ex Parte Quayle, 25 USPQ 74, 453 O.G. 213 (Comm'r Pat. 1935). Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on February 9, 2026 has been entered.
Allowable Subject Matter
The allowability of claims 15, 17, 19, 20 is withdrawn in view of the new rejections and interpretation of the claims below. Rejections follow.
Claims 1, 3-10, 12, 14 have been amended by applicant and new rejections with new reasoning has been provided.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 5-7, 12, 14 are 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. Specifically where in the disclosure is shown the first and second magnetic confinement assemblies between the first and second target spacing adapters and the pedestal.
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 5-7, 12, 14 are 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 5-7, 12, 14 are indefinite because from the independent claims it appears the adapters comprise the magnetic confinement assemblies and they are not between the adapters and the pedestal.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 5, 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ye et al. (U.S. PGPUB. 2007/0095650 A1) in view of Kouznetsov (U.S. PGPUB. 2004/0020760 A1).
INDEPENDENT CLAIM 1:
Regarding claim 1, Ye et al. teach a physical vapor deposition (PVD) chamber, comprising: a pedestal disposed within a processing region of the PVD chamber, the pedestal having an upper surface that is configured to support a workpiece thereon; and a lid assembly comprising a first target spacing adapter, and second target adapter, wherein: the first target spacing adapter is positioned above the pedestal, the second target spacing adapter is positioned above the pedestal. (Figs. 1, 2, 4A, 4B; Paragraphs 0035-0046; Paragraphs 0048-0050)
The difference between Ye et al. and claim 1 is that the first target spacing adapter comprising one or more first cooling channels and a first magnetic confinement assembly and the second target spacing adapter comprising one or more second cooling channels and a second magnetic confinement assembly is not discussed.
Kouznetsov teaches an “adapter” as an anode 3 that has a cooling channel and magnets. (See Fig. 1; Paragraphs 0023, 0024, 0026)
It would be obvious to incorporate the cooling and magnetic means of Kouznetsov in the adapters of Ye et al. because it allows for guiding ions and preventing heating via cooling.
DEPENDENT CLAIM 3:
Regarding claim 3, Ye et al. teach the first target spacing adapter tilted at a first angle in relation to the plane of the upper surface of the pedestal, and the second target spacing adapter tilted at a second angle in relation to the plane of the upper surface of the pedestal, the second angle different from the first angle. (See Figs. 4A, 4B)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 4:
Regarding claim 4, Ye et al. teach the first target spacing adapter is tilted at a first angle in relation to the plane of the upper surface of the pedestal, and the second target spacing adapter is tilted at a second angle in relation to the plane of the upper surface of the pedestal, the second angle opposing the first angle. (See Figs. 4A, 4B)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 5:
Regarding claim 5, Ye et al in combination with Kouznetsov teaches the first magnetic confinement assembly is disposed between the first target spacing adapter and the pedestal (Assuming this is intended to be between the target and the pedestal See 112 1st and 2nd paragraphs above) and configured about a first center axis of the target spacing adapter, the first center axis passing through the first target spacing adapter and the upper surface of the pedestal, and the second magnetic confinement assembly disposed between the second target spacing adapter and the pedestal (Assuming this is intended to be between the target and the pedestal See 112 1st and 2nd paragraphs above) and configured about a second center axis of the second target spacing adapter, the second center axis passing through the second target spacing adapter and the upper surface of the pedestal.
DEPENDENT CLAIM 8:
Regarding claim 8, Ye et al. teach wherein the first target spacing adapter and the second target spacing adapter are directed to different areas of the upper surface of the pedestal. (See Figs. 4A, 4B)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Kouznetsov is that it allows for guiding ions (Abstract) and preventing heating (Paragraph 0023).
Therefore, it would be obvious to incorporate the cooling and magnetic means of Kouznetsov in the adapters of Ye et al. because it allows for guiding ions and preventing heating via cooling.
Claim(s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ye et al. in view of Kouznetsov as applied to claims 1, 3, 4, 5, 8 above, and further in view of Gung et al. (U.S. PGPUB. 2005/0263390 A1).
DEPENDENT CLAIM 6:
The difference not yet discussed is further comprising a system controller configured to control a first field generated by the first magnetic confinement assembly according to a first sputtering profile and a second field generated by the second magnetic confinement assembly according to a second sputtering profile.
Regarding wherein the system controller is further configured to control a first field generated by the first magnetic confinement assembly according to a first sputtering profile and a second field generated by the second magnetic confinement assembly according to a second sputtering profile (Claim 6), Gung et al. teach a system controller to control magnetic fields controller 89 generated by a magnetic confinement assembly. (See Paragraph 0043 - [0043] A contains a memory 89, such as a disk, which is loaded with a process recipe for achieving a controller 89 accordingly desired structure in the 32 wafer. The S the control
elements, for example, the vacuum system 16, the process gas mass process flow controllers 20, 24, the wafer bias supply 34, the target power supply 42, the RF and DC coil supplies 48, 49, the magnetron motor 60 to control its rotation rate and hence the position of the magnetron, and the four electromagnet current supplies 82, 84, 86, 88.)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Gung et al. is that it allows for controlling the different modes. (See Abstract)
Therefore it would be obvious to modify the combinations of references with a controller for magnetic field control of the first and second magnetic confinements because it allows for different modes of operation.
Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ye et al. in view of Kouznetsov as applied to claims 1, 3, 4, 5, 8 above, and further in view of Scheible et al. (U.S. PGPUB. 2007/0102286 A1).
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the first one or more channels are fluidly coupled with a first heat exchanger to control a first temperature profile of the first magnetic confinement assembly, and the second one or more channels are fluidly coupled with the first heat exchanger or a second heat exchanger to control a second temperature profile of the second magnetic confinement assembly.
Scheible et al. teach utilizing a heat exchanger to control a temperature of an adapter. (Paragraphs 0042-0047)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Scheible et al. is that it allows for cooling the shield. (Paragraphs 0042-0047)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the combination of references having
the adapters having the magnets by utilizing a heat exchanger as taught by Scheible et al.
because it allows for cooling the shield.
Claim(s) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ye et al. in view of Kouznetsov as applied to claims 1, 3, 4, 5, 8 above, and further in view of Mullapudi et al. (U.S. PGPUB. 2017/0114448 A1).
DEPENDENT CLAIM 9:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the upper surface of the pedestal is configured to receive a square or rectangular workpiece having sides that have a length of about 500 mm or greater.
Regarding claim 9, Mullapudi et al. teach wherein the upper surface of the pedestal is configured to receive a square or rectangular workpiece having sides that have a length of about 500 mm or greater. (Paragraph 0065 - [0065] Although the panel 100 in FIG. 9 is shown having a diagonal dimension approximately equal to the diameter of the pallet 18, the panel 100 can be any size. If the workpiece is small, such as a silicon wafer, the wafers may be positioned around the periphery of the pallet 18 so XY shifting of the pallet 18 is not needed to position the wafers directly under each target.)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Mullapudi et al. is that it involves depositing on large panels. (Paragraph 0004)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have utilized the features of Mullapudi et al. because it allows for depositing on large panels.
Claim(s) 10, 12, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ye et al. (U.S. PGPUB. 2007/0095650 A1) in view of Kouznetsov (U.S. PGPUB. 2004/0020760 A1) and Gung et al. (U.S. PGPUB. 2005/0263390 A1).
INDEPENDENT CLAIM 10:
Regarding claim 10, Ye et al. teach a physical vapor deposition (PVD) chamber, comprising: a pedestal disposed within a processing region of the PVD chamber, the pedestal having an upper surface that is configured to support a workpiece thereon; and a lid assembly comprising a first target spacing adapter, and second target adapter, wherein: the first target spacing adapter is positioned above the pedestal, the second target spacing adapter is positioned above the pedestal. (Figs. 1, 2, 4A, 4B; Paragraphs 0035-0046; Paragraphs 0048-0050)
The difference between Ye et al. and claim 1 is that the first target spacing adapter comprising one or more first cooling channels and a first magnetic confinement assembly and the second target spacing adapter comprising one or more second cooling channels and a second magnetic confinement assembly is not discussed and a computer readable medium storing instructions that when executed by a processor of a system that includes the PVD chamber, cause the system to control a first field generated by the first magnetic confinement assembly according to a first sputtering profile and a second field generated by the second magnetic confinement assembly according to a second sputtering profile is not discussed.
Regarding the first target spacing adapter comprising one or more first cooling channels and a first magnetic confinement assembly and the second target spacing adapter comprising one or more second cooling channels and a second magnetic confinement assembly (Claim 10), Kouznetsov teaches an “adapter” as an anode 3 that has a cooling channel and magnets. (See Fig. 1; Paragraphs 0023, 0024, 0026)
It would be obvious to incorporate the cooling and magnetic means of Kouznetsov in the adapters of Ye et al. because it allows for guiding ions and preventing heating via cooling.
Regarding a computer readable medium storing instructions that when executed by a processor of a system that includes the PVD chamber, cause the system to control a first field generated by the first magnetic confinement assembly according to a first sputtering profile and a second field generated by the second magnetic confinement assembly according to a second sputtering profile (Claim 10), Gung et al. teach a system controller to control magnetic fields controller 89 generated by a magnetic confinement assembly. (See Paragraph 0043 - [0043] A contains a memory 89, such as a disk, which is loaded with a process recipe for achieving a controller 89 accordingly desired structure in the 32 wafer. The S the control elements, for example, the vacuum system 16, the process gas mass process flow controllers 20, 24, the wafer bias supply 34, the target power supply 42, the RF and DC coil supplies 48, 49, the magnetron motor 60 to control its rotation rate and hence the position of the magnetron, and the four electromagnet current supplies 82, 84, 86, 88.)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Gung et al. is that it allows for controlling the different modes. (See Abstract)
Therefore it would be obvious to modify the combinations of references with a controller with disk for magnetic field control of the first and second magnetic confinements because it allows for different modes of operation.
DEPENDENT CLAIM 12:
Regarding claim 12, Ye et al in combination with Kouznetsov teaches the first magnetic confinement assembly is disposed between the first target spacing adapter and the pedestal (Assuming this is intended to be between the target and the pedestal See 112 1st and 2nd paragraphs above) and configured about a first center axis of the target spacing adapter, the first center axis passing through the first target spacing adapter and the upper surface of the pedestal, and the second magnetic confinement assembly disposed between the second target spacing adapter and the pedestal (Assuming this is intended to be between the target and the pedestal See 112 1st and 2nd paragraphs above) and configured about a second center axis of the second target spacing adapter, the second center axis passing through the second target spacing adapter and the upper surface of the pedestal.
DEPENDENT CLAIM 14:
The difference not yet discussed is a first magnetron disposed over a portion of the first target, and in a region of the lid assembly that is maintained at atmospheric pressure and a second magnetron disposed over a portion of the second target, and in the region of the lid assembly that is maintained at atmospheric pressure.
Regarding claim 14, Ye et al. teach a first magnetron disposed over a portion of the first target, and in a region of the lid assembly that is maintained at atmospheric pressure and a second magnetron disposed over a portion of the second target, and in the region of the lid assembly that is maintained at atmospheric pressure. (Fig. 1, 2, 4B)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified Ye et al. by utilizing the features of Kouznetsov and Gung et al. because it allows for guiding ions and preventing heating via cooling and for different modes of operation.
Claim(s) 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ye et al. (U.S. PGPUB. 2007/0095650 A1) in view of Kouznetsov (U.S. PGPUB. 2004/0020760 A1) and Toshima et al. (U.S. PGPUB. 2020/0071815 Al).
INDEPENDENT CLAIM 15:
Regarding claim 15, Ye et al. teach a method for performing physical vapor deposition (PVD), comprising disposing a workpiece on an upper surface of a pedestal that is configured to support the workpiece thereon, the pedestal disposed within a processing region of a PVD chamber; sputtering material from a first target onto the workpiece in a first zone of the processing region and material from a second target onto the workpiece in a second zone of the processing region, wherein a first target spacing adapter provides a center of a first surface of the first target a first distance from a plane of the upper surface, and wherein a second target spacing adapter provides a center of a second surface of the second target a second distance from a plane of the upper surface, wherein: the first target spacing adapter is positioned between the first target and the pedestal, and the second target spacing adapter is positioned between the second target and the pedestal. (Figs. 1, 2, 4B; Paragraphs 0035-0046; Paragraphs 0048-0050 – IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THE DISTANCES IN THE CLAIMS AS WRITTEN CAN BE EQUAL NOT NECESSARILY DIFFERENT)
The difference between Ye et al. and claim 15 is that the first target spacing adapter comprising a first one or more cooling channels and a first magnetic confinement assembly and the second target spacing adapter comprising a second one or more cooling channels and a second magnetic confinement assembly is not discussed and controlling a first voltage bias for the first target during sputtering the material from the first target and a second voltage bias for the second target during sputtering the material from the second target is not discussed.
Regarding the first target spacing adapter comprising a first one or more cooling channels and a first magnetic confinement assembly and the second target spacing adapter comprising a second one or more cooling channels and a second magnetic confinement assembly (Claim 15), Kouznetsov teaches an “adapter” as an anode 3 that has a cooling channel and magnets. (See Fig. 1; Paragraphs 0023, 0024, 0026)
It would be obvious to incorporate the cooling and magnetic means of Kouznetsov in the adapters of Ye et al. because it allows for guiding ions and preventing heating via cooling.
Regarding controlling a first voltage bias for the first target during sputtering the material from the first target and a second voltage bias for the second target during sputtering the material from the second target (Claim 15), Toshima et al. teach a computer readable medium storing instructions that when executed by a processor of a system that includes the PVD chamber, cause the system to control a first bias voltage for a first target and a second bias for a second target. (Paragraph 0041, 0042 - [0041] The film-forming device 10 may include controller 32. The controller 32 controls each part of the film-forming device 10. A controller 32 is, for example, a computer device and has a processor such as a CPU, and a storage device such as a memory. Programs executed by the processor for controlling each part of the film-forming device 10 and recipe data are stored in the storage device of the controller 32. [0042] In one embodiment, the controller 32 controls the application of the voltage from one or more power supplies 30 to the first target 26 and the second target 28. The controller 32 controls the one or more power supplies 30 to eject the respective target materials from the first target 26 and the second target 28 simultaneously. For example, the controller 32 controls the one or more power supplies 30 such that voltage is applied to the first target 26 and the second target 28 simultaneously.)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Kouznetsov is that it allows for guiding ions (Abstract) and preventing heating (Paragraph 0023).
The motivation for utilizing the features of Toshima et al. is that it allows for controlling
the process. (Paragraph 0042, 0043)
Therefore, it would be obvious to incorporate the cooling and magnetic means of Kouznetsov in the adapters of Ye et al. because it allows for guiding ions and preventing heating via cooling.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified
the combination of references with the controller to control voltage to first and second targets as
taught by Toshima et al. because it allows for controlling the voltage to the targets.
Claim(s) 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ye et al. in view of Kouznetsov and Toshima et al. as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Mullapudi et al. (U.S. 2017 /0114448 Al).
DEPENDENT CLAIM 17:
The difference not yet discussed is simultaneously controlling a first magnetron according to a first scanning pattern for the first target during sputtering the material from the first target and a second magnetron according to a second scanning pattern for the second target during sputtering the material from the second target.
Regarding claim 17, Mullapudi et al. teach simultaneously controlling a first magnetron
according to a first scanning pattern for the first target during sputtering the material from the
first target and a second magnetron according to a second scanning pattern for the second target
during sputtering the material from the second target. (Paragraph 0057 - [0057] The scanning
controller 88 oscillates all the magnets 72 back and forth in unison over their associated targets at an oscillating period of between 0.5-10 seconds. The magnets 72 are oscillated so that the
magnetic fields are not always at the same position relative to the target. By distributing the
magnetic fields evenly over the target, target erosion is uniform.)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Mullapudi et al. is that it allows for uniform
erosion. (Paragraph 0057)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the
invention was made to have utilized the features of Mullapudi et al. because it allows for uniform
erosion.
Claim(s) 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ye et al. in view of Kouznetsov and Toshima et al. as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Gung et al. (U.S. PG PUB. 2005/0263390 Al).
The difference not yet discussed is further controlling a first field generated by the first
magnetic confinement assembly configured about the first zone of processing region according
to a first sputtering profile is not discussed and controlling a second field generated by the
second magnetic confinement assembly configured about the second zone of processing region
according to a second sputtering profile is not discussed.
Regarding controlling a first field generated by the first magnetic confinement assembly
configured about the first zone of processing region according to a first sputtering profile and
controlling a second field generated by the second magnetic confinement assembly configured
about the second zone of processing region according to a second sputtering profile (Claim 19), Gung et al. teach a system controller to control magnetic fields generated by a magnetic
confinement assembly. (See Paragraph 0043 - [0043] A controller 89 contains a memory 89,
such as a disk, which is loaded with a process recipe for achieving a desired structure in the 32 wafer. The controller 89 accordingly controls the process control elements, for example, the
vacuum system 16, the process gas mass flow controllers 20, 24, the wafer bias supply 34, the
target power supply 42, the RF and DC coil supplies 48, 49, the magnetron motor 60 to control
its rotation rate and hence the position of the magnetron, and the four electromagnet current
supplies 82, 84, 86, 88.)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Gung et al. is that it allows for controlling the
different modes. (See Abstract)
Therefore it would be obvious to modify the combinations of references having the first
and second magnetic confinements with a controller for magnetic field control as taught by Gung
et al. because it allows for different modes of operation.
Claim(s) 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ye et al. in view of Kouznetsov and Toshima et al. and further in view of Gung et al. as applied to claims 15, 19 above, and further in view of Scheible et al. (U.S. PGPUB. 2007 /0102286 Al).
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the first one or more channels are fluidly
coupled with a first heat exchanger to control a first temperature profile of the first magnetic
confinement assembly, and the second one or more channels are fluidly coupled with the first
heat exchanger or a second heat exchanger to control a second temperature profile of the second
magnetic confinement assembly.
Scheible et al. teach utilizing a heat exchanger to control a temperature of an adapter.
(Paragraphs 0042-0047)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Scheible et al. is that it allows for cooling the
shield. (Paragraphs 0042-0047)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the combination of references having
the first and second adapters having first and second magnetic confinements with the heat
exchanger of Scheible et al. because it allows for cooling the shield.
Conclusion
Applicant's response filed February 9, 2026 has been fully considered.
Claims 1, 3-10, 12, 14 have been amended by applicant and new rejections with new reasoning has been provided above.
The allowability of claims 15, 17, 19, 20 is withdrawn in view of the new rejections and interpretation of the claims. Specifically it is noted that that distances in the claims as written can be equal not necessarily different like in Applicant’s Figures 2A, 3 which facilitate aspect hole filling.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RODNEY GLENN MCDONALD whose telephone number is (571)272-1340. The examiner can normally be reached Hoteling: M-Th every Fri off.
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, James Lin can be reached at 571-272-8902. 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.
/RODNEY G MCDONALD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794
RM
February 20, 2026