DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claims 1-5, 7, 14, 15, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jdira et al. (US Pat. No. 9,153,466 B2) in view of Takagi (US Pat. No. 5,169,453).
In regards to claim 1, Jdira teaches a wafer boat configured to support one or more wafers, the wafer boat comprising: a first pillar (110A) having a first plurality of protrusion elements (e.g.; each comprising 210, 220, 230, 240, Fig. 2), wherein the first pillar is defined by a first inner surface, a first outer surface, a first top surface and a first bottom surface (e.g.; see Figs. 1 and 7), wherein the first plurality of protrusion elements extend from the first inner surface; a second pillar (110A) having a second plurality of protrusion elements, wherein the second pillar is defined by a second inner surface, a second outer surface, a second top surface and a second bottom surface, wherein the second plurality of protrusion elements extend from the second inner surface; a third pillar (110B) having a third plurality of protrusion elements, wherein the third pillar is defined by a third inner surface, a third outer surface, a third top surface and a third bottom surface, wherein the third plurality of protrusion elements extend from the third inner surface (i.e.; the pillars 110A and 110B are identical); a top member (120) having a first top junction, a second top junction and a third top junction, wherein the top member is coupled to the first pillar, the second pillar and the third pillar, such that the first top surface is coupled to the first top junction, the second top surface is coupled to the second top junction and the third top surface is coupled to the third top junction (see junctions in 120 in Fig. 1); and a bottom member (130) having a first bottom junction, a second bottom junction and a third bottom junction, wherein the bottom member is coupled to the first pillar, the second pillar and the third pillar, such that the first bottom surface is coupled to the first bottom junction, the second bottom surface is coupled to the second bottom junction and the third bottom surface is coupled to the third bottom junction (see junctions in 130 in Fig. 1), wherein the top member and the bottom member are parallel to each other, wherein the wafer boat defines a central axis (M, Fig. 7) that extends vertically and is further parallel to the first pillar, the second pillar and the third pillar, and wherein the first, the second, and the third pluralities of protrusion elements extend towards the central axis (see Fig. 7) to define a plurality of wafer slots (150), where each wafer slot is configured to support a wafer (160), wherein each protrusion element, of the first, the second, and the third pluralities of protrusion elements, comprises a top protrusion surface (220 or 240, Fig. 2) extending towards to the central axis at a downward protrusion angle.
Jdira does not teach the top protrusion surface comprises a wafer segment at the downward protrusion angle such that the wafer supported by the protrusion element is limited to contact within the wafer segment.
Takagi teaches protrusions (16) to support wafers (14), each protrusion having a top protrusion surface comprising a wafer segment at the downward protrusion angle such that the wafer supported by the protrusion element is limited to contact within the wafer segment (e.g.; see embodiments of Figs. 4 and 7). In addition, “a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103." KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date and with reasonable expectation of success to modify Jdira’s top protrusion surface to include a wafer segment at the downward protrusion angle such that the wafer supported by the protrusion element is limited to contact within the wafer segment. The motivation would be for the purpose of choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable potential solutions to the recognized need or problem as taught by Takagi (Col 2, Lines 60-63).
In regards to claim 2, in modifying Jdira, Takagi teaches each protrusion element comprises, of the first, the second, and the third pluralities of protrusion elements, comprises a bottom protrusion surface, wherein the bottom protrusion surface is perpendicular to the central axis (i.e.; toward M of Jdira), and wherein the top protrusion surface is coupled to the bottom protrusion surface at the downward protrusion angle to form a sloped protrusion element (e.g.; see embodiment of Fig. 7 of Takagi).
In regards to claim 3, modified Jdira teaches the downward protrusion angle is five degrees (Jdira: Col 3, Lines 51-53).
In regards to claim 4, modified Jdira teaches each protrusion, of the first, the second, and the third pluralities of protrusion elements, further comprises a side protrusion surface (i.e.; the side surface in Fig. 2 of Jdira) such that the bottom protrusion surface is coupled to the side protrusion surface, and wherein the side protrusion surface is coupled to the top protrusion surface. Jdira is silent to the side protrusion surface being 3mm in height. However, the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)). In the instant case, It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date and with reasonable expectation of success to have the side protrusion surface being 3mm in height. The motivation would be for the purpose of ensuring adequate thickness of the protrusions to prevent breakage from the pillars when loaded with a wafer.
In regards to claim 5, modified Jdira is silent to the bottom protrusion surface being 20 millimeters in length. However, the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)). In the instant case, It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date and with reasonable expectation of success to have the bottom protrusion surface being 20mm in length. The motivation would be for the purpose of ensuring adequate length of the protrusions to preventing slippage of wafers when loaded onto the protrusions.
In regards to claim 7, in modifying Jdira, Takagi is silent to the wafer segment being 3.5mm in length. However, the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)). In the instant case, It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date and with reasonable expectation of success to have the wafer segment being 3.5mm in length. The motivation would be for the purpose of providing adequate contact surface of the wafter on the wafer segment when loaded.
In regards to claim 14, Jdira teaches a method of manufacturing a wafer boat, comprising: defining a central axis (M, Fig. 7) that extends vertically; coupling a first pillar (110A) with a top member (120, Fig. 1) and a bottom member (130) by coupling a first top surface of the first pillar with a first top junction of the top member and coupling a first bottom surface of the first pillar with a first bottom junction of the bottom member (see junctions in 120, 130 in Fig. 1) such that a first plurality of protrusion elements (e.g.; each comprising 210, 220, 230, 240, Fig. 2) extend from a first inner surface toward the central axis; coupling a second pillar (110A) with the top member and the bottom member by coupling a second top surface of the second pillar with a second top junction of the top member and coupling a second bottom surface of the second pillar with a second bottom junction of the bottom member such that a second plurality of protrusion elements extend from a second inner surface; and coupling a third pillar (110B) with the top member and the bottom member by coupling a third top surface of the third pillar with a third top junction of the top member and coupling a third bottom surface of the third pillar with a third bottom junction of the bottom member such that a third plurality of protrusion elements extend from a third inner surface (i.e.; the pillars 110A and 110B are identical), wherein the first, the second, and the third pluralities of protrusion elements extend towards the central axis to define a plurality of wafer slots (150, Fig. 2), wherein each wafer slot is configured to support a wafer (160), wherein each protrusion element, of the first, the second, and the third pluralities of protrusion elements, comprises a top protrusion surface (220 or 240, Fig. 2) extending towards the central axis at a downward protrusion angle.
Jdira does not teach the top protrusion surface comprises a wafer segment at the downward protrusion angle such that the wafer supported by the protrusion element is limited to contact within the wafer segment.
Takagi teaches protrusions (16) to support wafers (14), each protrusion having a top protrusion surface comprising a wafer segment at the downward protrusion angle such that the wafer supported by the protrusion element is limited to contact within the wafer segment (e.g.; see embodiments of Figs. 4 and 7). In addition, “a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103." KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date and with reasonable expectation of success to modify Jdira’s top protrusion surface to include a wafer segment at the downward protrusion angle such that the wafer supported by the protrusion element is limited to contact within the wafer segment. The motivation would be for the purpose of choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable potential solutions to the recognized need or problem as taught by Takagi (Col 2, Lines 60-63).
In regards to claim 15, in modifying Jdira, Takagi teaches each protrusion element comprises, of a bottom protrusion surface, wherein the bottom protrusion surface is perpendicular to the central axis (i.e.; toward M of Jdira), and wherein the top protrusion surface is coupled to the bottom protrusion surface at the downward protrusion angle to form a sloped protrusion element (e.g.; see embodiment of Fig. 7 of Takagi).
In regards to claim 19, Jdira teaches a load lock chamber comprises: a wafer boat (100) having a plurality of pillars (110a, 110b), wherein each of the plurality of pillars comprises a plurality of protrusion elements (e.g.; each comprised of 210, 220, 230, 240), wherein each protrusion element comprises a top protrusion surface (e.g.; 220) and a bottom protrusion surface (i.e.; bottom surface opposite to 220 in Fig. 2), wherein the bottom protrusion surface is perpendicular to a central axis (M, Fig. 7), and wherein the top protrusion surface is coupled to the bottom protrusion surface at a downward protrusion angle (e.g.; see 3 degree angle in Fig. 4) to form a sloped protrusion element.
Jdira does not teach the top protrusion surface comprises a wafer segment on the sloped protrusion element such that the wafer supported by the protrusion element is limited to contact within the wafer segment.
Takagi teaches protrusions (16) to support wafers (14), each protrusion having a top protrusion surface comprising a wafer segment on a sloped protrusion element such that the wafer supported by the protrusion element is limited to contact within the wafer segment (e.g.; see embodiments of Figs. 4 and 7). In addition, “a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103." KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date and with reasonable expectation of success to modify Jdira’s top protrusion surface to include a wafer segment on the sloped protrusion element such that the wafer supported by the protrusion element is limited to contact within the wafer segment. The motivation would be for the purpose of choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable potential solutions to the recognized need or problem as taught by Takagi (Col 2, Lines 60-63).
In regards to claim 20, modified Jdira teaches a top member (120) coupled to each of the plurality of pillars (110a/b); and a bottom member (130) coupled to each of the plurality of pillars such that the top member and the bottom member are coupled parallel to each other.
Claims 8-12 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jdira et al. (US Pat. No. 9,153,466 B2) and Takagi (US Pat. No. 5,169,453), and in further view of Robinson et al. (US Pat. No. 4,184,841).
In regards to claim 8, Jdira, modified by Takagi, does not teach the first outer surface comprises a first linear cut mark such that the first linear cut mark is closer to the first top surface than the first bottom surface, wherein the second outer surface comprises a second linear cut mark such that the second linear cut mark is closer to the second top surface in comparison to the second bottom surface, and wherein the third outer surface comprises a third linear cut mark such that the third linear cut mark is closer to the third top surface in comparison the third bottom surface.
Robinson teaches the first outer surface comprises a first linear cut mark (40, Fig. 5b) such that the first linear cut mark is closer to the first top surface than the first bottom surface, wherein the second outer surface comprises a second linear cut mark (40) such that the second linear cut mark is closer to the second top surface in comparison to the second bottom surface, and wherein the third outer surface comprises a third linear cut mark (40) such that the third linear cut mark is closer to the third top surface in comparison the third bottom surface.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date and with reasonable expectation of success to modify Jdira’s wafer boat to such that the first outer surface comprises a first linear cut mark such that the first linear cut mark is closer to the first top surface than the first bottom surface, wherein the second outer surface comprises a second linear cut mark such that the second linear cut mark is closer to the second top surface in comparison to the second bottom surface, and wherein the third outer surface comprises a third linear cut mark such that the third linear cut mark is closer to the third top surface in comparison the third bottom surface. The motivation would be for the purpose of having removable and replaceable components as taught by Robinson (Col 3, Lines 26-30).
In regards to claim 9, Jdira, modified by Takagi, does not teach the top member is defined by a top triangle section and a top rectangle section such that the top triangle section comprises the first top junction and the second top junction and the top rectangle section comprises the third top junction; and wherein the bottom member is defined by a bottom triangle section and a bottom rectangle section such that the bottom triangle section comprises the first bottom junction and the second bottom junction and the bottom rectangle section comprises the third bottom junction.
Robinson teaches a top member (10’a) is defined by a top triangle section and a top rectangle section such that the top triangle section comprises the first top junction (32’) and the second top junction (32’) and the top rectangle section comprises the third top junction (32’) (see Fig. 1 of Robinson showing a rectangular section at the apex of triangular section); and wherein a bottom member (11a) is defined by a bottom triangle section and a bottom rectangle section such that the bottom triangle section comprises the first bottom junction (30) and the second bottom junction (30) and the bottom rectangle section comprises the third bottom junction (30) (see Fig. 1 of Robinson).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date and with reasonable expectation of success to modify Jdira’s wafer boat such that the top member is defined by a top triangle section and a top rectangle section such that the top triangle section comprises the first top junction and the second top junction and the top rectangle section comprises the third top junction; and wherein the bottom member is defined by a bottom triangle section and a bottom rectangle section such that the bottom triangle section comprises the first bottom junction and the second bottom junction and the bottom rectangle section comprises the third bottom junction . The motivation would be for the purpose of having removable and replaceable components as taught by Robinson (Col 3, Lines 26-30). Furthermore, a change in shape has been held to be obvious within the general skill of a worker in the art (In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)).
In regards to claim 10, in modifying Jdira, Robinson teaches the top member (Robinson: 10’a) comprises a triangular top aperture (see central aperture in Fig. 1 of Robinson), wherein the bottom member (Robinson: 11a) comprises a triangular bottom aperture (see central aperture in Fig. 1 of Robinson), and wherein the triangular top aperture and the triangular bottom aperture are vertically aligned along an axis parallel to the central axis.
In regards to claim 11, in modifying Jdira, Robinson teaches the top member (Robinson: 10’a) comprises a top central cavity hole (see central hole in Fig. 1 of Robinson), and wherein the bottom member (11a) comprises a bottom central cavity hole (see central hole in Fig. 1 of Robinson), and wherein the top central cavity hole and the bottom central cavity hole are aligned along the central axis.
In regards to claim 12, in modifying Jdira, Robinson teaches the bottom member (Robinson: 11a) comprises a plurality of cavity holes (Robinson: 30).
In regards to claim 16, Jdira, modified by Takagi, does not teach coupling the first top surface of the first pillar with the first top junction of the top member further comprises identifying the first top surface of the first pillar by identifying a first linear cut mark on a first outer surface of the first pillar; wherein coupling the second top surface of the second pillar with the second top junction of the
Robinson teaches coupling a first top surface of the first pillar with the first top junction of the top member further comprises identifying the first top surface of the first pillar by identifying a first linear cut mark (40, Fig. 5b) on a first outer surface of the first pillar; wherein coupling a second top surface of the second pillar with the second top junction of the top member further comprises identifying the second top surface of the second pillar by identifying a second linear cut mark (40) on a second outer surface of the second pillar; and wherein coupling a third top surface of the third pillar with the third top junction of the top member further comprises identifying the third top surface of the third pillar by identifying a third linear cut mark (40) on a third outer surface of the third pillar.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date and with reasonable expectation of success to modify Jdira’s method such that coupling the first top surface of the first pillar with the first top junction of the top member further comprises identifying the first top surface of the first pillar by identifying a first linear cut mark on a first outer surface of the first pillar; wherein coupling the second top surface of the second pillar with the second top junction of the top member further comprises identifying the second top surface of the second pillar by identifying a second linear cut mark on a second outer surface of the second pillar; and wherein coupling the third top surface of the third pillar with the third top junction of the top member further comprises identifying the third top surface of the third pillar by identifying a third linear cut mark on a third outer surface of the third pillar. The motivation would be for the purpose of having removable and replaceable components as taught by Robinson (Col 3, Lines 26-30).
In regards to claim 17, Jdira, modified by Takagi, does not teach coupling the first pillar with the top member and the bottom member, coupling the second pillar with the top member and the bottom member and coupling the third pillar with the top member and the bottom member further comprises identifying the top member as a member having a single cavity hole and identifying the bottom member as the member having a plurality of cavity holes.
Robinson teaches coupling a first pillar (25’) with the top member (10’a) and the bottom member (11b), coupling a second pillar (25’) with the top member and the bottom member and coupling a third pillar (25’) with the top member and the bottom member further comprises identifying the top member as a member having a single cavity hole (e.g.; the central cavity hole in Fig. 1 of Robinson) and identifying the bottom member as the member having a plurality of cavity holes (e.g.; 30 of Robinson).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date and with reasonable expectation of success to modify Jdira’s method such that coupling the first pillar with the top member and the bottom member, coupling the second pillar with the top member and the bottom member and coupling the third pillar with the top member and the bottom member further comprises identifying the top member as a member having a single cavity hole and identifying the bottom member as the member having a plurality of cavity holes. The motivation would be for the purpose of having removable and replaceable components as taught by Robinson (Col 3, Lines 26-30).
In regards to claim 18, Jdira, modified by Takagi, does not teach the top member comprises a top triangle section that adjoins with a top rectangle section to form the top member such that the top triangle section further comprises a top triangular aperture, wherein the bottom member comprises a bottom triangle section that adjoins with a bottom rectangle section to form the bottom member such that the bottom triangle section further comprises a bottom triangular aperture, and wherein coupling the first pillar with the top member and the bottom member, coupling the second pillar with the top member and the bottom member and coupling the third pillar with the top member and the bottom member further comprises aligning the top triangular aperture and the bottom triangular aperture in parallel with each other such that an aperture axis parallel to the central axis perpendicularly passes through the top triangular aperture and the bottom triangular aperture.
Robinson teaches a top member (10’a) comprises a top triangle section that adjoins with a top rectangle section (i.e.; the rectangular section at the apex of the triangle in Fig. 1 of Robinson) to form the top member such that the top triangle section further comprises a top triangular aperture (the central triangular aperture), a bottom member (11a) comprises a bottom triangle section that adjoins with a bottom rectangle section (at the apex of the triangle in Fig. 1 of Robinson) to form the bottom member such that the bottom triangle section further comprises a bottom triangular aperture (the central triangular aperture), and wherein coupling a first pillar (25’) with the top member and the bottom member, coupling a second pillar (25’) with the top member and the bottom member and coupling a third pillar (25’) with the top member and the bottom member further comprises aligning the top triangular aperture and the bottom triangular aperture in parallel with each other such that an aperture axis parallel to the central axis perpendicularly passes through the top triangular aperture and the bottom triangular aperture (i.e.; the triangular aperture axis and central axis run vertically from top to bottom of the boat).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date and with reasonable expectation of success to modify Jdira’s method such that the top member comprises a top triangle section that adjoins with a top rectangle section to form the top member such that the top triangle section further comprises a top triangular aperture, wherein the bottom member comprises a bottom triangle section that adjoins with a bottom rectangle section to form the bottom member such that the bottom triangle section further comprises a bottom triangular aperture, and wherein coupling the first pillar with the top member and the bottom member, coupling the second pillar with the top member and the bottom member and coupling the third pillar with the top member and the bottom member further comprises aligning the top triangular aperture and the bottom triangular aperture in parallel with each other such that an aperture axis parallel to the central axis perpendicularly passes through the top triangular aperture and the bottom triangular aperture. The motivation would be for the purpose of having removable and replaceable components as taught by Robinson (Col 3, Lines 26-30). Furthermore, a change in shape has been held to be obvious within the general skill of a worker in the art (In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 13 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record does not teach or suggest further modifying Jdira’s wafer boat to have the particular configuration defined by the limitations of claim 13.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any particular combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
In response to applicant's argument that Robinson is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Robinson is considered analogous art as being directed to the endeavor of boats/racks for substrates.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STANTON L KRYCINSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-5381. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 10:00AM-5:00PM ET.
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, Jonathan Liu can be reached at (571)272-8227. 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.
/Stanton L Krycinski/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3631
Prosecution Insights