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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-18, and 20-22 are pending. Claims 1, 17, and 18 are currently amended. Claims 20 and 21 are new.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Holl (US 20230191544 A1, an attached translation of DE 102020113321.9, filed May 15, 2020 supports the effective filing date of the US publication).
With respect to claim 20, Holl discloses [claim 1] A grinder/polisher system ([0001]), comprising: a specimen holder configured to secure a specimen (222, fig. 10; [0249], also shown but not labeled with a reference character in fig. 9 as part of overall arrangement); a base (208, fig. 9; [0273]); a platen installed on the base (258, fig. 9; [0260,0261]); an actuator configured to move at least one of the specimen holder and the platen (linear guide 220, fig. 9, moves head 216, fig. 9 as in [0252], including gripper 222, fig. 9, [0253]); a sensor positioned on the base and outside a circumference of the platen (light curtain 290, fig. 15, [0276], positioned outside platen as shown by structure in fig. 15 corresponding to the structure of fig. 9) , and configured to detect objects within a field of view of the sensor ([0276], detects if a person were to reach inside the machine), wherein the field of view is directed upward from the base and covers a volume proximate the grinder/polisher system (the field of view is opening 288, fig. 15, as in [0276], which is proximate to the grinder/polisher, and is directed upwards from the base as the light curtain extends vertically from the base - examiner notes that this sensor/curtain includes a field of view directed upward from the base, as the field of view includes a portion above the platen - this does not require the sensor to point only upwards, consistent with instant fig. 3b and [0044] of the instant disclosure), the volume comprising at least a portion above the platen (opening 288, fig. 15, as in [0276], includes area above [in elevation] the platen as shown by structure in fig. 15 corresponding to the structure of fig. 9); and a controller configured to control movement of the actuator and to stop the actuator in response to detection of an object by the sensor while the actuator is moving (machine is automatically controlled by program as in [0087-0089], the machine stops as in [0276] if person reaching inside is detected), [claim 20] wherein the sensor comprises a light curtain sensor (light curtain 290, fig. 15, [0276]).
With respect to claim 21, Holl discloses [claim 9] A method to control a grinder/polisher system, the method comprising: controlling, via a controller (machine is automatically controlled by program as in [0087-0089], the machine stops as in [0276] if person reaching inside is detected), an actuator to move at least one of a specimen holder and of a grinder/polisher system or a platen of the grinder/polisher system (linear guide 220, fig. 9, moves head 216, fig. 9 as in [0252], including gripper 222 [specimen holder], fig. 9, [0253], platen 258, fig. 9; [0260,0261] also rotates); and in response to detecting, via a sensor positioned on a base of the grinder/polisher system and positioned outside of a circumference of the platen (sensor as light curtain 290, fig. 15, [0276], positioned outside platen as shown by structure in fig. 15 corresponding to the structure of fig. 9, and installed on a base 258, fig. 9; [0260,0261]), an object within a field of view of the sensor while the actuator is moving, controlling the actuator to stop ([0276], detects if a person were to reach inside the machine), wherein the field of view is directed upward from the sensor and covers a volume proximate the grinder/polisher system (the field of view is upward from the bottom of the sensor to cover opening 288, fig. 15, as in [0276]; examiner notes that this sensor/curtain includes a field of view directed upward from the bottom of the sensor at the base, as the field of view includes coverage of opening 288, fig. 15- this does not require the sensor to point only upwards, consistent with instant fig. 3b and [0044] of the instant disclosure, the volume comprising at least a portion above the platen (opening 288, fig. 15, as in [0276], includes area above [in elevation] the platen as shown by structure in fig. 15 corresponding to the structure of fig. 9), [claim 21] wherein detecting the object via the sensor comprises detecting the object via a light curtain sensor (light curtain 290, fig. 15, [0276]).
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6, 9-11 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nabeya (US Pub. 20050130562 A1) in view of Kim (KR 19990032351 A; translation prev. attached 04/12/2024)
With respect to claim 1, Nabeya discloses:
A grinder/polisher system, comprising: a specimen holder (4, fig. 1; top ring/substrate holder as in [0031]) configured to secure a specimen;
A base (2; a turntable as in [0031]);
a platen (1, a polishing tool as in [0017] a platen installed on the base (fig. 1 shows the layout with platen installed on a base);
an actuator (61 and 63, [0033], configured to move specimen holder 4) configured to move at least one of the specimen holder and the platen;
a sensor (camera 10; [0038]) configured to detect objects within a field of view of the sensor;
and a controller (45, [0031]) configured (abstract) to control movement of the actuator and to stop the actuator in response to detection of an object by the sensor while the actuator is moving ([0010], upon detection of foreign matter or a lost wafer; foreign matter comes from slipped wafer as in [0030]).
Nabeya does not explicitly disclose:
a sensor positioned on the base and outside a circumference of the platen and configured to detect objects within a field of view of the sensor,
wherein the field of view is directed upward from the base and covers a volume proximate the grinder/polisher system, the volume comprising a portion above the platen,
Nabeya further discloses that the sensor may be mounted through other means, other than through the swing arm 6 ([0034]), and that this configuration may detect other types of foreign matter on the polishing surface ([0059-0060] – can detect other foreign matter and not only a lost wafer).
Kim, in the same field of endeavor, as related to polishing and grinding machines, a sensor positioned on the base and outside a circumference of the platen and configured to detect objects within a field of view of the sensor (camera 35, fig. 2; which is positioned on a base outside a platen 22 fig. 2; page 3 lines 10-13 describe camera 35; and it is further described that the camera is designed to image slipped or broken wafers as described in page 3 lines 28-34),
wherein the field of view is directed at least upward from the base and covers a volume proximate the grinder/polisher system, the volume comprising at least a portion of the platen, a portion above the platen (the camera is positioned to view head 12, which is above the platen, and is positioned outside a platen, thus can sense immediately in front of it [the front would include a field of view that extends at least partially upward from the base], and view images outside the perimeter of the platen and also beyond the perimeter of the platen; the camera also images the platen and polishing head [specimen holder] as in lines 8-9 of the abstract paragraph on page 1; the examiner further notes that head 12, is shown in fig. 2 to be above the platen 22 (and would still be when the head presses the wafer against the platen as the head has a physical height, so the camera images a portion above the platen by being able to image the head); head 12 described in page 3 lines 14-17; examiner notes that this camera includes a field of view directed upward from the base, as the field of view includes a portion above the platen - this does not require the camera to point only upwards, consistent with instant fig. 3b and [0044] of the instant disclosure). Kim teaches this arrangement improves safety, prevents waste and enables quick action to be taken. (effect of invention, immediately above section (57) [claim 1] on page 2).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Nabeya and have repositioned a camera sensor positioned on a base and outside a circumference of the plate, as taught by Kim, as a matter of repositioning the sensor of Nabeya, as Nebaya teaches the sensor may be mounted through other means, other than through the swing arm (Nebaya, [0034]), the positioning of Kim also serving the purpose of detecting a lost wafer. A person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have also recognized that this arrangement improves safety, prevents waste and enables quick action to be taken (Kim, effect of invention, immediately above section (57) [claim 1] on page 2).
With respect to claim 2, Nabeya, as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1 above, and further teaches wherein the controller is configured to: identify a background signal from the sensor in response to initiation of an operation involving movement by the actuator; and detect an object based on comparing a monitoring signal from the sensor to the background signal (Nabeya, [0011, 0041], color matches that of foreign matter/wafer, and compared to background area, the examiner notes that cameras capture color/visible light and would in the absence of foreign matter then the background is present; polishing process involves movement [of actuator] as in [0011]).
With respect to claim 3, Nabeya, as modified teaches the limitations of claim 2 above, and further teaches wherein the controller is configured to detect the object when a difference between the monitoring signal and the background signal satisfies a threshold (Nabeya, [0011, 0041], color matches that of foreign matter/wafer compared with background/platen).
With respect to claim 6, Nabeya, as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1 above, and further teaches: wherein the sensor comprises at least one of an ultrasonic sensor, a retroreflective proximity sensor, an optical sensor (camera of Kim, as incorporated into Nabeya is an optical sensor), or a light curtain sensor.
With respect to claim 9, Nabeya, discloses: A method to control a grinder/polisher system, the method comprising: controlling, via a controller (45; [0031]), an actuator (61 and 63, [0033] ,configured to move specimen holder) to move at least one of a specimen holder and of a grinder/polisher system or a platen of the grinder/polisher system; and in response (abstract) to detecting, via a sensor, an object within a field of view of the sensor while the actuator is moving, controlling the actuator to stop ([0010], upon detection of foreign matter or a lost wafer; foreign matter comes from slipped wafer as in [0030]).
Nabeya does not explicitly disclose
a sensor positioned on the base and outside a circumference of the platen and configured to detect objects within a field of view of the sensor,
wherein the field of view is directed upward from the base and covers a volume proximate the grinder/polisher system, the volume comprising at least a portion above the platen,
Nabeya further discloses that the sensor may be mounted through other means, other than through the swing arm 6 ([0034]), and that this configuration may detect other types of foreign matter on the polishing surface ([0059-0060] – can detect other foreign matter and not only a lost wafer).
Kim, in the same field of endeavor, as related to polishing and grinding machines, a sensor positioned on the base and outside a circumference of the platen and configured to detect objects within a field of view of the sensor (camera 35, fig. 2; which is positioned on a base outside a platen 22 fig. 2; page 3 lines 10-13 describe camera 35; and it is further described that the camera is designed to image slipped or broken wafers as described in page 3 lines 28-34),
wherein the field of view is directed upward from the sensor and covers a volume proximate the grinder/polisher system, the volume comprising at least a portion of the platen, a portion above the platen (the camera is positioned to view head 12, which is above the platen, and is positioned outside a platen, thus can sense immediately in front of it [the front would include a field of view that extends at least partially upward from the base], and view images outside the perimeter of the platen and also beyond the perimeter of the platen; the camera also images the platen and polishing head [specimen holder] as in lines 8-9 of the abstract paragraph on page 1; examiner notes that this camera includes a field of view directed upward from the [at least the bottom of] the sensor which is mounted on the base, as the field of view includes a portion above the platen - this does not require the camera to point only upwards, consistent with instant fig. 3b and [0044] of the instant disclosure). Kim teaches this arrangement improves safety, prevents waste and enables quick action to be taken. (effect of invention, immediately above section (57) [claim 1] on page 2),
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Nabeya and have repositioned a camera sensor positioned on a base and outside a circumference of the plate, as taught by Kim, as a matter of repositioning the sensor of Nabeya, as Nebaya teaches the sensor may be mounted through other means, other than through the swing arm (Nebaya, [0034]), the positioning of Kim also serving the purpose of detecting a lost wafer. A person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have also recognized that this arrangement improves safety, prevents waste and enables quick action to be taken (Kim, effect of invention, immediately above section (57) [claim 1] on page 2).
With respect to claim 10, Nabeya, as modified teaches the limitations of claim 9 above, and further teaches: identifying a background signal from the sensor in response to initiation of an operation involving movement by the actuator; and detecting an object based on comparing a monitoring signal from the sensor to the background signal (Nabeya, [0011, 0041], color matches that of foreign matter/wafer, and compared to background area, the examiner notes that cameras capture color/visible light and would in the absence of foreign matter then the background is present; polishing process involves movement [of actuator] as in [0011]).
With respect to claim 11, Nabeya, as modified teaches the limitations of claim 10 above, and further teaches: wherein detecting the object occurs when a difference between the monitoring signal and the background signal satisfies a threshold (Nabeya, [0011, 0041], color matches that of foreign matter/wafer compared with background/platen).
With respect to claim 14, Nabeya discloses: wherein detecting the object via the sensor comprises detecting the object via at least one of an ultrasonic sensor, a retroreflective proximity sensor, an optical sensor (camera of Kim, as incorporated into Nabeya is an optical sensor), or a light curtain sensor.
Claim(s) 4, 5, 12, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nabeya (US Pub. 20050130562 A1) in view of Kim (KR 19990032351 A), and further in view of Kamata (US Pub. 20170266778 A1).
With respect to claim 4, Nabeya, as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1 above, and further teaches: wherein the actuator comprises a driving means (Nabeya, 61, [0033]) and a driver actuator (Nabeya, 63, [0033]), the controller further configured to control (i) the driving means to rotate at least one of the specimen holder and the platen in accordance with selected grinding/polishing parameters, and (ii) the drive actuator to press the specimen or the platen into the other of the specimen and the platen in accordance with a selected load applied (Nabeya, [0036], controls pressure applied to wafer)
Nabeya does not explicitly disclose that the driving means 61 is a motor.
Kamata, in the same field of endeavor, relating to polishing, teaches that it is known in the art to provide for a motor as the driving means for the specimen holder ([0033]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the motor of Kamata to drive the specimen holder of Nabeya, for the purpose of rotating the specimen holder (Kamata, [0033]).
With respect to claim 5, Nabeya, as modified teaches the limitations of claim 4 above, and further teaches: a user interface (Nabeya, alarm sounds, [0055]), the controller configured to output a notification via the user interface in response to the detection of the object.
With respect to claim 12, Nabeya, as modified teaches the limitations of claim 9 above, and further teaches wherein controlling the actuator comprises controlling (Nabeya, [0036]) (i) a driving means (Nabeya, 61, [0033]) of the actuator to rotate at least one of the specimen holder and the platen in accordance with selected grinding/polishing parameters, and (ii) a drive actuator (Nabeya, 63, [0033]) of the actuator to press the specimen or the platen into the other of the specimen and the platen in accordance with a selected load applied (Nabeya, [0036], controls pressure applied to wafer)
Nabeya does not explicitly disclose that the driving means 61 is a motor.
Kamata, in the same field of endeavor, relating to polishing, teaches that it is known in the art to provide for a motor as the driving means for the specimen holder ([0033]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the motor of Kamata to drive the specimen holder of Nabeya, for the purpose of rotating the specimen holder (Kamata, [0033]) and thus to have this controlled.
With respect to claim 13, Nabeya, as modified teaches the limitations of claim 12 above, and further teaches: outputting a notification via a user interface (Nabeya, alarm sounds, [0055]), in response to the detection of the object.
Claim(s) 7 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nabeya (US Pub. 20050130562 A1) in view of Kim (KR 19990032351 A) and further in view of Matsushita (JP 2005268424 A; translation prev. attached 10/30/2023)
With respect to claim 7, Nabeya, as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1 above, however, does not explicitly teach: a plurality of sensors including the sensor, the plurality of sensors configured to monitor a corresponding plurality of sub-volumes proximate the platen.
Matsushita, in the same field of endeavor, relating to polishing, teaches a plurality of sensors including the sensor, the plurality of sensors (sensors 31 and 33, fig. 4B; [0036]) configured to monitor a corresponding plurality of sub-volumes proximate the platen (the sensors are positioned to view different parts of the platen, as in fig. 4B). Matsushita teaches this provides for additional information in the form of a rotational position of the wafer [0036] and thus enables consistent information collection ([0045]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized a plurality of sensors (configured to monitor proximate sub-volumes) as taught by Matsushita and incorporated into Nabeya, because having a plurality of sensors enables consistent collection of information as well as determination of additional information about the rotation of the workpiece.
With respect to claim 15, Nabeya, as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1 above, however, does not explicitly teach: a plurality of sensors including the sensor, the plurality of sensors configured to monitor a corresponding plurality of sub-volumes proximate the platen.
Matsushita, in the same field of endeavor, relating to polishing, teaches a plurality of sensors including the sensor, the plurality of sensors (sensors 31 and 33, fig. 4B; [0036]) configured to monitor a corresponding plurality of sub-volumes proximate the platen (the sensors are positioned to view different parts of the platen, as in fig. 4B). Matsushita teaches this provides for additional information in the form of a rotational position of the wafer [0036] and thus enables consistent information collection ([0045]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized a plurality of sensors (configured to monitor proximate sub-volumes) as taught by Matsushita and incorporated into Nabeya, because having a plurality of sensors enables consistent collection of information as well as determination of additional information about the rotation of the workpiece.
Claim(s) 8 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nabeya (US Pub. 20050130562 A1) in view of Kim (KR 19990032351 A), and further in view of Bartscher (DE 102007053546 A1; translation attached 01/19/2023), and evidenced by Uneo (US Pub. 20170304986 A1).
With respect to claim 8, Nabeya, as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1 above, however, does not explicitly teach does not explicitly teach that the controller is configured to disable the actuator until detection, via the sensor, of removal of the object.
Bartscher, pertinent to the problem being solved of providing protective actions in machine tools, teaches that it is known ([0020] of translation) to provide that any protective actions (stopping, etc. – in this case releasing the brakes) be released so that work can continue when the removal of any object that can cause collision. Nabeya explains that this causes damage ([0055]; It is also known that broken wafers cause collision, as evidenced by in Uneo, [0007])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have reenable the actuator after removal as taught by the concept in Bartscher, for the purpose of enabling resumption of work after a collision.
With respect to claim 16, Nabeya, as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1 above, however, does not explicitly teach: that the method further comprises disabling the actuator until detection, via the sensor, of removal of the object.
Bartscher, pertinent to the problem being solved of providing protective actions in machine tools, teaches that it is known ([0020] of translation) to provide that any protective actions (stopping, etc. – in this case releasing the brakes) be released so that work can continue when the removal of any object that can cause collision. Nabeya explains that this causes damage ([0055]; It is also known that broken wafers cause collision, as evidenced by in Uneo, [0007])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have reenable the actuator after removal as taught by the concept in Bartscher, for the purpose of enabling resumption of work after a collision.
Claim(s) 17 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nabeya (US Pub. 20050130562 A1) in view of Kim (KR 19990032351 A), and further in view of Meloni (US Pat. 6264532 B1)
With respect to claim 17, Nabeya, as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1 above, however, does not explicitly teach wherein the sensor comprises an ultrasonic sensor.
Meloni, in the same field of endeavor, as related to polishing, provides evidence that it would have been known to use ultrasonic sensors for detecting loss of a wafer (col 2 lines 22-33), the lost wafer amounting to foreign matter (col 1 lines 39-52).
MPEP 2143 provides that simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have further modified Nabeya and have utilized an ultrasonic sensor for the purpose of detecting a lost wafer, in place of a camera, as a substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. The modification would have led to a predictable result.
With respect to claim 18, Nabeya, as modified teaches the limitations of claim 9 above, however, does not explicitly teach wherein the sensor comprises an ultrasonic sensor.
Meloni, in the same field of endeavor, as related to polishing, provides evidence that it would have been known to use ultrasonic sensors for detecting loss of a wafer (col 2 lines 22-33), the lost wafer amounting to foreign matter (col 1 lines 39-52).
MPEP 2143 provides that simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have further modified Nabeya and have utilized an ultrasonic sensor for the purpose of detecting a lost wafer, in place of a camera, as a substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. The modification would have led to a predictable result.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/22/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the arguments directed towards claim 1 (response page 6-7), the examiner’s position is that the sensor of Kim includes a field of view directed upwards, as the field of view includes a portion above the platen/base, and is directed upwards from such. The claim does not exclude having a field of view directed partially upwards, which is consistent with instant fig. 3b and [0044] of the instant disclosure. Instant fig. [0044] describe fig. 3b as having a field of view directed upwards, but fig. 3b appears to show a field of view directed inwards the middle of the platen. The applicant argues that both Nabeya and Kim are directed downwards, but that does not exclude having a portion of the field of view directed upwards, in particular, Kim also discloses viewing the polishing head/specimen holder. Indeed, the applicant previously asserted that the camera of Kim is necessarily pointed upwards (appeal brief dated 03/05/2025, page 10, lines 11-15), and is now asserting that since it also images the platen, the camera is pointed downwards.
Regarding the arguments directed towards claim 9 (response, page 7), they are addressed with respect to claim 1, above.
Regarding the arguments directed towards claim 17-18 (response, page 7), the examiner, as in the response to arguments for claim 1, notes that an upward direction does not exclude coverage in another direction [partially upwards], and the ultrasonic sensor was previously addressed as suitable for detecting wafer loss [foreign matter].
Regarding the arguments directed towards claim 19-20 (response, page 7), the examiner notes that Holl discloses a grinder polisher, with a light curtain that detects intrusion of a person into the machine, and includes a field of view upwards from the base/upwards from the bottom of the sensor.
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 Steven Huang whose telephone number is (571)272-6750. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 6:30 am to 2:30 pm, Friday 6:30 am to 11:00 am (Eastern Time).
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 on 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.
/Steven Huang/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/DAVID S POSIGIAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723