DETAILED ACTION
This is the Office action based on the 17697056 application filed March 17, 2022, and in response to applicant’s argument/remark filed on April 27, 2026. Claims 1-18 and 21-22 are currently pending and have been considered below. Applicant’s cancelation of claims 19-20 acknowledged. Claims 18-19 withdrawn from consideration.
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 final rejection. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on April 27, 2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 2 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claim 2 recites “(t)he method of claim 1, further comprising epitaxially depositing a silicon-containing material layer onto the precleaned surface of the substrate”; however, the term “precleaned surface” lacks antecedent basis. Although claim 1 recites “a first preclean material” and “a second preclean material”, no “precleaned surface” is recited previously. One of ordinary skill in the art would not be clear where to epitaxially deposit the silicon-containing material layer. For the purpose of examining it will be assumed that this term refers to either the first or second preclean material.
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 .
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 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.
Claim Objections
Claim 15 objected to because of the following informalities: the sentence “epitaxially depositing a silicon-containing material layer onto the surface of the substrate subsequent to e sublimating the first preclean material from the surface of the substrate” appears to contain a typographical error. For the purpose of examining it will be assumed that this sentence is “epitaxially depositing a silicon-containing material layer onto the surface of the substrate subsequent to the sublimating the first preclean material from the surface of the substrate”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 4-9, 11, 13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Zhang et al. (U.S. PGPub. No. 20200234968), hereinafter “Zhang”, in view of Ding et al. (U.S. PGPub. No. 20200118836), hereinafter “Ding”:--Claim 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 12 : Zhang teaches a method of selectively removing a silicon oxide layer with respect to a silicon nitride layer, comprisingi) providing a substrate comprising a silicon oxide layer and a silicon nitride layer in a process chamber ([0015], Fig. 1A);ii) supplying a first plasma comprising hydrogen and fluorine to the substrate, the plasma comprising hydrogen and fluorine may be generated from 1) H2 and HF; 2) H2, HF, and a noble gas, 3) H2 and F2, 4) H2, F2, and a noble gas, 5) H2, HF, and F2, or 6) H2, HF, F2, and a noble gas (e.g., argon (Ar) or helium (He)) ([0016]), to form (NH4)2SiF6 on the silicon nitride layer ([0016], Fig. 1C);iii) supplying a second plasma comprising a halogen-containing gas, such as a fluorine-containing gas, to the substrate to etch the silicon oxide layer, while the (NH4)2SiF6 masks the silicon nitride layer from the etching ([0017], Fig. 1D);iv) removing the (NH4)2SiF6 from the substrate by heating, irradiation or wet cleaning ([0018]);v) optionally repeating steps ii)-iv) at least once. Zhang further teaches that the hydrogen in step ii) reduces the silicon oxide by removing oxygen from a top portion the silicon oxide layer and produces H2O, resulting in a top portion of the silicon oxide layer to become oxygen-deficient ([0024]), Fig. 1C and 2B), and that the plasma of the fluorine-containing gas reacts with the oxygen-deficient portion of the silicon oxide layer to remove it ([0017]). Although Zhang is silent about stopping the supply of the first plasma before starting the supply of the second plasma, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention, to stop the supply of the first plasma before starting the supply of the second plasma to avoid cross contamination between the two steps. Zhang further teaches that, in different embodiments, “the halogen-containing gas can include a fluoro-carbon-based gas that includes a fluorocarbon gas, a hydrofluorocarbon gas, or a combination thereof” and “(t)he halogen-containing gas can further include an additive gas (e.g. O2, N2, or CO2, or a combination thereof)” ([0017]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention, in routine experimentations, to use a second plasma comprising HF without comprising one or more of ammonia (NH₃), hydrazine (N₂H₄), an alcohol, and acetic acid. Zhang further teaches that a volatile reaction product of the etching in step iii) is SiX4, where X is the halogen ([0027, 0017, Fig. 1D), but fails to teach that the HF is anhydrous, i.e. does not contain water. Ding, also directed to manufacturing a semiconductor device, teaches that an oxide layer positioned at a bottom of a trench may be selectively etched with respect to silicon nitride separator layer (Fig. 5, [0043]), by supplying a first gas comprising anhydrous HF gas and anhydrous NH3 gas to the chamber, the first gas reacts with the material on a sidewall of the trench to form a solid-state by-product (NH4)2SiF6 layer and water (Step S1002 in Fig. 10, Formula (3), [0067-0070], Fig. 5-9), then supply a second gas comprising anhydrous HF gas, and not containing NH3 gas, to the chamber, the second gas reacts with the silicon oxide layer to produce SiF4 and H2O (Step S1004 in Fig. 10, [0054-0055, 0072-0074]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to use anhydrous HF as the hydrogen fluoride in the invention of Zhang because Ding teaches that it would be effective. Alternately, although Zhang fails to teach using anhydrous HF, it would also have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to use pure HF gas, i.e. without any contamination, such as water, in the invention of Zhang. According to MPEP 2112, “[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer.”, Atlas Powder Co. v. Ireco Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Thus the claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)”.--Claim 8: It is noted that the trench in Fig. 5 has an aspect ratio about 1, and represents a MOS transistor. Ding further teaches that the method may be used to remove a silicon layer at a bottom of a trench as shown in Fig. 6-9. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to use the method to remove silicon oxide layer in the trench having an aspect ratio of 2 or more because it’s been well established that "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)”. MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).--Claim 11: Ding teaches that HF/CH3OH may also be used to remove the silicon oxide layer to produce SiF4 and water ([0037-0042]).--Claim 13: Ding further teaches that step ii) may remove about 1-200 nm of silicon oxide thickness ([0053]), and step iii) may remove about 1-200 nm of silicon oxide thickness ([0055]). Ding further teaches that it is desirable to etch the natural oxide from the bottom of the trench while protecting the sidewall oxide layer from the etching (abstract), and that since step iii) forms more of the solid-state by-product (NH4)2SiF6 layer from step iii) covering the sidewall than the bottom of the trench, step iv) removes more silicon oxide thickness from the bottom than from the sidewall of the trench ([0056]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention, in routine experimentations, to remove more oxide thickness in step iv) than in step iii) because Ding teaches that it is desirable to etch the natural oxide from the bottom of the trench while protecting the sidewall oxide layer from the etching, and that the oxide removal in step iii) is selective to the sidewall than the bottom of the trench, and the oxide removal in step iv) is selective to the bottom than the sidewall of the trench. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention, in routine experimentations, to remove 2 to 50 times more oxide thickness in step iv) than in step iii) since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claims 2, 15 and 17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Ding as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mochizuki et al. (U.S. PGPub. No. 20190123174), hereinafter “Mochizuki”:--Claims 2, 15, 17: Zhang modified by Ding teaches selectively removing an silicon oxide layer with respect to a silicon nitride layer as shown above. Zhang fails to teach forming an epitaxial layer of silicon-containing layer after the etching.Mochizuki, also directed to manufacturing a semiconductor device, teaches a method comprises selectively removing a native silicon oxide layer with at the presence of a silicon nitride layer 1202 in a trench (Fig. 15-16, [0073]), then epitaxially growing a silicon-containing layer 1702 in the trench (Fig. 17, [0074]). Mochizuki further teaches that the removing may be accomplished by using a plasma etching, but is silent about the details of the plasma etching. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to use the plasma etching method taught by Zhang to remove the native silicon oxide layer in the invention of Mochizuki because Mochizuki is silent about the details, and Zhang teaches that such method would be effective.
Claim 3 and 21-22 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Ding as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Thadani et al. (U.S. PGPub. No. 20110266252), hereinafter “Thadani”, and Xie et al. (U.S. PGPub. No. 20140030859), hereinafter “Xie”:--Claim 3, 21, 22: Zhang modified by Ding teaches etching a silicon oxide comprising exposing it to a plasma comprising a hydrogen-containing reactant and fluorine-containing reactant, wherein the hydrogen-containing reactant reduces the silicon oxide layer by removing oxygen from a top portion the silicon oxide layer as shown above. Zhang further teaches that the hydrogen-containing reactant may be hydrogen, but fails to teach that the hydrogen-containing reactant may be hydrazine (N2H4). Thadani, also directed to etching a silicon oxide layer during manufacturing a semiconductor device, teaches that the silicon oxide layer may be etched by using a fluorine-containing precursor and a hydrogen-containing precursor ([0008]), wherein the fluorine-containing precursor may be HF, F2 or fluorine-substituted hydrocarbons; and the hydrogen-containing precursor may also be H2, N2H4, or NH3 ([0020]). Xie, also directed to etching a silicon oxide layer during manufacturing a semiconductor device, teaches that an oxide may be reduced by exposing to a hydrogen-containing atmosphere that includes H2, N2H4, or NH3 ([0083]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention, in routine experimentations, to use N2H4, as the hydrogen-containing reactant in the invention of Zhang because Thadani and Xie teach that it would be an effective substitution for the H2 to reduce the silicon oxide layer.
Claim 16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Ding and Mochizuki as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Thadani and Xie et al. (U.S. PGPub. No. 20140030859), hereinafter “Xie”:--Claim 16: Zhang modified by Ding and Mochizuki teaches the invention as in claim 15, wherein Zhang teaches an etching a silicon oxide comprising exposing it to a plasma comprising a hydrogen-containing reactant and fluorine-containing reactant, wherein the hydrogen-containing reactant reduces the silicon oxide layer by removing oxygen from a top portion the silicon oxide layer. Zhang further teaches that the hydrogen-containing reactant may be hydrogen. Zhang modified by Ding and Mochizuki fail to teach the claimed feature of the first plasma comprising hydrogen and fluorine comprises HF and NH3. Thadani, also directed to etching a silicon oxide layer during manufacturing a semiconductor device, teaches that the silicon oxide layer may be etched by using a fluorine-containing precursor and a hydrogen-containing precursor ([0008]), wherein the fluorine-containing precursor may be HF, F2 or fluorine-substituted hydrocarbons; and the hydrogen-containing precursor may also be H2, N2H4, or NH3 ([0020]). Xie, also directed to etching a silicon oxide layer during manufacturing a semiconductor device, teaches that an oxide may be reduced by exposing to a hydrogen-containing atmosphere that includes H2, N2H4, or NH3 ([0083]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention, in routine experimentations, to use NH3, as the hydrogen-containing reactant in the invention of Zhang because Thadani and Xie teach that it would be an effective substitution for the H2 to reduce the silicon oxide layer.
Claims 10 and 14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Ding as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Blomberg (U.S. PGPub. No. 20180182597):--Claim 10, 14: Zhang modified by Ding teaches the invention as above. Ding further teaches to purge the process chamber after a process step and before a subsequent step (Claim 15 and 16). Zhang and Ding fail to teaches the claimed feature of purging the process chamber after step (ii) and prior to step (iii), as recited in claim 10. Blomberg teaches that after ending a process step it is advantageous to purge the process chamber by stopping the flow of reactants while flowing a carrier gas or a purge gas, such as nitrogen or argon, for about 60 seconds or more to diffuse or purge excess reactants and reaction by-products. ([0136-0138]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention, in routine experimentations, to purge the process chamber in the invention of Zhang because Blomberg teaches that this would advantageously purge excess reactants and reaction by-products
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-9, 13 and 22 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Ding:--Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 22: Ding teaches a method of removing an silicon oxide layer from a trench during manufacturing a semiconductor device, wherein the trench having natural silicon oxide layer formed on the bottom of the trench and a thermal silicon oxide layer formed on the sidewall of the trench (abstract, Fig. 10), comprisingi) forming a trench on a substrate, the trench is covered with a layer of silicon oxide as described above ([0051]);ii) placing a substrate on a pedestal in a process chamber ([0018-0019], Fig. 2);iii) supplying a first gas comprising anhydrous NF3 gas and anhydrous NH3 gas to the chamber, the first gas reacts with the silicon oxide layer on a sidewall of the trench to form a solid-state by-product (NH4)2SiF6 layer and water (Step S1002 in Fig. 10, Formula (3), [0067-0068]), or, alternately, supplying a first gas comprising anhydrous HF gas and anhydrous NH3 gas to the chamber, the first gas reacts with the silicon oxide layer on a sidewall of the trench to form a solid-state by-product (NH4)2SiF6 layer and water (Step S1002 in Fig. 10, Formula (3), [0069-0070]) ;iv) supplying a second gas comprising anhydrous HF gas, and not containing NH3 gas, to the chamber, the second gas reacts with the silicon oxide layer on the bottom of the trench to produce SiF4 and H2O (Step S1004 in Fig. 10, [0054-0055, 0072-0074]);v) heating the substrate to sublimate the solid-state by-product (NH4)2SiF6 layer (Step S1006 in Fig. 10, [0016, 0057-0058, 0077]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to flow anhydrous HF gas and to flow anhydrous NH3 gas to the chamber to react with the native oxide in step iii), then stop the flow of anhydrous NH3 gas in step iv) to produce SiF4 and H2O.--Claim 8: Ding further teaches that the trench has an aspect ratio about 30-120 ([0051]).--Claim 9: Ding teaches the invention as above. Ding fails to teach that the reaction in step iv) is initiated by the water produced in step iii); however, since Ding does not teach removing the water produced in step iii) prior to starting step iv), the water would help initiating the reaction, as taught by Applicant. According to MPEP 2112 “[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer.”, Atlas Powder Co. v. Ireco Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Thus the claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)”.--Claim 13: Ding further teaches that step iii) removes about 1-200 nm of silicon oxide thickness ([0053]), and step iv) removes about 1-200 nm of silicon oxide thickness ([0055]). Ding further teaches that it is desirable to etch the natural oxide from the bottom of the trench while protecting the sidewall oxide layer from the etching (abstract), and that since step iii) forms more of the solid-state by-product (NH4)2SiF6 layer from step iii) covering the sidewall than the bottom of the trench, step iv) removes more silicon oxide thickness from the bottom than from the sidewall of the trench ([0056]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention, in routine experimentations, to remove more oxide thickness in step iv) than in step iii) because Ding teaches that it is desirable to etch the natural oxide from the bottom of the trench while protecting the sidewall oxide layer from the etching, and that the oxide removal in step iii) is selective to the sidewall than the bottom of the trench, and the oxide removal in step iv) is selective to the bottom than the sidewall of the trench. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention, in routine experimentations, to remove 2 to 50 times more oxide thickness in step iv) than in step iii) since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claims 5, 11-12 and 21 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ding as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Thadani:--Claims 5, 11, 12, 21: Ding teaches the invention as above. Ding further teaches that HF/CH3OH may also be used to remove the silicon oxide layer to produce SiF4 and water ([0037-0042]). Ding fails to teach using F2 or N2H4.Thadani, also directed to etching a silicon oxide layer during manufacturing a semiconductor device, teaches that the silicon oxide layer may be etched by using a fluorine-containing precursor and a hydrogen-containing precursor ([0008]), such as NF3/NH3 but the fluorine-containing precursor may also be HF, F2 or fluorine-substituted hydrocarbons; and the hydrogen-containing precursor may also be N2H4 ([0020]). Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to include N2H4 in the first gas because Thadani teaches that it would be effective.
Claims 2 and 15-17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ding as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chu et al. (U.S. PGPub. No. 20210257260), hereinafter “Chu”:--Claims 2, 15, 16, 17: Ding teaches the invention as above. Ding further teaches that the trench is a device trench having natural silicon oxide layer formed on the bottom of the trench and a thermal silicon oxide layer formed on the sidewall of the trench (abstract, Fig. 10), wherein the method removes the silicon oxide layer ([0065]).Ding fails to teach the claimed feature of epitaxially depositing a silicon-containing material onto the trench.Chu, also directed to manufacturing a semiconductor device having a trench that is covered with a silicon oxide layer 83 on the trench sidewall (Fig. 10A, [0030-0032]), teaches a process of removing silicon oxide layer, such as natural oxide layer, from surfaces of a trench by using a gas comprising HF and NH3 ([0037]), and further teaches that a silicon layer may be epitaxially deposited onto the trench after the oxide removal ([0044-0045]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention, in routine experimentations, to epitaxially deposit a silicon layer onto the trench after the oxide removal in the invention of Ding because Ding teaches a process of removing silicon oxide layer, such as natural oxide layer, from surfaces of a trench by using a gas comprising HF and NH3 during manufacturing a semiconductor device, and Chu teaches that such epitaxially depositing a silicon layer would be effective in forming a semiconductor device.
Claims 10-12 and 14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ding as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Blomberg et al. (U.S. PGPub. No. 20180182597), hereinafter “Blomberg”: --Claims 10, 11, 12, 14: Ding teaches the invention as above. Ding further teaches that the trench is a device trench having silicon oxide, such as natural oxide layer ([0065]). Ding fails to teach sweeping a residual HF gas or NH3 gas from the chamber prior to supplying another reactant. Blomberg, also directed to etching a silicon oxide layer, such as a natural oxide layer, during manufacturing a semiconductor device ([0143-0145]) by using a first etching step comprising a first gas and a second etching step comprising a second gas different than the first gas ([0161-0162]), teaches that a purging step can be introduced before or after supplying the first gas or the second gas ([0016, 0058, 0085]) to remove excess reactant from the chamber ([0067]) or contamination/unwanted atoms on the surface of the substrate ([0056]), the purging step may comprise vacuum pumping and an inert purge gas, such as nitrogen argon or helium ([0067, 0113-0114, 0118, 0138]), ([0127]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention, in routine experimentations, to purge the chamber, as taught by Blomberg, before or after steps iii) and/or iv) in the invention of Ding because Blomberg teaches that this would help removing excess reactant from the chamber and/or contamination/unwanted atoms on the surface of the substrate.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 27, 2026 have been fully considered as follows:--Regarding Applicant’s argument that Ding fails to teach the claimed feature “flowing a third reactant comprising anhydrous hydrogen fluoride (HF) without one or more of ammonia (NH₃), hydrazine (N₂H₄), an alcohol, and acetic acid (C2H4O₂) into the reaction chamber”, this argument is not persuasive. The above claimed feature is interpreted as a third reactant comprising anhydrous hydrogen fluoride (HF) and a) without one of ammonia (NH₃), hydrazine (N₂H₄), an alcohol, and acetic acid (C2H4O₂) ORb) without more than one of ammonia (NH₃), hydrazine (N₂H₄), an alcohol, and acetic acid (C2H4O₂) Ding teaches supplying a second gas comprising anhydrous HF gas, and not containing NH3 gas, to the chamber, the second gas reacts with the silicon oxide layer on the bottom of the trench to produce SiF4 and H2O (Step S1004 in Fig. 10, [0054-0055, 0072-0074]). Since the second gas is without ammonia, it satisfies the claimed limitation.--To further clarify the rejection, a new ground of rejection based on newly found prior arts are shown above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS PHAM whose telephone number is (571) 270-7670 and fax number is (571) 270-8670. The examiner can normally be reached on MTWThF9to6 PST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joshua Allen can be reached on (571) 270-3176. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000./THOMAS T PHAM/Primary Examiner, AU 1713
Prosecution Insights