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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments regarding the Schmidt-Lange rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant has amended the claims to include the “first material comprises metal materials”. The Examiner has amended the claims to address this. The Examiner further notes that neither the claims nor the specification provide any criticality for these limitations, merely that the limitation “may” exist. As such, the Examiner vies this as a design choice by the Applicant, and has indicated that it would also be rejected as a design choice in the current rejection. Furthermore, the Examiner notes that just because the material is elastomeric, this fact does not exclude the material from containing metal materials. The use of metal oxides to enhance an elastomer is common knowledge in material science. The following are the results of an AI inquiry concerning the topic of metal-containing elastomers –
PNG
media_image1.png
848
738
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
Claims 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schmidt-Lange, US 9373530.
Regarding claim 16, Schmidt-Lange discloses: A head for a pick-and-place apparatus, comprising:
a vacuum structure (Col. 2, line 54, “one or more vacuum outlets in the work surface that may be connected to a vacuum source to allow for temporarily fixing the planar object to the work surface. “);
a head part (Fig. 5, tip holders 11-12) disposed over the vacuum structure, wherein the head part has a first surface (Fig. 5, tip holders 12) and a second surface (Fig. 5, tip holders 11) opposite to the first surface, and the head part includes a central region (Fig. 5, everything inwards of the boundaries of body portion 128) and a peripheral region (Fig. 5, body portion 128) surrounding the central region;
a plurality of vacuum holes penetrating through the head part from the first surface to the second surface (Col. 3, line 67, “One or more second vacuum ducts 113, which are connected to the second vacuum channels 112, are provided in the tip holder 11, comprising the shaft 110.”); and
a plurality of first protrusions portion (Fig. 5, rectangular contact regions 120 and/or additional contact regions 121, and/or die contacting portion 129, and/or vacuum channels/ducts 122 and 124, and/or flange 123) disposed in the central region of the head part (Fig. 5, tip holders 11-12), wherein each of the plurality of the first protrusions has a first surface in contact with the second surface of the head (Fig. 7, best shows the portions of contact regions 120 and 121 having an upper surface in contact with the tip holder 11) and a second surface opposite to the first surface (Fig. 7 shows the cited 120 and 121 having a surface facing downward and away from tip holder 11), wherein the plurality of the first protrusions comprise a first material and the head part comprises a second material (Col. 3, lines 27-60), and wherein a step-height is formed between the second surface of the head part (Fig. 5, tip holders 11) and the second surfaces of the plurality of the first protrusions (see Figs 4-10), wherein the peripheral region (Fig. 5, body portion 128) of the head part is free of the plurality of first protrusions (see Figs. 4-6).
Regarding claim 17, Schmidt-Lange further discloses: a hardness of the second material is different from a hardness of the first material (Col. 3, lines 27-60)( see Alternative Rejections below).
Regarding claim 18, Schmidt-Lange further discloses: the first material is replaceable (Col. 3, line 30, “The pick tool 1 comprises a tip holder 11 made of metal and an essentially box-shaped, replaceable tool tip 12 made of an elastomeric material, in particular rubber, preferably silicone rubber.”).
Regarding claim 19, Schmidt-Lange further discloses: a plurality of second protrusions (Fig. 5, rectangular contact regions 120 and/or additional contact regions 121, and/or die contacting portion 129, and/or vacuum channels/ducts 122 and 124, and/or flange 123) disposed in the peripheral region (Fig. 5, body portion 128) of the head part, wherein a thickness of the plurality of the first protrusions is greater than a thickness of the plurality of the second protrusions, and a step-height is formed between a surface of the plurality of the second protrusions and the second surfaces of the plurality of the first protrusions (see Figs 4-10).
Regarding claim 20, Schmidt-Lange further discloses: a hardness of the first material is greater than a hardness of a material of the plurality of the second protrusions (Col. 3, lines 27-60)(see Alternative Rejections below).
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 1-14, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Schmidt-Lange, US 9373530.
Regarding claim 1, Schmidt-Lange discloses: A head for a pick-and-place apparatus (Fig. 4, pick tool 1), comprising:
a first head part (Fig. 5, tip holders 12) comprising:
a first portion (Fig. 5, rectangular contact regions 120) comprising a first material (Col. 3, line 31, “replaceable tool tip 12 made of an elastomeric material, in particular rubber, preferably silicone rubber. Preferably, the elastomeric material has a Shore A hardness of between 30 and 75, preferably between 40 and 60; and ideally around 50. A rectangular work surface 2 formed on a lower side of the tool tip 12 comprises twenty rectangular contact regions 120, which are separated from one another by first vacuum channels 122”);; and
a second portion (Fig. 5, additional contact region 121) surrounding the first portion and comprising a second material (Col. 3, line 38, “The work surface 2 further comprises an additional contact region 121 that is formed on a sealing ring 125 which in turn is formed on a flange 123 provided along a circumference of a lower part of the tool tip 12, thus forming a flexible lip seal with the additional contact region 121 acting as a sealing surface.”);
a vacuum system (Col. 2, line 54, “one or more vacuum outlets in the work surface that may be connected to a vacuum source to allow for temporarily fixing the planar object to the work surface. “);
a second head part (Fig. 5, tip holders 11) disposed between the first head part (Fig. 5, tip holders 12) and the vacuum system (Fig. 5, shaft 110); and
a plurality of vacuum holes penetrating through the first head part and the second head part to couple to the vacuum system (Col. 3, line 67, “One or more second vacuum ducts 113, which are connected to the second vacuum channels 112, are provided in the tip holder 11, comprising the shaft 110.”), … and a bottom surface of the first portion and a bottom surface of the second portion are aligned with each other (see Figs. 4-10).
Schmidt-Lange does not explicitly disclose: wherein the first material comprises metal materials; a hardness of the first material is greater than a hardness of the second material
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to utilize materials with suitable relative hardness, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. The Examiner notes that material selection is explicitly discussed in the specification, Col. 5, line 73, “While a pick tool 1 in accordance with the present invention may be used in a die bonder that comprises only a single die handling unit for picking and placing, it is particularly well suited for use in a die bonder that comprises multiple die handling tools, or at least a separate pick unit 92 and place unit 94. In such a configuration, geometry and material parameters of the tool tip 12 may be optimized for maximum pick performance without negative effect on a place process”. Furthermore, please note that in the instant application, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations. In particular, paragraph [0051] discloses several mutual opposites as a possibility; “In some embodiments, a hardness of the second material of the head 220 may be greater than a hardness of the first material of the first protrusions 212”, while [0029] discloses the limitation as claimed; “In some embodiments, a hardness of a first material of the first portion 112 is greater than a hardness of a second material of the second portion 114”.
Furthermore, the Application appears to be “all over the place” when it comes to this feature;
[0044], “In some embodiments, a hardness of a first material of the first portion 112 is greater than a hardness of a third material of the third portion 116, and the third hardness of the third material of the portion 116 is greater than a hardness of a second material of the second portion 114”
[0058], “A hardness of the first material is greater than a hardness of the third material, and the hardness of the third material is greater than a hardness of the second material”.
[0051], discloses the exact opposite as a possibility; “In some embodiments, a hardness of the second material of the head 220 may be greater than a hardness of the first material of the first protrusions 212”,
[0029], discloses another possible arrangement; “In some embodiments, a hardness of a first material of the first portion 112 is greater than a hardness of a second material of the second portion 114”.
Regarding claim 2, the modified Schmidt-Lange further discloses: a top surface of the first portion and a top surface of the second portion are aligned with each other and coupled to the second head part (see Figs. 6-8).
Regarding claim 3, the modified Schmidt-Lange further discloses: a thickness of the second portion changes when the bottom surface of the second portion is in contact with a chip (Fig. 11, shows the bottom surface changing thickness during the various contact phases of the surface) .
Regarding claim 4, the modified Schmidt-Lange further discloses: the plurality of vacuum holes are arranged to form a column-and-row array (see Figs. 4-11, in particular 10).
Regarding claim 5, the modified Schmidt-Lange further discloses: each of the first portion and the second portion has a rectangular shape from a bottom view (see Fig. 10).
Regarding claims 6 and 7, the modified Schmidt-Lange further discloses the device of claim 1.
The modified Schmidt-Lange does not explicitly disclose: Claim 6 - the first portion has a circular shape, and the second portion has a rectangular shape from a bottom view;
Claim 7 - the first portion has a ring shape, and the second portion has a rectangular shape from a bottom view.
The alteration of the shape of the first portion would register as a matter of design choice for the inventor of the device. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.). Please note that in the instant application, paragraph [0035], while discussing the various possible shapes for the design, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 8, the modified Schmidt-Lange further discloses: the second head part (Fig. 5, tip holders 11) comprises a third material, and a hardness of the third material is similar to the hardness of the first material and is greater than the hardness of the second material (Col. 3, line 30, “The pick tool 1 comprises a tip holder 11 made of metal and an essentially box-shaped, replaceable tool tip 12 made of an elastomeric material, in particular rubber, preferably silicone rubber.”).
Alternative Rejection – While one having ordinary skill in the art would immediately recognize that tip holder 11 being made of metal would inherently be harder than a replaceable tool tip being an elastomeric material, this fact is not explicitly stated. As such, the below obviousness rejection is included so as to increase compact prosecution.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to utilize materials with suitable relative hardness, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Please note that in the instant application, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations. Furthermore, the Application appears to be “all over the place” when it comes to this feature;
[0044], “In some embodiments, a hardness of a first material of the first portion 112 is greater than a hardness of a third material of the third portion 116, and the third hardness of the third material of the portion 116 is greater than a hardness of a second material of the second portion 114”
[0058], “A hardness of the first material is greater than a hardness of the third material, and the hardness of the third material is greater than a hardness of the second material”.
[0051], discloses the exact opposite as a possibility; “In some embodiments, a hardness of the second material of the head 220 may be greater than a hardness of the first material of the first protrusions 212”,
[0029], discloses another possible arrangement; “In some embodiments, a hardness of a first material of the first portion 112 is greater than a hardness of a second material of the second portion 114”.
Regarding claim 9, the modified Schmidt-Lange further discloses: the second head part (Fig. 5, tip holders 11) comprises a third material, and a hardness of the third material is similar to the hardness of the second material and is less than the hardness of the first material.(Col. 3, line 30, “The pick tool 1 comprises a tip holder 11 made of metal and an essentially box-shaped, replaceable tool tip 12 made of an elastomeric material, in particular rubber, preferably silicone rubber.”).
Alternative Rejection – While one having ordinary skill in the art would immediately recognize that tip holder 11 being made of metal would inherently be harder than a replaceable tool tip being an elastomeric material, this fact is not explicitly stated. As such, the below obviousness rejection is included so as to increase compact prosecution.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to utilize materials with suitable relative hardness, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Please note that in the instant application, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations. Furthermore, the Application appears to be “all over the place” when it comes to this feature;
[0044], “In some embodiments, a hardness of a first material of the first portion 112 is greater than a hardness of a third material of the third portion 116, and the third hardness of the third material of the portion 116 is greater than a hardness of a second material of the second portion 114”
[0058], “A hardness of the first material is greater than a hardness of the third material, and the hardness of the third material is greater than a hardness of the second material”.
[0051], discloses the exact opposite as a possibility; “In some embodiments, a hardness of the second material of the head 220 may be greater than a hardness of the first material of the first protrusions 212”,
[0029], discloses another possible arrangement; “In some embodiments, a hardness of a first material of the first portion 112 is greater than a hardness of a second material of the second portion 114”.
Regarding claim 10, the modified Schmidt-Lange further discloses: a surface area of the first portion (Fig. 5, rectangular contact regions 120) is smaller than a surface area of the second portion (Fig. 5, additional contact region 121). (while the drawings are not necessarily to scale, since the surface area of contact region 120 is the length X width of the entirety of 12, while the surface area of additional contact region 121 is merely the outer periphery of the rectangle of 12, the claim limitation is necessarily met).
Regarding claim 11, Schmidt-Lange discloses: The head for a pick-and-place apparatus, comprising:
A first head part comprising:
A first portion (Fig. 5, rectangular contact regions 120) disposed in a central region of the first head part and comprising a first material (Col. 3, line 31);
a second portion (Fig. 5, additional contact region 121) comprising a second material (Col. 3, line 38); and
a third portion (Col. 3, line 45, “Flange 123, sealing ring 125, work surface 2 and first vacuum channels 122 form a die contacting portion 129 of the tool tip 12, with the flange 123 and the sealing ring 125 surrounding said die contacting portion 129; i.e. flange 123 and sealing ring 125 are provided on an edge region of the die contacting portion 129 so that the additional contact region 121 surrounds the rectangular contact regions 120”) comprising a third material (Col. 3, line 31, “replaceable tool tip 12 made of an elastomeric material, in particular rubber, preferably silicone rubber. Preferably, the elastomeric material has a Shore A hardness of between 30 and 75, preferably between 40 and 60; and ideally around 50.”), wherein the third portion is disposed between the first portion and the second portion, wherein the second portion surrounding the first portion and the third portion, wherein a central point of the third portion and a central point of the second portion are aligned with a central point of the first portion;
a vacuum system (Col. 2, line 54, “one or more vacuum outlets in the work surface that may be connected to a vacuum source to allow for temporarily fixing the planar object to the work surface. “);
a second head part (Fig. 5, tip holders 11) disposed between the first head part and the vacuum system; and
a plurality of vacuum holes penetrating through the first head part and the second head part to couple to the vacuum system (Col. 3, line 67, “One or more second vacuum ducts 113, which are connected to the second vacuum channels 112, are provided in the tip holder 11, comprising the shaft 110.”),
and a bottom surface of the first portion and a bottom surface of the second portion and a bottom surface of the third portion are aligned with each other (see Figs. 4-10).
Schmidt-Lange does not explicitly disclose: wherein the first material comprises metal materials; wherein a hardness of the first material is greater than a hardness of the third material, and the hardness of the third material is greater than a hardness of the second material,
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to utilize materials with suitable relative hardness, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. The Examiner notes that material selection is explicitly discussed in the specification, Col. 5, line 73, “While a pick tool 1 in accordance with the present invention may be used in a die bonder that comprises only a single die handling unit for picking and placing, it is particularly well suited for use in a die bonder that comprises multiple die handling tools, or at least a separate pick unit 92 and place unit 94. In such a configuration, geometry and material parameters of the tool tip 12 may be optimized for maximum pick performance without negative effect on a place process”. Furthermore, please note that in the instant application, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations. In particular, paragraph [0051] discloses several mutual opposites as a possibility; “In some embodiments, a hardness of the second material of the head 220 may be greater than a hardness of the first material of the first protrusions 212”, while [0029] discloses the limitation as claimed; “In some embodiments, a hardness of a first material of the first portion 112 is greater than a hardness of a second material of the second portion 114”.
Furthermore, the Application appears to be “all over the place” when it comes to this feature;
[0044], “In some embodiments, a hardness of a first material of the first portion 112 is greater than a hardness of a third material of the third portion 116, and the third hardness of the third material of the portion 116 is greater than a hardness of a second material of the second portion 114”
[0058], “A hardness of the first material is greater than a hardness of the third material, and the hardness of the third material is greater than a hardness of the second material”.
[0051], discloses the exact opposite as a possibility; “In some embodiments, a hardness of the second material of the head 220 may be greater than a hardness of the first material of the first protrusions 212”,
[0029], discloses another possible arrangement; “In some embodiments, a hardness of a first material of the first portion 112 is greater than a hardness of a second material of the second portion 114”.
Regarding claim 12, the modified Schmidt-Lange further discloses: a top surface of the first portion (Fig. 5, rectangular contact regions 120) and a top surface of the second portion (Fig. 5, additional contact region 121) and a top surface of the third portion (Col. 3, line 45, “a die contacting portion 129 are aligned with each other and coupled to the second head part (see Figs. 4-10).
Regarding claim 13, the modified Schmidt-Lange further discloses: a thickness of the second portion and a thickness of the third portion change when the bottom surface of the second portion and the bottom surface of the third portion are in contact with a chip (Fig. 11, shows the bottom surface changing thickness during the various contact phases of the surface).
Regarding claim 14, the modified Schmidt-Lange further discloses: each of the first portion and the second portion and the third portion has a rectangular shape from a bottom view (see Fig. 10).
Regarding claim 17, the modified Schmidt-Lange further discloses: a hardness of the second material is different from a hardness of the first material (Col. 3, lines 27-60).
Alternative Rejection – While one having ordinary skill in the art would immediately recognize that tip holder 11 being made of metal would inherently be harder than a replaceable tool tip being an elastomeric material, this fact is not explicitly stated. As such, the below obviousness rejection is included so as to increase compact prosecution.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to utilize materials with suitable relative hardness, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Please note that in the instant application, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations. Furthermore, the Application appears to be “all over the place” when it comes to this feature;
[0044], “In some embodiments, a hardness of a first material of the first portion 112 is greater than a hardness of a third material of the third portion 116, and the third hardness of the third material of the portion 116 is greater than a hardness of a second material of the second portion 114”
[0058], “A hardness of the first material is greater than a hardness of the third material, and the hardness of the third material is greater than a hardness of the second material”.
[0051], discloses the exact opposite as a possibility; “In some embodiments, a hardness of the second material of the head 220 may be greater than a hardness of the first material of the first protrusions 212”,
[0029], discloses another possible arrangement; “In some embodiments, a hardness of a first material of the first portion 112 is greater than a hardness of a second material of the second portion 114”.
Claims 6-7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Schmidt-Lange, US 9373530 in view of Smith, US 5882055.
Regarding claim 6, Schmidt-Lange discloses the device of claim 1, and further discloses: the second portion has a rectangular shape from a bottom view (see Figs. 4-10).
Schmidt-Lange does not explicitly disclose: the first portion has a circular shape.
Smith teaches: the first portion has a circular shape (Smith, Figs. 5-10).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having skill in the art at the time of invention to utilize the nonrectangular shapes as taught by Smith in combination with the rectangular shaped second portion disclosed by Schmidt-Lange, thereby combining prior art elements to achieve a predictable result. The benefit of this alteration is that the device head can be configured to better accommodate a particular shape of the chip. A better fit reduces the risk of damaging the chip, as the vacuum holding design functions significantly better with a more accurate fit, reducing the risk of the chip dropping from the device, or moving within the device, thus causing alignment issues.
Regarding claim 7, Schmidt-Lange discloses the device of claim 1, and further discloses: the second portion has a rectangular shape from a bottom view (see Figs. 4-10).
Schmidt-Lange does not explicitly disclose: the first portion has a ring shape.
Smith teaches: the first portion has a ring shape (Smith, Figs. 5-10).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having skill in the art at the time of invention to utilize the nonrectangular shapes as taught by Smith in combination with the rectangular shaped second portion disclosed by Schmidt-Lange, thereby combining prior art elements to achieve a predictable result. The benefit of this alteration is that the device head can be configured to better accommodate a particular shape of the chip. A better fit reduces the risk of damaging the chip, as the vacuum holding design functions significantly better with a more accurate fit, reducing the risk of the chip dropping from the device, or
Regarding claim 15, Schmidt-Lange discloses the device of claim 11, and further discloses: each of the first portion (Fig. 5, rectangular contact regions 120) and the third portion (Col. 3, line 45, “Flange 123, sealing ring 125, work surface 2 and first vacuum channels 122 form a die contacting portion 129 of the tool tip 12, with the flange 123 and the sealing ring 125 surrounding said die contacting portion 129; i.e. flange 123 and sealing ring 125 are provided on an edge region of the die contacting portion 129 so that the additional contact region 121 surrounds the rectangular contact regions 120”) has a circular shape, and the second portion has a rectangular shape from a bottom view.
Schmidt-Lange does not explicitly disclose: each of the first portion and the third portion has a circular shape,
Smith teaches: each of the first portion and the third portion has a circular shape (Smith, Figs. 5-10).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having skill in the art at the time of invention to utilize the nonrectangular shapes as taught by Smith in combination with the rectangular shaped second portion disclosed by Schmidt-Lange, thereby combining prior art elements to achieve a predictable result. The benefit of this alteration is that the device head can be configured to better accommodate a particular shape of the chip. A better fit reduces the risk of damaging the chip, as the vacuum holding design functions significantly better with a more accurate fit, reducing the risk of the chip dropping from the device.
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 DANIEL JEREMY LEEDS whose telephone number is (571)272-2095. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs, 0730-1730.
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, Anna Kinsaul can be reached at 571-270-1926. 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.
/DANIEL JEREMY LEEDS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Prosecution Insights