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 .
Status of the Claims
Amendment filed 5 March 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1, 11, 19, and 20 have been amended. Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 2 and 14 remain withdrawn from consideration.
Application Data Sheet
Examiner has identified that the application data sheet of record filed 4 October 2022 incorrectly identifies the Assignee as “Taiwan Semicondutor Manufacturing Company, Ltd.” This appears to contain a typographical error and may be corrected as, “Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd.”
Drawings
The amendments to the drawings were received on 5 March 2026. These amendments to the drawings are acceptable.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the subject matter of claims 4, 5, 8, 10, 11, 16, 18, and 20, “wherein the first block includes at least a first edge cell disposed along a first edge of the first block and the second block includes at least a second edge cell disposed along a second edge of the second block,” “wherein the first edge cell and the second edge cell have a common cell height that is equal to a less one of the first cell height and the second cell height,” “wherein the first dummy cells have a first dummy cell height and the second dummy cells have a second dummy cell height greater than the first dummy cell height,” “wherein the second dummy cells each have at least one active region, while none of the first dummy cells has an active region,” “a plurality of first edge cells spanning the width of the first column, disposed along a first edge of the first block, each of the first edge cells having the first cell height; [ ] and a plurality of second edge cells spanning the width of the second column, disposed along a second edge of the second block, each of the second edge cells having the first cell height,” and, “arranging a plurality of first edge cells disposed along a first edge of the first block; and arranging a plurality of second edge cells disposed along a second edge of the second block; wherein the first edge cells and the second edge cells have a common cell height,” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The amendments to the title and the specification were received on 5 March 2026. These amendments to the title and the specification are acceptable.
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: the subject matter of claims 6, 9, 10, 17, and 18, “wherein the spacing is equal to p×n, where p is a common factor of the first cell height and the second cell height, and n is a positive integer,” “wherein the first dummy cell height is equal to a common factor of the first cell height and the second cell height, and the second dummy cell height is equal to a multiple of the common factor,” and, “wherein the second dummy cells each have at least one active region, while none of the first dummy cells has an active region,” must find support in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 5 recites the limitation, “wherein the first edge cell and the second edge cell have a common cell height that is equal to a less one of the first cell height and the second cell height.” This appears to contain a typographical error and may be corrected as, “wherein the first edge cell and the second edge cell have a common cell height that is equal to a less than one of the first cell height and the second cell height.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 6, 9, 10, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 6, 9, 10, 17, and 18 recite the limitations, “wherein the spacing is equal to p×n, where p is a common factor of the first cell height and the second cell height, and n is a positive integer,” “wherein the first dummy cell height is equal to a common factor of the first cell height and the second cell height, and the second dummy cell height is equal to a multiple of the common factor,” and, “wherein the second dummy cells each have at least one active region, while none of the first dummy cells has an active region,” The specification fails to provide sufficient written description to convey to one having ordinary skill in the art that Applicant had possession of the aforementioned claimed subject matter. The specification and the drawings are silent to the spacing being determinant on a common factor of the first cell height and the second cell height, to the relative heights of the first and second dummy cells with respect to the first and second cell heights, and to one set of dummy cells having an active region while another set of dummy cells not having an active region. Due to the insufficient written disclosure failing to provide in clear and concise terms how these features are enabled, one of ordinary skill in the art would not conclude that Applicant was in possession of the claimed subject matter.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4, 5, 11-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 4 recites the limitation, “wherein the first block includes at least a first edge cell disposed along a first edge of the first block and the second block includes at least a second edge cell disposed along a second edge of the second block.” Applicant’s disclosure fails to show which elements correspond to the first and second edge cells, and correspondingly how said first and second edge cells are disposed with respect to the first and second blocks, thus rendering the claim indefinite. One of ordinary skill in the art is provided insufficient disclosure to understand the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation, “wherein the first edge cell and the second edge cell have a common cell height.” It is unclear how the first edge cell disposed along a first edge of the first block has a common height with the second edge cell disposed along a second edge of the second block, wherein the first edge faces the second edge. Applicant’s disclosure fails to show the edge cells, much less the edge cells having a common height when disposed on facing edges; thus rendering the claim indefinite. One of ordinary skill in the art is provided insufficient disclosure to understand the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation, “a plurality of first edge cells spanning the width of the first column, disposed along a first edge of the first block, each of the first edge cells having the first cell height; [ ] and a plurality of second edge cells spanning the width of the second column, disposed along a second edge of the second block, each of the second edge cells having the first cell height.” Applicant’s disclosure fails to show which elements correspond to the first and second edge cells, and correspondingly how said first and second edge cells are disposed with respect to the first and second blocks. Further, it is unclear how the first edge cells disposed along a first edge of the first block have a common height with the second edge cells disposed along a second edge of the second block, wherein the first edge faces the second edge. Applicant’s disclosure fails to show the edge cells, much less the edge cells having a common height when disposed on facing edges; thus rendering the claim indefinite. One of ordinary skill in the art is provided insufficient disclosure to understand the claim.
Claim 20 recites the limitation, “arranging a plurality of first edge cells disposed along a first edge of the first block; and arranging a plurality of second edge cells disposed along a second edge of the second block; wherein the first edge cells and the second edge cells have a common cell height.” Applicant’s disclosure fails to show which elements correspond to the first and second edge cells, and correspondingly how said first and second edge cells are disposed with respect to the first and second blocks. Further, it is unclear how the first edge cells disposed along a first edge of the first block have a common height with the second edge cells disposed along a second edge of the second block. Applicant’s disclosure fails to show the edge cells, much less the edge cells having a common height; thus rendering the claim indefinite. One of ordinary skill in the art is provided insufficient disclosure to understand the claim.
Claims 12-18 are rejected for merely containing the flaws of the parent claim.
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.
Claims 1, 3-5, 11-13, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hino et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2019/0123063, hereinafter Hino ‘063).
With respect to claim 1, Hino ‘063 teaches (FIG. 1) an integrated circuit layout as claimed, comprising:
a first block (CR in column #4 extending in the “x” direction) comprising a plurality of first cells (see annotated FIG. 1 below) spanning a width (“y” direction) of a first column (column #4 extending in the “x” direction), each of the first cells having a first cell height (“x” direction) ([0028-0029]); and
a second block (CR in column #5 extending in the “x” direction) comprising a plurality of second cells (see annotated FIG. 1 below) spanning a width (“y” direction) of a second column (column #5 extending in the “x” direction), each of the second cells having a second cell height (“x” direction) ([0028-0029]);
wherein the first block (CR in column #4 extending in the “x” direction) is disposed next to the second block (CR in column #5 extending in the “x” direction) with a spacing between the first column (column #4 extending in the “x” direction) and the second column (column #5 extending in the “x” direction) that is either equal to zero or less than any of the first or second cell height ([0028-0029]).
PNG
media_image1.png
468
668
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 3, Hino ‘063 teaches wherein the first cell height is different from the second cell height ([0028-0029]).
With respect to claim 4, Hino ‘063 teaches wherein the first block (CR in column #4 extending in the “x” direction) includes at least a first edge cell (end cap cell of column #4) disposed along a first edge of the first block and the second block (CR in column #5 extending in the “x” direction) includes at least a second edge cell (end cap cell of column #5) disposed along a second edge of the second block, and wherein the first edge faces the second edge ([0028-0029]).
With respect to claim 5, Hino ‘063 teaches wherein the first edge cell (end cap cell of column #4) and the second edge cell (end cap cell of column #5) have a common cell height (“x” direction) that is equal to a less one of the first cell height and the second cell height ([0028-0029]).
With respect to claim 11, Hino ‘063 teaches (FIG. 1) an integrated circuit layout as claimed, comprising:
a first block (CR in column #4 extending in the “x” direction) comprising a plurality of first cells (see annotated FIG. 1 above) spanning a width (“y” direction) of a first column (column #4 extending in the “x” direction), each of the first cells having a first cell height (“x” direction) ([0028-0029]);
a plurality of first edge cells (end cap cell of column #4) spanning the width of the first column (column #4 extending in the “x” direction), disposed along a first edge of the first block (CR in column #4 extending in the “x” direction), each of the first edge cells having the first cell height (“x” direction) ([0028-0029]);
a second block (CR in column #5 extending in the “x” direction) disposed next to the first block (CR in column #4 extending in the “x” direction) and comprising a plurality of second cells (see annotated FIG. 1 above) spanning a width (“y” direction) of a second column (column #5 extending in the “x” direction), each of the second cells having a second cell height (“x” direction) greater than the first cell height ([0028-0029]); and
a plurality of second edge cells (end cap cell of column #5) spanning the width of the second column (column #5 extending in the “x” direction), disposed along a second edge of the second block (CR in column #5 extending in the “x” direction), each of the second edge cells having the first cell height (“x” direction) ([0028-0029]);
wherein the first edge and the second edge face each other ([0028-0029]).
With respect to claim 12, Hino ‘063 teaches wherein a spacing between the first edge and the second edge is equal to zero ([0028-0029]).
With respect to claim 13, Hino ‘063 teaches wherein a spacing between the first edge and the second edge is less than the first cell height ([0028-0029]).
With respect to claim 19, Hino ‘063 teaches (FIG. 1) a method for generating an integrated circuit layout as claimed, comprising:
arranging a plurality of first cells (see annotated FIG. 1 above) spanning a width (“y” direction) of a first column (column #4 extending in the “x” direction), in a first block (CR in column #4 extending in the “x” direction), each of the first cells having a first cell height (“x” direction) ([0028-0029]);
arranging a plurality of second cells (see annotated FIG. 1 above) spanning a width (“y” direction) of a second column (column #5 extending in the “x” direction), in a second block (CR in column #5 extending in the “x” direction), each of the second cells having a second cell height (“x” direction) ([0028-0029]); and
placing the first column (column #4 extending in the “x” direction) of the first block (CR in column #4 extending in the “x” direction) next to the second column (column #5 extending in the “x” direction) of the second block (CR in column #5 extending in the “x” direction) with a spacing that is either equal to zero or less than any of the first or second cell height ([0028-0029]).
With respect to claim 20, Hino ‘063 teaches further comprising: arranging a plurality of first edge cells (end cap cell of column #4) disposed along a first edge of the first block (CR in column #4 extending in the “x” direction); and arranging a plurality of second edge cells (end cap cell of column #5) disposed along a second edge of the second block (CR in column #5 extending in the “x” direction); wherein the first edge cells and the second edge cells have a common cell height that is equal to a less one of the first cell height and the second cell height ([0028-0029]).
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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hino ‘063 as applied to claim 1 above.
With respect to claim 6, Hino ‘063 teaches the device as described in claim 1 above, but does not explicitly teach the additional limitation wherein the spacing is equal to p×n, where p is a common factor of the first cell height and the second cell height, and n is a positive integer.
However, Hino ‘063 teaches a variety of different cell heights (“x” direction) among the various rows (CR) such that a spacing between columns may be equal to p×n, where p is a common factor of a first cell height and a second cell height, and n is a positive integer ([0028-0029]) in an arrangement that reduces process-induced variations at cell row ends of a circuit block ([0008]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the spacing of Hino ‘063 equal to p×n, where p is a common factor of the first cell height and the second cell height, and n is a positive integer as taught by Hino ‘063 in an arrangement that reduces process-induced variations at cell row ends of a circuit block.
Claims 7-9 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hino ‘063 as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Chang et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2020/0272781, hereinafter Chang ‘781) of record.
With respect to claims 7-9 and 15-17, Hino ‘063 teaches the device as described in claims 1 and 11 above with the exception of the additional limitations further comprising a plurality of first dummy cells and a plurality of second dummy cells interposed between the first block and the second block; wherein the first dummy cells have a first dummy cell height and the second dummy cells have a second dummy cell height greater than the first dummy cell height; and wherein the first dummy cell height is equal to a common factor of the first cell height and the second cell height, and the second dummy cell height is equal to a multiple of the common factor.
However, Chang ‘781 teaches (FIGs. 1 and 5) an integrated circuit layout comprising a plurality of first dummy cells (Set3) and a plurality of second dummy cells (Set4) interposed between the first block and the second block (see how dummy cell region 28 is supplied to the integrated circuit shown in FIG. 1); wherein the first dummy cells have a first dummy cell height and the second dummy cells have a second dummy cell height greater than the first dummy cell height; and wherein the first dummy cell height is equal to a common factor of the first cell height and the second cell height, and the second dummy cell height is equal to a multiple of the common factor ([0024, 0034-0035, 0041]) to solve problems of pattern conflict and design rule violation ([0026, 0060]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the integrated circuit layout of Hino ‘063 further comprising a plurality of first dummy cells and a plurality of second dummy cells interposed between the first block and the second block; wherein the first dummy cells have a first dummy cell height and the second dummy cells have a second dummy cell height greater than the first dummy cell height; and wherein the first dummy cell height is equal to a common factor of the first cell height and the second cell height, and the second dummy cell height is equal to a multiple of the common factor as taught by Chang ‘781 to solve problems of pattern conflict and design rule violation.
Claims 10 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hino ‘063 and Chang ‘781 as applied to claims 7 and 15 above, and further in view of Maeda (US Patent Application Publication 2005/0044522, hereinafter Maeda ‘522) and Liaw (US Patent Application Publication 2018/0151553, hereinafter Liaw ‘553), both of record.
With respect to claims 10 and 18, Hino ‘063 and Chang ‘781 teach the device as described in claims 7 and 15 above with the exception of the additional limitation wherein the second dummy cells each have at least one active region, while none of the first dummy cells has an active region.
However, Maeda ‘522 teaches (FIG. 6) dummy cells (20) having at least one active region (211a and 211b) ([0155]) to prevent formation of small patterns with dimensions that do not satisfy the layout design rule, and/or formation of small spaces between adjacent patterns with dimensions that do not satisfy the layout design rule over the entire areas ([0200]).
Further, Liaw ‘553 teaches dummy cells not requiring active regions such that an integrated circuit may have an improved topography and less stress ([0084]). Still further, one of ordinary skill in the art would not form active regions where not required in order to minimize process steps, conserve resources, and reduce the likelihood of component interference.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the second dummy cells of Hino ‘063 and Chang ‘781 each having at least one active region, while none of the first dummy cells has an active region as taught by Maeda ‘522 and Liaw ‘553 to prevent formation of small patterns with dimensions that do not satisfy the layout design rule, and/or formation of small spaces between adjacent patterns with dimensions that do not satisfy the layout design rule over the entire areas, and/or to improve topography and provide less stress depending on the specific application requirements. Still further, one of ordinary skill in the art would not form active regions where not required in order to minimize process steps, conserve resources, and reduce the likelihood of component interference.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to the drawings, the specification, and the title are sufficient to overcome the objection to the drawings for reference numeral 110 in FIG. 1B not pointing to anything, the objection to the drawings for reference numerals 355, 415A, and 415B not being mentioned in the description, and the objection to the title made in the non-final rejection filed 10 December 2025. The objection to the drawings for reference numeral 110 in FIG. 1B not pointing to anything, the objection to the drawings for reference numerals 355, 415A, and 415B not being mentioned in the description, and the objection to the title have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments filed 5 March 2026 with respect to the objection to the drawings for failing to show every feature of the invention specified in the claims have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (remarks, p. 9) that 37 C.F.R. 1.81 requires drawings only where necessary for understanding the subject matter sought to be patented. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
37 C.F.R. 1.83(a) requires that drawing in a nonprovisional application must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Any structural detail that is of sufficient importance to be described should be shown in the drawing. Ex parte Good, 1911 C.D. 43, 164 OG 739 (Comm’r Pat. 1911). Accordingly, the features referenced in the above objection to the drawings must be shown or otherwise canceled.
Applicant argues (remarks, p. 9) that FIGs. 3A-3B show dummy cell (300) having a dummy cell height greater than the dummy cell height of dummy cell (350), and a dummy cell (300) which includes an active region (310) and a dummy cell (350) lacking an active region. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
First, the dummy cell (300) is not shown together with dummy cell (350), but rather in the alternative. Second, the features of claims 8 and 10, “wherein the first dummy cells have a first dummy cell height and the second dummy cells have a second dummy cell height greater than the first dummy cell height,” and, “wherein the second dummy cells each have at least one active region, while none of the first dummy cells has an active region,” respectively are not shown in combination with the feature of claim 7, “further comprising a plurality of first dummy cells and a plurality of second dummy cells interposed between the first block and the second block,” in such a manner that one of ordinary skill in the art could understand the invention.
Applicant argues (remarks, p. 9) that FIGs. 5A-6B show examples of cells which may comprise one or more edge cells of a similar dimension and wherein a second cell is of a second type which may include an overall dimension of the cell which is different from the first type. Each of the first cell (610) and second cell (620) may comprise a common edge cell along the abutting edge (615). Examiner respectfully disagrees.
FIGs. 5A-6B show cells (510, 520, 530, 540, 620, 630, and 640) and gaps (550 and 650). However, FIGs. 5A-6B do not show edges cells, much less edge cells arranged in the manner as described in the claims.
Applicant has not supplied arguments with respect to the objection to the specification for failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. Accordingly, the objection to the specification is maintained as above set forth.
Applicant’s amendments to claim 20 are sufficient to overcome the objection to claim 20 made in the non-final rejection filed 10 December 2025. The objection to claim 20 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments filed 5 March 2026 with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection of claims 9, 10, 17, and 18 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (remarks, p. 10) that support for these claims can easily be demonstrated by the claims themselves. As indicated above, claims 9, 10, 17, and 18 have not been amended from their original presentation. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Claims 9, 10, 17, and 18 are not rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for introducing new matter, but rather because the specification fails to provide sufficient written description to convey to one having ordinary skill in the art that Applicant had possession of the aforementioned claimed subject matter. Due to the insufficient written disclosure failing to provide in clear and concise terms how these features are enabled, one of ordinary skill in the art would not conclude that Applicant was in possession of the claimed subject matter.
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, p. 11, filed 5 March 2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claims 11-13 and 15-18 identifying the claimed elements with respect to FIG. 2 of Applicant’s disclosure have been fully considered and are persuasive. The prior 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claims 11-13 and 15-18 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended claim(s) 1, 11, and 19 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 Christopher M. Roland whose telephone number is (571)270-1271. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 10:00AM-7:00PM Eastern.
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, Yara Green can be reached at (571)270-3035. 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.
/C.M.R./Examiner, Art Unit 2893
/YARA B GREEN/Supervisor Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights