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 .
Action Is Non-Final
It is noted that this action is being made Non-Final by the present Examiner.
Drawings
Figures 1-4 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See, for example, paragraphs 0058-0062, which describe the subject matter of Figures 1-4 as “known”. See also at least paragraphs 0111, 0116, 0123, 0125, and 0128, for example.
See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. 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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 206 (see paragraphs 0112-0114, for example). 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. 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.
Comment on Claim Language
It is noted that independent claim 11 is directed to a “chuck table” having an intended function or intended use of “supporting a wafer assembly during a cleaning process”. That said, it is noted that dependent claims 12-14 and 17 are likewise directed to the “chuck table”.
That being said, it is noted that claim 12 sets forth “[T]he chuck table of claim 11 wherein the wafer assembly includes a ring disposed around a periphery of the tape”. It is noted that thus, claim 12 merely sets forth a more specific intended use or intended function of the claimed “chuck table”. A similar situation appears to exist regarding dependent claims 13-14 and 17, in that claims 13-14 and 17 do not appear to set forth any further express structural limitation on the claimed chuck table, but merely recite a more specific intended use/function. Note that all that is necessary to meet a functional/intended use limitation is for a prior art structure to be merely capable of carrying out the claimed functional or intended use.
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.
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 1, 3-9, and 11-20 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.
In claim 1, line 11, it is unclear as set forth in the claim whether “a wafer assembly” is intended to be the same as, or is instead intended to be different from/additional to, the “wafer assembly” previously mentioned in claim 1, line 1. That being said, it is noted that the limitation “the wafer assembly” in each of claim 1, lines 11-12; claim 1, line 12; and claim 1, line 13, lacks sufficient antecedent basis in the claim, as it is unclear which wafer assembly is intended to be referenced, i.e., the “wafer assembly” of claim 1, line 1, or the “wafer assembly” of claim 1, line 11.
In claim 3, the claim sets forth “wherein the plurality of suction openings are evenly distributed around a periphery of the second surface”. However, it is unclear as set forth in the claim whether “around” in this limitation is intended to mean “in the vicinity of”, or is instead intended to refer in some fashion to the spacing of the openings, e.g., the spacing of the openings being distributed so as to be located so as to be spaced along such periphery of the second surface.
In claim 4¸ the claim sets forth “wherein a pair of opposing suction openings are separated by a distance of 180 mm”. However, it is unclear as set forth in the claim whether “a pair of opposing suction openings” is intended to be a subset of the previously-recited “plurality of suction openings”, or whether “a pair of opposing suction openings” is instead intended to be additional to the previously-recited “plurality of suction openings”.
In claim 11, line 6, it is unclear as set forth in the claim whether “a wafer assembly” is intended to be the same as, or is instead intended to be different from/additional to, the “wafer assembly” previously mentioned in claim 11, line 1. That being said, it is noted that the limitation “the wafer assembly” in each of claim 11, line 7; claim 11, line 8; and claim 11, line 14, lacks sufficient antecedent basis in the claim, as it is unclear which wafer assembly is intended to be referenced, i.e., the “wafer assembly” of claim 11, line 1, or the “wafer assembly” of claim 11, line 6.
In claim 11, line 16, it is unclear as set forth in the claim whether “a wafer assembly” is intended to be the same as, or is instead intended to be different from/additional to, the “wafer assembly” previously mentioned in claim 11, line 1, and it is additionally unclear as set forth in the claim whether “a wafer assembly” in claim 11, line 16 is intended to be the same as, or is instead intended to be different from/additional to the “wafer assembly” previously mentioned in claim 11, line 6. That being said, it is noted that the limitation “the wafer assembly” in each of claim 11, line 17; claim 11, line 18 (plural occurrences in line 18); claim 12, claim 17, claim 18, and claim 20, lacks sufficient antecedent basis in the claim, as it is unclear which wafer assembly is intended to be referenced, i.e., the “wafer assembly” of claim 11, line 1, the “wafer assembly” of claim 11, line 6, or the “wafer assembly” of claim 11, line 16.
In claim 11, line 18, it is unclear as set forth in the claim whether “a wafer” is intended to be the same as, or is instead intended to be different from/additional to, the “wafer” previously mentioned in claim 11, line 6. That being said, it is noted that the limitation “the wafer” in each of claim 11, line 19; claim 13; claim 14, and claim 20, lacks sufficient antecedent basis in the claim, as it is unclear which wafer is intended to be referenced, i.e., the “wafer” of claim 11, line 6, or the “wafer” of claim 11, line 18.
In claim 13, the claim sets forth “wherein the wafer is expanded to a diameter of 160 mm”. In claim 14, the claim similarly sets forth “wherein the wafer is expanded to a diameter of 170 mm”. While it is noted (as discussed above) that these limitations are not structural limitations on the “chuck table”, it is unclear what effect these limitations are intended to have on the scope of the claim, given that these limitations appear to be attempting to set forth method steps of expanding/stretching (see paragraph 0106 of the present specification, which appears to indicate that the expansion is a stretching) the wafer, though (i) this is not a method claim, and (ii) the wafer forms no part of the claimed chuck table.
In claim 15, the claim sets forth a “raised” surface portion. However, it is unclear as set forth in the claim relative to what frame of reference the central portion is to be considered to be “raised”, i.e., “raised” relative to or as compared to what?
In claim 19, the limitation “the indentation” lacks sufficient antecedent basis in the claim. Note that previously, claim 18 (from which claim 19 depends) recited “at least one indentation”, and it is unclear as set forth in the claim which specific indentation of the range “at least one indentation” (e.g., a range from one to infinity) is intended to be referenced via the recitation of “the indentation”.
In claim 19, the claim sets forth “wherein the indentation extends only through the sunken peripheral portion of the second surface”. However, the limitation “the sunken peripheral portion of the second surface” lacks sufficient clear antecedent basis in the claim, noting that no sunken peripheral portion that is, specifically “of the second surface” was previously set forth, nor is such inherent.
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, 5-7, 9, 11-17, and 20, as best understood in view of the above rejections under 35 USC 112, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Pat. No. 4,906,011 to Hiyamizu et al. (hereinafter, “Hiyamizu”).
Regarding claims 1 and 11¸ Hiyamizu teaches a chuck table (such as, for example, 1, shown in Figure 2, in combination with the coating provided on surfaces 6 thereof described in at least col. 4, lines 52-60, and/or described in col. 5, line 65 through col. 6, line 17, for example) “for” (i.e., “capable of”) supporting a wafer assembly (via suction, simply by causing such a wafer to be suctioned to the vacuum chuck shown in Figure 2, noting that the chuck table is blind as to what the workpiece is that is chucked thereto, but rather, will/is capable of support/supporting whatever workpiece, including a “wafer assembly”, is suctioned thereto by virtue of the suction applied via 2, 3, etc., as described in at least col. 2, lines 19-48 and col. 4, line 52 through col. 5, line 11) during a “cleaning process” (such as a cleaning process in which the machining described in col. 4, lines 56-68 and col. 5, line 11, for example, is carried out, which machining would serve to “clean” off any dirt, for example, that would be located on the surface that is being machined), the chuck table comprising:
a first surface (such as, for example, the bottom surface of 1; see Figure 2) including an opening (the opening of the perforation 2 that is in the bottom surface of 1; see Figure 2), the (aforedescribed) opening configured to be in communication with a vacuum source (re the vacuum line described by Hiyamizu in at least col. 2, lines 19-39 and particularly lines 24-30, as well as col. 4, line 52 through col. 5, line 11); and
a second surface (such as, for example, the top surface of the coating that is provided to surface(s) 6, as described in at least col. col. 4, lines 52-60; see also Figure 2) opposing the (aforedescribed) first surface, the second surface including a plurality of suction openings (the openings in the aforedescribed second surface, at which openings, the grooves 3 are located) displaced radially (in the left/right horizontal direction re Figure 2, for example) from both the (aforedescribed) opening in the (aforedescribed) first surface (as can be seen in Figure 2, for example) and an axis of rotation (such as an axis perpendicular to the top plane of 1 and that extends through the center of 2; see Figure 2 and also col. 4, line 52 through col. 5, line 11, as well as col. 5, lines 32-40, and col. 6, lines 30-49, noting the discussion of lathing and the discussion of revolutions/RPMs; see Figure 2) of the chuck table, the (aforedescribed) plurality of suction openings being in communication (via cavity C, labeled in the annotated reproduction of Figure 2 below) with the (aforedescribed) opening in the (aforedescribed) first surface such that in use a suction force can (at least ultimately) be applied via the plurality of (aforedescribed) suction openings (see Figure 2 and col. 2, lines 19-39, col. 1, lines 5-12, col. 5, line 40 through col. 6, line 54, for example), the (aforedescribed) second surface formed from a “single unitary material” (see Figure 2 as well as at least col. 4, lines 52-60, for example noting that the aforedescribed “surface” is literally just the top surface of the aforedescribed coating provided to the upper surfaces 6, and thus, that surface is, as broadly claimed, a “single unitary material”, i.e., the synthetic rubber-based adhesive described in col. 4, lines 52-60, for example, or the epoxy resin-based adhesive described in col. 5, line 65 through col. 6, line 17, for example), the plurality of suction openings positioned such that, “in use” (such as during machining at a time when suction is being applied to a workpiece that is suctioned to the vacuum chuck), when a wafer assembly is supported by the chuck table, a suction force is applied to the wafer assembly via only the plurality of suction openings, to only a tape of the wafer assembly, beyond a perimeter of a wafer of the wafer assembly, and is not applied directly to the wafer. Regarding all of the functional or intended use limitations in the last five lines of claim 1 and the similar language throughout claim 11 (though most particularly, lines 5-9 and 15-19), it is noted that it is not necessary for the reference to expressly teach such in order for the claim limitation to be anticipated, noting that the present claim is an apparatus claim directed to a chuck table, and is not directed to a method of holding/supporting/clamping (etc.) a wafer assembly, such that all that is necessary to meet such language is for the prior art structure to be merely capable of performing the claimed function or intended use. Note also that it is not necessary for a given reference to teach the particular structure of the wafer assembly (re the tap, etc.), in order for the intended use or functional language re the claimed chuck table to be met. In the instant case, it is considered inherent that the chuck table is capable of supporting a wafer assembly, as discussed above, given that the chuck table is blind as to what the workpiece it suctions/supports/clamps etc. is, but rather, by virtue of the configuration of 2, C, 3, etc., is inherently capable of supporting whatever workpiece is brought into operative clamping/supporting contact therewith, especially if that workpiece has a flat surface that can be suctioned thereto, including a wafer assembly that is configured as set forth in claims 1 and 11. Note also that re the language “a suction force is applied to the wafer assembly via only the plurality of suction openings”, it is noted that this functional limitation is sufficiently broad as to be met by Hiyamizu, noting, for example, that no additional suctional forces are applied to a workpiece via any other suctional force application, i.e., all of the suction force(s) that are applied to the workpiece come through (at least at some point) the aforedescribed suction openings. See Figure 2 and col. 2, lines 19-39, as well as at least col. 4, line 33 through col. 5, line 11, col. 5, line 43 through col. 6, line 17, and col. 6, lines 20-54, for example.
[AltContent: textbox (SPP)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (RCP)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (Q1)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (C)][AltContent: connector]
PNG
media_image1.png
414
524
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, the (aforedescribed) plurality of suction openings are (as broadly claimed) “evenly distributed” around (such as in the vicinity of, or alternatively, such as extending all the way around the inner periphery of, for example, portion Q1, labeled above, of the aforedescribed second surface) a periphery of the second surface (see Figure 2).
Regarding claim 5, each of the plurality of (aforedescribed) suction openings is in communication (via the cavity C labeled above in the annotated reproduction of Figure 2) with the (aforedescribed) opening in the (aforedescribed) first surface. See Figure 2, for example.
Regarding claim 6, Hiyamizu teaches that the chuck table comprises a cavity (such as the cavity labeled above as “C” in the annotated reproduction of Figure 2).
Regarding claim 7, Hiyamizu teaches that the (aforedescribed) opening in the (aforedescribed) first surface and the plurality of suction openings in the second surface are connected by the cavity (C, labeled above in the annotated reproduction of Figure 2); see Figure 2.
Regarding claim 9, the chuck table is disk shaped. See Figure 2.
Regarding claims 12-14, it is noted that these claims merely set forth a more specific intended use of the claimed chuck table, again noting that the claims are directed to the chuck table with merely a particular intended function/use with such a wafer assembly/wafer, and that all that is necessary for such limitations to be met is for the prior art chuck assembly to be merely capable of performing the claimed function(s) or intended use(s). In the instant case, the chuck table taught by Hiyamizu is blind as to the workpiece which it holds or vacuum suctions, as discussed in detail above, but rather, by virtue of the configuration of 2, C, 3, etc., is inherently capable of supporting whatever workpiece is brought into operative clamping/supporting contact therewith, especially if that workpiece has a flat surface that can be suctioned thereto, including a wafer assembly that is configured as set forth in claims 12-14. Particularly regarding claim 12, the chuck table does not care if the workpiece does or does not have such a ring or such tape, but rather, will hold the workpiece either way. Regarding claims 13-14, note that the chuck table taught by Hiyamizu is considered to be inherently capable of supporting a wafer assembly that is “expanded to” either of the claimed diameters, simply by having an outer peripheral portion of the wafer “hang off” of the vacuum chuck slightly (see, for example, col. 4, lines 29-66, for example).
Regarding claim 15, the (aforedescribed) second surface includes a raised central portion (such as, for example, the surface portion that is labeled in the above annotated reproduction of Figure 2 as “RCP”).
Regarding claim 16, the (aforedescribed) raised central portion (RCP) is surrounded by a “sunken” peripheral portion (such as, for example, the surface portion that is labeled in the above annotated reproduction of Figure 2 as “SPP”).
Regarding claim 17, it is noted that claim 17 merely sets forth a more specific intended use or intended function of the chuck table, noting that the claim is directed to the chuck table, per se, with a function or intended use with the particular wafer assembly/ring thereof. That said, note that no ring of any wafer assembly is required in order to actually meet claim 17, but rather, as long as the chuck table of Hiyamizu has a sunken peripheral portion (SPP) that is merely capable of being used with a wafer assembly having ring that is in some fashion “complementary” to a geometry of the sunken peripheral portion (SPP), the claim is met. In the instant case, it is again noted that the chuck table taught by Hiyamizu is blind as to the workpiece which it holds or vacuum suctions, as discussed in detail above, but rather, by virtue of the configuration of 2, C, 3, etc., is inherently capable of supporting whatever workpiece is brought into operative clamping/supporting contact therewith, especially if that workpiece has a flat surface that can be suctioned thereto, including a wafer assembly that is configured as having a ring that is shaped/structured as set forth in claim 17, simply by providing such a wafer assembly having such a ring (complementary in geometry to the sunken peripheral space SPP) and applying suction to such a wafer assembly via 2/3/the disclosed vacuum line, etc.
Regarding claim 20, the (aforedescribed) plurality of suction openings are “configured to” (as broadly claimed, i.e., be capable of applying) apply the suction force on (i.e., to, at least ultimately) a portion of a second face of the wafer assembly that directly opposes a portion of the peripheral area of the first face that is uncovered by the wafer. It is again noted that the present claims are directed to a chuck table with an intended use or intended function with the wafer/wafer assembly that is mentioned in the claims. The claims are not method claims directed to a method of clamping such a wafer assembly/wafer. That said, note that no such wafer assembly is required in order to actually meet claim 20, but rather, as long as the chuck table of Hiyamizu is merely capable of being used to perform the claimed function or intended use of applying suction on a wafer assembly that is configured as set forth in claim 20, the claim is met. In the instant case, it is again noted that the chuck table taught by Hiyamizu is blind as to the workpiece which it holds or vacuum suctions, as discussed in detail above, but rather, by virtue of the configuration of 2, C, 3, etc., is inherently capable of supporting whatever workpiece is brought into operative clamping/supporting contact therewith, especially if that workpiece has a flat surface that can be suctioned thereto, including a wafer assembly that is configured/shaped/sized and located as set forth in claim 20, simply by providing such a wafer assembly having such a configuration relative to the chuck table and applying suction to such a wafer assembly via 2/3/the disclosed vacuum line, etc., of Hiyazumi.
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 4, 8, and 18-19, as best understood in view of the above rejection(s) under 35 USC 112, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. No. 4,906,011 to Hiyamizu et al. (hereinafter, “Hiyamizu”) as applied to at least claims 1 and 3 above.
Hiyamizu teaches all of the aspects of the presently-claimed invention as were described in the above rejection(s) based thereon.
However, regarding claim 4, while Hiyamizu expressly provides a teaching of an example in which the chuck body has an outer diameter or OD of 94 mm, and Hiyazumi additionally teaches that the vacuum chuck of the invention can be used for workpieces of a variety of sizes (including larger sizes) by expanding the effective surface area available for suction (see col. 4, lines 14-30, for example), it is noted that Hiyazumi does not expressly provide an example in which the vacuum chuck is of such a (larger than the one in Example 1, described in columns 4-5) size that a pair of “opposed” suction openings are “separated by”, specifically, “a distance of 180 mm” as set forth in claim 4. (As a side note, it is noted that lines can be drawn such than any two of the aforedescribed openings can be considered to be “opposed”, in that they are on opposite sides of a line passing through an area that is located between the such two openings; see Figure 2).
That said, as noted above, Hiyazumi teaches that the chuck can be of a larger (than having an OD of 94 mm) size in order to hold workpieces of a variety of sizes, and thus the various dimensions of the chuck, including the size of the surface area to which a workpiece is suctioned and the location/spacing/size of the aforedescribed suction openings would also be varied. Furthermore, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the Hiyazumi device to have larger dimensions, including larger spacing between some two of the suction openings, as such only involves adjusting the dimension of a component disclosed to be able adjusted (so as to facilitate the holding of workpieces of various sizes). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Hiyazumi by making the overall chuck larger, and specifically, by making two of the aforedescribed suction openings be “separated by a distance of 180 mm”, as claimed, as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges” (or sizes) “by routine experimentation”. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Additionally, regarding claim 8, while Hiyazumi does teach that the vacuum chuck is an “attachment” for holding a workpiece or tool (col. 1, lines 5-12), and teaches that the vacuum chuck is “mounted on an ultra high-precision lathe having a vacuum line built therein” (col. 4, lines 52-60, for example), Hiyazumi is silent as to how the vacuum chuck is so mounted (to the machine in which it is being used to perform vacuum chucking) and does not expressly teach that the chuck table comprises “a plurality of holes configured to receive couplings suitable for” (i.e., capable of) “securing the chuck table to a cleaning tool”.
However, Examiner takes Official Notice that the use of coupling that include a plurality of mating male and female portions (with the female portions being holes), including, for example, threaded fasteners that thread into holes, is extremely well-known and widely used in fastening/attachment/assembly operations for the purpose of providing a cheap, easy, and reliable fastening/attachment/assembly of two parts, which are well-known benefit of such fastening arrangements.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the chuck table taught by Hiyazumi with holes, such as holes for receiving threaded fasteners, that are “suitable for”/capable of receiving couplings, such as threaded fasteners, for (capable of) securing the chuck table to (for example) a cleaning tool (and it is again noted that the lathe taught by Hiyazumi is itself capable of performing a cleaning operation, as discussed in more detail above), as is well-known, for the purpose of achieving any of the well-known benefits of such fastening arrangements, such as by using known fasteners that are known to be cheap, easy, and reliable.
Regarding claims 18-19, while Hiyazumi teaches a chuck table for releasably suctioning workpieces (such as 7), and teaches that the chuck table has a sunken peripheral portion, Hiyazumi does not teach any indentation(s) in a periphery of the chuck table as set forth in claims 18-19.
However, Examiner takes Official Notice that the use of such one or more indentations (that are located/configured as claimed in claims 18-19) is well-known for the purpose of facilitating removal of a workpiece from a vacuum chuck (e.g., by allowing an operator to have a location to better access a portion of the workpiece, and/or by allowing an operator to use a tool at such indentation(s) to allow prying of the workpiece off of the vacuum chuck).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided one or more indentations (as is known) in a periphery of the chuck table taught by Hiyazumi, which one or more indentations is/are configured to facilitate removal of the workpiece from the chuck table, as is known, and which indentation(s) is/are configured to extend only through the sunken peripheral portion of the second surface, as is well-known, for the purpose of facilitating removal of a workpiece from a vacuum chuck (e.g., by allowing an operator to have a location to better access a portion of the workpiece, and/or by allowing an operator to use a tool at such indentation(s) to allow prying of the workpiece off of the vacuum chuck), as is known.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) re the previously-applied art rejections (based on the Saito reference, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0257232) made by the previous Examiner 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. For example, U.S. Pat. No. 2,852,264 teaches a vacuum chuck.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERICA E CADUGAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4474. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 5:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sunil K Singh can be reached at (571) 272-3460. 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.
/ERICA E CADUGAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3722
eec
October 6, 2026
Prosecution Insights