DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment & Claims’ Status
The Amendment filed on 3/5/2026 has been entered. Claims 1 and 5-23 are currently pending and being examined. Claims 1, 5, 11-14, 16-17, and 19-20 have been amended. Claims 2-4 have been cancelled. No new claims have been added. Due to the amendments to the claims, the objections of Claims 1-2, 5, 8-9, and 11-14 of the previous Office Action (filed 12/10/2025) have been withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claims 5 and 11-12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Re Claim 5, lines 3-4 and line 5 of Claim 5 are seemingly redundant, as they contain overlapping material with Claim 1 lines 11-12 and line 10, respectively. For the purposes of examination, Claim 5 will be interpreted just on its first four lines.
Re Claim 11, line 5 of Claim 11 states “wherein the second surface is opposite to the first surface”, which is redundant given lines 5-6 of Claim 1 already state “a second surface opposite to the first surface”.
Re Claim 12, lines 5-6, line 7, and line 8 of Claim 5 are seemingly redundant, as they contain overlapping material with Claim 1 lines 11-12, line 10, and line 14, respectively. For the purposes of examination, Claim 12 will be interpreted just on its first two lines.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 13-15, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al (US 2017/0352538 A1, of record, hereafter Kim) in view of Tully et al (US 2023/0053780 A1, of record, hereafter Tully) and Celler (US 2006/0276003 A1).
Re claim 1, Kim discloses a method for providing a carbonaceous membrane (FIGS. 2A-2E; [0025]-[0027]), comprising:
forming a sacrificial layer (220; [0025]) on a first substrate (210; [0025]);
forming a carbonaceous membrane (230; [0025]) on the sacrificial layer (220; [0025]), wherein the carbonaceous membrane (230) has a first surface (230, bottom surface in FIG. 2B) facing the sacrificial layer (220; [0025]) and a second surface (230, top surface in FIG. 2B) opposite to the first surface (230, bottom surface in FIG. 2B; [0025]);
removing the sacrificial layer (220; [0025]) using an etchant ([0025]), with the first surface of the carbonaceous membrane (230, initial bottom surface when created) still facing the first substrate (210; [0026]);
completely removing the first substrate (210) from the carbonaceous membrane (230; [0026]); and
coupling the carbonaceous membrane (230) to a second substrate (250; [0026]).
Kim does not explicitly disclose wherein:
the carbonaceous membrane (230) has a grain size increasing from the first surface (230, bottom surface in FIG. 2B) to the second surface (230, top surface in FIG. 2B);
coupling the second surface of the carbonaceous membrane (230, top surface in FIG. 2B), which has the increased grain size, to a second substrate (250); and
while the second surface of the carbonaceous membrane (230, top surface in FIG. 2B) being coupled to the second substrate (250), polishing the carbonaceous membrane (230) from the first surface (230, bottom surface in FIG. 2B), such that the increased grain size of the carbonaceous membrane (230) is present on the second substrate (250).
However, Tully teaches a method ([0126]) comprising wherein the carbonaceous membrane (“polycrystalline CVD diamond”; [0126]) has a grain size increasing from the first surface (“nucleation face”; [0126]) to the second surface (“growth face”; [0126]).
Additionally, Celler teaches a method (FIGS. 3-4; [0032]-[0039]) comprising:
coupling the second surface of the carbonaceous membrane (24, surface closest to 16), which has the increased grain size, to a second substrate (16; [0032]); and
while the second surface of the carbonaceous membrane (24, surface closest to 16) being coupled to the second substrate (16; [0039]), polishing the carbonaceous membrane (24) from the first surface (24, surface closest to 10), such that the increased grain size of the carbonaceous membrane (24) is present on the second substrate (16; [0039]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the limitations taught by Kim with the limitations taught by Tully to have a diamond membrane with increasing grain size as a predictable result of polycrystalline CVD diamond growth as taught by Tully ([0126]).
It would have also been obvious to modify the limitations taught by Kim and Tully with the limitations taught by Celler to replace the final transfer process step (transfer to the host substrate) of Kim with the transfer process step of Celler, with subsequent polishing, as a functionally equivalent means of coupling the carbonaceous membrane to a host substrate while better enabling the carbonaceous membrane to act as a heat dissipator when used in further fabrication as taught by Celler ([0039]).
Re claim 13, Kim, Tully, and Celler teach the method according to claim 1, while Tully further teaches wherein the carbonaceous membrane (“polycrystalline CVD diamond”) includes a material selected from the group consisting of: a sp3 containing carbonaceous material, the sp3 containing carbonaceous material comprising at least one of a randomly oriented diamond, a polycrystalline diamond ([0126]), a microcrystalline diamond, nanocrystalline diamond, a ultrananocrystalline diamond, a diamond epilayer/film on a heteroepitaxial substrate, and combination thereof.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method discussed for claim 1 with the limitations taught by Tully to have the carbonaceous membrane (Kim: 230) be polycrystalline diamond for use in electronic applications as taught by Tully ([0004]).
Re claim 14, Kim discloses a method for providing a carbonaceous membrane (FIGS. 2A-2E; [0025]-[0027]), comprising:
forming a sacrificial layer (220; [0025]) on a first substrate (210; [0025]);
forming a carbonaceous membrane (230; [0025]) on the sacrificial layer (220; [0025]), with a first surface of the carbonaceous membrane (230, initial bottom surface in FIG. 2B) in contact with the sacrificial layer (220; [0025]);
removing the sacrificial layer (220; [0025]) using an etchant ([0025]);
completely removing the first substrate (210) from the carbonaceous membrane (230; [0026]);
attaching the carbonaceous membrane (230) to a second substrate (250; [0026]).
Kim does not explicitly disclose wherein:
the carbonaceous membrane (230) has a grain size increasing from the first surface (230, bottom surface in FIG. 2B) to its second surface (230, top surface in FIG. 2B) opposite to the first surface (230, bottom surface in FIG. 2B);
attaching the second surface of the carbonaceous membrane (230, top surface in FIG. 2B), which has the increased grain size, to a second substrate (250); and
while the second surface of the carbonaceous membrane (230, top surface in FIG. 2B) being coupled to the second substrate (250), polishing the carbonaceous membrane (230) from the first surface (230, bottom surface in FIG. 2B), such that the increased grain size of the carbonaceous membrane (230) is present on the second substrate (250).
However, Tully teaches a method ([0126]) comprising wherein the carbonaceous membrane (“polycrystalline CVD diamond”; [0126]) has a grain size increasing from the first surface (“nucleation face”; [0126]) to its second surface (“growth face”; [0126]) opposite to the first surface (“nucleation face”; [0126]).
Additionally, Celler teaches a method (FIGS. 3-4; [0032]-[0039]) comprising:
attaching the second surface of the carbonaceous membrane (24, surface closest to 16), which has the increased grain size, to a second substrate (16; [0032]); and
while the second surface of the carbonaceous membrane (24, surface closest to 16) being coupled to the second substrate (16; [0039]), polishing the carbonaceous membrane (24) from the first surface (24, surface closest to 10), such that the increased grain size of the carbonaceous membrane (24) is present on the second substrate (16; [0039]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the limitations taught by Kim with the limitations taught by Tully to have a diamond membrane with increasing grain size as a predictable result of polycrystalline CVD diamond growth as taught by Tully ([0126]).
It would have also been obvious to modify the limitations taught by Kim and Tully with the limitations taught by Celler to replace the final transfer process step (transfer to the host substrate) of Kim with the transfer process step of Celler, with subsequent polishing, as a functionally equivalent means of coupling the carbonaceous membrane to a host substrate while better enabling the carbonaceous membrane to act as a heat dissipator when used in further fabrication as taught by Celler ([0039]).
Re claim 15, Kim, Tully, and Celler teach the method according to claim 14, while Tully further teaches wherein the carbonaceous membrane (“polycrystalline CVD diamond”) includes a material selected from the group consisting of: a sp3 containing carbonaceous material, the sp3 containing carbonaceous material comprising at least one of a randomly oriented diamond, a polycrystalline diamond ([0126]), a microcrystalline diamond, nanocrystalline diamond, a ultrananocrystalline diamond, a diamond epilayer/film on a heteroepitaxial substrate, and combination thereof.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method discussed for claim 14 with the limitations taught by Tully to have the carbonaceous membrane (Kim: 230) be polycrystalline diamond for use in electronic applications as taught by Tully ([0004]).
Re claim 17, Kim discloses a method for providing a carbonaceous membrane (FIGS. 2A-2E; [0025]-[0027]), comprising:
forming a sacrificial layer (220; [0025]) on a first substrate (210; [0025]);
forming a carbonaceous membrane (230; [0025]) on the sacrificial layer (220; [0025]), with a first surface of the carbonaceous membrane (230, initial bottom surface in FIG. 2B) in contact with the sacrificial layer (220; [0025]);
removing the sacrificial layer (220; [0025]) using an etchant ([0025]);
attaching the carbonaceous membrane (230) to a second substrate (250; [0026]);
completely removing the first substrate (210) from the carbonaceous membrane (230; [0026]);
Kim does not explicitly disclose wherein:
the carbonaceous membrane (230) has a grain size increasing from the first surface (230, bottom surface in FIG. 2B) to its second surface (230, top surface in FIG. 2B) opposite to the first surface (230, bottom surface in FIG. 2B);
flipping the carbonaceous membrane (230);
attaching the second surface of the carbonaceous membrane (230, top surface in FIG. 2B), which has the increased grain size, to a second substrate (250);
while the second surface of the carbonaceous membrane (230, top surface in FIG. 2B) being coupled to the second substrate (250), polishing the carbonaceous membrane (230) from the first surface (230, bottom surface in FIG. 2B), such that the increased grain size of the carbonaceous membrane (230) is present on the second substrate (250).
However, Tully teaches a method ([0126]) comprising wherein the carbonaceous membrane (“polycrystalline CVD diamond”; [0126]) has a grain size increasing from the first surface (“nucleation face”; [0126]) to its second surface (“growth face”; [0126]) opposite to the first surface (“nucleation face”; [0126]).
Additionally, Celler teaches a method (FIGS. 3-4; [0032]-[0039]) comprising:
flipping the carbonaceous membrane (24; [0038], flipped for further processing);
attaching the second surface of the carbonaceous membrane (24, surface closest to 16), which has the increased grain size, to a second substrate (16; [0032]); and
while the second surface of the carbonaceous membrane (24, surface closest to 16) being coupled to the second substrate (16; [0039]), polishing the carbonaceous membrane (24) from the first surface (24, surface closest to 10), such that the increased grain size of the carbonaceous membrane (24) is present on the second substrate (16; [0039]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the limitations taught by Kim with the limitations taught by Tully to have a diamond membrane with increasing grain size as a predictable result of polycrystalline CVD diamond growth as taught by Tully ([0126]).
It would have also been obvious to modify the limitations taught by Kim and Tully with the limitations taught by Celler to replace the final transfer process step (transfer to the host substrate) of Kim with the transfer process step of Celler, with subsequent polishing, as a functionally equivalent means of coupling the carbonaceous membrane to a host substrate while better enabling the carbonaceous membrane to act as a heat dissipator when used in further fabrication as taught by Celler ([0039]).
Re claim 18, Kim, Tully, and Celler teach the method according to claim 17, while Tully further teaches wherein the carbonaceous membrane (“polycrystalline CVD diamond”) includes a material selected from the group consisting of: a sp3 containing carbonaceous material, the sp3 containing carbonaceous material comprising at least one of a randomly oriented diamond, a polycrystalline diamond ([0126]), a microcrystalline diamond, nanocrystalline diamond, a ultrananocrystalline diamond, a diamond epilayer/film on a heteroepitaxial substrate, and combination thereof.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method discussed for claim 17 with the limitations taught by Tully to have the carbonaceous membrane (Kim: 230) be polycrystalline diamond for use in electronic applications as taught by Tully ([0004]).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim, Tully, and Celler, as applied to claim 1, further in view of Hobart et al (US 2019/0157181 A1, of record, hereafter Hobart).
Re claim 10, Kim, Tully, and Celler teach the method according to claim 1, but they do not explicitly disclose the method further comprising growing a nucleation layer between the sacrificial layer (Kim: 220) and the carbonaceous membrane (Kim: 230).
However, Hobart teaches a method for providing a carbonaceous membrane (108; FIG. 1A-1F; [0044]-[0049]), comprising: growing a nucleation layer ([0047], not numbered) between the sacrificial layer (106; [0046]) and the carbonaceous membrane (108; [0047]).
Additionally, Celler teaches wherein:
subsequently to removing the sacrificial layer (by nature of replacing the final transfer step of Kim), flipping the carbonaceous membrane (24) together with the nucleation layer ([0038], flipped for further processing, see obviousness reasoning); and
removing the nucleation layer (see obviousness reasoning).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method discussed for claim 1 with the limitations taught by Hobart to use a nucleation layer to initiate growth of the diamond material (Kim: 230) as taught by Hobart ([0047]).
It would also have been obvious to modify the method discussed for claim 1 and the limitations taught by Hobart with the limitations taught by Celler to flip the carbonaceous membrane (Kim: 230) and remove the nucleation layer to increase the quality of the first surface of the membrane (Kim: 230, initial bottom surface) as taught by Celler ([0039]). While Celler does not explicitly disclose a nucleation layer and subsequent removal of the nucleation layer, the polishing of the second surface of the membrane (Celler: 24, surface closest to 16) as taught in Celler ([0039]) would inherently remove a nucleation layer used to grow the diamond membrane (Celler: 24) (as the nucleation layer is on “top” of the surface being smoothed away to improve the membrane).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim, Tully, and Celler, as applied to claim 1, further in view of Hobart and Khan et al (US 2021/0039988 A1, of record, hereafter Khan).
Re claim 11, Kim, Tully, and Celler teach the method according to claim 1, but they do not explicitly disclose the method further comprising:
growing a nucleation layer between the sacrificial layer (Kim: 220) and the carbonaceous membrane (Kim: 230);
smoothing the second surface of the carbonaceous membrane (Kim: 230, initial top surface), followed by removing the sacrificial layer (Kim: 220), wherein the second surface (Kim: 230, initial top surface) is opposite to the first surface.
However, Hobart teaches a method for providing a carbonaceous membrane (108; FIG. 1A-1F; [0044]-[0049]), comprising: growing a nucleation layer ([0047], not numbered) between the sacrificial layer (106; [0046]) and the carbonaceous membrane (108; [0047]).
Additionally, Khan teaches a method for providing a carbonaceous membrane (FIG. 3; [0024]-[0027]), comprising: smoothing a second surface of the carbonaceous membrane ([0025], not numbered, top surface of membrane is planarized), followed by removing the sacrificial layer (see obviousness reasoning), wherein the second surface is opposite to the first surface ([0025]).
Additionally, Celler teaches wherein:
flipping the carbonaceous membrane (24) together with the nucleation layer ([0038], flipped for further processing, see obviousness reasoning); and
removing the nucleation layer (see obviousness reasoning).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method discussed for claim 1 with the limitations taught by Hobart to use a nucleation layer to initiate growth of the diamond material (Kim: 230) as taught by Hobart ([0047]).
It would also have been obvious to modify the method discussed for claim 1 and the limitations taught by Hobart with the limitations taught by Khan to smooth the top surface of the carbonaceous membrane (Kim: 230, initial top surface) to control overgrowth during initial formation as taught by Khan ([0025]). While Khan does not explicitly disclose the step of further removing a sacrificial layer, the smoothing as mentioned occurs during the formation step of the membrane (Khan: 306; [0025]), which occurs before the sacrificial layer (Kim: 220) removal step as taught by Kim in the claim 1 analysis above.
It would also have been obvious to modify the method discussed for claim 1 and the limitations taught by Hobart with the limitations taught by Celler to flip the carbonaceous membrane (Kim: 230) and remove the nucleation layer to increase the quality of the first surface of the membrane (Kim: 230, initial bottom surface) as taught by Celler ([0039]). While Celler does not explicitly disclose a nucleation layer and subsequent removal of the nucleation layer, the polishing of the second surface of the membrane (Celler: 24, surface closest to 16) as taught in Celler ([0039]) would inherently remove a nucleation layer used to grow the diamond membrane (Celler: 24) (as the nucleation layer is on “top” of the surface being smoothed away to improve the membrane).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim, Tully, and Celler, as applied to claim 14, further in view of Englund et al (US 2015/0378261 A1, of record, hereafter Englund).
Re claim 16, Kim, Tully, and Celler teach the method according to claim 14, but they do not explicitly disclose the method further comprising forming a doped or etched region along the second surface of the carbonaceous membrane (Kim: 230).
However, Englund teaches a method for providing a carbonaceous membrane (710; FIGS. 7A-7D; [0081]-[0090]), comprising: forming a doped or etched region ([0085]) along the second surface of the carbonaceous membrane (710; [0085]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method discussed for claim 14 with the limitations taught by Englund to etch the second surface of the carbonaceous membrane (Kim: 230) to create patterns as taught by Englund ([0085]).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim, Tully, and Celler, as applied to claim 1, further in view of Scorsone et al (US 2013/0228547 A1, of record, hereafter Scorsone).
Re Claim 21, Kim, Tully, and Celler teach the method according to Claim 1, but they do not explicitly disclose wherein the etchant is hydrofluoric acid.
However, Scorsone teaches a method (FIG. 1K; [0097]) comprising removing a sacrificial layer (2; [0097]) using hydrofluoric acid ([0097]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method according to Claim 1 with the limitations taught by Scorsone to substitute in a silicon oxide sacrificial layer (Scorsone: 2) with hydrofluoric acid as the etchant to produce the predictable same result of separation from a diamond layer as taught by Scorsone ([0097]).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim, Tully, and Celler, as applied to claim 14, further in view of Scorsone.
Re Claim 22, Kim, Tully, and Celler teach the method according to Claim 14, but they do not explicitly disclose wherein the etchant is hydrofluoric acid.
However, Scorsone teaches a method (FIG. 1K; [0097]) comprising removing a sacrificial layer (2; [0097]) using hydrofluoric acid ([0097]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method according to Claim 14 with the limitations taught by Scorsone to substitute in a silicon oxide sacrificial layer (Scorsone: 2) with hydrofluoric acid as the etchant to produce the predictable same result of separation from a diamond layer as taught by Scorsone ([0097]).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim, Tully, and Celler, as applied to claim 17, further in view of Scorsone.
Re Claim 22, Kim, Tully, and Celler teach the method according to Claim 17, but they do not explicitly disclose wherein the etchant is hydrofluoric acid.
However, Scorsone teaches a method (FIG. 1K; [0097]) comprising removing a sacrificial layer (2; [0097]) using hydrofluoric acid ([0097]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method according to Claim 17 with the limitations taught by Scorsone to substitute in a silicon oxide sacrificial layer (Scorsone: 2) with hydrofluoric acid as the etchant to produce the predictable same result of separation from a diamond layer as taught by Scorsone ([0097]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-9, 12, and 19-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable (assuming the objection to Claim 5 was addressed for Claims 5-9, and the objection to Claim 12 was addressed) if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Re Claim 5, the prior art cannot anticipate, or render obvious, the limitations of: flipping the carbonaceous membrane together with the first substrate, in combination with the additionally claimed features of Claim 5.
Re Claim 12, the prior art cannot anticipate, or render obvious, the limitations of: flipping the carbonaceous membrane together with the first substrate, in combination with the additionally claimed features of Claim 12.
Re Claim 19, the prior art cannot anticipate, or render obvious, the limitations of: prior to flipping the carbonaceous membrane […] forming a doped or etched region along the second surface of the carbonaceous membrane, in combination with the additionally claimed features of Claim 19.
In Re Claims 6-9 and Claim 20, they are objected to due to their dependence from Claims 5 and 19, respectively.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 3/5/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 14, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Kim, Tully, and Celler under 35 U.S.C. 103. Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claims 1, 14, and 17 have been reconsidered 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 COLIN RUSSELL MCCUTCHEON whose telephone number is (703)756-1897. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 12:30-9:30 EST.
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, DREW N RICHARDS can be reached at (571) 272-1736. 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.
/COLIN RUSSELL MCCUTCHEON/Examiner, Art Unit 2892
/NORMAN D RICHARDS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2892
Prosecution Insights