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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of claims 8-18 in the reply filed on 12/15/2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Specification
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:
In claim 10, the limitation that the vacuum chamber is “U-shaped” is not supported by the original specification because the specification describes the arrangement as a “racetrack-type architecture” with an oval shape in paragraph 0041 of the specification and Fig. 4 appears to show a system 400 with an oval shape and not a U-shape. Additionally, the specification does not make it clear that the entire system 400 is a “vacuum chamber”, rather it seems that the section 405 is a vacuum chamber and there are two opposing vacuum chambers connected by a loop section. Therefore, claim 10 is not supported by the original specification. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be considered to be either U-shaped or oval shaped and refer to either the vacuum chamber or a larger system including the vacuum chamber.
In claim 18, the limitation that the energetic bombardment step provides a “reduced surface energy of said substrate” lacks antecedent basis in the original specification. The specification describes that a reduced interface energy at the interface between the substrate and the adhesion layer (see paragraph 0034), which is different from the claimed “surface energy”. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be considered to refer to the interface energy between the substrate and adhesion layer.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 100 (Fig. 1), 205 (Fig. 2), and 435 (Fig. 4). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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.
Claim Objections
Claims 8-11 and 16-18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 8, the limitation “sending corresponding signal” should be amended to read “sending a corresponding signal” to correct grammar.
In claims 9-10, the limitation “the loadloack” should be amended to read “the loadlock” to align with claim 8 and correct spelling.
In claim 10, the limitation “mounted at same side of the chamber” should be amended to read “mounted at the same side of the chamber” to correct grammar and improve clarity.
In claim 11, the limitation “A method for fabricating transparent protective coating” should be amended to read “A method for fabricating a transparent protective coating” to correct grammar.
In claim 11, the limitation “while injecting mixture of oxygen and nitrogen” should be amended to read “while injecting a first mixture of oxygen and nitrogen” to improve clarity and avoid confusion between which mixture is being referred to in later recitations.
In claim 11, the limitation “wherein the mixture of oxygen and nitrogen gas” should be amended to read “wherein the first mixture of oxygen and nitrogen gas” to align with the previously recited correction.
In claim 11, the limitation “all have different ratio” should be amended to read “all have a different ratio” to correct grammar.
In claim 16, the limitation “a top anti-reflective layer being last layer” should be amended to read “a top anti-reflective layer being a last layer” to correct grammar.
In claims 17 and 18, a comma should be added after the claim number (e.g., “The method of claim 11, wherein”) to improve clarity.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 8-18 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 8, the limitation “a feedback loop measuring gas flow in each of the gas injection manifolds and sending corresponding signal to the controller” is indefinite because it is unclear whether this limitation is intended to refer to a structural/electrical component of the sputtering system, a functional limitation that only requires the apparatus to be capable of performing the limitation, or a controller program.
In claim 11, the limitation “an SiAl target assembly” in the protective layer and anti-reflective layer steps is indefinite because it is unclear whether these SiAl target assemblies are intended to be the same or different from each other.
In claim 12, the limitation “the step of second mixture of oxygen and nitrogen gas” lacks antecedent basis and thus is indefinite because it is unclear whether this limitation is intended to refer to the step of “forming a protective layer… while injecting a second mixture” or a different step.
In claim 12, the limitation “the step of exposing the substrate to argon or oxygen plasma” lacks antecedent basis and thus is indefinite because there is no previous recitation of a step of exposing the substrate to argon or oxygen plasma to bombard a top surface of the target and therefore it is unclear what step is being referred to. This rejection may be overcome by amending the claim to recite “a step of exposing the substrate…”.
In claim 13, the limitation “the step of sputtering an SiAl target assembly while injecting mixture of oxygen and nitrogen gas” is indefinite because it is unclear whether this SiAl target assembly is intended to be the same as or different from one of the previously recited SiAl target assemblies and because it is unclear whether the recited “mixture of oxygen and nitrogen gas” is intended to refer to the mixture used in forming the stress grading layer or a different mixture.
In claim 15, the limitation “the flow rate of oxygen and nitrogen” lacks antecedent basis and thus Is indefinite because there is no previous recitation of a “flow rate”, rather the previous claims only recite a ratio of oxygen flow to nitrogen flow, and therefore it is unclear what flow rates are being referred to. This rejection may be overcome by amending the claims to recite “a flow rate of oxygen and nitrogen”.
In claim 16, the limitation “the step of forming an anti-reflective layer” is indefinite because it is unclear whether this limitation is intended to refer to the step of forming the anti-reflective layer recited in claim 11 or to require a separate anti-reflective layer distinct from that of claim 1. This rejection may be overcome by amending the claim to recite “the anti-reflective layer”.
Claims 9-10 and 12-18 are indefinite by virtue of depending on an indefinite claim.
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(s) 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyauchi (US 20150284842 A1) in view of Fuentes (US 20140314968 A1), Hung (US 20110278163 A1), Okura (US 20020126265 A1), and Le (US 20110126875 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Miyauchi (US 20150284842 A1) teaches a sputtering apparatus/system 1 for forming optical films (transparent coating) on substrates comprising a vacuum chamber 21 having a plurality of stations (ST1… STn) that are openly connected to each other (having unincumbered free fluid flow between the sputtering stations), where each station includes two sputtering sources (62a, 62b) each having a target (63a, 63b) that may be made of the same material and a loadlock chamber 11 mounted onto the vacuum chamber and a gate valve 13 between the vacuum chamber and deposition chamber for sealing and opening the connection between the chambers (sealingly attached), wherein gas flow rates to the targets are controlled by a mass flow controller based upon data of the amount of gas detected by an optical fiber using feedback control where the control unit receives a signal from the film deposition rate detection unit associated with each sputtering station (feedback loop measuring gas flow and sending a corresponding signal to the controller), and wherein the gases are supplied to the targets in each station by a plurality of pipe passages 75 (gas delivery manifold delivering a first gas and a second gas to each of a plurality of gas injection manifolds) (para 0027, 0063-0064, 0069-0073, 0080, 0084, 0103, 0105-0107, 0117, 0129, 0136-0137; Fig. 1-2, 5).
Because the gas in each station, which may be considered the gas flow in each of the gas injection manifolds after injection, is measured/detected by an optical fiber and used for control of the gas flow rates (para 0129), the apparatus of Miyauchi is at least capable of using the control device to control a ratio of a first gas and second gas delivered to each of the gas injection manifolds using a feedback loop measuring gas flow in each of the injection manifolds and sending a corresponding signal to the controller. Alternatively, Fuentes (US 20140314968 A1), in the analogous art of sputtering, teaches that a sputtering process may be feedback controlled using partial gas sensors to measure a reactive gas and signaling gas flow injections (para 0013-0014). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include partial gas sensors configured to signal feedback control of the gas flow rates to be injected, as described by Fuentes, for measuring the partial pressure of each gas in each sputtering station (measuring gas flow in each of the gas injection manifolds) of Miyauchi to more accurately control the gas composition/ratios during deposition.
The combination of Miyauchi and Fuentes fails to explicitly teach the gas injection manifold of each sputtering station is positioned between the two sputtering sources and the controller controls a ratio of the first gas and the second gas delivered to each of the gas injection manifolds independently. However, Hung (US 20110278163 A1), in the analogous art of reactive sputtering, teaches a sputtering apparatus with multiple deposition regions (10, 20), where reactive gases may be introduced through a plurality of input lines (gas distribution manifold) leading to mixing tanks (56, 57) associated with each chamber, where the gases are injected into the chamber by output lines (44, 45) (gas injection manifolds), where the gases may be supplied to the mixing tanks and chambers alternately and may have different reactive gas atmospheres for forming different layers (controlling a ratio of the first gas and second gas delivered to each of the gas injection manifolds independently) (para 0005, 0012-0016; Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the pipe arrangement for supplying reactive gas of Miyauchi with the gas delivery arrangement of Hung in order to control the sputtering stations of Miyauchi to operate with different reactive gas ratios for forming different films and because this is a substitution of known elements yielding predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Additionally, Okura (US 20020126265 A1), in the analogous art of sputtering, teaches that a control device 30 may be used to control the overall deposition process including a flow controller and valves for supplying gas according to feedback from detectors, such as a film thickness monitor and pressure sensor (para 0110-0112, 0121, 0159). Miyauchi teaches a deposition rate control mechanism that may adjust gas flow rates by regulating mass flow controllers based on data detected by an optical fiber (para 0129). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an overall control device, as described by Okura, to improve the precision of feedback controlling the deposition process and gas supplying process of Miyauchi and Hung, including the control of the valves of Hung such that the gas compositions in each mixing tank are independently controlled.
Furthermore, Le (US 20110126875 A1), in the analogous art of sputtering, teaches that a gas source inlet 126 (gas injection manifold) may be positioned between two targets to supply process gases including argon, nitrogen, and oxygen to both targets where the location of the gas source is variable (para 0027; Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the gas inlet arrangement of Miyauchi in view of Hung with the gas inlet arrangement of Le including reactive gases supplied between the two targets because this is a substitution of known elements yielding predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B). Alternatively, or in addition, shifting the position of the gas inlets (gas injection manifolds) would not have modified the operation of the device and thus is an obvious matter of design choice. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Miyauchi, Fuentes, Hung, Okura, and Le teaches the vacuum chamber is linear and the loadlock 11 is mounted on one side and an unloading chamber 31 (second loadlock) is mounted at an opposite side of the chamber (Miyauchi para 0063-0066; Fig. 1).
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyauchi (US 20150284842 A1) in view of Fuentes (US 20140314968 A1), Hung (US 20110278163 A1), Okura (US 20020126265 A1), and Le (US 20110126875 A1), as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Yamada (US 20110287177 A1).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Miyauchi, Fuentes, Hung, Okura, and Le fails to explicitly teach the vacuum chamber is U-shaped and the loadlock is mounted on one side of the vacuum chamber and a second loadlock is mounted at the same side of the chamber. However, Yamada (US 20110287177 A1), in the analogous art of sputtering, teaches an in-line sputtering apparatus may include multiple deposition stations S10 arranged in a rectangular/U-shape that a substrate is transferred through where a load chamber LC (loadlock) and an unload chamber UL (second loadlock) are mounted at a same side of the apparatus/chamber (para 0025-0026; Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the linear sputtering apparatus arrangement of Miyauchi with the rectangular/U-shaped sputtering apparatus arrangement of Yamada having two loadlocks on the same side of the chamber because this is a substitution of known elements yielding predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Claim(s) 11 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bellman (US 20180011225 A1) in view of Koch (US 20140377522 A1), Apitz (US 20150355380 A1), and Shuto (US 20190127845 A1). Miyazaki (NPL – “Refractive index and dielectric constant of SiOx films deposited by reactive sputtering”) is cited as evidence of inherency.
Regarding claim 11, Bellman (US 20180011225 A1) teaches an optical coating 120 deposited on a substrate 110 by vacuum deposition in a chamber (introduced into a vacuum environment), where the substrate may be glass or sapphire (transparent), where the optical coating may include a lower gradient layer 170 (stress grading layer) which may be an anti-reflective material made of SiAlOxNy, a scratch-resistant layer 150 (protective layer) of SiAlOxNy, and an upper gradient layer 160 with an anti-reflective surface (anti-reflective layer) made of SiAlOxNy, where each layer may be deposited by sputtering from a silicon and aluminum (SiAl) target with nitrogen and oxygen gas (while injecting a first/second/third mixture of oxygen and nitrogen gas into the plasma) (para 0065, 0077, 0090-0092, 0122-0123, 0143, 0152; Fig. 8, 25).
Bellman fails to explicitly teach the mixture, second mixture, and third mixture of oxygen and nitrogen gas all have different ratio of oxygen flow to nitrogen flow. However, Koch (US 20140377522 A1), in the analogous art of optical coatings, teaches depositing SiAlON films by sputtering from a targets of Si and Al where the nitrogen and oxygen content may be controlled by varying the oxygen and nitrogen flow rates introduced into the deposition process to form a compositional gradient of an optical film structure (para 0015, 0175, 0245). Bellman teaches the concentration of nitrogen and oxygen are varied to control the refractive index of the deposited layer, where the three layers (150, 170, and 160) may have different refractive indices (para 0086, 0090; Fig. 25-28). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to control the flow rates of oxygen and nitrogen used in the sputtering of each layer such that the oxygen and nitrogen flow ratio is different for each layer so that layers with different refractive indices may be formed.
The combination of Bellman and Koch fails to explicitly teach forming an adhesion layer by sputtering a silicon target while injecting oxygen gas into sputtering plasma. However, Apitz (US 20150355380 A1), in the analogous art of optical coatings, teaches a layer 28 of silicon oxide may be formed between a hard anti-reflection coating and a hard substrate composed of sapphire or glass to improve adhesion between the components, where the anti-reflection layer may include an oxynitride of silicon and at least one other element (para 0008, 0043-0044, 0049). Additionally, Shuto (US 20190127845 A1), in the analogous art of optical coatings, teaches that a silicon oxide adhesion enhancement layer may be deposited by sputtering using a Si target while introducing/injecting oxygen gas into the chamber, and thus the plasma (para 0061). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a step of depositing a silicon oxide adhesion layer by sputtering from a silicon target, as described by Apitz and Shuto, to the process of Bellman in order to improve adhesion and thus prevent delamination or degradation of the optical coatings.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Bellman, Koch, Apitz, and Shuto teaches the adhesion layer is silicon oxide/SiOx, where x is from 1.2 to 1.9 by controlling an amount of oxygen, which inherently controls the refractive index (Apitz para 0049, Shuto para 0036, 0061) but fails to explicitly teach the adhesion layer has a refractive index of less than 1.50. However, Miyazaki (NPL), in the analogous art of sputtering SiOx films by reactive sputtering, describes that the refractive index decreases as the oxygen content in SiOx films increases (pg. 137; Fig. 3), thus indicating that the silicon oxide layer of Shuto having a composition of SiOx where x is 1.2 to 1.9 inherently ranges in refractive index from about 1.6 to less than 1.5. Though the aforementioned combination fails to explicitly teach the adhesive layer has a refractive index of less than 1.50, one would have expected the use of any value within the Shuto range to have yielded similar results. Absent any showing of criticality, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used any values within 1.2 to 1.9 as x in SiOx, including values resulting in a refractive index within the claimed range, with a reasonable expectation of success and with predictable results. Please see MPEP 2144.05 (I) for further details.
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Bellman, Koch, Apitz, and Shuto teaches the lower gradient layer 170 (stress grading layer) may have a plurality of grading sub-layers varying in refractive index from the refractive index of the substrate, which may be 1.45 to about 1.55, to the refractive index of the scratch resistant layer 150, which may be 1.75 to 1.9 (stress grading layer having a refractive index higher than that of the adhesion layer and lower than that of the protective layer) (Bellman para 0069, 0090-0092, 0121; Fig. 25-28), where the refractive index of the film is controlled by adjusting the flow rate of oxygen and nitrogen (Koch para 0015, 0175, 0245; Bellman para 0086, 0090).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Bellman, Koch, Apitz, and Shuto teaches that the lower gradient layer 170 (stress grading layer) comprises a plurality of grading sublayers having different refractive indices including a first grading sublayer formed directly on the adhesion layer located on the substrate 110 and the upper gradient layer 160 (anti-reflective layer) comprises a plurality of anti-reflective sublayers having different refractive indices and including a first anti-reflective sublayer formed directly on the scratch-resistant layer 150 (protective layer) and a top anti-reflective sublayer being the last layer at the anti-reflective surface 122 of the transparent protective coating, where the top anti-reflective sublayer may have a refractive index of 1.38 to about 1.55, and where the first grading sublayer adjacent to the substrate (and adhesion layer) may have a refractive index about equal to the refractive index of the substrate, where the refractive index of the substrate may be 1.45 to 1.55 (Bellman para 0069, 0090-0092, 0121; Fig. 25-28).
Though the aforementioned combination fails to explicitly teach the first grading sublayer and the top anti-reflective sublayer have the same refractive index, one would have expected the use of any values within the Bellman ranges to have yielded similar results. Absent any showing of criticality, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used any values within 1.38 to 1.55 as the top anti-reflective sublayer refractive index and any values within 1.45 to 1.55 as the refractive index of the first grading layer, including values resulting in equal refractive indices, with a reasonable expectation of success and with predictable results. Please see MPEP 2144.05 (I) for further details.
Claim(s) 12 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bellman (US 20180011225 A1) in view of Koch (US 20140377522 A1), Apitz (US 20150355380 A1), and Shuto (US 20190127845 A1), as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Stempfhuber (US 20210047719 A1).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Bellman, Koch, Apitz, and Shuto fails to explicitly teach the step of second mixture of oxygen and nitrogen gas is preceded by the step of exposing the substrate to argon or oxygen plasma to cause ion species to bombard a top surface of the substrate. However, Stempfhuber (US 20210047719 A1), in the analogous art of substrate processing, teaches that a glass substrate may be treated by argon plasma that causes argon ions to bombard the surface of the substrate and clean the surface before performing a deposition step (para 0021-0022). Bellman teaches the substrate may be glass and may be treated prior to deposition (para 0123, 0141). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to treat the substrate of Bellman with an argon plasma to clean the substrate surface before deposition steps (preceding the step of second mixture of oxygen and nitrogen gas), thus reducing contamination and improving coating adhesion.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Bellman, Koch, Apitz, and Shuto fails to explicitly teach forming said adhesion layer further includes an energetic bombardment step. However, Stempfhuber (US 20210047719 A1), in the analogous art of substrate processing, teaches that a glass substrate may be treated by argon plasma that causes argon ions to bombard the surface of the substrate (energetic bombardment step) and clean the surface before performing a deposition step (para 0021-0022). Bellman teaches the substrate may be glass and may be treated prior to deposition (para 0123, 0141). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to treat the substrate of Bellman with an argon plasma to clean the substrate surface via argon bombardment before deposition steps including the deposition of the adhesion layer (forming said adhesion layer further includes an energetic bombardment step), thus reducing contamination and improving coating adhesion.
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Bellman, Koch, Apitz, Shuto, and Stempfhuber teaches the bombardment cleans the surface of the substrate (para 0021-0022), thus necessarily reducing interfacial energy between the substrate and subsequently deposited layers (adhesion layer).
Claim(s) 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bellman (US 20180011225 A1) in view of Koch (US 20140377522 A1), Apitz (US 20150355380 A1), and Shuto (US 20190127845 A1), as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Miyauchi (US 20150284842 A1) and Le (US 20110126875 A1).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Bellman, Koch, Apitz, and Shuto fails to explicitly teach the step of sputtering an SiAl target assembly while injecting mixture of oxygen and nitrogen gas into sputtering plasma comprises passing the substrate next to two targets of SiAl and injecting the mixture between the two targets. However, Miyauchi (US 20150284842 A1), in the analogous art of sputtering, teaches that a pair of targets (63a, 63b) that may be made of the same material and contain Si and/or Al, where a pipe 75 for supplying reactive gases including oxygen and nitrogen is included with the target and the targets and pipe are used for depositing a film on a substrate conveyed in front of (passing) the targets (para 0072, 0076, 0083-0084, 0102; Fig. 2). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the sputtering arrangement of Bellman with the sputtering arrangement of Miyauchi including a pair of targets made of SiAl and a reactive gas inlet for supplying oxygen and nitrogen for depositing a film on a substrate that may be conveyed in front of the targets because this is a substitution of known elements yielding predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Additionally, Le (US 20110126875 A1), in the analogous art of sputtering, teaches that a gas source inlet 126 may be positioned between two targets to supply process gases including argon, nitrogen, and oxygen to both targets where the location of the gas source is variable (para 0027; Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the gas inlet arrangement of Miyauchi with the gas inlet arrangement of Le including reactive gases supplied between the two targets because this is a substitution of known elements yielding predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B). Alternatively, or in addition, shifting the position of the gas inlet would not have modified the operation of the device and thus is an obvious matter of design choice. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK S OTT whose telephone number is (571)272-2415. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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, James Lin can be reached at (571) 272-8902. 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.
/PATRICK S OTT/Examiner, Art Unit 1794
Prosecution Insights