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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on February 24, 2026 has been entered.
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 1-20 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.
Claims 1, 8, and 14 recites the limitation "fluorinated gases". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Is this the same as “fluorinated greenhouse gases”?
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farnia; Moretza et al. (US 20080081130 A1) in view of Chandler; Phil et al. (US 20090018688 A1) and, if necessary, Fink; Steven T. et al. (US 20060060303 A1). Farnia teaches a process system (Figure 4; [0048]), comprising a process chamber (110; Figure 4; [0048]-Applicant’s 102; Figure 1); a plasma reactor (300; Figure 4; [0048]-Applicant’s 106; Figure 1) located downstream of the process chamber (110; Figure 4; [0048]-Applicant’s 102; Figure 1);a reagent gas delivery apparatus (335; Figure 4; [0038]-[0039]-Applicant’s 104; Figure 1) located between the process chamber (110; Figure 4; [0048]-Applicant’s 102; Figure 1) and the plasma reactor (300; Figure 4; [0048]-Applicant’s 106; Figure 1);a vacuum pump (504; Figure 4; [0049]-Applicant’s 110; Figure 1) located downstream of the plasma reactor (300; Figure 4; [0048]-Applicant’s 106; Figure 1); a wet scrubber (509; Figure 4; [0049]-Applicant’s 112; Figure 1) located downstream of the vacuum pump (504; Figure 4; [0049]-Applicant’s 110; Figure 1); and a controller (134; Figure 3,4; [0019],[0022]-[0023]) configured to control an operation performed in the process system (Figure 4; [0048]), the operation comprising: performing a semiconductor etch process (“etching chambers”; [0051]) within the process chamber (110; Figure 4; [0048]-Applicant’s 102; Figure 1) using process gases (“halogen gases”, “fluorocarbon gases”-[0004],[0040]) including fluorinated greenhouse gases (“halogen gases”, “fluorocarbon gases”-[0004],[0040]), HBr (“halogen gases”, “fluorocarbon gases”; [0004]), and C12 (“halogen gases”, “fluorocarbon gases”; [0004]), wherein the fluorinated gases (“halogen gases”, “fluorocarbon gases”-[0004],[0040]) are selected from a group consisting of CF4, SF6, C4F8, and CHF, wherein the process gases (“halogen gases”, “fluorocarbon gases”-[0004],[0040]) are configured to flow out of the process chamber (110; Figure 4; [0048]-Applicant’s 102; Figure 1) into the plasma reactor (300; Figure 4; [0048]-Applicant’s 106; Figure 1); introducing water vapor (H20) from the reagent gas delivery system (335; Figure 4; [0038]-[0039]; additive gas = “oxygen plasma, hydrogen plasma and water plasma”; [0040]-Applicant’s 104; Figure 1) to the plasma reactor (300; Figure 4; [0048]-Applicant’s 106; Figure 1) to react with the process gases (“halogen gases”, “fluorocarbon gases”-[0004],[0040]); and applying RF power ([0044]) to the plasma reactor (300; Figure 4; [0048]-Applicant’s 106; Figure 1) – claim 1. The claimed gas identities may be considered intended use claim requirements for the pending apparatus claims. See below.
Farnia further teaches:
The process system (Figure 4; [0048]) of claim 1, wherein the reagent gas delivery apparatus (335; Figure 4; [0038]-[0039]; additive gas = “oxygen plasma, hydrogen plasma and water plasma”; [0040]-Applicant’s 104; Figure 1) is configured to supply hydrogen (H) and oxygen (0) atoms to the plasma reactor (300; Figure 4; [0048]-Applicant’s 106; Figure 1), as claimed by claim 3
wherein the amount of RF power is between about 2000 Watts and about 4000 Watts (3000Watts; [00045]) - claim 6
The process system (Figure 4; [0048]) of claim 1, wherein the fluorinated greenhouse gases (“halogen gases”, “fluorocarbon gases”-[0004],[0040]) include at least one of CF4, SF6, C4F8, or CHF3, as claimed by claim 7
A process system (Figure 4; [0048]), comprising: a process chamber (110; Figure 4; [0048]-Applicant’s 102; Figure 1); a plasma reactor (300; Figure 4; [0048]-Applicant’s 106; Figure 1) located downstream of the process chamber (110; Figure 4; [0048]-Applicant’s 102; Figure 1);a reagent gas delivery apparatus (335; Figure 4; [0038]-[0039]-Applicant’s 104; Figure 1) located between the process chamber (110; Figure 4; [0048]-Applicant’s 102; Figure 1) and the plasma reactor (300; Figure 4; [0048]-Applicant’s 106; Figure 1);a vacuum pump (504; Figure 4; [0049]-Applicant’s 110; Figure 1) located downstream of the plasma reactor (300; Figure 4; [0048]-Applicant’s 106; Figure 1); a wet scrubber (509; Figure 4; [0049]-Applicant’s 112; Figure 1) located downstream of the vacuum pump (504; Figure 4; [0049]-Applicant’s 110; Figure 1); and a controller (134; Figure 3,4; [0019],[0022]-[0023]) configured to control an operation performed in the process system (Figure 4; [0048]), the operation comprising: performing a semiconductor etch process (“etching chambers”; [0051]) within the process chamber (110; Figure 4; [0048]-Applicant’s 102; Figure 1) using process gases (“halogen gases”, “fluorocarbon gases”-[0004],[0040]) including fluorinated greenhouse gases (“halogen gases”, “fluorocarbon gases”-[0004],[0040]), HBr, and C12 , wherein the fluorinated gases (“halogen gases”, “fluorocarbon gases”-[0004],[0040]) are selected from a group consisting of CF4, SF6, C4F8, and CHF, wherein the process gases (“halogen gases”, “fluorocarbon gases”-[0004],[0040]) are configured to flow out of the process chamber (110; Figure 4; [0048]-Applicant’s 102; Figure 1) into the plasma reactor (300; Figure 4; [0048]-Applicant’s 106; Figure 1); introducing a reagent vapor ([0038]-[0039]; additive gas = “oxygen plasma, hydrogen plasma and water plasma”; [0040) from the reagent gas delivery system (335; Figure 4; [0038]-[0039]; additive gas = “oxygen plasma, hydrogen plasma and water plasma”; [0040]-Applicant’s 104; Figure 1) to the plasma reactor (300; Figure 4; [0048]-Applicant’s 106; Figure 1) to react with the process gases (“halogen gases”, “fluorocarbon gases”-[0004],[0040]); applying RF power ([0044]) to the plasma reactor (300; Figure 4; [0048]-Applicant’s 106; Figure 1) – claim 8. The claimed gas identities may be considered intended use claim requirements for the pending apparatus claims. See below.
The process system (Figure 4; [0048]) of claim 8, wherein the reagent vapor ([0038]-[0039]; additive gas = “oxygen plasma, hydrogen plasma and water plasma”; [0040) includes H20, as claimed by claim 10
The process system (Figure 4; [0048]) of claim of claim 8, wherein the reagent vapor ([0038]-[0039]; additive gas = “oxygen plasma, hydrogen plasma and water plasma”; [0040) includes hydrogen (H) and oxygen (O) atoms, as claimed by claim 11
The process system (Figure 4; [0048]) of claim 8, the amount of RF power is between about 2000 Watts and about 4000 Watts (3000Watts; [00045]), as claimed by claim 13
A process system (Figure 4; [0048]), comprising: a process chamber (110; Figure 4; [0048]-Applicant’s 102; Figure 1); a plasma reactor (300; Figure 4; [0048]-Applicant’s 106; Figure 1) located downstream of the process chamber (110; Figure 4; [0048]-Applicant’s 102; Figure 1);a reagent gas delivery apparatus (335; Figure 4; [0038]-[0039]-Applicant’s 104; Figure 1) located between the process chamber (110; Figure 4; [0048]-Applicant’s 102; Figure 1) and the plasma reactor (300; Figure 4; [0048]-Applicant’s 106; Figure 1);a vacuum pump (504; Figure 4; [0049]-Applicant’s 110; Figure 1) located downstream of the plasma reactor (300; Figure 4; [0048]-Applicant’s 106; Figure 1); a wet scrubber (509; Figure 4; [0049]-Applicant’s 112; Figure 1) located downstream of the vacuum pump (504; Figure 4; [0049]-Applicant’s 110; Figure 1); and a controller (134; Figure 3,4; [0019],[0022]-[0023]) configured to control an operation performed in the process system (Figure 4; [0048]), the operation comprising: performing a semiconductor etch process (“etching chambers”; [0051]) within the process chamber (110; Figure 4; [0048]-Applicant’s 102; Figure 1) using process gases (“halogen gases”, “fluorocarbon gases”-[0004],[0040]) including fluorinated greenhouse gases (“halogen gases”, “fluorocarbon gases”-[0004],[0040]), HBr, and C12 , wherein the fluorinated gases (“halogen gases”, “fluorocarbon gases”-[0004],[0040]) are selected from a group consisting of CF4, SF6, C4F8, and CHF, wherein the process gases (“halogen gases”, “fluorocarbon gases”-[0004],[0040]) are configured to flow out of the process chamber (110; Figure 4; [0048]-Applicant’s 102; Figure 1) into the plasma reactor (300; Figure 4; [0048]-Applicant’s 106; Figure 1); introducing a reagent vapor ([0038]-[0039]; additive gas = “oxygen plasma, hydrogen plasma and water plasma”; [0040) from the reagent gas delivery system (335; Figure 4; [0038]-[0039]; additive gas = “oxygen plasma, hydrogen plasma and water plasma”; [0040]-Applicant’s 104; Figure 1) to the plasma reactor (300; Figure 4; [0048]-Applicant’s 106; Figure 1) to react with the process gases (“halogen gases”, “fluorocarbon gases”-[0004],[0040]); applying RF power ([0044]) to the plasma reactor (300; Figure 4; [0048]-Applicant’s 106; Figure 1); and introducing an inert gas ([0032]) between the plasma reactor (300; Figure 4; [0048]-Applicant’s 106; Figure 1) and a pump (504; Figure 4) configured to pump (504; Figure 4) gases exiting the plasma reactor (300; Figure 4; [0048]-Applicant’s 106; Figure 1) – claim 14. The claimed gas identities may be considered intended use claim requirements for the pending apparatus claims. See below.
The process system (Figure 4; [0048]) of claim 14, wherein the reagent vapor ([0038]-[0039]; additive gas = “oxygen plasma, hydrogen plasma and water plasma”; [0040) includes H2O, as claimed by claim 15
The process system (Figure 4; [0048]) of claim of claim14, wherein the reagent vapor ([0038]-[0039]; additive gas = “oxygen plasma, hydrogen plasma and water plasma”; [0040) includes hydrogen (H) and oxygen (O) atoms, as claimed by claim 16
The process system (Figure 4; [0048]) of claim of claim14, wherein the fluorinated greenhouse gases (“halogen gases”, “fluorocarbon gases”-[0004],[0040]) include at least one of CF4 or SF6, as claimed by claim 17
The process system (Figure 4; [0048]) of claim 14, wherein the operations further comprise pumping (504; Figure 4) gases exiting the plasma reactor (300; Figure 4; [0048]-Applicant’s 106; Figure 1) and the inert gas ([0032]) into the wet scrubber (509; Figure 4; [0049]-Applicant’s 112; Figure 1), as claimed by claim 20
Farnia may not teach Farnia’s etch process (“etching chambers”; [0051]) using the claimed process gases with sufficient specificity. As a result, Farnia may not teach performing Farnia’s semiconductor etch process (“etching chambers”; [0051]) within Farnia’s process chamber (110; Figure 4; [0048]-Applicant’s 102; Figure 1) using Farnia’s process gases (“halogen gases”, “fluorocarbon gases”-[0004],[0040]) including Farnia’s fluorinated greenhouse gases (“halogen gases”, “fluorocarbon gases”-[0004],[0040]), HBr (“halogen gases”, “fluorocarbon gases”; [0004]), and C12 (“halogen gases”, “fluorocarbon gases”; [0004]), wherein Farnia’s fluorinated gases (“halogen gases”, “fluorocarbon gases”-[0004],[0040]) are selected from a group consisting of CF4, SF6, C4F8, and CHF – claim 1, 8, 14.
Farnia further does not teach:
an inert gas ([0032]) delivery apparatus (Applicant’s 108; Figure 1) located between the plasma reactor (300; Figure 4; [0048]-Applicant’s 106; Figure 1) and the vacuum pump (504; Figure 4; [0049]-Applicant’s 110; Figure 1) – claim 1, 8, 14
The process system (Figure 4; [0048]) of claim 1, wherein a ratio of a H2O (additive gas = “oxygen plasma, hydrogen plasma and water plasma”; [0040]) flow rate to a Cl2 byproduct (“halogen gases”, “fluorocarbon gases”; [0004]) gas is greater than 8:1, as claimed by claim 2
wherein a ratio of a H2O (additive gas = “oxygen plasma, hydrogen plasma and water plasma”; [0040]) flow rate to a HBr (“halogen gases”, “fluorocarbon gases”; [0004]) flow rate is greater than 2:1; and a ratio a H2O (additive gas = “oxygen plasma, hydrogen plasma and water plasma”; [0040]) flow rate to a Br2 (“halogen gases”, “fluorocarbon gases”; [0004]) byproduct gas is greater than 15:1 – claim 1
The process system (Figure 4; [0048]) of claim 3, wherein the amount of H and O atoms are greater than the amount of fluorinated greenhouse gases (“halogen gases”, “fluorocarbon gases”-[0004],[0040]), as claimed by claim 4
The process system (Figure 4; [0048]) of claim 3, wherein the amount of fluorinated greenhouse gases (“halogen gases”, “fluorocarbon gases”-[0004],[0040]) [[are]] is greater the amount of H and O atoms, as claimed by claim 5
converting the process gases (“halogen gases”, “fluorocarbon gases”-[0004],[0040]) at least partially to a Br2 byproduct gas within the plasma reactor (300; Figure 4; [0048]-Applicant’s 106; Figure 1) and reacting the Br2 byproduct gas with the reagent vapor ([0038]-[0039]; additive gas = “oxygen plasma, hydrogen plasma and water plasma”; [0040) to form HBr, wherein a ratio of a reagent vapor ([0038]-[0039]; additive gas = “oxygen plasma, hydrogen plasma and water plasma”; [0040) flow rate to a HBr flow rate of the HBr gas to the process chamber (110; Figure 4; [0048]-Applicant’s 102; Figure 1) is greater than 2:1; and introducing an inert gas ([0032]) between the plasma reactor (300; Figure 4; [0048]-Applicant’s 106; Figure 1) and a pump (504; Figure 4) configured to pump (504; Figure 4) gases exiting the plasma reactor (300; Figure 4; [0048]-Applicant’s 106; Figure 1) – claim 8
The process system (Figure 4; [0048]) of claim 8, wherein a ratio a H2O flow rate to a Br2 byproduct gas is greater than 15:1, as claimed by claim 9
The process system (Figure 4; [0048]) of claim of claim 10, wherein the amount of fluorinated greenhouse gases (“halogen gases”, “fluorocarbon gases”-[0004],[0040]) are greater the amount of H and O atoms, as claimed by claim 12
converting the process gases (“halogen gases”, “fluorocarbon gases”-[0004],[0040]) at least partially to a HCl byproduct gas within the plasma reactor (300; Figure 4; [0048]-Applicant’s 106; Figure 1) and reacting the C12 byproduct gas with the reagent vapor ([0038]-[0039]; additive gas = “oxygen plasma, hydrogen plasma and water plasma”; [0040) to form HCl – claim 14
The process system (Figure 4; [0048]) of claim of claim 16, wherein the amount of fluorinated greenhouse gases (“halogen gases”, “fluorocarbon gases”-[0004],[0040]) are greater the amount of H and O atoms, as claimed by claim 18
The process system (Figure 4; [0048]) of claim 14, wherein a ratio a H2O flow rate to a Br2 byproduct gas is greater than 15:1, as claimed by claim 19
Chandler also teaches a wafer processing apparatus (102; Sheet 3) with a plasma effluent abatement tool (114,138; Sheet 3; [0027]) including an inert gas delivery apparatus (132; Sheet 3-Applicant’s 108; Figure 1) located between a reactor (102; Sheet 3; [0026]-Applicant’s 106; Figure 1) and a vacuum pump (130; Sheet 3-Applicant’s 110; Figure 1) – claim 1, 8, 14. Chandler further teaches operational optimization of flow rates of Chandler’s abatement tool (114,138; Sheet 3; [0045]).
If the above process gases are considered part of the claimed controller and not intended use, then, Fink also teaches a plasma generation process gas as claimed ([0027]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Farnia to add Chandler’s inert gas delivery apparatus (132; Sheet 3-Applicant’s 108; Figure 1) at optimized operation and, if necessary, for Farnia to use Fink’s precursor etching gas sources.
Motivation for Farnia to add Chandler’s inert gas delivery apparatus (132; Sheet 3-Applicant’s 108; Figure 1) at optimized operation is for at least concentration calibration, dilution, and “calculating destruction removal efficiency.” as taught by Chandler ([0030],[0042]).
Motivation, if necessary, for Farnia to use Fink’s precursor etching gas sources is for conducting a desired etching process as taught by Fink ([0027]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 24, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant states:
“
However, Farnia does not provide a prima facie showing of an operation performed in the process system, the operation comprising performing a semiconductor etch process within the process chamber using process gases including fluorinated greenhouse gases, HBr, and C12, wherein the fluorinated gasses are selected from a group consisting of CF4, SF6, C4F8, and CHF, as recited in claims 1, 8, and 14.
“
In response, assuming the claimed gases are considered part of the claimed “controller”, and not intended use, then the Examiner agrees to the extent that Farnia’s fluorinated greenhouse gases (“halogen gases”, “fluorocarbon gases”-[0004],[0040]) may not be taught with sufficient specificity. If so, the Examiner cites Fink; Steven T. et al. (US 20060060303 A1) for the claimed gases. See above.
Applicant states:
“
Chandler is silent as to the operation performed in the process system as recited in the respective claims 1, 8, and 14.
Chandler is directed to modifying an operating parameter of an abatement system if the target species destruction removal efficiency is not met. Chandler's system includes a process tool 102, where the manufacturing process occurs, an abatement system 114 (which includes one or more abatement tools, such as wet scrubbers, burners, plasma units, filters, oxidizing units, thermal units, dry scrubbers, adsorbing units, absorbing units, catalyst units, and acid gas scrubbers, etc), and an inert gas source 132 disposed on the conduit 112 between the process tool 102 and abatement system 114 and before pump 110.
“
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant states:
“
Thus, Chandler and Farnia both show an additive gas source with inert gas/inert gas source before a plasma reactor (downstream of a process chamber). However, even if the Examiner suggested motivation for Farnia is adopted "to add Chandler's inert gas delivery apparatus at optimized operation is for at least concentration calibration and dilution as taught by Chandler", there is no basis for a suggestion or motivation in either reference to modify Farnia to have an inert gas delivery apparatus located between the plasma reactor and the vacuum pump.
“
In response, the Examiner disagrees. Chandler indeed teaches Chandler’s plasma effluent abatement tool (114,138; Sheet 3; [0027]) including an inert gas delivery apparatus (132; Sheet 3-Applicant’s 108; Figure 1) located between a reactor (102; Sheet 3; [0026]-Applicant’s 106; Figure 1) and a vacuum pump (130; Sheet 3-Applicant’s 110; Figure 1) as required by claim 1, 8, 14. Further, all of Chandler and Farnia support the Examiner’s grounds of rejection for at least because both Chandler and Farnia each are concerned with effluent abatement:
Chandler – “calculating destruction removal efficiency” as taught by Chandler ([0030],[0042], throughout)
Farnia – Title, throughout.
Applicant states:
“
Further, the Applicant respectfully submits that there is no suggestion or motivation in the references to modify the systems and processes of Farnia with the inert gas source of Chandler, and/or with the listed corrosive etch exhaust gases of Radoiu to teach or suggest the subject-matter as recited in claims 1, 8, and 14.
“
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, as stated above, each of the cited references have teaching, suggestion, and motivation for the Examiner’s proposed combination.
Applicant states:
“
The Applicants respectfully submit that there is no suggestion or motivation in the references to replace the CVD deposition of carbon-doped silicon of Farnia with the listed corrosive etch exhaust gases of Radoiu. However, even if the Examiner suggested motivation for Farnia is adopted "to use Radoiu's precursor etching gases and abatement chemistry therefor is for conducting a desired etching process and reducing corrosion as taught by Radoiu", the process of Farnia could not be performed and the invention of Farnia would be destroyed.
“
In response, the Examiner has cited Farnia as teaching an etch process (“etching chambers”; [0051]). As a result, Applicant’s above position ignores the teaching of Farnia as a whole. With respect to arguments under Radoiu, the Examiner’s new grounds of rejection address the newly amended claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and relied on and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Plasma gas abatement in reactor effluents include: US 20170027049 A1; US 20200083029 A1; US 20160077508 A1; US 20190338419 A1; US 20170301524 A1; US 20230377842 A1; US 20240128065 A1; US 20090018688 A1; US 20080081130 A1; US 20200041211 A1; US 20200191488 A1; US 20100071548 A1; US 20090238972 A1; US 20020066535 A1; US 6187072 B1; US 6194628 B1; US 9997325 B2; US 6391146 B1; US 5137701 A; US 6888040 B1; US 6673323 B1; US 5928426 A
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Examiner Rudy Zervigon whose telephone number is (571) 272- 1442. The examiner can normally be reached on a Monday through Thursday schedule from 8am through 6pm EST. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Any Inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the Chemical and Materials Engineering art unit receptionist at (571) 272-1700. If the examiner cannot be reached please contact the examiner's supervisor, Parviz Hassanzadeh, at (571) 272- 1435.
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:/Awww.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or (571) 272-1000.
/Rudy Zervigon/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights