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 .
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.
INDEPENDENT CLAIM 1 AND CLAIMS DEPENDENT THEREON:
Claim(s) 1, 8, 9 are rejected under35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshikawa
et al. (U.S. PGPUB. 2015/0211125 Al) in view of Ishii et al. (U.S. Pat. 5,698,036) and Tian et al. (WO 2007/091672 Al).
INDEPENDENT CLAIM 1:
Regarding claim 1, Yoshikawa et al. teach an applicator (Fig. I - items 41, 42, 43, 44 ),
comprising: a resonator body (Fig. I - item 43) with a hole into an axial center of the resonator
body (Fig. I - item 43), wherein the resonator body comprises a first dielectric material
(Paragraph 0040 - quartz, alumina or aluminum nitride); a pin inserted into the hole (Fig. 1 -
item 51; Paragraph 0042), wherein the pin is an electrically conductive material (Paragraph 0047
- inner conductor); and a plate under the resonator body (Fig. 1 - item 41 ), wherein the plate
comprises a second dielectric material that is different than the first dielectric material
(Paragraph 003 8 - quartz, alumina or aluminum nitride), wherein no additional resonator bodies
are over the plate (Fig. 1), and wherein the plate extends laterally beyond the resonator body
such that a perimeter of the plate is concentric with a perimeter of the resonator body (Fig. I;
Fig. 2).
The difference between claim 1 and Yoshikawa et al. is that the plate under the resonator body is in direct contact is not discussed (Claim 1), selecting the materials to be different materials is not discussed (Claim 1) and the plate being concentric with the resonator is
not discussed (Claim 1).
Regarding the plate under the resonator body being in direct contact (Claim 1), Ishii et al. teach that plate under the resonator body can be in direct contact. (See Fig. 1)
PNG
media_image1.png
632
679
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding selecting the materials to be different materials (Claim 1), since the list of
materials encompass the possibility of selecting different materials from known materials it
would be obvious to select the materials from a known list of materials for optimization for best
result.
Regarding the plate being concentric with the resonator (Claim 1 ), it appears from
Yoshikawa et al. teach the plate is concentric with the resonator. However further in support
thereof Tian et al. teach that the plate should be concentric with a resonator. (See Figs. 1-3)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 8:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the first dielectric material comprises Al2O3.
Regarding claim 8, Yoshikawa et al. teach wherein the first dielectric material comprises
Al2O3. (Paragraph 0040 - quartz, alumina or aluminum nitride)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 9:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the second dielectric material comprises quartz, alumina, sapphire, MgF2, yttrium aluminum garnet, YF3, Y2O3, Y4Al2O9, Y3Al5O12,
Y5O4F7, MgO, calcium fluoride, barium fluoride, lithium fluoride, fused silica, borosilicate glass, Er2O3, Er3Al5O12, Er4Al2O9, Gd2O3, Gd4AlO3, Gd3AlO3, Gd3Al5O12, Nd4Al2O, NdAlO3, Nd2O3, a rare earth oxyfluoride, or a solid solution of Y2O3 and one or more of ZrO2, CaF2, SrF2, AIF3, ErF3, LaF3, NdF3, ScF3, CeF4, and ZrF4.
Regarding claim 9, Yoshikawa et al. teach utilizing quartz or alumina. (Paragraph 0038 -
quartz, alumina or aluminum nitride)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Ishii et al. is that it allows for protecting. (Column 5 line 25)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Tian e al. is that it allows for utilizing
microwaves to processing a semiconductor wafer. (Paragraph 0001)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the
invention was made to have modified Yoshikawa et al. by utilizing the features of Ishii et al. and Tian et al. because it allows for protecting and plasma processing semiconductor wafers.
Claim(s) 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshikawa et al. in view of Ishii et al. and Tian et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Beijing Naura Microelectronics Equipment Co., Ltd. (KR 102097436 Bl).
DEPENDENT CLAIM 2:
The difference not yet discussed is where the coating is "on" the plate.
Beijing Naura Microelectronics Equipment Co., Ltd. teaches that quartz coated with
yttria can be utilized and quartz is the material of the cover plate. (Paragraph 0080)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 3:
The difference not yet discussed is the coating covers all surf aces of the plate.
Beijing Naura Microelectronics Equipment Co., Ltd. teaches that quartz coated with
yttria on the surface can be utilized and quartz is the material of the cover plate. (Paragraph
0080)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 4:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the coating is over the surface of the plate
opposite from the resonator body.
Beijing Naura Microelectronics Equipment Co., Ltd. teaches that quartz coated with
yttria can be utilized and quartz is the material of the cover plate. (Paragraph 0080) Applying this
teaching the quartz coated with yttria on the surface as the cover plate would be opposite from
the resonator body.
The motivation for utilizing the features of Beijing Naura Microelectronics Equipment
Co., Ltd. is that it allows for preventing contamination. (Paragraph 0080)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the
invention was made to have utilized the features of Beijing Naura Microelectronics Equipment
Co., Ltd. because it allows for preventing contamination.
Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshikawa et al. in view of Ishii et al. and Tian et al. and further in view of Beijing Naura Microelectronics Equipment Co., Ltd. as applied to claims 1, 2 above, and further in view of Chen et al. (U.S. PGPUB. 2006/0071607 A1).
DEPENDENT CLAIM 5:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the coating has a thickness of approximately
1,000 microns or less.
Regarding claim 5, Chen et al. teach that the coating should be up to 2 microns.
(Paragraph 0051)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Chen et al. is that it allows for protecting the
resonator plate. (Paragraph 0050)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have utilized the features of Chen et al. because it allows for protecting the resonator plate.
Claim(s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. I 03 as being unpatentable over Yoshikawa et al in view of Ishii et al. and Tian et al. further in view of Beijing Naura Microelectronics Equipment Co., Ltd. as applied to claims 1, 2 above, and further in view of Wu et al. (U.S. PGPUB. 2018/0327899 Al).
DEPENDENT CLAIM 6:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the coating comprises MgF2, YF3, CaF2,
BaF2, LiF or NiF2.
Regarding 6, Wu et al. teach coating surfaces exposed to plasma with a coating
comprising YF3. (See Paragraph O 164 - FIG. 14 illustrates an energy dispersive electroscopy
(EDS) line scan showing the material composition of a YF.sub.3 1405 coating. As shown, the
YF.sub.3 coating 1405 includes approximately 25-30 at.% Y 1425 and about 60-70 at. % F
1440. The YF. sub .3 coating additionally includes about 3 -6 at. % F 1420 and about 2-10 at. % C 1422. The YF.sub.3 coating was deposited by IAD and has a thickness of about 5 μm.
Paragraphs O 165 - FIG. 15 illustrates an EDS line scan showing the material composition of the
YF.sub.3 coating 1405 of FIG. 14 after an oxidation process, where the YF.sub.3 coating 1405
includes a Y-O-F layer, according to an embodiment. The oxidation process was performed at
processing conditions of a microwave 0 plasma at 5 0 W of plasma power and at about 3 50° C.
The O plasma was flowed with Ar at a ratio of I: 1. As shown, the oxidation process converted
about the top 500 nm of the YF.sub.3 into a Y-O-Flayer. The concentration of O 1520 in the YO-
F layer is about I 0-30 at. % and the concentration of F 1540 is about 30-50 mol. %, with a
higher0 concentration at the surface of the YF.sub.3 coating 1405. The concentration of C 1522
is approximately unchanged.
The motivation for utilizing the features of Wu et al. is that it allows for protecting
chamber components. (Paragraph 0008)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the
invention was made to have utilized the features of Wu et al. because it allows for protecting
chamber components.
Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. I 03 as being unpatentable over Yoshikawa et al. in view of Ishii et al. and Tian et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chen et al. (U.S. PGPUB. 2006/0071607 Al).
DEPENDENT CLAIM 7:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the plate has a thickness that is approximately 10 mm or less.
Regarding claim 7, Chen et al. teach the plate has a thickness of approximately 10 mm or
less. (Paragraph 0051 - a quartz cover plate that is 1 to 5 mm in thickness.)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Chen et al. is that it allows for protecting the
resonator plate. (Paragraph 0050)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the
invention was made to have utilized the features of Chen et al. because it allows for protecting
the resonator plate.
INDEPENDENT CLAIM 11 AND CLAIMS DEPENDENT THEREON:
Claim(s) 11, 14, 15, 16 are rejectedunder35U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over
Kasai (U.S. PGPUB. 2010/0224324 Al) in view of Ishii et al. (U.S. Pat. 5,698,036), Yoshikawa et al. (U.S. PGPUB. 2015/0211125 Al) and Tian et al. (WO 2007/091672 Al).
INDEPENDENT CLAIM 11:
Regarding claim 11, Kasai teaches a remote plasma source comprising a resonator body,
wherein the resonator body comprises a first dielectric material; a housing around the resonator
body, wherein the housing comprises a volume in which a plasma can be formed. (Fig. I;
Paragraph 0041 - alumina for example as the resonator material)
The difference not yet discussed is that the plate under the resonator body is in direct contact is not discussed (Claim 11), a plate between the resonator body and the volume is
not discussed (Claim 11 ), wherein the plate comprises a second dielectric material that is
different than the first dielectric material is not discussed (Claim 11) and wherein the plate
extends laterally beyond the resonator body is not discussed (Claim 11) and the plate being
concentric with the resonator is not discussed (Claim 11 ).
Regarding the plate under the resonator body being in direct contact (Claim 1), Ishii et al. teach that plate under the resonator body can be in direct contact. (See Fig. 1)
PNG
media_image1.png
632
679
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding a plate between the resonator body and the volume (Claim 11 ), Yoshikawa et
al. teach utilizing a plate between the resonator body and a volume. (Fig. 1 - item 41; Paragraph
0038)
Regarding wherein the plate comprises a second dielectric material that is different than
the first dielectric material (Claim 11 ), since the list of materials encompass the possibility of selecting different materials from known materials it would be obvious to select the materials
from a known list of materials for optimization for best result.
Regarding wherein the plate extends laterally beyond the resonator body (Claim 11),
Yoshikawa et al. teach the plate extends laterally beyond the resonator body. (Fig. 1)
Regarding the plate being concentric with the resonator (Claim 11 ), it appears from
Yoshikawa et al. teach the plate is concentric with the resonator. However further in support
thereof Tian et al. teach that the plate should be concentric with a resonator. (See Figs. 1-3)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 14:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the first dielectric material comprises Al2O3.
Regarding claim 14, Ishii et al. teaches Al2O3. (Column 7 line 13)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 15:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the second dielectric material comprises quartz, alumina, sapphire, MgF2, yttrium aluminum garnet, YF3, Y2O3, Y4Al2O9, Y3Al5O12,
Y5O4F7, MgO, calcium fluoride, barium fluoride, lithium fluoride, fused silica, borosilicate glass, Er2O3, Er3Al5O12, Er4Al2O9, Gd2O3, Gd4AlO3, Gd3AlO3, Gd3Al5O12, Nd4Al2O, NdAlO3, Nd2O3, a rare earth oxyfluoride, or a solid solution of Y2O3 and one or more of ZrO2, CaF2, SrF2, AIF3, ErF3, LaF3, NdF3, ScF3, CeF4, and ZrF4.
Regarding claim 15, Yoshikawa et al. teach utilizing quartz or alumina. (Paragraph 0038 - quartz, alumina or aluminum nitride)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 16:
The difference not yet discussed is further comprising: an exhaust in the housing, wherein
a radial center of the exhaust is aligned with a radial center of the resonator body.
Regarding claim 16, Kasai teaches an exhaust in the housing, wherein a radial center of
the exhaust is aligned with a radial center of the resonator body. (See Fig. 1 - 23a; Paragraph
0045)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Ishii et al. is that it allows for protecting. (Column 5 line 25)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Yoshikawa et al. is that it allows plasma
processing a workpiece. (See Abstract)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Tian et al. is that it allows for utilizing
microwaves to processing a semiconductor wafer. (Paragraph 000 I)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the
invention was made to have modified Kasai by utilizing the features of Ishii et al., Yoshikawa et al. and Tian et al. because it allows for protecting and plasma processing a workpiece.
Claim(s) 12 is rejected under 3 5 U.S. C. I 03 as being unpatentable over Kasai in view of
Ishii et al., Yoshikawa et al. and Tian et al. as applied to claims 11, 14, 15, 16 above, and further in view of Beijing Naura Microelectronics Equipment Co., Ltd. (KR 102097436 Bl).
DEPENDENT CLAIM 12:
The difference not yet discussed is where the coating is "on" the plate.
Beijing Naura Microelectronics Equipment Co., Ltd. teaches that quartz coated with
yttria can be utilized and quartz is the material of the cover plate. (Paragraph 0080)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Beijing Naura Microelectronics Equipment
Co., Ltd. is that it allows for preventing contamination. (Paragraph 0080)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the
invention was made to have utilized the features of Beijing Naura Microelectronics Equipment
Co., Ltd. because it allows for preventing contamination.
Claim(s) 13 is rejected under35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kasai in view of Ishii et al., Yoshikawa et al. and Tian et al. and further in view of Beijing Naura Microelectronics Equipment Co., Ltd. as applied to claims 11, 12 above, and further in view of Wu et al. (U.S. PGPUB. 2018/0327899 Al).
DEPENDENT CLAIM 13:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the coating comprises MgF2, YF3, CaF2,
BaF2, LiF or NiF2.
Regarding 13, Wu et al. teach coating surfaces exposed to plasma with a coating
comprising YF3. (See Paragraph 0 164 - FIG. 14 illustrates an energy dispersive electroscopy
(EDS) line scan showing the material composition of a YF.sub.3 1405 coating. As shown, the
YF.sub.3 coating 1405 includes approximately 25-30 at.% Y 1425 and about 60-70 at. % F
1440. The YF. sub .3 coating additionally includes about 3 -6 at. % F 1420 and about 2-10 at. % C 1422. The YF.sub.3 coating was deposited by IAD and has a thickness of about 5 μm.
Paragraphs 0 165 - FIG. 15 illustrates an EDS line scan showing the material composition of the
YF.sub.3 coating 1405 of FIG. 14 after an oxidation process, where the YF.sub.3 coating 1405
includes a Y-O-F layer, according to an embodiment. The oxidation process was performed at
processing conditions of a microwave 0 plasma at 50 W of plasma power and at about 350° C.
The O plasma was flowed with Ar at a ratio of I: 1. As shown, the oxidation process converted
about the top 500 nm of the YF.sub.3 into a Y-O-Flayer. The concentration of 1520 in the YO-
F layer is about I 0-30 at. % and the concentration of F 1540 is about 30-50 mol. %, with a
higher0 concentration at the surface of the YF.sub.3 coating 1405. The concentration of C 1522
is approximately unchanged.
The motivation for utilizing the features of Wu et al. is that it allows for protecting
chamber components. (Paragraph 0008)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the
invention was made to have utilized the features of Wu et al. because it allows for protecting
chamber components.
Claim(s) 17 is rejected under35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kasai in view of
Ishii et al., Yoshikawa et al. and Tian et al. as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Chua et al. (U.S. PGPUB. 2020/0402769 Al).
DEPENDENT CLAIM 17:
The difference not yet discussed is a diameter of the plate is approximately 12 cm or
smaller.
Regarding claim 17, Chua et al. teach the diameter of the plate to be approximately 12 cm
or smaller. (Paragraph 003 9 I to 15 cm)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Chua et al. is that it allows for smaller
resonators to be used. (Paragraph 0039)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the
invention was made to have utilized the features of Chua et al. because it allows for smaller
resonators to be used.
INDEPENDENT CLAIM 18 AND CLAIMS DEPENDENT THEREON:
Claim(s) 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. I 03 as being unpatentable over Kasai (U.S. PGPUB. 2010/0224324 Al) in view of Ishii et al. (U.S. Pat. 5,698,036), Yoshikawa et al. (U.S. PGPUB. 2015/0211125 Al) and Tian et al. (WO 2007/091672 Al).
INDEPENDENT CLAIM 18:
Regarding claim 18, Kasai teaches a semiconductor tool comprising a resonator body,
wherein the resonator body comprises a first dielectric material; a housing around the resonator
body, wherein the housing comprises a volume in which a plasma can be formed. (Fig. l;
Paragraph 0041 - alumina for example as the resonator material)
The difference not yet discussed is the plate under the resonator body is in direct contact is not discussed (Claim 18), a plate between the resonator body and the volume is
not discussed (Claim 18), wherein the plate comprises a second dielectric material that is
different than the first dielectric material is not discussed (Claim 18) and wherein the plate
extends laterally beyond the resonator body is not discussed (Claim 1 8) and the plate being
concentric with the resonator is not discussed (Claim 18).
Regarding the plate under the resonator body being in direct contact (Claim 1), Ishii et al. teach that plate under the resonator body can be in direct contact. (See Fig. 1)
PNG
media_image1.png
632
679
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding a plate between the resonator body and the volume (Claim 18), Yoshikawa et
al. teach utilizing a plate between the resonator body and a volume. (Fig. 1 - item 41; Paragraph
0038)
Regarding wherein the plate comprises a second dielectric material that is different than
the first dielectric material (Claim 18), since the list of materials encompass the possibility of
selecting different materials from known materials it would be obvious to select the materials
from a known list of materials for optimization for best result.
Regarding wherein the plate extends laterally beyond the resonator body (Claim 18),
Yoshikawa et al. teach the plate extends laterally beyond the resonator body. (Fig. 1)
Regarding the plate being concentric with the resonator (Claim 18), it appears from
Yoshikawa et al. teach the plate is concentric with the resonator. However further in support
thereof Tian et al. teach that the plate should be concentric with a resonator. (See Figs. 1-3)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 20:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the second dielectric material comprises quartz, alumina, sapphire, MgF2, yttrium aluminum garnet, YF3, Y2O3, Y4Al2O9, Y3Al5O12,
Y5O4F7, MgO, calcium fluoride, barium fluoride, lithium fluoride, fused silica, borosilicate glass, Er2O3, Er3Al5O12, Er4Al2O9, Gd2O3, Gd4AlO3, Gd3AlO3, Gd3Al5O12, Nd4Al2O, NdAlO3, Nd2O3, a rare earth oxyfluoride, or a solid solution of Y2O3 and one or more of ZrO2, CaF2, SrF2, AIF3, ErF3, LaF3, NdF3, ScF3, CeF4, and ZrF4.
Regarding claim 20, Yoshikawa et al. teach utilizing quartz or alumina. (Paragraph 0038 - quartz, alumina or aluminum nitride)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Ishii et al. is that it allows for protecting. (Column 5 line 25)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Yoshikawa et al. is that it allows plasma
processing a workpiece. (See Abstract)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Tian et al. is that it allows for utilizing
microwaves to processing a semiconductor wafer. (Paragraph 000 I)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the
invention was made to have modified Kasai by utilizing the features of Ishii et al., Yoshikawa and Tian et al. because it allows for protecting and plasma processing a workpiece.
Claim(s) 19 is rejected under35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kasai in view of
Ishii et al., Yoshikawa and Tian et al. as applied to claims 18 and 20 above, and further in view of Beijing Naura Microelectronics Equipment Co., Ltd. (KR 102097436 Bl).
DEPENDENT CLAIM 19:
The difference not yet discussed is the coating covers all surf aces of the plate.
Beijing Naura Microelectronics Equipment Co., Ltd. teaches that quartz coated with
yttria on the surface can be utilized and quartz is the material of the cover plate. (Paragraph
0080)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Beijing Naura Microelectronics Equipment
Co., Ltd. is that it allows for preventing contamination. (Paragraph 0080)
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention
was made to have utilized the features Beijing Naura Microelectronics Equipment Co., Ltd.
because it allows for preventing contamination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 15, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to the argument that the prior art does not teach the amended claim limitation of “in direct contact”, it is argued that the newly cited reference to Ishii et al. (U.S. Pat. 5,698,036) teach the direct contact. Specifically Ishii et al. teach that plate under the resonator body can be in direct contact. (See Fig. 1)
PNG
media_image1.png
632
679
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It should be noted that the claims do not require continuous direct contact across the entire surface.
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 RODNEY GLENN MCDONALD whose telephone number is (571)272-1340. The examiner can normally be reached Hoteling: M-Th every Fri off.
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.
/RODNEY G MCDONALD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794
RM
July 23, 2026
