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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 40 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Parent claim 21 already requires that the cross-linkable compound comprises greater than 5 weight percent of the total solid weight of the photomask. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 1-2, 4, 6, 8, 21-23, 27, 30, and 39-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takizawa (US 2016/0147154) in view of Liu (US 2014/0011133) and Sawada (US 2008/0096141) and alternatively in view of Hayoz (US 2010/0297541).
Regarding Claims 1, Takizawa teaches a pattern formation method including forming a film using an active light-sensitive or radiation-sensitive composition, exposing the film to active light or radiation, developing the exposed film using a developer including an organic solvent (abstract). The radiation-sensitive composition contains a resin (A) and a crosslinking agent (C) (paragraph [0063]) and further an organic solvent (paragraph [0547]). The resin (A) may include two or more repeating units of any one of the General Formula (II) to (IV) such as an acid-decomposable group which generates a polar group by being decomposed by the action of an acid, the acid leaving group monomer may be incorporated between 5 mol% and 80 mol% of with respect to the entirety of repeating units of the resin (A) (paragraph [0180-0181]). The content of the resin (A) is preferably 40 to 99 wt% by mass of the total solid content of the radiation-sensitive composition (paragraph [0378]). This whole contains the claimed range of 40 wt% to 60 wt%.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected the weight content of the resin (A) in the composition of Takizawa to be in the range of 40 to 60 wt% based on the disclosed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP 2144.05.
Furthermore, the crosslinking agent (C) is a compound having a crosslinkable group which can crosslink the resin (A), examples of the crosslinkable group include a hydroxymethyl group, an alkoxymethyl group, an acyloxymethyl group, an alkoxymethyl ether group, an oxirane ring, and an oxetane ring (paragraph [0381]). The composition comprises an organic solvent (paragraph [0548]). Takizawa further discloses crosslinking agent C-21, which is tetraethyleneglycol divinyl ether; this crosslinker is used in Example 1-8 in Table 1 (page 112, 114), which is a “non-cyclic alkene group” as instantly claimed.
PNG
media_image1.png
121
455
media_image1.png
Greyscale
To further exemplify alternative embodiments of the “non-cyclic alkene group”, Hayoz discloses photocurable resist compositions that may contain component (a1) a cationically or acid-catalytically polymerizable or crosslinkable compound, (a2) a compound that increases its solubility in a developer under the action of an acid or (ax) a radically polymerizable or crosslinkable compound, further optionally comprising a photoinitiator (e) (paragraph [0115]). Examples of component (a1) include glycouril resins, melamine resins, glycidyl/epoxy resins, and vinyl ether resins (paragraph [0117-0143]). Such radically polymerizable or crosslinkable compounds containing double bonds are various di-, tri-, tetra-, penta- and hexa(meth)acrylates disclosed therein (paragraph [0148-150]). The prior art equates (meth)acrylate-containing compounds and glycouril, epoxide, and vinyl ether containing compounds as equivalents capable of crosslinking a composition.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the crosslinking agents of Takizawa with the other crosslinkable vinyl ether resins or (meth)acrylic resins of Hayoz. Takizawa and Hayoz both disclose similar crosslinking agents including a divinyl ether, the main difference is that Hayoz further discloses further embodiments of vinyl-ether resins as another acid-catalytically crosslinkable compound and ethylenically unsaturated compounds as radically crosslinkable compounds. One of ordinary skill would reasonably expect this modification to produce crosslinkable resins consistent with the invention of Takizawa.
Regarding the developer composition, Takizawa discloses the film may be developed using an organic based developer such as tetramethylammonium hydroxide [0151] to form a negative pattern [0069].
Takizawa further discloses using an EUV exposure device, pattern exposure was performed on the wafer applied with the resist film obtained in the above (4) using an exposure mask (line/space=1/1); after the irradiation, the wafer applied with the resist film was heated on the hot plate at 110° C. for 60 seconds, and developed by paddling the organic-based developer described in the following Table for 30 seconds, and, as necessary, the wafer applied with the resist film was rinsed by paddling the rinse liquid described in the following table for 30 seconds (paragraph [0672]). Further, the methos may be used in processing of a semiconductor element (paragraph [0003]).
Takizawa teaches that the photoresist may comprise acrylic repeat units [0341]. It is silent as to the amount of radiation used to develop the photoresist. Therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to look to the related art for suitable exposure intensity. Sawada teaches the use of exposure doses of 16 to 28 mJ [0075] to treat acrylic-based photoresists. Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to have used an intensity of 16-28 mJ as the particular exposure of Takizawa with a reasonable expectation of success because Sawada teaches that it is an operative range for acrylic-based photoresist exposure.
Takizawa is silent to the pattern formation steps such as transferring the pattern and stripping the photoresist.
However, Liu teaches a known method of forming a semiconductor device comprising forming a photoresist on a semiconductor substrate, exposing the photoresist, developing to form a pattern, etching treatment to pattern the substrate, and removal or stripping of the remaining photoresist (paragraph [0013]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have to have modified the method of Takizawa with the etching and stripping steps of Takizawa as part of the method of processing a semiconductor element. Since Takizawa teaches the use of its pattern formation method as being part of a method of processing a semiconductor element and is simply silent to additional steps beyond development, one of ordinary skill would reasonably expect the additional processing steps of Liu would aid in transferring the pattern to a semiconductor element.
Regarding Claims 2, 4, 6, and 8 the discussion of Claim 1 is relied upon as above. Takizawa further discloses the resins comprise an acid-leaving group (paragraph [0180-0181]). Takizawa further discloses the radiation may be extreme ultraviolet radiation (paragraph [0016]). Takizawa further discloses numbers resins P1-P33 comprising poly(hydroxystyrene), where hydroxystyrene is a repeating unit (page 102-109). Takizawa further discloses the solvent S1 in the resin compositions is PGMEA (paragraph [0619], Table 1 page 114). Takizawa further discloses the composition further comprises a basic compound, which is synonymous with the claimed quencher (paragraph [0162,0484]).
Regarding Claim 21, Takizawa teaches a pattern formation method including forming a film using an active light-sensitive or radiation-sensitive composition, exposing the film to active light or radiation, developing the exposed film using a developer including an organic solvent (abstract). The radiation-sensitive composition contains a resin (A), a crosslinking agent (C) (paragraph [0063]) and a solvent (paragraph [0547-0548]). The resin (A) further contains a repeating unit represented by formula (I), an aromatic ring such as a phenol structure (paragraph [0066]); Examiner notes that this polar group serves as a crosslinker site.
Furthermore, the crosslinking agent (C) is a compound having a crosslinkable group which can crosslink the resin (A), examples of the crosslinkable group include a hydroxymethyl group, an alkoxymethyl group, an acyloxymethyl group, an alkoxymethyl ether group, an oxirane ring, and an oxetane ring (paragraph [0381]). The composition comprises an organic solvent (paragraph [0548]). Takizawa further discloses crosslinking agent C-21, which is tetraethyleneglycol divinyl ether; this crosslinker is used in Example 1-8 in Table 1 (page 112, 114), which is a “non-cyclic alkene group” as instantly claimed.
PNG
media_image1.png
121
455
media_image1.png
Greyscale
To further exemplify alternative embodiments of the “non-cyclic alkene group”, Hayoz discloses photocurable resist compositions that may contain component (a1) a cationically or acid-catalytically polymerizable or crosslinkable compound, (a2) a compound that increases its solubility in a developer under the action of an acid or (ax) a radically polymerizable or crosslinkable compound, further optionally comprising a photoinitiator (e) (paragraph [0115]). Examples of component (a1) include glycouril resins, melamine resins, glycidyl/epoxy resins, and vinyl ether resins (paragraph [0117-0143]). Such radically polymerizable or crosslinkable compounds containing double bonds are various di-, tri-, tetra-, penta- and hexa(meth)acrylates disclosed therein (paragraph [0148-150]). The prior art equates (meth)acrylate-containing compounds and glycouril, epoxide, and vinyl ether containing compounds as equivalents capable of crosslinking a composition.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the crosslinking agents of Takizawa with the other crosslinkable vinyl ether resins or (meth)acrylic resins of Hayoz. Takizawa and Hayoz both disclose similar crosslinking agents including a divinyl ether, the main difference is that Hayoz further discloses further embodiments of vinyl-ether resins as another acid-catalytically crosslinkable compound and ethylenically unsaturated compounds as radically crosslinkable compounds. One of ordinary skill would reasonably expect this modification to produce crosslinkable resins consistent with the invention of Takizawa.
Regarding the developer composition, Takizawa discloses the film may be developed using an organic based developer such as tetramethylammonium hydroxide [0151] to form a negative pattern [0069].
Regarding the method of manufacturing a semiconductor device, Takizawa further discloses using an EUV exposure device, pattern exposure was performed on the wafer applied with the resist film obtained in the above (4) using an exposure mask (line/space=1/1); after the irradiation, the wafer applied with the resist film was heated on the hot plate at 110° C. for 60 seconds, and developed by paddling the organic-based developer described in the following Table for 30 seconds, and, as necessary, the wafer applied with the resist film was rinsed by paddling the rinse liquid described in the following table for 30 seconds (paragraph [0672]). Further, the methos may be used in processing of a semiconductor element (paragraph [0003]).
Takizawa teaches that the photoresist may comprise acrylic repeat units [0341]. It is silent as to the amount of radiation used to develop the photoresist. Therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to look to the related art for suitable exposure intensity. Sawada teaches the use of exposure doses of 16 to 28 mJ [0075] to treat acrylic-based photoresists. Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to have used an intensity of 16-28 mJ as the particular exposure of Takizawa with a reasonable expectation of success because Sawada teaches that it is an operative range for acrylic-based photoresist exposure.
Takizawa is silent to the pattern formation steps such as transferring the pattern and stripping the photoresist.
However, Liu teaches a known method of forming a semiconductor device comprising forming a photoresist on a semiconductor substrate, exposing the photoresist, developing to form a pattern, etching treatment to pattern the substrate, and removal or stripping of the remaining photoresist (paragraph [0013]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have to have modified the method of Takizawa with the etching and stripping steps of Takizawa as part of the method of processing a semiconductor element. Since Takizawa teaches the use of its pattern formation method as being part of a method of processing a semiconductor element and is simply silent to additional steps beyond development, one of ordinary skill would reasonably expect the additional processing steps of Liu would aid in transferring the pattern to a semiconductor element.
Regarding Claims 21, 22, and 40 the discussion of Claim 21 is relied upon as above. Takizawa further teaches that the crosslinking agent comprises 5 to 50 wt% of the total solid weight of the resin composition (paragraph [0431]). This wholly contains the claimed range of 5 to 10 wt%.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected the weight content of the crosslinking agent (C) in the resin composition of Takizawa to be in the range of 5 to 10 wt%. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding Claims 23, 27, and 30, the discussion of Claim 21 is relied upon as above. Hayoz further teaches numerous divinyl ether compounds that may be used as the crosslinker comprising a non-cyclic alkene group (paragraph [0143]) as well as numerous di-, tri-, and tetraacrylates that may be used as the crosslinker comprising a non-cyclic alkene group (paragraph [0150]).
Regarding Claim 39, the discussion of Claim 1 is relied upon as above. Takizawa teaches in crosslinkable compounds C-13 and C-18 cycloalkyl groups bonded to epoxides (page 111-112). Takizawa teaches crosslinker C-21 comprising a linear substituted divinyl ether crosslinkable with non-cyclic alkene group (page 112).
Hayoz further teaches divinyl ether compounds such as 1,4-cyclohexanedimethanol divinyl ether (paragraph [0142]) as well as 1,4-cyclohexanediol diacrylate as alternative embodiments that could be incorporated as crosslinkers.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takizawa (US 2016/0147154) in view of Liu (US 2014/0011133) and Sawada (US 2008/0096141) and alternatively in view of Hayoz (US 2010/0297541) as applied to Claim 1, further in view of Choi (US Patent No. 6,964,839).
Regarding Claim 7, the discussion of Claim 1 is relied upon as above. Takizawa further discloses a surfactant may be added to the composition (paragraph [0162], [0571]). Takizawa discloses various non-ionic surfactants may be used, including those comprising polyoxyethylene, which is known as polyethylene glycol (paragraph [0576-0579]).
Nevertheless, Examiner brings in Choi to teach photosensitive polymers comprising an acid-labile group (abstract) and the composition comprising poly(ethylene glycol) surfactant (Col 3, Line 57) a demonstrated in Example 16-4 (Col 10, Line 62-67).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the surfactant of Takizawa with poly(ethylene glycol) as demonstrated in the Examples of Choi. One of ordinary skill would reasonably expect modifying one nonionic surfactant for another nonionic surfactant to behave similarly in a photosensitive composition.
Claims 32-35, 37, and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takizawa (US 2016/0147154) in view of Liu (US 2014/0011133) and Sawada (US 2008/0096141).
Regarding Claim 32, Takizawa teaches a pattern formation method including forming a film using an active light-sensitive or radiation-sensitive composition, exposing the film to active light or radiation, developing the exposed film using a developer including an organic solvent (abstract). The radiation-sensitive composition contains a resin (A) and a crosslinking agent (C) (paragraph [0063]) and further an organic solvent (paragraph [0547]). Example 1-26 in Table 1 comprises the resin polymer P-23, shown below, which comprises 10 mol% methacrylic acid (pages 106, 114). Example 1-26 further comprises the resin at a concentration of 61.95 and a crosslinker C-1 at a concentration of 10; thus, the concentration of the polymer has a weight percentage greater than a weight percentage of the crosslinkable compound.
Regarding the developer composition, Takizawa discloses the film may be developed using an organic based developer such as tetramethylammonium hydroxide [0151] to form a negative pattern [0069].
Takizawa further discloses using an EUV exposure device, pattern exposure was performed on the wafer applied with the resist film obtained in the above (4) using an exposure mask (line/space=1/1); after the irradiation, the wafer applied with the resist film was heated on the hot plate at 110° C. for 60 seconds, and developed by paddling the organic-based developer described in the following Table for 30 seconds, and, as necessary, the wafer applied with the resist film was rinsed by paddling the rinse liquid described in the following table for 30 seconds (paragraph [0672]). Further, the methos may be used in processing of a semiconductor element (paragraph [0003]).
Takizawa teaches that the photoresist may comprise acrylic repeat units [0341]. It is silent as to the amount of radiation used to develop the photoresist. Therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to look to the related art for suitable exposure intensity. Sawada teaches the use of exposure doses of 16 to 28 mJ [0075] to treat acrylic-based photoresists. Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to have used an intensity of 16-28 mJ as the particular exposure of Takizawa with a reasonable expectation of success because Sawada teaches that it is an operative range for acrylic-based photoresist exposure.
Takizawa is silent to the pattern formation steps such as transferring the pattern and stripping the photoresist.
However, Liu teaches a known method of forming a semiconductor device comprising forming a photoresist on a semiconductor substrate, exposing the photoresist, developing to form a pattern, etching treatment to pattern the substrate, and removal or stripping of the remaining photoresist (paragraph [0013]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have to have modified the method of Takizawa with the etching and stripping steps of Takizawa as part of the method of processing a semiconductor element. Since Takizawa teaches the use of its pattern formation method as being part of a method of processing a semiconductor element and is simply silent to additional steps beyond development, one of ordinary skill would reasonably expect the additional processing steps of Liu would aid in transferring the pattern to a semiconductor element.
PNG
media_image2.png
267
408
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claims 33, 35, 37, and 38, the discussion of Claim 32 is relied upon as above. Takizawa further discloses the crosslinking agent C-21 used in Example 1-8 in Table 1 (tetraethyleneglycol divinyl ether, page 112).
PNG
media_image1.png
121
455
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 34, the discussion of Claim 33 is relied upon as above. The divinyl ether comprises a substituted C10 alkyl group, where -CH2- are substituted with -O-.
Claims 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takizawa (US 2016/0147154) in view of Liu (US 2014/0011133) and Sawada (US 2008/0096141) as applied to Claim 32, further in view of Hayoz (US 2010/0297541).
Regarding Claim 36, the discussion of Claim 32 is relied upon as above. Takizawa teaches in crosslinkable compounds C-13 and C-18 cycloalkyl groups bonded to epoxides (page 111-112). Takizawa teaches crosslinker C-21 comprising a linear substituted divinyl ether crosslinkable with non-cyclic alkene group (page 112).
Takizawa is silent to the crosslinkable compound further comprises a cycloalkyl group bonded to the non-cyclic alkene group.
Hayoz discloses photocurable resist compositions that may contain component (a1) a cationically or acid-catalytically polymerizable or crosslinkable compound, (a2) a compound that increases its solubility in a developer under the action of an acid or (ax) a radically polymerizable or crosslinkable compound, further optionally comprising a photoinitiator (e) (paragraph [0115]). Examples of component (a1) include glycouril resins, melamine resins, glycidyl/epoxy resins, and vinyl ether resins (paragraph [0117-0143]). Such radically polymerizable or crosslinkable compounds containing double bonds are various di-, tri-, tetra-, penta- and hexa(meth)acrylates disclosed therein (paragraph [0148-150]). The prior art equates (meth)acrylate-containing compounds and glycouril, epoxide, and vinyl ether containing compounds as equivalents capable of crosslinking a composition. And even further, Hayoz further teaches divinyl ether compounds such as 1,4-cyclohexanedimethanol divinyl ether (paragraph [0142]) as well as 1,4-cyclohexanediol diacrylate as alternative embodiments that could be incorporated as crosslinkers with cycloalkyl groups bonded to the non-cyclic alkene group.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the crosslinking agents of Takizawa with the other crosslinkable vinyl ether resins or (meth)acrylic resins of Hayoz and further to have chosen the cyclohexane-containing embodiments of Hayoz due to the similar structures found in other crosslinkers in Takizawa. Takizawa and Hayoz both disclose similar crosslinking agents including a divinyl ether, the main difference is that Hayoz further discloses further embodiments of vinyl-ether resins as another acid-catalytically crosslinkable compound and ethylenically unsaturated compounds as radically crosslinkable compounds. One of ordinary skill would reasonably expect this modification to produce crosslinkable resins consistent with the invention of Takizawa.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pp. 8-9, filed 10/15/25, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 21, 32 (and dependent claims) under USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the amendment. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Sawada, which teaches an overlapping range of energy for the development of photoresists [0075], as discussed above.
It is noted that Takizawa discloses the film may be developed using an organic based developer such as tetramethylammonium hydroxide [0151] to form a negative pattern [0069].
Regarding new claim 40, Takizawa also teaches an overlapping amount of cross-linkable coating [0431], as previously discussed regarding claims 21-22.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Jung et al. (US 6322948) is cited of interest for its teachings of using photoresist exposure energy densities of 0.1-100 mJ/cm2.
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 MICHAEL B CLEVELAND whose telephone number is (571)272-1418. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday; 9:00 am - 5:30 pm.
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, Alexa Neckel can be reached at 571-272-2450. 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.
/MICHAEL B CLEVELAND/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights