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 .
Election/Restrictions
Previously restricted claims 29-48 have been canceled
Applicant's election with traverse of species 2 in the reply filed on 9-5-25 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no showing why each of the species is independent or distinct from all the other species. This is not found persuasive because as discussed in the restriction requirement mailed 7-8-25, the species are independent or distinct because they require mutually exclusive structure and steps and they are not obvious variants of each other, because each species comprise different structures for inducing mechanical oscillation and/or particle removal, which are not obvious variants of each other based on the current record. There is a serious search and/or examination burden for the patentably distinct species because the species require a different field of search (eg., employing different search strategies or search queries).
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 49-52, 54 and 57 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sogard US 2006/0077361 (US’361).
Regarding claim 49, US’361 teaches a membrane cleaning apparatus (removing particles from a membrane reticle, abstract) comprising:
a membrane support configured to support a membrane to be cleaned (membrane holder 7, para. 35, see fig. 1a-d);
a laser operable to produce a pulsed radiation beam which is incident on at least a portion of the membrane (pulsed laser source focused on a particle on membrane 4 to remove the particle, para. 31-42, claim 18, see fig. 1 and 8);
and a beam delivery system configured to guide and/or shape the pulsed radiation beam such that the pulsed radiation beam covers a desired fraction of the portion of the membrane (Laser light 810 and 810' is coupled through optical fibers 820, 820' to lenses 825, 825' and then focused in the vicinity of the reticle membrane, para. 55, see fig. 1, 2 and 7-8).
Regarding claim 50, US’361 teaches the apparatus for cleaning a membrane of claim 49. US’361 further teaches the apparatus is configured to control a temperature of at least a portion of the membrane (heating of the membrane may assist in freeing a particle for lateral motion, the membrane absorbs a fraction of the laser energy, so that its local temperature increases, para. 15 and 51).
Regarding claim 51, US’361 teaches the apparatus for cleaning a membrane of claim 49. US’361 further teaches wherein the pulsed radiation beam is configured to heat at least part of the membrane (heating of the membrane may assist in freeing a particle for lateral motion, the membrane absorbs a fraction of the laser energy, so that its local temperature increases, para. 15 and 51).
Regarding claim 52, US’361 teaches the apparatus for cleaning a membrane of claim 49. US’361 further teaches wherein the beam delivery system is configured to control a spatial intensity profile of the pulsed radiation beam (the laser beam has a gradient field of light intensity with high intensity values in the focal volume and lower in the periphery, para. 9-12 and 32-42)
Regarding claim 54, US’361 teaches the apparatus for cleaning a membrane of claim 49. US’361 further teaches the apparatus configured to provide a pulsed radiation beam having a power between 1 W and 100 W (a NdYAG laser has a total beam power of 10 W, para, 41).
Regarding claim 57, US’361 teaches the apparatus for cleaning a membrane of claim 49. US’361 further teaches (moving the focal volume of the laser beam in the desired direction, the reticle is moved, para. 33-47).
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 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.
Claim(s) 53 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US’361 as applied to claim 52 above, and further in view of Farris, III et al. US 2010/0062560 (US’560).
Regarding claim 53, US’361 teaches the apparatus for cleaning a membrane of claim 52.
US’361 does not teach wherein the beam delivery system is configured to shape the spatial intensity profile of the laser beam to have a portion of the profile that is substantially flat.
US’560 teaches a method and system for design and manufacture of a solar module using a laser separation process (para. 2). as the laser beam intensity profile is chosen to have a homogeneous top-hat shape, the beam intensity is substantially uniform across the beam spot so that the resulted material removal for every spot-illumination also shows sharp edges. In other words, the lateral dimension of the portion of layered structure being removed by above laser separation process can be controlled with high precision to form a straight cutoff shape of a cross-sectional region around the edge of the beam spot. With properly optimized laser separation process and configuration of the vacuum head, the cross-section region formed in the above controlled laser separation process is found substantially free of any residues of the removed portion of the layered structure (para. 49). Therefore, US’560 teaches a method of removing particles from a substrate include a portion of the profile that is substantially flat can be used to optimize laser separation of particles from a surface and provide a surface substantially free of any residues.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of US’560 to include wherein the beam delivery system is configured to shape the spatial intensity profile of the laser beam to have a portion of the profile that is substantially flat because US’560 teaches it can be used to optimize laser separation of particles from a surface and provide a surface substantially free of any residues and simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is obvious, see MPEP 2141 III (B).
Claim(s) 55 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US’361.
Regarding claims 55, US’361 teaches the apparatus for cleaning a membrane of claim 49.
US’361 does not teach wherein the beam delivery system is configured to shape the pulsed radiation beam such that a power density of the pulsed radiation beam on the membrane is between 1 W/cm2 and 10 W/cm2.
However, US’361 further teaches the admitted prior art shows that laser peak intensities of the order of 107 W/cm2 are needed to remove particles of the order of 10 µm or more in diameter. However, the required intensity decreases with particle size. the laser force on a particle can be substantial. However, the beam spot size is small and in order to cover larger areas on the reticle, it may be more effective to use a relatively highly focused, intense beam, possibly pulsed, to "break loose" the particles from the membrane, and then use a much bigger, but lower intensity, beam to levitate the freed particles until they are swept away from the patterned subfield. According to above calculation the peak force on a 1 µm particle from radiation pressure accelerates the particle at approximately 105 g where g is the acceleration of gravity. Clearly a much weaker beam intensity would be sufficient to levitate the freed particle. In FIG. 7B an intense highly focused beam 720B is focused like the beams shown in FIGS. 1A-D, so that the radiation pressure force and the gradient force are in the same direction, and the removal force is maximized. A second weaker, less focused beam 715B opposes the first beam. Its focal position is adjusted to provide a gradient force in the same direction as the first beam. The gradient force of the second beam need be only strong enough to levitate the particle against gravity. Thus the first beam frees the particle from the membrane, and it is levitated by both beams. However when the first beam is interrupted by a metal pattern, the particle remains suspended by the second beam (para.38-52, see fig. 7a-b). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would know that they could control the power density/laser intensity to be as high or low as necessary to remove the particle from the membrane and/or levitate the particle, based on the size of the particle being removed. Larger particles require higher values, smaller particle require lower values and removing particles requires higher values than levitating particles.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of US’361 to include wherein the beam delivery system is configured to shape the pulsed radiation beam such that a power density of the pulsed radiation beam on the membrane is between 1 W/cm2 and 10 W/cm2 because US’361 teaches to control the power density/laser intensity to be as high or low as necessary to remove the particle from the membrane and/or levitate the particle, based on the size of the particle being removed; larger particles require higher values, smaller particle require lower values and removing particles requires higher values than levitating particles and it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation, see MPEP 2144.05.
Claim(s) 56 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US’361 as applied to claim 52 above, and further in view of Farris, III et al. WO 2007039895 (WO’895) cited in IDS filed 1-3-24.
Regarding claim 56, US’361 teaches the apparatus for cleaning a membrane of claim 52.
US’361 does not teach wherein the pulsed radiation beam is configured to induce mechanical oscillation of the membrane.
WO’895 teaches wherein the pulsed radiation beam is configured to induce mechanical oscillation of the membrane (abstract). The focused laser pulses subsequently create local vibrations at the interface between the solid contamination and the material to which it is adhered to (quartz or the coating surface or the pellicle frame wall) and result in physical separation of the contaminant from its present location and consequent fragmentation (provided the pulse is at the right energy and focus) (para. 50). Therefore, WO’895 teaches that the laser of US’361 can additionally be configured to induce mechanical oscillation of the membrane to create local vibrations at the interface between the solid contamination and the material to which it is adhered to resulting in physical separation of the contaminant from its present location.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of US’361 to include wherein the pulsed radiation beam is configured to induce mechanical oscillation of the membrane because WO’895 teaches it creates local vibrations at the interface between the solid contamination and the material to which it is adhered to resulting in physical separation of the contaminant from its present location and combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is obvious, see MPEP 2141 III (A).
Claim(s) 58-59 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US’361 as applied to claim 49 above, and further in view of Henley US 6,526,997 (US’997).
Regarding claims 58-59, US’361 teaches the apparatus for cleaning a membrane of claim 49.
US’361 does not teach an electrode configured to generate an electric field in the vicinity of the membrane so as to exert an electrostatic force on particles on or adjacent the membrane, with regard to claim 58 and one or more electrodes configured to generate an electric field in the vicinity of two opposed surfaces of the membrane, the electric field in the vicinity of the two opposed surfaces of the membrane being in opposite directions, with regard to claim 59.
US’997 teaches techniques for cleaning objects. More particularly, the invention provides a technique including a method for cleaning semiconductor devices using a combination of a high energy light source and electrostatic bias for removing impurities (col. 1). Step 533 which applies an energy from an energy source to dislodge the particles. The energy source can be any suitable means for providing a high energy light (e.g., photons) to the particles. The high energy light can include a laser. The method releases the particle from the surface, step 535. The method applies a force (step 539) between the substrate and the electrode. The force can be an electro-static force on the electrode, which attracts the particle toward the electrode along electric field lines generated between the electrode and the substrate. The electrode holds the particle in place once the particle reaches the surface of the electrode. Once the particle has been attached to the electrode, it is permanently removed from the substrate (col. 7, see fig. 2-3, 5). Therefore, the process of US’997 can be combined with the process of US’361 to assist in confining the removed particles to permanently remove them from the surface with the use of an electrode generating electrostatic forces to generate an electric field in the vicinity of the membrane of US’361. The membrane of US’361 includes two opposed surfaces in opposite directions (see fig. 1a-d)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of US’361 to include an electrode configured to generate an electric field in the vicinity of the membrane so as to exert an electrostatic force on particles on or adjacent the membrane, with regard to claim 58 and one or more electrodes configured to generate an electric field in the vicinity of two opposed surfaces of the membrane, the electric field in the vicinity of the two opposed surfaces of the membrane being in opposite directions, with regard to claim 59 because US’997 teaches it assists in confining the removed particles to permanently remove them from the surface and use of known technique to improve similar methods in the same way is obvious, see MPEP 2141 III (C).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 60-62 and 64 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sogard US 2006/0077361 (US’361).
Regarding claim 60, US’361 teaches a membrane cleaning method (removing particles from a membrane reticle, abstract) comprising:
supporting a membrane to be cleaned on a membrane support (membrane holder 7, para. 35, see fig. 1a-d);
producing a pulsed laser radiation beam to be incident on at least a portion of the membrane (pulsed laser source focused on a particle on membrane 4 to remove the particle, para. 31-42, claim 18, see fig. 1 and 8);
guiding and/or shaping the pulsed laser radiation beam such that the pulsed radiation beam covers a desired fraction of the portion of the membrane (Laser light 810 and 810' is coupled through optical fibers 820, 820' to lenses 825, 825' and then focused in the vicinity of the reticle membrane, the beam frees the particle from the membrane, para. 52-55, see fig. 1, 2 and 7-8).
Regarding claim 61, US’361 teaches the method of cleaning a membrane of claim 60. US’361 further teaches controlling a temperature of at least a portion of the membrane (heating of the membrane may assist in freeing a particle for lateral motion, the membrane absorbs a fraction of the laser energy, so that its local temperature increases, para. 15 and 51).
Regarding claim 62, US’361 teaches the method of cleaning a membrane of claim 60. US’361 further teaches wherein the pulsed laser radiation beam heats at least part of the membrane (heating of the membrane may assist in freeing a particle for lateral motion, the membrane absorbs a fraction of the laser energy, so that its local temperature increases, para. 15 and 51).
Regarding claim 64, US’361 teaches the method of cleaning a membrane of claim 60. US’361 further teaches wherein the pulsed laser radiation beam has a power between 1 W and 100 W (a NdYAG laser has a total beam power of 10 W, para, 41).
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 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.
Claim(s) 63 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US’361 as applied to claim 60 above, and further in view of Farris, III et al. WO 2007039895 (WO’895) cited in IDS filed 1-3-24.
Regarding claim 63, US’361 teaches the apparatus for cleaning a membrane of claim 60.
US’361 does not teach wherein the pulsed laser radiation beam induces mechanical oscillation of the membrane.
WO’895 teaches wherein the pulsed radiation beam is configured to induce mechanical oscillation of the membrane (abstract). The focused laser pulses subsequently create local vibrations at the interface between the solid contamination and the material to which it is adhered to (quartz or the coating surface or the pellicle frame wall) and result in physical separation of the contaminant from its present location and consequent fragmentation (provided the pulse is at the right energy and focus) (para. 50). Therefore, WO’895 teaches that the laser of US’361 can additionally be configured to induce mechanical oscillation of the membrane to create local vibrations at the interface between the solid contamination and the material to which it is adhered to resulting in physical separation of the contaminant from its present location.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of US’361 to include wherein the pulsed laser radiation beam induces mechanical oscillation of the membrane because WO’895 teaches it creates local vibrations at the interface between the solid contamination and the material to which it is adhered to resulting in physical separation of the contaminant from its present location and combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is obvious, see MPEP 2141 III (A).
Claim(s) 65-67 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US’361.
Regarding claims 65, US’361 teaches the apparatus for cleaning a membrane of claim 60.
US’361 does not teach wherein a power density of the pulsed laser radiation beam on the membrane is between 1 W/cm2 and 10 W/cm2
However, US’361 further teaches the admitted prior art shows that laser peak intensities of the order of 107 W/cm2 are needed to remove particles of the order of 10 µm or more in diameter. However, the required intensity decreases with particle size. the laser force on a particle can be substantial. However, the beam spot size is small and in order to cover larger areas on the reticle, it may be more effective to use a relatively highly focused, intense beam, possibly pulsed, to "break loose" the particles from the membrane, and then use a much bigger, but lower intensity, beam to levitate the freed particles until they are swept away from the patterned subfield. According to above calculation the peak force on a 1 µm particle from radiation pressure accelerates the particle at approximately 105 g where g is the acceleration of gravity. Clearly a much weaker beam intensity would be sufficient to levitate the freed particle. In FIG. 7B an intense highly focused beam 720B is focused like the beams shown in FIGS. 1A-D, so that the radiation pressure force and the gradient force are in the same direction, and the removal force is maximized. A second weaker, less focused beam 715B opposes the first beam. Its focal position is adjusted to provide a gradient force in the same direction as the first beam. The gradient force of the second beam need be only strong enough to levitate the particle against gravity. Thus the first beam frees the particle from the membrane, and it is levitated by both beams. However when the first beam is interrupted by a metal pattern, the particle remains suspended by the second beam (para.38-52, see fig. 7a-b). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would know that they could control the power density/laser intensity to be as high or low as necessary to remove the particle from the membrane and/or levitate the particle, based on the size of the particle being removed. Larger particles require higher values, smaller particle require lower values and removing particles requires higher values than levitating particles.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of US’361 to include wherein a power density of the pulsed laser radiation beam on the membrane is between 1 W/cm2 and 10 W/cm2 because US’361 teaches to control the power density/laser intensity to be as high or low as necessary to remove the particle from the membrane and/or levitate the particle, based on the size of the particle being removed; larger particles require higher values, smaller particle require lower values and removing particles requires higher values than levitating particles and it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation, see MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claims 66-67, US’361 teaches the apparatus for cleaning a membrane of claim 60.
US’361 does not teach wherein the pulsed laser radiation beam reduces a tension of an irradiated portion of the membrane by a factor of between 10 and 100, with regard to claim 66 and wherein the pulsed laser radiation beam increases a temperature of a portion of the membrane by between 100 °C and 1000 °C, with regard to claim 67.
However, US’361 further teaches heating of the membrane may assist in freeing a particle for lateral motion. it should possible to move the particle along the surface of the membrane, even in cases where the axial gradient force is unable to remove the particle from the surface. If the membrane absorbs a fraction of the laser energy, so that its local temperature increases, this movement is enhanced further (para. 15 and 51). Therefore, US’361 teaches to use local temperature increases of the membrane to enhance the removal of the particle from the membrane with the laser. As discussed by application in the instant filed specification, para. 79, the temperature of the membrane controls the tension of the membrane. Therefore. One of ordinary skill in the art would know, based on the teachings of US’361 to increase the local temperature as much or as little as necessary to enhance the release of the particle from the substrate without excessively heating the membrane. The control of the temperature would necessarily control the membrane tension, as discussed by applicant.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of US’361 to include wherein the pulsed laser radiation beam reduces a tension of an irradiated portion of the membrane by a factor of between 10 and 100, with regard to claim 66 and wherein the pulsed laser radiation beam increases a temperature of a portion of the membrane by between 100 °C and 1000 °C, with regard to claim 67 because US’361 teaches to increase the local temperature as much or as little as necessary to enhance the release of the particle from the substrate without excessively heating the membrane and it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation, see MPEP 2144.05.
Claim(s) 68 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US’361 as applied to claim 60 above, and further in view of Henley US 6,526,997 (US’997).
Regarding claims 68, US’361 teaches the apparatus for cleaning a membrane of claim 60.
US’361 does not teach generating an electric field in the vicinity of the membrane so as to exert an electrostatic force on particles on or adjacent the membrane.
US’997 teaches techniques for cleaning objects. More particularly, the invention provides a technique including a method for cleaning semiconductor devices using a combination of a high energy light source and electrostatic bias for removing impurities (col. 1). Step 533 which applies an energy from an energy source to dislodge the particles. The energy source can be any suitable means for providing a high energy light (e.g., photons) to the particles. The high energy light can include a laser. The method releases the particle from the surface, step 535. The method applies a force (step 539) between the substrate and the electrode. The force can be an electro-static force on the electrode, which attracts the particle toward the electrode along electric field lines generated between the electrode and the substrate. The electrode holds the particle in place once the particle reaches the surface of the electrode. Once the particle has been attached to the electrode, it is permanently removed from the substrate (col. 7, see fig. 2-3, 5). Therefore, the process of US’997 can be combined with the process of US’361 to assist in confining the removed particles to permanently remove them from the surface with the use of an electrode generating electrostatic forces to generate an electric field in the vicinity of the membrane of US’361.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of US’361 to include generating an electric field in the vicinity of the membrane so as to exert an electrostatic force on particles on or adjacent the membrane because US’997 teaches it assists in confining the removed particles to permanently remove them from the surface and use of known technique to improve similar methods in the same way is obvious, see MPEP 2141 III (C).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIN FLANAGAN BERGNER whose telephone number is (571)270-1133. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00.
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, Joshua Allen can be reached at 571-270-3176. 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.
/ERIN F BERGNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713