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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Japan on 06/27/20222. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the JP2022-102990 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
“temperature adjustment portion” is not utilized within the specification. As stated in the Non-Final rejection of 04/29/2024, the Examiner believes that the claims should recite “temperature adjustment unit”
“substrate disposition portion” is not utilized within the specification.
“external distribution portion” is not utilized within the specification.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“internal temperature adjustment portion” in claims 1, 7, 9-13. The term is not used in the specification and therefore has no further structure added to it.
“drive source” in claims 1 and 14. The specification further describes the drive source as a “motor” (see ¶ [0053] of the specification) and the limitation will be interpreted as such.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The limitation “internal temperature adjustment portion” is used in the claims listed in the 112(f) interpretation section above. No further structure is added to limitation within the specification as the limitation is not used in the specification. Therefore, the specification does not comply with the written description requirement.
The remaining claims not listed in the 112(f) interpretation section above are rejected based on their dependency to the rejected claims.
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 1-14 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.
Claim limitation “internal temperature adjustment portion” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification does not recite the limitation and therefore the intended structure of the limitation is unclear. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
The remaining claims not listed in the 112(f) interpretation section above are rejected based on their dependency to the rejected claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Itaya (JP H09298162 A) (cited in the IDS filed on 12/08/2025).
Regarding claim 12, Itaya teaches of:
A temperature regulation method (Fig. 1) comprising:
(a) providing a heat treatment apparatus equipped with a processing container (Fig. 1, 5) having an interior space in which substrates are processed (substrates within 3 are processed within an interior space of 5);
(b) carrying the substrates into and out of the interior space through an opening that opens the interior space (¶ [0002], “the wafer a wafer boat when performing the chemical treatment (chemical vapor deposition) is to remove the cap 8 of the manifold 7 provided connected to the lower end portion of the heater 4, and hold many wafers in the multi-stage 3 are performed by inserting into the inner tube 5”);
(c) heating the substrates accommodated in the interior space from an outer side of the processing container by a temperature adjustment furnace (4+6) disposed around the processing container (4+6 surrounds 5 and heats the interior space of 5 from the outside of 5);
(d) moving an internal temperature adjustment portion (8) relative to the processing container to dispose the internal temperature adjustment portion to face the opening that opens the interior space (8 is moved to face the opening at the bottom of 5 as shown in Fig. 1 and away from the opening at the bottom of 5 when 3 is loaded); and
(e) in a state where the internal temperature adjustment portion is disposed facing the opening, supplying a temperature adjustment gas for regulating a temperature of the processing container into the interior space (8 is disposed facing the opening of 5 and cooling gas is provided into 5 via 8a of 8; ¶ [0009], “To cool the heater 4 is blind to after finishing chemical treatment of the wafer, remove the cap 8 covering the opening of the lower end of the manifold 7, or remain attached to the cap 8 is provided in this Remove the plug 8a, (in the case of many air) from the external cooling gas that has flowed into the transfer chamber 1 and can flow into the inner tube 5”) wherein moving the internal temperature adjustment portion includes moving the internal temperature adjustment portion between:
a temperature adjustment position in which the internal temperature adjustment portion is disposed facing the opening to supply the temperature adjustment gas in a state where the substrates are retreated from the processing container (Fig. 1 shows 8 facing the opening at the bottom of 5 where temperature adjustment gas is supplied into 5 where substrates (3) are retreated), and
a retreat position away from the opening (when the substrates 3 are positioned to be within 5 8 must be retreated at a position away from the opening in order to allow 3 to be positioned at the opening)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-4, 8 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Itaya (JP H09298162 A).
Regarding claim 1, Itaya teaches of:
A heat treatment apparatus (Fig. 1) comprising:
a processing container (5) having an interior space in which substrates are processed (substrates within 3 are processed in an interior space of 5), the substrates being carried into and out of the interior space through an opening that opens the interior space (¶ [0002], “the wafer a wafer boat when performing the chemical treatment (chemical vapor deposition) is to remove the cap 8 of the manifold 7 provided connected to the lower end portion of the heater 4, and hold many wafers in the multi-stage 3 are performed by inserting into the inner tube 5”);
a temperature adjustment furnace disposed around the processing container (4+6 is disposed around 5) and configured to heat the substrates accommodated in the interior space from an outer side of the processing container (4+6 provide heat to the substrates within 5); and
an internal temperature adjustment portion (8) configured to supply a temperature adjustment gas for regulating a temperature of the processing container into the interior space in a state of being disposed facing the opening (8 is disposed facing the opening of 5 and cooling gas is provided into 5 via 8a of 8; ¶ [0009], “To cool the heater 4 is blind to after finishing chemical treatment of the wafer, remove the cap 8 covering the opening of the lower end of the manifold 7, or remain attached to the cap 8 is provided in this Remove the plug 8a, (in the case of many air) from the external cooling gas that has flowed into the transfer chamber 1 and can flow into the inner tube 5”)
a temperature adjustment position in which the internal temperature adjustment portion is disposed facing the opening to supply the temperature adjustment gas in a state where the substrates are retreated from the processing container (Fig. 1 shows 8 facing the opening at the bottom of 5 where temperature adjustment gas is supplied into 5 where substrates (3) are retreated), and
a retreat position away from the opening (when the substrates 3 are positioned to be within 5 8 must be retreated at a position away from the opening in order to allow 3 to be positioned at the opening)
Itaya fails to explicitly teach:
wherein the internal temperature adjustment portion includes a drive source configured to move the internal temperature adjustment portion relative to the processing container between
However, a person of ordinary skill in the art could have modified Itaya to provide a drive source to move the internal temperature adjustment portion based on the following rationale:
The modification of Itaya to utilize a drive source to move 8 instead of manually moving 8 has been determined to be an obvious matter of design choice because Applicant has not disclosed that the drive source provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art would have expected Applicant’s invention to perform equally well with a drive source or manual movement as both would position the internal temperature adjustment portion equally well. Further, the courts have found that “that broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art” (MPEP 2144.04 III)
Regarding claim 2, the combined teachings teach of the heat treatment apparatus according to claim 1, and the combined teachings further teach:
wherein the internal temperature adjustment portion includes a facing plate movable to face the opening (the surface of 8 that is facing the interior of 5 when 8 is positioned on the opening is the facing plate), and
a temperature adjustment gas supply pipe (the hole formed by the removal of 8a is a temperature adjustment gas supply pipe that supplies cooling gas to the apparatus) fixed to the facing plate and configured to move together with the facing plate to eject the temperature adjustment gas into the interior space (the hole is fixed to 8 and supplies the gas to the interior space of 5)
Regarding claim 3, the combined teachings teach of the heat treatment apparatus according to claim 2, and the combined teachings further teach:
wherein the temperature adjustment gas supply pipe has an ejection port that ejects the temperature adjustment gas along an axial center of the processing container (the portion of the hole formed by the removal of 8a that is flush with the facing plate of 8 is the ejection portion which supplies gas along an axial center of 5)
Regarding claim 4, the combined teachings teach of the heat treatment apparatus according to claim 2, and the combined teachings further teach:
wherein the internal temperature adjustment portion moves relative to the processing container to dispose the facing plate at a position where the opening is closed, and ejects the temperature adjustment gas in a state where the opening is closed (as described in claim 1, 8 moves relative to 5 and the facing plate is positioned at the opening of 5 to seal 5 and gas is ejected via the pipe formed by the removal of 8a).
Regarding claim 8, the combined teachings teach of the heat treatment apparatus according to claim 1, and the combined teachings further teach:
further comprising:
a manifold (7) configured to support the processing container at a lower end of the processing container (7 supports 5), and having a lower end at which the opening is formed (the lower end of 7 forms the opening of 5); and
a substrate disposition portion having a wafer boat that holds a plurality of substrates (see the platform on which 3 is positioned), and configured to move relative to the manifold to insert the wafer boat into the interior space through the opening (the platform of 3 moves relative to 7 to insert the plurality of wafer boats in 3 into the interior of 5),
wherein when the temperature of the processing container is regulated, the substrate disposition portion retreats from the processing container, and the internal temperature adjustment portion is disposed facing the opening (as shown in Fig. 1, the platform of 3 retreats from 7 and 8 faces the opening).
Regarding claim 13, the combined teachings teach of the heat treatment apparatus according to claim 1, and the combined teachings further teach:
wherein the internal temperature adjustment portion is in the retreat position when the substrates are inside the processing container (8 would have to be in a retreat position when 3 is positioned inside of 5)
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Itaya (JP H09298162 A) in view of Ueno (US 20090291566 A1)
Regarding claim 9, the combined teachings teach of the heat treatment apparatus according to claim 8, however, the combined teachings fail to explicitly teach:
further comprising:
a sub temperature adjustment gas supply pipe supported on the manifold, and configured to supply the temperature adjustment gas into the interior space separately from the internal temperature adjustment portion
Ueno teaches of:
further comprising:
a sub temperature adjustment gas supply pipe supported on the manifold (Fig. 3, 74a is supported on manifold 35), and configured to supply the temperature adjustment gas into the interior space separately from the internal temperature adjustment portion (see combination made below, 74a supplies temperature adjustment gas into the interior space of 31)
The combined teachings can be modified to meet this/these limitation(s) as follows:
add 74a in the system of Itaya as modified so that it is attached to 7 and supplies gas to 5
A person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to make the above modification(s) because:
it would allow for the system of Itaya to operate either in a vacuum state or to be filled with an inert gas, increasing the use cases for the system of Itaya
Claim(s) 10 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Itaya (JP H09298162 A) in view of Seshimo (US 20180182652 A1)
Regarding claim 10, the combined teachings teach of the heat treatment apparatus according to claim 1, however, the combined teachings fail to explicitly teach:
further comprising:
a controller configured to control operations of the temperature adjustment furnace and the internal temperature adjustment portion,
wherein the controller performs a temperature lowering process to lower the temperature of the processing container by supplying the temperature adjustment gas from the internal temperature adjustment portion into the interior space after a heating of the substrates by the temperature adjustment furnace is stopped.
Seshimo teaches of:
utilizing a controller to control all operations of a heat treatment apparatus for substrates (¶ [0033], “The control part 9 controls the respective components of the substrate processing apparatus 100, for example, the transfer device 4, the valves, the mass flow controller as a flow rate controller, the elevating mechanism 26, the heater power supply, the drive mechanisms for the pumps 13 and 14”)
The combined teachings can be modified to meet this/these limitation(s) as follows:
add a controller to Itaya as modified that controls all aspects of the system of Itaya, including the furnace and the temperature adjustment portion
A person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to make the above modification(s) because:
it would allow for the control to be automated without the need for a user to supervise the operation, improving efficiency
Regarding claim 14, the combined teachings teach of the heat treatment apparatus according to claim 1, and the combined teachings further teach:
further comprising:
a substrate disposition portion having a wafer boat that holds the substrates (3 is a wafer boat positioned on a substrate disposition portion), and configured to move relative to the processing container to insert the wafer boat into the interior space through the opening (3 is moved relative to 5 to insert 3 into 5)
The combined teachings fail to explicitly teach:
a controller,
wherein the controller is configured to control the substrate disposition portion to unload the wafer boat from the processing container and thereafter control the drive source to move the internal temperature adjustment portion to face the opening and supply the temperature adjustment gas into the interior space.
Seshimo teaches of:
utilizing a controller to control all operations of a heat treatment apparatus for substrates (¶ [0033], “The control part 9 controls the respective components of the substrate processing apparatus 100, for example, the transfer device 4, the valves, the mass flow controller as a flow rate controller, the elevating mechanism 26, the heater power supply, the drive mechanisms for the pumps 13 and 14”)
The combined teachings can be modified to meet this/these limitation(s) as follows:
add a controller to Itaya as modified that controls all aspects of the system of Itaya, including the furnace, the substrate disposition portion and the internal temperature adjustment portion
A person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to make the above modification(s) because:
it would allow for the control to be automated without the need for a user to supervise the operation, improving efficiency
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-7 and 11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 5:
Claim 5 recites that the internal temperature adjustment portion ejects temperature adjustment gas in a stated where a clearance is formed between the opening and the facing plate. This is not taught by any known prior art. Further it would not be obvious to modify Itaya to eject the temperature adjustment gas when 8 is not in contact with the opening of 5 because Itaya explicitly states that 8 is sealed onto the apparatus and air is pulled through the opening left from the removal of 8a via the suction force from the exhaust system (see ¶ [0009] of Itaya)
Regarding claim 6:
Claim 6 recites that “the internal temperature adjustment portion includes an exhaust provided in the facing plate and configured to exhaust a gas of the interior space” which is not taught by any known prior art. Itaya already teaches of an exhaust system and utilizes the exhaust system to pull temperature adjustment gas through the opening from in 8. Providing an additional exhaust on 8 would impact the intended function of Itaya and therefore is not obvious.
Regarding claim 7:
Claim 7 recites “wherein the internal temperature adjustment portion supplies the temperature adjustment gas in a larger supply amount than a supply amount of the processing gas” which is not taught by any known prior art. Itaya is the only known reference that teaches of an internal temperature adjustment portion that supplies temperature adjustment gas to a heat treatment apparatus when the substrates are retreated from the processing container. Therefore there is no known prior art that draws a comparison between the temperature adjustment gas and a processing gas that would be obvious to combined with the apparatus of Itaya.
Regarding claim 11:
Claim 11 recites “during the temperature lowering process, the controller performs supplying the temperature adjustment gas into the interior space by the internal temperature adjustment portion and distributing the cooling gas in the temperature adjustment space by the external distribution portion”. Itaya is the only known reference that teaches of an internal temperature adjustment portion that supplies temperature adjustment gas when substrates are retreated from the processing chamber. No known art teaches of the simultaneous supply of two different process gasses when substrates are retreated from the processing chamber.
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 MICHAEL J GIORDANO whose telephone number is (571)272-8940. The examiner can normally be reached M-Fr 8 AM - 5 PM EST.
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, Helena Kosanovic can be reached at (571) 272-9059. 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 JAMES GIORDANO/Examiner, Art Unit 3762
/VIVEK K SHIRSAT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights