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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the buffer part provided on the head part in claims 13 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 13 recite “a buffer part provided on the head part” and it is unclear to the examiner if applicant intends for the buffer part to be part of and on the head part or if applicant intends for the head part to contact and move to be on top of the buffer part. For purpose of examination, examiner interprets the limitation as “the buffer part is to contact part of the head part”.
Claims 14-18 are rejected due to being
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim (US 20050113010 A1, previously presented).
Regarding Claim 13, Kim teaches a chemical mechanical polishing apparatus (Fig. 4) comprising:
a head part (Ref. 20, Fig. 4, [0022]) configured to support a wafer (Ref. W, Fig. 4, [0022]) such that a surface of the wafer is exposed (Fig. 4 shows the bottom surface of the wafer is exposed);
a buffer part (Ref. 12c, Fig. 4) provided on the head part and configured to support a center of the surface of the wafer (Fig. 4);
a first polishing part (Ref. 12a, fig. 4, right side of figure 3) spaced apart from the buffer part in a radial direction of the wafer (Fig. 3-4 shows the polishing part spaced radially from the buffer part)and on an edge of the surface of the wafer (Fig. 4 shows the polishing part on the edge of the wafer); and
a head supporting part (See annotated Fig. 4 below) symmetric to the first polishing part with respect to a rotation axis of the buffer part (Fig. 4 annotated below), the head supporting part being configured to support the head part (Fig. 4).
PNG
media_image1.png
480
668
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 14, Kim teaches the limitations of claim 13, as described above, and further teaches wherein the head supporting part comprises:
a contact plate that comprises a soft material and is in contact with the edge of the wafer ([0023] describes a retainer ring in contact with the edge of the wafer and the retainer ring as some material);
a supporting plate on the contact plate ([0023] describes a membrane in contact with the back wafer); and
a supporting driver configured to drive the supporting plate ([0023] describes an arm/ actuator to drive the movement of the supporting plate to and from the polishing station).
Regarding Claim 15, Kim teaches the limitations of claim 13, as described above, and further teaches a dummy polishing part (Ref. 12a, Fig. 4, bottoms side of figure 3) spaced apart from the first polishing part (Fig. 3 shows the polishing parts spaced apart in the circumferential direction), the buffer part (Fig. 4 shows the polishing parts spaced apart in a radial direction), and the head supporting part (Fig. 4 shows spaced in a vertical direction),
wherein the first polishing part and the dummy polishing part each comprises a polishing platen (Ref. R, Fig. 4),a polishing pad (Ref. 16, Fig. 4) on the polishing platen (Fig. 4) , and a slurry supplier (Ref. 18, Fig. 4) configured to supply a slurry to the polishing pad (Fig. 4, [0019]).
PNG
media_image2.png
393
519
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 16, Kim teaches the limitations of claim 13, as described above, and further teaches wherein the head part is movable in the radial direction of the wafer ([0023] describes an arm/ actuator to drive the movement of the supporting plate to and from the polishing station in multiple directions including a radial direction of the wafer).
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.
Claims 1, 3-6, 10, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 20050113010 A1, previously presented) in view of Quek (6,155,913).
Regarding Claim 1, Kim teaches a chemical mechanical polishing apparatus (Fig. 4) comprising:
a head part (Ref. 20, Fig. 4, [0022]) configured to support a wafer (Ref. W, Fig. 4, [0022]);
a buffer part (Ref. 12c, Fig. 4) configured to support the head part and configured to support a center of the wafer (Fig. 4);
a first polishing part (Ref. 12a, fig. 4, right side of figure 3) that is spaced apart from the buffer part (Fig. 4 shows the polishing part spaced laterally from the buffer part) and configured to be on an edge of the wafer (Fig. 4); and
a second polishing part (Ref. 12a, Fig. 4, left side of figure 3) symmetric with the first polishing part with respect to a rotation axis of the buffer part (Fig. 4 annotated below), and
wherein the first polishing part and the second polishing part are configured to rotate with respect to the rotation axis of the buffer part ([0020&0022]).
Kim fails to explicitly teach the second polishing part being separate and spaced apart from the first polishing part. Quek teaches a chemical mechanical polishing apparatus with a head part, and a first and second polishing parts and can be considered analogous art because they are within the same field of endeavor. Quek teaches a chemical mechanical polishing apparatus (Fig. 5) with a head part (Ref. 96, Fig. 5) comprising a first polishing part (Ref. 90, Fig. 5) configured to be on an edge of the head part (Fig. 5) and a second polishing part (Ref. 92, Fig. 5) symmetric with the first polishing part (Fig. 5), the second polishing part (Fig. 5) being separate and spaced apart from the first polishing part (Ref. 92, Fig. 5). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the first and second polishing parts, as taught by Kim, to be separate and spaced apart, as taught by Kim, by making separate (MPEP 2144.04 V C) to allow for more efficient and controlled polishing and since such a modification would yield the predictable result of polishing the edge of the wafer.
PNG
media_image3.png
340
473
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 3, Kim teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further teaches at least one dummy polishing part (Ref. 12a, Fig. 4, bottoms side of figure 3) on the edge of the wafer (Fig. 3-4), the at least one dummy polishing part being between the first polishing part (12a, right side) and the second polishing part (12c left side, Fig. 3).
PNG
media_image2.png
393
519
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 4, Kim teaches the limitations of claim 3, as described above, and further teaches wherein the first polishing part (12a, right side), the second polishing part (12a, left side), and the at least one dummy polishing part (12a, bottom) respectively comprise a polishing platen (Ref. R, Fig. 4), a polishing pad (Ref. 16, Fig. 4) on the polishing platen (Fig. 4), and a slurry supplier (Ref. 18, Fig. 4) configured to supply a slurry to the polishing pad (Fig. 4, [0019]).
Regarding Claim 5, as best understood in light of the 35 USC 112(b) rejection, Kim teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further teaches wherein the buffer part comprises: a buffer plate (Ref. R, Fig. 4) that comprises a soft material (Fig. 4) and in contact with the wafer (Fig. 4 shows the buffer part made of a material and contacts the wafer through the supporting plate (16));
a supporting plate (Ref. 16, Fig. 4) on the buffer plate (Fig. 4, [0019]); and
a buffer driver configured to drive the buffer part ([0020] describes a rotation motor to turn the butter part).
Regarding Claim 6, Kim teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further teaches wherein a rotation speed of the head part and a rotation speed of the buffer part are different (Fig. 4, [0022], examiner notes the rotational speed of the head part would be zero as there is no rotation which is different to the rotational speed of the bottom).
Regarding Claim 10, Kim teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further teaches a head supporting part (See annotated Fig. 4 below) symmetric with the first polishing part with respect to a rotation axis of the buffer part (See annotated fig 4 below), the head supporting part being configured to support the head part (Fig. 4).
PNG
media_image1.png
480
668
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 19, Kim teaches A control method of a chemical mechanical polishing apparatus (Fig.4) comprising:
disposing a head part (Ref. 20, Fig. 4, [0022]) on a buffer part a buffer part (Ref. 12c, Fig. 4);
loading a wafer (Ref. W, Fig. 4, [0022]) on the buffer part by moving the wafer between the head part and the buffer part (Fig. 4);
moving the loaded wafer to be in contact with a membrane in the head part (Fig. 4, [Abstract]);
supplying a slurry ([0019]) from a first slurry supplier (Ref. 18, Fig. 4) to a first polishing pad (Ref. 12a, fig. 4, right side of figure 3) and a second polishing pad (Ref. 12a, Fig. 4, left side of figure 3, [0019]); and
rotating the first polishing pad, the second polishing pad, and polishing an edge of the wafer ([0020&0022], Fig. 4),
wherein the second polishing pad is symmetric with the first polishing pad with respect to a rotation axis of the buffer part (Fig. 4 annotated below), and
wherein the first polishing pad and the second polishing pad are configured to rotate with respect to the rotation axis of the buffer part ([0020&0022]).
Kim fails to explicitly teach the second polishing part being separate and spaced apart from the first polishing part and rotating the polishing pad and the head part. Quek teaches a chemical mechanical polishing apparatus with a head part, and a first and second polishing parts and can be considered analogous art because they are within the same field of endeavor. Quek teaches a chemical mechanical polishing apparatus (Fig. 5) with a head part (Ref. 96, Fig. 5) comprising a first polishing part (Ref. 90, Fig. 5) configured to be on an edge of the head part (Fig. 5) and a second polishing part (Ref. 92, Fig. 5) symmetric with the first polishing part (Fig. 5), the second polishing part (Fig. 5) being separate and spaced apart from the first polishing part (Ref. 92, Fig. 5) and rotating the polishing part and the head part (Fig. 5 shows both the head and polishing part). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the first and second polishing parts, as taught by Kim, to be separate and spaced apart, as taught by Quek, by making separate (MPEP 2144.04 V C) to allow for more efficient and controlled polishing and since such a modification would yield the predictable result of polishing the edge of the wafer. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the head part, as taught by Kim to rotate along with the polishing pad, as taught by Quek, since such a modification would yield the predictable result of planarizing a wafer.
PNG
media_image3.png
340
473
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 20, Kim teaches the limitations of claim 19, as described above, and further teaches moving the head part in a direction parallel to the wafer between the moving of the loaded wafer to be in contact with the membrane in the head part ([0023] describes an arm/ actuator to drive the movement of the supporting plate to and from the polishing station in multiple directions including a radial direction of the wafer)and the supplying the slurry to the first polishing pad from the first slurry supplier to the first polishing pad ([0019] describes providing a slurry to the polishing pad).
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Quek as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yasuda (2018/0236630, previously presented).
Regarding Claim 7, Kim teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, Kim teaches the location of a nozzle in the buffer part (12c, Fig. 4). Kim fails to explicitly teach the spray nozzle to spray a cleaning material to the wafer. Yasuda teaches a chemical mechanical polisher with a polishing pad and head and can be considered analogous art because is within the same field of endeavor. Yasuda teaches spray nozzles (Ref. 208, [0118]) configured to spray a cleaning material to the wafer ([0118]). Given the teaching of the location of a nozzle in the buffer part, as taught by Kim, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the buffer part, as taught by Kim as modified, to have a spray nozzle to spray a cleaning material to the wafer, as taught by Yasuda, to ensure the polishing liquid is cleaned from the wafer and allows control of the processing condition, reworking or other types of re-processing to be performed ([0006]).
Regarding Claim 8, Kim as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and teaches the location of a first part (Ref. 18, Fig. 2) between the first polishing part and the buffer part (Fig. 2). Kim as modified fails to explicitly teach the first cleaning part being configured to supply a cleaning material toward the wafer. Yasuda teaches a chemical mechanical polisher with a polishing pad and head and can be considered analogous art because is within the same field of endeavor. Yasuda teaches a first cleaning part (Ref. 208, [0118], as a spray nozzle) configured to spray a cleaning material to the wafer ([0118]). Given the teaching of the location of first cleaning part, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add a first cleaning part to spray a cleaning material to the wafer, as taught by Yasuda, between the first polishing part and buffer part, as taught by Kim, to ensure the polishing liquid is cleaned from the wafer and allows control of the processing condition, reworking or other types of re-processing to be performed ([0006]).
Regarding Claim 9, Kim as modified teaches the limitations of claim 8, as described above, and further teaches spray nozzle (Ref. 18, Fig. 2) in the buffer part (Fig .4). Kim as modified fails to explicitly teach a second cleaning part configured to supply cleaning material to the buffer part. Yasuda further teaches a cleaning part (Ref. 208, [0118], as a spray nozzle) configured to spray a cleaning material ([0118]) to a buffer part (Ref. 500, Fig. 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus, as taught by Kim as modified, with a second cleaning part to spray a cleaning material to the buffer part, as taught by Yasuda, to ensure the polishing liquid is cleaned from the wafer and allows control of the processing condition, reworking or other types of re-processing to be performed ([0006]).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Yasuda (2018/0236630, previously presented).
Regarding Claim 17, Kim teaches the limitations of claim 13, as described above, and teaches a spray nozzle (Ref. 18 Fig. 4, [0019]) but fails to explicitly teach it configured to supply a cleaning material to the head supporting part. Yasuda teaches a chemical mechanical polisher with a polishing pad and head and can be considered analogous art because is within the same field of endeavor. Yasuda teaches spray nozzles (Ref. 208, [0118]) configured to spray a cleaning material to the head supporting part which holds a wafer ([0118]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add a spray nozzle to spray a cleaning material to the head supporting part, as taught by Yasuda, to the apparatus, as taught by Kim, to ensure the polishing liquid is cleaned from the wafer and allows control of the processing condition, reworking or other types of re-processing to be performed ([0006]).
Claims 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Boyd (2001/0012751, previously presented).
Regarding Claim 11, Kim teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and teaches wherein the head part comprises:
a membrane configured to be in contact with the wafer ([0023] describes a membrane in contact with the wafer);
a supporting plate on the membrane and configured to support the wafer and the membrane ([0023] describes a carrier where the membrane and wafer are supported);
a slip preventing part that extends from an end of the supporting plate toward the wafer and configured to prevent separation of the wafer ([0023 describe a retainer ring to tend from the supporting plate toward the wafer and prevent movement of the wafer).
Kim fails to explicitly teach a head driver configured to rotate the head part. Boyd teaches a chemical mechanical polishing machine with a polishing pad and head and can be considered analogous art because is within the same field of endeavor. Boyd further teaches a head driver (Ref. 24, Fig. 1, [0023]) configured to rotate the head part ([0023] describes rotating the shaft). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the head part, as taught by Kim, with a head driver to rotate the head part, as taught by Boyd, to increase polishing speed and efficiency and since such a modification would achieve the predictable result of polishing a substrate.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim as modified as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Kumar (US 2021/0402555, previously presented).
Regarding Claim 12, Kim teaches the limitations of claim 11, as described above, but fails to explicitly teach wherein the membrane comprises at least one barrier rib part partitioning a region of the membrane. Kumar teaches a chemical mechanical polishing with a polishing head and membrane and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same fiend of endeavor. Kumar teaches a membrane (Ref. 80, Fig. 1) comprises at least one barrier rib part partitioning a region of the membrane (Ref. 82, Fig. 1, [0029] teaches different zones with separating ribs). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the membrane, as taught by Kim, with at least one barrier rib part partitioning a region of the membrane, as taught by Kumar, to allow for different pressures on different parts of the wafer allowing for better and more individualized polishing against a polishing pad.
Claims 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Kumar (US 2021/0402555, previously presented).
Regarding Claim 18, Kim teaches the limitations of claim 13, as described above, but fails to explicitly teach a temperature controller on the first polishing part, the temperature controller being configured to measure and control a temperature of the first polishing part. . Kumar teaches a chemical mechanical polishing with a polishing head and membrane and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same fiend of endeavor. Kumar teaches a temperature controller(Ref. 100, fig. 1, [0034&0050]) on the first polishing part, the temperature controller being configured to measure and control a temperature of the first polishing part ([0034&0050]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the membrane, as taught by Kim, with the temperature controller, as taught by Kumar, to reduce the risk of contamination of the pad and defects ([0010]).
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 20050113010 A1, previously presented) in view of and Quek (6,155,913).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments to the claims are acknowledged and examiner has withdrawn the 35 USC 112(b) rejection on claims 1, 5, and 14. However, examiner has maintained the 35 USC 112(b) rejection on claim 13.
Applicant’s amendments to drawings are acknowledged. Examiner has withdrawn some of the objections but maintained the drawing objection due to claim 13.
Applicant's arguments filed 02 March, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant has amended claims 1 and 19 thereby changing the scope of the claim and necessitating a new grounds of rejection and reinterpretation of the prior art. Applicant’s arguments that Kim and Quek do not teach the second polishing part symmetric with the first polishing part and the second polishing part being separate and spaced apart from the first polishing part have been fully considered and are not persuasive. Examiner has applied Kim in view of Quek to the 35 USC 103 rejection above. Kim teaches a second polishing part (Ref. 12a, Fig. 4, left side of figure 3) symmetric with the first polishing part with respect to a rotation axis of the buffer part (Fig. 4 annotated below). Quek teaches a second polishing part (Fig. 5) being separate and spaced apart from a first polishing part (Ref. 92, Fig. 5). Given the teaching of Quek having polishing parts separate and spaced from one another, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the first and second polishing parts, as taught by Kim, to be separate and spaced apart, as taught by Kim, by making separate (MPEP 2144.04 V C) to allow for more efficient and controlled polishing and since such a modification would yield the predictable result of polishing the edge of the wafer.
Further, applicant’s arguments that Kim and Quek do not teach the polishing parts are configured to rotate with respect to the rotation axis of the buffer part has been fully considered and is not persuasive. Examiner has applied Kim in view of Quek to the 35 USC 103 rejection above. Kim teaches wherein the polishing parts (12a, left & right sides, Fig. 4) are configured to rotate with respect to the rotation axis of the buffer part ([0020&0022]). Further even given the suggestion to separate the polishing parts, as taught by Quek, the rotation of the polishing parts do rotate with respect to the rotational axis of the buffer part. Examiner notes the polishing parts having their own rotation in any direction or placement would still meet the limitations of rotating with respect to the rotational axis of the buffer part. If applicant has intended for the polishing parts to share a rotational axis or rotate in a specific manner with respect to the rotational axis, such a limitation is not required by the claim limitations.
Regarding Claim 13, applicant’s arguments that Kim fails to teach a head supporting part symmetric to the first polishing part with respect to a rotation axis of the buffer part, the head supporting part being configured to support the head part has been fully considered and is not persuasive. Examiner has applied Kim to the 35 USC 102 rejection above. Kim teaches a head supporting part (See annotated Fig. 4 above) symmetric to the first polishing part (12a) with respect to a rotation axis of the buffer part (Fig. 4 annotated above), the head supporting part being configured to support the head part (fig. 4). Examiner notes the head supporting part is symmetric to the first polishing part over the rotational axis buffer part as best understood in light of the specifications and drawings of the instant application.
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 DANA L POON whose telephone number is (571)272-6164. The examiner can normally be reached on General: 6:30AM-3:30PM.
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, David Posigian can be reached on (313) 446-6546. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppairmy.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DANA LEE POON/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/DAVID S POSIGIAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights