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 .
This office action is in response to application 18/236,115 filed on August 21, 2023.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
As required by M.P.E.P. 609(C), the applicant’s submissions of the Information Disclosure Statements dated August 21, 2023 and June 25, 2024 are acknowledged by the examiner and the cited references have been considered in the examination of the claims now pending. As required by M.P.E.P 609, a copy of the PTOL-1449 initialed and dated by the examiner is attached to the office action.
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 10-13 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.
Regarding claim 10, the claim recites “a substrate” in line 3 of the claim. However, a substrate has been previously recited in parent claim 8. It is unclear if the subsequent recitation of a substrate refers to another substrate or the substrate previously recited. As such, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite. For the purposes of examination the limitation is interpreted as “the substrate”.
Regarding claim 11, the claim recites “a substrate” in line 2 of the claim. However, a substrate has been previously recited in parent claim 8. It is unclear if the subsequent recitation of a substrate refers to another substrate or the substrate previously recited. As such, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite. For the purposes of examination the limitation is interpreted as “the substrate”.
Regarding claim 12, the claim recites “a substrate” in line 3 of the claim. However, a substrate has been previously recited in parent claim 8. It is unclear if the subsequent recitation of a substrate refers to another substrate or the substrate previously recited. As such, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite. For the purposes of examination the limitation is interpreted as “the substrate”.
Regarding claim 13, the claim recites “a substrate” in line 3 of the claim. However, a substrate has been previously recited in parent claim 8. It is unclear if the subsequent recitation of a substrate refers to another substrate or the substrate previously recited. As such, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite. For the purposes of examination the limitation is interpreted as “the substrate”.
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.
Claims 1, 2, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Tiner et al. (US20060005770A1).
Regarding claim 1, Tiner teaches a susceptor comprising:
a plurality of substrate support subsections (FIG. 1 is a sectional side view of one embodiment ... The support assembly 138 supports a substrate 140 during processing ... The support assembly 138 has a plurality of holes 128 disposed therethrough to accept a plurality of lift pins 150 comprising a first set 180 and one or more other lift pins 152 that comprises a second set 182)([0022], [0025], and [0029]; Figure 1 reference elements 180 and 182 - an exemplary susceptor comprising a plurality of substrate support subsections (i.e., lift pins) is shown); and
a vertical-movement component associated with a first substrate support subsection of the plurality of substrate support subsections, wherein the vertical-movement component is configured to vertically move at least a portion of the first substrate support subsection (the lift pins 150 and 152 have respective first ends 160 and 162 ... One or more actuators 170 are ... adapted to control the displacement of at least one of the first or second sets 180, 182 of lift pins 150, 152 relative to the support surface 134 of the support assembly 138)([0029] and [0031]; vertical-movement components (i.e., actuators) control vertical movement of lift pins and associated portions (i.e., ends)).
Regarding claim 2, Tiner teaches the susceptor of claim 1, wherein the vertical-movement component comprises a rod or tube configured to lift and lower the first substrate support subsection (The one or more actuators 170 may be a pneumatic cylinder, hydraulic cylinder, lead screw, solenoid, stepper motor, or other device suitable for controlling the displacement of the lift pins 150, 152)([0031]; a pneumatic cylinder contains a rod to transfer force).
Regarding claim 6, Tiner teaches the susceptor of claim 1, wherein two or more of the plurality of substrate support subsections are configured to independently move vertically to contact a lower surface of a substrate disposed on the susceptor (A first set of lift pins are movably disposed through the support assembly and have first ends for supporting the substrate ... A second set of lift pins are movably disposed through the support assembly ... The second set of lift pins have first ends for supporting the substrate ... An actuator is disposed below the support assembly and is adapted to independently position at least one of the second set of lift pins with respect to the first set of lift pins)([0011] and [0012]).
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tiner in further view of Tanikawa (US20190333785A1).
Regarding claim 3, Tiner teaches the susceptor as applied above, wherein a vertical-movement component lifts and lowers a mesa (i.e., end) of a support section (the lift pins 150 and 152 have respective first ends 160 and 162 ... One or more actuators 170 are ... adapted to control the displacement of at least one of the first or second sets 180, 182 of lift pins 150, 152 relative to the support surface 134 of the support assembly 138)([0029] and [0031]).
Tiner differs from the claim in that Tiner fails to teach the movement component comprises a piezoelectric component. However, a piezoelectric movement component is taught by Tanikawa (The actuation mechanism 200 includes a lift pin 102. The lift pin 102 is moved vertically by a driving force of a piezo actuator 101)([0036]). The examiner notes Tiner and Tanikawa teach a wafer processing. As such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the susceptor of Tiner to include the piezoelectric component of Tanikawa such that the susceptor includes a piezoelectric movement component for lifting and lowering. One would be motivated to make such a combination to provide the advantage of enabling fine height control.
Claims 4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tiner in further view of Litman et al. (US20040179323A1).
Regarding claim 4, Tiner teaches the susceptor as applied above, wherein a substrate is secured to an upper surface of the support section (A first set of lift pins are movably disposed through the support assembly and have first ends for supporting the substrate ... The second set of lift pins have first ends for supporting the substrate)([0011]).
Tiner differs from the claim in that Tiner fails to teach the susceptor is an electrostatic chuck, wherein the support section comprise an electrode to secure the substrate to the support section. However, an electrostatic chuck comprising a support section with an electrode to secure a substrate to the support section is taught by Litman (An electrostatic chuck is configured to electrostatically secure a wafer ... the support pin is coupled to the electrodes … the wafer is located on these support pins and electrostatic force holds the wafer onto the electrostatic chuck)([0015], [0017], and [0030]; electrodes secure a substrate (i.e., wafer) to a surface of a support pin using electrostatic force). The examiner notes Tiner and Litman teach a wafer processing. As such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the susceptor of Tiner to include the electrostatic chuck of Litman such that the susceptor is an electrostatic chuck which includes support section with an electrode to secure a substrate to the support section. One would be motivated to make such a combination to provide the advantage of reliably holding and releasing wafers while minimizing backside wafer contamination.
Regarding claim 7, Tiner teaches the susceptor as applied above, wherein the plurality of support sections move up to contact a lower surface of a substrate disposed on the susceptor (vertically moveable lift pins that are moved upwardly to engage a substrate)([0006]), secure the substrate (A first set of lift pins are movably disposed through the support assembly and have first ends for supporting the substrate ... The second set of lift pins have first ends for supporting the substrate)([0011]), and move down to correct bow of the substrate (the profile of the substrate 140 may be controlled to form a more arcuate shape ... this may be accomplished by lowering the inner, second set 182 of lift pins 152 by the actuators 170)([0036]).
Tiner differs from the claim in that Tiner fails to teach the support section secures the substrate electrostatically. However, a support section securing a substrate electrostatically is taught by Litman (An electrostatic chuck is configured to electrostatically secure a wafer ... the support pin is coupled to the electrodes … the wafer is located on these support pins and electrostatic force holds the wafer onto the electrostatic chuck)([0015], [0017], and [0030]; electrodes secure a substrate (i.e., wafer) to a surface of a support pin using electrostatic force). The examiner notes Tiner and Litman teach a wafer processing. As such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the susceptor of Tiner to include the securing of Litman such that the susceptor’s support section secures a substrate electrostatically. One would be motivated to make such a combination to provide the advantage of reliably holding and releasing wafers while minimizing backside wafer contamination.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tiner in further view of Nangoy et al. (US20150366004A1).
Regarding claim 5, Tiner teaches the susceptor as applied above, wherein the substrate is secured to an upper surface of the support section (A first set of lift pins are movably disposed through the support assembly and have first ends for supporting the substrate ... The second set of lift pins have first ends for supporting the substrate)([0011]).
Tiner differs from the claim in that Tiner fails to teach a temperature adjustment component configured to heat or cool a portion of an attached substrate. However, a temperature adjustment component configured to heat or cool a portion of an attached substrate is taught by Nangoy (the chuck assembly includes a plurality of independently controlled heater rods and a plurality of independent cooling fluid conduits ... A lifter pin sub-assembly 362 is shown as is an individual heater rod 209 … operation 502 with supporting a workpiece ... over a top surface of a dielectric layer of a chuck assembly ... temperature of different zones of the chuck assembly can then be tuned by independently controlling each of a plurality of resistive heater rods ... and the plurality of fluid conduits to cool areas of the chuck assembly)([0026], [0030], [0037], and [0038]). The examiner notes Tiner and Nangoy teach a wafer processing. As such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the susceptor of Tiner to include the temperature adjustment component of Nangoy such that the susceptor includes temperature adjustment components to heat or cool a portion of an attached substrate. One would be motivated to make such a combination to provide the advantage of steady uniform temperature control during wafer production.
Claims 8, 9, 12, 14, 16, 17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tiner in further view of Onate et al. (US7558045B1).
Regarding claim 8, Tiner teaches a method comprising;
… the susceptor comprising a plurality of substrate support subsections (FIG. 1 is a sectional side view of one embodiment ... The support assembly 138 supports a substrate 140 during processing ... The support assembly 138 has a plurality of holes 128 disposed therethrough to accept a plurality of lift pins 150 comprising a first set 180 and one or more other lift pins 152 that comprises a second set 182)([0022], [0025], and [0029]; Figure 1 reference elements 180 and 182 - an exemplary susceptor comprising a plurality of substrate support subsections (i.e., lift pins) is shown) and a vertical-movement component associated with a first substrate support subsection of the plurality of substrate support subsections, wherein the vertical-movement component is configured to vertically move at least a portion of the first substrate support subsection (the lift pins 150 and 152 have respective first ends 160 and 162 ... One or more actuators 170 are ... adapted to control the displacement of at least one of the first or second sets 180, 182 of lift pins 150, 152 relative to the support surface 134 of the support assembly 138)([0029] and [0031]; vertical-movement components (i.e., actuators) control vertical movement of lift pins and associated portions (i.e., ends)); and
causing … actuation of at least the first substrate support subsection via at least the vertical-movement component (arrange and control the actuators 170 and lift pins 150, 152 to place the substrate 140 onto the support assembly 138)([0038]).
Although Tiner discloses taking action using actuators (the profile of the substrate 140 may be controlled to form a more arcuate shape ... this may be accomplished by lowering the inner, second set 182 of lift pins 152 by the actuators 170)([0036]).
Tiner differs from the claim in that Tiner fails to teach identifying sensor data, determining an offset between a substrate and a susceptor using sensor data, and causing the action based on the offset data. However, identifying sensor data, determining an offset between a substrate and a susceptor using sensor data, and causing the action based on the offset data is taught by Onate (electrostatic chuck 112 may cooperate with a capacitive sensor subsystem for purposes of detecting certain workpiece status conditions … an “attribute” of a workpiece presence signal is any measurable, detectable, calculable, or observable feature, value, trend, slope, characteristic, waveform, shape, or pattern of the workpiece … method 500 analyzes the workpiece presence signal to identify (task 508) certain attributes of the workpiece … may compare the measured voltage of the workpiece presence signal to one or more threshold voltages and/or check … signal is within a proper range … method 500 may take any necessary action (task 514), such as corrective action)(column 4 line 67, column 5 lines 6-7, column 8 lines 36-39, column 12 lines 8-10, lines 14-18, and lines 31-32; a sensor data (i.e., workpiece presence signal) is identified to determine an offset (e.g., positioning, shape, etc.) between a susceptor (i.e., electrostatic chuck) and a substrate (i.e., workpiece) and to take action). The examiner notes Tiner and Onate teach wafer processing. As such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Tiner to include the identifying, determining, and causing of Onate such that the method identifies sensor data, determines an offset between a substrate and a susceptor using sensor data, and causes action based on the offset data. One would be motivated to make such a combination to provide the advantage of ensuring proper wafer positioning.
Regarding claim 9, Tiner-Onate teach the method of claim 8, wherein the vertical-movement component comprises at least one of:
a rod or tube configured to lift and lower the first substrate support subsection; or a piezoelectric component configured to lift and lower a mesa of the first substrate support subsection (Tiner - The one or more actuators 170 may be a pneumatic cylinder, hydraulic cylinder, lead screw, solenoid, stepper motor, or other device suitable for controlling the displacement of the lift pins 150, 152)([0031]; a pneumatic cylinder contains a rod to transfer force).
Regarding claim 12, Tiner-Onate teach the method of claim 8, wherein the causing of the actuation comprises causing two or more of the plurality of substrate support subsections to independently move vertically to contact a lower surface of a substrate disposed on the susceptor (Tiner - A first set of lift pins are movably disposed through the support assembly and have first ends for supporting the substrate ... A second set of lift pins are movably disposed through the support assembly ... The second set of lift pins have first ends for supporting the substrate ... An actuator is disposed below the support assembly and is adapted to independently position at least one of the second set of lift pins with respect to the first set of lift pins)([0011] and [0012]).
Regarding claim 14, Tiner-Onate teach the method of claim 8, wherein the sensor data comprises one or more of image data, interferometer data, pressure data, or capacitance data (Onate - electrostatic chuck 112 may cooperate with a capacitive sensor subsystem for purposes of detecting certain workpiece status conditions)(column 4 line 67 and column 5 lines 6-7; a capacitive sensor senses capacitance data).
Regarding system claims 16, 17, 19, and 20, the claims generally corresponds to method claims 8, 9, 12, and 14, respectively, and recites similar features in system form. Therefore, the claims are rejected under similar rationale.
Claims 10, 13, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tiner, Onate, and in further view of Litman.
Regarding claim 10, Tiner-Onate teach the method as applied above, wherein the susceptor is an electrostatic chuck (Onate - Electrostatic chucks are employed to support wafers)(column 1 lines 17) and the substrate is secured to an upper surface of the support section (Tiner - A first set of lift pins are movably disposed through the support assembly and have first ends for supporting the substrate ... The second set of lift pins have first ends for supporting the substrate)([0011]).
Tiner-Onate differs from the claim in that Tiner-Onate fails to teach the support section comprise an electrode to secure the substrate to the support section. However, an electrostatic chuck comprising a support section with an electrode to secure a substrate to the support section is taught by Litman (An electrostatic chuck is configured to electrostatically secure a wafer ... the support pin is coupled to the electrodes … the wafer is located on these support pins and electrostatic force holds the wafer onto the electrostatic chuck)([0015], [0017], and [0030]; electrodes secure a substrate (i.e., wafer) to a surface of a support pin using electrostatic force). The examiner notes Tiner, Onate, and Litman teach a wafer processing. As such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Tiner-Onate to include the electrostatic chuck of Litman such that the method uses an electrostatic chuck comprising support section with an electrode to secure a substrate to the support section. One would be motivated to make such a combination to provide the advantage of reliably holding and releasing wafers while minimizing backside wafer contamination.
Regarding claim 13, Tiner-Onate teach the method as applied above, wherein the plurality of support sections move up to contact a lower surface of a substrate disposed on the susceptor (Tiner - vertically moveable lift pins that are moved upwardly to engage a substrate)([0006]), secure the substrate (Tiner - A first set of lift pins are movably disposed through the support assembly and have first ends for supporting the substrate ... The second set of lift pins have first ends for supporting the substrate)([0011]), and move down to correct bow of the substrate (Tiner - the profile of the substrate 140 may be controlled to form a more arcuate shape ... this may be accomplished by lowering the inner, second set 182 of lift pins 152 by the actuators 170)([0036]).
Tiner-Onate differs from the claim in that Tiner-Onate fails to teach the support section secures the substrate electrostatically. However, a support section securing a substrate electrostatically is taught by Litman (An electrostatic chuck is configured to electrostatically secure a wafer ... the support pin is coupled to the electrodes … the wafer is located on these support pins and electrostatic force holds the wafer onto the electrostatic chuck)([0015], [0017], and [0030]; electrodes secure a substrate (i.e., wafer) to a surface of a support pin using electrostatic force). The examiner notes Tiner, Onate, and Litman teach a wafer processing. As such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Tiner-Onate to include the securing of Litman such that the method secures a substrate electrostatically to a susceptor’s support section. One would be motivated to make such a combination to provide the advantage of reliably holding and releasing wafers while minimizing backside wafer contamination.
Regarding system claim 18, the claim generally corresponds to method claim 10 and recites similar features in system form. Therefore, the claim is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tiner, Onate, and in further view of Nangoy.
Regarding claim 11, Tiner-Onate teach the method as applied above, wherein the substate is secured to an upper surface of the support section (Tiner - A first set of lift pins are movably disposed through the support assembly and have first ends for supporting the substrate ... The second set of lift pins have first ends for supporting the substrate)([0011]).
Tiner-Onate differs from the claim in that Tiner-Onate fails to teach a temperature adjustment component configured to heat or cool a portion of an attached substrate. However, a temperature adjustment component configured to heat or cool a portion of an attached substrate is taught by Nangoy (the chuck assembly includes a plurality of independently controlled heater rods and a plurality of independent cooling fluid conduits ... A lifter pin sub-assembly 362 is shown as is an individual heater rod 209 … operation 502 with supporting a workpiece ... over a top surface of a dielectric layer of a chuck assembly ... temperature of different zones of the chuck assembly can then be tuned by independently controlling each of a plurality of resistive heater rods ... and the plurality of fluid conduits to cool areas of the chuck assembly)([0026], [0030], [0037], and [0038]). The examiner notes Tiner, Onate, and Nangoy teach a wafer processing. As such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Tiner-Onate to include the temperature adjustment component of Nangoy such that the method includes temperature adjustment components to heat or cool a portion of an attached substrate. One would be motivated to make such a combination to provide the advantage of steady uniform temperature control during wafer production.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tiner, Onate, and in further view of Liu et al. (US20230143537A1).
Regarding claim 15, Tiner-Onate teach the method as applied above, wherein sensor data is provided for offset data (Onate - method 500 analyzes the workpiece presence signal to identify (task 508) certain attributes of the workpiece … may compare the measured voltage of the workpiece presence signal to one or more threshold voltages and/or check … signal is within a proper range … method 500 may take any necessary action (task 514), such as corrective action)(column 12 lines 8-10 and lines 14-18).
Tiner-Onate differs from the claim in that Tiner-Onate fails to teach providing sensor data to a trained machine learning model and receiving output associated with offset data from the trained machine learning model, wherein the trained machine learning model is trained using historical sensor data and historical offset data. However, providing sensor data to a trained machine learning model and receiving output associated with offset data from the trained machine learning model, wherein the trained machine learning model is trained using historical sensor data and historical offset data is taught by Liu (the controller 505 may determine a difference between the spacing measurement 403 ... a difference between the gapping measurement 405 ... controller 505 may use an equation and/or another formula that accepts the difference(s) as input and outputs ... a machine learning model generate the formula ... machine-learning model, which is trained based on historical data ... the machine-learning model may correlate historical changes in spacing and/or gapping and/or parameters)([0051] and [0052]). The examiner notes Tiner, Onate, and Liu teach a wafer processing. As such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Tiner-Onate to include the providing and receiving of Liu such that the method provides sensor data to a trained machine learning model and receives output associated with offset data from the trained machine learning model, wherein the trained machine learning model is trained using historical sensor data and historical offset data. One would be motivated to make such a combination to provide the advantage of intelligently controlling actuation.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record on form PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant is required under 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(c) to consider the reference fully when responding to this action.
The document cited therein and enumerated below teaches a method and apparatus for controlling temperature of a substrate on a susceptor using a control component.
US20070039942A1
US20120281333A1
US20190088518A1
US20200395235A1
US5730803
CN215731640U
The document cited therein and enumerated below teaches a method and apparatus for machine learning in wafer production.
US20100138026A1
US20200110390A1
US20220066411A1
The document cited therein and enumerated below teaches a method and apparatus for controlling support sections in a susceptor.
US20040223286A1
US20200083087A1
US20220181196A1
US20230268215A1
US11626314B2
JP2019149510A
KR20230026953A
The document cited therein and enumerated below teaches a method and apparatus for measuring offset between a substrate and a susceptor.
US20030026904A1
US20150162232A1
US20150376782A1
US20230194239A1
US20240234106A9
JP2023105422A
KR20220041171A
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Yongjia Pan whose telephone number is (571)270-1177. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 AM - 5:00 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, Scott Baderman can be reached at 571-272-3644. 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.
/YONGJIA PAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2118