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 .
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 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.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-16 are pending
Claims 3 and 5 have been amended
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikeda et al. (US 20190180984) in view of Srivastava et al. (US 6057645) and Obama et al. (US 20120186747), with Kasai et al. (US 20050034815) and Kobayashi et al. (US 20180226230) as evidentiary references.
Regarding Claim 1:
Ikeda teaches A plasma processing apparatus (plasma deposition apparatus 100) comprising: a chamber (process container 1); and a waveguide structure (antenna 4; the antenna 4 includes a first feed part 6 and a second feed part 7) configured to propagate an electromagnetic wave that is a VHF wave or a UHF wave to generate plasma within the chamber (the first feed part 6 includes a feed rod 47; the feed rod 47 is coupled to a VHF supply unit 30) [Fig. 3 & 0024, 0052], and including a resonator (hollow inner conductor 43c, dielectric material 44, metal protective members 45 and 46) configured to resonate the electromagnetic wave inside the waveguide structure, wherein the resonator includes: a first waveguide (dielectric member 44) having a first characteristic impedance [Fig. 3 & 0027, 0040, 0055].
Ikeda does not specifically disclose a second waveguide having a second characteristic impedance and terminated at a short-circuit end having a ground potential; and a load impedance portion connected between the first waveguide and the second waveguide.
Srivastava teaches a second waveguide (microwave trap 20) having a second characteristic impedance and terminated at a short-circuit end having a ground potential (as evidenced by Fig. 1, microwave trap 20 is connected to the outer wall of the cavity 2) [Fig. 1 & Col. 3 lines 3-9].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Ikeda to include microwave traps (and thereby creating a second waveguide), as in Srivastava, to prevent microwave leakage [Srivastava - Col. 3 lines 3-9]. It is noted that the combination of references would disclose "a load impedance portion connected between the first waveguide and the second waveguide," since the microwave trap of Srivastava would be disposed between the metal protective member 45 and dielectric material 44 of Ikeda [Srivastava - Fig. 1 & Col. 3 lines 3-9; Ikeda - Fig. 3 & 0027, 0040, 0055].
Modified Ikeda does not specifically disclose wherein the second characteristic impedance is greater than the first characteristic impedance.
Although Obama does not specifically disclose "wherein the second characteristic impedance is greater than the first characteristic impedance," Obama does disclose that distances between objects in a waveguide is a result effective variable. Specifically, Obama discloses that distances can be adjusted to affect field density and plasma distribution [Obama - 0095]. As such, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to find an optimum spacing (relative to other components in the resonator) for the first or second waveguide of modified Ikeda to obtain a desired plasma distribution. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05. It is noted that Kasai et al. (US 20050034815) discloses that gap distance can be changed to adjust impedance of a waveguide [Kasai - 0057]. Kobayashi et al. (US 20180226230) also discloses that gaps in a waveguide can be adjusted to affect electric field strength and plasma symmetry [Kobayashi - 0057, 0060].
Regarding Claim 12:
Ikeda does not specifically disclose wherein the first waveguide is provided by a first coaxial tube including an inner conductor and an outer conductor, wherein the load impedance portion extends continuously from the first waveguide along a direction in which the first coaxial tube extends, wherein the second waveguide is provided by a second coaxial tube including an inner conductor as the outer conductor of the first coaxial tube and an outer conductor, the second waveguide extending so as to surround the first waveguide and the load impedance portion, and wherein, in the resonator, the second waveguide is folded with respect to a portion composed of the first waveguide and the load impedance portion.
Srivastava teaches wherein the first waveguide is provided by a first coaxial tube including an inner conductor (plasma tube 4) and an outer conductor (the inner wall of microwave trap 20), wherein the load impedance portion extends continuously from the first waveguide along a direction in which the first coaxial tube extends (as evidenced by Fig. 1, the microwave trap 20 has at least a portion of its inner wall that extends continuously in the down direction), wherein the second waveguide is provided by a second coaxial tube including an inner conductor as the outer conductor of the first coaxial tube and an outer conductor (as evidenced by Fig. 1, the microwave trap 20 comprises inner and outer walls), the second waveguide extending so as to surround the first waveguide and the load impedance portion (as evidenced by Fig. 1, the microwave trap 20 surrounds a gap between its inner wall and the plasma tube 4), and wherein, in the resonator, the second waveguide is folded with respect to a portion composed of the first waveguide and the load impedance portion (as evidenced by Fig. 1, the microwave trap 20's inner wall is folded up with respect to other components) [Fig. 1 & Col. 3 lines 3-9].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Ikeda to include microwave traps (and thereby creating a second waveguide), as in Srivastava, to prevent microwave leakage [Srivastava - Col. 3 lines 3-9].
Claim(s) 2-8 and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikeda et al. (US 20190180984) in view of Srivastava et al. (US 6057645) and Obama et al. (US 20120186747), with Kasai et al. (US 20050034815) and Kobayashi et al. (US 20180226230) as evidentiary references, as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of Ohkawa (US 5225740), with Ikeda et al. (US 20110018651) as a further evidentiary reference.
The limitations of claims 1 and 12 have been set forth above.
Regarding Claim 2:
Modified Ikeda ‘984 does not specifically disclose wherein a length of the first waveguide and a length of the second waveguide are substantially the same.
Although Ohkawa does not specifically disclose "wherein the second characteristic impedance is greater than the first characteristic impedance," Ohkawa does disclose that waveguide length is a result effective variable. Specifically, the length of a waveguide can be adjusted to achieve desired microwave resonance [Ohkawa - Col. 24 lines 43-62]. As such, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to find optimum lengths for the waveguides of modified Ikeda '984 to obtain desired microwave resonance. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05. Ikeda et al. (US 20110018651) also discloses that the length of a dielectric in a waveguide can have its thickness adjusted to shorten wavelengths, thereby controlling plasma [Ikeda '651 - 0062].
Regarding Claim 3:
Modified Ikeda ‘984 (Ikeda ‘984 modified by Srivastava) does not specifically disclose wherein the length of the second waveguide corresponds to a length of the resonator.
Although Obama does not specifically disclose "wherein the length of the second waveguide corresponds to a length of the resonator," Obama does disclose that distances between objects in a waveguide is a result effective variable. Specifically, Obama discloses that distances can be adjusted to affect field density and plasma distribution [Obama - 0095]. As such, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to find an optimum spacing (relative to other components in the resonator) for the first or second waveguide of modified Ikeda to obtain a desired plasma distribution. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05. It is noted that Kasai et al. (US 20050034815) discloses that gap distance can be changed to adjust impedance of a waveguide [Kasai - 0057]. Kobayashi et al. (US 20180226230) also discloses that gaps in a waveguide can be adjusted to affect electric field strength and plasma symmetry [Kobayashi - 0057, 0060].
Regarding Claim 4:
Ikeda ‘984 does not specifically disclose wherein the first waveguide is provided by a first coaxial tube including an inner conductor and an outer conductor, wherein the load impedance portion extends continuously from the first waveguide along a direction in which the first coaxial tube extends, wherein the second waveguide is provided by a second coaxial tube including an inner conductor as the outer conductor of the first coaxial tube and an outer conductor, the second waveguide extending so as to surround the first waveguide and the load impedance portion, and wherein, in the resonator, the second waveguide is folded with respect to a portion composed of the first waveguide and the load impedance portion.
Srivastava teaches wherein the first waveguide is provided by a first coaxial tube including an inner conductor (plasma tube 4) and an outer conductor (the inner wall of microwave trap 20),
wherein the load impedance portion extends continuously from the first waveguide along a direction in which the first coaxial tube extends (as evidenced by Fig. 1, the microwave trap 20 has at least a portion of its inner wall that extends continuously in the down direction), wherein the second waveguide is provided by a second coaxial tube including an inner conductor as the outer conductor of the first coaxial tube and an outer conductor (as evidenced by Fig. 1, the microwave trap 20 comprises inner and outer walls), the second waveguide extending so as to surround the first waveguide and the load impedance portion (as evidenced by Fig. 1, the microwave trap 20 surrounds a gap between its inner wall and the plasma tube 4), and wherein, in the resonator, the second waveguide is folded with respect to a portion composed of the first waveguide and the load impedance portion (as evidenced by Fig. 1, the microwave trap 20's inner wall is folded up with respect to other components) [Fig. 1 & Col. 3 lines 3-9].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Ikeda '984 to include microwave traps (and thereby creating a second waveguide), as in Srivastava, to prevent microwave leakage [Srivastava - Col. 3 lines 3-9].
Regarding Claim 5:
Ikeda ’984 teaches a dielectric (dielectric material 44) part formed of a dielectric material [Fig. 3 & 0027, 0040, 0055].
Ikeda ‘984 does not specifically disclose a dielectric material and arranged between the inner conductor of the first coaxial tube and the outer conductor of the first coaxial tube.
Srivastava teaches wherein the first waveguide is provided by a first coaxial tube including an inner conductor (plasma tube 4) and an outer conductor (the inner wall of microwave trap 20) [Fig. 1 & Col. 3 lines 3-9].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Ikeda '984 to include microwave traps (and thereby creating a second waveguide), as in Srivastava, to prevent microwave leakage [Srivastava - Col. 3 lines 3-9]. It is noted that the combination of references would disclose "a dielectric material and arranged between the inner conductor of the first coaxial tube and the outer conductor of the first coaxial tube," since the microwave trap of Srivastava would be disposed between the metal protective member 45 and dielectric material 44 of Ikeda [Srivastava - Fig. 1 & Col. 3 lines 3-9; Ikeda - Fig. 3 & 0027, 0040, 0055].
Modified Ikeda ‘984 (Ikeda ‘984 modified by Srivastava and Obama) does not specifically disclose wherein the dielectric part extends along the inner conductor of the first coaxial tube to a portion within the load impedance portion so as to protrude from an end portion of the first waveguide.
Although Ohkawa does not specifically disclose "wherein the dielectric part extends along the inner conductor of the first coaxial tube to a portion within the load impedance portion so as to protrude from an end portion of the first waveguide," Ohkawa does disclose that waveguide length is a result effective variable. Specifically, the length of a waveguide can be adjusted to achieve desired microwave resonance [Ohkawa - Col. 24 lines 43-62]. As such, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to find optimum lengths for the waveguides of modified Ikeda '984 to obtain desired microwave resonance. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05. Ikeda '651 et al. (US 20110018651) also discloses that the length of a dielectric in a waveguide can have its thickness adjusted to shorten wavelengths, thereby controlling plasma [Ikeda '651 - 0062].
Regarding Claim 6:
Ikeda ‘984 teaches wherein the inner conductor of the first coaxial tube configures a gas supply pipe (the gas supply pathway 37 is formed inside inner conductor 43c) [Fig. 3 & 0056].
Regarding Claim 7:
Ikeda ‘984 teaches a substrate supporter (stage 2) provided inside the chamber; a shower head (showerhead 3) formed of a metal (showerhead 3 may be formed of aluminum), provided above the substrate supporter and including a plurality of gas holes (gas supply holes 11a) formed to be open toward a space within the chamber; and an introducer (annular member 15) formed of a dielectric (annular member 15 is made of a dielectric) and provided along an outer periphery of the shower head or a sidewall of the chamber so as to introduce the electromagnetic wave into the chamber from the introducer (as evidenced by Fig. 3, the annular member 15 is disposed on an outer periphery of showerhead 3), wherein the gas supply pipe extends vertically above the chamber, is connected to a top center of the shower head (as evidenced by Fig. 3, the showerhead 3 extends vertically above the process container 1 and is connected to a top center of showerhead 3), and provides a waveguide (dielectric member 13 and the gap between reflective members 42 and 29) connected to the resonator between the resonator and the introducer [Fig. 3 & 0016, 0019, 0039, 0056].
Regarding Claim 8:
Ikeda ‘984 teaches a supply path (feed rod 47) through which the electromagnetic wave is supplied, wherein the gas supply pipe includes an annular flange (reflective plate 49), wherein the supply path includes a conductor connected to the annular flange (as evidenced by Fig. 3, the feed rod 47 is connected to reflective plate 49 via inner conductor 43c), and wherein the resonator is provided above the flange with respect to the chamber (dielectric material 44 is provided above reflective plate 49) [Fig. 3 & 0027].
Regarding Claim 13:
Ikeda ‘984 teaches wherein the inner conductor of the first coaxial tube configures a gas supply pipe (the gas supply pathway 37 is formed inside inner conductor 43c) [Fig. 3 & 0056].
Regarding Claim 14:
Ikeda ‘984 teaches a supply path (feed rod 47) through which the electromagnetic wave is supplied, wherein the gas supply pipe includes an annular flange (reflective plate 49), wherein the supply path includes a conductor connected to the annular flange (as evidenced by Fig. 3, the feed rod 47 is connected to reflective plate 49 via inner conductor 43c), and wherein the resonator is provided above the flange with respect to the chamber (dielectric material 44 is provided above reflective plate 49) [Fig. 3 & 0027].
Claim(s) 9-11 and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikeda et al. (US 20190180984) in view of Srivastava et al. (US 6057645), Obama et al. (US 20120186747), and Ohkawa (US 5225740), with Kasai et al. (US 20050034815), Kobayashi et al. (US 20180226230), and Ikeda et al. (US 20110018651) as evidentiary references, as applied to claims 2-8 and 13-14 above, and further in view of Panagopoulos et al. (US 20090236447) and Balish et al. (US 6329297).
The limitations of claims 2-8 and 13-14 have been set forth above.
Regarding Claim 9:
Modified Ikeda ‘984 teaches a first gas source (gas supply unit 35) connected to the gas supply pipe [Ikeda ‘984 - Fig. 3 & 0056].
Modified Ikeda ‘984 does not specifically disclose a second gas source.
Panagopoulos teaches a second gas source (there may be one or more gas sources 106 that may each be coupled to one or more gas inlets 102) for a cleaning gas [Fig. 1A & 0021, 0024].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Ikeda '984 to include a plurality of gas sources and inlets, as in Panagopoulos, to improve flow control and uniformity [Panagopoulos - 0019, 0029, 0052].
Modified Ikeda ‘984 does not specifically disclose a remote plasma source connected between the second gas source and the gas supply pipe.
Balish teaches a remote plasma source (remote plasma generator 27) connected between the second gas source (gas source 7a) and the gas supply pipe (mixing block 9) [Fig. 1A & Col. 4 lines 56-67].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Ikeda '984 to include a remote plasma source connected to any of the gas sources since Balish discloses that a remote plasma system might be more efficient at converting cleaning plasma precursor gases or vapors into a plasma, and forming the plasma outside the chamber protects the interior of the chamber from potentially undesirable by-products of the plasma formation process, such as plasma heating and sputtering effects [Balish - Col. 1 lines 47-60].
The limitations “for a film formation gas, for a cleaning gas” are merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). It is noted that a gas source is capable of supplying any gas desired.
Regarding Claim 10:
The limitations of claim 10 are merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). It is noted that a gas source is capable of supplying any gas desired.
Regarding Claim 11:
The limitations of claim 11 are merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). It is noted that a gas source is capable of supplying any gas desired.
Regarding Claim 15:
Modified Ikeda ‘984 teaches a first gas source (gas supply unit 35) connected to the gas supply pipe [Ikeda ‘984 - Fig. 3 & 0056].
Modified Ikeda ‘984 does not specifically disclose a second gas source.
Panagopoulos teaches a second gas source (there may be one or more gas sources 106 that may each be coupled to one or more gas inlets 102) for a cleaning gas [Fig. 1A & 0021, 0024].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Ikeda '984 to include a plurality of gas sources and inlets, as in Panagopoulos, to improve flow control and uniformity [Panagopoulos - 0019, 0029, 0052].
Modified Ikeda ‘984 does not specifically disclose a remote plasma source connected between the second gas source and the gas supply pipe.
Balish teaches a remote plasma source (remote plasma generator 27) connected between the second gas source (gas source 7a) and the gas supply pipe (mixing block 9) [Fig. 1A & Col. 4 lines 56-67].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Ikeda '984 to include a remote plasma source connected to any of the gas sources since Balish discloses that a remote plasma system might be more efficient at converting cleaning plasma precursor gases or vapors into a plasma, and forming the plasma outside the chamber protects the interior of the chamber from potentially undesirable by-products of the plasma formation process, such as plasma heating and sputtering effects [Balish - Col. 1 lines 47-60].
The limitations “for a film formation gas, for a cleaning gas” are merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). It is noted that a gas source is capable of supplying any gas desired.
Regarding Claim 16:
The limitations of claim 16 are merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). It is noted that a gas source is capable of supplying any gas desired.
Response to Arguments
Applicant' s arguments, see Remarks, filed 12/15/2025, with respect to the objection of claim 5 has been fully considered and is persuasive. The objection of claim 5 has been withdrawn in full.
Applicant' s arguments, see Remarks, filed 12/15/2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 3-11 and 13-16 under 35 USC 112b has been fully considered and is persuasive. The rejection of claims 3-11 and 13-16 under 35 USC 112b has been withdrawn in full.
Applicant' s arguments, see Remarks, filed 12/15/2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-16 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that the combination of references does not specifically disclose “a second waveguide having a second characteristic impedance and terminated at a short-circuit end having a ground potential,” because Srivastava et al. (US 6057645) because the RF functions and characteristics disclosed therein are opposite to those claimed in Claim 1.
In response, the examiner would like to note that the combination of references disclosed would result in the microwave trap being connected to a ground potential. Srivastava is merely being used to modify Ikeda et al. (US 20190180984) to physically include the microwave trap of Srivastava. The process container 1 of Ikeda is coupled to a ground potential, and as such, modification of Ikeda to include the microwave trap (second waveguide) of Srivastava would result in the second waveguide being coupled to a ground potential [Ikeda - 0017]. As such, the combination of references would result in the aforementioned limitation.
Furthermore, claim 1 as currently recited merely requires that the second waveguide merely terminates at a “short-circuit” end having a ground potential; no physical description as to what the short-circuit end is physically has been provided in the claims (currently, the “short circuit end” can be broadly interpreted as merely a physical end of the second waveguide), and there has also been no description to the RF characteristics of this “short circuit” end in claim 1. Therefore, even if Srivastava disclosed opposite RF characteristics to the applicant’s disclosure, these characteristics are not explicitly disclosed in Claim 1, and as such, Claim 1 currently would not differentiate itself from the teachings of Srivastava. Srivastava teaches a second waveguide (microwave trap) with an end, and when used to modify Ikeda, would be connected to a ground potential (the process container 1 of Ikeda is grounded); the combination of references would disclose a broadest reasonable interpretation of the current Claim 1.
Conclusion
`THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JOSHUA NATHANIEL PINEDA REYES whose telephone number is (571)272-4693. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 AM to 4:30 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at (571) 272-5166. 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.
/J.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1718
/GORDON BALDWIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1718