DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group 1, claims 1, 3-10 and 20, in the reply filed on December 29, 2025 is acknowledged. Claims 11-19 have been withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 1, 3-10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth 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 claims 1 and 20, the claim recites, “the channel has a depth extending away from the first diode junction” which is indefinite as the spatial relationship between the channel, first junction diode and sub-region is not clear. The first junction diode is formed between the channel and the sub-region so it is not clear how the channel is extending away from the junction diode.
The claim further recites, “that when implemented in a circuit there is a voltage across the emitter and base terminals such as to cause a base current through the base terminal….”, which is indefinite because it describes a functional state without defining the necessary structural components that create that state.
Claims 3-10 depend upon claim 1 and do not rectify the problem therefore, they are also rejected.
Regarding claim 3, the claim recites, “the channel has a depth extending from the first diode junction of less than or equal to 0.25 micron”, which is indefinite as the spatial relationship between the channel, first junction diode and sub-region is not clear. The first junction diode is formed between the channel and the sub-region so it is not clear how the channel is extending away from the junction diode.
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, 3-4, 9 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mita et al. (US 2008/0023796 A1; hereafter Mita) in view of Miwa (5,666,001) and Malhi et al. (5,717,241; hereafter Malhi).
Regarding claim 1, Mita teaches a transistor device (see e.g., lateral PNP transistor, Figure 1) having:
a collector region provided by a first region of semiconductor of a first type (see e.g., the lateral PNP transistor 1 includes p-type diffusion layers 8 and 9 used as collector regions formed in the n-type epitaxial layer 4, Para [0023], Figure 1); a collector terminal associated with the collector region (see e.g., collector electrodes 15 and 17 associated with the collector regions 8 and 9, Para [0030], Figure 1);
an emitter region provided by a second region of semiconductor of the first type (see e.g., the lateral PNP transistor 1 includes a p-type diffusion layer 7 used as an emitter region formed in the n-type epitaxial layer 4, Para [0023], Figure 1); an emitter terminal associated with the emitter region (see e.g., emitter electrode 16 associated with the emitter region 7, Para [0030], Figure 1);
a base region provided by a third region of semiconductor lying between and interfacing with both the collector region and emitter region (see e.g., portion of the n-type epitaxial layer 4 in-between the collector and emitter regions having an n-type diffusion layer 6 used as a base leading region, Para [0023], Figure 1); a base terminal associated with the base region (see e.g., base electrode 18 associated with the base region, Para [0030], Figure 1);
wherein the base region includes:
a sub-region of semiconductor of a second type; and (see e.g., portion of the n-type epitaxial layer 4 in-between the collector and emitter regions having an n-type diffusion layer 6 used as a base leading region, Para [0023], Figure 1)
wherein the base terminal contacts the sub-region (see e.g., the base electrode 18 contacts the n-type diffusion layer 6 used as a base leading region, Para [0023], Figure 1);
the sub-region …. interfaces with both the emitter region and the collector region to form further diode junctions (see e.g., the portion of n-type epitaxial layer 4 between the collector and emitter regions forms junction diodes as the base region has doping opposite to that of the collector and emitter regions, Figure 1);
there is a separation between the collector and the emitter that is sufficiently small (see e.g., the separation between the collector regions 8 and 9 and, the emitter region 7 is small in order to minimize device size, Para [0045], Figure 1) that when implemented in a circuit there is a voltage across the emitter and base terminals such as to cause a base current through the base terminal, a current between the collector and emitter terminals is at least predominantly attributable to bipolar conduction (see e.g., when the lateral PNP transistor 1 is activated, it inherently operates via bipolar conduction that is, involving both holes and electrons, wherein the current flows through all the three terminals, the emitter, collector and base, Figure 1), and the sub-region lies in a semiconductor substrate layer of the first type (see e.g., the base region that is, portion of n-type epitaxial layer 4 between the collector regions 8 and 9 and, emitter region 7 lies in a p-type single crystal silicon substrate 3, Para [0023], Figure 1).
Mita does not explicitly teach
“said separation being less than or equal to 1.5 microns;”
"[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, "[i]t is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions." In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929).
In a similar field of endeavor Miwa teaches
said separation being less than or equal to 1.5 microns (see e.g., the width of the base can be reduced to around 0.1 .mu.m, Column 6, Lines 16-20, Figures 2, 8 and 9);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to implement Miwa’s teachings of said separation being less than or equal to 1.5 microns in the device of Mita in order to reduce device size.
Mita does not explicitly teach
“a channel of semiconductor of the first type;
the net doping concentration of the channel is less than the net doping concentration of the emitter and collector regions; and
the sub-region interfaces with the channel to provide a first diode junction,
the channel interfaces with and interconnects the collector region and the emitter region;
the channel has a depth extending away from the first diode junction;”
In a similar field of endeavor Malhi teaches
a channel of semiconductor of the first type (see e.g., The surface region 49 of the base region 48 is also selectively doped with a light p implant to control the threshold voltage of the MOS channel formed under the gate electrode 52 between the emitter and collector. Thus, the doping profile in the base region between the emitter and collector is similar to that of a MOSFET formed with a threshold adjust (V.sub.t) implant, Figure 2);
the net doping concentration of the channel is less than the net doping concentration of the emitter and collector regions; and (see e.g., the emitter 44 and the collector 46 are heavily doped whereas the channel 49 is lightly doped, Figure 2)
the sub-region interfaces with the channel to provide a first diode junction (see e.g., the base region 48 interfaces with the channel to inherently form a diode junction as the base region and the channel have opposing doping, Figure 2),
the channel interfaces with and interconnects the collector region and the emitter region (see e.g., the surface region 49 doped with p implant interconnects the collector 46 and the emitter 44);
the channel has a depth extending away from the first diode junction (see e.g., the channel has a thickness and the diode junction formed between the channel and the base region 48, Figure 2);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to implement Malhi’s teachings of a channel of semiconductor of the first type;
the sub-region interfaces with the channel to provide a first diode junction,
the channel interfaces with and interconnects the collector region and the emitter region;
the channel has a depth extending away from the first diode junction in the device of Mita in order to control the bipolar transistor characteristics.
Regarding claim 3, Mita, as modified by Miwa and Malhi, teaches the limitations of claim 1 as mentioned above. Mita does not explicitly teach
“wherein the channel has a depth extending from the first diode junction of less than or equal to 0.25 micron”.
"[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, "[i]t is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions." In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929).
In a similar field of endeavor Malhi teaches doping the surface of the base region 48 to form a channel layer. Adjusting the depth of the channel layer to a specified value is a matter of optimizing the parameters.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to implement optimize the channel depth in order to improve device performance through routine experimentation.
Regarding claim 4, Mita, as modified by Miwa and Malhi, teaches the limitations of claim 1 as mentioned above. Mita further teaches
wherein the sub-region of the base region comprises a first portion and a second portion, and wherein (see e.g., the first portion including n-type diffusion layer 6 and the second portion including the n-type epitaxial layer 4 between the collector regions 8 and 9, emitter region 7, Figure 1):
the first portion has a higher net doping concentration than the second portion (see e.g., n-type diffusion layer 6 is heavily doped than the n-type epitaxial layer 4);
the base terminal electrically connects to the second portion through the first portion (see e.g., the base electrode 18 connects to the n-type epitaxial layer 4 through the n-type diffusion layer 6, figure 1); interfaces with both the emitter region and the collector region to form the further diode junctions (see e.g. the n-type epitaxial layer 4 interfaces with the collector regions 8 and 9 and, emitter region 7 to inherently form junction diodes due to opposing doping, Figure 1).
Mita does not explicitly teach
“and in which the second portion interfaces with the channel to provide the first diode junction,”
In a similar field of endeavor Malhi teaches
and in which the second portion interfaces with the channel to provide the first diode junction (see e.g., the base region 48 interfaces with the channel to inherently form a diode junction as the base region and the channel have opposing doping, Figure 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to implement Malhi’s teachings of and in which the second portion interfaces with the channel to provide the first diode junction in the Mita in order to control the bipolar transistor characteristics.
Regarding claim 9, Mita, as modified by Miwa and Malhi, teaches the limitations of claim 1 as mentioned above. Mita further teaches
wherein the sub- region is provided in a semiconductor substrate layer of the first type (see e.g., the n-type diffusion layer 6 is provided in the p-type single crystal silicon substrate 3, Para [0023], Figure 1), and the device further comprises a highly doped region of the second type of semiconductor that lies between and separates the second part of the sub-region from the substrate (see e.g., n-type buried diffusion layer 5 separates the n-type diffusion layer 6 from the p-type substrate 3); the highly doped region having a high net doping concentration compared with the sub-region (see e.g., both the n-type diffusion layer 6 and the n-type diffusion layer 5 are heavily doped, Figure 1).
Regarding claim 20, Mita teaches a transistor device (see e.g., lateral PNP transistor, Figure 1) having:
a collector region provided by a first region of semiconductor of a first type (see e.g., the lateral PNP transistor 1 includes p-type diffusion layers 8 and 9 used as collector regions formed in the n-type epitaxial layer 4, Para [0023], Figure 1); a collector terminal associated with the collector region (see e.g., collector electrodes 15 and 17 associated with the collector regions 8 and 9, Para [0030], Figure 1);
an emitter region provided by a second region of semiconductor of the first type (see e.g., the lateral PNP transistor 1 includes a p-type diffusion layer 7 used as an emitter region formed in the n-type epitaxial layer 4, Para [0023], Figure 1); an emitter terminal associated with the emitter region (see e.g., emitter electrode 16 associated with the emitter region 7, Para [0030], Figure 1);
a base region provided by a third region of semiconductor lying between and interfacing with both the collector region and emitter region (see e.g., portion of the n-type epitaxial layer 4 in-between the collector and emitter regions having an n-type diffusion layer 6 used as a base leading region, Para [0023], Figure 1); a base terminal associated with the base region (see e.g., base electrode 18 associated with the base region, Para [0030], Figure 1);
wherein the base region includes:
a sub-region of semiconductor of a second type; and (see e.g., portion of the n-type epitaxial layer 4 in-between the collector and emitter regions having an n-type diffusion layer 6 used as a base leading region, Para [0023], Figure 1)
wherein the base terminal contacts the sub-region (see e.g., the base electrode 18 contacts the n-type diffusion layer 6 used as a base leading region, Para [0023], Figure 1);
there is a separation between the collector and the emitter that is sufficiently small (see e.g., the separation between the collector regions 8 and 9 and, the emitter region 7 is small in order to minimize device size, Para [0045], Figure 1) that when implemented in a circuit there is a voltage across the emitter and base terminals such as to cause a base current through the base terminal, a current between the collector and emitter terminals is at least predominantly attributable to bipolar conduction (see e.g., when the lateral PNP transistor 1 is activated, it inherently operates via bipolar conduction that is, involving both holes and electrons, wherein the current flows through all the three terminals, the emitter, collector and base, Figure 1),
the sub-region lies in a semiconductor substrate layer of the first type (see e.g., the base region that is, portion of n-type epitaxial layer 4 between the collector regions 8 and 9 and, emitter region 7 lies in a p-type single crystal silicon substrate 3, Para [0023], Figure 1)..
Mita does not explicitly teach
“said separation being less than or equal to 1.5 microns;”
"[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, "[i]t is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions." In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929).
In a similar field of endeavor Miwa teaches
said separation being less than or equal to 1.5 microns (see e.g., the width of the base can be reduced to around 0.1 .mu.m, Column 6, Lines 16-20, Figures 2, 8 and 9);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to implement Miwa’s teachings of said separation being less than or equal to 1.5 microns in the device of Mita in order to reduce device size.
Mita does not explicitly teach
“a channel of semiconductor of the first type;
the sub-region interfaces with the channel to provide a first diode junction;
the net doping concentration of the channel is less than the net doping concentration of the emitter and collector regions; and;
the channel has a depth extending away from the first diode junction;”
In a similar field of endeavor Malhi teaches
a channel of semiconductor of the first type (see e.g., The surface region 49 of the base region 48 is also selectively doped with a light p implant to control the threshold voltage of the MOS channel formed under the gate electrode 52 between the emitter and collector. Thus, the doping profile in the base region between the emitter and collector is similar to that of a MOSFET formed with a threshold adjust (V.sub.t) implant, Figure 2);
the sub-region interfaces with the channel to provide a first diode junction (see e.g., the base region 48 interfaces with the channel to inherently form a diode junction as the base region and the channel have opposing doping, Figure 2),
the net doping concentration of the channel is less than the net doping concentration of the emitter and collector regions; and (see e.g., the emitter 44 and the collector 46 are heavily doped whereas the channel 49 is lightly doped, Figure 2);
the channel has a depth extending away from the first diode junction (see e.g., the channel has a thickness and the diode junction formed between the channel and the base region 48, Figure 2);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to implement Malhi’s teachings of a channel of semiconductor of the first type;
the sub-region interfaces with the channel to provide a first diode junction;
the net doping concentration of the channel is less than the net doping concentration of the emitter and collector regions; and; the channel has a depth extending away from the first diode junction in the device of Mita in order to control the bipolar transistor characteristics.
Claims 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mita et al. (US 2008/0023796 A1; hereafter Mita) in view of Miwa (5,666,001) and Malhi et al. (5,717,241; hereafter Malhi) and further in view of Moksvold et al. (5,387,553; hereafter Moksvold).
Regarding claim 5, Mita, as modified by Miwa and Malhi, teaches the limitations of claim 4 as mentioned above. Mita does not explicitly teach
“wherein the net doping concentration of the channel is less than or equal to one times the net doping concentration of second portion of the sub-region”.
"[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, "[i]t is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions." In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929).
In a similar field of endeavor Moksvold teaches
wherein the net doping concentration of the channel is less than or equal to one times the net doping concentration of second portion of the sub-region (see e.g., lightly doped n-type epitaxial layer 10 forming the base region and lightly p-type doped region 24 may have a dopant concentration in the range of 10.sup.14 -10.sup.16. The n-type base region 36 would have a higher concentration than the lightly doped regions, Column 3, Lines 30-42, Figure 1F).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to implement Moksvold’s teachings of wherein the net doping concentration of the channel is less than or equal to one times the net doping concentration of second portion of the sub-region in the device of Mita in order to optimize the transistor operation by enhancing switching speed and reducing the on-resistance.
Regarding claim 6, Mita, as modified by Miwa, Malhi and Moksvold, teaches the limitations of claim 5 as mentioned above. Mita does not explicitly teach
“wherein the net doping concentration of the channel is less than or equal 0.1 times the net doping concentration of the second portion of the sub-region”.
"[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, "[i]t is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions." In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929).
In a similar field of endeavor Moksvold teaches
wherein the net doping concentration of the channel is less than or equal to one times the net doping concentration of second portion of the sub-region (see e.g., lightly doped n-type epitaxial layer 10 and lightly p-type doped region 24 may have a dopant concentration in the range of 10.sup.14 -10.sup.16. The n-type base region 36 would have a higher concentration than the lightly doped regions, Column 3, Lines 30-42, Figure 1F).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to implement Moksvold’s teachings of wherein the net doping concentration of the channel is less than or equal to 0.1 times the net doping concentration of second portion of the sub-region in the device of Mita in order to optimize the transistor operation by enhancing switching speed and reducing the on-resistance.
Regarding claim 7, Mita, as modified by Miwa, Malhi and Moksvold, teaches the limitations of claim 6 as mentioned above. Mita does not explicitly teach
“wherein the second portion of the sub-region of the base has a net doping concentration of between 5e16/cm3 to 5e17/cm3”.
"[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, "[i]t is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions." In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929).
In a similar field of endeavor Moksvold teaches
wherein the second portion of the sub-region of the base has a net doping concentration of between 5e16/cm3 to 5e17/cm3 (see e.g., the n-type base region 36 would have a higher doping than the n-type epitaxial layer 10 with a doping concentration of 10.sup.14 -10.sup.16, Column 3, Lines 30-42, Figure 1F).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to implement Moksvold’s teachings of wherein the second portion of the sub-region of the base has a net doping concentration of between 5e16/cm3 to 5e17/cm3 in the device of Mita in order to optimize the transistor operation by enhancing switching speed and reducing the on-resistance.
Regarding claim 8, Mita, as modified by Miwa and Malhi, teaches the limitations of claim 7 as mentioned above. Mita does not explicitly teach
“wherein the first portion of the sub-region of the base has a net doping concentration greater or equal to le18/cm3”.
"[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, "[i]t is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions." In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929).
In a similar field of endeavor Moksvold teaches
wherein the first portion of the sub-region of the base has a net doping concentration greater or equal to le18/cm3 (see e.g., the n+ 26 and n++ 54 base regions are heavily doped, having a dopant concentration in the range of 10.sup.18 -10.sup.19, Column 3, Lines 30-42, Figure 1F).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to implement Moksvold’s teachings of wherein the first portion of the sub-region of the base has a net doping concentration greater or equal to le18/cm3 in the device of Mita in order to optimize the transistor operation by enhancing switching speed and reducing the on-resistance.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mita et al. (US 2008/0023796 A1; hereafter Mita) in view of Miwa (5,666,001) and Malhi et al. (5,717,241; hereafter Malhi) and further in view of Norstrom et al. (US 2005/0035412 A1; hereafter Norstrom).
Regarding claim 10, Mita, as modified by Miwa and Malhi, teaches the limitations of claim 1 as mentioned above. Mita does not explicitly teach
“wherein the emitter region and/or collector region are provided by a doped polysilicon layer provided on a silicon die that defines the base region.”
In a similar field of endeavor Norstrom teaches
wherein the emitter region and/or collector region are provided by a doped polysilicon layer provided on a silicon die that defines the base region (see e.g., for the PMOS/PNP transistor p-type source 198 constituting the emitter of the PNP transistor and drain 199 constituting the collector of the PNP transistor are p-type doped regions. A thin polysilicon silicon layer 151 is deposited on the emitter and collector regions. The purpose of the polysilicon layer is to serve as contacts for the emitter and collector. The polysilicon layer is doped to p-type, Paras [0052], [0053], [0071], Figure 9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to implement Norstrom’s teachings of wherein the emitter region and/or collector region are provided by a doped polysilicon layer provided on a silicon die that defines the base region in the device of Mita in order to provide low resistance contacts for the emitter and collector regions.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FAKEHA SEHAR whose telephone number is (571)272-4033. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:00 am - 5:00 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, Yara J. Green can be reached on (571) 270-3035. 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.
/FAKEHA SEHAR/ Examiner, Art Unit 2893
/YARA B GREEN/ Supervisor Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2893