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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Currently, claims 16-351 are pending and examined below.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)
The information disclosure statement submitted on 09/10/2024 ("09-10-24 IDS") is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the 09-10-24 IDS is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: SURFACE TREATMENT DEVICE HAVING CONTACTING SURFACE WITH FIRST AND SECOND CIRCULAR-ARC SHAPED CONTOURS AND METHOD OF MAKING THE SAME
Claim Objections
Claims 21 and 25 objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 21, “surface treatments device” should read “surface treatment device.”
In claim 25, “first and second area” should read “first and second areas.” Appropriate corrections are required.
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 18, 19 and 33-35 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 18 is indefinite, because it is unclear what the metes and bounds of “substantially” in “substantially equal” are as the term “substantially” is a relative and subjective. Since the Applicant has not defined the term “substantially,” it would cast a zone of uncertainty around what is “substantially equal” is.
Claim 19 is indefinite, because it depends from the indefinite claim 18. Furthermore, it further recites the aforementioned relative and subjective term of “substantially.”
Independent claim 33 is indefinite for the same reason that the independent claim 18 is indefinite.
Claims 34 and 35 are indefinite for depending from the indefinite independent claim 33.
Claim 26 is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 26 is indefinite, it is unclear what the equivalent structure(s) of the claimed "thermal conditioning means" are.
"35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph {112(f) for AIA } states that a claim limitation expressed in means-plus-function language “shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure…described in the specification and equivalents thereof.” “If one employs means plus function language in a claim, one must set forth in the specification an adequate disclosure showing what is meant by that language. If an applicant fails to set forth an adequate disclosure, the applicant has in effect failed to particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention as required by the second paragraph of section 112.” In re Donaldson Co., 16 F.3d 1189, 1195, 29 USPQ2d 1845, 1850 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (in banc)
The proper test for meeting the definiteness requirement is that the corresponding structure (or material or acts) of a means (or step)-plus-function limitation must be disclosed in the specification itself in a way that one skilled in the art will understand what structure (or material or acts) will perform the recited function. See Atmel Corp. v. Information Storage Devices, Inc., 198 F.3d 1374, 1381, 53 USPQ2d 1225, 1230 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
The issue is not whether the written description discloses examples that may describe the claimed means that can provide the claimed function in a "means-plus-function" claim, but rather the Applicant has clearly linked or associated corresponding structure described in the written description to the claimed function.
Here, since the Applicant has failed to set forth an adequate disclosure that clearly link or associate the disclosed structure to the claimed function such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognized what structure performs the claimed function of "thermal conditioning," the applicant has in effect failed to particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention as required by 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Here, the written description leaves open the possibility of non-limiting corresponding structures.
If the claim 26 were to issue, without being constrained by the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, the Applicant will likely argue that the claim 26 is not to be limited by the specification. How would the Courts able to determine under Doctrine of Equivalence, what equivalent structure(s) for "thermal conditioning" are? With such uncertainty, the public would not have the requisite notice to know what "thermal conditioning means" would be infringing on the claims.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (that is, replace "means" with a specific structure); or
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links or associates the corresponding structure, material, or acts to the claimed function without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)) (that is, amend the specification such that there is a clearly link or association between the corresponding structure to the claimed function without introducing any new matter.); or
(c) State on the record where the corresponding structure, material, or acts are set forth in the written description of the specification and linked or associated to the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
If applicant does not wish to have the claim limitation treated under 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph {112(f) for AIA }, applicant may amend the claim so that it will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
For more information, see Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
b. Prior-art rejections based on Balagani
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 1022
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 16, 17, 20-27, 29 and 33-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pub. No. US 2006/0079160 A1 to Balagani et al. (“Balagani”).
Fig. 9A of Balagani has been annotated and Figs. 10B and 11 of Balagani have been provided to support the rejections below:
[AltContent: textbox (S2)][AltContent: textbox (C1)]
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (S1)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (CE)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (C2)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
369
364
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
417
331
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
263
309
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding independent claim 16, Balagani teaches a surface treatment device for treating a surface of a substrate support, the surface treatment device comprising:
a contacting surface 52 configured to contact the surface 224 (para [0048] - “upper surface pad surface 224”) of the support substrate 184 (para [0048] - “During the polishing process, a polishing pad 184 can be conditioned by a pad conditioning assembly 188 while the polishing pad 184 polishes a substrate mounted on a substrate holder 120. The pad conditioner 50 has an abrasive disc 24 that has an conditioning face 52 with abrasive particles 52 which are used to condition the polishing pad 184.”), the contacting surface 52 comprising:
a material at least as hard or harder than the material of the surface 224 of the substrate support 184 (para [0029] - “A polishing pad conditioner 50 according to embodiments of the present invention comprises a pad conditioning face 52 with abrasive particles 54 that is rubbed against a polishing pad to condition the pad during chemical-mechanical polishing, as illustrated in FIGS. 4 to 8.”; para [0033] - “The conditioning face 52 of the pad conditioner 50 can also be formed by embedding or encapsulating the abrasive particles 54, such as the symmetric diamond particles in metal coating formed on selected regions of the surface of the based 58. For example, a nickel encapsulant can be first mixed with the selected symmetric diamond particles and then applied only on the desired regions of the front face of the base 58.”; para [0046] - “Each polishing pad 184 typically has multiple layers made of polymers, such as polyurethane, and may include a filler for added dimensional stability, and an outer resilient layer. The polishing pad 184 is consumable and under typical polishing conditions is replaced after about 12 hours of usage.”);
a first circular-arc shaped contour C1 and a second circular-arc shaped contour C2 (see Fig. 9A as annotated above), the first circular-arc shaped contour C1 is a first contour C1 with a first centre of curvature and the second circular-arc shaped contour C2 is a second contour C2 with a second centre of curvature, the second contour C2 arranged at an opposite side of the surface treatment device in respect to the first contour C1, wherein the first centre of curvature and the second centre of curvature are non-conincident points (see Fig. 9A).
Regarding claim 17, Balagani teaches the first contour C1 and the second contour C2 are arranged to form a convex-convex shaped contacting surface or a convex-concave shaped contacting surface.
Regarding claim 20, Balagani teaches the contacting surface 52 that comprises one or more recessed regions 94 (para [0041] - “channel 94”).
Regarding claim 21, Balagani teaches the contacting surface hat comprises a chamfered edge CE.
Regarding claim 22, Balagani teaches a modular surface treatment device that comprises a carrier element 58 (para [0030] - “The bond face 46 can be adhered to the receiving face 48 of the base 58 with epoxy glue or with a brazing alloy, such as a nickel alloy.”), a bonding layer (epoxy glue), and a surface treatment sheet 52, wherein the bonding layer is arranged to bond the surface treatment sheet 52 to the carrier element 58, and the surface treatment sheet comprises the contacting surface 52.
Regarding claim 23, Balagani teaches the contacting surface 52 that comprises at least one of diamond.
Regarding claim 24, Balagani teaches the contacting surface 52 comprises protrusions 54.
Regarding claim 25, Balagani teaches the contacting surface 52 that comprises a first surface area S1 and a second surface area S2, the first and second surface area S1, S2 having different contacting surface characteristics (abrasive particles 54 are distributed on each of the first and second surface areas S1, S2.).
Regarding claim 26, Balagani teaches thermal conditioning means 94 (para [0041] - “cutout inlet channel 94”).
Regarding claim 27, Balagani teaches the surface treatment device that comprises one or more angular position indicators (Fig. 11 shows the arm 200 with the pad conditioning assembly 188 that is movable so its angular position can be controlled.).
Regarding independent claim 29, Balagani teaches a surface treatment system (see Fig. 10B) comprising one or more surface treatment devices 188a-c (para [0045] - “a pad conditioning assembly 188a-c”) of claim 16.
Regarding independent claim 33, Balagani teaches a method for reconditioning a support surface 224 (para [0048] - “upper surface pad surface 224”) of a substrate support 184 (para [0048]) using a surface treatment device, comprising:
(a) aligning a first contour C1 of a first surface treatment device 188 (para [0048] - “Each polishing station 108a-c includes a rotatable platen 182a-c, which supports a polishing pad 184a-c, and a pad conditioning assembly 188a-c, as shown in FIG. 8B. The platens 182a-c and pad conditioning assemblies 188a-c are both mounted to a table top 192 inside the polishing apparatus 100.”) concentric with a periphery of the substrate support 184, the first contour comprising a first curvature C1 that is substantially similar as the curvature of the periphery;
(b) bringing the first surface treatment device 188 in contact with the support surface 224 (para [0049] - “The actuation and drive mechanism further provides for the movement of the conditioner head 196 and the pad conditioner 50 between an elevated retracted position and a lowered extended position (as shown) in which the conditioning face 52 of the pad conditioner 50 is engaged with the polishing surface 224 of the pad 184.”);
(c) moving the first surface treatment device 188 and the substrate support relative to each other while the first surface treatment device is in contact with the support surface 224 (para [0047] - “The arm 200 has a distal end 198a coupled to the conditioner head 196 and a proximal end 198b coupled to the base 204, which sweeps the conditioner head 196 across the polishing pad surface 224 so that the conditioning face 52 of the pad conditioner 50 conditions the polishing surface 224 of the polishing pad 184 by abrading the polishing surface to remove contaminants and retexturize the surface.”); and
(d) maintaining concentric alignment between the first contour C1 and the periphery of the substrate support 184 during the relative movement (para [0053] discloses that the surface 224 of the pad 184 is polished such that “The symmetric abrasive particles 54 of the pad conditioner 50 improve the uniformity of conditioning across the polishing surface 224 of the pad by providing more consistent abrasion rates because of the more uniform shape and symmetry of the abrasive particles 54. The pad conditioners 50 also provide more consistent and reproducible results from one pad conditioner 50 to another since pad conditioners with similar shapes of abrasive particles 54 produce better and more uniform conditioning rates.”; that is, the surface 224 is uniformly polished. Thus, at some point the first contour C1 is more likely than not be in alignment with the periphery of the substrate support 184 even if the alignment is momentary in time.).
Regarding claim 34, Balagani teaches repeating the steps (a) to (d) using a second surface treatment device 188b and/or 188c (Fig. 10B shows three polishing stations 108a-c.).
Regarding claim 35, Balagani teaches the concentric alignment that is maintained by a synchronized rotation of the surface treatment device 188 with the periphery of the substrate support 184 (para [0048] - “The conditioner head 196 sweeps the pad conditioner 50 across the polishing pad 184 with a reciprocal motion that is synchronized with the motion of the substrate holder 120 across the polishing pad 184.”)/
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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
(1). Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
(2). Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
(3). Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
(4). Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 30 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balagani in view of Pub. No. US A1 to Stacey (“Stacey”).
Regarding independent claim 30, Balagani teaches one or more surface treatment devices of claim 16 but does not disclose a lithographic apparatus.
Stacey teaches that “Semiconductor and other substrate-based wafers are typically fabricated or processed within multi-process ‘cluster tool’ systems. A cluster tool is a manufacturing system that includes a set of environmentally isolated process chambers or modules, which are linked by a wafer-handling interface robot and a computer communications interface. The wafer-handling robot transports each wafer between the various modules in the system. The computer communication interface controls the sequential steps. There are several types of cluster tool systems, such as vacuum cluster tools for deposition and etching, lithography tools, chemical-mechanical polishing systems, ion implant tools and wafer inspection tools.” (para [0002]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Balagani and Stacy to form a cluster-tool system having environmentally isolated lithographic apparatus of Stacy from the surface treatment devices of Balgani that are linked by a wafer-handling interface robot so as to minimize the time between various steps of semiconductor manufacturing.
Regarding claim 31, Balagani of the combination above teaches a controller arranged to synchronize an orientation of the one or more surface treatment devices (Balagani) with a periphery of the substrate support (Balagani) (para [0047] - “Each pad conditioning assembly 188 of the CMP apparatus 100 includes a conditioner head 196, an arm 200, and a base 204, as shown in FIGS. 11 and 12. A pad conditioner 50 is mounted on the conditioner head 196. The arm 200 has a distal end 198a coupled to the conditioner head 196 and a proximal end 198b coupled to the base 204, which sweeps the conditioner head 196 across the polishing pad surface 224 so that the conditioning face 52 of the pad conditioner 50 conditions the polishing surface 224 of the polishing pad 184 by abrading the polishing surface to remove contaminants and retexturize the surface. Each polishing station 108 also includes a cup 208, which contains a cleaning liquid for rinsing or cleaning the pad conditioner 50 mounted on the conditioner head 196.”; see Fig. 12; see also para [0049]).
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balagani and Stacey and further in view of examiner’s assertion of official notice.
Regarding claim 32, the combination of Balagani and Stacey does not specify a sensor system comprising a detector configured to detect one or more angular position indicators using an optical, electric or magnetic detector.
Examiner asserts an official notice of the fact that such sensor system is well-known in the art to allow the surface treatment system to detect where the polishing pad is respect to the substrate support so as to determine whether or not the substrate support has been sufficiently polished as intended.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the sensory system taught by Balagani and Stacey so as to determine the extent of the polishing of the substrate support.
B. Prior-art rejections based on Nakajima
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claims 16-22 and 27-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Patent No. US 6,159,088 to Nakajima (“Nakajima”).
Fig. 1 of Nakajima has been provided and Fig. 4 of Nakajima has been annotated to support the rejections below:
PNG
media_image4.png
581
412
media_image4.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (CE)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (C2)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (C1)]
PNG
media_image5.png
470
447
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding independent claim 16, Nakajima teaches a surface treatment device 200 (col. 6, ln 17-34 - “For example, grooves 23 are formed in a polishing pad base 200 like in the polishing pad shown in FIG. 4”; see also Fig. 6 and Fig. 1) for treating a surface of a substrate support 4 (col. 6, ln 10-16 - “The polishing pad 2 is dressed by the dresser 101, then the polishing plate shaft 1 and the carrier shaft 8 are rotated and the wafer 4 is pressed against the top of the polishing pad 2 by a polishing pressure adjustment mechanism 9 while delivering the polishing slurry 10 to the center portion of the polishing pad from the polishing slurry delivery nozzle 6 to polish the wafer 4.”), the surface treatment device 200 comprising:
a contacting surface configured to contact the surface of the substrate support 4, the surface treatment device 200 comprising:
a contacting surface configured to contact the surface of the substrate support 4, the contacting surface comprising:
a material at least as hard or harder than the material of the surface of the substrate support 4 (col. 5, ln 18-25 - “By selecting suitable materials, it is possible to make the polishing pad one with a hardness and elasticity suitable for the polishing and possible to improve the polishing efficiency and quality of polish”; that is the wafer 4 is the work piece that is getting polished, not the polishing pad 2 so it necessarily flows from the teachings that the polishing pad 2 is more likely than not at least as hard as the wafer.);
a first circular-arc shaped contour C1 and a second circular-arc shaped contour C2, the first circular-arc shaped contour C1 is a first contour C1 with a first centre of curvature and the second circular-arc shaped contour C2 is a second contour C2 with a second centre of curvature, the second contour C2 arranged at an opposite side of the surface treatment device 200 in respect to the first contour C1, wherein the first centre of curvature and the second centre of curvature are non-coincident points (see Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 17, Nakajima teaches the first contour C1 and the second contour C2 that are arranged to form a convex-convex shaped contacting surface or a convex-concave shaped contacting surface.
Regarding claim 18, Nakajima teaches the first contour C1 that has a first radius that is substantially equal to an outer radius of the substrate support 4 (Radius of line 301 which the center of the polish wafer passes as described in col. 6, ln 17-35. The term “substantially” has not been defined by the Applicant so it has been broadly interpreted to mean within 50% of the nominal value.)
Regarding claim 19, Nakajima teaches the second contour C2 that has a second radius substantially equal to the first radius C1.
Regarding claim 20, Nakajima teaches the contacting surface that comprises one or more recessed regions 23.
Regarding claim 21, Nakajima teaches the contacting surface that comprises a chamfered edge CE.
Regarding claim 22, Nakajima teaches a modular surface treatment device comprising a carrier element 3, a bonding layer (col. 4, ln 5 - col. 5, ln 9 - “This apparatus is roughly constituted by a polishing platen 3 which is supported by a rotating polishing platen shaft 1 and which has a polishing pad 2 adhered on its surface…”), and a surface treatment sheet 2, wherein the bonding layer is arranged to bond the surface treatment sheet 2 to the carrier element 3, and the surface treatment sheet 2 comprises the contacting surface.
Regarding claim 27, Nakajima teaches the surface treatment device comprises angular position indicators 30 (direction of rotation 30).
Regarding claim 28, Nakajima teaches the first contour C1 that has a radius that is within a range of 0.94 Rs to 1.06 Rs, with Rs the outer radius of the substrate support 4.
Regarding independent claim 29, Nakajima teaches a surface treatment system (see Fig. 1) that comprises a surface treatment device of claim 16.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 30 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakajima in view of Stacey.
Regarding independent claim 30, Nakajima teaches one or more surface treatment devices of claim 16 but does not disclose a lithographic apparatus.
Stacey teaches that “Semiconductor and other substrate-based wafers are typically fabricated or processed within multi-process ‘cluster tool’ systems. A cluster tool is a manufacturing system that includes a set of environmentally isolated process chambers or modules, which are linked by a wafer-handling interface robot and a computer communications interface. The wafer-handling robot transports each wafer between the various modules in the system. The computer communication interface controls the sequential steps. There are several types of cluster tool systems, such as vacuum cluster tools for deposition and etching, lithography tools, chemical-mechanical polishing systems, ion implant tools and wafer inspection tools.” (para [0002]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Nakajima and Stacy to form a cluster-tool system having environmentally isolated lithographic apparatus of Stacy from the surface treatment devices of Nakajima that are linked by a wafer-handling interface robot so as to minimize the time between various steps of semiconductor manufacturing.
Regarding claim 31, Nakajima of the combination above teaches a controller arranged to synchronize an orientation of the one or more surface treatment devices (Nakajima) with a periphery of the substrate support (Nakajima) (see Fig. 1).
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakajima and Stacey and further in view of examiner’s assertion of official notice.
Regarding claim 32, the combination of Nakajima and Stacey does not specify a sensor system comprising a detector configured to detect one or more angular position indicators using an optical, electric or magnetic detector.
Examiner asserts an official notice of the fact that such sensor system is well-known in the art to allow the surface treatment system to detect where the polishing pad is respect to the substrate support so as to determine whether or not the substrate support has been sufficiently polished as intended.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the sensory system taught by Nakajima and Stacey so as to determine the extent of the polishing of the substrate support.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Pub. No. US 2021/0154796 A1 to Zhang et al.
Pub. No. US 2015/0298287 A1 to Tsai et al.
Pub. No. US 2015/0111476 A1 to Tsai et al.
Pub. No. US 2010/0159810 A1 to Muldowney
Pub. No. US 2009/0311955 A1 to Kerprich et al.
Pub. No. US 2009/0104849 A1 to Wang
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL JUNG whose telephone number is (408) 918-7554. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30 A.M. to 7 P.M.
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, Eliseo Ramos-Feliciano can be reached on (571) 272-7925. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHAEL JUNG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2817
12 May 2026
1 Applicant preliminarily amended the claims by canceling claims 1-15 and adding new claims 16-35 on 10/11/2023.
2 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
Prosecution Insights