DETAILED ACTION
1. The amendment received November 10, 2025 has been entered into the record.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
3. The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the lens array, each lens of which is configured to direct a respective wavelength band of the measurement radiation subsequent to being dispersed onto a respective region of the spatial modulator of claim 13 and the acousto-optical tunable filter of claim 17 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
4. The drawings are objected to because in Fig. 1 ‘T’ just above PM should read -MT-. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
5. The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: SM1 of Fig. 4; DF of Fig. 5(a); 13E and 13W of Fig. 5(c); and 13NW and 13SE of Fig. 5(d). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
6. Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: it appears that on lines 1-2 ‘the configuring comprises’ should read -the configuring measurement radiation-. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
7. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
8. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
9. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: illumination arrangement configured to configure measurement radiation and illuminate a target with the configured measurement radiation in claim 12; beam dispersing element configured to disperse the measurement radiation in claim 13; beam expanding element configured to expand the measurement radiation in at least one direction in claims 13, 14, and 16; and 1 dimensional beam expanding element configured to expand the measurement radiation substantially in a first direction in claim 16.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
10. 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.
11. Claims 3, 5-8, and 15 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.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the sum" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitations "the magnitude" in lines 2-3, “the difference” in line 5, “the product” in line 6, and “the product” in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the known imposed overlay or focus values" in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 8 is rejected by virtue of its dependency from claim 6.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the known imposed overlay or focus values" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the overlay or focus parameter" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
12. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
13. Claims 1, 4, 9, 11, 12, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Goorden et al. (WO 2021/001102 A1)-cited in IDS of November 7, 2023.
Applicant has provided evidence in this file showing that the claimed invention and the subject matter disclosed in the prior art reference were owned by, or subject to an obligation of assignment to, the same entity as ASML Netherlands B.V. not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, or the subject matter disclosed in the prior art reference was developed and the claimed invention was made by, or on behalf of one or more parties to a joint research agreement in effect not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention. However, although reference WO 2021/001102 A1 to Goorden et al. has been excepted as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2), it is still applicable as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) that cannot be excepted under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C).
Applicant may rely on the exception under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(A) to overcome this rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) by a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application, and is therefore not prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1). Alternatively, applicant may rely on the exception under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(B) by providing evidence of a prior public disclosure via an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.130(b).
As for claim 1, Goorden in a metrology method and associated metrology and lithographic apparatuses discloses/suggests the following: a method of measuring an overlay or focus parameter from a target (Fig. 2-4 with paragraphs [0046], [0055], [0075], and see claim 15), the method comprising: configuring measurement radiation to obtain a configured measurement spectrum of the measurement radiation by (paragraphs: [0059]-[0069]): imposing an intensity weighting on individual wavelength bands of the measurement radiation such that the individual wavelength bands have an intensity according to the intensity weighting (treating a single color and a single wavelength as being an individual wavelength band: Figures 8b, 9, and 10; paragraphs: [0060-0069]), the intensity weighting being such that a measured value for the overlay or focus parameter is at least partially corrected for the effect of target imperfections (paragraphs [0055]-[0057]); and/or imposing a modulation on a measurement spectrum of the measurement radiation (noting modulation performed by AOTF or another type of hyperspectral shaper comprising for example a spatial light modulator: paragraphs [[0060], [0067], and [0071]); measuring the target with the configured measurement radiation and capturing resultant scattered radiation from the target (Fig. 3: RSO, RB, to AM to SRI; paragraphs [0041]-[0042]; Fig. 4: 310 to 320 to 350 to 365; paragraphs [0046], [0047], [0072], [0075]); and determining a value for the overlay or focus parameter from the scattered radiation (abstract, claim 15 and claim 1; paragraphs [0046], [0075] with [0065]-[0068]).
As for claim 4, Goorden discloses/suggests everything as above (see claim 1). In addition, Goorden discloses/suggests wherein the measuring comprises at least a first measurement for one or more of the wavelength bands for which the intensity weighting comprises a positive weight (Fig. 9: M1 with paragraphs [0063] and [0064]), and a second measurement for one or more of the wavelength bands for which the intensity weighting comprises a negative weight (Fig. 9: M2 with paragraphs [0063] and [0064]).
As for claim 9, Goorden discloses/suggests everything as above (see claim 1). In addition, Goorden discloses/suggests wherein the overlay or focus parameter comprises overlay and the target comprises a single periodic structure per measurement direction (paragraph [0046] with paragraphs [0047] and [0050]); Figure 5c with [0053] and [0055]).
As for claim 11, Goorden discloses/suggests everything as above (see claim 1). In addition, Goorden discloses/suggests wherein the configuring measurement radiation is performed using an illumination arrangement for spectrally shaping the measurement radiation (using a hyperspectral illuminator/hyperspectral shaper: paragraphs [0062] and [0069]) by: dispersing the measurement radiation (dispersed at least once by a grating of a plurality of gratings: paragraph [0069]: ‘another type of (hyper)spectral shaper (comprising, for example, gratings and a spatial light modulator)’); spatially modulating the measurement radiation subsequent to being dispersed using a spatial light modulator (paragraph [0069]: ‘another type of (hyper)spectral shaper (comprising, for example, gratings and a spatial light modulator)’) and at least one selected from: expanding the measurement radiation in at least one direction, prior to the spatially modulating; and/or directing a respective wavelength band of the measurement radiation subsequent to being dispersed onto a respective region of the spatial light modulator (a plurality of gratings would disperse and direct light to the spatial light modulator: paragraph [0069]: ‘another type of (hyper)spectral shaper (comprising, for example, gratings and a spatial light modulator)’).
As for claim 12, Goorden in a metrology method and associated metrology and lithographic apparatuses discloses/suggests the following: a metrology apparatus (Figs. 3-4 with paragraphs [0046], [0047], and [0075], comprising: an illumination arrangement configured to configure measurement radiation and illuminate a target with the configured measurement radiation (Fig. 3: RSO, RB, to AM with paragraph [0040]; Fig. 4: 310 to 320 to 350 with paragraph [0047]; noting paragraphs [0062] and [0069] that refer to a hyperspectral illuminator/hyperspectral shaper), wherein the illumination arrangement is configured to configure the measurement radiation to obtain a configured measurement spectrum of the configured measurement radiation ([0059]-[0069]), imposition of an intensity weighting on individual wavelength bands of the measurement radiate on such that the individual wavelength bands have an intensity according to the intensity weighting (treating a single color and a single wavelength as being an individual wavelength band: Figures 8b, 9, and 10; paragraphs: [0060-0069]), the intensity weighting being such that a measured value for an overlay or focus parameter is at least partially corrected for the effect of target imperfections (paragraphs [0055]-[0057]); and/or imposition of a modulation on a measurement spectrum of the measurement radiation (noting modulation performed by AOTF or another type of hyperspectral shaper comprising for example a spatial light modulator: paragraphs [[0060], [0067], and [0071]); a sensor arrangement configured to capture scattered radiation from the target (Fig. 3: AM with IB to SRI; paragraphs [0041]-[0042]; Fig. 4: 350 with 355+ and 355- to 365; paragraphs [0047], [0072], [0075]).
The examiner treated the following recitation as positively cited: ‘to obtain a configured measurement spectrum … and/or imposition of a modulation on a measurement spectrum of the measurement radiation (lines 4-12),’ but examiner notes: it has been held that 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 satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ F.2d 1647 (1987).
The examiner suggests having ‘wherein the illumination arrangement is configured to configure the measurement radiation to obtain a configured measurement spectrum (lines 3-4)’ to read -wherein the illumination arrangement is configured to obtain a configured measurement spectrum-.
As for claim 17, Goorden discloses/suggests everything as above (see claim 12). In addition, Goorden discloses/suggests wherein the illumination arrangement comprises an acousto-optical tunable filter (paragraphs [0060], [0067], [0069], [0077]).
As for claim 18, Goorden discloses/suggests everything as above (see claim 1). In addition, Goorden discloses/suggests wherein the configuring measurement radiation is performed using an acousto-optical tunable filter (paragraphs [0060], [0067], [0069], [0077]).
14. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Brill et al. (9,785,059).
As for claim 15, Brill in a lateral shift measurement using an optical technique discloses/suggests the following: a target array comprising a plurality of calibration targets comprising a variation in an imposed overlay or focus value for an overlay or focus parameter between at least some of the calibration targets (Fig. 3: 34 being a reference site comprising a plurality of targets with nominal shifts, imposed overlay values: col. 5, lines 8-30 with col. 6, lines 1-2).
As ‘for use in the method according to claim 7,’ it has been held that 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 satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ F.2d 1647 (1987).
15. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Cramer et al. (2011/0027704)-cited in IDS of November 7, 2023.
As for claim 15, Cramer in methods and scatterometers, lithographic systems, and lithographic processing cells discloses/suggests the following: a target array comprising a plurality of calibration targets comprising a variation in an imposed overlay or focus value for an overlay or focus parameter between at least some of the calibration targets (paragraph [0099]).
As ‘for use in the method according to claim 7,’ it has been held that 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 satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ F.2d 1647 (1987).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
16. 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.
17. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goorden et al. (WO 2021/001102 A1)-cited in IDS of November 7, 2023 in view of Jak et al. (2019/0072859)-previously cited.
As for claim 10, Goorden discloses/suggests everything as above (see claim 9). Goorden does not explicitly state that the target has no imposed bias. Nevertheless, Jak in a metrology method and apparatus teaches that when using only two biased periodic structures for overlay measurement, the process-induced structural asymmetry cannot be distinguished from the overlay contribution due to misalignment making overlay measurements unreliable (paragraph 0085) and teaches using a target having no imposed bias to obtain overlay measurements that are to some extent corrected for structural asymmetry in the target periodic structure (paragraph 0086 with FIGS. 11A-11C wherein Fig. 11A demonstrates a target with no imposed bias). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a target having no imposed bias in order to obtain overlay measurements that are corrected for structural asymmetry in the target periodic structure.
18. Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goorden et al. (WO 2021/001102 A1)-cited in IDS of November 7, 2023 in view of Tinnemans et al. (2019/0094721).
As for claim 19, Goorden discloses/suggests everything as above (see claim 1). In addition, Goorden discloses the configuring measurement radiation comprises at least imposing a modulation on a measurement spectrum of the measurement radiation (noting modulation performed by AOTF or another type of hyperspectral shaper comprising for example a spatial light modulator: paragraphs [[0060], [0067], and [0071]). As for wherein the modulation is configured to optimize a temporal coherence function of the measurement radiation for the target, Goorden is silent. However, he does refer to optimal color weighting (paragraphs [0056] and [0057]) by incorporating by reference US publication US 2019/0094721 A1 to Tinnemans et al. (paragraph [0056]) and mentions optimizing coherence (paragraphs [0045] and [0047]). Nevertheless, Tinnemans in a lithographic method teaches determining one or more optimized values of an operational parameter of a sensor system configured to measure a property of a substrate (abstract) such as overlay or focus parameter (paragraph [0009]); wherein, the operational parameter may be a temporal coherence state of the illumination (paragraph [0011]) and notes that the described method of optimal color weighting is not limited to use of colors as the operational parameter of interest but may be degree of coherence may be considered as an operational parameter which would be related to the adjusting of temporal coherence of the illumination (paragraph 0107). And Tinnemans teaches determining optimized values of an operational parameter so as to optimize the quality parameter such that a substrate to substrate variation is reduced or minimized (paragraph 0018). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the modulation be configured to optimize a temporal coherence function of the measurement radiation for the target to optimize an operational parameter of the metrology system so as to optimize a quality parameter such as overlay or focus parameter such that a substrate to substrate variation is reduce or minimized.
Allowable Subject Matter
19. Claims 2, 13, 14, 16, and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 3, 5, 6, and 8 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 7 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Response to Arguments
20. Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks pages 8-9, filed November 10, 2025, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-9, 11-12, and 14-20 under 35 USC 102(a)(2) and claims 10 and 13 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Goorden et al. (WO 2021/001102 A1) under 35 USC 102(a)(1).
The examiner apologizes for any inconvenience, but upon further search and consideration, new rejections have been made. Please see above.
Conclusion
21. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US 2015/0355554 to Mathijssen (Fig. 3(a) looks relevant to claim 9; Fig. 9(a) and paragraph [0094] look relevant to claim 10); US 2018/0164699 to Tukker et al. (see abstract); US 2018/0004095 to Tukker et al. (see paragraph [0054]); US 10,338,401 to Van Der Zouw et al. (see abstract); US 9,400,246 to Shchegrov et al. (see abstract); and US 11,852,590 to Manassen et al. (see col. 5, line 63 to col. 6, line 3; FIG. 2B with col. 11, lines 15-40).
Fax/Telephone Numbers
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Gordon J. Stock, Jr. whose telephone number is (571) 272-2431.
The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 10:00 a.m. - 6:30 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, Kara Geisel, can be reached at 571-272-2416. 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.
/GORDON J STOCK JR/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights