DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 20 November, 2025. These drawings are acceptable.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: The phrases “the conditioning device being comprising” and “wherein the method comprising” in claim 11 are grammatically improper. Consider ––the conditioning device comprising–– and ––wherein the method comprises––. Appropriate correction is 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 11-14 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 11 is directed to a method for controlling a conditioning device, but includes a preamble reciting a number of structural elements for the conditioning device, only some of which are required to perform the claimed method steps. It is unclear whether the claim affirmatively requires all the elements recited in the preamble (i.e., the claimed method would only be infringed upon if the method steps were performed using a conditioning device including all the structural elements recited in the preamble, similar to if the method included a formal step of “providing a conditioning device comprising …”) or if those structural elements are describing a possible structure for a conditioner capable of use in the method but are not required for the practice of the method. Because one of ordinary skill would be unclear as to the bounds of the claimed subject matter, claim 11 is rejected as indefinite. Claims 12-14 depend from claim 11 and are likewise rejected as indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1 and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kumar et al. (US PGPub 2021/0402555, "Kumar").
1. Kumar teaches a conditioning device (combination of sensor 64 and temperature control system 100, which includes heating system 102 and cooling system 104, see Kumar figs. 1-2) comprising:
an ejector (110) for ejecting steam (Kumar [0034]-[0035]) to a rotating polishing pad (30); and
an ejector support supporting the ejector (arm 110 is supported on base 112, see Kumar fig. 2 and [0037]),
a vertical driver for moving the ejector support in an up-down direction to adjust a vertical separation distance between the polishing pad and the ejector (base 112 includes actuators to raise or lower the arm, Kumar [0037]); and
a controller for controlling the vertical driver (controller 90 controls mechanisms including actuators, Kumar [0050]),
wherein the ejector includes a plurality of nozzles (120, see Kumar fig. 1 and [0038]) for ejecting the steam to the polishing pad and a nozzle heater for heating the plurality of nozzles (independent heaters for individually controlling steam temperature, which would result in different temperatures in the nozzles due to conductive heat transfer, see Kumar [0043]), and
wherein the nozzle heater is configured to heat nozzles disposed to correspond to a peripheral region of the polishing pad, among the plurality of nozzles, to a higher temperature than nozzles disposed to correspond to a central region of the polishing pad among the plurality of nozzles (the mass flow rates, and associated heat transfer, may be adjusted based on achieving specific temperature control profiles as a function of radius distance, with the highest mass flow rate occurring furthest from a middle of the pad, see Kumar [0054]; because higher mass flow rates at a fixed temperature would result in more rapid heat transfer, the nozzle heater is capable of heating peripheral nozzles to a higher temperature than central nozzles).
wherein the controller is capable of controlling the vertical driver (controller sends feedback signals to elements such as actuators that raise and lower the arm, [0037] and [0050]) to make the vertical separation distance smaller than a straight line distance, the straight line distance being a distance from an intersection point of a first virtual straight line extending along an inclined portion on one side of a first nozzle of the plurality of nozzles and a second virtual straight line extending along an inclined portion on one side of a second nozzle facing with the one side of the first nozzle to the ejector (controller 90 is capable of adjusting the height of arm 90 such that the nozzles are at a separation distance such as that being recited), and
wherein the second nozzle is disposed adjacent to the first nozzle (arm 110 includes adjacent nozzles, see Kumar fig. 1).
5. Kumar teaches the conditioning device of claim 1, wherein the plurality of nozzles are arranged spaced apart in a radial direction of the polishing pad (nozzles 120 are spaced apart in a radial direction, see Kumar fig. 1),
a steam room (116) for accommodating the steam is formed in the ejector (116 is in 110, Kumar fig. 1), and
the steam room extends in the radial direction and communicates with the plurality of nozzles (116 extends radially and communicates with nozzles 120, see Kumar fig. 1).
6. Kumar teaches the conditioning device of claim 5, further comprising a room heater for heating the steam room to prevent condensation of the steam accommodated in the steam room (plenums may be associated with individual heaters that would be capable of keeping the steam temperature above a dew point, Kumar [0043]).
7. Kumar teaches the conditioning device of claim 5, wherein the steam room is disposed above the plurality of nozzles (116 is above 120, see Kumar fig. 1).
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 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Motoshima et al. (US PGPub 20130023186, "Motoshima").
2. Kumar teaches the conditioning device of claim 1, further comprising
a sensor (64) for measuring a temperature of the polishing pad (temperature sensor 64 measures temperature at multiple points, Kumar [0030]), wherein the controller (90) further controls the ejector based on a measurement result of the sensor (Kumar [0050]),
wherein the peripheral region is disposed outside the central region in a radial direction of the polishing pad to surround the central region (a periphery of a disk-shaped pad is, by definition, an outer bound, see Kumar fig. 2).
Kumar does not teach that the controller calculates a difference value between a central temperature, which is a temperature of the central region, and a peripheral temperature, which is a temperature of the peripheral region, and when the difference value is greater than a predetermined set value, controls the nozzle heater so that the nozzles disposed to correspond to the peripheral region among the plurality of nozzles are heated to a higher temperature than the nozzles disposed to correspond to the central region among the plurality of nozzles.
However, Motoshima teaches a temperature control system (20) for a polishing system (see Motoshima fig. 2), wherein the temperature control system monitors the temperature profile of the pad and performs temperature control when local differences exceed a predetermined value (Motoshima [0139]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to integrate the teachings of Motoshima regarding a method of performing temperature control into the device of Kumar such that the controller calculates a difference value between a central temperature, which is a temperature of the central region, and a peripheral temperature, which is a temperature of the peripheral region, and when the difference value is greater than a predetermined set value, controls the nozzle heater so that the nozzles disposed to correspond to the peripheral region among the plurality of nozzles are heated to a higher temperature than the nozzles disposed to correspond to the central region among the plurality of nozzles, as doing so represents the combination of known prior art elements (temperature adjusting methods) according to known methods and the results of such a combination would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill.
4. Kumar as modified teaches the conditioning device of claim 2, but does not explicitly teach that when the difference value is greater than the set value, the controller determines a heating time corresponding to the difference value and during the determined heating time, controls the nozzle heater so that the nozzles disposed to correspond to the peripheral area among the plurality of nozzles are heated to a higher temperature than the nozzles disposed to correspond to the central region among the plurality of nozzles.
However, as noted above, it is proper the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom.” MPEP § 2144.01. Kumar teaches that a process parameter such as temperature can be independently controlled for each opening or group of openings (Kumar [0043]) and that the controller uses a feedback mechanism to control the relevant process parameter (Kumar [0050]). One of ordinary skill would conclude Kumar to implicitly teach that the controller determines the necessary durations for a temperature control operation to obtain a desired temperature profile, including the duration necessary to heat the nozzles as required.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar and Motoshima as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Wu et al. (US 11697187, "Wu").
3. Kumar as modified teaches the conditioning device of claim 2, wherein the peripheral region includes:
an inner peripheral region surrounding the central region; and an outer peripheral region disposed outside the inner peripheral region in the radial direction to surround the inner peripheral region (Kumar discloses a plurality of radial zones associated with different nozzles, the outermost two zones may be defined as the two claimed peripheral regions, see Kumar [0041] and figs. 1-2),
Kumar as modified doesn't explicitly teach that the controller calculates a first difference value that is a difference value between the central temperature and a first peripheral temperature which is a temperature of the inner peripheral region, and a second difference value that is a difference value between the central temperature and a second peripheral temperature which is a temperature of the outer peripheral region, and when the first difference value is smaller than the set value and the second difference value is greater than the set value, controls the nozzle heater so that the nozzles disposed to correspond to the outer peripheral area among the plurality of nozzles are heated to a higher temperature than the nozzles disposed to correspond to the inner peripheral region among the plurality of nozzles.
However, Wu teaches the desirability of increasing or decreasing relative temperatures in adjacent peripheral regions on a polishing pad (see Wu fig. 2a and 8:31-54).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to integrate the teachings of Wu regarding zonal temperature adjustments into the conditioning device of Kumar as modified such that the controller calculated a first difference value that is a difference value between the central temperature and a first peripheral temperature which is a temperature of the inner peripheral region, and a second difference value that is a difference value between the central temperature and a second peripheral temperature which is a temperature of the outer peripheral region, and when the first difference value is greater than the set value and the second difference value is smaller than the set value, controls the nozzle heater so that the nozzles disposed to correspond to the outer peripheral area among the plurality of nozzles are heated to a higher temperature than the nozzles disposed to correspond to the inner peripheral region among the plurality of nozzles, as doing so would result in more uniform substrate profiles (Wu 8:31-54).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wu.
10. Kumar teaches the conditioning device of claim 1, wherein the ejector extends in a radial direction of the polishing pad (arm 110 extends at least partly in a radial direction, see Kumar fig. 1). Kumar does not teach that the driver further includes a linear driver for moving the ejector in the radial direction with respect to the polishing pad.
However, Wu teaches a temperature control system (100) for a polishing system (20), including a driver (112) that may include a linear actuator to move a nozzle (Wu 11:5-21). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to integrate the teachings of a linear actuator for moving the ejector in a radial direction from Wu into the device of Kumar such that the driver further includes a linear driver for moving the ejector in the radial direction with respect to the polishing pad, as doing so would improve the ability to provide heating at a selectable position (Wu 11:5-21).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang et al. (US PGPub 2020/0262024, "Chang").
11. Chang teaches a method for controlling a conditioning device (Chang [0017]),
the conditioning device (104) comprising:
an ejector (collection of nozzles 144, Chang [0055]) for ejecting steam to a rotating polishing pad;
an ejector support (arm 140, Chang [0053]) supporting the ejector;
a vertical driver for moving the ejector support in an up-down direction to adjust a vertical separation distance between the polishing pad and the ejector (arm 140 is raised or lowered by actuators on base 142, Chang [0053]); and
a controller (90, Chang [0067]) for controlling the vertical driver,
wherein the ejector includes a plurality of nozzles for ejecting the steam to the polishing pad and a nozzle heater for heating the plurality of nozzles (independent heaters for nozzles 144, Chang [0047]), and
wherein the nozzle heater is capable of heating nozzles disposed to correspond to a peripheral region of the polishing pad, among the plurality of nozzles, to a higher temperature than nozzles disposed to correspond to a central region of the polishing pad among the plurality of nozzles (nozzles are arranged radially, so independently controlling nozzle temperature may be performed based on radial position, see Chang [0047], [0067], and fig. 2),
wherein the controller is capable of controlling the vertical driver (controller sends feedback signals to elements such as actuators that raise and lower the arm, [0053] and [0067]) to make the vertical separation distance smaller than a straight line distance, the straight line distance being a distance from an intersection point of a first virtual straight line extending along an inclined portion on one side of a first nozzle of the plurality of nozzles and a second virtual straight line extending along an inclined portion on one side of a second nozzle facing with the one side of the first nozzle to the ejector (controller 90 is capable of adjusting the height of arm 90 such that the nozzles are at a separation distance such as that being recited),
wherein the second nozzle is disposed adjacent to the first nozzle (adjacent nozzles 144 may be selected, Chang fig. 2),
wherein the method comprises:
ejecting steam (steam as a heating medium, Chang [0051]) to a rotating polishing pad (pad 30 rotates, see Chang fig. 2) through a plurality of nozzles (heating system 104 includes nozzles 144, see Chang fig. 2 and [0055]).
Chang does not explicitly teach a step of heating a plurality of nozzles so that nozzles disposed to correspond to a peripheral region of the polishing pad among the plurality of nozzles, are heated to a higher temperature than nozzles disposed to correspond to a central region of the polishing pad among the plurality of nozzles.
However, Chang does teach a technique of independently controlling the temperature of liquid flowing through radially spaced dispensers (Chang [0028], [0057], and [0067]), and further teaches that the temperature control is performed to ensure that the measured temperature profile of the polishing pad matches a desired temperature profile (Chang [0067]).
Additionally, it has been held that “in considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom.” MPEP § 2144.01, citing In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968). One of ordinary skill would understand that a typical polishing operation on a circular pad such as that depicted in Chang would result in a measured temperature profile having a greater temperature near the center of the pad than the periphery, due to the relative amounts of surface area experiencing frictional contact (See Chang [0023] and [0024]) between substrate (10) held in a polishing head (70) and the polishing pad (30). Furthermore, although Chang does not explicitly state the desirability of a uniform temperature profile, it does teach that it is desirable to reduce temperature variation of polishing processes (Chang [0019] and [0024]).
From these implicit teachings, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to modify the method of Chang to reduce the temperature variation across the pad, which, due to the greater generation of heat near the center of the pad, would require additional heating near the periphery. Chang teaches several mechanisms for performing such a temperature adjustment, including varying a flow rate or increasing a local temperature of the liquid (Chang [0057]), either of which would result in the nozzles at the periphery having a greater temperature than the nozzles in the center. Such a modification would therefore result in the method including a step of heating a plurality of nozzles so that nozzles disposed to correspond to a peripheral region of the polishing pad among the plurality of nozzles, are heated to a higher temperature than nozzles disposed to correspond to a central region of the polishing pad among the plurality of nozzles. Such a modification would lead to more even polishing rates and increased polishing performance (Chang [0024]).
Claims 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Motoshima.
12. Chang teaches the method of claim 11, further comprising: measuring a temperature of the polishing pad at a variety of regions (measuring a temperature at multiple points along a radius with sensor 64, see Chang fig. 1 and [0035]).
Chang does not explicitly teach calculating a difference value between a central temperature which is a temperature of the central region, and a peripheral temperature which is a temperature of the peripheral region, wherein in the heating of the plurality of nozzles, when the difference value is greater than a predetermined set value, the nozzles disposed to correspond to the peripheral region of the polishing pad are heated to a higher temperature than the nozzles disposed to correspond to the central region, and wherein the peripheral region is disposed outside the central region in a radial direction of the polishing pad to surround the central region.
However, Motoshima teaches a temperature control system (20) for a polishing system (see Motoshima fig. 2), wherein the temperature control system monitors the temperature profile of the pad and performs temperature control when local differences exceed a predetermined value (Motoshima [0139]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to integrate the teachings of Motoshima regarding temperature control into the method of Chang such that it included a step of calculating a difference value between a central temperature which is a temperature of the central region, and a peripheral temperature which is a temperature of the peripheral region, wherein in the heating of the plurality of nozzles, when the difference value is greater than a predetermined set value, the nozzles disposed to correspond to the peripheral region of the polishing pad are heated to a higher temperature than the nozzles disposed to correspond to the central region, and wherein the peripheral region is disposed outside the central region in a radial direction of the polishing pad to surround the central region, as doing so represents the combination of known prior art elements according to known methods and the results of such a combination would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill.
14. Chang as modified teaches the method of claim 12, but does not explicitly teach the step of determining a heating time corresponding to the difference value when the difference value is greater than the set value,
wherein the heating of the plurality of nozzles is performed during the determined heating time.
However, as noted above, it is proper the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom.” MPEP § 2144.01. Chang teaches that a process parameter such as temperature can be independently controlled for each opening or group of openings (Chang [0057]) and that the controller uses a feedback mechanism to control the relevant process parameter (Chang [0067]). One of ordinary skill would conclude Chang to implicitly teach the controller determines the necessary durations for a temperature control operation to obtain a desired temperature profile, including the duration necessary to heat the nozzles as required, and therefore implicitly teaches a step of determining a heating time corresponding to the difference value when the difference value is greater than the set value, wherein the heating of the plurality of nozzles is performed during the determined heating time.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang and Motoshima as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Wu.
13. Chang as modified teaches the method of claim 12, wherein the peripheral region includes an inner peripheral region surrounding the central region, and an outer peripheral region disposed outside the inner peripheral region in the radial direction to surround the inner peripheral region (Chang discloses a plurality of radial zones associated with different nozzles, the outermost two zones may be defined as the two claimed peripheral regions, see Chang [0058] and figs. 1-2),
wherein the measuring of the temperature of the polishing pad includes: measuring the central temperature;
measuring a first peripheral temperature which is a temperature of the inner peripheral region; and measuring a second peripheral temperature which is a temperature of the outer peripheral region (temperature sensor measures temperatures in points associated with each radial zone, Chang [0067]).
Chang as modified does not explicitly teach that the calculating of the difference value includes:
calculating a first difference value that is a difference value between the central temperature and the first peripheral temperature; and
calculating a second difference value that is a difference value between the central temperature and the second peripheral temperature, and
wherein in the heating of the plurality of nozzles includes, when the first difference value is smaller than the set value and the second difference value is greater than the set value, the nozzles disposed to correspond to the outer peripheral area among the plurality of nozzles are heated to a higher temperature than the nozzles adjacent to the inner peripheral region among the plurality of nozzles.
However, Wu teaches the desirability of increasing or decreasing relative temperatures in adjacent peripheral regions on a polishing pad (see Wu fig. 2a and 8:31-54).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to integrate the teachings of Wu regarding zonal temperature adjustments into the method of Chang as modified such that the calculating of the difference value included: calculating a first difference value that is a difference value between the central temperature and the first peripheral temperature; and calculating a second difference value that is a difference value between the central temperature and the second peripheral temperature, and wherein in the heating of the plurality of nozzles includes, when the first difference value is smaller than the set value and the second difference value is greater than the set value, the nozzles disposed to correspond to the outer peripheral area among the plurality of nozzles are heated to a higher temperature than the nozzles adjacent to the inner peripheral region among the plurality of nozzles, as doing so would result in more uniform substrate profiles (Wu 8:31-54).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 is allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claim 9 was previously indicated as containing allowable subject matter. Claim 9 has been rewritten in independent form, and is now allowed, as no new prior art has been identified that would teach or suggest the claimed invention.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 20 November, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding independent claims 1 and 11, applicant argues that the cited art fails to teach the new limitation that “wherein the controller controls the vertical driver to make the vertical separation distance smaller than a straight line distance, the straight line distance being a distance from an intersection point of a first virtual straight line extending along an inclined portion on one side of a first nozzle of the plurality of nozzles and a second virtual straight line extending along an inclined portion on one side of a second nozzle facing with the one side of the first nozzle to the ejector, and wherein the second nozzle is disposed adjacent to the first nozzle.” Although applicant is correct that the prior art does not teach a controller configured to “control[s] the vertical driver to make the vertical separation distance smaller than a straight line distance, the straight line distance being a distance from an intersection point of a first virtual straight line extending along an inclined portion on one side of a first nozzle of the plurality of nozzles and a second virtual straight line extending along an inclined portion on one side of a second nozzle facing with the one side of the first nozzle to the ejector”, that is not precisely what the claim language requires. The limitation recites an intended use of the invention, i.e., that the controller be capable of controlling the vertical driver to make the vertical separation distance smaller than a straight-line distance. Applicant is reminded that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Because the prior art teaches a driver capable of raising or lowering the ejector support such that it was in the claimed range, it anticipates the claimed inventions.
Because applicant’s arguments rely on an intended use limitation that does not result in a patentably distinct difference in structure between the prior art and claimed invention, they are unpersuasive.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN R ZAWORSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-7804. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00-5:00, Fridays 9:00-1:00.
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, Monica Carter can be reached at (571)-272-4475. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/J.R.Z./Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/MONICA S CARTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723