DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
This action is in response to the claims set filed 05/22/2023 and follows Applicant’s Response of 05/22/2026 to the Requirement for Restriction/Election of 03/23/2026. Claims 1-20 are currently pending with claims 16-20 withdrawn from consideration as being party to a non-elected group.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-15) in the reply filed on 05/22/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 16-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 05/22/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-15 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 1 recites the limitation “at least the support protrusion at the central portion of the heating block”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. No support protrusion at the central portion has been previously established in the claim.
Claims 2-15 are also rejected under 35 USC § 112(b) due to their respective dependency upon claim 1 rejected above.
Regarding Claim 2, the limitation “wherein the support protrusion that is configured to be deformed is deformed when heat or power is supplied thereto” renders the claim indefinite. Claim 1, from which claim 2 depends upon, recites “at least the support protrusion at the central portion of the heating block, among the plurality of support protrusions, is configured to be deformed in response to heating by the heater”. It is unclear how the support protrusion that is configured to be deformed is to be “deformed when heat or power is supplied thereto” (see claim 2) if claim 1 requires that the same support protrusion is configured to be deformed in response to heating by the heater”. Specifically, how such a support protrusion configured to be deformed in response to heating by the heater could also be deformed when power is supplied thereto.
Regarding Claim 3, the limitation “the support protrusion that is configured to be deformed comprises a first set of the plurality of support protrusions that are formed of a material stretched or expanded by heat and a second set of the plurality of support protrusions that are formed of a material compressed or contracted by heat” renders the claim indefinite. This limitation fails to make clear what the metes and bounds of the claim are, as it is unclear how a singular support protrusion comprises a first set of support protrusions and a second set of supports protrusions. In other words, how a single support protrusion comprises a plurality of support protrusions.
Regarding Claim 4, the limitation “wherein the support protrusion that is configured to be deformed is deformed in a vertical length direction” renders the claim indefinite. Claim 3, from which claim 4 depends upon, recites “wherein the support protrusion that is configured to be deformed comprises a first set of the plurality of support protrusions [and] a second set of the plurality of support protrusions”. It is unclear if “the support protrusion that is configured to be deformed” in claim 4 is referencing to a singular support protrusion, or the two sets of support protrusions.
Regarding Claim 5, the limitation “wherein the support protrusion that is configured to be deformed is formed of a piezoelectric material or a shape-memory alloy” renders the claim indefinite. Claim 1, from which claim 5 depends upon, recites “at least the support protrusion at the central portion of the heating block, among the plurality of support protrusions, is configured to be deformed in response to heating by the heater”. It is unclear how the support protrusion that is configured to be deformed is formed “of a piezoelectric material” (see claim 5) if claim 1 requires that the same support protrusion is configured to be deformed in response to heating by the heater” since piezoelectric materials are defined by their applied to change shape/form in response to applied power, not to applied heat.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 2-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding dependent Claim 2, the limitation “wherein the support protrusion that is configured to be deformed is deformed when heat or power is supplied thereto” fails to further limit the subject matter of claim 1 from which it depends upon; and appears to instead expand the scope. Claim 1 recites “at least the support protrusion at the central portion of the heating block, among the plurality of support protrusions, is configured to be deformed in response to heating by the heater”. If the support protrusion is “configured to be deformed in response to heating by the heater” (as stated in claim 1) then it could not be also “deformed when heat or power is supplied thereto” since deformed when power is supplied thereto would be outside of the scope that claim 1 establishes.
Claims 3-5 are also rejected under 35 USC § 112(d) due to their respective dependency upon claim 2 rejected above.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 8-9, 12-13 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP2006093495A, herein referenced as Makino.
PNG
media_image1.png
338
515
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 4 of Makino
Regarding Claim 1, Makino discloses an apparatus for heating a wafer (W fig. 4), the apparatus comprising:
a heater (see heating plate 14 fig. 4; “plate section 18 is the part that performs the heat treatment on the substrate (wafer), and has a sheath heater, which is a heating element, and a sheath thermocouple (K-type), which is a temperature sensor, embedded inside” pr. 23);
a heating block (see hot plate 14 and plate section 18 in fig. 4) on an upper surface of the heater (see plate section 18 of heating plate 14 in f i4); and
a plurality of support protrusions (see proximity pins 20 and lifting pins 22 in figs. 4-5) protruding from an upper surface of the heating block (see fig. 4),
wherein the upper surface of the heating block has a curved shape with a concave central portion (see spherical curved mounting surface 18A in figs. 4-5), and
at least the support protrusion at the central portion of the heating block (see lifting pins 22 fig. 4), among the plurality of support protrusions, is configured to be deformed in response to heating by the heater (see at least lifting pins 22 fig. 4; “the material of the tip of the lifting pin 22 is preferably one that does not damage the substrate, such as fluororesin or ceramics” pr. 47; the lifting pins 22 are made of a material, such as the ones listed, which possesses a thermal expansion coefficient, this thermal expansion coefficient would mean that the lifting pins 22 would deform (i.e. expand/contract, and changing its size/dimensions, including its height) in response to heating by the heater as the lifting pins 22 would absorb thermal energy when the heater is operating).
Regarding Claim 2, Makino discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the support protrusion that is configured to be deformed (see lifting pins 22 fig. 4) is deformed when heat or power is supplied thereto (the lifting pins 22 would deform (i.e. expand/contract, thereby changing size/dimensions, including height) based upon their thermal expansion coefficient in response to thermal energy from the heater when the lifting pins 22 absorb the thermal energy during heater operation).
Regarding Claim 8, Makino discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the support protrusion that is configured to be deformed (see lifting pins 22 fig. 4) changes in height according to a heating time of the wafer on the plurality of support protrusions (since the thermal expansion coefficient for the material of the lifting pins 22 would deform the pins 22 such that they change in size/dimension, including a vertical height, the thermal expansion that occurs would be dependent upon the thermal energy that would be absorbed by the lifting pins 22 during the heating operation of heating plate 14; because of this, the thermal expansion (and therefore, the related change in height) would be related/according to the heating time of the wafer since the amount of heating operation time would relates to how much thermal energy would get absorbed by the lifting pins 22. In other words, greater heating time would mean greater thermal energy absorbed by the lifting pins which means a greater thermal expansion based upon its thermal expansion coefficient).
Regarding Claim 9, Makino discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein upper surfaces of the plurality of support protrusions (see upper surfaces of proximity pins 20 and lifting pins 22 in fig. 4) are coplanar (“lifting pin 22 can be raised and lowered simultaneously by a lifting mechanism (for example, a cylinder member) not shown” pr. 47 and “If the lifting pins 22 are able to move up and down in this manner, the stacked wafer W is first supported by the lifting pins 22 when they are raised, and then the lifting pins 22 are lowered to support the stacked wafer W with the proximity pins 20, allowing for uniform heating of the stacked wafer W by radiant heating from the mounting surface 18A” pr. 48) before deformation of the support protrusion that is configured to be deformed (prior to heating operation of heating plate 14 fig. 4). (since the lifting pins are able to move up and down by a lifting mechanism, the lifting pins could be raised such that they’re upper surfaces are coplanar with the upper surfaces of the proximity pins 20 in fig. 4)
Regarding Claim 12, Makino discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the heating block is divided into a plurality of portions to be assembled or is integrally formed (the plate section 18 is shown to be integrally formed in fig. 4).
Regarding Claim 13, Makino discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein a material of the support protrusion that is configured to be deformed in the central portion (see lifting pins 22 fig. 4) and a material of others of the plurality of support protrusions (see proximity pins 20 fig. 4) are different from each other (“the material of the tip of the lifting pin 22 is preferably one that does not damage the substrate, such as fluororesin or ceramics” pr. 47 and “polished ceramics or metal coated with fluororesin can be preferably used as the material for the proximity pin 20” pr. 31; these listed materials means that the lifting pins 20 can be made of a different material (such as fluororesin) from the material of the proximity pins 20 (such as a polished ceramic); the disclosure of Makino does require that the materials of the pins 20,22 correspond).
Regarding Claim 15, Makino discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the upper surface of the heating block (see upper surface of 18 fig. 4) has a shape corresponding to a shape of the wafer with warpage seated on upper surfaces of the plurality of support protrusions (“It is important that the radius of curvature of the mounting surface 18A is formed to conform to the warped shape of the substrate (wafer), which is the object to be heated, at the heat treatment temperature” pr. 27).
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claim(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Makino.
Regarding Claim 10, Makino discloses the apparatus of claim 9, wherein before deformation (where, prior to the heating operation, the lifting pins 22 are raised to be coplanar with the proximity pins 20 in fig. 4), a difference between a protruding height above the upper surface of the heating block of the support protrusion that is configured to be deformed (a protruding height of the lifting pins 22 above the surface of 18a when the upper surfaces of the lifting pins 22 are coplanar with the upper surfaces of the proximity pins 20 in fig. 4) and a protruding height above the upper surface of the heating block of at least one of the plurality of support protrusions at an outermost edge portion of the heating block (see protruding height of proximity pins 20 from the surface of 18 in fig. 4; proximity pins shown to be at an outermost edge portion of the heating plate 14 in fig. 4) [is present] (in the circumstance where the lifting pins 22 are raised such that they are coplanar with the proximity pins 20, there would be a difference in protruding height between the two types of pins since the lifting pins 22 are provided at a more depressed height location than the proximity pins 20 which are position less centrally in fig. 4).
However, Makino fails to anticipate wherein the difference between a protruding height above the upper surface of the heating block of the support protrusion that is configured to be deformed and a protruding height above the upper surface of the heating block of at least one of the plurality of support protrusions at an outermost edge portion of the heating block is 75 μm to 85 μm.
Since the specification does not discloses that the difference in protruding height above the upper surface of the heating block being ‘75 μm to 85 μm’ solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose, and it appears that the apparatus of Makino is capable of being scaled up or down so as to meet the claimed invention, it would have been an obvious matter of changes in size/dimension to modify the scale of Makino such the difference in protruding height between the lifting pins 22 and the proximity pins 20 in fig. 4 (when the lifting pins 22 are raised to be coplanar with the proximity pins) is 75 μm to 85 μm. See section IV. A. “Changes in Size/Proportion” in MPEP 2144.04.
Regarding Claim 11, Makino discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the heating block has a circular shape (see circular shape of plate 18 in fig. 5).
However, Makino fails to anticipate wherein the plurality of support protrusions are arranged along a line extending radially outwardly from a center of the heating block.
The prior art reads onto the claim except with regard to the position of the plurality of support protrusions (see lifting pins 22 and proximity pins 20 in fig. 5 of Makino), the instant claim having the plurality of support protrusions “arranged along a line extending radially outwardly from a center of the heating block”; the instant disclosure does not provide an unexpected result nor assign any particular benefit/criticality for this arrangement (the instant specification only states that “Accordingly, the density of the plurality of support protrusions 160 in a region disposed in the central portion of the heating block 140 may be higher than the density in a region disposed at the edge of the heating block 140” in pr. 28, yet this is already the case for the prior art as shown in fig. 5 of Makino). Further, it has been held that shifting the position of a component which would not have modified the operation of the device would not be patentably distinct. Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of rearrangement of parts to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the position/orientation of the lifting pins 22 and proximity pins 20 of Makino such that they are arranged along a line extending radially outwardly from a center of the heating block. This would not have modified the operation of the device since it would still operate in the same manner. See MPEP 2144.04 VI. C. “Rearrangement of Parts” for more details.
Claim(s) 5 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Makino, as applied to claims 1 and 2 above, and further in view of JP2000012447A, herein referenced as Sada.
PNG
media_image2.png
286
336
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 24 of Sada
Regarding Claim 5, Makino discloses the apparatus of claim 2, but fails to anticipate wherein the support protrusion that is configured to be deformed (lifting pins 22 fig. 4 of Makino) is formed of a piezoelectric material or a shape-memory alloy. Makino does state that “lifting pin 22 can be raised and lowered simultaneously by a lifting mechanism (for example, a cylinder member) not shown” in pr. 47.
However, Makino fails to teach wherein the support protrusion that is configured to be deformed is formed of a piezoelectric material or a shape-memory alloy.
Makino and Sada are analogous art since they both relate to the field of endeavor of wafer heating apparatuses.
Sada teaches of wherein the support protrusion that is configured to be deformed (deformable pins 93’ figs. 22-24) is formed of a piezoelectric material (“a deformed pin 93', which utilizes a cylindrical piezoelectric element shaped to fit perfectly into this recess, was installed, and wiring was configured to allow a drive voltage to be supplied to this deformed pin 93' from the outside” pr. 143) or a shape-memory alloy. Sada further teaches that “the substrate G and the heat treatment plate 58 are brought into contact with and separated by applying voltage to the deformed pins 93', 93'... and moving them up and down” in pr. 144.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the lifting pins’ 22 assembly of Sada to be the pins which utilize a cylindrical shaped piezoelectric element, as disclosed by Sada, to obtain the benefit of ‘a means for driving/moving the pins up and down’ as taught by Sada.
Regarding Claim 7, Makino discloses the apparatus of claim 1. Makino further discloses wherein the support protrusion that is configured to be deformed is received in an insertion recess provided in the heating block (see through holes 14a where the lifting pins are received in fig. 4)
However, Makino fails to anticipate wherein a lower end of the support protrusion that is configured to be deformed is received in an insertion recess provided in the heating block, and deformation of the support protrusion that is configured to be deformed is guided in a vertical length direction by the insertion recess.
Makino and Sada are analogous art since they both relate to the field of endeavor of wafer heating apparatuses.
Sada teaches wherein a lower end of the support protrusion (see lower end of deformable pins 93’ in figs. 23-24) that is configured to be deformed is received in an insertion recess (see cylindrical recesses provided on the upper surface of the heat treatment plate 58 in figs. 23-24) provided in the heating block (58 figs. 23-24), and
deformation of the support protrusion (93’ figs. 23-24) that is configured to be deformed is guided in a vertical length direction by the insertion recess (see vertical deformation or change in height that occurs for the deformable pins 93’ in figs. 23-24; “a deformed pin 93', which utilizes a cylindrical piezoelectric element shaped to fit perfectly into this recess, was installed, and wiring was configured to allow a drive voltage to be supplied to this deformed pin 93' from the outside” pr. 143). Sada further teaches that “the substrate G and the heat treatment plate 58 are brought into contact with and separated by applying voltage to the deformed pins 93', 93'... and moving them up and down” in pr. 144.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the lifting pins’ 22 assembly of Sada to be the pins which utilize a cylindrical shaped piezoelectric element, as disclosed by Sada, to obtain the benefit of ‘a means for driving/moving the pins up and down’ as taught by Sada.
Claim(s) 6 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Makino, as applied to claims 1 and 13 above, and further in view of KR20070118782A, herein referenced as Baik.
PNG
media_image3.png
396
688
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure 2 of Baik
Regarding Claim 6, Makino discloses the apparatus of claim 1.
While Makino shows the lifting pins 22 having a cylindrical shape in figs. 4-5 (lifting pins shown to have a straight elongated form in fig. 4 with a circular profile in fig. 5), Makino fails to anticipate wherein the plurality of support protrusions (see proximity pins 20 and lifting pins 22 in figs. 4-5 of Makino) have a cylindrical shape.
Makino and Baik are analogous art since they both relate to the field of endeavor of wafer heating apparatuses.
Baik teaches of wherein the plurality of support protrusions (plurality of protrusions 112 figs. 2-4) have a cylindrical shape (“plurality of protrusions 112 are formed to protrude upward from the plurality of layer surfaces 114, 116, and 118, and are manufactured in the shape of a cylinder” top of page 5).
Since Baik establishes that a plurality of support protrusions having a cylindrical shape was known in the art before the effective filing date of invention, it would have been obvious matter of simple substitution to one of ordinary skill in the art to have substituted the shape of the plurality of support protrusions of Makino (see proximity pins 20 and lifting pins 22 in figs. 4-5 of Makino) to have the cylindrical shape disclosed by Baik for the predictable result of a suitable support protrusion shape for a wafer heating apparatus. See MPEP 2143 subsection B “Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results”.
Regarding Claim 14, Makino discloses the apparatus of claim 13, wherein, the others of the plurality of support protrusions (see proximity pins 20 fig. 4) excluding the support protrusion that is configured to be deformed (see lifting pins 22 fig. 4) are formed of a material (“polished ceramics or metal coated with fluororesin can be preferably used as the material for the proximity pin 20” pr. 31).
However, Makino fails to explicitly teach that the others of the plurality of support protrusions are formed of a material including silicon.
Makino and Baik are analogous art since they both relate to the field of endeavor of wafer heating apparatuses.
Baik teaches of wherein a plurality of support protrusion (see plurality of protrusions which are integrally formed with the susceptor forming its upper surface in fig. 2) are formed of a material including silicon (“susceptor 120 is made of a material having excellent heat resistance and thermal conductivity such as silicon carbide” bottom of page 7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the proximity pins 20 formed of a ceramic in Makino to be a ceramic such as silicon carbide, as disclosed by Baik, so as to obtain the benefit of pins which ‘have excellent heat resistance and thermal conductivity’ as taught by Baik.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and/or 35 U.S.C. 112(d) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding Claim 3 and its dependent claim 4: no prior art was found which anticipated or rendered obvious the invention of claim 3. Particularly, “wherein the support protrusion that is configured to be deformed comprises a first set of the plurality of support protrusions that are formed of a material stretched or expanded by heat and a second set of the plurality of support protrusions that are formed of a material compressed or contracted by heat” in context of all intervening limitations. While it was determined that the prior are disclosed of support protrusions which deformed (i.e. changed size/dimension, such as height) in response to heating by the heater, it would not have been obvious to have provided a first set formed of a material stretched or expanded by heat and a second set formed of a material compressed or contracted by heat. Providing a first set of support protrusions formed of a material which exhibited a positive thermal expansion and simultaneously a second set of support protrusions formed of a material which exhibited a negative thermal expansion was not found within the prior art found neither was a motivations found for why one of ordinary skill would have made such a modification. Reference JP2015050418A disclosed of a support pin retracts due to exposure to heat due to a shape memory alloy (SMA) spring coupled with the pin expanding from the exposure. However, this reference fails to have the support pin itself be formed of a material which is compressed or contracted by heat; the SMA spring only moves the pin with the pin not undergoing any alleged compression/contraction due to heat. As such, claim 3 was determined to contain allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2010/0271603, US 11868056, US 11328948, JP2004152914A and KR20120119781A – disclosed a wafer heating apparatus with a heating block which is provided with an upper surface that has a curved shape with a concave central portion, the concave central portion being provided with a plurality of support protrusions.
US 5374829 – discloses a wafer holding device which includes a plurality of support protrusions, the support protrusions having elastic members made of silicon surrounding them.
US 11515191 - discloses a wafer heating apparatus, where by an upper surface of a heating block is provided with a plurality of protrusions, the protrusions have upper surfaces which together for a concave surface profile that the wafer rests upon, the protrusions having varying heights from the heating block to accomplish this.
KR20070096839 – discloses a wafer heating apparatus where by a plate defining the upper surface of the heating block under goes thermal expansion during heating of the wafer.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Wesley Fisher whose telephone number is (469)295-9146. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00AM to 5:30PM, Monday - Friday.
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, Court Heinle can be reached at (571) 270-3508. 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.
/W.L.F./Examiner, Art Unit 3745
/COURTNEY D HEINLE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights