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 .
Status
In response to the amendment filed on 11/11/2025, claims 1, 13, and 14 have been amended. Claims 1-14 are pending and under examination.
Claim Objections
Claims 13 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The phrase may be amended as “… from [[the ]]one or plurality of release nozzles configured …” in claim 13, line 19 and claim 14, line 21.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1 and 4-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shinozaki (JP 2016055412A, hereinafter Shinozaki ‘412), in view of Takahashi (US 6135858, cited on 06/26/2025 IDS).
Regarding claim 1, Shinozaki ‘412 discloses, in fig. 1, an apparatus for polishing, comprising:
a polishing table configured to support a polishing pad (Shinozaki ‘412 English translation, p. 5:26-27 and fig. 1, a polishing apparatus includes a polishing table 10 that supports a polishing pad 20);
a substrate holding member having a substrate holding surface and a pressure chamber, which are made of an elastic membrane, wherein the pressure chamber has a plurality of areas arranged concentrically and a substrate is pressed against the polishing pad by a pressure in the pressure chamber (Shinozaki ‘412 English translation, p. 19:27-28, a substrate holding device has a substrate holding surface and a pressure chamber made of an elastic film. The substrate is pressed against the polishing pad by pressure in the pressure chamber; p. 7:21-28 and fig. 2, a plurality of chambers 5-8 are formed concentrically from the center toward the outer peripheral direction);
a pressure regulator configured to regulate a pressure of a gas that is supplied to the pressure chamber of the substrate holding member (Shinozaki ‘412 English translation, p. 8:15-21 and fig. 2, pressure regulators R1-R5 regulate supply of air or nitrogen to pressure chambers 5-8);
one or a plurality of release nozzles configured to inject a pressurized fluid (Shinozaki ‘412 English translation, p. 9:34-39 and fig. 4, a release nozzle 53 sprays a release shower made of a mixed fluid of pressurized nitrogen and pure water); and
a control device configured to perform a substrate release process of releasing the substrate from the elastic membrane, the substrate release process controlling the pressure regulator to pressurize entirety of the elastic membrane by pressurizing all the areas in the pressure chamber to have substantially same heights (Shinozaki ‘412 English translation, p. 11:22-31, a valve control unit 39 regulates pressure of fluid during a wafer release operation; p. 10:13-15, when performing the wafer release operation, the membrane formed by the chambers is pressurized with a low pressure and the membrane is expanded; fig. 7 and p. 14:1-5, in expanding the membrane, a valve opens to expand an outer chamber 8 and then inner chambers 7, 6, 5 subsequently to expand all areas of the pressure chamber. Claim of the instant application recites the pressure chamber has substantially same height, which means not every area of the pressure chamber has the same height. Fig. 8B of the instant application supports the feature that edges of the elastic membrane form a gap so that they do not have the same height compared with the height of another area of the pressure chamber. Fig. 7 of Shinozaki ‘412 shows that the edges of the membrane 4 have different heights while the pressure chamber close to the center area has about the same height. Thus, Shinozaki ‘412 teaches the recited claim limitations before applying higher pressure to the center area of the pressure chambers),
wherein meanwhile the substrate release process controls the one or plurality of release nozzles to inject the pressurized fluid to a contact location between the elastic membrane and the substrate (Shinozaki ‘412 English translation, p. 10:13-23, during the wafer release operation, the release nozzle 53 sprays pressurized fluid to a gap between the detached wafer and the elastic membrane 4), but does not disclose subsequently pressurizing a center portion of the elastic membrane by pressurizing the pressure chamber such as to make a pressure in one or multiple areas on a center side, which include an area at a center of the pressure chamber, higher than pressures in other areas.
Takahashi teaches, in an analogous polishing apparatus field of endeavor, the wafer release operation includes subsequently pressurizing a center portion of the elastic membrane by pressurizing the pressure chamber such as to make a pressure in one or multiple areas on a center side, which include an area at a center of the pressure chamber, higher than pressures in other areas (col. 5:27-40, in removing a substrate from a substrate holding device, the pressure chambers initially have uniform pressure as shown in fig. 1. Then, inside pressure of chamber 2 [corresponds to the recited chamber at a center side] is increased so that a center portion of a backing member bulges to remove the substrate. Takahashi teaches the subsequent expanding of the center area of the pressure chamber after the entire pressurization of the pressure chambers, which is taught by Shinozaki ‘412).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the substrate releasing operation of Shinozaki ‘412 to pressurize the center portion of the elastic membrane as taught by Takahashi so that the membrane pushes out the substrate and the substrate is easily removed from the substrate holding device (Takahashi, col. 5:28-31).
Regarding claim 4, Shinozaki ‘412 as modified by Takahashi teaches the apparatus for polishing as in the rejection of claim 1, wherein the control device controls the release nozzle to start injection of the pressurized fluid during the pressurization of the entirety of the elastic membrane after elapse of a predetermined delay time since a start of the pressurization of the entirety of the elastic membrane (Shinozaki ‘412 English translation, p. 8:15-21 and 10:13-22, a control unit controls pressure of fluid. The pressurized fluid is sprayed from a release nozzle 53 to a gap formed between the wafer and the elastic membrane. The expansion of the membrane results in forming the gap, then the pressurized fluid is sprayed. Therefore, the start of spraying is done at a predetermined delay time since the pressurization/expansion of the membrane).
Regarding claim 5, Shinozaki ‘412 as modified by Takahashi teaches the apparatus for polishing as in the rejection of claim 1, wherein the control device pressurizes the center portion of the elastic membrane by pressurizing the pressure chamber such as to make a pressure in the area at the center of the pressure chamber higher than pressures in other areas (Takahashi, col. 5:27-40, in removing a substrate from a substrate holding device, the inside pressure of chamber 2 [corresponds to the recited center portion of the elastic membrane] is increased so that a center portion of a backing member bulges to remove the substrate).
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Shinozaki ‘412 as modified by Takahashi teaches the apparatus for polishing as in the rejection of claims 1 and 6 respectively, but does not disclose the one or multiple areas on the center side, which include the area at the center of the pressure chamber, are one or multiple areas included in a range from the center of the pressure chamber to a length in a radial direction of not greater than 50% of a radius of the pressure chamber (as to claim 6), or in the radial direction of 40% to 50% of the radius of the pressure chamber (as to claim 7).
Takahashi disclose the center pressure chamber 2, but does not define whether a radius of the center chamber is not greater than 50% of a radius of the pressure chamber, or 40% to 50% of the radius of the pressure chamber.
Takahashi discloses increasing the inside pressure of the chamber 2, which is the center chamber, and it leads the chamber 2 to bulge (col. 5:27-36). A radius of the center chamber to be expanded is a result effective variable in that an expansion size of the center chamber affects ease of the substrate removal and effectiveness of pressurized fluid injection for the substrate removal. It appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying Takahashi’s center chamber to have a radius within the claimed range, as it involves only adjusting the dimension of a component disclosed to require adjustment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the center chamber of Takahashi by making the radius not be greater than 50% or 40-50% of the radius of the pressure chamber as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See MPEP 2144.05(II).
Regarding claim 8, Shinozaki ‘412 as modified by Takahashi teaches the apparatus for polishing as in the rejection of claim 1, wherein an injection direction of the one or plurality of release nozzles is directed toward the center of the substrate (Shinozaki ‘412 English translation, p. 9:34-39, a plurality of release nozzles 53 is provided at predetermined intervals along a circumferential direction of a polishing head guide and the nozzles spray the pressurized fluid to radially inward direction of the polishing head guide. Therefore, the spray direction is directed toward the center of the substrate).
Regarding claim 9, Shinozaki ‘412 as modified by Takahashi teaches the apparatus for polishing as in the rejection of claim 1, wherein the pressurized fluid injected from the release nozzle is a liquid (Shinozaki ‘412 English translation, p. 10:22-23, the release shower sprayed from the release nozzle may be only a pressurized liquid).
Regarding claim 10, Shinozaki ‘412 as modified by Takahashi teaches the apparatus for polishing as in the rejection of claim 1, wherein the pressurized fluid injected from the release nozzle is a gas (Shinozaki ‘412 English translation, p. 10:22-23, the release shower sprayed from the release nozzle may be only a pressurized gas).
Regarding claim 11, Shinozaki ‘412 as modified by Takahashi teaches the apparatus for polishing as in the rejection of claim 1, wherein the pressurized fluid injected from the release nozzle is a liquid and a gas (Shinozaki ‘412 English translation, p. 10:22-23, the release shower sprayed from the release nozzle may be combination of pressurized gas and liquid).
Regarding claim 12, Shinozaki ‘412 as modified by Takahashi teaches the apparatus for polishing as in the rejection of claim 1, wherein the release nozzle is connected with a liquid supply source and with a gas supply source to inject a liquid and/or a gas as the pressurized fluid (Shinozaki ‘412 English translation, p. 10:32-40, the fluid sprayed from the release nozzle 53 is supplied from a fluid supply source 30).
Regarding claim 13, Shinozaki ‘412 discloses a method of polishing a substrate by using a substrate holding member having a substrate holding surface and a pressure chamber, which are made of an elastic membrane, wherein the pressure chamber has a plurality of areas arranged concentrically (Shinozaki ‘412 English translation, p. 19:27-28, a substrate holding device has a substrate holding surface and a pressure chamber made of an elastic film. The substrate is pressed against the polishing pad by pressure in the pressure chamber for polishing; p. 7:21-28 and fig. 2, a plurality of chambers 5-8 are formed concentrically from the center toward the outer peripheral direction), the method comprising:
pressing the substrate against a polishing pad by a pressure in the pressure chamber and moving the substrate and the polishing pad relative to each other to polish the substrate (Shinozaki ‘412 English translation, p. 3:3-17, a wafer is pressed against the polishing surface of the polishing pad with a predetermined pressure by a pressure chamber);
holding the substrate after being polished, onto the substrate holding surface of the substrate holding member (fig. 10 and Shinozaki ‘412 English translation, p. 4:1-5, after polishing, the wafer is held on a wafer holding surface 104a); and
releasing the substrate from the elastic membrane when the substrate is transferred from the substrate holding member to a substrate transfer apparatus (fig. 3 and Shinozaki ‘412 English translation, p. 9:19-26, a pusher 50 transfers a wafer from the polishing head comprising the wafer holding surface to a transfer device),
wherein the releasing comprises:
overall pressurization of pressurizing entirety of the elastic membrane by pressurizing all the areas in the pressure chamber to have substantially same heights (Shinozaki ‘412 English translation, p. 10-13-15, when performing the wafer release operation, the membrane formed by the chambers is pressurized with a low pressure and the membrane is expanded; fig. 7 and p. 14:1-5, in expanding the membrane, a valve opens to expand an outer chamber 8 and then inner chambers 7, 6, 5 subsequently to expand all areas of the pressure chamber. Claim of the instant application recites the pressure chamber has substantially same height, which means not every area of the pressure chamber has the same height. Fig. 8B of the instant application supports the feature that edges of the elastic membrane form a gap so that they do not have the same height compared with the height of another area of the pressure chamber. Fig. 7 of Shinozaki ‘412 shows that the edges of the membrane 4 have different heights while the pressure chamber close to the center area has about the same height. Thus, Shinozaki ‘412 teaches the recited claim limitations before applying higher pressure to the center area of the pressure chambers); and
injecting a pressurized fluid to a contact location between the elastic membrane and the substrate from the one or plurality of release nozzles configured to inject the pressurized fluid, at least while the center portion of the elastic membrane is pressurized (Shinozaki ‘412 English translation, p. 10:13-23, during the wafer release operation, the release nozzle 53 sprays pressurized fluid to a gap between the detached wafer and the elastic membrane 4), but does not disclose center portion pressurization of pressurizing a center portion of the elastic membrane by pressurizing the pressure chamber to make a pressure in one or multiple areas on a center side, which include an area at a center of the pressure chamber, higher than pressures in other areas.
Takahashi teaches, in an analogous polishing apparatus field of endeavor, center portion pressurization of pressurizing a center portion of the elastic membrane by pressurizing the pressure chamber to make a pressure in one or multiple areas on a center side, which include an area at a center of the pressure chamber, higher than pressures in other areas (col. 5:27-40, in removing a substrate from a substrate holding device, the pressure chambers initially have uniform pressure as shown in fig. 1. Then, inside pressure of chamber 2 [corresponds to the recited chamber at a center side] is increased so that a center portion of a backing member bulges to remove the substrate. Takahashi teaches the subsequent expanding of the center area of the pressure chamber after the entire pressurization of the pressure chambers, which is taught by Shinozaki ‘412).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the substrate releasing operation of Shinozaki ‘412 to pressurize the center portion of the elastic membrane as taught by Takahashi so that the membrane pushes out the substrate and the substrate is easily removed from the substrate holding device (Takahashi, col. 5:28-31).
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shinozaki (JP 2016055412A, hereinafter Shinozaki ‘412) in view of Takahashi (US 6135858), as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Shinozaki et al. (US 2017/0050289, hereinafter Shinozaki ‘289) and Kamata (KR 20170108850A).
Regarding claim 2, Shinozaki ‘412 as modified by Takahashi teaches the apparatus for polishing as in the rejection of claim 1, wherein the control device is configured to perform overall pressurization of pressurizing the entirety of the elastic membrane and subsequently perform center portion pressurization of pressurizing the center portion of the elastic membrane (as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above, Shinozaki ‘412 as modified by Takahashi teaches the control device perform the recited release operation), but does not disclose a detection device configured to detect a release of the substrate from the elastic membrane, wherein the control device terminates the substrate release process when the detection device detects the release of the substrate from the elastic membrane.
Shinozaki ‘289 teaches, in an analogous polishing apparatus field of endeavor, a detection device configured to detect a release of the substrate from the elastic membrane, wherein the control device terminates the substrate release process when the detection device detects the release of the substrate from the elastic membrane (¶ 286, a release detection sensor detects release of a substrate. The release operation may be continued for a predetermined time. The release operation may be ended when the release detection sensor detects the substrate is released).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the wafer polishing apparatus of Shinozaki ‘412 as modified by Takahashi to provide the detection device as taught by Shinozaki ‘289 so that next operation after the release of the wafer can be performed automatically.
Shinozaki ‘412 as modified by Takahashi and Shinozaki ‘289 still does not disclose the control device is configured to perform the release operation a predetermined number of times.
Kamata teaches, in an analogous polishing apparatus field of endeavor, control device is configured to perform the release operation a predetermined number of times (Kamata English translation, p. 10:2-10, if a waver is not released, a wafer release retry operation is repeated until a user defined number of retry operations has reached).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the wafer polishing apparatus of Shinozaki ‘412 as modified by Takahashi and Shinozaki ‘289 to repeat the release operation until the predetermined number of times as taught by Kamata. After trying the predetermined number of times, the control device issues an alarm signal so that an operator may resolve an issue (Kamata English translation, p. 10:8-10).
Regarding claim 3, Shinozaki ‘412 as modified by Takahashi, Shinozaki ‘289, and Kamata teaches the apparatus for polishing as in the rejection of claim 2, wherein the control device is configured to perform one control cycle repeatedly up to a predetermined upper limit number of times, wherein one control cycle performing the overall pressurization and subsequently performing the center portion pressurization the predetermined number of times, and the control device terminates the substrate release process when the detection device detects the release of the substrate from the elastic membrane (As discussed in the rejection of claim 1, Shinozaki ‘412 as modified by Takahashi teaches the recited wafer release operation; Kamata English translation, p. 10:2-10, if a waver is not released, a wafer release retry operation is repeated until a user defined number of retry operations has reached; Shinozaki ‘289, ¶ 286, the release operation ends when the release detection sensor detects the substrate is released).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shinozaki (JP 2016055412A, hereinafter Shinozaki ‘412), in view of Takahashi (US 6135858, cited on 06/26/2025 IDS) and Swedek et al. (US 2019/0283204, hereinafter Swedek).
Regarding claim 14, Shinozaki ‘412 discloses a control method of an apparatus for polishing, the apparatus for polishing being configured to polish a substrate by using a substrate holding member having a substrate holding surface and a pressure chamber, which are made of an elastic membrane, wherein the pressure chamber has a plurality of areas arranged concentrically (Shinozaki ‘412 English translation, p. 19:27-28, a substrate holding device has a substrate holding surface and a pressure chamber made of an elastic film. The substrate is pressed against the polishing pad by pressure in the pressure chamber for polishing; p. 7:21-28 and fig. 2, a plurality of chambers 5-8 are formed concentrically from the center toward the outer peripheral direction), the method comprising:
pressing the substrate against a polishing pad by a pressure in the pressure chamber and moving the substrate and the polishing pad relative to each other to polish the substrate (Shinozaki ‘412 English translation, p. 3:3-17, a wafer is pressed against the polishing surface of the polishing pad with a predetermined pressure by a pressure chamber);
holding the substrate after being polished, onto the substrate holding surface of the substrate holding member (fig. 10 and Shinozaki ‘412 English translation, p. 4:1-5, after polishing, the wafer is held on a wafer holding surface 104a); and
releasing the substrate from the elastic membrane when the substrate is transferred from the substrate holding member to a substrate transfer apparatus (fig. 3 and Shinozaki ‘412 English translation, p. 9:19-26, a pusher 50 transfers a wafer from the polishing head comprising the wafer holding surface to a transfer device),
wherein the releasing comprises:
overall pressurization of pressurizing entirety of the elastic membrane by pressurizing all the areas in the pressure chamber to have substantially same heights (Shinozaki ‘412 English translation, p. 10:13-15, when performing the wafer release operation, the membrane formed by the chambers is pressurized with a low pressure and the membrane is expanded; fig. 7 and p. 14:1-5, in expanding the membrane, a valve opens to expand an outer chamber 8 and then inner chambers 7, 6, 5 subsequently to expand all areas of the pressure chamber. Claim of the instant application recites the pressure chamber has substantially same height, which means not every area of the pressure chamber has the same height. Fig. 8B of the instant application supports the feature that edges of the elastic membrane form a gap so that they do not have the same height compared with the height of another area of the pressure chamber. Fig. 7 of Shinozaki ‘412 shows that the edges of the membrane 4 have different heights while the pressure chamber close to the center area has about the same height. Thus, Shinozaki ‘412 teaches the recited claim limitations before applying higher pressure to the center area of the pressure chambers); and
injecting a pressurized fluid to a contact location between the elastic membrane and the substrate from the one or plurality of release nozzles configured to inject the pressurized fluid, at least while the center portion of the elastic membrane is pressurized (Shinozaki ‘412 English translation, p. 10:13-23, during the wafer release operation, the release nozzle 53 sprays pressurized fluid to a gap between the detached wafer and the elastic membrane 4), but does not disclose center portion pressurization of pressurizing a center portion of the elastic membrane by pressurizing the pressure chamber to make a pressure in one or multiple areas on a center side, which include an area at a center of the pressure chamber, higher than pressures in other areas.
Takahashi teaches, in an analogous polishing apparatus field of endeavor, center portion pressurization of pressurizing a center portion of the elastic membrane by pressurizing the pressure chamber to make a pressure in one or multiple areas on a center side, which include an area at a center of the pressure chamber, higher than pressures in other areas (col. 5:27-40, in removing a substrate from a substrate holding device, the pressure chambers initially have uniform pressure as shown in fig. 1. Then, inside pressure of chamber 2 [corresponds to the recited chamber at a center side] is increased so that a center portion of a backing member bulges to remove the substrate. Takahashi teaches the subsequent expanding of the center area of the pressure chamber after the entire pressurization of the pressure chambers, which is taught by Shinozaki ‘412).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the substrate releasing operation of Shinozaki ‘412 to pressurize the center portion of the elastic membrane as taught by Takahashi so that the membrane pushes out the substrate and the substrate is easily removed from the substrate holding device (Takahashi, col. 5:28-31).
Shinozaki ‘412 as modified by Takahashi does not disclose the control method is done by a non-volatile storage medium configured to store therein a program that causes a computer to perform the control method.
Swedek teaches, in an analogous polishing apparatus field of endeavor, the control method is done by a non-volatile storage medium configured to store therein a program that causes a computer to perform the control method (¶ 0047, a polishing apparatus and execution of polishing operation is controlled by a non-transitory computer program products which are tangibly embodied in a machine-readable storage device).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the polishing apparatus of Shinozaki ‘412 as modified by Takahashi to provide the non-volatile storage medium as taught by Swedek in order to fully automate the polishing operation. Although Swedek does not disclose the wafer release operation, Shinozaki ‘412 discloses the control unit for controlling the release operation, therefore, Swedek can be combined with Shinozaki ‘412 to control the wafer release operation by the computer program product.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Shinozaki ‘412 and Takahashi do not teach or suggest the amended claim limitations that the substrate release process controlling the pressure regulator to pressurize entirety of the elastic membrane by pressurizing all the areas in the pressure chamber to have substantially same height. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Shinozaki ‘412 teaches pressurization of the all areas of the elastic membrane in the substrate release process and Takahashi teaches the subsequent process which is pressurization of the center portion of the elastic membrane.
The term “substantially same heights” means the elastic membrane does not have exactly the same height. Figure 8B, which is a schematic presentation, of the instant application shows edges of the elastic membrane are curved so that a gap is formed, and it makes they do not have the same height. It would be natural to have such an edge/gap configuration for the elastic membrane. The membrane of Shinozaki ‘412 has the same feature as shown in fig. 7. While low pressure is applied to the membrane (Shinozaki ‘412 English translation, p. 10:14-15), the pressure can be applied from the outer pressure chamber to the inner chambers (Shinozaki ‘412 English translation, p. 14:1-5). Shinozaki ‘412 does not teach the intentionally higher pressurization of the center area than the other area of the pressure chamber. Thus, it would achieve substantially the same height of the membrane. The edges would be naturally curved to form the gap due to elastic property of the membrane, which is the same as the instant application.
For the reasons above, the arguments are not persuasive.
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 SUKWOO JAMES CHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-7402. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00a-5:00p.
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, David Posigian can be reached at (313) 446-6546. 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.
/S.J.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/DAVID S POSIGIAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723