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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s Amendment filed 06/25/2026 has been considered and is entered. Claim 1 has been amended. Claim 6 has been canceled and the subject matter concerning “Molecular Layer Deposition (MVD)” moved up into the independent claim 1. No new matter appears to have been made with this amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s Amendments and Arguments have changed the scope of the claims so as to overcome the art proffered in the prior office action. As such, the rejections over claims 1-13 set forth are withdrawn.
After further consideration and search however, the office makes a new grounds of rejection over claims 1-5 and 7-13 as set forth in the body of the office action below.
Applicant’s movement of claim 6’s remaining subject matter necessitated the new grounds.
Concerning the argument that the reference Cha does not teach molecular layer deposition – Cha teaches at [0033] that ALD, PVD, or CVD, or any other suitable deposition technique may be used, and then goes on to recite that an ALD (Atomic Layer Deposition) process is used to deposit calcite by sublimating calcium in the presence of an ozone gas feed and nitrogen carrier gas. Calcite is not an atom - it is a molecular compound (Calcium Carbonate) - the reference is thus describing Molecular Layer Deposition.
Applicant’s arguments regarding claim 14-16 are not persuasive and these rejections are maintained. Lee discloses the modification of a substrate with a polymer coating that may be hydrophobic or hydrophilic – the provision of this coating thus changes the nature of the substrate that it is placed upon, that substrate being the substrate of Cha, where the provision of hydrophobic modification from Lee renders the substrate of Cha hydrophobic and in some embodiments a further thin film may be placed thereon to form a thin film. The substrates of the instant claims are held generic, and their hydrophobicity or hydrophilicity is a property emerging therefrom – properties do not exist in a vacuum, they are emergent from structure, and the structure (a substrate) has been found in the art. Further limitations setting forth what makes the claimed substrates hydrophobic or hydrophilic, such as composition of the substrate(s), would be considered persuasive to this matter.
Regarding applicant’s assertion that claim 17 was not officially rejected in the prior office action, the Examiner respectfully disagrees – Claim 17 was listed as rejected on the Office Action Summary sheet (PTOL-326) and the subject matter of claim 17 had also been rejected in the section regarding the rejection of claim 16. An unintended typographical error resulted in claim 17 not being listed alongside claim 16 in this section’s header – however the subject matter of claim 17, wherein the thin-film is removed by etching the surface of the substrate, is discussed in the second-to-last paragraph of the claim rejection of claim 16 (from which claim 17 is dependent) on page 15 of the previous office action. Therein, the removing of a thin film as taught by Lee would be inherent to the etching process described by Cha as Cha teaches an etching down to the substrate to form a patterned substrate ([0004]). For clarity, claim 17 has been added to the header of that rejection in this action. The thrust of the rejection remains the same and thus the rejection is maintained.
Claim Objections
Claims1-5 and 7-13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “molecular layer deposition” and then abbreviates it (MVD). It is unclear if this abbreviation refers to Molecular Layer Deposition or Molecular Vapor Deposition. The specification does not clear this matter – it too recites MVD in relation to Molecular Layer Deposition at [0037] and [0039]. As the limitations of claim 1 are carried down to the dependent claims, the claims dependent from claim 1 are also objected to.
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 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cha et al (US 20210215658 A1, published 07/15/2021).
As a matter of claim interpretation – the claims discussed herein use “comprising” language, leaving open the scope of the claim to additional method steps and components. Prior art applied to the claims may include additional methods and components outside those explicitly required/recited by the claims.
Regarding claim 1-5, Cha discloses a method of making a portion of a microfluidic channel including lithographically patterning a first pattern into a first photoresist layer disposed on a substrate, disposing a second layer onto the patterned substrate and then patterning the second layer so as to reveal portions of the substrate, and depositing calcite onto the exposed portions of the patterned substrate (Abstract).
Cha does not disclose a specific experimental example of the procedure. However, the claim limitations are met by the general disclosure of the reference.
Referring to Fig 1, a photomask 102 is prepared from an image of a calcite channel structure as discussed in [0026].
A substrate 110 is coated with a photoresist 112, where the substrate may be silicon, quartz, glass, or another suitable material (glass is hydrophilic as the surface comprises -OH groups). The photoresist can be a negative photoresist such as a PDMS or SU-8 photoresist, applied by spin coating (claim 5), and then baked ([0027]) at . The photoresist may alternatively be a positive photoresist composition.
The photoresist 112 is lithographically patterned using a pattern mask 102 (placed atop the resist layer and exposing radiation through the mask) to form a first pattern 114. After exposure, a development process is performed to remove unwanted portions of the resist (claim 2) – in a positive resist the regions that are exposed to light are degraded by formed acid and removed by the developed (claim 3). In a negative resist the exposed regions remain behind, and the unexposed regions are soluble in the developer so as to be removed (claim 4).
An etching and the addition of a second patterned photoresist layer is performed as discussed from [0030]-[0032].
A layer of hydrophobic material, particularly calcite, alumina, or silica, is deposited onto the patterned photoresist, wherein this may be deposited by a thin-film deposition technique such as ALC, PVD, CVD, or another suitable deposition technique ([0033]). Concerning the claim limitation “molecular layer deposition” – the reference recites that calcite is deposited by the sublimation of calcium in the presence of ozone gas with nitrogen gas as a carrier – the reference may call this “ALD” - but Calcite, not Calcium, is deposited. Calcite is not an atom, it is a molecule, and as such the reference teaches Molecular Layer deposition.
After deposition of the calcite layer, the photoresist is removed in such a way that regions with calcite are present and also regions without calcite are present ([0034]).
A person having an ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to arrive at the claimed invention prior to the effective filing fate in view of the general disclosure of the reference - which teaches compositions , methods, and components substantially similar to those of the claim - to arrive at a microfluidic model useful for examining chemical and physical phenomena in larger underground systems.
Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cha et al (US 20210215658 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Park et al (KR 20100042815A1).
Regarding Claim 7, Cha discloses the limitations of the claim as discussed above regarding claim 1.
Cha however fails to disclose perfluorodecyltrichlorosilane (FDTS) as a component of the thin-film hydrophobic layer.
This limitation is met by Park.
Park discusses the nanopatterning of thin polymer films by controlled dewetting.
In the experimental conditions of Park (0031]-[0060], a prepatterned silicon substrate was treated with FDTS in order to control the surface energy of the substrate and form a highly hydrophobic surface and create differentially wettable regions on the wafer. A mesa pattern was coated onto the substrate using a polystyrene solution
Park establishes that hydrophobic films may be produced using FDTS so as to create highly hydrophobic surfaces. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to arrive at the claimed invention prior to the effective filing date by incorporating the FDTS of Park into the thin-film composition of Cha so as to arrive at an improved thin-film layer having increased hydrophobicity.
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cha et al (US 20210215658 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Akram (US 6103613 B2)
Regarding claim 8, Cha discloses the limitations of the claim as discussed above regarding claim 1.
Cha however fails to disclose that development is performed with NMP on a negative photoresist composition. Cha discloses multiple embodiments of negative resist compositions, such as SU-8 and polydimethylsiloxane resists, but does not name NMP as a solvent for developing such.
This limitation is met by Akram.
Akram discusses a method for fabricating an interconnect with high aspect ratio contact members, wherein the method includes the provision of a substrate, and forming a first conductive layer thereon, then depositing a photoresist to be used as a mask – wherein the photoresist comprises an epoxy, solvent, and photoinitiator (Abstract).
The resin used in the photoresist is SU-8, wherein coating and exposure are performed and developed – development may be performed using a PGMEA solvent, or a solution of n-methyl pyrrolidone (NMP).
Both Akram and Cha are concerned with lithographic patterning and products derived from such processing, as well as the chemical compositions and developers intertwined with such processing. As Cha and Akram recite the same type of negative resist composition – SU-8 - a person having ordinary skill in the art would naturally conclude that the developer recited by one reference to be used for SU-8 resists would be used in the method disclosed by another reference using the same SU-8 resists. This is a simple substitution of a known product to be used in a known process (NMP to be used in developing an SU-8 negative resist) to arrive at a predictable result (a patterned resist film). A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to arrive at the claimed invention prior to the filing date by way of substituting the NMP developer of Akram into the processing of Cha to arrive at a patterned resist film.
Claim(s) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cha et al (US 20210215658 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Haick et al (US 20210364461 A1)
Regarding claim 9 Cha discloses the limitations of the claim as discussed above regarding claim 1.
Cha however fails to disclose a substrate heating step prior to the provision of a photoresist layer.
This limitation is met by Haick.
Haick discloses a method of fabrication for a sensor using a lithographic process (Abstract, Background).
The manufacturing process includes a substrate that has been treated by way of heating it to remove moisture ([0180]) and any potential contaminants. Heating may be performed at 80 to 200 degrees Celsius. After this, an electrode array is formed thereupon and a photoresist formed atop. The photoresist may be SU-8 as a negative photoresist, where Su-8 is considered particularly preferable. After coating and solvent removal, exposure is performed, and the exposed resist is developed ([0171]-[0190]).
Both Cha and Haick are related by the requirement for lithographic processing to arrive at patterned articles, and recite the same photoresist embodiments as well as photolithographic steps (development, exposure, and the like). A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to arrive at the claimed invention prior to the effective filing date by incorporating the pre-coating heat treatment of the substrate as taught by Haick to remove contaminants from the substrate as a potential improvement upon the method of Cha – the removal of potential contaminants from a substrate may increase the performance/fidelity of a patterned resist film.
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cha et al (US 20210215658 A1) and Haick et al (US 20210364461 A1) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Morita et al (US 20200401044 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Cha and Haick disclose the limitations of the claim as discussed above regarding claim 9.
Cha and Haick however fail to disclose a step of applying an adhesive to a substrate after baking it and prior to the provision of a photoresist.
This limitation is met by Morita.
Morita discloses a patterning film and formation method therefor, using a polymer resist to be deposited onto a substrate as part of the film formation method (Abstract). The polymer resist and film made therefrom are discussed from [0031]-[0183].
The formation method of Morita is discussed from [0184]-[0214], wherein the preparation of the substrate and underlayer are discussed from [01984]-[0205].
The substrate may be silicon, glass, SiO2, or GaN, or an organic material. An anchor layer may be provided such as an adhesive, wherein the anchor layer serves to improve the adhesion between the substrate and an overlying film.
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to arrive at the claimed invention prior to the filing date by incorporating the adhesive treatment to the substrate as taught by Morita so as to improve the adhesion between the substrate and an overlying layer.
Claim(s) 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cha et al (US 20210215658 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Morita et al (US 20200401044 A1).
Regarding claims 11 and 12, Cha discloses the limitations of the claim as discussed above regarding claim 1.
Cha however fails to disclose a specific plasma cleaning step wherein the cleaning is performed with oxygen plasma.
This limitation is met by Morita.
Morita discloses a patterning film and formation method therefor, using a polymer resist to be deposited onto a substrate as part of the film formation method (Abstract). The polymer resist and film made therefrom are discussed from [0031]-[0183].
The formation method of Morita is discussed from [0184]-[0214], wherein the preparation of the substrate and underlayer are discussed from [01984]-[0205].
The substrate may be silicon, glass, SiO2, or GaN, or an organic material. An anchor layer may be provided such as an adhesive. The reference states that is preferable to clean the substrate before applying the pattern-forming material (photoresist) to the substrate – such cleaning may be performed using an oxygen plasma as discussed in [0198]. The cleaning treatment is considered by the reference to improve coatability of pattern-forming materials.
When discussing the resist film formation, a resist such as a positive novolac resist or a negative resist is coated atop the substrate and any intervening layers, then exposed to radiation. After exposure, a post-bake may be performed at 70 to 150 degrees Celsius, overlapping the claim limitations of claim 13. Post-baking allows for unresolved chemistries to complete.
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to arrive at the claimed invention prior to the effective filing date by using the oxygen plasma cleaning technique proposed by Morita so as to improve the coatability of photoresists atop the substrate, and to post-bake the exposed resist composition so as to improve the resultant patterned resist.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cha et al (US 20210215658 A1, published 07/15/2021) and Lee et al (RSC Lab Chip, 2015, 15, 3047, Photopatterned oil-reservoir micromodels with tailored wetting properties) (provided in IDS)
As a matter of claim interpretation – the claims discussed herein use “comprising” language, leaving open the scope of the claim to additional method steps and components. Prior art applied to the claims may include additional methods and components outside those explicitly required/recited by the claims.
Regarding claim 14, Cha discloses a method of making a portion of a microfluidic channel including lithographically patterning a first pattern into a first photoresist layer disposed on a substrate, disposing a second layer onto the patterned substrate and then patterning the second layer so as to reveal portions of the substrate, and depositing calcite onto the exposed portions of the patterned substrate (Abstract).
Cha does not disclose a specific experimental example. However, the claim limitations are met by the general disclosure of the reference.
Referring to Fig 1, a photomask 102 is prepared from an image of a calcite channel structure as discussed in [0026].
A substrate 110 is coated with a photoresist 112, where the substrate may be silicon, quartz, glass, or another suitable material (glass is hydrophilic as the surface comprises -OH groups). The photoresist can be a negative photoresist such as a PDMS or SU-8 photoresist, applied by spin coating, and then baked ([0027]) at . The photoresist may alternatively be a positive photoresist composition.
The photoresist 112 is lithographically patterned using a pattern mask 102 (placed atop the resist layer and exposing radiation through the mask) to form a first pattern 114. After exposure, a development process is performed to remove unwanted portions of the resist – in a positive resist the regions that are exposed to light are degraded by formed acid and removed by the developed . In a negative resist the exposed regions remain behind and the unexposed regions are soluble in the developer so as to be removed .
An etching and the addition of a second patterned photoresist layer is performed as discussed from [0030]-[0032].
A layer of hydrophobic material, particularly calcite, alumina, or silica, is deposited onto the patterned photoresist, wherein this may be deposited by a thin-film deposition technique such as ALC, PVD, CVD, or another suitable deposition technique.
After deposition of the calcite layer, the photoresist is removed in such a way that regions with calcite are present and also regions without calcite are present ([0034]).
Cha does not disclose a hydrophobic substrate.
This limitation is met by Lee, which discloses the formation of micromodels using lithographic patterning (Abstract), wherein the use of polymers and copolymers allow the tailoring of the surface of a microchannel (tuning the surface of a substrate) with hydrophilic or hydrophobic (oleophilic) polymer functionalization so as to affect the wettability thereof, allowing for differential control over the performance of the structures thereon. The copolymers of Lee may be hydrophilic as well as hydrophobic (see Figs 1 and Table 1) and function in a method akin to a negative resist – polymerization is initiated upon exposure to light. Cha teaches a negative resist – a person having ordinary skill in the art would consider using the hydrophilic composition layer of Lee in a thin-film deposition so as to tune the non-hydrophobic regions of the assembly.
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to arrive at the claimed consider such modification as taught by Lee to the surface of Cha so as to tune the properties of a resultant structure towards having differential hydrophobic and hydrophilic coverage to arrive at a microfluidic model useful for examining chemical and physical phenomena in larger underground systems.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cha et al (US 20210215658 A1, published 07/15/2021) and Lee et al (RSC Lab Chip, 2015, 15, 3047, Photopatterned oil-reservoir micromodels with tailored wetting properties) (provided in IDS)
As a matter of claim interpretation – the claims discussed herein use “comprising” language, leaving open the scope of the claim to additional method steps and components. Prior art applied to the claims may include additional methods and components outside those explicitly required/recited by the claims.
Regarding claim 15, Cha discloses a method of making a portion of a microfluidic channel including lithographically patterning a first pattern into a first photoresist layer disposed on a substrate, disposing a second layer onto the patterned substrate and then patterning the second layer so as to reveal portions of the substrate, and depositing calcite onto the exposed portions of the patterned substrate (Abstract).
Cha does not disclose a specific experimental example of this process. However, the claim limitations are met by the general disclosure of the reference.
Referring to Fig 1, a photomask 102 is prepared from an image of a calcite channel structure as discussed in [0026]. A substrate 110 is coated with a photoresist 112, where the substrate may be silicon, quartz, glass, or another suitable material (glass is hydrophilic as the surface comprises -OH groups). The photoresist can be a negative photoresist such as a PDMS or SU-8 photoresist, applied by spin coating, and then baked ([0027]) at . The photoresist may alternatively be a positive photoresist composition.
The photoresist 112 is lithographically patterned using a pattern mask 102 (placed atop the resist layer and exposing radiation through the mask) to form a first pattern 114. After exposure, a development process is performed to remove unwanted portions of the resist – in a positive resist the regions that are exposed to light are degraded by formed acid and removed by the developed. In a negative resist the exposed regions remain behind, and the unexposed regions are soluble in the developer so as to be removed.
An etching and the addition of a second patterned photoresist layer is performed as discussed from [0030]-[0032].
A layer of hydrophobic material, particularly calcite, alumina, or silica, is deposited onto the patterned photoresist, wherein this may be deposited by a thin-film deposition technique such as ALC, PVD, CVD, or another suitable deposition technique.
After deposition of the calcite layer, the photoresist is removed in such a way that hydrophobic regions with calcite are present and also hydrophilic regions without calcite are present ([0034]).
Cha does not disclose a hydrophobic thin-film.
This limitation is met by Lee, which discloses the formation of micromodels using lithographic patterning (Abstract), wherein the use of polymers and copolymers allow the tailoring of the surface of a microchannel with hydrophilic or hydrophobic (oleophilic) polymer functionalization so as to affect the wettability thereof, allowing for differential control over the performance of the structures thereon. The copolymers of Lee may be hydrophilic as well (see Figs 1 and Table 1) and function in a method akin to a negative resist – polymerization is initiated upon exposure to light. Cha teaches a negative resist – a person having ordinary skill in the art would consider using the hydrophilic composition layer of Lee in a thin-film deposition so as to tune the non-hydrophobic regions of the into become a hydrophobic substrate, and separately, to create hydrophilic regions thereatop as patternable by a mask A person having ordinary skill in the art would consider such modification as taught by Lee to the surface of Cha so as to tune the properties of a resultant structure towards having differential hydrophobic and hydrophilic coverage to arrive at a microfluidic model useful for examining chemical and physical phenomena in larger underground systems.
Claim 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cha et al (US 20210215658 A1, published 07/15/2021) and Lee et al (RSC Lab Chip, 2015, 15, 3047, Photopatterned oil-reservoir micromodels with tailored wetting properties) (provided in IDS)
As a matter of claim interpretation – the claims discussed herein use “comprising” language, leaving open the scope of the claim to additional method steps and components. Prior art applied to the claims may include additional methods and components outside those explicitly required/recited by the claims.
Regarding claim 16, Cha discloses a method of making a portion of a microfluidic channel including lithographically patterning a first pattern into a first photoresist layer disposed on a substrate, disposing a second layer onto the patterned substrate and then patterning the second layer so as to reveal portions of the substrate, and depositing calcite onto the exposed portions of the patterned substrate (Abstract).
Cha does not disclose a specific experimental example. However, the claim limitations are met by the general disclosure of the reference.
Referring to Fig 1, a photomask 102 is prepared from an image of a calcite channel structure as discussed in [0026]. A substrate 110 is coated with a photoresist 112, where the substrate may be silicon, quartz, glass, or another suitable material (glass is hydrophilic as the surface comprises -OH groups). The photoresist can be a negative photoresist such as a PDMS or SU-8 photoresist, applied by spin coating, and then baked ([0027]) at . The photoresist may alternatively be a positive photoresist composition.
The photoresist 112 is lithographically patterned using a pattern mask 102 (placed atop the resist layer and exposing radiation through the mask) to form a first pattern 114. After exposure, a development process is performed to remove unwanted portions of the resist – in a positive resist the regions that are exposed to light are degraded by formed acid and removed by the developed. In a negative resist the exposed regions remain behind and the unexposed regions are soluble in the developer so as to be removed.
An etching and the addition of a second patterned photoresist layer is performed as discussed from [0030]-[0032].
A layer of hydrophobic material, particularly calcite, alumina, or silica, is deposited onto the patterned photoresist, wherein this may be deposited by a thin-film deposition technique such as ALC, PVD, CVD, or another suitable deposition technique.
After deposition of the calcite layer, the photoresist is removed in such a way that hydrophobic regions with calcite are present and also hydrophilic regions without calcite are present ([0034]).
Cha does not explicitly disclose a hydrophobic substrate and does not disclose the provision of a hydrophilic thin film directly atop.
This limitation is met by Lee, which discloses the formation of micromodels using lithographic patterning (Abstract), wherein the use of polymers and copolymers allow the tailoring of the surface of a microchannel with hydrophilic or hydrophobic (oleophilic) polymer functionalization so as to affect the wettability thereof, allowing for differential control over the performance of the structures thereon. The copolymers of Lee may be hydrophilic as well (see Figs 1 and Table 1) and function in a method akin to a negative resist – polymerization is initiated upon exposure to light. Cha teaches a negative resist – a person having ordinary skill in the art would consider using the hydrophilic composition layer of Lee in a thin-film deposition before the resist so as to tune the non-hydrophobic regions of the assembly when the resist is removed.
Cha teaches the etching of the substrate to remove photoresist – removing the thin-film of Lee underneath would result from completely etching the resist down to the substrate so as to re-expose the hydrophobic material beneath.
A person having ordinary skill in the art would consider Lee’s modification to the surface of Cha so as to tune the properties of a resultant structure towards having differential hydrophobic and hydrophilic coverage to arrive at a microfluidic model useful for examining chemical and physical phenomena in larger underground systems.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ANDREW PRESTON TRAYWICK whose telephone number is (571)272-2982. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8-5.
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, Mark Huff can be reached at 571-272-1385. 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.
/A.P.T./Examiner, Art Unit 1737
/SALLY A MERKLING/SPE, Art Unit 1738
Prosecution Insights