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 of Claims
Claims 1-21 are pending. Claims 1 and 9 are amended. Claim 1 is an independent claim. Claims 1-21 are currently examined on the merits.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 14-16, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al (CN 102181919 A, machine translation, “Li”), and further in view of Furukawa et al (US 20050183660 A1, “Furukawa”) and Tanahashi et al (US 20070190809 A1, “Tanahashi”)
Regarding claim 1, Li teaches a method comprising contacting a silicon seed crystal with a silicon liquid (melt) (0027 and 0038), wherein the silicon melt is contained within a crucible and comprises a molten silicon (0026 and 0037); pulling (withdrawing) the silicon seed crystal from the silicon melt to form a test crystal (sample rod) comprising single crystal silicon (abstract, 0009, 0010, 0027, 0038), the sample rod (test crystal) having a main body and comprising a central axis, a circumferential edge, and a diameter (fig 1, 0010, 0019, 0027 and claim 1); processing/grinding (lapping) a plane (apparently having a thickness) (slab) produced from the test silicon single crystal (sample rod) (0010, 0028, 0039 and claim 1), and measuring a resistivity of the slab/plane (0010, 0011, 0028, 0029 and claim 1).
Li teaches that the sample crystal/rod processed into the plane/slab as addressed above, but does not explicitly slicing the slab/plane comprising a longitudinal plane encompassing at least a portion of the central axis of the sample rod, and annealing the slab to annihilate thermal donors. However, Furukawa teaches a method of forming a silicon single crystal ingot, wherein after the ingot is pulled from a silicon melt stored in a crucible, the ingot is sliced into a reference sample (having a thickness) along the axial direction (longitudinal plane) of the ingot, and the sample/slab containing a portion of the central axis of the ingot, and the reference sample (slab) is heat-treated (annealed) (figs 3a, 3b and 19, 0015-0025, 0030, 0064, 0073, 0090, 0096 and 0103). Therefore. it would have been obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have modified Li and sliced the sample crystal of Li to produce and anneal the plane/slab comprising the central axis of the sample crystal as suggested by Furukawa in order to provide a method of identifying defect distribution along an axial direction of the silicon ingot, and providing an ingot with desired/suitable properties for various applications (Furukawa 0001, 0015, 0016). Li/Furukawa teaches the heat treatment (annealing) of the sample/slab as just addressed. Therefore, “annihilate thermal donors” is reasonably expected because a similar process/method is expected to produce similar results/effects.
Li/Furukawa teaches the heat treatment (annealing) of the sample/slab as addressed above, but does not explicitly teach irradiating the slab with light to enhance a resistivity relaxation rate of the slab, wherein the light has a wavelength between 0.75 micrometers to 1000 micrometers or between 400 nanometers to 4.5 micrometers. However, Tanahashi teaches a method, wherein a silicon crystal CZ wafer is irradiated with an infrared light, and the light having a wavelength of 7-25 micrometers (abstract, 0012, 0037-0038, 0059 and 0071). Therefore, it would have been obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have modified Li/Furukawa per teachings of Tanahashi in order to remove voids within the wafer (Tanahashi 0064). Li/Furukawa/Tanahashi teaches irradiating the slab with light as just addressed. Therefore, “enhance a resistivity relaxation rate of the slab” is reasonably expected because a similar process/method is expected to produce similar results/effects.
Li/Furukawa/Tanahashi teaches measuring the resistivity of the slab as addressed above, but does not explicitly teach the measuring being performed after irradiating the slab. However, since Li/Furukawa/Tanahashi explicitly teaches a process of measuring the resistivity of the slab, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found obvious to measure the resistivity of the slab utilizing the measuring process of Li/Furukawa/Tanahashi in order to provide specific/accurate resistivities of the slab for further applications.
Regarding claim 2, Li/Furukawa/Tanahashi teaches growing a single crystal silicon ingot from the silicon melt (Li abstract; Furukawa 0015).
Regarding claim 4, Li/Furukawa/Tanahashi teaches that after measuring the resistivity of the slab/plane (test sample) obtained from the test crystal, if the resistivity of the test sample does not meet the target resistivity, adding/performing a second doping (adding a dopant) to the melt, and growing a single crystal silicon from the melt having a target resistivity (different from the resistivity of the test/sample crystal) (Li abstract, 0006, 0016, 0030-0034, 0041-0044).
Regarding claim 14, Li/Furukawa/Tanahashi teaches that a length of the test silicon single crystal is greater than 6 cm (60 mm) (Li claim 2), overlapping the instantly claimed length. Overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) (MPEP 2144.05 I).
Regarding claim 15, Li/Furukawa/Tanahashi teaches that a length of the test silicon single crystal is 2-3 cm (20-30 mm) (Li claim 2), within the instantly claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) (MPEP 2144.05 I).
Regarding claim 16, Li/Furukawa/Tanahashi teaches that the slab has a thickness of 500 to 2000 m (0.5 to 2 mm) (Furukawa 0064, 0073, 0090, 0096 and 0103), overlapping the instantly claimed thickness. Overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) (MPEP 2144.05 I).
Regarding claim 18, Li/Furukawa/Tanahashi teaches that the wafer/slab is irradiated with light having a wavelength of 7-25 micrometers (Tanahashi abstract and 0037-0038), within the instantly claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) (MPEP 2144.05 I).
Regarding claim 20, Li/Furukawa/Tanahashi teaches that the wafer/slab is irradiated for one hour (Tanahashi 0059), within the instantly claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) (MPEP 2144.05 I).
Claims 3 and 5-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li/Furukawa/Tanahashi as applied to claims 2 and 4 above, and further in view of Kang et al (US 20180237937 A1, “Kang”).
Regarding claim 3, Li/Furukawa/Tanahashi teaches the single crystal silicon ingot, but does not explicitly teach the resistivity being of at least about 500 Ω-cm. However, Kang (entire document) teaches a method of producing silicon ingot, wherein the silicon ingot has a resistivity of 8 kΩcm or more (abstract and 0007). Therefore, it would have been obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have modified Li/Furukawa/ Tanahashi per teachings of Kang in order to provide a single crystal ingot having a target resistivity to meet various applications (Kang 0006, 0007 and 0056).
Regarding claim 5, Li/Furukawa/Tanahashi teaches the single crystal silicon ingot, but does not explicitly teach the resistivity being of at least about 500 Ω-cm. However, Kang (entire document) teaches a method of producing silicon ingot, wherein the silicon ingot has a resistivity of 8 kΩcm or more (abstract and 0007). Therefore, it would have been obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have modified Li/Furukawa/ Tanahashi per teachings of Kang in order to provide a single crystal ingot having a target resistivity to meet various applications (Kang 0006, 0007 and 0056).
Regarding claim 6, Li/Furukawa/Tanahashi teaches the silicon single crystal ingot being doped, but does not explicitly teach that the single crystal silicon ingot is a p-type single crystal silicon ingot and the added dopant is selected from the group consisting of phosphorus, arsenic, and antimony and wherein the dopant is added to increase the resistivity of the p-type single crystal silicon ingot. However, Kang teaches a method of producing silicon ingot, wherein the silicon ingot is p-type and a second dopant is phosphorus (0022, 0027 and claim 3). Therefore, it would have been obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have modified Li/Furukawa/Tanahashi per teachings of Kang in order to provide a single crystal ingot having a target resistivity to meet various applications (Kang 0006, 0007 and 0056). Further, it is well-established that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). Also see MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding claim 7, Li/Furukawa/Tanahashi teaches that the silicon ingot has a resistivity of 8 kΩcm or more (Kang abstract and 0007), meeting the claim.
Regarding claim 8, Li/Furukawa/Tanahashi teaches the silicon single crystal ingot being doped, but does not explicitly teach that the single crystal silicon ingot is a p-type single crystal silicon ingot and the added dopant is selected from the group consisting of boron, gallium, and aluminum and wherein the dopant is added to decrease the resistivity of the p-type single crystal silicon ingot. However, Kang teaches a method of producing silicon ingot, wherein the silicon ingot is p-type and a boron is added as dopant (0003, 0022, 0027 and claim 3). Therefore, it would have been obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have modified Li/Furukawa/Tanahashi per teachings of Kang in order to provide a single crystal ingot having a target resistivity to meet various applications (Kang 0006, 0007 and 0056). Further, it is well-established that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). Also see MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding claim 9, Li/Furukawa/Tanahashi teaches that the silicon ingot has a resistivity of 8 kΩcm or more (Kang abstract and 0007), meeting the claim.
Regarding claim 10, Li/Furukawa/Tanahashi teaches the silicon single crystal ingot being doped, but does not explicitly teach that the single crystal silicon ingot is a n-type single crystal silicon ingot and the added dopant is selected from the group consisting of boron, gallium, and aluminum and wherein the dopant is added to increase the resistivity of the n-type single crystal silicon ingot. However, Kang teaches a method of producing silicon ingot, wherein the silicon ingot is n-type and a boron is added as dopant (0003, 0022, 0027). Therefore, it would have been obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have modified Li/Furukawa/Tanahashi per teachings of Kang in order to provide a single crystal ingot having a target resistivity to meet various applications (Kang 0006, 0007 and 0056). Further, it is well-established that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). Also see MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding claim 11, Li/Furukawa/Tanahashi teaches that the silicon ingot has a resistivity of 8 kΩcm or more (Kang abstract and 0007), meeting the claim.
Regarding claim 12, Li/Furukawa/Tanahashi teaches the silicon single crystal ingot being doped, but does not explicitly teach that the single crystal silicon ingot is a n-type single crystal silicon ingot and the added dopant is selected from the group consisting of phosphorus, arsenic, and antimony and wherein the dopant is added to decrease the resistivity of the n-type single crystal silicon ingot. However, Kang teaches a method of producing silicon ingot, wherein the silicon ingot is n-type and a second dopant is phosphorus (0003, 0022, 0027). Therefore, it would have been obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have modified Li/Furukawa/Tanahashi per teachings of Kang in order to provide a single crystal ingot having a target resistivity to meet various applications (Kang 0006, 0007 and 0056). Further, it is well-established that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). Also see MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding claim 13, Li/Furukawa/Tanahashi teaches that the silicon ingot has a resistivity of 8 kΩcm or more (Kang abstract and 0007), meeting the claim.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li/Furukawa/Tanahashi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shoji Tsuruta et al (US 5449883 A, “Shoji”).
Regarding claim 17, Li/Furukawa/Tanahashi teaches annealing the slab to annihilate thermal donors as addressed above, but does not explicitly teach annealing the slab at a temperature of at least 500°C for no more than 60 minutes. However, Shoji (entire document) teaches a method of processing a wafer, wherein a test wafer is processed at a temperature of 600 degrees to 650 degrees for 30 to 60min to annihilate thermal donors (abstract, col 3 lines 1-6; col 6 lines 49-64). Therefore, it would have been obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have modified Li/Furukawa/Tanahashi per teachings of Shoji in order to provide suitable conditions for annihilating thermal donors (Shoji abstract). Furthermore, it is well-established that “[W]here 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.” In reAller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li/Furukawa/Tanahashi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Takahiro Mori (US 20160211325 A1, “Mori”).
Regarding claim 19, Li/Furukawa/Tanahashi teaches the slab is irradiated with light as addressed above, but does not explicitly teach the light having the wavelength between 400 nanometers to 4.5 micrometers. However, Mori teaches a method of processing silicon wafer, wherein the wafer is irradiated with a light having a wavelength of 532 nm (0131). Therefore, it would have been obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have modified Li/Furukawa/Tanahashi per teachings of Mori in order to provide a wafer for further application for example making as a semiconductor integrated circuit (Mori 0001 and 0131). Furthermore, it is well-established that “[W]here 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.” In reAller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li/Furukawa/Tanahashi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of SEMI (SEMI MF84-0307, ASTM INTERNATIONAL: “Test Method for Measuring Resistivity of Silicon Wafers with an In-Line Four-Point Probe", SEMI MF84-0307, 2005, 19pgs, “SEMI”).
Regarding claim 21, Li/Furukawa/Tanahashi teaches irradiating the slab and measuring a resistivity of the slab as addressed above, but does not explicitly teach that the slab is cooled to below 30°C before measuring the resistivity of the slab. However, it is a known practice that resistivity measurement of silicon wafer is performed with room temperature (23°C) as taught by SEMI (pages 1 and 18). Therefore, it would have been obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have modified Li/Furukawa/ Tanahashi per teachings of SEMI in order to provide conditions for measuring the resistivity with better precision (SEMI pages 1 and 18).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/19/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments that “none of the cited references, considered alone or in combination, describes or suggests the claimed sequence of events on a slab sliced from a sample rod. More specifically, claim 1 requires irradiating the slab after annealing to enhance a resistivity relaxation rate of the slab and, after irradiating, measuring a resistivity of the slab… Tanahashi does not disclose or suggest irradiating a slab to enhance a resistivity relaxation rate of the slab prior to measuring the resistivity of the slab ...” have been considered, but not found persuasive. As addressed above, it is noted that Li does not explicitly teach slicing the slab/plane comprising a longitudinal plane encompassing at least a portion of the central axis of the sample rod, and annealing the slab to annihilate thermal donors. However, Furukawa teaches a method of forming a silicon single crystal ingot, wherein after the ingot is pulled from a silicon melt stored in a crucible, the ingot is sliced into a reference sample (having a thickness) along the axial direction (longitudinal plane) of the ingot, and the sample/slab containing a portion of the central axis of the ingot, and the reference sample (slab) is heat-treated (annealed) (figs 3a, 3b and 19, 0015-0025, 0030, 0064, 0073, 0090, 0096 and 0103), e.g., after withdrawing the ingot, a process of slicing and annealing is carried out. Therefore. it would have been obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have modified Li and sliced the sample crystal of Li to produce and anneal the plane/slab comprising the central axis of the sample crystal as suggested by Furukawa in order to provide a method of identifying defect distribution along an axial direction of the silicon ingot, and providing an ingot with desired/suitable properties for various applications (Furukawa 0001, 0015, 0016). Thus, Li/Furukawa teaches events of the instantly claimed “a slab sliced from a sample rod.” Furthermore, Tanahashi explicitly teaches that a silicon crystal CZ wafer is irradiated with an infrared light (abstract, 0012, 0037-0038, 0059 and 0071). Therefore, it would have been obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have modified Li/Furukawa per teachings of Tanahashi in order to remove voids within the wafer (Tanahashi 0064). Moreover, it is well-established that selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results. In general, the transposition of process steps or the splitting of one step into two, where the processes are substantially identical or equivalent in terms of function, manner and result, was held not to patentably distinguish the process. Exparte Rubin, 128 USPQ 440 (Bd. Pat. App. 1959). Also see MPEP 2144.04 IV C.
Li/Furukawa/Tanahashi teaches the instantly claimed irradiating the slab with light as just addressed. Therefore, “enhance a resistivity relaxation rate of the slab” is reasonably expected because a similar process/method is expected to produce similar results/effects. It is well established that one who performs the steps of the known process must necessarily produce all of its advantages, e.g., the advantage or expected beneficial result would have been produced by the combination of references. See MPEP 2144 II. A rationale to support a conclusion that a claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 538, 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (2007); Sakraida v. AG Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 282, 189 USPQ 449, 453 (1976); Anderson' s-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co., 396 U.S. 57, 62-63, 163 USPQ 673, 675 (1969); Great Atlantic & P. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equip. Corp., 340 U.S. 147, 152, 87 USPQ 303, 306 (1950). See MPEP 2143.02. It is well established that one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “irradiating the slab to remove voids”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). In response to other teachings in Tanahashi, it is noted that the transitional term “comprising” is used in the instant claim. Therefore, any additional steps/features/ elements can be included in Tanahashi. The transitional term “comprising”, which is synonymous with “including,” “containing,” or “characterized by,” is inclusive or open-ended and does not exclude additional, unrecited elements or method steps (see MPEP 2111.03).
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, it is examiner’s position that a prima facie case of obviousness is well-established per teachings/combination of the instantly cited references.
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 Hua Qi whose telephone number is (571)272-3193. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-6pm.
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, Kaj Olsen can be reached at (571) 272-1344. 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.
/HUA QI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1714