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
The Amendment filed February 12, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-18, and 20-21 are pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 7 of Remarks, filed February 12, 2026, with respect to the prior art rejections of claims 15-20 have been fully considered and are persuasive; therefore the 35 U.S.C § 103 rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant has requested, see page 6 of Remarks, that the Double Patenting rejections be held in abeyance; therefore, those rejections remain, as repeated below from the previous Office Action.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-7 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11004685. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they would have been obvious over the reference claim(s) in view of Benson; Russell A. et al. (US 2009/0176375; hereinafter Benson).
18/350583
US 11004685
1. A method, comprising: depositing a first material to coat sidewalls of a plurality of layers and sidewalls of a mask overlying the plurality of layers with the first material, wherein the plurality of layers extend laterally beyond edges of the mask; removing the first material from the sidewalls of the mask and the sidewalls of the plurality of layers using an ashing process, wherein the removing of the first material consumes a portion of the mask to form a remaining mask; and etching the plurality of layers using the remaining mask as an etch mask.
2. The method according to claim 1, wherein the first material is a polymer.
1. A method, comprising: depositing a plurality of layers on a substrate; patterning a first mask overlying the plurality of layers; performing a first etching process on the plurality of layers using the first mask as an etching mask, wherein after the first etching process the plurality of layers extend laterally beyond the first mask, and sidewalls of the plurality of layers are tapered;
forming a polymer material along sidewalls of the first mask and sidewalls of the plurality of layers; removing the polymer material, wherein the removing of the polymer material consumes a portion of the first mask to form a remaining first mask; and performing a second etching process on the plurality of layers using the remaining first mask, wherein after the second etching process terminates a combined sidewall profile of the plurality of layers comprises a first portion and a second portion, and wherein a first angle of the first portion and a second angle of the second portion are different.
Regarding claims 1 and 2, US 11004685 discloses the limitations including forming a first material (polymer material) and removing the polymer material, but does not disclose in claim 1 that the forming is done by depositing and the removing is done by an ashing process. In the same field of endeavor, Benson discloses depositing a polymer (¶ [0005,0020-48]) and removing a polymer from a sidewall by ashing (¶ [0046]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art that the depositing and ashing disclosed by Benson may be used in the method of claim 1. One may have been motivated to do so because these are well known methods in the art for forming and removing a polymer. One would have had a reasonable expectation of success because of the similar materials and similar sidewalls, in the same field of endeavor.
Regarding claim 3, US 11004685 in view of Benson discloses the method of claim 2, wherein depositing the first material comprises performing a plasma process using CHF3, CH2F2, CF4, C2F6 or C4F8 gases as precursor gases (Benson; ¶ [0020]).
Regarding claim 4, US 11004685 in view of Benson discloses the method of claim 1, but does not disclose wherein after the first material (polymer material) is deposited, a thickness of the first material varies according to height.
However, as is known in the art and disclosed by Benson (¶ [0020]), depositing of the polymer material may occur during a plasma etching process, and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art for this to be the case for US 11004685 claim 1. It would also be known that as the etching process proceeds through a thickness of a layer or layers being etched, that the first portion of layer(s) etched are exposed to the polymer depositing etching process for a longer time period than the last portion of the layer(s) etched, and therefore a thickness of the first material may vary according to height (lateral thickness along the sidewall may vary according to vertical height of the sidewall).
Regarding claim 5, US 11004685 in view of Benson discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the ashing process exposes a top surface of the plurality of layers (US 11004685; after the first etching process the plurality of layers extend laterally beyond the first mask {and the ashing is subsequent}).
Regarding claim 6, US 11004685 in view of Benson discloses the method of claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the ashing process consumes a portion of the plurality of layers. However, it would have been known to a person having ordinary skill in the art that an ashing process may consume other organic materials which are present besides the mask. Therefore, for a case where a layer(s) of the plurality of layers comprises an organic material, one may expect that the ashing process consumes a portion of the layer(s).
Regarding claim 7, US 11004685 in view of Benson discloses the method of claim 1, but does not disclose wherein after removing the first material from the sidewalls of the mask, the remaining mask has a top surface that is concave. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art that the shape of the top surface may be impacted by number of process parameters (of at least the etching and ashing processes) and variables. Finding no evidence of criticality of the concave top surfaces, the Examiner concludes that a concave shape of a top surface of the remaining mask may be the result of routine optimization of various processing parameters included between patterning the first mask and removing the polymer material by ashing. It is in this regard that the claim limitation is considered met. See MPEP 2144.05.II.
Claims 8-11 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 11004685. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they would have been obvious over the reference claim(s) in view of Loh; Soon Yoong et al. (US 2010/0091424 A1; hereinafter Loh).
18/350583
US 11004685
8. A method, comprising: depositing a plurality of layers over a substrate; forming a first patterned photoresist over the plurality of layers; performing a first etching process to etch the plurality of layers using the first patterned photoresist as a first etching mask; forming a polymer layer on sidewalls of the plurality of layers, and sidewalls of the first patterned photoresist; removing the polymer layer, wherein during the removing of the polymer layer, a thickness of the first patterned photoresist is reduced to form a second patterned photoresist; and performing a second etching process to further etch the plurality of layers using the second patterned photoresist as a second etching mask.
11. A method, comprising: forming a first plurality of layers on a substrate, wherein a material composition of a first layer of the first plurality of layers is different than a material composition of a second layer of the first plurality of layers; forming a photoresist material over the first plurality of layers; patterning the photoresist material to form a first mask and a second mask; performing a first etching process using the first mask and the second mask as etching masks, wherein the first etching process removes portions of the first plurality of layers that extend between the first mask and the second mask to form a second plurality of layers underlying the first mask and a third plurality of layers underlying the second mask; forming a polymer along sidewalls of the first mask and the second mask, wherein sidewalls of the polymer are tapered; removing the polymer using an ashing process, wherein the ashing process consumes a portion of the first mask and a portion of the second mask, to form a remaining first mask and a remaining second mask, wherein a shape of the remaining first mask is different than a shape of the first mask and a shape of the remaining second mask is different than a shape of the second mask; performing a second etching process on the second plurality of layers and the third plurality of layers using the remaining first mask and the remaining second mask as etching masks, wherein the second etching process terminates when a sidewall profile of the second plurality of layers is a target sidewall profile, and the target sidewall profile comprises different portions of the target sidewall profile extending at different angles; and removing the remaining first mask and the remaining second mask.
Regarding claim 8, US 11004685 discloses the limitations including forming a first plurality of layers, wherein the ashing process consumes a portion of the first patterned photoresist to form a second (remaining) patterned photoresist, wherein a shape of the second patterned photoresist is different than a shape of the first patterned photoresist.
US 11004685 does not disclose in claim 11 that (1) the forming is done by depositing and (2) a thickness of the first patterned photoresist is reduced to form a second patterned photoresist.
In the same field of endeavor, Loh discloses depositing a plurality of layers (310,320,340; Fig 3; ¶ [0022]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art that the depositing disclosed by Loh may be used for the forming of claim 11. One may have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success because depositing is a well-known method in the art for forming layers.
Regarding (2), given that the ashing process consumes a portion of the first patterned photoresist, which results in a differently shaped photoresist pattern, it would have been obvious that a thickness of the first patterned photoresist was reduced corresponding to the consumption resulting in a different shape, the different shape comprising a reduced thickness.
Regarding claim 9, US 11004685 in view of Loh discloses the method according to claim 8, wherein the plurality of layers comprise a first layer (310; Fig 3; comprising a conductive material, for example, tantalum; ¶ [0024-25]) and a second layer (320; Fig 3; comprising a dielectric material, for example, silicon oxide; ¶ [0025]), and a first material of the first layer is different from a second material of the second layer.
Regarding claim 10, US 11004685 in view of Loh discloses the method according to claim 8, wherein the plurality of layers comprise a first layer (340; Fig 3; comprising a conductive material, for example, tantalum; ¶ [0024]) and a second layer (310; Fig 3; comprising the same material as 340; ¶ [0025]), and a first material of the first layer is different from a second material of the second layer.
Regarding claim 11, US 11004685 in view of Loh discloses the method according to claim 8, but does not disclose further comprising forming the polymer layer on top surfaces of the substrate. However, Loh discloses forming a polymer layer (190; Fig 1B; ¶ [0004 {007: “etch residues” is used interchangeably with “polymer”}] on sidewalls of a plurality of layers, comprising forming the polymer layer on top surfaces of a substrate (as shown in Fig 1B, a bottom edge of 190 is on the underlaying substrate). Accordingly, it would have been obvious that the polymer layer of claim 8 may be similarly on formed on top surfaces of the substrate. One would have been motivated to come to this conclusion, with a reasonable expectation of success because of the similar sidewall polymer formation on a similar structure.
Claims 12-14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 11004685. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they would have been obvious over the reference claim(s) in view of Loh; Soon Yoong et al. (US 2010/0091424 A1; hereinafter Loh), and further in view of Naeem; Munir D. et al. (US 5846884; hereinafter Naeem) and Benson; Russell A. et al. (US 2009/0176375; hereinafter Benson).
Regarding claim 12, US 11004685 in view of Loh discloses the method according to claim 8, but does not disclose wherein after performing the first etching process to etch the plurality of layers, a sidewall of a first layer of the plurality of layers extends at a first angle with respect to a major surface of the substrate, and a sidewall of a second layer of the plurality of layers extends at a second angle with respect to the major surface of the substrate, wherein the first angle and the second angle are equal.
In the same field of endeavor, Naeem discloses an etching process (¶ [Col 5, line 62 – Col 8, line 35]), comprising forming a polymer layer (230; Fig 3; Col 8, lines 32-25, Col 6, lines 29-33, Col 3, lines 10-) on sidewalls of a mask pattern (PR,114; Fig 3; Col 1, lines 48-50), as well as on sidewalls of an etched portion of a plurality of layers (102,104,106,108,110,112; Fig 3; Col 1, lines 25-58); and
In the same field of endeavor, Benson discloses an etching process which deposits a polymer layer (22’; Fig 4 ¶ [0025]) on sidewalls of an etched layer to protect against lateral etching of the sidewalls.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art that the polymer layer of US 11004685 would have been formed on sidewalls of the first layer and the second layer in addition to sidewalls of the first mask and second mask, since such polymer is commonly formed during plasma etching processes, as is known in the art (and Benson; ¶ [0004]). It would then be further obvious that the protective polymer layer would prevent lateral etching of the sidewalls and therefore satisfy the limitation of claim 12.
Regarding claim 13, US 11004685 in view of Loh, and further in view of Naeem and Benson discloses the method according to claim 12, but does not disclose wherein after performing the second etching process to further etch the plurality of layers, a sidewall of the first layer of the plurality of layers extends at a third angle with respect to the major surface of the substrate, and a sidewall of the second layer of the plurality of layers extends at a fourth angle with respect to the major surface of the substrate, wherein the third angle and the fourth angle are different.
However, this would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art because the second etching process of US 11004685 is done after the ashing process which removed the protective polymer layer discussed for claim 12. Considering a case where the first layer in the first layer comprises a different material from the second layer, it is known in the art that different materials may etch at different rates when using the same etching conditions, which is well-known in the art (see, for example, Sedigh Col 10, lines 47-53). Further, one may consider that a plasma process may include formation of a non-perpendicular sidewall angles (see, for example, Sedigh Col 5, lines 55-58), which also may be different angles because of the different etching behavior of the different materials.
Regarding claim 14, US 11004685 in view of Loh, and further in view of Naeem and Benson discloses the method according to claim 13, but does not disclose wherein the first etching process and the second etching process are performed using the same etchants; however, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art that this may be the case.
US 11004685 does not disclose whether the etchants are the same or different between the first etching process and the second etching process, and the Examiner considers that the polymer layer formation and removal are identified as needing to occur between the first etching and second etching processes, but is silent as to the etchants used, suggesting they may be less important that the polymer layer formation and removal. Therefore, absent evidence to the contrary, the Examiner concludes that the etchants may be determined at least through routine optimization of various processing parameters to achieve a desired result. See MPEP 2144.05.II.
Claims 15, and 18-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 11004685. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they would have been obvious over the reference claim(s) in view of Naeem; Munir D. et al. (US 5846884; hereinafter Naeem).
18/350583
US 11004685
15. A method, comprising: forming a plurality of layers over a first region of a substrate and a second region of the substrate; forming a first mask and a second mask over the plurality of layers, wherein the first mask overlaps the first region of the substrate, and the second mask overlaps the second region of the substrate; performing a first etching process using the first mask and the second mask as etching masks, wherein the first etching process removes portions of the plurality of layers that are disposed between the first region and the second region, wherein after the first etching process, remaining portions of the plurality of layers comprise a first portion of the plurality of layers that is overlapped by the first mask, and a second portion of the plurality of layers that is overlapped by the second mask; and forming a polymer layer on sidewalls of the first mask and the second mask, as well as on sidewalls of the first portion of the plurality of layers and the second portion of the plurality of layers.
19. The method according to claim 15, further comprising: performing an ashing process to remove the polymer layer, wherein during performing the ashing process, portions of the first mask and the second mask are consumed.
11. A method, comprising: forming a first plurality of layers on a substrate, wherein a material composition of a first layer of the first plurality of layers is different than a material composition of a second layer of the first plurality of layers; forming a photoresist material over the first plurality of layers; patterning the photoresist material to form a first mask and a second mask; performing a first etching process using the first mask and the second mask as etching masks, wherein the first etching process removes portions of the first plurality of layers that extend between the first mask and the second mask to form a second plurality of layers underlying the first mask and a third plurality of layers underlying the second mask; forming a polymer along sidewalls of the first mask and the second mask, wherein sidewalls of the polymer are tapered; removing the polymer using an ashing process, wherein the ashing process consumes a portion of the first mask and a portion of the second mask, to form a remaining first mask and a remaining second mask, wherein a shape of the remaining first mask is different than a shape of the first mask and a shape of the remaining second mask is different than a shape of the second mask; performing a second etching process on the second plurality of layers and the third plurality of layers using the remaining first mask and the remaining second mask as etching masks, wherein the second etching process terminates when a sidewall profile of the second plurality of layers is a target sidewall profile, and the target sidewall profile comprises different portions of the target sidewall profile extending at different angles; and removing the remaining first mask and the remaining second mask.
Regarding claim 15, US 11004685 discloses in claim 11 each limitation except: (1) a first region and a second region, and (2) forming a polymer layer on sidewalls on sidewalls of the first portion of the plurality of layers and the second portion of the plurality of layers.
Regarding (1) it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art that the region of the substrate that the first mask overlies may be regarded as the first region, and the region of the substrate that the second mask overlies may be regarded as the second region.
Regarding (2), in the same field of endeavor, Naeem discloses an etching process (¶ [Col 5, line 62 – Col 8, line 35]), comprising forming a polymer layer (230; Fig 3; Col 8, lines 32-25, Col 6, lines 29-33, Col 3, lines 10-) on sidewalls of a mask pattern (PR,114; Fig 3; Col 1, lines 48-50), as well as on sidewalls of an etched portion of a plurality of layers (102,104,106,108,110,112; Fig 3; Col 1, lines 25-58).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art that the polymer layer of US 11004685 would also have been formed on sidewalls of the first portion of the plurality of layers and the second portion of the plurality of layers, since the etching process removes portions of the plurality of layers between the first and second portions respectively, forming sidewalls. As Naeem describes, polymer formation is typical of common plasma etching processes (Naeem; Col 2, lines 21-56) such as this, as shown in Fig 3.
Regarding claim 18, US 11004685 in view of Naeem discloses the method according to claim 15, wherein the polymer layer is disposed between the first portion of the plurality of layers (US 11004685; the second plurality of layers underlying the first mask) and the second portion of the plurality of layers (US 11004685; the third plurality of layers underlying the second mask). (The polymer layer {Naeem; 230; Fig 3} on sidewalls of first and second portions respectively, per claim 15, would necessarily be between said portions, being at least on the sidewalls of the portions).
Regarding claim 20, US 11004685 in view of Naeem discloses the method according to claim 19, but does not disclose wherein after performing the ashing process to remove the polymer layer, top surfaces of the first mask and the second mask are concave. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art that the shape of the top surfaces may be impacted by number of process parameters (of at least the etching and ashing processes) and variables. Finding no evidence of criticality of the concave top surfaces, the Examiner concludes that a concave shape of top surfaces may be the result of routine optimization of various processing parameters included between forming the top surfaces the first mask and the second mask and completion of the ashing. It is in this regard that the claim limitation is considered met. See MPEP 2144.05.II.
Claim 16 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 11004685. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they would have been obvious over the reference claim(s) in view of Naeem; Munir D. et al. (US 5846884; hereinafter Naeem), and further in view of Chen; Po-Nien et al. ( US 2015/0262825; hereinafter Chen).
Regarding claim 16, US 11004685 in view of Naeem discloses the method according to claim 15, but does not disclose wherein the plurality of layers comprises a first layer, and wherein a material composition of the first layer over the first region is different from a material composition of the first layer over the second region.
In the same field of endeavor, Chen discloses a plurality of layers (106A, comprising 904,110A,112A,114A and 106B, comprising 604,110B,112B,114B; Fig 10; ¶ [0025-34, {0013-24}]) over a first region (302A; Fig 10) of a substrate (104; Fig 10) and a second region (302B; Fig 10) of the substrate;
wherein, the plurality of layers comprise a first layer (904,604; Fig 10) and wherein a material composition of the first layer over the first region (904, which may be formed to include a material not included in 604; ¶ [0033]) is different from a material composition of the first layer over the second region (604); and,
performing a first etching process using the first mask and the second mask as etching masks, wherein the first etching process removes portions of the plurality of layers that are disposed between the first region and the second region (the pattern is transferred by a dry etching process to the layers; Fig 11; ¶ [0035]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art that the plurality of layers of claim 15 may comprise the different material compositions as disclosed by Chen in the similar endeavor.
Claim 17 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 11004685. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they would have been obvious over the reference claim(s) in view of Naeem; Munir D. et al. (US 5846884; hereinafter Naeem), further in view of Chen; Po-Nien et al. ( US 2015/0262825; hereinafter Chen), and still further in view of Sedigh; Mehran G. et al. (US 6693042; hereinafter Sedigh).
Regarding claim 17, US 11004685 in view of Naeem, and further in view of Chen discloses the method according to claim 16, but does not disclose wherein a first angle of a sidewall of the first layer in the first portion of the plurality of layers is different from a second angle of a sidewall of the first layer in the second portion of the plurality of layers; however, this would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art. One may have come to this conclusion in considering that the first layer in the first portion comprises a different material composition from the first layer in the second portion, and that different materials may etch at different rates when using the same etching conditions, which is well-known in the art (see, for example, Sedigh Col 10, lines 47-53). Further, one may consider that plasma process may include formation of a non-perpendicular sidewall angles (see, for example, Sedigh Col 5, lines 55-58), which also may be different angles because of the different etching behavior of the different materials.
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 BRAD KNUDSON whose telephone number is (703)756-4582. The examiner can normally be reached Telework 9:30 -18:30 ET; M-F.
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, Eliseo Ramos Feliciano can be reached at 571-272-7925. 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.
/B.A.K./Examiner, Art Unit 2817
/ELISEO RAMOS FELICIANO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2817