DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to Application filed July 19, 2023.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicants’ election without traverse of Species A and Subspecies a-1, claims 1-16, in the reply filed on November 13, 2025 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: “than” should be inserted between “or more” and “the first” on line 2. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
(1) Regarding claim 1, it is not clear what “a third lattice plane spacing in the first direction of a lattice of Al atoms in the intermediate region (emphasis added)” recited on lines 9-10 refers to, because (a) contrary to the illustration of Fig. 2 of current application, the claimed intermediate region should correspond to a smaller rectangular box illustrated below, while the claimed first layer including AlN crystal corresponds to a bigger rectangular box illustrated below,
PNG
media_image1.png
370
494
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(b) in other words, the claimed intermediate region consists of a single bilayer of an Al sublayer and a N sublayer in view of Fig. 2 of current application, (c) therefore, technically there is only one “lattice of Al atoms in the intermediate region” rather than two lattices of Al atoms in the intermediate region, in which case, there would be no “third lattice plane spacing in the first direction of a lattice of Al atoms in the intermediate region” since the claimed “third lattice plane spacing” requires two or more lattices of Al atoms parallel to each other, and (d) in this case, it is not clear whether “a third lattice plane spacing” refers to a distance between the sole lattice of Al atoms constituting the intermediate region and the bottommost lattice of Al atoms of the AlN crystal, which is not exactly the same with, and thus is distinct from, “a third lattice plane spacing in the first direction of a lattice of Al atoms in the intermediate region”.
(2) Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted elements are: the mechanism or cause for the relative lattice plane spacings recited on lines 9-13, because (a) Applicants originally disclosed in paragraph [0025] of current application that “In the embodiment, the third lattice plane spacing LS3 in the first direction D1 of the lattice of Al atoms in the intermediate region 15 is longer than the first lattice plane spacing LS1 and longer than the second lattice plane spacing LS2”, and in paragraph [0026] of current application that “By providing such an intermediate region 15, an AlN crystal 10c of high crystal quality can be obtained”, (b) however, it is not clear what causes the claimed relative lattice plane spacings recited on lines 9-13 since (i) it appears that the dangling bonds 15a shown in Fig. 2 of current application may or may not be the cause of the claimed relative lattice plane spacings as Applicants did not originally disclose whether or not the dangling bonds 15a are responsible for the increased third lattice plane spacing LS3 relative to the second lattice plane spacing LS2, and (ii) in addition, it is not clear why the dangling bonds 15a are created only directly above the bottommost Al atomic plane, while there are no dangling bonds created above the bottommost Al atomic plane as Applicants did not originally disclose how to selectively create the dangling bonds 15a right above the bottommost Al atomic plane, and (c) therefore, it is not clear whether the claimed relative lattice plane spacings recited on lines 9-13 require the dangling bonds 15a, whether the claimed relative lattice plane spacings recited on lines 9-13 would be an inherent characteristic when the intermediate region is an N-polar AlN layer directly formed on a silicon substrate, or whether there is another mechanism or cause for the claimed relative lattice plane spacings recited on lines 9-13.
(3) Further regarding claim 1, if arguendo there are two or more lattices “of Al atoms in the intermediate region”, it is not clear what the claimed “third lattice plane spacing in the first direction of a lattice of Al atoms in the intermediate region” recited on lines 9-10 refers to, because (a) contrary to the illustration of Fig. 2 of current application, if there are dangling bonds 15a created in the intermediate region, the Al atoms bonded to the N atoms with dangling bonds would cave in toward the silicon substrate as illustrated by arrows, while the Al atoms bonded to the N atoms without dangling bonds would not due to weak supports for the Al atoms in the areas associated with the N atoms with dangling bonds,
PNG
media_image2.png
360
506
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(b) therefore, instead of the topmost lattice of Al atoms of the intermediate region (or the bottommost lattice of Al atoms of the AlN crystal) forming a “lattice plane”, the topmost lattice of Al atoms of the intermediate region (or the bottommost lattice of Al atoms of the AlN crystal) would form a corrugated surface, where no clear “lattice plane” may be defined unambiguously, and (c) in this case, it is not clear how the claimed “third lattice plane spacing in the first direction of a lattice of Al atoms in the intermediate region” can be defined unambiguously since, while the lattice of Al atoms that are bonded to the silicon atoms of the silicon crystal of the substrate may be well-defined, the “lattice of Al atoms” directly above the lattice of Al atoms bonded to the silicon atoms of the silicon crystal of the substrate may not be well-defined due to local variations of the support for the Al atoms.
Claims 2-16 depend on claim 1, and therefore, claims 2-16 are also indefinite.
(4) Regarding claim 4, it is not clear how the second lattice plane spacing can be shorter than the first lattice plane spacing as recited in claim 4, while the third lattice plane spacing is longer than the first lattice plane spacing as recited on lines 9-11 of claim 1, because (a) as Applicants originally disclosed and showed in Fig. 2 of current application, and as Applicants claim in claim 8, the second lattice plane spacing should be a lattice plane spacing along a (0001) or (000-1) direction of the AlN crystal, while the first lattice plane spacing should be a lattice plane spacing along the (111) direction of the Si(111) substrate, and (b) however, the lattice plane spacing along the (0001) or (000-1) direction of the AlN crystal, which is about 0.498 nm, is larger than the lattice plane spacing along the (111) direction of the Si(111) substrate, which is about 0.384 nm. Claim 5 depends on claim 4, and therefore, claim 5 is also indefinite.
(5) Regarding claim 5, it is not clear how “the third lattice plane spacing is 1.1 times or more [sic] the first lattice plane spacing” as recited on lines 2-3, and whether the third lattice plane spacing is one value out of the claimed range of “1.1 times or more than the first lattice plane spacing” or the third lattice plane spacing can be any value out of the claimed range of “1.1 times or more than the first lattice plane spacing”, because (a) it does not appear that the claimed third lattice plane spacing is a parameter that can be changed by adopting certain growth conditions of the intermediate region, (b) as discussed above regarding claim 1, Applicants did not even originally disclose how the third lattice plane spacing can be longer than the first lattice plane spacing in the first place, not to mention on how to control the third lattice plane spacing with respect to the first lattice plane spacing, and (c) therefore, it is not clear whether the limitation cited above implies one value or a range of values for the ratio of the third lattice plane spacing over the first lattice plane spacing.
(6) Regarding claim 6, it is not clear how the first lattice plane spacing, the second lattice plane spacing, and the third lattice plane spacing can respectively be in the claimed ranges, and whether the first, second and third lattice plane spacings are measured values or theoretically calculated values, because (a) Applicants did not originally disclose how the first, second and third lattice plane spacings are obtained, (b) it appears that there should be only one first lattice plane spacing, only one second lattice plane spacing and only one third lattice plane spacing in view of Fig. 2 of current application since Applicants did not originally disclose on how to achieve the relative lattice plane spacings recited on lines 9-13 of claim 1, and (c) therefore, it is not clear whether Applicants claim that the first, second and third lattice plane spacing are respectively one value from the claimed ranges of the first, second and third lattice plane spacing, or the first, second and third lattice spacing can be any value of the claimed ranges of the first, second and third lattice plane spacing.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 and 8, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Roshko et al. (“The role of Si in GaN/AlN/Si(111) plasma assisted molecular beam epitaxy: polarity and inversion,” Japanese Journal of Applied Physics 58 (2019) SC1050)
In the below prior art rejection, the limitations “first layer including AlN crystal” recited on line 3 of claim 1 and “intermediate region” recited on line 4 of claim 1 are product-by-process limitations that do not structurally distinguish the claimed invention over the prior art, because (a) as can be seen clearly in Fig. 2 of current application, both the intermediate region 15 and the first layer including AlN crystal 10c are formed of single crystalline AlN, and (b) therefore, the composite layer of the intermediate region and the first layer including AlN crystal would constitute one single crystalline AlN layer. Note that a product by process claim is directed to the product per se, no matter how actually made, In re Hirao, 190 USPQ 15 at 17 (footnote 3). See also In re Brown, 173 USPQ 685; In re Luck, 177 USPQ 523; In re Fessmann, 180 USPQ 324; In re Avery, 186 USPQ 161; In re Wertheim, 191 USPQ 90 (209 USPQ 554 does not deal with this issue); and In re Marosi et al, 218 USPQ 289, all of which make it clear that it is the patentability of the final product per se which must be determined in a product by process claim, and not the patentability of the process, and that an old or obvious product by a new method is not patentable as a product, whether claimed in product by process claims or not. Note that applicant has the burden of proof in such cases, as the above case law makes clear.
Regarding claim 1, Roshko et al. disclose a semiconductor structure (Fig. 1), comprising: a substrate (Si in Fig. 1) including silicon crystal (Title); a first layer (AlN excluding bottommost bilayer of AlN) including AIN crystal (first paragraph under 3.1. Low V/III sample on page SC1050-2), see also Figs. 1(b) and 1(c); and an intermediate region (bottommost bilayer or bottommost two bilayers of AlN) provided between the silicon crystal and the AIN crystal, because as discussed above, the limitations “intermediate region” and “first layer including AlN crystal” are directed to product by process limitations since the composite layer of the intermediate region and the first layer including AlN crystal would constitute one single crystalline AlN layer, the intermediate region including Al and nitrogen, a direction from the silicon crystal to the AIN crystal being along a first direction (vertical direction in Fig. 1), and a third lattice plane spacing in the first direction of a lattice of Al atoms in the intermediate region being longer than a first lattice plane spacing in the first direction of the silicon crystal, because (a) the first direction of Roshko et al. is along the -c-axis direction, which is antiparallel to the c-axis direction recited in claim 3, as shown in Fig. 2 of current application, i.e. the N-polar direction of the AlN crystal, (b) the plane of the silicon crystal of Roshko et al. is a (111) plane as disclosed by the Title of Roshko et al. and as recited in claim 8, (c) in this case, a lattice plane spacing or a lattice constant along a c-axis direction or a -c-axis direction of AlN is about 0.498 nm, and a lattice plane spacing or a lattice constant along a (111) direction of Si is about 0.384 nm, both of which have been well-known lattice parameters of AlN and Si, and (d) therefore, the limitation “a third lattice plane spacing in the first direction of a lattice of Al atoms in the intermediate region being longer than a first lattice plane spacing in the first direction of the silicon crystal” recited on lines 9-12 would be inherent when the substrate has a Si(111) surface orientation and the intermediate region has an AlN(0001) or AlN(000-1) surface orientation, and inherently longer than a second lattice plane spacing in the first direction of the AIN crystal, because (a) as discussed above under 35 USC 112(b) rejections, Applicants did not originally disclose which parameter is a controlling factor or which parameters are controlling factors that render(s) the third lattice plane spacing in the first direction of the lattice of Al atoms in the intermediate region longer than the second lattice plane spacing in the first direction of the AlN crystal, (b) Roshko et al. disclose a formation of a N-polar AlN layer directly on a silicon substrate just like Fig. 2 of current application, and therefore, Roshko et al. should inherently disclose that “a third lattice plane spacing in the first direction of a lattice of Al atoms in the intermediate region” is “longer than a second lattice plane spacing in the first direction of the AlN crystal” since otherwise claim 1 would be further indefinite for Applicants’ not claiming a critical or essential feature to the practice of the claimed invention, and (c) in addition or in an alternate interpretation, the claimed third lattice spacing can be selected to be a spacing between lattices of Al atoms that are not directly adjacent to each other, while the claimed second lattice spacing can be selected to be a spacing between lattices of Al atoms that are directly adjacent to each other, which would also satisfy the claimed relationship between the second and third lattice plane spacings since Applicants do not specifically claim whether the second and third lattice plane spacings are spacings between directly adjacent lattices of Al atoms.
Regarding claims 2, 3 and 8, Roshko et al. further disclose that a c-plane of the AIN crystal crosses the first direction, because (a) the AlN nucleation layer epitaxially grown on the Si(111) substrate would usually have a (0001) crystal orientation (last three lines on left column of page SC 1050-4 and first two lines on right column of page 1050-4), (b) the polarity inversion disclosed by Roshko et al. suggests that the top surface of the AlN nucleation layer would have a (000-1) crystal orientation, and (c) both the (0001) crystal orientation plane, i.e.. a c-plane, and the (000-1) crystal orientation plane, i.e. -c-plane, crosses the first direction or vertical direction shown in Fig. 1 of Roshko et al. (claim 2), a c-axis of the AIN crystal is along the first direction as discussed above, because (a) the preposition “along” does not imply a direction of a vector and (b) therefore, both the c-axis and the -c-axis are “along” the first direction (claim 3), and a plane of the silicon crystal facing the intermediate region is a (111) plane (Title) (claim 8).
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.
Claims 6, 7 and 9-16, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roshko et al. (“The role of Si in GaN/AlN/Si(111) plasma assisted molecular beam epitaxy: polarity and inversion,” Japanese Journal of Applied Physics 58 (2019) SC1050) The teachings of Roshko et al. are discussed above.
Regarding claim 6, Roshko et al. differ from the claimed invention by not showing that the first lattice plane spacing is not less than 0.28 nm and less than 0.32 nm, the second lattice plane spacing is not less than 0.22 nm and not more than 0.26 nm or less, and the third lattice plane spacing is not less than 0.32 nm and not more than 0.38 nm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the first, second and third lattice plane spacings can respectively be in the claimed ranges, because (a) the first, second and third lattice plane spacings are determined by selecting the material compositions of the substrate, the first layer and the intermediate region including the species of the dopants and dopant concentrations, and also the surface orientations of the substrate, the first layer and the intermediate region, (b) therefore, the material compositions and the surface orientations of the substrate, the first layer and the intermediate region can be controlled and optimized to obtain a high quality first layer and a high quality semiconductor layer formed on the first layer, and (c) the claim is prima facie obvious without showing that the claimed ranges of the lattice plane spacings achieve unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Huang, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (claimed ranges of a result effective variable, which do not overlap the prior art ranges, are unpatentable unless they produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art) and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious).
Regarding claim 7, Roshko et al. differ from the claimed invention by not showing that a full width at half maximum (FWHM) for the (002) plane of an X-ray diffraction image of the AIN crystal is 1200 arcsec or less.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that a full width at half maximum (FWHM) for the (002) plane of an X-ray diffraction image of the AIN crystal can be 1200 arcsec or less, because (a) the claimed FWHM strongly depends on the quality and surface flatness of the AlN crystal, (b) therefore, by improving the quality and surface flatness of the AlN crystal, the FWHM can be reduced, (c) furthermore, the top surface of the AlN crystal can be planarized by, for example, a CMP process, which would also be able to reduce the FWHM down to the claimed range, and (d) the claim is prima facie obvious without showing that the claimed range of the FWHM achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Huang, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (claimed ranges of a result effective variable, which do not overlap the prior art ranges, are unpatentable unless they produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art) and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious).
Regarding claims 9 and 10, Roshko et al. differ from the claimed invention that a thickness of the intermediate region along the first direction is not less than 0.32 nm and not more than 1.0 nm (claim 9), and a thickness of the first layer along the first direction is not less than 150 nm and not more than 300 nm (claim 10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that a thickness of the intermediate region along the first direction can be not less than 0.32 nm and not more than 1.0 nm, and a thickness of the first layer along the first direction can be not less than 150 nm and not more than 300 nm, because (a) the thicknesses of the intermediate region and the first layer should be controlled and optimized to obtain a high quality first layer and a semiconductor layer formed on the first layer, which would in turn improve performance of the semiconductor device formed on the first layer, since both the intermediate region and the first layer would be able to function as a buffer layer, and (b) the claims are prima facie obvious without showing that the claimed ranges of the thicknesses achieve unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Huang, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (claimed ranges of a result effective variable, which do not overlap the prior art ranges, are unpatentable unless they produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art) and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious).
Regarding claims 11-16, Roshko et al. differ from the claimed invention by not further comprising: an AIGaN layer, the first layer being provided between the substrate and the AIGaN layer (claim 11), by not further comprising: a multilayer structure, the AIGaN layer being provided between the substrate and the multilayer structure (claim 12), by not further comprising: a first semiconductor layer including Alx₁Ga1-x₁N (0 ≤ x1 < 1); and a second semiconductor layer including Alx2Ga1-x2N (0 < x2 ≤ 1, x1 < x2), the first layer being provided between the substrate and the second semiconductor layer, and the first semiconductor layer being provided between the first layer and the second semiconductor layer (claim 13), and by not further comprising: a third semiconductor layer including Alx3Ga1-x3N (0 ≤ x3 < x2) containing carbon, the third semiconductor layer being provided between the first layer and the first semiconductor layer (claim 14), by not further comprising: an AIGaN layer, the first layer being provided between the substrate and the AIGaN layer (claim 15), and by not further comprising: a multilayer structure, the AIGaN layer being provided between the substrate and the multilayer structure (claim 16).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the semiconductor structure disclosed by Roshko et al. can further comprise an AIGaN layer, the first layer being provided between the substrate and the AIGaN layer; a multilayer structure, the AIGaN layer being provided between the substrate and the multilayer structure; a first semiconductor layer including Alx₁Ga1-x₁N (0 ≤ x1 < 1); and a second semiconductor layer including Alx2Ga1-x2N (0 < x2 ≤ 1, x1 < x2), the first layer being provided between the substrate and the second semiconductor layer, and the first semiconductor layer being provided between the first layer and the second semiconductor layer; a third semiconductor layer including Alx3Ga1-x3N (0 ≤ x3 < x2) containing carbon, the third semiconductor layer being provided between the first layer and the first semiconductor layer; an AlGaN layer, the first layer being provided between the substrate and the AlGaN layer; and a multilayer structure, the AlGaN layer being provided between the substrate and the multilayer structure, because (a) the semiconductor structures recited in claims 11-16 have been commonly formed to manufacture GaN-based light-emitting devices and GaN-based field effect transistors, (b) the claimed first and second semiconductor layer can be two sublayers of a superlattice buffer layer, a pair of a channel layer and a barrier or electron supply layer, or two layers of light emitting layers such as a quantum well layer and a barrier layer, (c) the third semiconductor layer can be a component layer of a buffer layer or a channel layer of a GaN-based field effect transistor with the carbon rendering the component layer of the buffer layer resistive or the channel layer resistive, and (d) the AlGaN layer can be a component layer of a buffer layer, a barrier layer of a light emitting layer, or a barrier layer of a GaN-based field effect transistor.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yamamoto et al. (US 11,011,630)
Fenwick et al. (US 10,174,439)
Chen et al. (US 7,910,937)
Li et al., “Nucleation layer design for growth of a high-quality AlN epitaxial film on a Si(111) substrate,” Crystal Engineering Communication 20 (2018) pp. 1483-1490.
Yang et al., “Homogeneous epitaxial growth of AlN single-crystalline films on 2 inch-diameter Si (111) substrates by pulsed laser deposition,” Crystal Engineering Communications 15 (2013) pp. 7171-7176.
Contrares et al., “Atomic Arrangement at the AlN/Si(110) Interface,” Applied Physics Express 1 (2008) 061104.
Radtke et al., “Scanning transmission electron microscopy investigation of the Si(111)/AlN interface grown by metalorganic vapor phase epitaxy,” APPLIED PHYSICS LETTERS 97 (2010) 251901.
Wang et al., “Interfacial Modulated Lattice-Polarity-Controlled Epitaxy of III-Nitride Heterostructures on Si(111),” ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces 14 (2022) pp. 15747-15755.
Shin et al., “Epitaxial growth of single-crystalline AlN layer on Si(111) by DC magnetron sputtering at room temperature,” Japanese Journal of Applied Physics 57 (2018) 060306.
Schenk et al., “Growth of atomically smooth AlN films with a 5:4 coincidence interface on Si(111) by MBE,” Materials Science and Engineering B59 (1999) pp. 84-87.
Liu et al., “Atomic arrangement at the AlN/Si(111) interface,” Applied Physics Letters 83 (2003) pp. 860-862.
Zhang et al., “Unexpected Realization of N-Polar AlN Films on Si-Face 4H−SiC Substrates Using RF Sputtering and High-Temperature Annealing,” Crystal Growth & Designs 23 (2023) pp. 4771−4778.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAY C KIM whose telephone number is (571) 270-1620. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 AM - 6:00 PM EST.
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, Joshua Benitez can be reached at (571) 270-1435. 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.
/JAY C KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2815
/J. K./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2815 January 20, 2026