CTNF 18/390,795 CTNF 82534 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 the Claims Preliminary amendment filed 17 April 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 18-25 have been canceled. Claims 26-33 have been added. Claims 1-17 and 26-33 are pending. Election/Restrictions 08-25-01 AIA Applicant’s election without traverse of group I, claims 1-17 , in the reply filed on 17 April 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 18-25 would have been withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected process and a nonelected product, there being no allowable generic or linking claim; however, claims 18-25 were canceled in the election made without traverse in the reply filed on 17 April 2026. New claims 26-33 read upon the method of group I and will be examined on the merits. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claim 31 is 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. Claim 31 recites the limitation, “one or more circuit elements.” It is unclear whether these one or more circuit elements are the same as, or distinct from, the previously-recited one or more circuit elements of claim 1 off which the claim depends. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1, 6, 12, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Codding et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2010/0155936, hereinafter Codding ‘936) in view of Ishiba et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2014/0011026, hereinafter Ishiba ‘026) . With respect to claim 1 , Codding ‘936 teaches (FIGs. 3A-3I) a method substantially as claimed, comprising: mounting (FIG. 3B) a back grinding tape (30) on a semiconductor wafer (10), wherein the semiconductor wafer includes a pair of faces including a first face including one or more circuit elements (12 and 20) and an opposing second face, and wherein mounting the back grinding tape on the semiconductor wafer includes adhering the back grinding tape to the first face ([0063, 0065]); back grinding (FIG. 3E) the semiconductor wafer (10) by grinding the second face until the semiconductor wafer reaches a specific thickness ([0077]); and removing (FIG. 3I) the back grinding tape (30) from the first face to thereby expose the one or more circuit elements (12 and 20) ([0081]). Thus, Codding ‘936 is shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of crosslinking the back grinding tape to thereby increase a rigidity of the back grinding tape. However, Ishiba ‘026 teaches (FIG. 1) crosslinking a back grinding tape (100) ([0034-0036, 0046]) to achieve favorable pickup properties ([0041]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have practiced the method of Codding ‘936 further comprising crosslinking the back grinding tape to thereby increase a rigidity of the back grinding tape as taught by Ishiba ‘026 to achieve favorable pickup properties. With respect to claim 6 , Codding ‘936 and Ishiba ‘026 teach the method as described in claim 1 above, but primary reference Codding ‘936 does not explicitly teach the additional limitation wherein crosslinking the back grinding tape includes inducing a substantially uniform crosslinking density across the first face. However, Ishiba ‘026 teaches (FIG. 1) crosslinking a back grinding tape (100) including inducing a substantially uniform crosslinking density across a first face ([0034-0036, 0046]) to achieve favorable pickup properties ([0041]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have crosslinked the back grinding tape of Codding ‘937 and Ishiba ‘026 including inducing a substantially uniform crosslinking density across a first face as taught by Ishiba ‘026 to achieve favorable pickup properties. With respect to claim 12 , Codding ‘937 teaches wherein back grinding the semiconductor wafer (10) includes back grinding the second face until the semiconductor wafer has a thickness of less than 40 micrometers ([0077]). With respect to claim 17 , Codding ‘937 teaches wherein removing the back grinding tape (30) from the first face includes applying ultraviolet light to the back grinding tape ([0081]) . 07-22-aia AIA Claim s 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Codding ‘936 and Ishiba ‘026 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Matsumura (US Patent Application Publication 2016/0155656, hereinafter Matsumura ‘656) . With respect to claims 2-4 , Codding ‘936 and Ishiba ‘026 teach the method as described in claim 1 above with the exception of the additional limitations further comprising flattening the back grinding tape by applying pressure to the back grinding tape; wherein applying pressure to the back grinding tape includes applying pressure with a tape roller used to mount the back grinding tape to the semiconductor wafer; and wherein applying pressure to the back grinding tape includes applying pressure using a pressure chamber. However, Matsumura ‘656 teaches flattening a tape (20) by applying pressure with a tape or using a pressure chamber to stick said tape to a wafer (11) ([0049]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have to have practiced the method of Codding ‘936 and Ishiba ‘026 further comprising flattening the back grinding tape by applying pressure to the back grinding tape; wherein applying pressure to the back grinding tape includes applying pressure with a tape roller used to mount the back grinding tape to the semiconductor wafer; and wherein applying pressure to the back grinding tape includes applying pressure using a pressure chamber as taught by Matsumura ‘656 to stick said tape to said wafer . 07-22-aia AIA Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Codding ‘936 and Ishiba ‘026 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2012/0082847, hereinafter Lee ‘847) . With respect to claim 5 , Codding ‘936 and Ishiba ‘026 teach the method as described in claim 1 above with the exception of the additional limitation wherein crosslinking the back grinding tape includes inducing a variation in crosslinking density across the first face. However, Lee ‘847 teaches crosslinking tapes at various crosslinking densities to provide specific sheer and peel adhesive properties ([0105, 0108]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have practiced the crosslinking the back grinding tape of Codding ‘936 and Ishiba ‘026 including inducing a variation in crosslinking density across the first face as taught by Lee ‘847 to provide specific sheer and peel adhesive properties . 07-22-aia AIA Claim s 7, 9, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Codding ‘936 and Ishiba ‘026 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Clerici et al. (US Patent 4,791,024, hereinafter Clerici ‘024) . With respect to claims 7, 9, and 11 , Codding ‘936 and Ishiba ‘026 teach the method as described in claim 1 above with the exception of the additional limitations wherein crosslinking the back grinding tape includes applying heat to the back grinding tape; wherein crosslinking the back grinding tape includes applying infrared light to the back grinding tape; and wherein crosslinking the back grinding tape includes applying infrared light to the back grinding tape and applying heat to the back grinding tape. However, Clerici ‘024 teaches using an infrared heat source to crosslink a tape (col. 5, ln. 10-18). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have practiced the method of Codding ‘936 and Ishiba ‘026 wherein crosslinking the back grinding tape includes applying heat to the back grinding tape; wherein crosslinking the back grinding tape includes applying infrared light to the back grinding tape; and wherein crosslinking the back grinding tape includes applying infrared light to the back grinding tape and applying heat to the back grinding tape as taught by Clerici ‘024 to crosslink the tape . 07-22-aia AIA Claim s 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Codding ‘936, Ishiba ‘026, and Clerici ‘024 as applied to claim s 7 and 9 above, and further in view of Matsumura ‘656 . With respect to claims 8 and 10 , Codding ‘936, Ishiba ‘026, and Clerici ‘024 teach the method as described in claims 7 and 9 above with the exception of the additional limitations wherein applying heat to the back grinding tape is performed using a heater associated with a tape roller used to mount the back grinding tape to the semiconductor wafer; and wherein applying infrared light to the back grinding tape is performed using an infrared lamp associated with a tape roller used to mount the back grinding tape to the semiconductor wafer. However, Matsumura ‘656 teaches flattening a tape (20) by applying pressure with a tape or using a pressure chamber to stick said tape to a wafer (11) ([0049]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have practiced the method of Codding ‘936, Ishiba ‘026, and Clerici ‘024 wherein applying heat to the back grinding tape is performed using a heater associated with a tape roller used to mount the back grinding tape to the semiconductor wafer; and wherein applying infrared light to the back grinding tape is performed using an infrared lamp associated with a tape roller used to mount the back grinding tape to the semiconductor wafer as taught by Matsumura ‘656 to stick said tape to said wafer . 07-22-aia AIA Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Codding ‘936 and Ishiba ‘026 as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Iyer et al. (US Patent 5,494,849, hereinafter Iyer ‘849) . With respect to claim 13 , Codding ‘936 and Ishiba ‘026 teach the method as described in claim 1 above with the exception of the additional limitation wherein a total thickness variation associated with the semiconductor wafer is less than approximately 1 micrometer. However, Iyer ‘849 teaches (FIG. 4) thinning a wafer (20) to a thickness less than approximately 1 micrometer such that a thickness variation associated with said wafer would be less than approximately 1 micrometer as art-recognized dimensions for a thinned device wafer (col. 4, ln. 1-9). Further, such a modification would have involved a mere change in size or proportion of a component. A change in size or proportion is generally recognized as being with the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose , 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.04 IV. A. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed a total thickness variation associated with the semiconductor wafer of Codding ‘936 and Ishiba ‘026 less than approximately 1 micrometer as taught by Iyer ‘849 as art-recognized dimensions for a thinned device wafer and because such a modification would have involved a mere change in size or proportion of a component . 07-22-aia AIA Claim s 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Codding ‘936 and Ishiba ‘026 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chowdhury et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2014/0106542, hereinafter Chowdhury ‘542) and Hurley et al. (US Patent 6,350,512, hereinafter Hurley ‘512) . With respect to claims 14-16 , Codding ‘936 and Ishiba ‘026 teach the method as described in claim 1 above with the exception of the additional limitations wherein the semiconductor wafer is associated with a plurality of dynamic random access memory dies, and wherein crosslinking the back grinding tape includes crosslinking the back grinding tape to a crosslinking density in a range of approximately 40 percent to approximately 60 percent; wherein the semiconductor wafer is associated with a plurality of NAND memory dies, and wherein crosslinking the back grinding tape includes crosslinking the back grinding tape to a crosslinking density of greater than 50 percent; and wherein the semiconductor wafer is associated with a plurality of memory controller dies, and wherein crosslinking the back grinding tape includes crosslinking the back grinding tape to a crosslinking density of less than 50 percent. However, Chowdhury ‘542 teaches (FIG. 6) using crosslinked tape ([0023]) in DRAM, NAND memory, and memory controller applications for use in a computer system (600) ([0062]). Further, Hurley ‘512 teaches crosslinking densities in a range of approximately 40 percent to approximately 60 percent, greater than 50 percent, and less than 50 percent while tuning for particular desired properties such as elasticity or thermal resistance (col. 6, ln. 59 – col. 7, ln. 9). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the semiconductor wafer of Codding ‘936 and Ishiba ‘026 associated with a plurality of dynamic random access memory dies, associated with a plurality of NAND memory dies, and associated with a plurality of memory controller dies as taught by Chowdhury ‘542 for use in a computer system; and to have crosslinked the back grinding tape of Codding ‘936, Ishiba ‘026, and Chowdhury ‘542 including crosslinking the back grinding tape to a crosslinking density in a range of approximately 40 percent to approximately 60 percent, including crosslinking the back grinding tape to a crosslinking density of greater than 50 percent, and including crosslinking the back grinding tape to a crosslinking density of less than 50 percent as taught by Hurley ‘512 to tune for particular desired properties such as elasticity or thermal resistance . 07-22-aia AIA Claim s 26-28 and 30-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Codding ‘936 and Ishiba ‘026 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Clerici ‘024 and Lee ‘847 . With respect to claim 26 , Codding ‘936 and Ishiba ‘026 teach the method as described in claim 1 above, but primary reference Codding ‘936 does not explicitly teach the additional limitation further comprising: modifying, prior to mounting the back grinding tape, a polymer base layer of the back grinding tape to include at least one of infrared-activated crosslinking groups or thermally activated crosslinking groups such that a degree of crosslinking associated with the back grinding tape is configured to vary according to at least one of an amount of heat applied to the back grinding tape or an amount of infrared light applied to the back grinding tape; and forming, prior to mounting the back grinding tape, the back grinding tape having the polymer base layer and an adhesive layer configured to adhere the back grinding tape to a semiconductor wafer, wherein the back grinding tape exhibits a damping ratio of less than approximately 0.8. However, Ishiba ‘026 teaches (FIG. 1) modifying a polymer base layer (200) of a back grinding tape (100), and an adhesive layer (300) configured to adhere the back grinding tape to a semiconductor wafer ([0023-0024, 0034]) to achieve favorable pickup properties ([0041]). Further, Clerici ‘024 teaches using an infrared heat source to crosslink a tape (col. 5, ln. 10-18). Still further, Lee ‘847 teaches crosslinking tapes at various crosslinking densities to provide specific sheer and peel adhesive properties ([0105, 0108]). Still further, It is noted that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. In re Best , 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). It has also been held that products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties Applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada , 15 USQP2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). In this case, the damping ratio of Ishiba ‘026 would inherently have the property of less than approximately 0.8 because the back grinding tape is made of the same material(s) as disclosed. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have practiced the method of Codding ‘936 and Ishiba ‘026 further comprising: modifying, prior to mounting the back grinding tape, a polymer base layer of the back grinding tape, and forming, prior to mounting the back grinding tape, the back grinding tape having the polymer base layer and an adhesive layer configured to adhere the back grinding tape to a semiconductor wafer, wherein the back grinding tape exhibits a damping ratio of less than approximately 0.8 as taught by Ishiba ‘026 to achieve favorable pickup properties; to have formed the back grinding tape of Codding ‘936 and Ishiba ‘026 including at least one of infrared-activated crosslinking groups or thermally activated crosslinking groups as taught by Clerici ‘024 to crosslink the tape; and to have formed the back grinding tape of Codding ‘936, Ishiba ‘026 and Clerici ‘024 such that a degree of crosslinking associated with the back grinding tape is configured to vary according to at least one of an amount of heat applied to the back grinding tape or an amount of infrared light applied to the back grinding tape as taught by Lee ‘847 to provide specific sheer and peel adhesive properties. With respect to claims 27 and 28 , Codding ‘936, Ishiba ‘026, Clerici ‘024, and Lee ‘847 teach the method as described in claim 26 above, but primary reference Codding ‘936 does not explicitly teach the additional limitations wherein modifying the polymer base layer includes chemically modifying the polymer base layer such that the polymer base layer includes the infrared-activated crosslinking groups; and wherein modifying the polymer base layer includes applying chemical additives to the polymer base layer such that the polymer base layer includes the thermally activated crosslinking groups. However, Ishiba ‘026 teaches (FIG. 1) modifying a polymer base layer (200) by chemically modifying the polymer base layer and/or applying chemical additives to the polymer base layer ([0024]) to achieve favorable pickup properties ([0041]). Further, Clerici ‘024 teaches using an infrared heat source to crosslink a tape (col. 5, ln. 10-18). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the polymer base layer of Codding ‘936, Ishiba ‘026, Clerici ‘024, and Lee ‘847 including chemically modifying the polymer base layer and including applying chemical additives to the polymer base layer as taught by Ishiba ‘026 to achieve favorable pickup properties; and to have practiced the method of Codding ‘936, Ishiba ‘026, Clerici ‘024, and Lee ‘847 including the infrared-activated crosslinking groups and including the thermally activated crosslinking groups as taught by Clerici ‘024 to crosslink the tape. With respect to claim 30 , Codding ‘936 and Ishiba ‘026 teach the method as described in claim 1 above, but primary reference Codding ‘936 does not explicitly teach the additional limitation wherein the back grinding tape comprises: a polymer base layer; and an adhesive layer configured to adhere the back grinding tape to the first face of the semiconductor wafer, wherein the back grinding tape exhibits a damping ratio of less than approximately 0.8, and wherein the back grinding tape includes at least one of infrared-activated crosslinking groups or thermally activated crosslinking groups such that a degree of crosslinking associated with the back grinding tape is configured to vary according to at least one of an amount of heat applied to the back grinding tape or an amount of infrared radiation applied to the back grinding tape. However, Ishiba ‘026 teaches (FIG. 1) a back grinding tape (100) comprising: a polymer base layer (200) and an adhesive layer (300) configured to adhere the back grinding tape to a first face of the semiconductor wafer ([0023, 0034]) to achieve favorable pickup properties ([0041]). Further, Clerici ‘024 teaches using an infrared heat source to crosslink a tape (col. 5, ln. 10-18). Still further, Lee ‘847 teaches crosslinking tapes at various crosslinking densities to provide specific sheer and peel adhesive properties ([0105, 0108]). Still further, It is noted that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. In re Best , 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). It has also been held that products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties Applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada , 15 USQP2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). In this case, the damping ratio of Ishiba ‘026 would inherently have the property of less than approximately 0.8 because the back grinding tape is made of the same material(s) as disclosed. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the back grinding tape of Codding ‘936 and Ishiba ‘026 comprising: a polymer base layer; and an adhesive layer configured to adhere the back grinding tape to the first face of the semiconductor wafer, wherein the back grinding tape exhibits a damping ratio of less than approximately 0.8 as taught by Ishiba ‘026 to achieve favorable pickup properties; to have formed the back grinding tape of Codding ‘936 and Ishiba ‘026 including at least one of infrared-activated crosslinking groups or thermally activated crosslinking groups as taught by Clerici ‘024 to crosslink the tape; and to have formed the back grinding tape of Codding ‘936, Ishiba ‘026, and Clerici ‘024 such that a degree of crosslinking associated with the back grinding tape is configured to vary according to at least one of an amount of heat applied to the back grinding tape or an amount of infrared radiation applied to the back grinding tape as taught by Lee ‘847 to provide specific sheer and peel adhesive properties. With respect to claim 31 , Codding ‘936 teaches wherein the adhesive layer (30A) is configured to adhere to one or more circuit elements (12 and 20) of the semiconductor wafer (10), wherein the one or more circuit elements include at least one of bumps or bond pads ([0063, 0065]). With respect to claim 32 , Codding ‘936, Ishiba ‘026, Clerici ‘024, and Lee ‘847 teach the method as described in claim 30 above, but primary reference Codding ‘936 does not explicitly teach the additional limitation wherein the polymer base layer includes a polyethylene terephthalate (PET) composite layer, and wherein the adhesive layer includes an ultraviolet (UV) curable adhesive layer. However, Ishiba ‘026 teaches (FIG. 1) a polymer base (200) layer that includes a polyethylene terephthalate (PET) composite layer ([0023]), and an adhesive layer (300) that includes an ultraviolet (UV) curable adhesive layer ([0034]) to achieve favorable pickup properties ([0041]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the polymer base layer and the adhesive layer of Codding ‘936, Ishiba ‘026, Clerici ‘024, and Lee ‘847 including a polyethylene terephthalate (PET) composite layer and an ultraviolet (UV) curable adhesive layer respectively as taught by Ishiba ‘026 to achieve favorable pickup properties. With respect to claim 33 , Codding ‘936, Ishiba ‘026, Clerici ‘024, and Lee ‘847 teach the method as described in claim 32 above, but primary reference Codding ‘936 does not explicitly teach the additional limitation wherein the PET composite layer includes chemical additives that produce the at least one of infrared-activated crosslinking groups or thermally activated crosslinking groups. However, Ishiba ‘026 teaches (FIG. 1) a PET composite layer (200) including chemical additives ([0024]) to achieve favorable pickup properties ([0041]). Further, Clerici ‘024 teaches using an infrared heat source to crosslink a tape (col. 5, ln. 10-18). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the PET composite layer of Codding ‘936, Ishiba ‘026, Clerici ‘024, and Lee ‘847 including chemical additives as taught by Ishiba ‘026 to achieve favorable pickup properties; and to have practiced the method of Codding ‘936, Ishiba ‘026, Clerici ‘024, and Lee ‘847 producing at least one of infrared-activated crosslinking groups or thermally activated crosslinking groups as taught by Clerici ‘024 to crosslink the tape . Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim 29 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. 13-03-01 AIA The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record fails to teach the method of claim 29 in the combination of limitations as claimed, noting particularly the limitation, “wherein a degree of crosslinking associated with the back grinding tape is configured to vary between: less than 50 percent in a case where the back grinding tape is used to form memory controller dies, a range of approximately 40 percent to approximately 60 percent in a case where the back grinding tape is used to form dynamic random access memory dies, and greater than 50 percent in a case where the back grinding tape is used to form NAND memory dies.” Although Codding ‘936 in view of Ishiba ‘026, Chowdhury ‘542, and Hurley ‘512 in combination teach a method comprising memory devices and crosslinking densities associated with their manufacture, the prior art of record is silent to the claimed specific crosslinking densities corresponding to the claimed specific types of memory devices. None of the other prior art references of record cure this deficiency . Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Christopher M. Roland whose telephone number is (571)270-1271. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 10:00AM-7:00PM Eastern. 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, Yara Green can be reached at (571)270-3035. 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. /C.M.R./Examiner, Art Unit 2893 /YARA B GREEN/Supervisor Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2893 Application/Control Number: 18/390,795 Page 2 Art Unit: 2893 Application/Control Number: 18/390,795 Page 3 Art Unit: 2893 Application/Control Number: 18/390,795 Page 4 Art Unit: 2893 Application/Control Number: 18/390,795 Page 5 Art Unit: 2893 Application/Control Number: 18/390,795 Page 6 Art Unit: 2893 Application/Control Number: 18/390,795 Page 7 Art Unit: 2893 Application/Control Number: 18/390,795 Page 8 Art Unit: 2893 Application/Control Number: 18/390,795 Page 9 Art Unit: 2893 Application/Control Number: 18/390,795 Page 10 Art Unit: 2893 Application/Control Number: 18/390,795 Page 11 Art Unit: 2893 Application/Control Number: 18/390,795 Page 12 Art Unit: 2893 Application/Control Number: 18/390,795 Page 13 Art Unit: 2893 Application/Control Number: 18/390,795 Page 14 Art Unit: 2893 Application/Control Number: 18/390,795 Page 15 Art Unit: 2893 Application/Control Number: 18/390,795 Page 16 Art Unit: 2893 Application/Control Number: 18/390,795 Page 17 Art Unit: 2893 Application/Control Number: 18/390,795 Page 18 Art Unit: 2893 Application/Control Number: 18/390,795 Page 19 Art Unit: 2893
Prosecution Insights