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 .
Claims 1-20 are pending, of which claims 1 and 16 are independent claims.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the priority benefit of US provisional application No. 63/220,309 filed on July 9, 2021 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The references cited in the information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on January 8, 2024 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
The following claims are objected to for lack of antecedent support or for redundancies. The Examiner recommends the following changes:
Claim 1, line 7, insert “variation” after “KPI”.
Claim 1, line 9, replace “the the” with “the”.
Claim 2, line 1, insert “the contributions of” before “the first set”.
Claim 2, line 4, insert “the” before “contributions”.
Claim 2, line 5, insert “variation” after “KPI”.
Claim 3, line 2, insert “variation” after “KPI”.
Claim 4, line 1, insert “the” before “determining”.
Claim 5, line 1, insert “variation” after “KPI”.
Claim 5, line 4, replace “a pattern” with “the pattern”.
Claim 7, line 5, insert “variation” after “KPI”.
Claim 8, line 1, insert “wafer” before “parameter”.
Claim 10, line 1, replace “variations” with “variation”.
Claim 11, line 1, replace “variations” with “variation”.
Claim 13, line 2, insert “the” before “systematics”.
Claim 15, line 2, replace “measured KPI” with “the obtained KPI variation”.
Claim 16, line 6, insert “variation” after “KPI”.
Claim 17, line 1, insert “the contributions of” before “the first set”.
Claim 17, line 4, insert “the” before “contributions”.
Claim 17, line 5, insert “variation” after “KPI”.
Claim 18, line 2, insert “variation” after “KPI”.
Claim 19, line 1, insert “the” before “determining”.
Claim 20, line 1, insert “variation” after “KPI”.
Claim 20, line 4, replace “a pattern” with “the pattern”.
Appropriate correction is respectfully requested.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Independent claim 1 recites, “... determining, using a model of the KPI and the data as input to the model, contributions of a first set of factors toward the KPI variation, the first set of factors breaching a statistical threshold; removing the contributions from the first set of factors toward the the KPI variation to obtain a residual KPI variation; and determining, based on the residual KPI variation, a residual value breaching a residual threshold, the residual value being indicative of process drifts in the semiconductor process over time or an outlier substrate corresponding to the residual value at a certain time.”
Under their broadest reasonable interpretation and based on the description provided in the Specification, such as paragraphs [0056]-[0060], [0066], and [0067], for instance, the determining functions and the removing function are processes that entail purely mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. In the alternative, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, if a claim limitation covers performance that can be executed in the human mind, but for the recitation of generic electronic devices or generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. As recited, the determining functions and the removing function are processes that can be performed through observation, evaluation and judgement.
Accordingly, the claim recites abstract ideas.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, independent claim 1 recites the additional elements of, “obtaining a key performance indicator (KPI) variation characterizing a performance of a semiconductor process over time, and data associated with a set of factors associated with the semiconductor process”.
The obtaining function is an insignificant extra-solution activity under MPEP 2106.05(g), without imposing meaningful limits. The limitation amounts to necessary data gathering. (i.e., all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering or data output). See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968. In accord with MPEP 2105(g), “An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, e.g., a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent.”
In view of the foregoing, the additional limitations, individually or combined, are not sufficient to demonstrate integration of a judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The recitations recited in independent claim 1 including “obtaining a key performance indicator (KPI) variation characterizing a performance of a semiconductor process over time, and data associated with a set of factors associated with the semiconductor process” is a well-understood, routine, and conventional recitation. For instance, US Patent Publication No. 2019/0354089 A1 to Wang et al. describes in Paragraph [0028] “Referring to FIG. 3, in step S101, the controlling computer 300 may collect process profile data from the tool groups 100, 110, 120 running the process by using the connecting device 330, and calculate values of a plurality of KPIs of each tool group comprising calculating a standard deviation of an output of a stage of a bottleneck tool group of the tool groups 100, 110, 120 according to the process profile data by using the processor 330. In some embodiments, the controlling computer 300 may collect process profile data of the tool groups 100, 110, 120 from the databases DB coupled to the managing computers 200, 210, 220.” Wang also describes in Paragraph [0029] “In some embodiments, multiple KPIs that are probable of effecting the WIP of each tool group are defined and calculated according to the process profile data acquired from the tool groups 100, 110, 120.” US Patent Publication No. 2021/0263505 A1 to Zheng et al. describes in Paragraph [0063] “After the fabrication of the production lots is completed, the load-balancing model (or the scheduling model) may be optimized automatically for next fabrication cycle using a big-data architecture (S410). Specifically, after the current fabrication cycle is completed, production key performance indicators (KPIs) may be obtained, and it can be determined whether the KPIs are desired for the current fabrication, i.e., meeting a preset criteria for the production KPIs. If it is determined that the KPIs meet the criteria for the current fabrication, no optimization may be needed.” US Patent Publication No. 2006/0144057 A1 to You et al. describes in Paragraph [0008] “A performance index is obtained according to the inlet and outlet temperatures of the output matter and load current of the heat exchanger. A predicted performance index is obtained according to inlet temperatures of the output matter, predicted outlet temperatures of output matter, and the load current. A real performance index is obtained according to the inlet temperatures of the output matter, real outlet temperatures of output matter, and the load current. A key performance index is obtained according to the predicted and real performance indexes.”
Therefore, the additional claimed features, individually or combined, do not amount to significantly more and independent claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 2, this claim recites “the determining of the first set of factors comprises: configuring the model based on the set of factors associated with the semiconductor manufacturing; and applying the model to the data to determine an amount of contribution from the set of factors toward the variation in the KPI” further defining the abstract idea. Under their broadest reasonable interpretation and based on the description provided in the published Specification, such as paragraphs [0056] and [0059], for instance, the configuration and the determination limitations are processes that entail purely mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations or mental processes that can be performed through observation, evaluation and judgement. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. There are no additional limitations in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that would impose a meaningful limitation on the judicial exception, thus, integrating the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim also does not include additional elements that amount to significantly more. Claim 2 is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 3, this claim recites the types of models that the abstract ideas identified in independent claim 1 implement to perform the mathematical computations. Claim 3 recites “the model comprises at least one of: a statistical model configured to decompose the KPI into a function of the set of factors and a residual term; and a machine learning model configured to receive the data related to the set of factors as input, and generate the residual KPI variation as output”. These recitations are not integrating the abstract ideas of independent claim 1 into a practical application. Also, the recitations do not amount to significantly more. Therefore, the additional claimed features, individually or combined, do not amount to significantly more and claim 3 is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 4, this claim further defines the abstract idea of independent claim 1 by reciting that “the determining of the first set of factors comprises: applying an analysis of variance (ANOVA) or an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) technique to the statistical model to determine contributions of each of the set of factors toward the KPI variation.” Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. There are no additional limitations in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that would impose a meaningful limitation on the judicial exception, thus, integrating the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim also does not include additional elements that amount to significantly more. Claim 4 is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 5, this claim recites “the KPI is at least one of: local critical dimension uniformity (LCDU) associated with a pattern imaged on a substrate via a patterning process; an edge placement error associated with associated with a pattern imaged on the substrate via the patterning process; and an overlay associated with the pattern imaged on the substrate via the patterning process.” Under their broadest reasonable interpretation and based on the description provided in the published Specification, such as paragraph [0058], for instance, the types of KPI defined in the claim are not additional limitations in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exceptions identified in independent claim 1 in a manner that would impose a meaningful limitation on the judicial exception, thus, integrating the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim also does not include additional elements that amount to significantly more. Claim 5 is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 6, this claim recites “the KPI variation is obtained by using a plurality of lithography apparatuses, a plurality of process apparatuses, a plurality of reticles, a plurality of metrology tools, and/or one or more measurable parameters”. The additional features may be tools that are used, but recited so generically that they represent no more than mere instructions “to apply” the judicial exceptions on or using generic electronic, electrical, or computer components. Implementing an abstract idea on generic electronic, electrical, or computer components as tools to perform an abstract idea is not indicative of integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f) Also, implementing an abstract idea on generic electronic or computer components as tools to perform an abstract idea does not amount to significantly more. See Elec. Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“Nothing in the claims, understood in light of the Specification, requires anything other than off-the-shelf, conventional computer, network, and display technology for gathering, sending, and presenting the desired information.”) Therefore, claim 6 is not patent eligible.
Regarding claims 7 and 8, claim 7 recites “the set of factors comprises at least one of: a first categorical variable to characterize contribution of the plurality of lithography apparatuses towards the KPI variation; a second categorical variable to characterize contribution of the plurality of reticle towards the variation in the KPI; a third categorical variable to characterize contribution of the plurality of metrology tools towards the KPI variation; and a fourth variable comprising a measurable wafer parameter contributing toward the KPI variation.” And claim 8 recites “the measurable parameter comprises at least one of: mean critical dimension of a pattern; dose of a lithographic apparatus; and focus of the lithographic apparatus.” Under their broadest reasonable interpretation and based on the description provided in the published Specification, such as paragraphs [0057]-[0059], for instance, the types of set of factors defined in claim 7 and the types of measurable parameter do not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exceptions identified in independent claim 1 in a manner that would impose a meaningful limitation on the judicial exception, thus, integrating the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim also does not include additional elements that amount to significantly more. Claims 7 and 8 are not patent eligible.
Regarding claims 9-13, claim 9 recites “detecting systematics in the residual KPI variation; responsive to detected systematics, determining a root cause associated with the systematics; and adjusting the model to include a factor associated with the root cause as a contributor towards the KPI variation”. Under their broadest reasonable interpretation and based on the description provided in the published Specification, such as paragraphs [0070] and [0071], for instance, the limitations in this claim are processes that entail purely mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations or mental processes that can be performed through observation, evaluation and judgement. Claim 10 recites “the root cause indicates the residual KPI variations is caused by a characteristic of a process downstream to the semiconductor process”; claim 11 recites “the root cause indicates the residual KPI variations is caused by a characteristic of a process upstream to the semiconductor process”; claim 12 recites “the detecting of the systematics comprises: identifying a shift in a level of the residual KPI variation over a period of time”; and claim 13 recites “the detecting of the systematics comprises: executing a statistical model configured to identify systematics in the residual KPI variation.” Claims 10-13 are directed to an abstract idea and/or further defining an aspect of the abstract ideas in independent claim 1 and claim 9. There are no additional limitations in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that would impose a meaningful limitation on the judicial exception, thus, integrating the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim also does not include additional elements that amount to significantly more. Claims 9-13 are not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 14, this claim recites “capturing, at a regular interval or continuously, data related to the set of factors associated with the semiconductor process; and updating the residual KPI variation based on the captured data.” The limitation amounts to necessary data gathering. (i.e., all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering or data output). See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968. In accord with MPEP 2105(g), “An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, e.g., a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent.” In view of the foregoing, the additional limitations, individually or combined, are not sufficient to demonstrate integration of a judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The recitations of claim 14 are well-understood, routine, and conventional recitations. For instance, US Patent Publication No. 2024/0118702 A1 to Cella et al. describes in Paragraph [3157] “…provide an at-a-glance view of key performance indicators (KPIs) … for continuous updating of data as it comes in…” US Patent Publication No. 2021/0063999 A1 to Kim et al. describes in Paragraph [0005] “According to an aspect of the inventive concept, there is provided a method of guiding a semiconductor manufacturing process, the method including: receiving semiconductor manufacturing process data corresponding to a target semiconductor product; generating first semiconductor characteristic data corresponding to the semiconductor manufacturing process data by using a technology computer-aided design (TCAD) model,…” US Patent Publication No. 2012/0150330 A1 to Lee et al. describes in Paragraph [0028] “According to an exemplary embodiment of the inventive concept, a method of controlling process distribution of a semiconductor process includes receiving process distribution data representing the process distribution of the semiconductor process, receiving a parameter related to the process distribution, generating a virtual metrology model corresponding to the process distribution based on a relationship between the process distribution data and the parameter, and modifying a process variable affecting the process distribution based on the virtual metrology model.” US Patent Publication No. 2021/0157312 A1 to Cella et al. describes in Paragraph [0934] “FIG. 371 is a schematic illustrating example embodiments of methods for updating one or more manufacturing KPI values in a digital twin of a manufacturing facility, on behalf of a client application according to embodiments of the present disclosure.” US Patent Publication No. 2022/0108262 A1 to Cella et al. describes in Paragraph [5536] “FIG. 371 illustrates example embodiments of a method 42600 for updating a set of manufacturing KPI values in the digital twin of a manufacturing facility.”
Regarding claim 15, this claim recites “the residual KPI variation comprises a higher signal to noise ratio compared to a signal to noise ratio in measured KPI”. This claim is directed to an abstract idea and/or further defining an aspect of the abstract ideas in independent claim 1. There are no additional limitations in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that would impose a meaningful limitation on the judicial exception, thus, integrating the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim also does not include additional elements that amount to significantly more. Claim 15 is not patent eligible.
Regarding independent claim 16, the functions of independent claim 16 are implemented by similar functions as those of the controller of independent claim 1 with substantially the same limitations. Therefore, the rejection applied to independent claim 1 above also applies to independent claim 16. Independent claim 16 is not deemed patent eligible.
The functions of claims 17-20 are implemented by similar functions as those of the controller of claims 2-5 with substantially the same limitations. Therefore, the rejections applied to claims 2-5 above also apply to claims 17-20. Claims 17-20 are not deemed patent eligible.
Allowable Subject Matter and Relevant Prior Art cited by Examiner
The subject matter of claims 1-20 is found to be allowable over the prior art of record and would be considered allowable pending the nonstatutory subject matter rejection under 35 USC 101 rejection given above. The following prior art made of record is cited to establish the level of skill in the applicant’s art and those arts considered reasonably pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure. See MPEP 707.05(c):
Independent claim 1
US Patent Publication No. 2019/0354089 A1 to Wang et al. (“Wang”) teaches:
A non-transitory computer-readable medium having instructions recorded thereon, the instructions, when executed by one or more processors, implementing a method for determining process drifts over time in semiconductor manufacturing, the method comprising: Wang: Paragraph [0046] (“A non-transitory computer-readable medium is also introduced in an embodiment of the disclosure as below. The non-transitory computer-readable medium includes processor executable instructions. When the instructions are executed by a processor, the method for improving a cycle time of a process of a product as described before can be implemented.”)
obtaining a key performance indicator (KPI) variation characterizing a performance of a semiconductor process over time, and data associated with a set of factors associated with the semiconductor process; Wang: Paragraph [0028] (“Referring to FIG. 3, in step S101, the controlling computer 300 may collect process profile data from the tool groups 100, 110, 120 running the process by using the connecting device 330, and calculate values of a plurality of KPIs of each tool group comprising calculating a standard deviation of an output of a stage of a bottleneck tool group of the tool groups 100, 110, 120 according to the process profile data by using the processor 330. In some embodiments, the controlling computer 300 may collect process profile data of the tool groups 100, 110, 120 from the databases DB coupled to the managing computers 200, 210, 220.”) Wang: Paragraph [0029] (“In some embodiments, multiple KPIs that are probable of effecting the WIP of each tool group are defined and calculated according to the process profile data acquired from the tool groups 100, 110, 120.”) Wang: Paragraph [0030] (“In some embodiments, some of the KPIs are defined as the standard deviation of an output of each of a plurality of stages of the bottleneck tool group. In these embodiments, the bottleneck tool group is one of the plurality of tool groups having the greatest amount of pileups. For example, the amount of products waiting to be processed in the tool group 100 which runs the lithography step of the OD, PO, and CO stages is usually largest among all tool groups, and therefore the tool group 100 is the bottleneck tool group that has the greatest amount of pileups in this case.”) Wang: Paragraph [0034] (“In some embodiments, the controlling computer 300 may correct the process profile data collected from the tool groups 100, 110, 120 in advance of calculating the KPIs, since the process profile data may not correctly reflect the real performance of the tool groups 100, 110, 120.”) [The calculated values of a plurality of KPIs reads on “obtaining a key performance indicator (KPI) variation”. The collected profile data from each tool group reads on “data associated with a set of factors associated with the semiconductor process”. The profile process data reads on “characterizing a performance of a semiconductor process over time”.]
determining, using a model of the KPI and the data as input to the model, contributions of a first set of factors toward the KPI variation, the first set of factors breaching a statistical threshold;… Wang: Paragraph [0036] (“Referring to FIG. 3, after values of the KPIs are calculated, in step S103, the controlling computer 300 may feed the values of the KPIs and a [work in progress] WIP of each tool group into a neural network model in order to output an impact on the WIP for each KPI of each tool group by the neural network model by using the processor 330.”) Wang: Paragraph [0037] (“Specifically, the neural network model is an artificial intelligence model that receives the values of the KPIs and the WIP of each tool group in the process profile data, performs a sensitivity analysis on the received values of the KPIs and the WIP of each tool group, and outputs the impact on the WIP for each KPI of each tool group.”)
However, Wang the additional teaching of the prior art of record including Cella et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2024/0118702 A1); Robert et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2022/0308533 A1); Cella et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2022/0108262 A1); Zheng et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2021/0263505 A1)); Cella et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2021/0157312 A1); Kim et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2021/0063999 A1); Huang et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2015/0104745 A1); Lee et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2012/0150330 A1); Choi et al. (US Patent Publication No. 20120022679 A1); You et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2006/0144057 A1); Verstappen (US Patent Publication No. 2005/0210438 A1); and Cao, Z., Liu, X., Hao, J. and Liu, M., 2016. Simultaneous prediction for multiple key performance indicators in semiconductor wafer fabrication. Chinese Journal of Electronics, 25(6), pp.1159-1165., do not expressly teach or suggest “removing the contributions from the first set of factors toward the KPI variation to obtain a residual KPI variation; and determining, based on the residual KPI variation, a residual value breaching a residual threshold, the residual value being indicative of process drifts in the semiconductor process over time or an outlier substrate corresponding to the residual value at a certain time”, as recited in independent claim 1.
Claims 2-15 are dependent claims of independent claim 1. Independent claim 1 is allowable over prior art, and therefore, provided that the non-statutory subject matter rejection to claims 2-15 is overcome, claims 2-15 would be allowable.
Claim 16
Independent claim 16 includes similar limitations and reasons for prior art allowance as independent claim 1.
Claims 17-20 are dependent claims of independent claim 16. Independent claim 16 is allowable over prior art, and therefore, claims 17-20 are allowable, provided that the non-statutory subject matter rejection of claims 16-20 is overcome.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US Patent Publication No. 2015/0104745 A1 to Huang et al. describes in Paragraph [0027] “A controller 402 is coupled to the plurality of deformation elements 206 and the metrology tool 406. The controller 402 is configured to apply an independent voltage to each deformation element 216 in order to change the topology of the first or second deformable reflective surface 200A, 200B, or the deformable e-chuck 300. The controller 402 is further configured to apply the independent voltage based upon the residual vector, as will be demonstrated in greater detail in the embodiments of FIGS. 5A-5C and FIGS. 6A-6C. In some embodiments, a residual order performance index (ROPI) measurement is utilized to determine the voltages applied to the deformation elements 206.”
US Patent Publication No. 2012/0022679 A1 to Choi et al. describes in Paragraph [0020] “In order to address such deficiencies, the APC system 105 of the photolithographic device fabrication system 100 may include an APC monitoring system 107. The APC monitoring system 107 may monitor the metrology data 104 from the metrology system 103 to determine the impact that the process modeling and estimation operations of the APC system 105 have on photolithographic process performance. Specifically, it may be the case that the APC monitoring system 107 may compute an APC performance indicator. The APC performance indicator may be a measure of impact that the performance of the modeling and estimation operations of the APC system 105 have on the semiconductor devices 102 fabricated according to those modeling and estimation operations. For example, the APC monitoring system 107 may receive historical data regarding overlay error data detected by the metrology system 103. This historical data may be correlated with the computed APC process control parameters 106 generated by the APC system 105 and provided to the photolithographic fabrication device 101 in order to fabricate the semiconductor device 102 having the metrology data 104.” Choi also describes in Paragraph [0021] “For example, an APC performance indicator may be computed by an APC monitoring system 107. An APC performance indicator may include an absolute value of the difference between raw overlay error data associated with a production lot and a residual overlay value (e.g. the overlay portion remaining following model fitting) computed from an overlay control model by the APC system 105 in determining the process control parameters to be provided to the photolithographic fabrication device 101. Specifically, if a linear control model is employed, a linear residual may be employed.”
Cao, Z., Liu, X., Hao, J. and Liu, M., 2016. Simultaneous prediction for multiple key performance indicators in semiconductor wafer fabrication. Chinese Journal of Electronics, 25(6), pp.1159-1165 describes a method to establish the MKPI prediction model and identify the key factors of CT and EU based on BNN. BNN exploits an entire probability distribution of optimal network parameters rather than a single set of these parameters, and it can effectively solve the over-fitting problem by controlling model complexity. In this methodology, a closed-loop structure is developed to take the impact of dynamic environment into account, for handling the in-fluence of the emergency events. In addition, the weights analysis method is used to identify the key factors of predicted KPI since BNN has the ability to find an input which has small contribution to the output.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALICIA M. CHOI whose telephone number is (571)272-1473. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 7:30 am to 5:00 pm.
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, Robert Fennema can be reached on 571-272-2748. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALICIA M. CHOI/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2117
Prosecution Insights