DETAILED ACTION
This Office action responds to Applicant’s amendments filed on 07/09/2026.
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 . In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for a rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Amendment Status
The present Office action is made with all previously suggested amendments being fully considered. Accordingly, pending in this Office are claims 1, 3-6, 8-15, and 17-23. Claims 2, 7, and 16 are cancelled by the Applicant.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3, 6, and 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moriya (US 2007/0137792) in view of Iwa (US 2006/0132769).
Regarding claim 1, Moriya shows (see, e.g., Moriya: figs. 1-9) most aspects of the instant invention including a method, comprising:
Flowing a process gas (though the shower head 120a) into a chamber of a furnace 100 (see, e.g., Moriya: par. [0025])
Forming a material layer on a wafer WAFER via the process gas (see, e.g., Moriya: par. [0052] – [0053])
Flowing a purge gas (through valve 120) into the chamber 100 at a first flow rate
Exhausting the purge gas and particles (see, e.g., Moriya: par. [0023]) from the chamber 100 via an exhaust line GAS EXHAUST LINE
Detecting the particles with an optical scanner 213/215 (see, e.g., Moriya: par. [0083]) directed at one or more optically transparent sections 219 of the line 200 (see, e.g., Moriya: par. [0081])
Determining whether a particle parameter associated with the particles exceeds a threshold value (see, e.g., Moriya: par. [0086], [0033], and [0035])
In response to the particle parameter exceeding the threshold value, increasing a flow of the purge gas into the chamber from the first flow rate to a second flow rate greater than the first flow rate (see, e.g., Moriya: par. [0023], [0088] -[0089])
However, Moriya fails (see, e.g., Moriya: figs. 1-9) to show that the detection of particles is in the exhaust line. Moriya shows that the detection of the particles is in a line 200 that is auxiliary to the exhaust line GAS EXHAUST LINE. Iwa, in a similar method to Moriya, shows (see, e.g., Iwa: figs. 1 and 5) that the detection of the particle is in the exhaust line 221 (see, e.g., Iwa: par. [0114]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to use either the particle detection in an auxiliary line of Moriya or the particle detection in an exhaust line of Iwa because these were recognized in the semiconductor art for their use as particle detection positions in the furnaces in methods of manufacturing semiconductor devices, as taught by Moriya and by Iwa, and selecting between known equivalents would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.--,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Moriya in view of Iwa shows (see, e.g., Moriya: figs. 1-9, and see, e.g., Iwa: figs. 1 and 5) that:
The optical scanner 100 positioned adjacent to the exhaust line 221 (see, e.g., Iwa: figs. 1 and 5)
The optical scanner 100 configured to, in operation, scan a fluid in the exhaust line 221 through the one or more optically transparent sections (see, e.g., Iwa: figs. 1 and 5) (see MPEP 2111.01/MPEP 2114.I/2114.II)
Regarding claim 3, Moriya in view of Iwa shows (see, e.g., Moriya: figs. 1-9) that the optical scanner is a light scattering particle counter 210 (see, e.g., Moriya: par. [0086]).
Regarding claim 6, Moriya in view of Iwa shows (see, e.g., Moriya: figs. 1-9, ans see, e.g., Iwa: figs. 1 and 5) that:
The light scattering particle counter 100 is arranged adjacent to an optically transparent section of the exhaust line 221 (see, e.g., Iwa: figs. 1 and 5)
Regarding claim 9, Moriya shows (see, e.g., Moriya: figs. 1-9) all aspects of the instant invention including a method, comprising:
Loading a wafer WAFER into a chamber of a furnace 100
Flowing process gases (through the shower head 120a) into a chamber 100 (see, e.g., Moriya: par. [0025])
During the flowing, flowing a purge gas (through valve 120) into the chamber 100 at first flow rate
During the flowing process gases and the flowing a purge gas, forming a material layer on the wafer via the process gases gas (see, e.g., Moriya: par. [0052] – [0053])
During the forming, exhausting particles (see, e.g., Moriya: par. [0023]) from the chamber 100 via an exhaust line GAS EXHAUST LINE
Detecting the particles with an optical scanner 213/215 (see, e.g., Moriya: par. [0083]) directed at one or more optically transparent sections 219 of the line 200 (see, e.g., Moriya: par. [0081])
In response to the particle parameter associated with the particles exceeding a threshold value (see, e.g., Moriya: par. [0086], [0033], and [0035]), increasing a flow of the purge gas from the first flow rate to a second flow rate greater than the first flow rate (see, e.g., Moriya: par. [0023], [0088] -[0089])
However, Moriya fails (see, e.g., Moriya: figs. 1-9) to show that the detection of particles is in the exhaust line. Moriya shows that the detection of the particles is in a line 200 that is auxiliary to the exhaust line GAS EXHAUST LINE. Iwa, in a similar method to Moriya, shows (see, e.g., Iwa: figs. 1 and 5) that the detection of the particle is in the exhaust line 221 (see, e.g., Iwa: par. [0114]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to use either the particle detection in an auxiliary line of Moriya or the particle detection in an exhaust line of Iwa because these were recognized in the semiconductor art for their use as particle detection positions in the furnaces in methods of manufacturing semiconductor devices, as taught by Moriya and by Iwa, and selecting between known equivalents would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.--,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Moriya in view of Iwa shows (see, e.g., Moriya: figs. 1-9, and see, e.g., Iwa: figs. 1 and 5) that:
The optical scanner 100 positioned adjacent to the exhaust line 221 (see, e.g., Iwa: figs. 1 and 5)
The optical scanner 100 configured to, in operation, scan a fluid in the exhaust line 221 through the one or more optically transparent sections (see, e.g., Iwa: figs. 1 and 5) (see MPEP 2111.01/MPEP 2114.I/2114.II)
Regarding claim 10, Moriya in view of Iwa shows (see, e.g., Moriya: figs. 1-9) that:
Determining whether the forming the material layer is complete (see, e.g., Moriya: par. [0088])
In response to the forming a material layer being complete, purging the chamber 100 (see, e.g., Moriya: par. [0088] – [0089]), including:
With the wafer WAFER in the chamber 100 (see, e.g., Moriya: par. [0122]), detecting post-processing particles via the optical scanner 213/215
Adjusting flow of the purge gas based on the post-processing particles detected (see, e.g., Moriya: par. [0023])
Regarding claim 11, Moriya in view of Iwa shows (see, e.g., Moriya: figs. 1-9) that after the purging the chamber (see, e.g., Moriya: par. [0088] – [0089]):
Removing the wafer WAFER from the chamber 100 (see, e.g., Moriya: par. [0088] – [0089])
With the wafer WAFER not present in the chamber 100, detecting chamber particles via the optical scanner 213/215
Adjusting flow of the purge gas based on the chamber particles detected (see, e.g., Moriya: par. [0023])
Regarding claim 12, Moriya in view of Iwa shows (see, e.g., Moriya: figs. 1-9) that in response to a number of particles exceeding a threshold value, increasing the flow of the purge gas (see, e.g., Moriya: par. [0023] and [0086]).
Regarding claim 13, Moriya in view of Iwa shows (see, e.g., Moriya: figs. 1-9) that in response to a density of particles exceeding a threshold value (the laser scans a portion or the entire cross section of the exhaust line, thus the area where the particles are counted is known), increasing the flow of the purge gas (see, e.g., Moriya: par. [0023] and [0086]).
Regarding claim 14, Moriya in view of Iwa shows (see, e.g., Moriya: figs. 1-9) that the adjusting flow of the purge gas includes increasing flow of the purge gas at least 10% (see, e.g., Moriya: par. [0026] and considering the Bernoulli law).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moriya in view of Iwa in further in view of Wei (US 2008/0148812).
Regarding claim 4, Moriya in view of Iwa shows (see, e.g., Moriya: figs. 1-9) most aspects of the instant invention including a method, including that detecting includes the light scattering particle counter 210 (see, e.g., Moriya: par. [0086]).
However, Moriya in view of Iwa fails (see, e.g., Moriya: figs. 1-9) to show that detecting the particles is via a condensation particle counter. Wei, in a similar method to Moriya in view of Iwa, shows (see, e.g., Wei: fig. 2) a condensation particle counter (CPC) 48. Moreover, Wei shows (see, e.g., Wei: fig. 2) that the condensation particle counter (CPC) 48 is used to measure the particle number concentration in real-time and with fast response time (see, e.g., Wei: par. [0007]).
It would have been obvious at the time of filing the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the condensation particle counter of Wei in the method of Moriya in view of Iwa in order to measure the particle number concentration in real-time and with fast response time.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moriya in in view of Iwa in further view of Boonefaes (US 2025/0277728).
Regarding claim 5, Moriya in view of Iwa shows (see, e.g., Moriya: figs. 1-9) most aspects of the instant invention including a method, including the light scattering particle counter 210 is a side light scattering particle counter having a laser emitter 212 and a detector 215.
However, Moriya in view of Iwa fails (see, e.g., Moriya: figs. 1-9) to show that the laser emitter 212 and detector 215 that are arranged on a same side of the exhaust line 200. Also, Moriya in view of Iwa shows (see, e.g., Moriya: figs. 1, 2, 6, and 8-9) that the light detector 215 is disposed at a predetermined angle with respect to the incident direction of the laser beam, where the laser emitter and the detector are arranged in opposite sides of the exhaust line (see, e.g., Moriya: par. [0081]).
However, it is noted that the specification fails to provide teachings about the criticality of having the laser emitter and a detector arranged on a same side of the exhaust line, as claimed in the instant application.
Therefore, absent any criticality, this limitation is only considered to be an obvious modification of the predetermined angle with respect to the incident direction of the laser beam, disclosed by Moriya in view of Iwa as the courts have held that a change in shape or configuration, without any criticality, is within the level of skill in the art, and the position of the laser emitter and detector (depending on the predetermined angle with respect to the incident direction of the laser beam) claimed by applicant is nothing more than one of numerous configurations that a person having ordinary skill in the art will find obvious to provide using routine experimentation as a matter of choice or based on its suitability for the intended use of the invention. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976).
Furthermore, the claimed configuration of the laser emitter and detector arranged on a same side of the measurement area is known in the art: Boonefaes, in the same field of endeavor, teaches (see, e.g., Boonefaes: figs. 4B) that configuration of the laser emitter and detector arranged on a same side of the measurement area.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the configuration of the laser emitter and detector arranged on a same side of the measurement area of Boonefaes, because the configuration of the laser emitter and detector arranged on a same side of the measurement area is similarly used for in instant invention and Boonefaes, as suggested by Moriya in view of Iwa, and implementing a known configuration for its conventional use/purpose would have been a common-sense choice by the skilled artisan. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moriyain view if Iwa in further in view of Hsiao (US 9228260).
Regarding claim 8, Moriya in view of Iwa shows (see, e.g., Moriya: figs. 1-9) most aspects of the instant invention including a method, including that:
The flowing of a purge gas includes flowing nitrogen (N2) gas (see, e.g., Moriya: par. [0075])
However, Moriya in view of Iwa fails (see, e.g., Moriya: figs. 1-9) to show that the flowing of a process gas includes flowing dichlorosilane (DCS) gas and nitrous oxide (N2O) gas. Also, Moriya in view of Iwa shows (see, e.g., Moriya: figs. 1-9) that the process gas is a corrosive gas (see, e.g., Moriya: par. [0034]).
Hsiao, in a similar method to Moriya in view of Iwa, also teaches (see, e.g., Hsiao: fig. 3A) that the process gas includes flowing dichlorosilane (DCS) gas and nitrous oxide (N2O) gas (see, e.g., Hsiao: col.2/II.55-62).
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to use either corrosive process gas of Moriya in view of Iwa or the dichlorosilane (DCS) and nitrous oxide (N2O) process gases of Hsiao because these were recognized in the semiconductor art for their use as process gases in methods of manufacturing semiconductor devices, as taught by Moriya in view of Iwa and by Hsiao, and selecting between known equivalents would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.--,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claims 15, 17-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moriya (US 2007/0137792) in view of Iwa (US 2006/0132769) in further view of Mizuno (US 9123531).
Regarding claim 15, Moriya shows (see, e.g., Moriya: figs. 1-9) most aspects of the instant invention including a system, comprising:
A chamber 100
At least two process gas inlets 120a in communication with the chamber 100
At least one purge gas inlet (through valve 120) in communication with the chamber 100
An exhaust line GAS EXHAUST LINE in communication with the chamber 100
An optical scanner 212/215 positioned external to the line 200 optical scanner 213/215 (see, e.g., Moriya: par. [0083])
A controller 620 that, in operation (through signal processing unit 610), executes instructions to (see, e.g., Moriya: par. [0041]):
Flow process gases into the chamber 100
Flow a purge gas through the at least one purge inlet at a first flow
Exhaust particles from the chamber 100 (see, e.g., Moriya: par. [0023])
Detect a particle parameter via the optical scanner 212/215
Compare the particle parameter with a threshold value (see, e.g., Moriya: par. [0086], [0033], and [0035])
In response to the particle parameter exceeding the threshold value, adjust the flow of the purge gas through the at least one purge gas inlet from the first flow rate to a second flow rate greater than the first flow rate (see, e.g., Moriya: par. [0023], [0088] - [0089])
However, Moriya fails (see, e.g., Moriya: figs. 1-9) to show that the detection of particles is in the exhaust line. Moriya shows that the detection of the particles is in a line 200 that is auxiliary to the exhaust line GAS EXHAUST LINE. Iwa, in a similar method to Moriya, shows (see, e.g., Iwa: figs. 1 and 5) that the detection of the particle is in the exhaust line 221 (see, e.g., Iwa: par. [0114]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to use either the particle detection in an auxiliary line of Moriya or the particle detection in an exhaust line of Iwa because these were recognized in the semiconductor art for their use as particle detection positions in the furnaces in methods of manufacturing semiconductor devices, as taught by Moriya and by Iwa, and selecting between known equivalents would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.--,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Moriya in view of Iwa shows (see, e.g., Moriya: figs. 1-9, and see, e.g., Iwa: figs. 1 and 5) that:
The optical scanner 100 positioned close enough to the exhaust line 221 (see, e.g., Iwa: figs. 1 and 5)
The optical scanner 100 configured to, in operation, detect a particle parameter (see, e.g., Moriya: par. [0086], [0033], and [0035]) (see MPEP 2111.01/MPEP 2114.I/2114.II)
However, Moriya in view of Iwa fails (see, e.g., Moriya: figs. 1-9) to show a heater adjacent the chamber 100. Mizuno, in a similar system as Moriya in view of Iwa, shows (see, e.g., Mizuno: fig. 3) a heater 207. Moreover, Mizuno shows that the heater 207 functions as an activation mechanism configured to activate a gas using heat (see, e.g., Mizuno: col.7/II.48-54).
It would have been obvious at the time of filing the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the heater of Mizuno in the system of Moriya in view of Iwa in order to activate a gas using heat.
Regarding claim 17, Moriya in view of Iwa in view of Mizuno shows (see, e.g., Moriya: figs. 1-9) that the exhaust line 200/GAS EXHAUST LINE includes an optically transparent section and the optical scanner 212/215 is positioned adjacent the optically transparent section 219 (see, e.g., Moriya: par. [0082]).
Regarding claim 18, Moriya in view of Iwa in view of Mizuno shows (see, e.g., Moriya: figs. 1-9, and see, e.g., Mizuno: fig. 3) that:
A thin film is formed on a wafer in the chamber by the process gases (see, e.g., Mizuno: col.12/II.4-13)
The controller 620, in operation (through signal processing unit 610), executes the instructions (see, e.g., Moriya: par. [0041]) to detect the particle parameter during formation the thin film (see, e.g., Moriya: par. [0156] – [0157])
Regarding claim 19, Moriya in view of Iwa in view of Mizuno shows (see, e.g., Moriya: figs. 1-9) that with the wafer having the thin film thereon present in the chamber see, e.g., Moriya: par. [0122]):
Purge post-processing particles from the chamber
Detect the particle parameter associated with the post-processing particles (see, e.g., Moriya: par. [0023])
In response to the particle parameter associated with the post-processing particles exceeding the threshold value, increase flow of the purge gas into the chamber (see, e.g., Moriya: par. [0023])
Regarding claim 20, Moriya in view of Iwa in view of Mizuno shows (see, e.g., Moriya: figs. 1-9) that the controller, in operation, further executes the instructions to:
With the wafer having the thin film thereon removed in the chamber (see, e.g., Moriya: par. [0088] – [0089]), purge chamber particles from the chamber
Detect the particle parameter associated with the chamber particles
In response to the particle parameter associated with the chamber particles exceeding the threshold value, increase flow of the purge gas into the chamber (see, e.g., Moriya: par. [0023])
Regarding claim 21, Moriya in view of Iwa in view of Mizuno shows (see, e.g., Moriya: figs. 1-9) that the optical scanner is a light scattering particle counter 210 (see, e.g., Moriya: par. [0086]).
Regarding claim 22, Moriya in view of Iwa in view of Mizuno shows (see, e.g., Moriya: figs. 1-9) that:
Determining whether the forming the material layer is complete (see, e.g., Moriya: par. [0088])
In response to the forming a material layer being complete, purging the chamber 100 (see, e.g., Moriya: par. [0088] – [0089]), including:
With the wafer WAFER in the chamber 100 (see, e.g., Moriya: par. [0122]), detecting post-processing particles via the optical scanner 213/215
Adjusting flow of the purge gas based on the post-processing particles detected (see, e.g., Moriya: par. [0023])
Regarding claim 23, Moriya in view of Iwa in view of Mizuno shows (see, e.g., Moriya: figs. 1-9) that after the purging the chamber (see, e.g., Moriya: par. [0088] – [0089]):
Removing the wafer WAFER from the chamber 100 (see, e.g., Moriya: par. [0088] – [0089])
With the wafer WAFER not present in the chamber 100, detecting chamber particles via the optical scanner 213/215
Adjusting flow of the purge gas based on the chamber particles detected (see, e.g., Moriya: par. [0023])
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection. Examiner has read and considered Applicants’ arguments, and finds them to be unpersuasive. Examiner believes that the Moriya in view of Iwa discloses the amended limitation. The applicability of Moriya reference, and Iwa reference to the amended limitation is indicated in the claim rejections above.
The applicants argue:
Moriya fails to anticipate or otherwise render obvious that "… with an optical scanner positioned adjacent to the exhaust line directed at one or more optically transparent sections of the exhaust line, the optical scanner configured to, in operation, scan a fluid in the exhaust line through the one or more optically transparent sections …”, as recited in exemplary claims 1 and 9.
The examiner responds:
In view of the new grounds of rejection, Iwa, in a similar method to Moriya, shows (see, e.g., Iwa: figs. 1 and 5) that the detection of the particle is in the exhaust line 221 (see, e.g., Iwa: par. [0114]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to use either the particle detection in an auxiliary line of Moriya or the particle detection in an exhaust line of Iwa because these were recognized in the semiconductor art for their use as particle detection positions in the furnaces in methods of manufacturing semiconductor devices, as taught by Moriya and by Iwa, and selecting between known equivalents would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.--,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Moriya in view of Iwa shows (see, e.g., Moriya: figs. 1-9, and see, e.g., Iwa: figs. 1 and 5) that:
The optical scanner 100 positioned adjacent to the exhaust line 221 (see, e.g., Iwa: figs. 1 and 5)
The optical scanner 100 configured to, in operation, scan a fluid in the exhaust line 221 through the one or more optically transparent sections (see, e.g., Iwa: figs. 1 and 5) (see MPEP 2111.01/MPEP 2114.I/2114.II)
The applicants argue:
Moriya fails to anticipate or otherwise render obvious that an optical scanner positioned adjacent external to the exhaust line and positioned close enough to the exhaust line such that the optical scanner is configured to, in operation, detect a particle parameter within the exhaust line …”, as recited in exemplary claim 15.
The examiner responds:
In view of the new grounds of rejection, Iwa, in a similar method to Moriya, shows (see, e.g., Iwa: figs. 1 and 5) that the detection of the particle is in the exhaust line 221 (see, e.g., Iwa: par. [0114]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to use either the particle detection in an auxiliary line of Moriya or the particle detection in an exhaust line of Iwa because these were recognized in the semiconductor art for their use as particle detection positions in the furnaces in methods of manufacturing semiconductor devices, as taught by Moriya and by Iwa, and selecting between known equivalents would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.--,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Moriya in view of Iwa shows (see, e.g., Moriya: figs. 1-9, and see, e.g., Iwa: figs. 1 and 5) that:
The optical scanner 100 positioned close enough to the exhaust line 221 (see, e.g., Iwa: figs. 1 and 5)
The optical scanner 100 configured to, in operation, detect a particle parameter (see, e.g., Moriya: par. [0086], [0033], and [0035]) (see MPEP 2111.01/MPEP 2114.I/2114.II)
Conclusion
This action is made final. The Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire three months from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within two months of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the three-month shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than six months from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIBERIU DAN ONUTA whose telephone number is (571) 270-0074 and between the hours of 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM (Eastern Standard Time) Monday through Friday or by e-mail via Tiberiu.Onuta@uspto.gov. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone or email are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Wael Fahmy, can be reached on (571) 272-1705.
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.
/TIBERIU DAN ONUTA/Examiner, Art Unit 2814
/WAEL M FAHMY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2814
Prosecution Insights