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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-8, 10, 21, 23-26, and 28-33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xie (US 20240421156 A1) in view of Young (US 20210035870 A1).
PNG
media_image1.png
206
380
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Xie discloses a method, comprising: forming first semiconductive sheets (Fig. 3A, left portion of 124) over a substrate (102) and arranged in a vertical direction (Shown arranged in Z direction), second semiconductive sheets (left portion of 126) over the substrate and arranged in the vertical direction (Shown), third semiconductive sheets (See attached figure; right portion of 124) over the substrate and arranged in the vertical direction (Shown), and fourth semiconductive sheets (right portion of 126) over the substrate and arranged in the vertical direction (Shown); forming a first source/drain region (See attached figure) between the first semiconductive sheets and the second semiconductive sheets
PNG
media_image2.png
165
370
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(Shown matching Applicant's figures 17A-B), and a second source/drain region (See attached figure) between the third semiconductive sheets and the
PNG
media_image3.png
165
370
media_image3.png
Greyscale
fourth semiconductive sheets (Shown matching Applicant's figures 17A-B); forming a first gate (See attached figure; 134) around each of the first semiconductive sheets (Fig. 4A shows gate structures substantially matching Applicant's figures 17A-B), a second gate around each of the second semiconductive sheets (See attached figure), a third gate around each of the third semiconductive sheets (See attached figure), and a fourth gate around each of the fourth semiconductive sheets (See attached figure), wherein the first and second gates has a first gate pitch therebetween, the third and fourth gates has a second gate pitch therebetween, and the second gate pitch is greater than the first gate pitch (Fig. 4A shows pitch between first gate and second gate being larger than pitch between third gate and fourth gate), and forming first spacers (130) interleaving with the first semiconductive sheets (See attached figure) and between the first gate and the first source/drain region (Fig. 4A shows spacers substantially matching Applicant's figures 17A-B), and second spacers (See attached figure; 130) interleaving with the third semiconductive sheets and between the third gate and the second source/drain region (Fig. 4A shows spacers substantially matching Applicant's figures 17A-B), wherein the first spacers each has a first lateral dimension in a lengthwise direction (Width of first spacer in X direction) of one of the first semiconductive sheets, the second spacers each has a second lateral dimension om a lengthwise direction (Width of second spacer in X direction). However, Xie does not disclose the second lateral dimension being greater than the first lateral dimension or wherein a gate pitch ratio of the second gate pitch to the first gate pitch is greater than about 1.1.
On the other hand, Young discloses the second lateral dimension is greater than the first lateral dimension (Fig. 16, first lateral dimension 340B of first spacers 206B and second lateral dimension 340A of second spacers 206A; para. 52 "the inner spacer [206A] has a lateral width 340A that may be equal to or greater than the lateral width 340B of inner spacer 206B"). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing of the invention to modify Xie according to the teachings of Xie such that the lateral dimension of the second spacers would be greater than the lateral dimension of the first spacers in order to tune the capacitance of the different regions of the device (Young, para. 49 “The materials and the lateral widths of the inner spacers may be tuned to achieve overall balanced capacitance of the nano-sheet-based CMOS”).
Xie in view of Young still does not disclose a gate pitch ratio of the second gate pitch to the first gate pitch being greater than about 1.1. Nonetheless, it would have been obvious to form the gate pitch ratio within the claimed range, since it has been held by the Federal circuit that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device or provide any criticality, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. (In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)).
Regarding claim 3, Young discloses wherein a ratio of the second lateral dimension of the second spacers to the first lateral dimension of the first spacers is greater than about 1.05 (Para. 52 "a ratio of the lateral width 340A to the lateral width 340B may be about 14 to 1.1"). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to form the ratio of the second lateral dimension of the second spacers to the first lateral dimension of the first spacers within the claimed range, since it has been held by the Federal circuit that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device or provide any criticality, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. (In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)).
Regarding claim 4, Xie discloses wherein the first, second, third, and fourth gates each comprises a gate dielectric layer (Para. 35 "The gate includes a gate dielectric over the channel") and a gate electrode layer over the gate dielectric layer (Para. 35 "The gate includes… a gate conductor over the gate dielectric"), and the gate dielectric layer of the first gate, the gate dielectric layer of the second gate, the gate dielectric layer of the third gate, the gate dielectric layer of the fourth gate have a same thickness as each other (Fig. 4A shows all gate structures being substantially identical).
Regarding claim 5, Xie discloses wherein the gate electrode layer of the first gate and the gate electrode layer of the second gate have a first distance therebetween (Fig. 5a; distance between first and second gates, each comprising a gate electrode), the gate electrode layer of the third gate and the gate electrode layer of the fourth gate have a second distance therebetween (Fig. 5A; distance between third and fourth gates, each comprising a gate electrode), and the second distance is greater than the first distance (Fig. 5A shows the distance between third and fourth gates being greater than the distance between first and second gates, therefore the distance between third and fourth gate electrodes is greater than the distance between first and second gate electrodes).
Regarding claim 6, Xie in view of Young does not disclose wherein a ratio of the second distance to the first distance is greater than about 1.1. Nonetheless, it would have been obvious to form the ratio of the second distance to the first distance within the claimed range, since it has been held by the Federal circuit that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device or provide any criticality, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. (In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)).
Regarding claim 7, Young discloses wherein the gate electrode layer of the first gate has a first gate length (Fig. 20, X direction length of 248A), the gate electrode layer of the third gate has a second gate length (Z direction length of 248B), and the second gate length is longer than the first gate length (Shown in Fig. 20). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to form the second gate length within the claimed range, since it has been held by the Federal circuit that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device or provide any criticality, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. (In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)).
Regarding claim 8, Xie in view of Young does not disclose wherein a gate length ratio of the second gate length to the first gate length is greater than about 1.1. Nonetheless, it would have been obvious to form the gate length ratio within the claimed range, since it has been held by the Federal circuit that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device or provide any criticality, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. (In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)).
Regarding claim 10, Xie discloses wherein the first and second semiconductive sheets, the first and second gates, and the first source/drain region are of a core device (Fig. 5A shows the first and second semiconductive sheets, gates and source/drain regions being part of the core device), and the third and fourth semiconductive sheets, the third and fourth gates, and the second source/drain region are of a device for a capacitor or being of an e-fuse or an analog circuit (Fig. 5A shows the third and fourth semiconductive sheets, gates and source/drain regions comprising GAA transistors, and therefore being part of an analog circuit).
PNG
media_image4.png
206
380
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 21, Xie discloses a method, comprising: forming first semiconductive sheets (Fig. 3A, left portion of 124) over a substrate (102) and arranged in a vertical direction (Shown arranged in Z direction), second semiconductive sheets (left portion of 126) over the substrate and arranged in the vertical direction (Shown), third semiconductive sheets (See attached figure; right portion of 124) over the substrate and arranged in the vertical direction (Shown), and fourth semiconductive sheets (right portion of 126) over the substrate and arranged in the vertical direction (Shown); forming a first source/drain region (See attached figure) between the first semiconductive sheets and the second
PNG
media_image2.png
165
370
media_image2.png
Greyscale
semiconductive sheets (Shown matching Applicant's figures 17A-B), and a second source/drain region (See attached figure) between the third semiconductive sheets and the fourth semiconductive sheets (Shown matching Applicant's figures 17A-B);
PNG
media_image3.png
165
370
media_image3.png
Greyscale
forming a first gate (See attached figure; 134) around each of the first semiconductive sheets (Fig. 4A shows gate structures substantially matching Applicant's figures 17A-B), a second gate around each of the second semiconductive sheets (See attached figure), a third gate around each of the third semiconductive sheets (See attached figure), and a fourth gate around each of the fourth semiconductive sheets (See attached figure), wherein each of the first, second, third, and fourth gates comprises a gate dielectric layer (Para. 35 "The gate includes a gate dielectric over the channel") and a gate electrode layer over the gate dielectric layer (Para. 35 "The gate includes… a gate conductor over the gate dielectric"), the gate electrode layer of the first gate and the gate electrode layer of the second gate have a first distance therebetween (Fig. 5a; distance between first and second gates, each comprising a gate electrode), the gate electrode layer of the third gate and the gate electrode layer of the fourth gate have a second distance therebetween (distance between third and fourth gates, each comprising a gate electrode), the second distance is greater than the first distance (Shown in Fig. 5A), and forming first spacers (130) interleaving with the first semiconductive sheets (See attached figure) and between the first gate and the first source/drain region (Fig. 4A shows spacers substantially matching Applicant's figures 17A-B), and second spacers (See attached figure; 130) interleaving with the third semiconductive sheets and between the third gate and the second source/drain region (Fig. 4A shows spacers substantially matching Applicant's figures 17A-B), wherein the first gate comprises a first top spacer (Fig. 5A, comprises 132 and 136 of first gate) over the first semiconductive sheets and on a sidewall of the first gate (Shown), the third gate comprises a second top spacer over the third semiconductive sheets and on a sidewall of the third gate (comprises 132 and 136 of the third gate). However, Xie does not disclose the gate electrode layer of the first gate having a first gate length, and the gate electrode layer of the third gate having a second gate length greater than the first gate length, or the second top spacer having a greater thickness than the first top spacer.
On the other hand, Young discloses the gate electrode layer of the first gate has a first gate length (Fig. 20, X direction length of 248A), and the gate electrode layer of the third gate has a second gate length (Z direction length of 248B) greater than the first gate length (Shown in Fig. 20). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing of the invention to modify Xie according to the teachings of Young such that the gate electrode layer of the first gate would have a first gate length, and the gate electrode layer of the second gate would have a second gate length greater than the first gate length in order to improve integration density by reducing the gate width.
Xie in view of Young still does not disclose the second top spacer having a greater thickness than the first top spacer. Nonetheless, it would have been obvious to form the top spacers within the claimed range, since it has been held by the Federal circuit that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device or provide any criticality, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. (In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)).
Regarding claim 23, Xie in view of Young does not disclose the second top spacer being thicker than the first top spacer by about 0.5 nm to about 5 nm. Nonetheless, it would have been obvious to form the top spacers within the claimed range, since it has been held by the Federal circuit that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device or provide any criticality, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. (In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)).
Regarding claim 24, Xie discloses wherein the first spacers have a higher dielectric constant value than the first top spacer (Para. 58 "130… and the ILD layer 136 may be formed of similar materials… to the inner spacers 116"… and the ILD layer 120; para. 49 "The inner spacers 116 may be formed of silicon nitride (SiN) or another suitable material such as SiBCN, silicon carbide oxide (SiCO), SiOCN, etc."; para. 53 "The ILD layer 120 may be formed of any suitable isolating material, such as SiO2, SiOC, SiON, etc.", therefore the first spacers 130 would have a higher dielectric constant value than the first top spacer 136 in the case that the first spacer 130 is SiN and the first top spacer 136 is SiO2).
Regarding claim 25, Xie discloses further comprising: forming a first dielectric layer (Fig. 2A, left portion of 122 corresponding to the region containing the first and second semiconductive sheets; para. 55 "122 may be formed of a dielectric material") and a second dielectric layer (Right portion of 122 corresponding to the region containing the third and fourth semiconductive sheets) over the substrate (Shown) before forming the first source/drain region and the second source/drain region (Figs. 2A-4A show dielectric layers being formed in fig. 2A while source/drain regions are formed in fig. 4A), wherein the first source/drain region is formed over the first dielectric layer, the second source/drain region is formed over the second dielectric layer, and the second dielectric layer has a greater lateral dimension than the first dielectric layer (Shown).
PNG
media_image5.png
244
681
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
206
380
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 26, Xie discloses a method, comprising: forming first semiconductive sheets (Fig. 3A, left portion of 124) over a substrate (102) and arranged in a vertical direction (Shown arranged in Z direction), second semiconductive sheets (left portion of 126) over the substrate and arranged in the vertical direction (Shown), third semiconductive sheets (See attached figure; right portion of 124) over the substrate and arranged in the vertical direction (Shown), and fourth semiconductive sheets (right portion of 126) over the substrate and arranged in the vertical direction (Shown); forming a first source/drain region (See attached figure) between the first semiconductive sheets and the second semiconductive sheets (Shown matching Applicant's figures 17A-B), and a second source/drain region (See attached figure) between the third semiconductive sheets and the fourth semiconductive sheets (Shown matching Applicant's figures 17A-B), wherein the first source/drain region has a first source/drain lateral dimension in a lengthwise direction (Width of first source/drain region in X direction) of one of the first semiconductive sheets, the second source/drain region has a second source/drain lateral dimension (Width of second source/drain region in X direction
PNG
media_image3.png
165
370
media_image3.png
Greyscale
in a lengthwise direction of one of the third semiconductive sheets, and the second source/drain lateral dimension is greater than the first source/drain lateral dimension (Shown); forming a first gate (See attached figure; 134) around each of the first semiconductive sheets (Fig. 4A shows gate structures substantially matching Applicant's figures 17A-B), a second gate around each of the second semiconductive sheets (See attached figure), a third gate around each of the third semiconductive sheets (See attached figure), and a fourth gate around each of the fourth semiconductive sheets (See attached figure), wherein the first gate and the second gate having a first gate pitch therebetween, the third gate and the fourth gate have a second gate pitch therebetween, and the second gate pitch is greater than the first gate pitch (Fig. 4A shows pitch between first gate and second gate being larger than pitch between third gate and fourth gate), wherein each of the first, second, third, and fourth gates comprises a gate dielectric layer (Para. 35 "The gate includes a gate dielectric over the channel") and a gate electrode layer over the gate dielectric layer (Para. 35 "The gate includes… a gate conductor over the gate dielectric"), and the gate dielectric layers of the first, second, third, and fourth gates have a same thickness as each other (Fig. 4A shows all gate structures being substantially identical), wherein the gate electrode layer of the first gate and the gate electrode layer of the second gate have a first distance therebetween (Fig. 5a; distance between first and second gates, each comprising a gate electrode), the gate electrode layer of the third gate and the gate electrode layer of the fourth gate have a second distance therebetween (Fig. 5A; distance between third and fourth gates, each comprising a gate electrode), and the second distance is greater than the first distance (Fig. 5A shows the distance between third and fourth gates being greater than the distance between first and second gates, therefore the distance between third and fourth gate electrodes is greater than the distance between first and second gate electrodes), and forming first spacers (130) interleaving with the first semiconductive sheets (See attached figure) and between the first gate and the first source/drain region (Fig. 4A shows spacers substantially matching Applicant's figures 17A-B), and second spacers (See attached figure; 130) interleaving with the third semiconductive sheets and between the third gate and the second source/drain region (Fig. 4A shows spacers substantially matching Applicant's figures 17A-B), wherein the first spacers each have a first spacer lateral dimension (Width of first spacer in X direction) in the lengthwise direction, the second spacers each have a second spacer lateral dimension (Width of second spacer in X direction). However, Xie does not disclose wherein the gate electrode layer of the first gate has a first gate length, and a gate electrode layer of the third gate has a second gate length greater than the first gate length, a ratio of the second gate length to the first gate length is greater than about 1.1, the second spacer lateral dimension is greater than the first lateral dimension.
On the other hand, Young discloses the gate electrode layer of the first gate has a first gate length (Fig. 20, X direction length of 248A), and the gate electrode layer of the third gate has a second gate length (Z direction length of 248B) greater than the first gate length (Shown in Fig. 20), and the second spacer lateral dimension being greater than the first lateral dimension. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing of the invention to modify Xie according to the teachings of Young such that the gate electrode layer of the first gate would have a first gate length, and the gate electrode layer of the second gate would have a second gate length greater than the first gate length, and the second spacer lateral dimension would be greater than the first lateral dimension, in order to improve integration density by reducing the gate width.
Xie in view of Young still does not disclose a ratio of the second gate length to the first gate length being greater than about 1.1. Nonetheless, it would have been obvious to form the first and second gates within the claimed range, since it has been held by the Federal circuit that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device or provide any criticality, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. (In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)).
Regarding claim 28, Xie discloses wherein the first semiconductive sheets and the second semiconductive sheets are in a first circuit region (Corresponds to region containing first and second semiconductive sheets), the third semiconductive sheets and the fourth semiconductive sheets are in a second circuit region (Corresponds to region containing third and fourth semiconductive sheets), and the second circuit region has a greater width than the first circuit region (Shown).
PNG
media_image6.png
244
380
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 29, Xie discloses wherein the first semiconductive sheets and the second semiconductive sheets are in a first circuit region, and the third semiconductive sheets and the fourth semiconductive sheets are in a second circuit region different from the first circuit region (See attached figure).
Regarding claim 30, Xie discloses wherein the first circuit region is a core device region (Fig. 5A shows the first circuit region being part of the core device), and the second circuit region is a capacitor region, an e-fuse region, or an analog circuit region (Fig. 5A shows the second circuit region being comprising GAA transistors, and therefore being part of an analog circuit).
Regarding claim 31, Xie in view of Young does not disclose wherein a gate pitch ratio of the second gate pitch to the first gate pitch is greater than about 1.1. Nonetheless, it would have been obvious to form the gate pitch ratio within the claimed range, since it has been held by the Federal circuit that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device or provide any criticality, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. (In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)).
Regarding claim 32, Young disclose wherein forming the first source/drain region and the second source/drain region comprises forming a first source/drain recess (Figs. 4-5 show forming source/drain recesses 204). However, Xie in view of Young does not explicitly disclose wherein the second source/drain recess is wider than the first source/drain recess. Nonetheless, it would have been obvious to form the source/drain recesses within the claimed range, since it has been held by the Federal circuit that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device or provide any criticality, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. (In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)).
Regarding claim 33, Xie discloses forming a first top spacer (Fig. 5A, comprises 132 and 136 over first semiconductive sheets) over the first semiconductive sheets and on a sidewall of the first gate (Shown), and a second top spacer over the third semiconductive sheets and on a sidewall of the third gate (comprises 132 and 136 over third semiconductive sheets); and forming a first contact over the first source/drain region (Fig. 5A, 138-2 over first source/drain region) and a second contact over the second source/drain region (138-2 over second source/drain region), wherein the first contact is in contact with the first top spacer, and the second contact is spaced apart from the second top spacer (Shown).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xie (US 20240421156 A1) in view of Young (US 20210035870 A1) as applied to claims 1, 3-8, 10, 21, 23-26, and 28-33 above, and further in view of Huang (US 20230178552 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Xie in view of Young discloses the method of claim 7. However, Xie in view of Young does not disclose wherein the first gate length is in a range from about 8-20 nm, and the second gate length is in a range from about 8-16 nm.
On the other hand, Huang discloses a first gate length (Fig. 1A, gate 101) being in a range from about 30-50 nm (Para. 88 “the first gate structure has a total width between about 30 nm and about 50 nm") and a second gate length (gate 103) being in a range from about 50-80 nm (Para. 91 “A width of the second gate structure may be between about 50 nm and about 80 nm"). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing of the invention to modify the art cited above such that the first gate length would be in a range of about 8-20 nm and the second gate length would be in a range of about 8-16 nm, in order to keep the gate length small enough to maintain a small device footprint while keeping the features large enough to be able to fabricate reliably.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argued that the claims are now in condition of allowance because they have been amended to contain the limitations from the previously objected to claims. However, after further search and consideration, Examiner asserts that the limitations of claims 2, 6, 8-9 and 22-24 concerning relative dimensions of components do not distinguish over the prior art (In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)), and prosecution of these limitations has been reopened.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMUEL J SMITH whose telephone number is (703)756-5706. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 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, Marlon Fletcher can be reached at (571) 272-2063. 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.
/S.J.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2817
/MARLON T FLETCHER/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2817
Prosecution Insights