DETAILED ACTION
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2, line 1, is indefinite because it is unclear if this is meant to be at a higher temperature.
Claim 5, line 1, is indefinite because it refers to “a second” but does not depend on a claim that has “a first”.
Claim 5, line 2, is indefinite because it refers to “a second portion” but does not depend on a claim that has “a first or second portion”.
Claim 7, line 1, is indefinite because it refers to “a third” but does not depend on a claim that has “a first”.
Claim 7, line 2, is indefinite because it refers to “a third portion” but does not depend on a claim that has “a first or second portion”.
Claim 8, lines 1, 3, 4, is indefinite because it refers to a “second accommodating space” but does not depend on a claim with a “first accommodating space”.
Claim 8, line 3, is indefinite because it refers to “a third” but does not depend on a claim that has “a first”.
Claim 18, line 1, is indefinite because “SUS” should be “stainless steel (SUS)”.
Claim 18, line 2, is indefinite because “PTFE” should be “polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE)”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto et al. (JP 2007-270231 A1) in view of Jang et al. (U.S. PGPUB. 2018/0190485 A1).
INDEPENDENT CLAIM 1:
Regarding claim 1, Matsumoto et al. teach
a substrate treatment apparatus (Fig. 1) comprising:
an upper vessel comprising a first body (21) and a supply port (60) formed in the first body (21) and supplying a process fluid (Paragraph 0035 – supercritical fluid);
a baffle plate installed in the upper vessel and supplying the process fluid supplied
through the supply port to a treatment space by diffusing the process fluid (Paragraph 0035 – “A diffusion mechanism such as a shower head may be installed so that the processing fluid supplied from the supply path 60 into the film formation processing space F is supplied to the wafer W evenly”; a lower vessel comprising a second body (20);
a support plate (Paragraph 0031 - 3 – mounting table 3)) installed in the lower vessel to face the baffle plate (Paragraph 0035 – showerhead) and supporting a substrate (Fig. 1 – “W”),
wherein while a supercritical process is performed in the treatment space, the support plate is heated so that the temperature of the support plate is higher than that of the
first body (Paragraph 0048)
The difference between Matsumoto et al. and claim 1 is that an exhaust port formed in the second body and exhausting the process fluid from the treatment space is not discussed (Claim 1).
Regarding an exhaust port formed in the second body and exhausting the process fluid from the treatment space (Claim 1), Jang et al. teach forming an exhaust port in a second body of an apparatus for supercritical fluid treatment. (See Figs. 2, 3 – exhaust 124 – Paragraph 0027)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 2:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the support plate is higher than the
second body while the supercritical process is performed in the treatment space.
Regarding claim 2, Matsumoto et al. teach the support plate is higher (in temperature) than the second body while the supercritical process is performed in the treatment space. (Paragraph 0048)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 3:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein a heater is installed inside the support
plate and operates while the supercritical process is performed.
Regarding claim 3, Matsumoto et al. teach wherein a heater is installed inside the support
plate and operates while the supercritical process is performed. (Paragraph 0033 – 34a)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 11:
The difference not yet discussed is further comprising a support installed on the first
body and supporting edges of the substrate, wherein the substrate is placed on the support
in a state where the upper vessel and the lower vessel are spaced apart from each other and
is transferred from the support to an upper surface of the support plate in a state where the
upper vessel and the lower vessel are in contact with each other.
Regarding claim 11, Jang et al. teach a support installed on the first body and supporting edges of the substrate, wherein the substrate is placed on the support in a state where the upper vessel and the lower vessel are spaced apart from each other and is transferred from the support to an upper surface of the support plate in a state where the upper vessel and the lower vessel are in contact with each other. (Figs. 2, 3, 5)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 12:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein while the supercritical process is
performed in the treatment space, the first body is controlled to 35 to below 150 °C, and the
support plate is controlled to 150 to 350 °C.
Regarding claim 12, Matsumoto et al. teach wherein while the supercritical process is
performed in the treatment space, the first body is controlled to 35 to below 150 °C, and the
support plate is controlled to 150 to 350 °C. (Paragraphs 0048-0057)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 13:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the process fluid is a first process fluid
comprising a metal precursor and a supercritical fluid or a second process fluid comprising
a reducing fluid.
Regarding claim 13, Matsumoto et al. teach wherein the process fluid is a first process fluid comprising a metal precursor and a supercritical fluid or a second process fluid comprising
a reducing fluid. (Paragraphs 0048-0070)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 14:
The difference not yet discussed is supplying the first process fluid to the treatment
space so that the first process fluid is in a supercritical state in the treatment space, venting
the treatment space, supplying the second process fluid to the treatment space so that the
metal precursor and the reducing fluid react with each other, and then venting the treatment
space again.
Regarding claim 14, Matsumoto et al. teach supplying the first process fluid to the treatment space so that the first process fluid is in a supercritical state in the treatment space, venting the treatment space, supplying the second process fluid to the treatment space so that the
metal precursor and the reducing fluid react with each other, and then venting the treatment
space again. (Paragraphs 0048-0070)
The motivation for providing the exhaust in the second body is that it allows exhaustion of supercritical fluid. (See Abstract)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified Matsumoto et al. by utilizing the features of Jang et al. because it allows for exhaustion of supercritical fluid.
Claim(s) 4, 5, 7, 8, 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto et al. in view of Jang et al. as applied to claims 1-3, 11-14 above, and further in view of Sakashita et al. (JP 2002-320929 A1).
DEPENDENT CLAIM 4:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein a first liner made of a heat insulating
material is installed on a first portion of the baffle plate which is exposed to the treatment
space.
Regarding claim 4, Sakashita et al. teach utilizing a baffle plate. (Fig. 2; Paragraph 0020) Sakashita et al. also teach that the internal components of the chamber should be coated with a ceramic for corrosion resistance. This suggests a first liner made of a heat insulating
material is installed on a first portion of the baffle plate which is exposed to the treatment
space. (Paragraph 0021 - Note that, also in FIG. 2, it is desirable that the support base (stand) 5 be rotated during processing. Further, the processing chamber 2, the valve structures 6, 7, 15, 16 and the like are subjected to corrosion resistance treatment (coating of ceramics or the like).)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 5:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein a second liner made of a heat insulating
material is installed on a second portion of the upper vessel which is exposed to the
treatment space.
Regarding claim 5, Sakashita et al. teach that the internal components of the chamber should be coated with a ceramic for corrosion resistance. This suggests a second liner made of a heat insulating material is installed on a second portion of the upper vessel which is exposed to the treatment space. (Paragraph 0021 - Note that, also in FIG. 2, it is desirable that the support base (stand) 5 be rotated during processing. Further, the processing chamber 2, the valve structures 6, 7, 15, 16 and the like are subjected to corrosion resistance treatment (coating of ceramics or the like).)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 7:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein a third liner made of a heat insulating
material is installed on a third portion of the lower vessel which is exposed to the treatment
space.
Regarding claim 7, Sakashita et al. teach that the internal components of the chamber should be coated with a ceramic for corrosion resistance. This suggests a third liner made of a heat insulating material is installed on a third portion of the lower vessel which is exposed to the treatment space. (Paragraph 0021 - Note that, also in FIG. 2, it is desirable that the support base (stand) 5 be rotated during processing. Further, the processing chamber 2, the valve structures 6, 7, 15, 16 and the like are subjected to corrosion resistance treatment (coating of ceramics or the like).)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 8:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein a second accommodating space
connected to the exhaust port and having the support plate located therein is formed in the
second body, and the third liner is installed on sidewalls of the second accommodating
space.
Regarding claim 8:
Jang et al. teach a second accommodating space connected to the exhaust port and having the support plate located therein is formed in the second body. (See Figs. 2, 3)
Sakashita et al. teach that the internal components of the chamber should be coated with a ceramic for corrosion resistance. This suggests the third liner is installed on sidewalls of the second accommodating space. (Paragraph 0021 - Note that, also in FIG. 2, it is desirable that the support base (stand) 5 be rotated during processing. Further, the processing chamber 2, the valve structures 6, 7, 15, 16 and the like are subjected to corrosion resistance treatment (coating of ceramics or the like).)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 9:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein a liner is installed on at least one of the
baffle plate, the upper vessel and the lower vessel which form the treatment space, and the
liner comp1ises polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) or ceramic.
Regarding claim 9, Sakashita et al. teach that the internal components of the chamber should be coated with a ceramic for corrosion resistance. (Paragraph 0021 - Note that, also in FIG. 2, it is desirable that the support base (stand) 5 be rotated during processing. Further, the processing chamber 2, the valve structures 6, 7, 15, 16 and the like are subjected to corrosion resistance treatment (coating of ceramics or the like).)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Sakashita et al. is that it allows for providing corrosion resistance. (Paragraph 0021)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have utilized the features of Sakashita et al. because it allows for providing corrosion resistance.
Claim(s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto et al. in view of Jang et al. and further in view of Sakashita et al. as applied to claims 1-5, 7-9, 11-14 above, and further in view of Tsuda (U.S. PGPUB. 2010/0310772 A1).
DEPENDENT CLAIM 6:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the first body comprises a center region and a peripheral region surrounding the center region, a first accommodating space
connected to the support port and having the baffle plate located therein is formed in the
center region, the peripheral region protrudes from the center region, and the second liner
is installed in the peripheral region.
Regarding claim 6:
Tsuda teaches a first body comprising a center region and a peripheral region surrounding the center region, a first accommodating space connected to the support port and having the baffle plate located therein is formed in the center region, the peripheral region protrudes from the center region. (See Figs. 1, 16, 17)
Sakashita et al. already discussed above teach that the internal components of the chamber should be coated with a ceramic for corrosion resistance and therefore suggest second liner installed in the peripheral region. (See Sakashita et al. discussed above)
The motivation for utilizing the features Tsuda is that it allows for diffusing gas. (See Abstract)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have utilized the features of Tsuda because it allows for diffusing gas.
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto et al. in view of Jang et al. and further in view of Sakashita et al. as applied to claims 1-5, 7-9, 11-14 above, and further in view of Verhaverbeke et al. (U.S. PGPUB. 2017/0148624 A1).
DEPENDENT CLAIM 10:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the upper vessel and the lower vessel
comprise stainless steel (SUS).
Regarding claim 10, Verhaverbeke et al. teach wherein the upper vessel and the lower vessel can be comprised of stainless steel and coated with Teflon (PTFE). (Paragraph 0051)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Verhaverbeke et al. is that it allows for utilizing a material that is able to withstand an operating temperature and pressure sufficient to maintain a gas in its supercritical state. (Paragraph 0051)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have utilized the features of Verhaverbeke et al. because it allows for utilizing a material that is able to withstand an operating temperature and pressure sufficient to maintain a gas in its supercritical state.
Claim(s) 15, 16, 17, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang et al. (U.S. PGPUB. 2018/0190485 A1) in view of Matsumoto et al. (JP 2007-270270231 A1) and Sakashita et al. (JP 2002-320929 A1).
INDEPENDENT CLAIM 15:
Regarding claim 15, Jang et al. teach a substrate treatment apparatus comprising:
vessels (110, 120) providing a treatment space (102) for treating a substrate (W) and comprising an upper vessel (110) and a lower vessel (120) detachably coupled so that the upper vessel and the lower vessel can be switched between a closed position for closing the treatment space (Fig. 1, 2) and an open position for opening the treatment space (Fig. 3); a support installed on a lower surface of the upper vessel (130) and configured to support the substrate (W) in the open position of the vessels (Fig. 3); a plate installed in the lower vessel (140). (See Figs. 1, 2, 3; Paragraph 0024-0030)
The difference between Jang et al. and claim 15 is that a hot plate installed in the lower vessel and heating a lower surface of the substrate in the closed position of the vessels is not discussed and a liner installed on at least a portion of an inner wall of the treatment space and
made of a heat insulating material is not discussed.
Regarding a hot plate installed in the lower vessel and heating a lower surface of the substrate in the closed position of the vessels (Claim 15):
Jang et al. already teach a plate installed in the lower vessel as discussed above. (See Jang et al. discussed above)
Matsumoto et al. teach providing a heater (34a) to the plate (3) holding the substrate to heat the lower surface of the substrate in a closed position. (Fig. 1; Paragraph 0031)
Therefore, it would be obvious to modify Jang et al. by utilizing the features of Matsumoto et al. because it allows for controlling the temperature. (Paragraph 0048)
Regarding a liner installed on at least a portion of an inner wall of the treatment space and made of a heat insulating material (Claim 15):
Sakashita et al. teach that the internal components of the chamber should be coated with a ceramic for corrosion resistance. This suggest the inner wall made of a heat insulating material. (Paragraph 0021 - Note that, also in FIG. 2, it is desirable that the support base (stand) 5 be rotated during processing. Further, the processing chamber 2, the valve structures 6, 7, 15, 16 and the like are subjected to corrosion resistance treatment (coating of ceramics or the like).)
Therefore, it would be obvious to modify Jang et al. by utilizing the features of Sakashita et al. because it allows for corrosion resistance. (Paragraph 0021)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 16:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein while a supercritical process is
performed in the treatment space, the temperature of the hot plate is controlled to be higher
than those of the vessels.
Regarding claim 16, Matsumoto et al. teaches wherein while a supercritical process is
performed in the treatment space, the temperature of the hot plate is controlled to be higher
than those of the vessels. (Paragraph 0048-0070)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 17:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein while the supercritical process is
performed in the treatment space, the vessels are controlled to 35 to below 150 °C, and the
hot plate is controlled to 150 to 350 °C.
Regarding claim 17, Matsumoto et al. teach wherein while the supercritical process is
performed in the treatment space, the vessels are controlled to 35 to below 150 °C, and the
hot plate is controlled to 150 to 350 °C. (Paragraph 0048-0070)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 19:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein in the closed position of the vessels, the
hot plate receives the substrate from the support and supports the received substrate.
Regarding claim 19, Jang et al. discussed above already teaches wherein in the closed position of the vessels, the plate receives the substrate from the support and supports the received substrate. (See Figs. 1-3)
Matsumoto et al. suggest that the plate can be a hot plate for heating the wafer. (See Matsumoto et al. discussed above)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Matsumoto et al. is that it allows for controlling temperature. (Paragraph 0048)
The motivation for utilizing the feature of Sakashita et al. is that it allows for corrosion resistance. (Paragraph 0021)
Therefore, it would have been obvious modify Jang et al. by utilizing the features of Matsumoto et al. and Sakashita et al. because it allows for controlling the temperature and for corrosion resistance.
Claim(s) 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang et al. in view of Matsumoto et al. and Sakashita et al. as applied to claims 15, 16, 17, 19 above, and further in view of Verhaverbeke et al. (U.S. PGPUB. 2017/0148624 A1).
DEPENDENT CLAIM 18:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the vessels comprise SUS, and the liner
comprises PTFE or ceramic.
Regarding claim 18, Verhaverbeke et al. teach wherein the upper vessel and the lower vessel can be comprised of stainless steel and coated with Teflon (PTFE). (Paragraph 0051)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Verhaverbeke et al. is that it allows for utilizing a material that is able to withstand an operating temperature and pressure sufficient to maintain a gas in its supercritical state. (Paragraph 0051)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have utilized the features of Verhaverbeke et al. because it allows for utilizing a material that is able to withstand an operating temperature and pressure sufficient to maintain a gas in its supercritical state.
Claim(s) 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang et al. (U.S. PGPUB. 2018/0190485 A1) in view of Tsuda (U.S. PGPUB. 2010/0310772 A1) and Matsumoto et al. (JP 2007-270270231 A1) and Sakashita et al. (JP 2002-320929 A1).
INDEPENDENT CLAIM 20:
Regarding claim 20, Jang et al. teach a substrate treatment apparatus comprising:
an upper vessel which comprises a first body comprising a center region and a
peripheral region, a supply port formed in the center region and supplying a process fluid,
a lower vessel comprising a second body, an exhaust port formed in the second
body and exhausting the process fluid from the treatment space, and a recessed second
accommodating space.
The difference between claim 20 and Jang et al. is that a first accommodating space connected to the supply port in the center region and recessed inward from the peripheral region is not discussed (Claim 20), a baffle plate installed in the first accommodating space and supplying the process fluid supplied through the supply port to a treatment space by diffusing the process fluid is not discussed (Claim 20), a hot plate installed in the second accommodating space to face the baffle plate is not discussed (Claim 20), a first heat insulating liner installed on a lower surf ace of the baffle plate is not discussed (Claim 20), a second heat insulating liner installed on a lower surface of the peripheral region of the first body is not discussed (Claim 20),
a third heat insulating liner installed on sidewalls of the second accommodating space which surround side surfaces of the hot plate is not discussed (Claim 20) and wherein while a supercritical process is performed in the treatment space, the hot plate is heated so that the temperature of the hot plate is higher than those of the first body and the second body is not discussed (Claim 20).
Regarding a first accommodating space connected to the supply port in the center region and recessed inward from the peripheral region (Claim 20), Tsuda teaches a first accommodating space connected to the supply port in the center region and recessed inward from the peripheral region. (Figs. 1, 16, 17)
Regarding a baffle plate installed in the first accommodating space and supplying the process fluid supplied through the supply port to a treatment space by diffusing the process fluid (Claim 20), Tsuda teaches a baffle plate installed in the first accommodating space and supplying the process fluid supplied through the supply port to a treatment space by diffusing the process fluid. (Figs. 1, 16, 17)
Regarding a hot plate installed in the second accommodating space to face the baffle plate (Claim 20):
Jang et al. already teach a plate installed in the lower vessel as discussed above. (See Jang et al. discussed above)
Matsumoto et al. teach providing a heater (34a) to the plate (3) holding the substrate to heat the lower surface of the substrate in a closed position. (Fig. 1; Paragraph 0031)
Therefore, it would be obvious to modify Jang et al. by utilizing the features of Matsumoto et al. because it allows for controlling the temperature. (Paragraph 0048)
Regarding a first heat insulating liner installed on a lower surface of the baffle plate (Claim 20), Sakashita et al. teach that the internal components of the chamber should be coated with a ceramic for corrosion resistance. This suggest a first heat insulating liner installed on a lower surface of the baffle plate. (Paragraph 0021 - Note that, also in FIG. 2, it is desirable that the support base (stand) 5 be rotated during processing. Further, the processing chamber 2, the valve structures 6, 7, 15, 16 and the like are subjected to corrosion resistance treatment (coating of ceramics or the like).)
Regarding a second heat insulating liner installed on a lower surface of the peripheral region of the first body (Claim 20), Sakashita et al. teach that the internal components of the chamber should be coated with a ceramic for corrosion resistance. This suggest a second heat insulating liner installed on a lower surface of the peripheral region of the first body. (Paragraph 0021 - Note that, also in FIG. 2, it is desirable that the support base (stand) 5 be rotated during processing. Further, the processing chamber 2, the valve structures 6, 7, 15, 16 and the like are subjected to corrosion resistance treatment (coating of ceramics or the like).)
Regarding a third heat insulating liner installed on sidewalls of the second accommodating space which surround side surfaces of the hot plate (Claim 20),
Sakashita et al. teach that the internal components of the chamber should be coated with a ceramic for corrosion resistance. This suggest a third heat insulating liner installed on sidewalls of the second accommodating space which surround side surfaces of the hot plate. (Paragraph 0021 - Note that, also in FIG. 2, it is desirable that the support base (stand) 5 be rotated during processing. Further, the processing chamber 2, the valve structures 6, 7, 15, 16 and the like are subjected to corrosion resistance treatment (coating of ceramics or the like).)
Regarding wherein while a supercritical process is performed in the treatment space, the hot plate is heated so that the temperature of the hot plate is higher than those of the first body and the second body (Claim 20), Matsumoto et al. teaches wherein while a supercritical process is performed in the treatment space, the temperature of the hot plate is controlled to be higher
than those of the vessels. (Paragraph 0048-0070)
The motivation for utilizing the features Tsuda is that it allows for diffusing gas. (See Abstract)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Matsumoto et al. is that it allows for controlling temperature. (Paragraph 0048)
The motivation for utilizing the feature of Sakashita et al. is that it allows for corrosion resistance. (Paragraph 0021)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified Jang et al. by utilizing the features of Tsuda, Matsumoto et al. and Sakashita et al. because it allows for diffusing gas, controlling temperature and for corrosion resistance.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RODNEY GLENN MCDONALD whose telephone number is (571)272-1340. The examiner can normally be reached Hoteling: M-Th every Fri off.
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, James Lin can be reached at 571-272-8902. 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.
/RODNEY G MCDONALD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794
RM
February 24, 2026