DETAILED ACTION
Elections/Restrictions
1. This office action is a response to Applicant's election filed on 05/19/2026 without traverse of Group I, claims 1-9 for further examination. Claim 10 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
3. Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 11/14/2023, 01/27/2025, 04/16/2025 & 04/01/2026 are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
5. 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.
6. Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
As regards to claim 1, lines 13 & 15 recite the limitation “the other”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, examiner is interpreting “the other” as “another” in line 13 and “the another” in line 15. To correct this problem, amend lines 13 & 15 accordingly.
As regards to claim 1, lines 8 recites “the support members”, then lines 21 & 23 recite “the plurality of support members” wherein it is unclear whether they are all the same support members. For examination purposes, examiner is interpreting “the support members” as “the plurality of support members”. To correct this problem, amend claim 1 accordingly.
As regards to claim 1, lines 21 recites “downstream side supported by the plurality of support members” which is unclear as recited and what is being supported by the plurality of support members. For examination purposes, examiner is interpreting “downstream side supported by the plurality of support members” as “downstream side”. To correct this problem, amend claim 1 accordingly.
As regards to claim 3, line 2 recites the limitation “the other”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, examiner is interpreting “the other” as “another”. To correct this problem, amend line 2 accordingly
As regards to claim 9, line 2 recites the limitation “the one”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, examiner is interpreting “the one” as “one”. To correct this problem, amend line 2 accordingly
Claims 2-9 are rejected at least based on their dependency from claim 1.
Claim Rejections
7. 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 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.
8. 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
9. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
10. Claims 1-6 & 9 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gouk et al. (US 2017/0098542 A1) hereinafter Gouk (the terminology of the claims in the application is used, but the references of Gouk are included between parentheses).
Regarding claim 1, the recitation “that processes a substrate with a liquid adhering to an upper surface of the substrate using a processing fluid in a supercritical state… a lower surface of the substrate… thereby forming a laminar flow of the processing fluid flowing toward another end side of the internal space along the upper surface of the substrate… wherein with the another end side of the internal space with respect to a first virtual line defined as a downstream side, the first virtual line passing through a center of the substrate facing surface and extending in a horizontal direction perpendicular to a flow direction of the laminar flow… while located in proximity to a peripheral surface of the substrate… below the upper surface of the substrate in a vertical direction”, this recitation is a statement of process expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and intended use which does not patentably distinguish over Gouk since Gouk meets all the structural elements of the claim and is capable of processing a substrate with a liquid adhering to an upper surface of the substrate using a processing fluid in a supercritical state, a lower surface of the substrate, thereby forming a laminar flow of the processing fluid flowing toward another end side of the internal space along the upper surface of the substrate, wherein with the another end side of the internal space with respect to a first virtual line defined as a downstream side, the first virtual line passing through a center of the substrate facing surface and extending in a horizontal direction perpendicular to a flow direction of the laminar flow, while located in proximity to a peripheral surface of the substrate, below the upper surface of the substrate in a vertical direction, if so desired, and does not add structure to the claim. Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and intended use of a known apparatus does not give it patentable weight. See In re Thuau, 57 USPQ 324, CCPA 979 135 F2d 344, 1943. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus shows all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). It is additionally noted that it is well settled that the intended use of a claimed apparatus is not germane to the issue of the patentability of the claimed structure. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the claimed use then it meets the claim. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235, 238 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 459 (CCPA 1963). Furthermore, “expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666,667 (Bd. App. 1969). Thus, the “inclusion of material or article worked upon does not impart patentability to the claims.” In re Young, 75 F.2d 966, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 (USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)). Therefore, Examiner is disregarding any structural limitations to the apparatus based on process expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and the process intended to be used with the apparatus. See MPEP 2114 & 2115.
As regards to claim 1, Gouk discloses a substrate processing apparatus that processes a substrate with a liquid adhering to an upper surface of the substrate using a processing fluid in a supercritical state (abs; fig 1-11), comprising: a support tray (306) including a tray member (402), having a substrate facing surface (top surface of 402) facing a lower surface of the substrate (see fig 1-11), and a plurality of support members (604) attached to the tray member (402) in such a manner as to surround (see fig 6 & 8-9) the substrate facing surface (top surface of 402), and being configured to support the substrate while separating the substrate upward (see fig 6 & 8-9, substrate sits on 802) from the substrate facing surface (top surface of 402) using the plurality of support members (604); a chamber (300) having an internal space (see fig 3) capable of housing the support tray (306) supporting the substrate; and a fluid supplier (320+332+336) configured to supply the processing fluid into the internal space (see fig 3) from one end side of the internal space (see fig 3), thereby capable of forming a laminar flow of the processing fluid flowing toward another end side of the internal space (see fig 3) along the upper surface of the substrate supported by the support tray (306), wherein with the another end side of the internal space (see fig 3) with respect to a first virtual line defined as a downstream side (see fig 3), the first virtual line capable of passing through a center of the substrate facing surface (top surface of 402) and extending in a horizontal direction perpendicular to a flow direction of the laminar flow (see fig 3-11), the tray member (402) includes a downstream-side standing portion (404) standing upward further than (see fig 9-10) the substrate facing surface (top surface of 402) while capable of being located in proximity to a peripheral surface of the substrate on the downstream side (see fig 3), and the downstream-side standing portion (404) has an upper surface (see fig 9-10, upper surface of 404) capable of being below the upper surface of the substrate in a vertical direction supported by the plurality of support members (604) ([0039]-[0063]; fig 3-11).
Regarding claim 2, the recitation “as the inclined surface extends further in the flow direction”, this recitation is a statement of process expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and intended use which does not patentably distinguish over Gouk since Gouk meets all the structural elements of the claim and is capable of having the inclined surface extend in the flow direction, if so desired, and does not add structure to the claim. Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and intended use of a known apparatus does not give it patentable weight. See In re Thuau, 57 USPQ 324, CCPA 979 135 F2d 344, 1943. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus shows all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). It is additionally noted that it is well settled that the intended use of a claimed apparatus is not germane to the issue of the patentability of the claimed structure. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the claimed use then it meets the claim. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235, 238 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 459 (CCPA 1963). Furthermore, “expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666,667 (Bd. App. 1969). Thus, the “inclusion of material or article worked upon does not impart patentability to the claims.” In re Young, 75 F.2d 966, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 (USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)). Therefore, Examiner is disregarding any structural limitations to the apparatus based on process expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and the process intended to be used with the apparatus. See MPEP 2114 & 2115.
As regards to claim 2, Gouk discloses a substrate processing apparatus (abs; fig 1-11), wherein the upper surface (see fig 9-10, upper surface of 404) of the downstream-side standing portion (404) is an inclined surface (see fig 9-10, inclined surface of 404) that is capable of becoming lower in height as the inclined surface (see fig 9-10, inclined surface of 404) is capable of extending further in the flow direction ([0051]-[0061]; fig 9-10).
Regarding claim 3, the recitation “with one side and another side of the first virtual line with respect to a second virtual line defined as a left side and a right side respectively, the second virtual line passing through the center of the substrate facing surface and extending parallel to the flow direction, the inclined surface has a left-side inclined region and a right-side inclined region, the left-side inclined region becoming lower in height as the left-side inclined region extends further from the second virtual line toward the left side, the right-side inclined region becoming lower in height as the right-side inclined region extends further from the second virtual line toward the right side”, this recitation is a statement of process expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and intended use which does not patentably distinguish over Gouk since Gouk meets all the structural elements of the claim and is capable of having one side and another side of the first virtual line with respect to a second virtual line defined as a left side and a right side respectively, the second virtual line passing through the center of the substrate facing surface and extending parallel to the flow direction, the inclined surface has a left-side inclined region and a right-side inclined region, the left-side inclined region becoming lower in height as the left-side inclined region extends further from the second virtual line toward the left side, the right-side inclined region becoming lower in height as the right-side inclined region extends further from the second virtual line toward the right side, if so desired, and does not add structure to the claim. Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and intended use of a known apparatus does not give it patentable weight. See In re Thuau, 57 USPQ 324, CCPA 979 135 F2d 344, 1943. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus shows all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). It is additionally noted that it is well settled that the intended use of a claimed apparatus is not germane to the issue of the patentability of the claimed structure. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the claimed use then it meets the claim. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235, 238 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 459 (CCPA 1963). Furthermore, “expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666,667 (Bd. App. 1969). Thus, the “inclusion of material or article worked upon does not impart patentability to the claims.” In re Young, 75 F.2d 966, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 (USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)). Therefore, Examiner is disregarding any structural limitations to the apparatus based on process expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and the process intended to be used with the apparatus. See MPEP 2114 & 2115.
As regards to claim 3, Gouk discloses a substrate processing apparatus (abs; fig 1-11), wherein with one side and another side of the first virtual line with respect to a second virtual line capable of being defined as a left side and a right side respectively (see fig 3-11), the second virtual line passing through the center of the substrate facing surface (top surface of 402) and capable of extending parallel to the flow direction (see fig 3-11), the inclined surface (see fig 9-10, inclined surface of 404) capable of haing a left-side inclined region and a right-side inclined region (see fig 3-11), the left-side inclined region capable of becoming lower in height as the left-side inclined region extends further from the second virtual line toward the left side (see fig 3-11), the right-side inclined region capable of becoming lower in height as the right-side inclined region extends further from the second virtual line toward the right side (see fig 3-11) ([0051]-[0061]; fig 3-11).
As regards to claim 4, Gouk discloses a substrate processing apparatus (abs; fig 1-11), wherein a left-side through hole (hole accommodating 1002) is provided through a lowermost part of the left-side inclined region in the vertical direction (see fig 3-11), and a right-side through hole (hole accommodating 1002) is provided through a lowermost part of the right-side inclined region in the vertical direction (see fig 3-11) ([0051]-[0061]; fig 3-11).
As regards to claim 5, Gouk discloses a substrate processing apparatus (abs; fig 1-11), wherein a downstream-side through hole (hole accommodating 1002) is provided through the downstream-side standing portion (404) in the vertical direction (see fig 3-11) ([0051]-[0061]; fig 3-11).
As regards to claim 6, Gouk discloses a substrate processing apparatus (abs; fig 1-11), wherein a substrate facing side through hole (hole accommodating 902) is provided through a region of the tray member (402) in the vertical direction, the region being in the substrate facing surface (top surface of 402) and in proximity to the downstream-side standing portion (404) (see fig 3-11) ([0051]-[0061]; fig 3-11).
Regarding claim 9, the recitation “with the one end side of the internal space with respect to the first virtual line defined as an upstream side, the tray member includes an upstream-side standing portion standing upward further than the substrate facing surface while located in proximity to a peripheral surface of the substrate on the upstream side supported by the plurality of support members, and the upstream-side standing portion has an upper surface at the same height as the upper surface of the substrate in the vertical direction supported by the plurality of support members”, this recitation is a statement of process expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and intended use which does not patentably distinguish over Gouk since Gouk meets all the structural elements of the claim and is capable of having the one end side of the internal space with respect to the first virtual line defined as an upstream side, the tray member includes an upstream-side standing portion standing upward further than the substrate facing surface while located in proximity to a peripheral surface of the substrate on the upstream side supported by the plurality of support members, and the upstream-side standing portion has an upper surface at the same height as the upper surface of the substrate in the vertical direction supported by the plurality of support members, if so desired, and does not add structure to the claim. Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and intended use of a known apparatus does not give it patentable weight. See In re Thuau, 57 USPQ 324, CCPA 979 135 F2d 344, 1943. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus shows all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). It is additionally noted that it is well settled that the intended use of a claimed apparatus is not germane to the issue of the patentability of the claimed structure. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the claimed use then it meets the claim. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235, 238 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 459 (CCPA 1963). Furthermore, “expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666,667 (Bd. App. 1969). Thus, the “inclusion of material or article worked upon does not impart patentability to the claims.” In re Young, 75 F.2d 966, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 (USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)). Therefore, Examiner is disregarding any structural limitations to the apparatus based on process expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and the process intended to be used with the apparatus. See MPEP 2114 & 2115.
As regards to claim 9, Gouk discloses a substrate processing apparatus (abs; fig 1-11), wherein with the one end side of the internal space (see fig 3) with respect to the first virtual line capable of being defined as an upstream side, the tray member (402) includes an upstream-side standing portion (see fig 3-11) capable of standing upward further than the substrate facing surface (top surface of 402) while located in proximity to a peripheral surface of the substrate on the upstream side supported by the plurality of support members (604), and the upstream-side standing portion is capable of having an upper surface at the same height as the upper surface of the substrate in the vertical direction supported by the plurality of support members (604) ([0051]-[0062]; fig 3-11).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
11. 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 of this title, 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.
12. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
13. Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gouk as applied to claim 1 above.
As regards to claim 7, Gouk discloses a substrate processing apparatus (abs; fig 1-11), wherein a gap (see fig 4-9) in the vertical direction between the upper surface (see fig 9-10, upper surface of 404) of the downstream-side standing portion (404) and the upper surface of the substrate supported by the plurality of support members (604) can be measured in mm ([0051]-[0061]; fig 3-11), however Gouk does not disclose is equal to or greater than 0.5 mm.
Although Gouk does not explicitly disclose the claimed gap, before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus of Gouk to have the spacing recited in the claim and therefore is not expected to alter the operation of the device in a patentably distinct way as the gap (relative dimensions) is considered engineering aspects of an apparatus, not problems or sources of problems to be solved. In addition, it is the position of the examiner that the disclosure provides no evidence of criticality with regard to the relative dimensions of the gap.
Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is 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, the claimed device is 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).
As regards to claim 8, Gouk discloses a substrate processing apparatus (abs; fig 1-11), wherein in an adjoining region (see fig 3-11) where the downstream-side standing portion (404) and the substrate supported by the plurality of support members (604) adjoin each other, the gap (see fig 4-9) in the vertical direction between the upper surface of the downstream-side standing portion (404) and the upper surface of the substrate supported by the plurality of support members (604) can be measured in mm ([0051]-[0061]; fig 3-11), however Gouk does not disclose is equal to or less than 1.0 mm.
Although Gouk does not explicitly disclose the claimed gap, before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus of Gouk to have the spacing recited in the claim and therefore is not expected to alter the operation of the device in a patentably distinct way as the gap (relative dimensions) is considered engineering aspects of an apparatus, not problems or sources of problems to be solved. In addition, it is the position of the examiner that the disclosure provides no evidence of criticality with regard to the relative dimensions of the gap.
Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is 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, the claimed device is 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).
Double Patenting
14. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321 (c) or 1.321 (d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) -706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-l.jsp.
15. Claims 1-9 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 & 6-7 of US Pat. 12,374,541 B2 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they recite essentially the same substrate processing apparatus using different combinations of limitations, wherein everything in claim 1 of the instant application is essentially recited in claim 1 of US Pat. 12,374,541 B2 (reference application) with claims 2-3 essentially corresponding to claims 6-7 of US Pat. 12,374,541 B2 (reference application). Claims 2-9 are rejected at least based on their dependency from claim 1.
Conclusion
16. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: all references cited on the attached PTO-892 Notice of References Cited excluding the above relied upon references.
17. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jethro M Pence whose telephone number is (571)270-7423. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 8:00 A.M. - 6:30 P.M..
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, Dah-Wei D. Yuan can be reached on 571-272-1295. 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.
/Jethro M. Pence/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights