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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 5 December 2023 was received and the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea – mental process without significantly more. MPEP 2106 details the analysis for determining the eligibility of an invention as completed below.
The independent claims: Claim 1, 10, and 19
Claim 1
Claim 1 elements:
A scanner which scans a set of tiles associated with a region of interest of a die by following a dynamic plan
Compare the set of tiles scanning results to reference items to provide a set of comparison results
Reference items generated based on one or more other scans
Determine based on the comparison results a state of the region of interest
Generate new reference items based on the tiles scanning results
Step 1:
The claim is directed to a machine and/or a process.
Step 2A Prong 1:
The claim recites a judicial exception in B) and D). Elements B) and D) are mental processes. If a person or ordinary skill in the art were provided the data present in steps B) and D), they could mentally perform the steps of comparing and determining.
Step 2A Prong 2:
The claim recites additional elements. Additional elements include A), C), and E)
Element A) is a data gathering operation and does not provide an integration into a practical application.
Element C) is data that was gathered previously and is used for comparison to the current scan. There is no detail in this claim on how or why it was selected from among the previous data. Therefore, it is given a broad interpretation of data for comparison and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding element E), new reference items are generated. While a person may not be able to "generate" an image, they may determine which tile scanning results are more appropriate for service as a reference item. Therefore, the critical component of deciding which tiles are to be used for reference is a mental process and the generation or output of new reference items is simply a data presentation tool (i.e. generating the data into a presentable form).
Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
When considered as a whole, the claim does not recite additional elements which cause the claim to amount to more than the judicial exception. Each additional element is some sort of data handling operation (obtaining data, displaying data, etc.) while the crux of the claim is the actions which may be performed mentally, namely comparing and deciding. The examiner acknowledges that the claim recites several circuits for performing the process. However, MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)III.C. states “Claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer. The Supreme Court recognized this in Benson, determining that a mathematical algorithm for converting binary coded decimal to pure binary within a computer’s shift register was an abstract idea. The Court concluded that the algorithm could be performed purely mentally even though the claimed procedures ‘can be carried out in existing computers long in use, no new machinery being necessary.’ 409 U.S at 67, 175 USPQ at 675.” This is true if the claim is merely claiming that the mental process is performed 1) on a generic computer, or 2) in a computer environment, or 3) is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept. The examiner finds that claim 1 as a whole performing a mental process using a generic computer, or in a computer environment, or is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the mental process.
Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claims 10 and 19, claims 10 and 19 recite claims significantly similar to claim 1. The above analysis may be repeated for claims 10 and 19 leading to the conclusion that claims 10 and 19 likewise recite a judicial exception that is not integrated into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claims: Claims 2-9 and 11-18
Claim 2 and 11
To dynamically update the dynamic scan plan based on availability of resources is understood as a mental process. This is a task that a person may perform mentally or on paper provided the information of the availability of wafer inspection resources. This claim does not provide an additional element outside of this mental process. The claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 3 and 12
To determine the dynamic scan plan based on tile parameters is understood as a mental process. This is a task that a person may perform mentally or on paper provided the information on the tile parameters including a an image quality threshold and a field of view. The tile parameters are understood as information being received to inform the dynamic scan plan and are not understood as additional elements which integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or cause the claim to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 4 and 14
To determine the relevancy of a reference item to a comparison with a tile scanning result based on a distance between the two and a process variation attribute is understood as a mental process. This is a task that a person may perform mentally or on paper provided the information on the distance and the process variation attribute. The information on the distance and the process variation attribute are understood as information being received to be considered in determining relevancy and are not understood as additional elements which integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or cause the claim to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 5 and 13
To perform another comparison, this time with a new reference item, and to determine the number of comparisons to make is understood as a mental process. The acts of comparing and determining may be performed mentally by a person of ordinary skill in the art. The detail of the number of comparisons being defined by the dynamic scan plan is not considered an additional element which integrates the judicial exception into a practical application or which causes the claim to amount to more than the judicial exception.
Claim 6 and 15
The description of an organization of the tiles into groups does not provide a practical application for the abstract idea or amount to more than the abstract idea. This claim amounts to an extra solution activity.
Claim 7 and 16
The description of an organization of the groups into tiles does not provide a practical application for the abstract idea or amount to more than the abstract idea. This limitation amounts to an extra solution activity. The description of an autofocus calibration is an additional element which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or cause the claim to amount to more than the judicial exception.
Claim 8 and 17
To determine a dynamic scan plan is understood as a mental process. A person of ordinary skill would be able to determine a dynamic scan plan mentally or with pen and paper based on the listed parameters. Given the information about the parameters, they could determine a route or path to be implemented by the dynamic scan plan. Therefore, the determining of a dynamic scan plan based on the listed parameters is not understood as an additional element which integrates the judicial exception into a practical application or which cases the claim to amount to more than the judicial exception.
Claim 9 and 18
A recovery process is given a broad interpretation of any process which may improve the results of a scan. A person or ordinary skill in the art may perform a recovery process, such as repeating the process of scanning and comparing, if the scan partially fails. Therefore, the claim does not present an additional element which integrates the judicial exception into a practical application or which cases the claim to amount to more than the judicial exception.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6, 10-12, 14, 15, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shwartz et al. (US 20220237758 A1; hereafter, Shwartz) in view of Cohen et al. (US 11263741 B2; hereafter, Cohen).
Regarding claim 1, Schwartz discloses:
A wafer inspection system, comprising: a scanner configured to scan ([0144] and Fig. 5, scanning equipment 502 is configured to scan a wafer), while following a dynamic scan plan ([0149] and Fig. 6A, a wafer is scanned along a scanning path which is understood as a dynamic scan plan), a set of tiles that are associated with a region of interest of a die of a wafer ([0150] segments within the dies are determined and are understood as regions of interest. [0151] each scan of a region of interest is comprised of a group of pixels which is understood as tiles in that they divide an image into a grid shape), to provide a set of tiles scanning results ([0150] "With each of segments 624 a respective image frame may be associated, which is “captured” by imager 516, as described below." Each image frame may be understood as a set of tiles scanning results as it is of the region of interest and is comprised of a set of tiles, i.e. pixels, in the region of interest);
a comparison circuit ([0155] and Fig. 5, scan data analysis module 504 performs analysis via computer hardware and is understood as a comparison circuit) configured to compare the set of tiles scanning results to reference items to provide a set of comparison results ([0157] -[0158], each pixel, i.e. tile, in the region of interest is compared with corresponding reference data to provide comparison results. See [0154] and [0182] that several pixels are "analogous" and are used as reference items);
wherein at least some of the reference items were generated based on one or more other sets of tiles scanning results generated by scanning one or more other sets of tiles that were associated with one or more other regions of interest ([0182] and Fig. 6A-6E, the reference items are acquired from other segments which are understood as other sets of tiles associated with other regions of interest);
and a decision circuit ([0173] a process for determining if a wafer is defective, i.e. a decision process, is a computerized method which is understood to include a circuit. Therefore, this is understood to include a decision circuit) configured to determine, based on the set of comparison results, a state of the region of interest ([0178] and Fig. 7, at operation 750 a probability of a defect is calculated which is understood as a state of the region of interest),
Shwartz does not disclose expressly to generate new reference items based on at least some of the set of tiles scanning results.
Cohen discloses:
and generate new reference items based on at least some of the set of tiles scanning results (the examiner understands “based on at least some of the set of tiles scanning results” to mean that the new reference items are generated from among or otherwise based on the scanning results. For example, the new reference items may come from different regions in the scanning results than previous reference items. Col. 3 line 66-67, step 710 similar blocks are determined in the lithographic mask. The lithographic mask is understood as the scanning results. Col. 5 line 9-11, similar blocks are used as comparable regions which are understood as reference items. Col. 6 line 1-4, the process repeats, optionally in a new direction, meaning that with each new iteration new reference items are determined, as seen by repeating step 710).
Shwartz and Cohen are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor of inspection of wafers for defects (Shwartz, [0003]; Cohen, Col. 1 line 7-14).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the new references of Cohen with the invention of Shwartz.
The motivation for doing so would have been "comparable regions for multiple directions are found. Comparable blocks for one or more directions may be used when inspecting the lithographic mask" (Cohen, Col. 6 line 8-11). Therefore, the inspection become more versatile because inspection can be performed in more than one direction according to the scan plan.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Cohen with Shwartz to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, Shwartz in view of Cohen discloses the subject matter of claim 1.
Shwartz does not disclose expressly to updated the dynamic scan plan based on temporal changes in an availability of wafer inspection resources.
Cohen discloses:
The wafer inspection system according to claim 1, further comprising a dynamic scan circuit (Col. 3 line 18-23, the method is enacted by a processor which is understood as a circuit) configured to dynamically update the dynamic scan plan (Col. 3 line 50-52, an imaging plan is generated which is understood as a dynamic scan plan), based on temporal changes in an availability of wafer inspection resources allocated for wafer inspection (Col. 3 line 52-58, the imaging plan is "optimized with respect to operational considerations" such as to "require fewer changes to the direction of the mechanical stage of the inspection tool." Optimizing with regard to the inspection tool is understood to consider resources allocated to the tool for inspection and to select the best plan possible to conserve those resources. Therefore, the imaging plan, i.e. dynamic scan plan, is based on availability of resources).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the updating of the scan plan as taught by Cohen with the invention of Shwartz.
The motivation for doing so would have been "the dedicated imaging plan would be optimized with respect to operational considerations relating the operation of the inspection tool. For example, the scanning of the comparable regions may require fewer changes to the direction of the mechanical stage of the inspection tool" (Cohen, Col.3 line 53-58).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Cohen with Shwartz to obtain the invention as specified in claim 2.
Regarding claim 3, Shwartz in view of Cohen discloses the subject matter of claim 2.
Shwartz further discloses:
The wafer inspection system according to claim 2, wherein the dynamic scan circuit is further configured to determine the dynamic scan plan based on one or more tile parameters ([0149] and Fig. 6, the system set scanning path, i.e. dynamic scan plan, is along the slice 612 in the direction 620 and is based on a parameter of the imager), wherein the one or more tile parameters are determined based on at least one of: (i) an image quality threshold related to an acquisition of an image of a tile acquired while following the dynamic scan plan, or (ii) a field of view used while following the dynamic scan plan (as these parameters are listed in the alternative, only one parameter need to be taught to teach on the claim. [0149] and Fig. 6, the scanning slice correspond to the width of the field-of-view of the imager. Therefore, the thickness of the slice of the path, i.e. dynamic scan plan, is based on the field-of-view of the imager while traveling the scanning direction).
Regarding claim 4, Shwartz in view of Cohen discloses the subject matter of claim 2.
Shwartz further discloses:
and (ii) a process variation attribute associated with the wafer ([0150] segments may correspond to each other "up to manufacturing imperfections". Therefore, relevant segments are dependent on imperfections, i.e. process variations associated with the wafer).
Shwartz does not disclose expressly to determine a relevancy of a reference item to a comparison with a tile scanning result of the set of tiles scanning results based on a distance between the reference item and the compared tile.
Cohen discloses:
The wafer inspection system according to claim 2, wherein the decision circuit is further configured to determine a relevancy of a reference item to a comparison with a tile scanning result of the set of tiles scanning results (Col. 3 Line 66-67, similar blocks are determined which is understood as determining a relevancy of reference tiles to the scanned tile) based on a (i) distance between a tile associated with the tile scanning result, and a reference tile associated with the reference item (Col. 4 line 61 through Col. 5 line 8, reference items are determined to be comparable based on a distance between the reference items, "similar blocks", and the target item, "the object"),
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine determining the relevancy of a reference item of Cohen with the invention of Shwartz.
The motivation for doing so would have been "It may be desired to provide comparable regions that include multiple similar blocks. The inspection of the lithographic mask may benefit from comparable regions that include multiple similar blocks. (higher signal to noise ratio, higher robustness)" (Cohen, Col. 5 line 1-5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Cohen with Shwartz to obtain the invention as specified in claim 4.
Regarding claim 6, Shwartz in view of Cohen discloses the subject matter of claim 1.
Schwartz further discloses:
The wafer inspection system according to claim 1, wherein the set of tiles belongs to a group of tiles ([0150]-[0151] and Fig. 6A, a set of tiles, i.e. pixels, makes up a segment. Therefore, each segment may be understood as a group of tiles), wherein the scanner is configured to scan, while following the dynamic scan plan ([0149] the scanner follows a scan path which is understood as the dynamic scan plan), one or more additional sets of tiles of the group of tiles before scanning one or more tiles of one or more other groups of tiles of one or more other dies of the wafer ([0149] and Fig. 6A, the scanner scans one slice in one direction. Therefore, it is understood that one group of tiles, i.e. a segment, is scanned before the next group of tiles, i.e. a next segment).
Regarding claim 10, claim 10 recites a method with steps corresponding to the elements of the system recited in claims 1. Therefore, the recited steps of this claim are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding elements in its corresponding system claim, claim 1. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine Shwartz in view of Cohen, presented in rejection of claim 1, apply to this claim.
Regarding claim 11, claim 11 recites a method with steps corresponding to the elements of the system recited in claims 2. Therefore, the recited steps of this claim are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding elements in its corresponding system claim, claim 2. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine Shwartz in view of Cohen, presented in rejection of claim 2, apply to this claim.
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 recites a method with steps corresponding to the elements of the system recited in claims 3. Therefore, the recited steps of this claim are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding elements in its corresponding system claim, claim 3. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine Shwartz in view of Cohen, presented in rejection of claim 3, apply to this claim.
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 recites a method with steps corresponding to the elements of the system recited in claims 4. Therefore, the recited steps of this claim are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding elements in its corresponding system claim, claim 4. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine Shwartz in view of Cohen, presented in rejection of claim 4, apply to this claim.
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 recites a method with steps corresponding to the elements of the system recited in claims 6. Therefore, the recited steps of this claim are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding elements in its corresponding system claim, claim 6. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine Shwartz in view of Cohen, presented in rejection of claim 6, apply to this claim.
Regarding claim 19, claim 19 recites a method with steps corresponding to the elements of the system recited in claims 1. Therefore, the recited steps of this claim are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding elements in its corresponding system claim, claim 1. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine Shwartz in view of Cohen, presented in rejection of claim 1, apply to this claim.
Shwartz further discloses:
A non-transitory computer readable medium for wafer inspection ([0047] a non-transitory computer readable medium is part included in the system), the non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions that once executed by an inspection system, cause the inspection system to perform the method ([0047] the medium stores instructions to cause the system to perform the method)
Claims 7-9 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shwartz et al. (US 20220237758 A1; hereafter, Shwartz) in view of Cohen et al. (US 11263741 B2; hereafter, Cohen) in further view of Simovitch (US 20220050060 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Shwartz in view of Cohen discloses the subject matter of claim 6.
Shwartz further discloses:
The wafer inspection system according to claim 6, wherein the group of tiles belongs to a batch of tiles ([0150] and Fig. 6A, the segments, i.e. group of tiles, are arranged along a slice. Each slice may be understood as a batch of tiles), wherein the scanner is configured to scan, while following the dynamic scan plan, one or more additional groups of tiles of the batch of tiles ([0149] the scanner follows a scan path which is understood as the dynamic scan plan)
and then proceeding to scan one or more tiles of one or more other batches of tiles of one or more further dies of the wafer ([0149 and Fig. 6A, after scanning on slice, i.e. a batch of tiles, a next slice, i.e. one or more other batches of tiles, which includes further dies of the wafer is scanned).
Shwartz in view of Cohen does not disclose expressly to scan a batch before performing an auto-focus calibration.
Simovitch discloses:
before performing an auto-focus calibration ([0218] the process is repeated for additional areas which means the process is performed before proceeding to the next area which may be understood as a batch of tiles, see also [0233]-[0234]. [0216]-[0217] calibration data, CTPs, is determined during the process. [0244] and Fig. 9, calibration is performed using CTPs and is updated with recent frames. Therefore, calibration is performed before proceeding to the next batch)
Simovitch is combinable with Shwartz in view of Cohen because it is in the related field of endeavor of wafer analysis (Simovitch, [0001]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the calibration of Simovitch with the invention of Shwartz in view of Cohen.
The motivation for doing so would have been "to improve the scanning recipe and/or correct default coordinate system 902, thereby potentially leading to faster defect coordinates computation rates" (Simovitch, [0246]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Simovitch with Shwartz in view of Cohen to obtain the invention as specified in claim 7.
Regarding claim 8, Shwartz in view of Cohen in further view of Simovitch discloses the subject matter of claim 7.
Shwartz further discloses:
The wafer inspection system according to claim 7, comprising a dynamic scan circuit configured to determine the dynamic scan plan ([0149] and Fig. 6A, a scanning path is followed which is understood as a dynamic scan plan. [0145] the stage which controls the scanning path is controlled by a controller which is understood as a circuit) based on at least one of (i) a mechanical stage movement parameter indicative of one or more mechanical movements of the wafer during an execution of the dynamic scan plan (the list is in an alternative form therefore if one limitation is taught then explicit teachings on the alternative limitations is not required. [0146] and [0148] and Fig. 5, a moveable stage is used to control the movement of the wafer during a scan. Therefore, the scan plan is based on the mechanical movement of the stage), (b) a calibration parameter related to a calibration necessitated during the execution of the dynamic scan plan, or (c) a memory resource parameter related to a consumption of one or more memory resources required during the execution of the dynamic scan plan.
Regarding claim 9, Shwartz in view of Cohen in further view of Simovitch discloses the subject matter of claim 7.
Shwartz further discloses:
The wafer inspection system according to claim 7, further comprising a recovery circuit configured to perform a recovery process ([0233] pixels are reviewed which is understood as a recovery process. [0227] the process is a computerized method which is understood as comprising a circuit) following a completion of a partially failed scanning a batch of tiles ([0231]-[0233], pixels which are assigned a high score, those which have defect probability, i.e. partially failed scanning, are further analyzed using higher resolution tools and techniques which is understood as a recovery process).
Regarding claim 16, claim 16 recites a method with steps corresponding to the elements of the system recited in claims 7. Therefore, the recited steps of this claim are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding elements in its corresponding system claim, claim 7. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine Shwartz in view of Cohen in further view of Simovitch, presented in rejection of claim 7, apply to this claim.
Regarding claim 17, claim 17 recites a method with steps corresponding to the elements of the system recited in claims 8. Therefore, the recited steps of this claim are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding elements in its corresponding system claim, claim 8. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine Shwartz in view of Cohen in further view of Simovitch, presented in rejection of claim 8, apply to this claim.
Regarding claim 18, claim 18 recites a method with steps corresponding to the elements of the system recited in claims 9. Therefore, the recited steps of this claim are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding elements in its corresponding system claim, claim 9. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine Shwartz in view of Cohen in further view of Simovitch, presented in rejection of claim 9, apply to this claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 and 13 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 5, the closest prior art, Cohen et al. (US 11263741 B2; hereafter, Cohen), discloses defining a number of references for comparison in the dynamic scan plan and comparing new reference items against further one or more regions of interest. Bauer et al. (US 20180130199 A1; hereafter, Bauer) discloses that the number of reference image comparisons exceeds two. Goren et al. (US 20130202187 A1; hereafter, Goren) discloses that the number is determined based on a memory availability attribute. The prior art does not disclose expressly or reasonably suggest that the number is determined based on a comparison latency attribute.
The claim as a whole is found non-obvious over the prior art including specifically:
wherein the number is determined based on a comparison latency attribute.
Further of note, the combination of being based on a memory availability attribute and a comparison latency attribute is found non-obvious over the prior art.
Regarding claim 13, the closest prior art, Cohen et al. (US 11263741 B2; hereafter, Cohen), discloses defining a number of references for comparison in the dynamic scan plan and comparing new reference items against further one or more regions of interest. Bauer et al. (US 20180130199 A1; hereafter, Bauer) discloses that the number of reference image comparisons exceeds two. Goren et al. (US 20130202187 A1; hereafter, Goren) discloses that the number is determined based on a memory availability attribute. The prior art does not disclose expressly or reasonably suggest that the number is determined based on a comparison latency attribute.
The claim as a whole is found non-obvious over the prior art including specifically:
wherein the number is determined based on a comparison latency attribute.
Further of note, the combination of being based on a memory availability attribute and a comparison latency attribute is found non-obvious over the prior art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20140270474 A1, Huang et al., discloses a system for inspecting wafers by comparing dies to reference dies on the same wafer
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA B CROCKETT whose telephone number is (571)270-7989. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8am-5pm.
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, John M Villecco can be reached at (571) 272-7319. 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.
/JOSHUA B. CROCKETT/Examiner, Art Unit 2661
/JOHN VILLECCO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2661