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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application KR 10-2023-0008523 filed in Korean Intellectual Property Office (KIPO) on 01/20/2023 and receipt of a certified copy thereof.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on 12/11/2023, IDS filed on 07/05/2024, and IDS filed on 08/07/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDSs are considered by the examiner.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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 1-3, 6-8, 15-17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2017/0069711; hereinafter ‘Lee’) in view of Chiu et al. (US 2018/0174922; hereinafter ‘Chiu’) and Huotari et al. (US 2004/0106261; hereinafter ‘Huotari’).
Regarding claim 1, Lee teaches a capacitor structure (FIG. 1, [0059]), comprising:
a lower electrode (LE, [0060]);
a dielectric pattern (D1, [0062]) on a sidewall of the lower electrode (D1 on a sidewall of LE, FIG. 3); and
an upper electrode structure (UE, [0064]), the upper electrode structure (UE) including a first upper electrode (UE1) and a second upper electrode (UE2) sequentially stacked on a sidewall of the dielectric pattern (UE1 and UE2 sequentially stacked on a sidewall of D1, FIG. 3), wherein:
the second upper electrode (UE2) includes a metal nitride (UE2 includes a metal nitride, [0069]).
Lee does not teach that the first upper electrode includes a metal nitride, and the metal nitride included in the first upper electrode has a crystal orientation that is different from a crystal orientation of the metal nitride included in the second upper electrode, and a work function of the first upper electrode is greater than a work function of the second upper electrode.
Chiu teaches that an upper electrode structure (work-function layer 66 includes different crystalline orientations within the same TiN material, including [111] and [200] orientations, [0032-0037, 0056, 0058]) wherein: the first upper electrode includes a metal nitride (one layer of 66 includes TiN), and the metal nitride included in the first upper electrode ([111] orientation of 66; hereinafter ‘66111’) has a crystal orientation ([111]) that is different from a crystal orientation of the metal nitride ([200]) included in the second upper electrode ([200] orientation of 66; hereinafter ‘66200’).
As taught by Chiu, one of ordinary skill in the art would utilize and modify the above teaching into Lee to obtain and achieve that the first upper electrode includes a metal nitride, and the metal nitride included in the first upper electrode has a crystal orientation that is different from a crystal orientation of the metal nitride included in the second upper electrode as claimed, because different orientations of TiN provide different work function characteristics for tuning the electrical properties of the TiN layer [0037].
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ the teaching as taught by Chiu in combination with Lee due to above reason.
Lee in view of Chiu does not teach that a work function of the first upper electrode is greater than a work function of the second upper electrode.
Huotari teaches that a work function of the first upper electrode is greater than a work function of the second upper electrode (a TiN film having a [111] crystal orientation exhibits a work function of 5.3 eV, whereas a TiN film having a [200] crystal orientation exhibits a work function 4.4 eV, [0061]).
As taught by Huotari, one of ordinary skill in the art would utilize and modify the above teaching into Lee in view of Chiu to obtain and achieve that a work function of the first upper electrode is greater than a work function of the second upper electrode as claimed, because crystal orientation of the electrode material affects the work function of the electrode and thus allows tuning of the electrical characteristics of the semiconductor device, such as the threshold voltage [0016].
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ the teaching as taught by Huotari in combination with Lee in view of Chiu due to above reason.
Regarding claim 2, Lee in view of Chiu and Huotari teaches the capacitor structure as claimed in claim 1, wherein the metal nitride includes titanium nitride (Lee: UE includes titanium nitride, [0065, 0069]).
Regarding claim 3, Lee in view of Chiu and Huotari teaches the capacitor structure as claimed in claim 2, Lee in view of Huotari does not teach the capacitor structure wherein: a primary crystal orientation of the titanium nitride of the first upper electrode is [111], and a primary crystal orientation of the titanium nitride of the second upper electrode is [200].
Chiu teaches that a primary crystal orientation of the titanium nitride of the first upper electrode is [111] (66111, [0033]), and a primary crystal orientation of the titanium nitride of the second upper electrode is [200] (66200).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ and modify the teachings of Chiu to obtain and achieve the capacitor structure wherein: a primary crystal orientation of the titanium nitride of the first upper electrode is [111], and a primary crystal orientation of the titanium nitride of the second upper electrode is [200] as claimed, because different orientations of TiN provide different work function characteristics for tuning the electrical properties of the TiN layer [0037].
Regarding claim 6, Lee in view of Chiu and Huotari teaches the capacitor structure as claimed in claim 1, wherein the second upper electrode further includes a Group 15 element or a Group 16 element (Lee: UE2 contains TiN, which includes nitrogen, a Group 15 element, [0101-0103]).
Regarding claim 7, Lee in view of Chiu and Huotari teaches the capacitor structure as claimed in claim 1, wherein: the first upper electrode has a thickness in a range of about 5 Å to about 20 Å (Lee: UE1 has a thickness about 1 Å to about 50 Å, [0064]), and the second upper electrode has a thickness in a range of about 10 Å to about 50 Å (UE2 has a thickness about 10 Å to about 100 Å).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ and modify the teachings of Lee to obtain and achieve the capacitor structure wherein: the first upper electrode has a thickness in a range of about 5 Å to about 20 Å, and the second upper electrode has a thickness in a range of about 10 Å to about 50 Å as claimed, because it has been held that where the criticality of the claimed range is not shown and the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 8, Lee in view of Chiu and Huotari teaches the capacitor structure as claimed in claim 1, wherein a volume of the first upper electrode is in a range of about 10% to about 50% of a volume of the upper electrode structure (Lee: the thickness ratio between UE2 and UE1 ranges from 10:1 to 2:1 corresponding to UE1 having about 9% to 33% of the total UE2 volume, [0064]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ and modify the teachings of Lee to obtain and achieve the capacitor structure wherein a volume of the first upper electrode is in a range of about 10% to about 50% of a volume of the upper electrode structure as claimed, because it has been held that where the criticality of the claimed range is not shown and the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 15, Lee teaches a semiconductor device (FIG. 13B, [0111]), comprising:
a substrate (100, [0112]);
an active pattern (105, [0112]) on the substrate (100);
a gate structure (120, [0112]) extending in a first direction (a first direction, FIG. 8A; hereinafter ‘FD’) through an upper portion of the active pattern (an upper portion of 105), the first direction (FD) being substantially parallel to an upper surface of the substrate (an upper surface of 100, FIG. 8A);
a bit line structure (140, [0118]) on a central portion of the active pattern (a central portion of 105, FIG. 13B), the bit line structure (140) extending in a second direction (a second direction, FIG. 9A; hereinafter ‘SD’) substantially parallel to the upper surface of the substrate (the upper surface of 100) and substantially perpendicular to the first direction (FD, FIG. 9A);
a contact plug structure (135, [0119]) on each of opposite edge portions of the active pattern (shown in FIG. 13B); and
a capacitor structure (a capacitor structure includes LE, D1, and UE, [0129-0130]; hereinafter ‘CS’) on the contact plug structure (135),
wherein: the capacitor structure (CS) includes:
a lower electrode (LE);
a dielectric pattern (D1) on a sidewall of the lower electrode (LE); and
an upper electrode structure (UE),
the upper electrode structure including a first upper electrode (UE1) and a second upper electrode (UE2) sequentially stacked on a sidewall of the dielectric pattern (UE1 and UE2 sequentially stacked on a sidewall of D1),
the second upper electrode (UE2) includes a metal nitride (UE2 includes a metal nitride, [0069]).
Lee does not teach that the first upper electrode includes a metal nitride, the metal nitride included in the first upper electrode has a crystal orientation that is different from a crystal orientation of the metal nitride included in the second upper electrode, and a work function of the first upper electrode is greater than a work function of the second upper electrode.
Chiu teaches that an upper electrode structure (work-function layer 66 includes different crystalline orientations within the same TiN material, including [111] and [200] orientations, [0032-0037, 0056, 0058]) wherein: the first upper electrode includes a metal nitride (one layer of 66 includes TiN), the metal nitride included in the first upper electrode ([111] orientation of 66; hereinafter ‘66111’) has a crystal orientation ([111]) that is different from a crystal orientation of the metal nitride ([200]) included in the second upper electrode ([200] orientation of 66; hereinafter ‘66200’).
As taught by Chiu, one of ordinary skill in the art would utilize and modify the above teaching into Lee to obtain and achieve that the first upper electrode includes a metal nitride, the metal nitride included in the first upper electrode has a crystal orientation that is different from a crystal orientation of the metal nitride included in the second upper electrode as claimed, because different orientations of TiN provide different work function characteristics for tuning the electrical properties of the TiN layer [0037].
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ the teaching as taught by Chiu in combination with Lee due to above reason.
Lee in view of Chiu does not teach that a work function of the first upper electrode is greater than a work function of the second upper electrode.
Huotari teaches that a work function of the first upper electrode is greater than a work function of the second upper electrode (a TiN film having a [111] crystal orientation exhibits a work function of 5.3 eV, whereas a TiN film having a [200] crystal orientation exhibits a work function 4.4 eV, [0061]).
As taught by Huotari, one of ordinary skill in the art would utilize and modify the above teaching into Lee in view of Chiu to obtain and achieve that a work function of the first upper electrode is greater than a work function of the second upper electrode as claimed, because crystal orientation of the electrode material affects the work function of the electrode and thus allows tuning of the electrical characteristics of the semiconductor device, such as the threshold voltage [0016].
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ the teaching as taught by Huotari in combination with Lee in view of Chiu due to above reason.
Regarding claim 16, Lee in view of Chiu and Huotari teaches the semiconductor device as claimed in claim 15, wherein the metal nitride includes titanium nitride (Lee: UE includes titanium nitride, [0065, 0069]).
Regarding claim 17, Lee in view of Chiu and Huotari teaches the semiconductor device as claimed in claim 16, Lee in view of Huotari does not teach the semiconductor device wherein: a primary crystal orientation of the titanium nitride of the first upper electrode is [111], and a primary crystal orientation of the titanium nitride of the second upper electrode is [200].
Chiu teaches that a primary crystal orientation of the titanium nitride of the first upper electrode ([111] orientation of 66; hereinafter ‘66111’) is [111] ([111]), and a primary crystal orientation of the titanium nitride of the second upper electrode ([200] orientation of 66; hereinafter ‘66200’) is [200] ([200]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ and modify the teachings of Chiu to obtain and achieve the semiconductor device wherein: a primary crystal orientation of the titanium nitride of the first upper electrode is [111], and a primary crystal orientation of the titanium nitride of the second upper electrode is [200] as claimed, because different orientations of TiN provide different work function characteristics for tuning the electrical properties of the TiN layer [0037].
Regarding claim 20, Lee in view of Chiu and Huotari teaches the semiconductor device as claimed in claim 15, wherein the second upper electrode further includes a Group 15 element or a Group 16 element (Lee: UE2 contains TiN, which includes nitrogen, a Group 15 element, [0101-0103]).
Claims 4 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2017/0069711) in view of Chiu (US 2018/0174922) and Huotari (US 2004/0106261), and further in view of Li et al. (J Mater Sci: Mater Electron 33; 3606-3616, 2022; hereinafter ‘Li’).
Regarding claim 4, Lee in view of Chiu and Huotari teaches the capacitor structure as claimed in claim 2, but does not teach the capacitor structure wherein a resistance of the second upper electrode is lower than a resistance of the first upper electrode.
Li teaches that a resistance of the second upper electrode is lower than a resistance of the first upper electrode (a TiN film having a [200] preferred orientation exhibits lower resistivity than a TiN films having a [111] preferred orientation, Figs. 3 and 8. Table 1, 3.4 Resistivity of TiN films).
As taught by Li, one of ordinary skill in the art would utilize and modify the above teaching into Lee in view of Chiu and Huotari to obtain and achieve the capacitor structure wherein a resistance of the second upper electrode is lower than a resistance of the first upper electrode as claimed, because the TiN film with a [200] preferred orientation has higher density and compact grain arrangement, resulting in lower resistivity (3.4 Resistivity of TiN films).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ the teaching as taught by Li in combination with Lee in view of Chiu and Huotari due to above reason.
Regarding claim 18, Lee in view of Chiu and Huotari teaches the semiconductor device as claimed in claim 15, but does not teach the semiconductor device wherein a resistance of the second upper electrode is lower than a resistance of the first upper electrode.
Li teaches that a resistance of the second upper electrode is lower than a resistance of the first upper electrode (a TiN film having a [200] preferred orientation exhibits lower resistivity than a TiN films having a [111] preferred orientation, Figs. 3 and 8. Table 1, 3.4 Resistivity of TiN films).
As taught by Li, one of ordinary skill in the art would utilize and modify the above teaching into Lee in view of Chiu and Huotari to obtain and achieve the capacitor structure wherein a resistance of the second upper electrode is lower than a resistance of the first upper electrode as claimed, because the TiN film with a [200] preferred orientation has higher density and compact grain arrangement, resulting in lower resistivity (3.4 Resistivity of TiN films).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ the teaching as taught by Li in combination with Lee in view of Chiu and Huotari due to above reason.
Claims 5 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2017/0069711) in view of Chiu (US 2018/0174922) and Huotari (US 2004/0106261), and further in view of Zhou et al. (Journal of Alloys and Compounds 688, 44-50, 2016; hereinafter ‘Zhou’).
Regarding claim 5, Lee in view of Chiu and Huotari teaches the capacitor structure as claimed in claim 1, but does not teach the capacitor structure wherein a grain size of the metal nitride included in the second upper electrode is greater than a grain size of the metal nitride included in the first upper electrode.
Zhou teaches that a grain size of the metal nitride included in the second upper electrode is greater than a grain size of the metal nitride included in the first upper electrode (a grain size of a [200] crystal orientation TN5 is greater than a grain size of a [111] crystal orientation TN4, Figs. 2-4, Table 1).
As taught by Zhou, one of ordinary skill in the art would utilize and modify the above teaching into Lee in view of Chiu and Huotari to obtain and achieve the capacitor structure wherein a grain size of the metal nitride included in the second upper electrode is greater than a grain size of the metal nitride included in the first upper electrode as claimed, because deposition process conditions influences the preferred crystal orientation of TiN films, which in turn affects the microstructure including the grain size (Abstract).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ the teaching as taught by Zhou in combination with Lee in view of Chiu and Huotari due to above reason.
Regarding claim 19, Lee in view of Chiu and Huotari teaches the semiconductor device as claimed in claim 15, but does not teach the semiconductor device wherein a grain size of the metal nitride included in the second upper electrode is greater than a grain size of the metal nitride included in the first upper electrode.
Zhou teaches that a grain size of the metal nitride included in the second upper electrode is greater than a grain size of the metal nitride included in the first upper electrode (a grain size of a [200] crystal orientation TN5 is greater than a grain size of a [111] crystal orientation TN4, Figs. 2-4, Table 1).
As taught by Zhou, one of ordinary skill in the art would utilize and modify the above teaching into Lee in view of Chiu and Huotari to obtain and achieve the capacitor structure wherein a grain size of the metal nitride included in the second upper electrode is greater than a grain size of the metal nitride included in the first upper electrode as claimed, because deposition process conditions influences the preferred crystal orientation of TiN films, which in turn affects the microstructure including the grain size (Abstract).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ the teaching as taught by Zhou in combination with Lee in view of Chiu and Huotari due to above reason.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2017/0069711) in view of Chiu (US 2018/0174922) and Huotari (US 2004/0106261), and further in view of Urdahl et al. (US 6573150; hereinafter ‘Urdahl’).
Regarding claim 9, Lee in view of Chiu and Huotari teaches the capacitor structure as claimed in claim 1, but does not teach the capacitor structure further comprising an interface oxide layer between the dielectric pattern and the first upper electrode.
Urdahl teaches a capacitor structure (thin film capacitor, col. 5, line 48) further comprising an interface oxide layer between the dielectric pattern and the first upper electrode (parasitic oxide layers forms between the dielectric layer and the top electrodes, col. 5, lines 41-44).
As taught by Urdahl, one of ordinary skill in the art would utilize and modify the above teaching into Lee in view of Chiu and Huotari to obtain and achieve the capacitor structure further comprising an interface oxide layer between the dielectric pattern and the first upper electrode as claimed, because it enhances electrical performance by lowering leakage current density while reducing the effective capacitance of the device (col. 5, lines 44-47).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ the teaching as taught by Urdahl in combination with Lee in view of Chiu and Huotari due to above reason.
Claims 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2017/0069711) in view of Chiu (US 2018/0174922).
Regarding claim 10, Lee teaches a capacitor structure (FIG. 1, [0059]), comprising:
a lower electrode (LE, [0060]);
a dielectric pattern (D1, [0062]) on a sidewall of the lower electrode (D1 on a sidewall of LE, FIG. 3); and
an upper electrode structure (UE, [0064]), the upper electrode structure (UE) including a first upper electrode (UE1) and a second upper electrode (UE2) sequentially stacked on a sidewall of the dielectric pattern (UE1 and UE2 sequentially stacked on a sidewall of D1, FIG. 3), wherein:
the second upper electrode (UE2) includes titanium nitride (UE2 includes a metal nitride, [0069]).
Lee does not teach that the upper electrode structure wherein: the first upper electrode includes titanium nitride, a primary crystal orientation of the titanium nitride of the first upper electrode is [111], and a primary crystal orientation of the titanium nitride of the second upper electrode is [200].
Chiu teaches that an upper electrode structure (work-function layer 66 includes different crystalline orientations within the same TiN material, including [111] and [200] orientations, [0032-0037, 0056, 0058]) wherein: the first upper electrode includes titanium nitride (one layer of 66 includes TiN), a primary crystal orientation of the titanium nitride of the first upper electrode ([111] orientation of 66; hereinafter ‘66111’) is [111] ([111]), and a primary crystal orientation of the titanium nitride of the second upper electrode ([200] orientation of 66; hereinafter ‘66200’) is [200] ([200]).
As taught by Chiu, one of ordinary skill in the art would utilize and modify the above teaching into Lee to obtain and achieve that the upper electrode structure wherein: the first upper electrode includes titanium nitride, a primary crystal orientation of the titanium nitride of the first upper electrode is [111], and a primary crystal orientation of the titanium nitride of the second upper electrode is [200] as claimed, because different orientations of TiN provide different work function characteristics for tuning the electrical properties of the TiN layer [0037].
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ the teaching as taught by Chiu in combination with Lee due to above reason.
Regarding claim 11, Lee in view of Chiu teaches the capacitor structure as claimed in claim 10, wherein: the first upper electrode has a thickness in a range of about 5 Å to about 20 Å (Lee: UE1 has a thickness about 1 Å to about 50 Å, [0064]), and the second upper electrode has a thickness in a range of about 10 Å to about 50 Å (UE2 has a thickness about 10 Å to about 100 Å).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ and modify the teachings of Lee to obtain and achieve the capacitor structure wherein: the first upper electrode has a thickness in a range of about 5 Å to about 20 Å, and the second upper electrode has a thickness in a range of about 10 Å to about 50 Å as claimed, because it has been held that where the criticality of the claimed range is not shown and the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 12, Lee in view of Chiu teaches the capacitor structure as claimed in claim 10, wherein a volume of the first upper electrode is in a range of about 10% to about 50% of a volume of the upper electrode structure (Lee: the thickness ratio between UE2 and UE1 ranges from 10:1 to 2:1 corresponding to UE1 having about 9% to 33% of the total UE2 volume, [0064]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ and modify the teachings of Lee to obtain and achieve the capacitor structure wherein a volume of the first upper electrode is in a range of about 10% to about 50% of a volume of the upper electrode structure as claimed, because it has been held that where the criticality of the claimed range is not shown and the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 13, Lee in view of Chiu teaches the capacitor structure as claimed in claim 10, wherein the second upper electrode further includes a Group 15 element or a Group 16 element (Lee: UE2 contains TiN, which includes nitrogen, a Group 15 element, [0101-0103]).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2017/0069711) in view of Chiu (US 2018/0174922), and further in view of Li (J Mater Sci: Mater Electron 33; 3606-3616, 2022).
Regarding claim 4, Lee in view of Chiu teaches the capacitor structure as claimed in claim 10, but does not teach the capacitor structure wherein a resistance of the second upper electrode is lower than a resistance of the first upper electrode.
Li teaches that a resistance of the second upper electrode is lower than a resistance of the first upper electrode (a TiN film having a [200] preferred orientation exhibits lower resistivity than a TiN films having a [111] preferred orientation, Figs. 3 and 8. Table 1, 3.4 Resistivity of TiN films).
As taught by Li, one of ordinary skill in the art would utilize and modify the above teaching into Lee in view of Chiu to obtain and achieve the capacitor structure wherein a resistance of the second upper electrode is lower than a resistance of the first upper electrode as claimed, because the TiN film with a [200] preferred orientation has higher density and compact grain arrangement, resulting in lower resistivity (3.4 Resistivity of TiN films).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ the teaching as taught by Li in combination with Lee in view of Chiu due to above reason.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIYOUNG OH whose telephone number is (703)756-5687. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9AM-5PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Eva Montalvo can be reached on (571) 270-3829. 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.
/JIYOUNG OH/Examiner, Art Unit 2818
/DUY T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2818 3/10/26