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 .
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.
Elections/Restrictions
Applicant's election without traverse of Group I, drawn to claims 1-17 in the
reply filed on 11/14/2025, is acknowledged.
Claims 18-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as
being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election
was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11/14/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee (US 20220199432).
Regarding Claim 1:
Lee teaches a liquid chemical recycle system comprising: a liquid chemical supply tank (the tank within main adjustment supply part 410') storing and configured to supply a liquid chemical; a processing tank (processing apparatus 10) configured to inject the liquid chemical supplied from the liquid chemical supply tank through an injection nozzle (nozzle 320) to perform an etching process on a substrate disposed on a substrate support (spin head 210); a recovery line (liquid supply tube 520) configured to recover the liquid chemical discharged from the processing tank; a recycle tank (recovery tank 530) connected to the recovery line; and a circulation line (liquid supply tube 540) configured to connect the recycle tank to the injection nozzle (the liquid supply tube 540 is fluidly connected to the processing apparatus 10), wherein the processing tank comprises a third bowl (recovery container 130) comprising a ring-shaped side wall formed in a direction parallel to a side surface of the processing tank inside the processing tank; a second bowl (recovery container 120) comprising a ring-shaped side wall formed in a direction parallel to a side surface of the third bowl inside the third bowl; and a first bowl (the recovery container of recovery space RS1) comprising a ring-shaped side wall formed in a direction parallel to a side surface of the second bowl inside the second bowl (the recovery containers 110 and 120 have ring shaped bottom surfaces and a cylindrical side wall extending from the bottom surface; the second recovery container 120 surrounds the first recovery container 110, and is located while being spaced apart from the first recovery container 110) [Fig. 3 & 0086].
Regarding Claim 6:
Lee teaches a third pipe (the pipe connected to recovery line 145) connected along an outer circumference of the third bowl and extending vertically downward; a second pipe (the pipe connected to recovery line 143) connected along an outer circumference of the second bowl and extending vertically downward; and a first pipe (the pipe connected to recovery line 141) connected along an outer circumference of the first bowl and extending vertically downward [Fig. 3, 6, 10 & 0086, 0107-0110].
Regarding Claim 7:
Lee teaches wherein the third pipe and the second pipe are connected to a discharge unit,
and the first pipe is connected to the recovery line (the recovery lines 141, 143, and 145 may be connected to the external recycling unit; the recycling unit may comprise a discharge tube 539) [Fig. 3, 18 & 0089, 0163].
Regarding Claim 8:
Lee teaches wherein a raw material supplied to the liquid chemical supply tank includes hydrogen fluoride (HF), hydrogen peroxide (H202), and deionized water (DIW) (the processing liquid may include water, hydrogen peroxide, and HF) [Fig. 3 & 0100].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 2-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 20220199432), as applied to claims 1 and 6-8 above, and further in view of Ko et al. (US 20070254098) and Koo et al. (US 8721834), with Namba et al. (US 20110308554) and Yoshida et al. (US 20170117135) as evidentiary references.
The limitations of claims 1 and 6-8 have been set forth above.
Regarding Claim 2:
Lee does not specifically disclose a pedestal.
Ko teaches a pedestal (fluid diverter base 328) [Fig. 3B & 4A & 0026, 0035].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Lee to include a pedestal, as in Ko, to provide further control over effluent flow out of the processing tank and reduce cross contamination [Ko - 0032]. Namba et al. (US 20110308554) also discloses that a pedestal would be beneficial to provide further control over effluent flow out of the processing tank [Namba - 0036, 0038, 0048, 0053, 0066].
Modified Lee does not specifically disclose a vertically reciprocable pedestal and a controller configured to provide an on command and an off command to the pedestal.
Koo teaches a vertically reciprocable pedestal (supporting plate 120 is vertically moveable), and a controller (the lifting member 500 is controlled by a controller) configured to provide an on command and an off command to the pedestal (the supporting plate 120 can switch between multiple states/elevations and as such has on states where the supporting plate 120 is moving, and off states where the supporting plate 120 is not moving) [Fig. 11 & Col. 11 lines 5-57].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the fluid diverter (pedestal) of Modified Lee to be vertically moveable, as in Ko, to provide even further control over effluent flow out of the processing tank and reduce cross contamination [Koo - Col. 11 lines 5-57]. It is noted that Yoshida et al. (US 20170117135) disclose that making different components in a chamber vertically moveable is a well-known technique in the art [Yoshida - Fig. 2, 3].
Furthermore, the limitations “configured to reciprocate in a vertical direction between a first height, which is a height of an uppermost surface of the first bowl, a second height, which is a height of an uppermost surface of the second bowl, and a third height, which is a height of an uppermost surface of the third bowl, ” are merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. 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 teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). It is noted that the pedestal of Modified Lee is vertical moveable, and as such, can be controlled to be set at any desired height.
Regarding Claim 3:
Modified Lee does not specifically disclose wherein the pedestal is configured to move to the first height when the controller provides the on command.
Although Ko does not specifically disclose "move to the first height," Ko does disclose that fluid diverter height is a result effective variable. Specifically, a fluid diverter height can be adjusted to determine effluent flow paths [Ko - 0031-0040]. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to find optimum heights for a fluid diverter in order to obtain desired effluent flow behavior. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05. Koo et al. (US 8721834) also discloses that the height of bowls relative to a fluid diverter can be adjusted to determine flow paths [Koo - Col. 11 lines 5-57].
Modified Lee does not specifically disclose a vertically reciprocable pedestal and a controller configured to provide an on command and an off command to the pedestal.
Koo teaches a vertically reciprocable pedestal (supporting plate 120 is vertically moveable), and a controller (the lifting member 500 is controlled by a controller) configured to provide an on command and an off command to the pedestal (the supporting plate 120 can switch between multiple states/elevations and as such has on states where the supporting plate 120 is moving, and off states where the supporting plate 120 is not moving) [Fig. 11 & Col. 11 lines 5-57].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the fluid diverter (pedestal) of Modified Lee to be vertically moveable, as in Ko, to provide even further control over effluent flow out of the processing tank and reduce cross contamination [Koo - Col. 11 lines 5-57]. It is noted that Yoshida et al. (US 20170117135) disclose that making different components in a chamber vertically moveable is a well-known technique in the art [Yoshida - Fig. 2, 3].
Furthermore, the limitations “wherein the pedestal is configured to standby at the third height when the etching process is initiated, ” are merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. 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 teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). It is noted that the pedestal of Modified Lee is vertical moveable, and as such, can be controlled to be set at any desired height.
Regarding Claim 4:
Modified Lee does not specifically disclose wherein the controller is configured to provide the on command to the pedestal after a predetermined time has elapsed since providing the off command to the pedestal.
Koo teaches wherein the controller is configured to provide the on command to the pedestal after a predetermined time has elapsed since providing the off command to the pedestal (the supporting plate 120 can switch between multiple states/elevations and as such has on states where the supporting plate 120 is moving, and off states where the supporting plate 120 is not moving) [Fig. 11 & Col. 11 lines 5-57].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the fluid diverter (pedestal) of Modified Lee to be vertically moveable, as in Ko, to provide even further control over effluent flow out of the processing tank and reduce cross contamination [Koo - Col. 11 lines 5-57]. It is noted that Yoshida et al. (US 20170117135) disclose that making different components in a chamber vertically moveable is a well-known technique in the art [Yoshida - Fig. 2, 3].
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 20220199432), Ko et al. (US 20070254098) and Koo et al. (US 8721834), with Namba et al. (US 20110308554) and Yoshida et al. (US 20170117135) as evidentiary references, as applied to claims 2-4 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (US 20090317981).
The limitations of claims 2-4 have been set forth above.
Regarding Claim 5:
Modified Lee ‘432 does not specifically disclose wherein the predetermined time is 5 seconds or more.
Lee ‘981 teaches wherein the predetermined time is 5 seconds or more (etching is performed for at least thirty seconds) [Fig. 4 & 0068].
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). It is noted that Koo discloses moving the spin head 210 during specific process steps at different times [Koo - Col. 3 lines 50-60]. As such, a state in where the pedestal is not moving (i.e. an off state) is the state when the pedestal is undergoing etching/cleaning.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 20220199432), as applied to claims 1 and 6-8 above, and further in view of Mayer et al. (US 20110056913), with Wen (US 20140158299) as an evidentiary reference.
The limitations of claims 1 and 6-8 have been set forth above.
Regarding Claim 9:
Modified Lee teaches a particle filter (main filter 535) disposed along the circulation line between the recycle tank and the injection nozzle [Lee - Fig. 10 & 0164].
Modified Lee does not specifically disclose an inspection unit configured to monitor a concentration of copper (Cu) ions inside the liquid chemical stored in the recycle tank.
Mayer teaches and an inspection unit (analyzer 630) configured to monitor a concentration of copper (Cu) ions inside the liquid chemical stored in the recycle tank (the analyzer 630 can measure copper in the cell 615) [Fig. 6 & 0047].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the recycle tank of Modified Lee to include an inspection unit, as in Mayer to provide further control over solution makeup; the inspection unit aids in maintaining target values in a solution [Mayer - 0047]. Wen (US 20140158299) also discloses that inspection units would be beneficial to determine real etching rates [Wen - 0061].
Furthermore, although taught by the cited prior art the limitations “configured to monitor a concentration of copper (Cu) ions inside the liquid chemical stored in the recycle tank, ” are merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. 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 teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). It is noted that the pedestal of Modified Lee is vertical moveable, and as such, can be controlled to be set at any desired height.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 20220199432), as applied to claims 1 and 6-8 above, and further in view of Higuchi et al (US 20120240958), with Hwang et al. (US 6200414) as an evidentiary reference.
The limitations of claims 1 and 6-8 have been set forth above.
Regarding Claim 10:
Modified Lee does not specifically disclose wherein the recycle tank includes a circulation system to filter impurities.
Higuchi teaches wherein the recycle tank (buffer tank 100) includes a circulation system to filter impurities (buffer tank 100 drains to drain pipe 84 and circulates through the filter 8 to go back into the buffer tank 100) [Higuchi - 0126].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the recycle tank of Modified Lee to include a circulation system, as in Higuchi, to provide further control over temperature and improve particle trapping efficiency [Higuchi - 0126, 0161]. Hwang et al. (US 6200414) also discloses that it would be beneficial to have a circulation system for a tank to provide further control over contaminants and solution temperature [Higuchi - Col. 5 lines 59-67].
Claim(s) 11, 13, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 20220199432) in view of Ko et al. (US 20070254098) and Higuchi et al (US 20120240958), with Hwang et al. (US 6200414) as an evidentiary reference.
Regarding Claim 11:
Lee teaches a liquid chemical recycle system comprising: a liquid chemical supply tank (the tank within main adjustment supply part 410') storing and configured to supply a liquid chemical; a processing tank (processing apparatus 10) configured to perform an etching process on a substrate disposed on a substrate support (spin head 210); a recycle tank (recovery tank 530) storing a remaining liquid chemical discharged from the processing tank during the etching process, and a circulation line (liquid supply tube 540) configured to connect the recycle tank to the processing tank (the liquid supply tube 540 is fluidly connected to the processing apparatus 10), wherein the remaining liquid chemical is discharged from the processing tank through a first pipe (recovery line 141) of the processing tank to a recovery line (waste processing liquid supply tube 520) configured to connect the processing tank and the recycle tank and re-supplied to the processing tank through the circulation line (the liquid supply tube 540 is fluidly connected to the processing apparatus 10) [Fig. 3, 6, 10 & 0086, 0107-0110].
Lee does not specifically disclose wherein the recycle tank is configured to filter impurities through an internal circulation system.
Higuchi teaches and a recycle tank configured to filter impurities through an internal circulation system (buffer tank 100 drains to drain pipe 84 and circulates through the filter 8 to go back into the buffer tank 100) [Higuchi - 0126].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the recycle tank of Modified Lee to include a circulation system, as in Higuchi, to provide further control over temperature and improve particle trapping efficiency [Higuchi - 0126, 0161]. Hwang et al. (US 6200414) also discloses that it would be beneficial to have a circulation system for a tank to provide further control over contaminants and solution temperature [Higuchi - Col. 5 lines 59-67].
Regarding Claim 13:
Lee teaches wherein the third bowl is connected to a third pipe (the pipe connected to recovery line 145), the second bowl is connected to a second pipe (the pipe connected to recovery line 143), and the first bowl is connected to the first pipe (recovery line 141),
the third pipe and the second pipe are connected to a discharge unit, and the first pipe is connected to the recovery line (the recovery lines 141, 143, and 145 may be connected to the external recycling unit; the recycling unit may comprise a discharge tube 539) [Fig. 3, 18 & 0089, 0163].
Regarding Claim 17:
Lee teaches wherein a raw material supplied to the liquid chemical supply tank includes hydrogen fluoride (HF), hydrogen peroxide (H202), and deionized water (DIW) (the processing liquid may include water, hydrogen peroxide, and HF) [Fig. 3 & 0100].
Claim(s) 12 and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 20220199432) in view of Ko et al. (US 20070254098) and Higuchi et al (US 20120240958), with Hwang et al. (US 6200414) as an evidentiary reference, as applied to claims 11 and 13-17 above, and further in view of Koo et al. (US 8721834), with Yoshida et al. (US 20170117135) as a further evidentiary reference.
The limitations of claims 11 and 13-17 have been set forth above.
Regarding Claim 12:
Modified Lee does not specifically disclose a vertically reciprocable pedestal.
Koo teaches a vertically reciprocable pedestal (supporting plate 120 is vertically moveable) [Fig. 11 & Col. 11 lines 5-57].
Furthermore, the limitations “the pedestal is configured to reciprocate in a vertical direction between a first height, which is a height of an uppermost surface of the first bowl, a second height, which is a height of an uppermost surface of the second bowl, and a third height, which is a height of an uppermost surface of the third bowl inside the processing tank, ” are merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. 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 teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). It is noted that the pedestal of Modified Lee is vertical moveable, and as such, can be controlled to be set at any desired height.
Regarding Claim 14:
Modified Lee does not specifically disclose move to the first height, which is the height of the uppermost surface of the first bowl, when a controller provides an on command.
Although Ko does not specifically disclose "move to the first height, which is the height of the uppermost surface of the first bowl," Ko does disclose that fluid diverter height is a result effective variable. Specifically, a fluid diverter height can be adjusted to determine effluent flow paths [Ko - 0031-0040]. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to find optimum heights for a fluid diverter in order to obtain desired effluent flow behavior. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05. Koo et al. (US 8721834) also discloses that the height of bowls relative to a fluid diverter can be adjusted to determine flow paths [Koo - Col. 11 lines 5-57].
Modified Lee does not specifically disclose a vertically reciprocable pedestal and a controller configured to provide an on command and an off command to the pedestal.
Koo teaches a vertically reciprocable pedestal (supporting plate 120 is vertically moveable), and a controller (the lifting member 500 is controlled by a controller) configured to provide an on command and an off command to the pedestal (the supporting plate 120 can switch between multiple states/elevations and as such has on states where the supporting plate 120 is moving, and off states where the supporting plate 120 is not moving) [Fig. 11 & Col. 11 lines 5-57].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the fluid diverter (pedestal) of Modified Lee to be vertically moveable, as in Ko, to provide even further control over effluent flow out of the processing tank and reduce cross contamination [Koo - Col. 11 lines 5-57]. It is noted that Yoshida et al. (US 20170117135) disclose that making different components in a chamber vertically moveable is a well-known technique in the art [Yoshida - Fig. 2, 3].
Furthermore, the limitations “wherein the pedestal is configured to standby at the third height, which is the height of the uppermost surface of the third bowl, when the etching process is initiated, ” are merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. 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 teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). It is noted that the pedestal of Modified Lee is vertical moveable, and as such, can be controlled to be set at any desired height.
Regarding Claim 15:
Modified Lee does not specifically disclose wherein the controller is configured to provide the on command to the pedestal after a predetermined time has elapsed since providing an off command to the pedestal.
Koo teaches wherein the controller is configured to provide the on command to the pedestal after a predetermined time has elapsed since providing an off command to the pedestal (the supporting plate 120 can switch between multiple states/elevations and as such has on states where the supporting plate 120 is moving, and off states where the supporting plate 120 is not moving) [Fig. 11 & Col. 11 lines 5-57].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the fluid diverter (pedestal) of Modified Lee to be vertically moveable, as in Ko, to provide even further control over effluent flow out of the processing tank and reduce cross contamination [Koo - Col. 11 lines 5-57]. It is noted that Yoshida et al. (US 20170117135) disclose that making different components in a chamber vertically moveable is a well-known technique in the art [Yoshida - Fig. 2, 3].
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 20220199432) in view of Ko et al. (US 20070254098) and Higuchi et al (US 20120240958), with Hwang et al. (US 6200414) as an evidentiary reference, as applied to claims 11 and 13-17 above, and further in view of Mayer et al. (US 20110056913), with Wen (US 20140158299) as a further evidentiary reference.
The limitations of claims 1 and 6-8 have been set forth above.
Regarding Claim 16:
Modified Lee teaches a particle filter (main filter 535) disposed along the circulation line [Lee - Fig. 10 & 0164].
Modified Lee does not specifically disclose an inspection unit configured to monitor a concentration of copper (Cu) ions inside the liquid chemical stored in the recycle tank.
Mayer teaches and an inspection unit (analyzer 630) configured to monitor a concentration of copper (Cu) ions inside the liquid chemical stored in the recycle tank (the analyzer 630 can measure copper in the cell 615) [Fig. 6 & 0047].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the recycle tank of Modified Lee to include an inspection unit, as in Mayer to provide further control over solution makeup; the inspection unit aids in maintaining target values in a solution [Mayer - 0047]. Wen (US 20140158299) also discloses that inspection units would be beneficial to determine real etching rates [Wen - 0061].
Furthermore, although taught by the cited prior art the limitations “configured to monitor a concentration of copper (Cu) ions inside the liquid chemical stored in the recycle tank, ” are merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. 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 teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). It is noted that the pedestal of Modified Lee is vertical moveable, and as such, can be controlled to be set at any desired height.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s
disclosure. Tanaka et al. (US 20200135448) and Kai et al. (US 20190096706) teach liquid etching apparatuses [Tanaka – Fig. 1; Kai – Fig. 1]
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA NATHANIEL PINEDA REYES whose telephone number is (571)272-4693. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 AM to 4:30 PM.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at (571) 272-5166. 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.
/J.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1718
/GORDON BALDWIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights