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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the plurality of segments of the first anode aperture must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The use of the term Bluetooth®, which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
The definitions of the “first anode aperture” and the “second anode aperture” are inconsistent between the claims and the specification, as well as within the specification itself.
For example, claim 4 recites “a second anode aperture configured to accelerate the emitted beam” (emphasis added), while the specification recites “electron beam 161 emanating from the tip of the cathode 103 may be accelerated by a voltage of first anode aperture 120a” (paragraph 0036, emphasis added).
As another example, claim 6 recites “the first anode aperture comprises a plurality of segments” (emphasis added), while the specification recites “second anode aperture 120b may include a plurality of segments” (paragraph 0041, emphasis added).
Furthermore, the specification recites “measuring, by a first anode aperture (e.g., second anode aperture 120b of Fig. 3 or second anode aperture 420b of Fig. 4)” (paragraph 0058, emphasis added); and “a second anode aperture (e.g., first anode aperture 120a of Fig. 3)” (paragraph 0058, emphasis added).
The inconsistent definitions of the first and second anode apertures between the claims and the specification, and within the specification itself, renders the disclosure unclear.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the extractor" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner has interpreted “the extractor” to mean “an extractor”.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2, 4, and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Someya et al. (U.S. Patent No. 3,825,839 A), hereinafter Someya, in view of Smith et al. (GB Patent No. 1380126 A), hereinafter Smith.
Regarding claim 1, Someya discloses an electron beam system (FIG. 3) comprising:
a first anode aperture (FIG. 3, element 3) configured to measure a current of an emitted beam (column 2, lines 45-50) during inspection of a sample (column 1, lines 3-6); and
a controller including circuitry configured to cause the system to perform (column 1, lines 46-51):
generating a feedback signal when a difference between the measured current and a setpoint current exceeds a threshold value (column 5, lines 9-12); and
adjusting a voltage of an extractor voltage supply based on the feedback signal during inspection of the sample such that a difference between an adjusted current of the emitted beam and the setpoint current is below the threshold value (column 2, lines 30-36).
Someya fails to disclose that the first anode aperture is positioned in an environment that is configured to support a vacuum pressure of less than 3 ×
10
-
10
torr.
However, optimizing the vacuum pressure in a chamber is well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, “[a] particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation.” In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In the case at hand, Smith teaches that “[u]nless a field emission cathode is operated under extremely good vacuum conditions there are normally significant fluctuations in the electron emission from its surface” (page 2, column 1, lines 47-50). As such, Smith identifies chamber pressure as a variable which achieves a recognized result, i.e., lower pressure produces more stable electron emission. Therefore, the prior art teaches adjusting chamber pressure and identifies said pressure as a result-effective variable. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to optimize the pressure in the environment surrounding the first anode aperture to meet the claimed vacuum pressure since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Regarding claim 2, Someya in view of Smith as applied to claim 1 discloses the system of claim 1.
Features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally (In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997)), but “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does” (Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990)(emphasis in original)). 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)), i.e., a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP 2114. In the case at hand, Someya in view of Smith teaches the structural limitations of the first anode aperture (see claim 1 supra). Therefore, the limitation “the first anode aperture is configured to measure the emitted beam without perturbing the beam” is met.
Regarding claim 4, Someya in view of Smith as applied to claim 1 discloses the system of claim 1.
In addition, Smith discloses a second anode aperture (FIG. 1, element 4) configured to accelerate the emitted beam (page 2, column 2, lines 66-69).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Someya in view of Smith to include a second anode aperture configured to accelerate the emitted beam, based on the additional teachings of Smith that this ensures the beam reaches the required energy for a particular application (Smith, page 2, column 2, lines 66-69).
Regarding claim 12, Someya in view of Smith as applied to claim 1 discloses the system of claim 1.
In addition, Someya discloses that the voltage of the extractor voltage supply is adjusted such that an electric field of the extractor is adjusted (column 3, lines 40-45).
Regarding claim 13, Someya in view of Smith as applied to claim 1 discloses the system of claim 1.
In addition, Someya discloses that adjusting the voltage of the extractor voltage supply comprises transmitting the feedback signal to the extractor voltage supply (column 5, lines 9-15).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Someya in view of Smith as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ito (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0238636 A1), hereinafter Ito.
Regarding claim 3, Someya in view of Smith as applied to claim 1 discloses the system of claim 1.
Someya in view of Smith fails to disclose that the feedback signal is generated using a proportional-integral-derivative (PID) controller.
However, Ito discloses that the feedback signal is generated using a proportional-integral-derivative (PID) controller (paragraph 0028).
The disclosure of Ito demonstrates that the function of PID controllers is known in the art of charged particle beam current adjusting systems. Ito also shows that substituting a PID controller for another feedback signal generator in in a current adjusting system yields the predictable result of maintaining a desired emission current (Ito, paragraph 0028). “[W]hen a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable result.” United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39 (1966). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Someya in view of Smith to include that the feedback signal is generated using a proportional-integral-derivative (PID) controller because it is not inventive to substitute one known element for another which yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2143 I (B).
Claims 5-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Someya in view of Smith as respectively applied to claims 4 and 1 above, and further in view of Glenn (U.S. Patent No. 3,694,687 A), hereinafter Glenn.
Regarding claim 5, Someya in view of Smith as applied to claim 4 discloses the system of claim 4.
In addition, Smith discloses that the second anode aperture is configured to be isolated from other components of the system (page 2, column 1, lines 3-6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Someya in view of Smith to include that the second anode aperture is configured to be isolated from other components of the system, based on the additional teachings of Smith that this enables more accurate measurement of the current at the second anode aperture (Smith, page 2, column 1, lines 3-6).
Someya in view of Smith fails to disclose that the first anode aperture is configured to be isolated from other components of the system.
However, Glenn discloses that the first anode aperture is configured to be isolated from other components of the system (column 1, lines 65-68).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Someya in view of Smith to include that the first anode aperture is configured to be isolated from other components of the system, based on the teachings of Glenn that this provides beam shaping while maintaining quick dissipation of unwanted heat (Glenn, column 1, line 58 to column 2, line 17 and column 4, lines 8-26).
Regarding claim 6, Someya in view of Smith as applied to claim 1 discloses the system of claim 1.
Someya in view of Smith fails to disclose that the first anode aperture comprises a plurality of segments and each segment of the plurality of segments is insulated from each other.
However, Glenn discloses that the first anode aperture comprises a plurality of segments and each segment of the plurality of segments is insulated from each other (column 1, lines 65-68).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Someya in view of Smith to include that the first anode aperture comprises a plurality of segments and each segment of the plurality of segments is insulated from each other, based on the teachings of Glenn that this provides beam shaping while maintaining quick dissipation of unwanted heat (Glenn, column 1, line 58 to column 2, line 17 and column 4, lines 8-26).
Regarding claim 7, Someya in view of Smith and Glenn as applied to claim 6 discloses the system of claim 6.
In addition, Glenn discloses that each segment of the plurality of segments is configured to measure a current of the emitted beam in during inspection of the sample (column 5, lines 15-20).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Someya in view of Smith and Glenn to include that each segment of the plurality of segments is configured to measure a current of the emitted beam in during inspection of the sample, based on the additional teachings of Glenn that this enables correction of the beam trajectory in the event that the beam is off-center (Glenn, column 5, lines 15-25).
Regarding claim 8, Someya in view of Smith and Glenn as applied to claim 7 discloses the system of claim 7.
In addition, Glenn discloses that the circuitry is further configured to cause the system to determine an error based on the current of the emitted beam measured on each segment of the plurality of segments (column 5, lines 15-25, the error being that the beam is off-center).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Someya in view of Smith and Glenn to include that the circuitry is further configured to cause the system to determine an error based on the current of the emitted beam measured on each segment of the plurality of segments, based on the additional teachings of Glenn that this enables correction of the beam trajectory in the event that the beam is off-center (Glenn, column 5, lines 15-25).
Regarding claim 9, Someya in view of Smith and Glenn as applied to claim 8 discloses the system of claim 8.
In addition, Glenn discloses that the error comprises an emitter pointing error (column 2, lines 1-5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Someya in view of Smith and Glenn to include that the error comprises an emitter pointing error, based on the additional teachings of Glenn that this enables correction of the beam trajectory in the event that the beam is off-center due to inaccurate alignment of the emitter (Glenn, column 1, lines 15-25 and column 2, lines 1-10).
Regarding claim 10, Someya in view of Smith and Glenn as applied to claim 8 discloses the system of claim 8.
In addition, Glenn discloses that the error comprises an angular beam emission distribution error (column 5, lines 15-25).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Someya in view of Smith and Glenn to include that the error comprises an angular beam emission distribution error, based on the additional teachings of Glenn that this enables correction of the beam trajectory in the event that the beam is off-center (Glenn, column 5, lines 15-25).
Claims 11 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Someya in view of Smith as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tesch et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0148605 A1), hereinafter Tesch.
Regarding claim 11, Someya in view of Smith as applied to claim 1 discloses the system of claim 1.
Someya in view of Smith fails to disclose that the voltage of the extractor voltage supply is adjusted such that a temperature of a tip of an emitter is adjusted.
However, Tesch discloses that the voltage of the extractor voltage supply is adjusted such that a temperature of a tip of an emitter is adjusted (paragraph 0043).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Someya in view of Smith to include that the voltage of the extractor voltage supply is adjusted such that a temperature of a tip of an emitter is adjusted, based on the teachings of Tesch that adjusting the temperature of an emitter beneficially enables control of the amount of electron emission (Tesch, paragraph 0008).
Regarding claim 14, Someya in view of Smith as applied to claim 1 discloses the system of claim 1.
Someya in view of Smith fails to disclose adjusting a focus of the emitted beam in response to the adjusted voltage of the extractor voltage supply.
However, Tesch discloses adjusting a focus of the emitted beam in response to the adjusted voltage of the extractor voltage supply (paragraph 0050).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Someya in view of Smith to include adjusting a focus of the emitted beam in response to the adjusted voltage of the extractor voltage supply, based on the teachings of Tesch that this provides flexibility in terms of deflecting and focusing the emitted beam in different directions as desired (Tesch, paragraph 0050).
Claims 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito in view of Someya and Smith.
Regarding claim 15, Ito discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium that stores a set of instructions that is executable by at least one processor of a computing device to cause the computing device to perform a method (paragraph 0065) comprising:
acquiring a measured current of an emitted beam during inspection of a sample (paragraph 0006);
generating a feedback signal when a difference between the measured current and a setpoint current exceeds a threshold value (paragraph 0028); and
adjusting a voltage of an extractor voltage supply based on the feedback signal during inspection of the sample such that a difference between an adjusted current of the emitted beam and the setpoint current is below the threshold value (paragraph 0028).
Ito fails to disclose that the measured current is measured by a first anode aperture in an environment that is configured to support a vacuum pressure of less than 3 ×
10
-
10
torr.
However, Someya discloses that the measured current is measured by a first anode aperture (column 2, lines 45-50).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Ito to include that the measured current is measured by a first anode aperture, based on the teachings of Someya that this provides a very accurate measurement because the current at the anode is proportional to the current at the emitter (Someya, column 2, lines 45-50).
Ito in view of Someya fails to disclose that the first anode aperture is positioned in an environment that is configured to support a vacuum pressure of less than 3 ×
10
-
10
torr.
However, optimizing the vacuum pressure in a chamber is well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, “[a] particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation.” In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In the case at hand, Smith teaches that “[u]nless a field emission cathode is operated under extremely good vacuum conditions there are normally significant fluctuations in the electron emission from its surface” (page 2, column 1, lines 47-50). As such, Smith identifies chamber pressure as a variable which achieves a recognized result, i.e., lower pressure produces more stable electron emission. Therefore, the prior art teaches adjusting chamber pressure and identifies said pressure as a result-effective variable. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to optimize the pressure in the environment surrounding the first anode aperture to meet the claimed vacuum pressure since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Regarding claim 16, Ito in view of Someya and Smith as applied to claim 15 discloses the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 15.
Features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally (In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997)), but “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does” (Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990)(emphasis in original)). 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)), i.e., a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP 2114. In the case at hand, Ito in view of Someya and Smith teaches the structural limitations of the first anode aperture (see claim 15 supra). Therefore, the limitation “the first anode aperture is configured to measure the emitted beam without perturbing the beam” is met.
Regarding claim 17, Ito in view of Someya and Smith as applied to claim 15 discloses the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 15.
In addition, Ito discloses that the feedback signal is generated using a proportional-integral-derivative (PID) controller (paragraph 0028).
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito in view of Someya and Smith as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Glenn.
Regarding claim 18, Ito in view of Someya and Smith as applied to claim 15 discloses the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 15.
In addition, Smith discloses that a second anode aperture (FIG. 1, element 4) is configured to be isolated from other components of a system (page 2, column 1, lines 3-6), wherein the second anode aperture is configured to accelerate the emitted beam (page 2, column 2, lines 66-69).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Ito in view of Someya and Smith to include that a second anode aperture is configured to be isolated from other components of a system, wherein the second anode aperture is configured to accelerate the emitted beam, based on the additional teachings of Smith that this enables more accurate measurement of the current at the second anode aperture (Smith, page 2, column 1, lines 3-6) and ensures the beam reaches the required energy for a particular application (Smith, page 2, column 2, lines 66-69).
Ito in view of Someya and Smith fails to disclose that the first anode aperture is configured to be isolated from other components of a system.
However, Glenn discloses that the first anode aperture is configured to be isolated from other components of a system (column 1, lines 65-68).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Ito in view of Someya and Smith to include that the first anode aperture is configured to be isolated from other components of a system, based on the teachings of Glenn that this provides beam shaping while maintaining quick dissipation of unwanted heat (Glenn, column 1, line 58 to column 2, line 17 and column 4, lines 8-26).
Regarding claim 19, Ito in view of Someya and Smith as applied to claim 15 discloses the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 15.
Ito in view of Someya and Smith fails to disclose that the first anode aperture comprises a plurality of segments and each segment of the plurality of segments is insulated from each other.
However, Glenn discloses that the first anode aperture comprises a plurality of segments and each segment of the plurality of segments is insulated from each other (column 1, lines 65-68).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Ito in view of Someya and Smith to include that the first anode aperture comprises a plurality of segments and each segment of the plurality of segments is insulated from each other, based on the teachings of Glenn that this provides beam shaping while maintaining quick dissipation of unwanted heat (Glenn, column 1, line 58 to column 2, line 17 and column 4, lines 8-26).
Regarding claim 20, Ito in view of Someya, Smith, and Glenn as applied to claim 19 discloses the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 19.
In addition, Glenn discloses that each segment of the plurality of segments is configured to measure a current of the emitted beam during inspection of the sample (column 5, lines 15-20).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Someya in view of Smith and Glenn to include that each segment of the plurality of segments is configured to measure a current of the emitted beam during inspection of the sample, based on the additional teachings of Glenn that this enables correction of the beam trajectory in the event that the beam is off-center (Glenn, column 5, lines 15-25).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Graf et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0078957 A1), hereinafter Graf, teaches a current measuring element configured to measure the current of an emitted beam without perturbing the beam.
Rose et al. (U.S. Patent No. 4,896,036 A), hereinafter Rose, teaches an anode aperture comprising a plurality of segments.
Li (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0126753 A1), hereinafter Li, teaches an electron beam system with an adjustable beam current.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALINA R KALISZEWSKI whose telephone number is (703)756-5581. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am - 5:00pm 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, Robert Kim can be reached at (571)272-2293. 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.
/A.K./Examiner, Art Unit 2881
/ROBERT H KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2881