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 .
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.
Claims 8 and 19 are 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.
Regarding claim 8, this claim recites “…wherein the silicon nitride sintered body is formed by sintering phosphorus silicon nitride powder in which the weight ratio of an α crystal phase is 0.7 or more in the total weight of an α crystal phase and a β crystal phase” and it is not clear how a three element powder, phosphorus, Silicon and Nitrogen powder, weight ratio is determined by an α crystal phase and a β crystal phase crystal phase instead of crystal phase , a β crystal phase and Ɣ crystal phase and the specification does not provide description of the claimed limitation, rendering the claim indefinite. This claim is interpreted to read as “… wherein the silicon nitride sintered body is formed by sintering silicon nitride powder in which…” for the purpose of this examination.
Regarding claim 19, this claim recites the limitation " … comprising: the electrostatic chuck heater according to claim 16…" and claim 16 is directed to “electrostatic chuck” not “electrostatic chuck heater”. Thus, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the “electrostatic chuck heater” limitation in the claim. This claim is interpreted to read as “…the electrostatic chuck heater according to claim 17…” for the purpose of this examination.
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, 6 and 17 – 18 is /are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Unno et al. (US 2020/0090964 A1) and hereinafter “Unno”.
Regarding claim 1, Unno discloses an electrostatic chuck (ceramic substrate 20 with electrostatic electrode for holding a wafer W, FIG.2), comprising:
a silicon nitride (Si3N4) sintered body (a core portion 20a of sintered silicon nitride, (0032, 0036, 0047and see FIG.2));
a silicon carbide (SiC) surface modification layer covering at least a portion of the external surface of the silicon nitride sintered body and having corrosion resistance and plasma resistance (a surface layer portion 20b of silicon carbide surrounding the surfaces of the core portion 20a having corrosion resistance and plasma resistance, (0036 - 0038, 0040, 0042, 0047 and see FIG.2)); and
an electrostatic electrode laid inside the silicon nitride sintered body (an RF electrode 28 embedded in the core portion 20a of the ceramic substrate 20 wherein the RF electrode 28 is an electrostatic electrode, (0033, 0044 and FIG.2)).
Regarding claim 6, Unno discloses the electrostatic chuck of claim 1, wherein the silicon carbide (SiC) surface modification layer has a thickness of 0.2 nm or more (surface layer portion 20b not limited to particular ones, may have a thickness of, for example, 1 to 5 mm, (0032), overlapping range, 1 to 5 mm, that anticipates the broad claimed range, MPEP 2131.02.II).
Regarding claim 17, Unno discloses an electrostatic chuck heater having a first surface on which a wafer is adsorbed and a second surface opposing thereto (a ceramic heater 10 with electrostatic electrode, wherein the wafer W is mounted on a mount surface 22 and undersurface 25 opposing thereto, (0034 – 0035 and FIG.2), comprising:
an electrostatic chuck part comprising a first ceramic sintered body), one surface of which is the first surface, and an electrostatic electrode which is laid in the first ceramic sintered body (a ceramic substrate 20 comprising a core portion 20a of sintered silicon nitride, a mount surface 22, an RF electrode 28 which is laide in the body and is an electrostatic electrode, (0032 – 0036, 0044, 0047and see FIG.2); and
a heater part comprising a second ceramic sintered body, one surface of which is the second surface, and at least one resistance heating element which is laid inside the second ceramic sintered body (a part of the ceramic sintered body 20 comprising a heater electrode 26, undersurface 25, and a heater electrode 26 is embedded in the ceramic sintered body, (0033 – 0036 and see FIG.2)),
wherein at least any one of the first ceramic sintered body and the second ceramic sintered body is provided with a plasma-resistant and corrosion-resistant silicon carbide (SiC) surface modification layer on at least a portion of the external surface (wherein a surface layer portion 20b of silicon carbide is provided surrounding the surfaces of the core portion 20a having corrosion resistance and plasma resistance, (0036 – 0038, 0040, 0042, 0047 and see FIG.2)).
Regarding claim 18, Unno discloses the electrostatic chuck heater of claim 17, wherein the first ceramic sintered body and the second ceramic sintered body are simultaneously sintered and implemented as one body (the sintered ceramic body 20 that includes the upper electrostatic electrode 28 and the lower heater electrode 26 is one ceramic sintered body 20, see FIG.2)).
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.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Unno in view of Lee Jung Hee et al. (KR 101402234 B1) and hereinafter “Lee”.
Regarding claim 2, Unno discloses the electrostatic chuck of claim 1.
Unno does not explicitly teach that the electrostatic chuck has a relative etching rate of 0.9 nm/min or less when the etching rate of a Si wafer is 1.0 nm/min, under plasma environment with a power of 500W or more, a mixed gas comprising 10 to 100 sccm of CF4 gas, 0.1 to 50 sccm of O2 gas and 1 to 70 sccm of Ar gas, and a pressure of 1 to 30 mTorr.
However, Lee that relates to a plasma etching apparatus (page 2, parag. 01), also teaches the plasma etching apparatus etches a substrate 10 supported by electrostatic chuck 210, wherein the power supplied is 600W for plasma generation and mixed gases including O2 gas, CF4 gas, Helium inert gas are used while maintain 1.5 torr pressure and the etching rate is observed to increased as amount of reaction gas that becomes plasma is increased due to the increase in plasma density and the required etching rate can be achieved by minimizing the reaction area, spacing between the upper electrode and the substrate, that increases the plasma density for a specific mixed gas plasma environment at a specific power delivered (page 14, parag. 02 and page 15 – 16).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to make relative etching rate of Unno to be 0.9 nm/min or less when the etching rate of a Si wafer is 1.0 nm/min, under plasma environment with a power of 500W or more, a mixed gas comprising 10 to 100 sccm of CF4 gas, 0.1 to 50 sccm of O2 gas and 1 to 70 sccm of Ar gas, and a pressure of 1 to 30 mTorr by adjusting the plasma density as taught in Lee. POSITA apprised of Lee that adjusts the etching rate as a result effective variable for a specified etching environment would easily and routinely achieve the etching rates by adjusting the plasma intensity to the electrostatic chuck of Unno.
Claim(s) 3 – 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Unno in view of Ajit Sane et al. (US 20050064247 A1) and hereinafter “Sane”.
Regarding claims 3 - 5, Unno discloses the electrostatic chuck of claim 1.
Unno does not explicitly teach that the silicon carbide (SiC) surface modification layer is formed by modifying an external surface of the silicon nitride sintered body, and wherein the modification is performed by carburizing or oxidizing (claim 3), wherein the carburizing is performed for 5 to 35 hours at a temperature of 700 to 1,100°C under a mixed gas comprising propane, ammonia, benzene and LPG (claim 4), wherein the oxidizing is performed for 30 to 300 minutes at a temperature of 500 to 1,300°C under an air atmosphere (claim 5).
However, Sane that relates to a composite metal carbide coating on a substrate for use as a component in semiconductor processing (0002), also teaches carburizing the surface modification layer of the substate to deposit a metal carbide surface layer selected from silicon carbide, tantalum carbide, titanium carbide or tungsten carbide, (0025 – 0031, see claims 1 and 12), (claim 3), wherein the carburizing is performed in a processing environment of high temperature and gases such as ammonia for several hours, for example carburizing tantalum carbide for 2 – 6 hours for temperatures of about 25 – 2300°C, (0025, 0031 and 0059 – 0060) (claim 4), wherein one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate the alternative oxidizing processing conditions (30 to 300 minutes at a temperature of 500 to 1,300°C under an air atmosphere), (claim 5).
Sane further discusses that substates provided with such coated surface tend to extend the life of the substrate and provide high corrosion resistance, (0009)
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to form the silicon carbide (SiC) surface modification layer of Unno by modifying an external surface of the silicon nitride sintered body by carburizing or oxidizing, wherein the carburizing is performed for 5 to 35 hours at a temperature of 700 to 1,100°C under a mixed gas comprising propane, ammonia, benzene and LPG, or the oxidizing is performed for 30 to 300 minutes at a temperature of 500 to 1,300°C under air atmosphere in order to provide an electrostatic chuck that has high corrosion resistance and extended service life as taught in Sane.
Claim(s) 7 – 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Unno in view of Park et al. (US 20240140798 A1, foreign priority date march 19, 2021) and hereinafter “Park”.
Regarding claims 7 – 11, Unno discloses the electrostatic chuck of claim 1, wherein the silicon nitride sintered body is formed by sintering silicon nitride powder (the core portion 20a of the body of the electrostatic chuck is mainly a sintered compact of aluminum nitride powder, wherein the main component can be a silicon carbide instead of an aluminum nitride, (0021, 0036 and 0047).
Unno does not explicitly teach the silicon nitride sintered body comprising 8 wt.% or less of polycrystalline silicon.
However, Park that relates to preparing silicon nitride powder for manufacturing a substrate (0001), also teaches the silicon nitride powder for manufacturing a substrate includes 9 wt. % or less of polycrystalline silicon (0016 and 0043), (claim 7), wherein the silicon nitride sintered body is formed by sintering phosphorus silicon nitride powder in which the weight ratio of an α crystal phase is 0.7 or more in the total weight of an α crystal phase and a β crystal phase (the silicon nitride sintered body is formed by sintering the silicon nitride powder wherein the weight ratio of an α crystal phase in the total weight of an α crystal phase and a β crystal phase may be 0.7 or more,(0044), (claim 8), wherein the silicon nitride sintered body has a thermal conductivity of 90 W/mK or more and a 3-point bending strength of 700 MPa or more (the silicon nitride sintered body has a thermal conductivity is 70 W/mK or more, and the 3-point bending strength is 650 MPa or more, (0020)), (claim 9), the silicon nitride powder is prepared by comprising the steps of: preparing mixed raw material powder comprising metallic silicon powder and crystalline phase control powder which comprises a rare earth element-containing compound and a magnesium-containing compound (preparing mixed raw material powder including silicon powder and crystalline phase control powder including a rare earth element-containing compound and a magnesium-containing compound, (0024, and see claim 1)); mixing the mixed raw material powder with a solvent and an organic binder to form a slurry and then spray-drying to produce granules having a predetermined particle size (preparing the mixed raw material powder into granules having a predetermined particle size by mixing the prepared mixed raw material with a solvent and an organic binder to form a slurry, and then spray drying, (0033, and see claim 1)); nitrifying the granules at a predetermined temperature within the range of 1,200 to 1,500°C while applying nitrogen gas at a predetermined pressure (nitrifying the granules at a predetermined temperature ranging from 1,200 to 1,500° C. while nitrogen gas is applied to the granules at a predetermined pressure, (0035 – 0040 and see claim 1); and pulverizing the nitrified granules (pulverizing the nitrified granules, (0041 and see claim 1)), (claim 10), wherein the metallic silicon powder is a dry- ground polycrystalline metal silicon scrap or single-crystal silicon wafer scrap to minimize contamination with metal impurities during pulverizing (the metallic silicon powder may be obtained by dry-grounding a polycrystalline metallic silicon scrap or single-crystal silicon wafer scrap in order to minimize contamination with metal impurities during pulverizing, (0008, 0025 and see claim 2), (claim 11).
Park further discusses that the silicon nitride sintered body formed from the silicon nitride powder prepared by the steps as recited above, provides the advantages of inexpensive compounds as raw materials, and easy preparation process, which saves the preparation cost and time, and providing excellent thermal conductivity and mechanical strength of the substrate (0003 – 0006).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the silicon nitride sintered body formed by sintering silicon nitride powder of Unno to include the ingredients, steps and properties of claims 7 – 11 disclosed by Park in order to realize the advantages of inexpensive compounds as raw materials and easy preparation process, which saves the preparation cost and time, and providing excellent thermal conductivity and mechanical strength of the substrate as taught in Park.
Regarding claim 12, Unno in view of Park teaches the electrostatic chuck of claim 10, wherein the metallic silicon powder has an average particle diameter of 0.5 to 4 pm, the rare earth element-containing compound powder has an average particle diameter of 0.1 to 1 pm, and the magnesium-containing compound powder has an average particle diameter of 0.1 to 1 pm (the metallic silicon powder has an average particle diameter of 0.5 to 4 μm, the rare earth element-containing compound powder has an average particle diameter of 0.1 to 1 μm, and the magnesium-containing compound powder has an average particle diameter of 0.1 to 1 μm, Park (0011 and see claim 5).
Regarding claim 13, Unno in view of Park teaches the electrostatic chuck of claim 10, wherein the granules have a D50 value of 100 pm or less (the granules have a D50 value of 20 to 55 μm, Park (0012 and see claim 6)).
Regarding claim 14, Unno in view of Park teaches the electrostatic chuck of claim 10, wherein the rare earth element-containing compound is yttrium oxide, and the magnesium-containing compound is magnesium oxide, and wherein the mixed raw material powder comprises 2 to 5 mol% of yttrium oxide and 2 to 10 mol% of magnesium oxide (the rare earth element-containing compound is yttrium oxide, and the magnesium-containing compound is magnesium oxide, and wherein the mixed raw material powder comprises 2 to 5 mol % of yttrium oxide and 2 to 10 mol % of magnesium oxide, Park (0013 and see claim 7))
Regarding claim 15, Unno in view of Park teaches the electrostatic chuck of claim 10, wherein during nitrifying, the nitrogen gas is applied at a pressure of 0.1 to 0.2 MPa (during nitrifying, the nitrogen gas is applied at a pressure of 0.1 to 0.2 MPa, Park (0014 and see claim 8)).
Regarding claim 16, Unno in view of Park teaches the electrostatic chuck of claim 10, wherein during nitrifying, the granules are heated at a temperature increase rate of 0.5 to 10°C/min from 1,0000C or higher to a predetermined temperature (during nitrifying, the temperature is heated from 1,000° C. or higher to a predetermined temperature at a temperature increasing rate of 0.5 to 10° C./min, Park (0015 and see claim 8)).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Unno in view of Noriyuki Naruse (US 2021/0017087 A1) and hereinafter “Naruse”.
Regarding claim 19, Unno discloses a semiconductor holding device, comprising: the electrostatic chuck heater according to claim 16, (see FIG.2).
Unno does not explicitly teach a cooling member which is disposed on a second surface side of the electrostatic chuck heater.
However, Naruse that relates to a semiconductor manufacturing apparatus (0002), also discusses a base plate 1020 disposed at the back side of electrostatic chuck heater 1050 is provided with a cooling medium 1020 providing the cooling of the ceramic plate 1010, (0048 and see FIG.3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include a plate with a cooling medium therein disposed on the second surface side of the heater electrode of the electrostatic chuck heater of Unno in order to provide a cooling mechanism and control for the electrostatic chuck heater as taught in Naruse.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 10 – 12 and 14 – 16 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 – 2, of copending Application No. 18/550,924 in view of Unno. Unno discloses the electrostatic chuck of claim 1 as indicated in the rejection of claim 1 above and the rest of limitation of claims 10 – 12 and 14 – 16 are anticipated by the claim limitations 1 – 2, 5 and 7 – 8 of the copending Application No. 18/550,924 as illustrated in the table inserted herein. Thus, claims 10 – 12 and 14 – 16 are obvious over claims 1 – 2, 5 and 7 – 8 of the copending Application No. 18/550,924.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims of current App. No.18/572,729
Claims of copending App. No. 18/550,924
Claim10. The electrostatic chuck of claim 1, wherein the silicon nitride sintered body is prepared by sintering silicon nitride powder (*Note- anticipated by Unno, see claim 1’s rejection herein), and the silicon nitride powder is prepared by comprising the steps of: preparing mixed raw material powder comprising metallic silicon powder and crystalline phase control powder which comprises a rare earth element-containing compound and a magnesium-containing compound; mixing the mixed raw material powder with a solvent and an organic binder to form a slurry and then spray-drying to produce granules having a predetermined particle size; nitrifying the granules at a predetermined temperature within the range of 1,200 to 1,500°C while applying nitrogen gas at a predetermined pressure; and pulverizing the nitrified granules.
Claim 1. A method for preparing silicon nitride (Si3N4) powder for manufacturing a substrate, comprising the steps of: preparing mixed raw material powder comprising metallic silicon powder and crystalline phase control powder comprising a rare earth element-containing compound and a magnesium- containing compound; preparing the mixed raw material powder into granules having a predetermined particle size by mixing with an organic binder; nitrifying the granules at a predetermined temperature ranging from 1,200 to 1,500°C while nitrogen gas is applied to the granules at a predetermined pressure; and pulverizing the nitrified granules .
*Note- italicized limitation of claim 10 are anticipated by claim 1 herein and similarly, see italicized limitations of claims of the same row.
Claim 11. The electrostatic chuck of claim 10,
wherein the metallic silicon powder is a dry- ground polycrystalline metal silicon scrap or single-crystal silicon wafer scrap to minimize contamination with metal impurities during pulverizing.
Claim 2. The method of claim 1,
wherein the metallic silicon powder is obtained by dry-grounding a polycrystalline metallic silicon scrap or single-crystal silicon wafer scrap in order to minimize contamination with metal impurities during pulverizing.
Claim 12. The electrostatic chuck of claim 10, wherein the metallic silicon powder has an average particle diameter of 0.5 to 4 pm, the rare earth element-containing compound powder has an average particle diameter of 0.1 to 1 pm, and the magnesium-containing compound powder has an average particle diameter of 0.1 to 1 pm.
Claim 5. The method of claim 1, wherein the metallic silicon powder has an average particle diameter of 0.5 to 4 pm, the rare earth element-containing compound powder has an average particle diameter of 0.1 to 1 pm, and the magnesium-containing compound powder has an average particle diameter of 0.1 to 1 pm.
Claim 14. The electrostatic chuck of claim 10, wherein the rare earth element-containing compound is yttrium oxide, and the magnesium-containing compound is magnesium oxide, and wherein the mixed raw material powder comprises 2 to 5 mol% of yttrium oxide and 2 to 10 mol% of magnesium oxide.
Claim 7. The method of claim 1, wherein the rare earth element-containing compound is yttrium oxide, and the magnesium-containing compound is magnesium oxide, and wherein the mixed raw material powder comprises 2 to 5 mol% of yttrium oxide and 2 to 10 mol% of magnesium oxide.
Claim 15. The electrostatic chuck of claim 10, wherein during nitrifying, the nitrogen gas is applied at a pressure of 0.1 to 0.2 MPa.
Claim 16. The electrostatic chuck of claim 10, wherein during nitrifying, the granules are heated at a temperature increase rate of 0.5 to 10°C/min from 1,0000C or higher to a predetermined temperature
Claim 8. The method of claim 1, wherein during nitrifying, the temperature is heated from 1,000°C or higher to a predetermined temperature at a temperature increasing rate of 0.5 to 10°C/min, and the nitrogen gas is applied at a pressure of 0.1 to 0.2 MPa.
Note- italicized limitation of claims 15 and 16 are anticipated by italicized limitation of claim 8
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DILNESSA B BELAY whose telephone number is (571)272-3136. The examiner can normally be reached M-F approx. 8:00 am - 5:30 pm 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, Steven Crabb can be reached at (571)270-5095. 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.
/DILNESSA B BELAY/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/JOHN J NORTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights