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 (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.
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 4, 5, 7, 8, 11, 12, and 15-20 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.
The terms “substantially” and “about” in claims 4, 5, 7, 8, 11, 12, and 15 are relative terms which render the claims indefinite. The terms “substantially” and “about are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a clear standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For the purpose of examination, the examiner has interpreted every instance of “substantially” and “about” to mean a portion of the limitations’ value or range.
Dependent claims 16-20 contain all of the deficiencies of any base or intervening claims from which they depend.
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.
Claims 15-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Poon et al. (US 2017/0254955; hereinafter Poon).
Regarding claim 15: Poon disclosesA structure (see Fig. 5f), comprising: a ridge (Fig. 5f, rib 125) on a substrate (Fig. 5f, slab of Si from which rib 125 extends); a P-N junction (see Fig. 5f, U-shaped P-N junction; see paragraph 0065) in the ridge, wherein the P-N junction comprises: a first n-type region (see paragraphs 0024-0026 and 0071, and see Fig. 5f lower arm 143) in the substrate; a p-type region on the first n-type region (see paragraphs 0024-0026 and 0068, and see Fig. 5f, first dopant region 132); a second n-type region on the p-type region (see paragraphs 0024-0026 and 0073, and see Fig. 5f, upper arm 142); and a third n-type region connecting the first and second n-type regions (Fig. 5f, curved portion 144 and paragraph 0073), wherein the third n-type region comprises p-type dopants having a substantially same concentration as p-type dopants in the p-type region (see paragraph 0068; the transition zone is considered to have substantially the same concentration of p-type dopants as the p-type region, within some threshold, since the concentration varies from an identical concentration to a lower concentration across the transition zone; additionally, “substantially same” is not considered to be limited to a specific concentration range because “substantially” is not limited to a particular cutoff under the broadest reasonable interpretation, nor limited to a particular value by the disclosure, see paragraph 0010); an n-type contact region in the substrate and coupled to the third n-type region (Fig. 5f, contact 135); and a p-type contact region in the substrate and coupled to the p-type region (Fig. 5f, contact 133).
Regarding claim 16: Poon disclosesThe structure of claim 15 (as applied above), wherein the P-N junction has a C-shape (Fig. 5f shows the C-shaped P-N junction).
Regarding claim 17: Poon disclosesThe structure of claim 15 (as applied above), wherein: the p-type region comprises boron (see paragraphs 0079-0081); and the first and second n-type regions comprise phosphorus (see paragraphs 0079-0081).
Regarding claim 19: Poon disclosesThe structure of claim 15 (as applied above), wherein: the third n-type region comprises a first portion adjacent to the first n-type region and a second portion adjacent to the p-type region (Fig. 5f, first portion considered to be the intersection of lower arm 143 and curved portion 144, second portion considered to be the part of the curved portion in line with region 132); and a concentration of the n-type dopants in the first portion is greater than a concentration of n-type dopants in the second portion (since the curved section 144 is the result of the shallow implantation step and the deep implantation step intersecting with the transition region, there is inherently a greater concentration of n-type dopants in the first portion than the second portion).
Regarding claim 20: Poon disclosesThe structure of claim 19 (as applied above), wherein a concentration of the p-type dopants in the second portion is less than the concentration of the n-type dopants in the second portion (see paragraph 0073).
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.
Claims 1, 4-10, and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tu et al. (US Patent No. 11,686,991; hereinafter Tu).
Regarding claim 1: Tu disclosesA method, comprising: forming a ridge on a substrate (see Fig. 6); forming an n-type region under a first side surface of the ridge (Fig. 5a, N- section; see col. 8, lines 45-55; alternatively, Fig. 5E, sections 110, 111, and 112; see col. 10, lines 20-25); forming a mask on the substrate (see Fig. 5B, photoresist), wherein the mask exposes a top surface of the ridge (Fig. 5B shows this), and wherein an opening of the mask is above the first side surface and a second side surface of the ridge (the opening of the mask is above the first side surface and a second side surface of the ridge, since the opening is in a layer above the ridge); and doping, based on the mask, the ridge with a first n-type dopant, a second n-type dopant, and a p-type dopant (see col. 9, lines 1-37, particularly possibility 2, lines 26-27; the first n-type dopant being the dopant of the top region 101, the p-type dopant being the dopant of the middle region 102, and the second n-type dopant being the dopant of the bottom region 103).
Tu fails to disclose that a first implantation energy of the first n-type dopant is less than a second implantation energy of the second n-type dopant; and a third implantation energy of the p-type dopant is less than the second implantation energy. However, Tu does teach doping different sections of the ridge with different implantation energies (see col. 7, lines 44-47) and that a lower implantation energy results in a doped region at a shallower depth of a columnized section (see col. 12, lines 60-65). Since Tu suggests varying the implantation energies to create the different doped regions and teaches that a lower implantation energy results in a doped region at a shallower depth, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the highest implantation energy to form the deepest region, which is the region of the second n-type dopant, and the lowest implantation energy to form the shallowest region, which is the region of the first n-type dopant. Therefore, based on Tu’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to dope the ridge in such a way that a first implantation energy of the first n-type dopant is less than a second implantation energy of the second n-type dopant; and a third implantation energy of the p-type dopant is less than the second implantation energy, in order to obtain the disclosed layer structure of 101 and 103 being n-type regions and 102 being p-type region.
Regarding claim 4: Modified Tu teaches the method of claim 1, as applied above. While Tu fails to explicitly disclose that forming the n-type region comprises implanting a third n-type dopant at an angle between about zero degrees and about 45 degrees with respect to a direction perpendicular to the substrate, Fig. 5E strongly suggests that forming the n-type region (interpreted as sections 110, 111, and 112 in Fig. 5E) comprises implanting a third n-type dopant at an angle of about zero degrees with respect to a direction perpendicular to the substrate, which falls within the claimed range of between about zero degrees and about 45 degrees. This is suggested by the fact that the mask opening is on top of the ridge and would cast a shadow in any non-perpendicular ion beam. As the n-region is shown to have an edge in vertical alignment with the edge of the mask opening, it suggests that the ion beam is approximately perpendicular to the substrate. Additionally, examiner notes that “about” zero degrees to “about” 45 degrees is not considered to be limited to a specific angle range because “about” is not limited to a particular cutoff under the broadest reasonable interpretation, nor limited to a particular value by the disclosure (see paragraph 0010). Therefore, based on the arrangement showed in Tu Fig. 5E, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method such that forming the n-type region comprises implanting a third n-type dopant at an angle between about zero degrees and about 45 degrees with respect to a direction perpendicular to the substrate, in order to make the n-type region have a vertical boundary.
Regarding claim 5: Modified Tu teachesThe method of claim 1 (as applied above), wherein forming the n-type region comprises implanting a third n-type dopant (Fig. 5a, N- section; see col. 8, lines 45-55; alternatively, Fig. 5E, sections 110, 111, and 112; see col. 10, lines 20-25). Tu therefore discloses or suggests all of the limitations of claim 5, as applied above, but does not disclose that a dose of the third n-type dopant is between about 1x10^14cm^-2 and about 6x10^14cm^-2; and an implantation energy of the third n-type dopant is between about 40 keV and about 80 keV. Tu does teach that controlling the dopant doses an implantation energies determines the properties of the doped sections, including the location and the doping levels (see Tu col. 9, lines 19-22 and col. 12, lines 60-65). Therefore, they are result effective variables. Before the effective filing date of the present invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to form the third n-type dopant within the claimed dosage and implantation energy, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233) and since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)).
Regarding claim 6: Modified Tu teaches the method of claim 1, as applied above. While Tu fails to explicitly disclose that doping the ridge comprises implanting the first n-type dopant, the second n-type dopant, and the p-type dopant at a direction substantially perpendicular to the substrate, Fig. 5B strongly suggests that doping the ridge comprises implanting the first n-type dopant (Fig. 5B, section 101), the second n-type dopant (Fig. 5B, section 102), and the p-type dopant (Fig. 5B, section 103) at a direction substantially perpendicular to the substrate. This is suggested by the fact that the mask opening is on top of the ridge and would cast a shadow in any non-perpendicular ion beam. As the sections 101, 102, and 103 are shown to have edges in vertical alignment with the edge of the mask opening, it suggests that the ion beam is substantially perpendicular to the substrate. Additionally, examiner notes that “substantially perpendicular” is not considered to be limited to a specific angle range because “substantially” is not limited to a particular cutoff under the broadest reasonable interpretation, nor limited to a particular value by the disclosure (see paragraph 0010). Therefore, based on the arrangement showed in Tu Fig. 5B, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method such that doping the ridges comprises implanting the first n-type dopant, the second n-type dopant, and the p-type dopant at a direction substantially perpendicular to the substrate, in order to make these regions share a vertical boundary, as suggested by Tu.
Regarding claim 7: Modified Tu teaches the method of claim 1, as applied above. Modified Tu therefore discloses or suggests all of the limitations of claim 7, as applied above, but does not disclose that the first implantation energy is between about 20 keV and about 50 keV; the second implantation energy is between about 20 keV and about 60 keV; and the third implantation energy is between about 100 keV and about 200 keV. Tu does teach that controlling the implantation energies determines the properties of the doped sections, including the location depth of the resulting section (see Tu col. 9, lines 19-22 and col. 12, lines 60-65). Therefore, it is a result effective variable. Before the effective filing date of the present invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to make the device, wherein the first implantation energy is between about 20 keV and about 50 keV; the second implantation energy is between about 20 keV and about 60 keV; and the third implantation energy is between about 100 keV and about 200 keV, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233) and since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)).
Regarding claim 8: Modified Tu teaches the method of claim 1, as applied above. Modified Tu therefore discloses or suggests all of the limitations of claim 8, as applied above, but does not disclose that a first dose of the first n-type dopant is between about 5x10^13 cm^-2 and about 5x10^14 cm^-2; a second dose of second n-type dopant is between about 5x10^13 cm^-2 and about 5x10^14 cm^-2; and a third dose of the p-type dopant is between about 5x10^13 cm^-2 and about 5x10^14 cm^-2. Tu does teach that controlling the doping dose determines the properties of the doped sections of the modulator (see Tu col. 9, lines 19-22 and col. 12, lines 60-65). The doping dosage of the respective regions also determines the efficiency of the modulator. Therefore, it is a result effective variable. Before the effective filing date of the present invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to make the device, wherein a first dose of the first n-type dopant is between about 5x10^13 cm^-2 and about 5x10^14 cm^-2; a second dose of second n-type dopant is between about 5x10^13 cm^-2 and about 5x10^14 cm^-2; and a third dose of the p-type dopant is between about 5x10^13 cm^-2 and about 5x10^14 cm^-2, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233) and since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)).
Regarding claim 9: Tu disclosesA method, comprising: forming an optical waveguide on a substrate (Fig. 6, steps 2 and 3); and forming an optical modulator in the optical waveguide (Fig. 6 step 4; also col. 10, lines 44-50), comprising: forming a first n-type region under a side surface of the optical waveguide (Fig. 5a, N- section; see col. 8, lines 45-55; alternatively, Fig. 5E, sections 110, 111, and 112; see col. 10, lines 20-25); forming a mask on the substrate and exposing the optical waveguide (see Fig. 5B, photoresist).
Tu further discloses performing an implantation operation based on the mask, wherein said implantation operation forms a second n-type region in the optical waveguide (see col. 9, lines 1-37, particularly possibility 2, lines 26-27; the second n-type region being the dopant of the bottom region 103) and performing an additional implantation operation based on the mask, wherein said additional implantation operation forms a third n-type region in the optical waveguide and on the second n-type region (see col. 9, lines 1-37, particularly possibility 2, lines 26-27; the third n-type region being the dopant of the top region 101); and performing another implantation operation based on the mask, wherein this implantation operation forms a p-type region on the second n-type region and under the third n-type region (see col. 9, lines 1-37, particularly possibility 2, lines 26-27; the p-type dopant being the dopant of the middle region 102). Tu fails to teach that these implantation operations occur in order of first, second, and third, as claimed. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to try performing the steps in any order, due to the limited number of possible orders, including in order of the second n-type region, followed by the third n-type region, and finally the p-type region, to obtain the expected result of a product having the same final layered structure disclosed by Tu. See KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727 (2007).
Regarding claim 10: Modified Tu teaches the method of claim 9, as applied above. Tu fails to disclose that performing the first implantation operation comprises implanting n-type dopants having an energy greater than energies of dopants implanted during the second and third implantation operations. However, Tu does teach doping different sections of the ridge with different implantation energies (see col. 7, lines 44-47) and that a lower implantation energy results in a doped region at a shallower depth of a columnized section (see col. 12, lines 60-65). Since Tu suggests varying the implantation energies to create the different doped regions and teaches that a lower implantation energy results in a doped region at a shallower depth, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the highest implantation energy to form the deepest region, which is the region of the first implantation, and the lowest implantation energy to form the shallower regions, which are the second and third implantations. Therefore, based on Tu’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to dope the ridge in such a way that performing the first implantation operation comprises implanting n-type dopants having an energy greater than energies of dopants implanted during the second and third implantation operations, in order to obtain the disclosed layer structure of 101 and 103 being n-type regions and 102 being p-type region.
Regarding claim 12: Modified Tu teaches the method of claim 9, as applied above. While Tu fails to explicitly disclose that performing the first, second, and third implantation operations comprise implanting dopants at a direction substantially perpendicular to the substrate, Fig. 5B strongly suggests that doping the ridge comprises implanting the first n-type dopant (Fig. 5B, section 101), the second n-type dopant (Fig. 5B, section 102), and the p-type dopant (Fig. 5B, section 103) at a direction substantially perpendicular to the substrate. This is suggested by the fact that the mask opening is on top of the ridge and would cast a shadow in any non-perpendicular ion beam. As the sections 101, 102, and 103 are shown to have edges in vertical alignment with the edge of the mask opening, it suggests that the ion beam is substantially perpendicular to the substrate. Additionally, examiner notes that “substantially perpendicular” is not considered to be limited to a specific angle range because “substantially” is not limited to a particular cutoff under the broadest reasonable interpretation, nor limited to a particular value by the disclosure (see paragraph 0010). Therefore, based on the arrangement showed in Tu Fig. 5B, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method such that performing the first, second, and third implantation operations comprise implanting dopants at a direction substantially perpendicular to the substrate, in order to make these regions share a vertical boundary, as suggested by Tu.
Regarding claim 13: Modified Tu teaches the method of claim 9, as applied above, wherein forming the mask comprises forming an opening exposing the waveguide (see Fig. 5B). Tu additionally teaches another embodiment wherein a width of the opening appears greater than a width of the optical waveguide (see Fig. 7B). Additionally, Tu suggests that the relative width of the opening compared to the width of the ridge depends on the dimensions of the Si waveguide and available implantation processing tools (see col. 7, lines 47-54) and shows a variety of arrangements of different doped regions (see Figs. 2-5 and 7). Based on these teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to form the opening with any width relative to the width of the ridge, including wherein the width of the opening is greater than the width of the optical waveguide, based on the dimensions of the Si waveguide, available implantation processing tools, and the desired arrangement of doped regions, as a matter of obvious design choice and routine optimization, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233).
Regarding claim 14: Modified Tu teachesThe method of claim 9 (as applied above), further comprising: forming a first contact region in the substrate and coupled to the first, second, and third n-type regions (see col. 7, lines 29-37 and col. 8, lines 47-56); and forming a second contact region in the substrate and coupled to the p-type region (see col. 7, lines 29-37 and col. 8, lines 47-56).
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tu et al. (US Patent No. 11,686,991; hereinafter Tu) in view of Song et al. (US 2014/0127842; hereinafter Song).
Regarding claim 2: Modified Tu teaches the method of claim 1, as applied above. Tu further teaches and embodiment wherein a cladding process is performed respectively over the first side portion and the second side portion (see col. 8, lines 56-58). Tu fails to teach that the cladding process involves forming a dielectric layer on the substrate and having a top surface coplanar with the top surface of the ridge. However, Tu, also related to optical modulators having ridge waveguides (see Fig. 6, ridge waveguide 624) with cladding covering the side portions of the ridge (see Fig. 6, SiO2 regions 656 and 658). The cladding is made of SiO2 (as labeled in Fig. 6) and therefore forms a dielectric layer, and the top surface of the dielectric layer is coplanar with the top surface of the ridge. This configuration provides separation (and insulation) between the ridge and the contact regions of the device (see paragraph 0187) as well as a planar surface for the device for the subsequent deposition of the photo resist mask layer. To provide insulation between the ridge and the contact regions and to create a planar top surface, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the Tu method by forming a dielectric layer on the substrate and having a top surface of the dielectric layer coplanar with the top surface of the ridge.
Regarding claim 3: Modified Tu teaches the method of claim 2, as applied above. Since the mask exposes the side portions of the ridge (see Tu Fig. 5B), after making the modification to the method applied to claim 2, forming the mask would necessarily comprise exposing a portion of the dielectric layer adjacent to the ridge without further modification.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tu et al. (US Patent No. 11,686,991; hereinafter Tu) in view of Poon et al. (US 2017/0254955; hereinafter Poon).
Modified Tu teaches the method of claim 9, as applied above. Tu fails to teach that performing the first implantation operation comprises implanting phosphorus at a first dose between about 5x10^13 cm^-2 and about 5x10^14 cm^-2; performing the second implantation operation comprises implanting phosphorus at a second dose between about 5x10^13 cm^-2 and about 5x10^14 cm^-2; and performing the third implantation operation comprises implanting boron at a third dose between about 5x10^13 cm^-2 and about 5x10^14 cm^-2. However, Poon, also related to silicon modulators having irregularly shaped PN junctions (see paragraph 0004), teaches using boron as an p-type dopant and phosphorus as a n-type dopant (see paragraph 0079-0081), including with dosages falling within the claimed ranges of about 5x10^13 cm^-2 and about 5x10^14 cm^-2 for each of the respective dopants (see Table 1). Additionally, examiner notes that “about” zero degrees to “about” 45 degrees is not considered to be limited to a specific angle range because “about” is not limited to a particular cutoff under the broadest reasonable interpretation, nor limited to a particular value by the disclosure (see paragraph 0010). Based on the teachings of Poon, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method disclosed by Tu such that performing the first implantation operation comprises implanting phosphorus at a first dose between about 5x10^13 cm^-2 and about 5x10^14 cm^-2; performing the second implantation operation comprises implanting phosphorus at a second dose between about 5x10^13 cm^-2 and about 5x10^14 cm^-2; and performing the third implantation operation comprises implanting boron at a third dose between about 5x10^13 cm^-2 and about 5x10^14 cm^-2 in order to use known suitable materials in known suitable ranges for forming pn-junctions to manufacture efficient modulators (see Poon paragraph 0083).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poon et al. (US 2017/0254955; hereinafter Poon) in view of Zhou et al. (US 2021/0373363; hereinafter Zhou).
Poon discloses the structure of claim 15, as applied above. Poon further discloses that the third n-type region comprises phosphorus (see paragraphs 0079-0081 and 0073). Poon fails to teach that the third n-type region further comprises arsenic. However, Zhou, also related to modulators having irregularly shaped PN-junctions (see abstract and Fig. 11), teaches that phosphorus and/or arsenic can be used as dopants to form n-doped regions in silicon (see paragraph 0064). It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the Poon device by including phosphorus and arsenic in the third n-type region, on the basis of their suitability as n-dopants.
Conclusion
The references made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2025/0377560, corresponding to copending application 18/739,603
US 2025/0237925, corresponding to copending application 18/421,365
US 2024/0402521, corresponding to copending application 18/325,739
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kirsten D Endresen whose telephone number is (703)756-1533. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday.
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, Thomas Hollweg can be reached at (571)270-1739. 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.
/KIRSTEN D. ENDRESEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2874
/THOMAS A HOLLWEG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2874