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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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 injection holes” of Claims 5, 12 and 16 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). The applicants’ specification discloses the “plurality of injection holes 132” and the applicants’ Figs. 2 and 6 indicate the label 132 as the plain area surrounding the circular shapes. However, it is considered the plain area is a body of the showerhead, such that the cited plasma holes and injection holes penetrate the body to form through-holes, as disclosed in the specification, see also 112 rejection below. The examiner respectfully request the applicants to clarify the location of the injection holes.
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.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
(1) The “wherein a ratio of a total area of the plasma holes with respect to an area of the showerhead” of Claims 6, 13, 19 should be:
“wherein a ratio of a total area of the plasma holes to an area of the showerhead”.
(2) The “wherein a ratio of an area of spaces between the connections with respect to an area of a space between the showerhead and the inner wall of the reaction chamber” of Claims 8, 15, 20 should be:
“wherein a ratio of an area of spaces between the connections to an area of a space between the showerhead and the inner wall of the reaction chamber”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-20 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
(1) The “a showerhead arranged between the reaction chamber and the support configured to inject a reaction gas to the substrate on the support” of Claim 1 is not clear.
First, the “between the reaction chamber and the support” is not clear, because the support is recited to be arranged within the reaction chamber, thus it is not clear how the “between” is constructed.
Second, it is not clear which part is modified by the “configured to inject…”.
For the purpose of examination, it will be examined inclusive of:
“a showerhead arranged between an upper wall of the reaction chamber and the support, and configured to inject a reaction gas to the substrate on the support”.
(2) Claims 9 and 16 raises same issue discussed in the item (1) above.
(3) The “wherein the showerhead comprises: a plurality of injection holes configured to inject the reaction gas; and a plurality of plasma holes configured to allow a plasma to pass from the first plasma region into the second plasma region” of Claim 5 is not clear.
First, the claim merely defines the name of each hole, such as “injection hole” and “plasma hole”, then presents the function of each hole, such as “configured to inject the reaction gas” and “configured to allow a plasma to pass”. The claim does not recite a structural difference between the two different types of holes, thus it is not clear what structural difference distinguish the two holes from each other.
Second, the written description fails to clearly link the corresponding structure to perform the function of the two different types of holes. The specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. In particular, the applicants’ specification:
the paragraph [0026] of the published instant application discloses “The injection holes 132 may be extended from the upper surface to a lower surface in the showerhead 130. That is, an upper end of each of the injection holes 132 may be exposed through the upper surface of the showerhead 130, and a lower end of each of the injection holes 132 may be exposed through the lower surface of the showerhead 130. The reaction gas may be introduced into the showerhead 130 through the upper ends of the injection holes 132. The reaction gas may then be injected to the semiconductor substrate S on the support 120 through the lower ends of the injection holes 132”, and
further the paragraph [0027] discloses “The plasma holes 134 may be extended from the upper surface to the lower surface in the showerhead 130. That is, an upper end of each of the plasma holes 134 may be exposed through the upper surface of the showerhead 130. A lower end of each of the plasma holes may be exposed through the lower surface of the showerhead 130. The plasma may be introduced into the showerhead 130 through the upper ends of the plasma holes 134. The plasma may then be applied to the semiconductor substrate S on the support 120 through the lower ends of the plasma holes 134”.
Based on the applicants’ disclosures above, it is considered that the two holes are mere thorough-holes passing through from the upper surface of the showerhead to the lower surface of the showerhead, in other words, they are considered being the same, without further structural difference, thus it is not clear how the two holes structurally differ to be exclusively assigned for either plasma or reaction gas.
For the purpose of examination,
When the plasma is generated, un-ionized gas portion of the reaction gas is still existed, therefore, when the plasma passes through the showerhead, the un-ionized gas is also intrinsically pushed out through the showerhead.
Further, based on the applicants’ disclosures regarding the hole structure above, the holes will be interpreted as mere through holes.
Consequently, when a showerhead having plural holes is provided, it will be considered meeting the limitation.
(4) Claims 12 and 16 raise same issue discussed in the item (3) above.
(5) The “an area” of Claims 6, 8, 13, 15, 19-20 is not clear. Does it mean full area or an area of a portion?
For the purpose of examination, it will be examined inclusive of both interpretations.
(6) Claim 17 recites “a first plasma region and a second plasma region”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The limitation will be examined inclusive of “the first plasma region and the second plasma region”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fukuda (US 20050242061, hereafter ‘061).
Regarding Claim 1, ‘061 teaches:
capacitive coupled plasma CVD apparatus ([0093]), and Inside a reactor, a susceptor 603 for placing an object-to-be-processed 601 (Fig. 6, [0094], the claimed “An apparatus for processing a substrate, the apparatus comprising: a reaction chamber configured to receive the substrate; a support arranged in the reaction chamber configured to support the substrate”);
A showerhead 604 for emitting reaction gases equally to the object-to-be-processed 601 ([0094], the claimed “and a showerhead arranged between the reaction chamber and the support configured to inject a reaction gas to the substrate on the support”);
the susceptor 603 has a diameter of 325 mm, and the showerhead has a diameter of 380 mm ([0094], the claimed “wherein a diameter of the showerhead is longer than a diameter of the support”);
the susceptor 603 goes up together with the wafer lifting mechanism 632 up to a position at which a distance between electrodes predetermined based on the deposition conditions is achieved ([0099]), a distance between upper and lower electrodes of 10 mm ([0109]), and a distance between upper and lower electrodes of 14 mm ([0112], note a radial difference between the diameter of the showerhead and the diameter of the support is 55 mm, and the half of the distance between electrodes is 5 or 7 mm, thus, the radial difference is no less than the half of the distance, the claimed “and wherein a radial difference between the diameter of the showerhead and the diameter of the support is no less than half of a gap between the showerhead and the support”).
Claims 1-5 and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shanker et al. (US 20140166616, hereafter ‘616).
Regarding Claim 1, ‘616 teaches:
Process chamber 400, and substrate support 422 (Fig. 4, [0048], the claimed “An apparatus for processing a substrate, the apparatus comprising: a reaction chamber configured to receive the substrate; a support arranged in the reaction chamber configured to support the substrate”);
showerhead 410 ([0048], the claimed “and a showerhead arranged between the reaction chamber and the support configured to inject a reaction gas to the substrate on the support”);
Fig. 4 clearly shows a diameter of the showerhead 410 is greater than a diameter of the substrate support 422 ([0094], the claimed “wherein a diameter of the showerhead is longer than a diameter of the support”);
Fig. 4 clearly shows a radial difference between the diameter of the showerhead 410 and the diameter of the substrate support 422 is more than half of a distance between the showerhead 410 and the substrate support 422 (the claimed “and wherein a radial difference between the diameter of the showerhead and the diameter of the support is no less than half of a gap between the showerhead and the support”).
Regarding Claim 9, ‘616 teaches:
Process chamber 400, and substrate support 422 (Fig. 4, [0048], the claimed “An apparatus for processing a substrate, the apparatus comprising: a reaction chamber configured to receive the substrate; a support in the reaction chamber to support the substrate”);
showerhead 410 ([0048], the claimed “and a showerhead between the reaction chamber and the support configured to inject a reaction gas to the substrate on the support”);
Fig. 4 clearly shows a diameter of the showerhead 410 is greater than a diameter of the substrate support 422 ([0094], the claimed “wherein a diameter of the showerhead is longer than a diameter of the support”);
Fig. 4 clearly shows a distance between an outer edge of the showerhead 410 and a wall of the process chamber 400 is greater than a thickness of the showerhead 410 (the claimed “and wherein a gap between an outer circumferential surface of the showerhead and an inner wall of the reaction chamber is greater than a thickness of the showerhead”).
Regarding Claim 2,
Fig. 4 of ‘616 clearly shows a distance between an outer edge of the showerhead 410 and a wall of the process chamber 400 is greater than a thickness of the showerhead 410 (the claimed “wherein a gap between an outer circumferential surface of the showerhead and an inner wall of the reaction chamber is greater than a thickness of the showerhead”).
Regarding Claims 3-4 and 10-11,
‘616 teaches The region of the substrate is exposed to a plasma or reactive radical species through a showerhead in a process chamber ([0055], note Fig. 4 of ‘616 clearly shows the showerhead 410 divides an inner space of the reaction chamber into upper and lower regions, thus when the substrate is exposed to the plasma through the showerhead, each of the upper and lower regions is a plasma region, the claimed “wherein the showerhead divides an inner space of the reaction chamber into a first plasma region and a second plasma region” of Claims 3 and 10, and “wherein the first plasma region is over the showerhead and the second plasma region is under the showerhead” of Claims 4 and 11).
Regarding Claims 5 and 12,
‘616 teaches the showerhead generally includes a plurality of through holes ([0051], note when the plasma is generated, un-ionized gas portion is still existed, thus, the un-ionized gas passes through the showerhead alongside the plasma, see the 112 rejection above, the claimed “wherein the showerhead comprises: a plurality of injection holes configured to inject the reaction gas; and a plurality of plasma holes configured to allow a plasma to pass from the first plasma region into the second plasma region”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 6 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘616.
Regarding Claims 6 and 13,
‘616 teaches the showerhead generally includes a plurality of through holes ([0051], therefore, a total area of the holes is intrinsically existed, and an area of the showerhead is also intrinsically existed, as a result a ratio of a total area of the holes to an area of the showerhead is intrinsically existed).
Consequently, ‘616 teaches all the limitation “wherein a ratio of a total area of the plasma holes with respect to an area of the showerhead is”, and merely silent about the “no more than about 70%”.
However, ‘616 clearly teaches The showerhead shape and size can be varied according to the needs of particular combinatorial experiments… Further experimental design flexibility can be provided by using patterned showerheads with multiple hole configurations… and those skilled in the art will understand that any useful configuration of holes may be used ([0050-0051], thus the structural configuration of the showerhead and the holes is adjustable parameter, depending on a desired application).
Consequently, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have configured ‘616, such that a ratio of a total area of the plasma holes with respect to an area of the showerhead is less than 70%, for the purpose of controlling the conductance through the showerhead, depending on the desired application, and/or further since 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.
Alternatively, Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘616 in view of ‘061.
In case the applicants argue that the “no less than half” of Claim 1 is not explicitly taught by ‘616,
‘616 further teaches substrate support 422 may move in a vertical direction ([0048], therefore, a distance between the showerhead 410 and the substrate support 422 is adjustable).
‘061 is analogous art in the field of substrate processing ([0005]). ‘061 teaches the susceptor 603 has a diameter of 325 mm, and the showerhead has a diameter of 380 mm ([0094]), a distance between upper and lower electrodes of 10 mm ([0109]), and a distance between upper and lower electrodes of 14 mm ([0112], note the radial difference is no less than the half of the distance).
Further, ‘061 clearly teaches the susceptor 603 goes up together with the wafer lifting mechanism 632 up to a position at which a distance between electrodes predetermined based on the deposition conditions is achieved ([0099], thus the distance between the showerhead and the substrate support is controllable parameter, depending on a desired application).
Consequently, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have vertically moved the substrate support of ‘616, such that the radial difference is no less than the half of the distance, for the purpose of obtaining an optimized process result, depending on the desired application, and/or further since 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.
Regarding Claims 2-6,
Claims 2-6 are alternatively rejected for substantially the same reason as the claims 2-6 rejections with '616 above.
Claim 2 is another alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘616 (optionally with ‘061), as being applied to Claim 1 rejection above, further in view of Wing et al. (US 6397861, hereafter ‘861).
In case the applicants still argue that the “a gap between an outer circumferential surface of the showerhead and an inner wall of the reaction chamber is greater than a thickness of the showerhead” of Claim 2 is not explicitly taught by ‘616 (optionally with ‘061),
‘861 is analogous art in the field of substrate processing (2nd paragraph of col. 1). ‘861 teaches The distance Lside between an interior side wall of chamber 100 and the largest diameter of showerhead 102 is approximately 62 mm, and The distance H102 between the top surface of face plate 104 and the interior surface of showerhead 102 is approximately 36 mm (Fig. 1, 1st and 2nd paragraph of col. 5, note the gap is greater than the thickness, further note, for instance, when the diameter of the showerhead is adjusted, the distance to the chamber wall from the showerhead is also adjusted, thus the parameters are mere adjustable parameter, depending on a desired application).
Consequently, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have configured ‘616, such that the gap between the showerhead and the chamber wall is greater than the thickness of the showerhead, for the purpose of controlling the conductance outside of the showerhead, depending on the desired application, and/or further since 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.
Alternatively, Claims 9 and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘616 in view of ‘861.
Similarly, in case the applicants argue that the “a gap between an outer circumferential surface of the showerhead and an inner wall of the reaction chamber is greater than a thickness of the showerhead” of Claim 9 is not explicitly taught by ‘616,
The teaching of ‘861 was discussed in the claim 2 rejection above, thus, it is alternatively rejected for substantially the same reason as the claim 2 rejection with '616 and ‘861 above.
Regarding Claims 10-13,
Claims 10-13 are alternatively rejected for substantially the same reason as the claims 10-13 rejections with '616 above.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘616 (optionally with ‘061), as being applied to Claim 5 rejection above, further in view of Rangineni et al. (US 20180175819, hereafter ‘819).
Regarding Claim 7,
Fig. 4 of ‘616 clearly shows the showerhead is disposed in the process chamber 400. Consequently, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have connected the showerhead of ‘616, to the chamber wall by a connection, for the purpose of disposing the showerhead above the substrate support, as required by ‘616, otherwise it cannot be disposed above the substrate (the claimed “wherein the showerhead further comprises connection connected between the showerhead and an inner wall of the reaction chamber”).
‘616 (optionally with ‘061) do not explicitly teach the other limitations (BOLD and ITALIC letter) of:
Claim 7: wherein the showerhead further comprises a plurality of connections connected between the showerhead and an inner wall of the reaction chamber.
‘819 is analogous art in the field of substrate processing ([0002]). ‘819 teaches The showerhead 114 is coupled to the side wall 122 via the side mount 138. For example, the showerhead 114 is anchored to the side wall 122 via the side mount 138 so that the side wall 122 supports the showerhead 114… any number of side mounts connects the showerhead 114 to the side wall 122 (Fig. 1A, [0056]).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have used plural connections, to the showerhead of ‘616, for the purpose of firmly supporting the showerhead, and/or for its suitability as known method with predictable result. The selection of something based on its known suitability for its intended use has been held to support a prima facie case of obviousness, see MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding Claim 8,
‘616 (optionally with ‘061) and ‘819 do not directly teach the “wherein a ratio of an area of spaces between the connections with respect to an area of a space between the showerhead and the inner wall of the reaction chamber is no less than 80%”.
However, as discussed in the claim 7 rejection above, when plural connection is used between the showerhead and the chamber wall, the space between the showerhead and the chamber wall would have been divided into plural sub-spaces, merely for visual reference, see the illustration, which was reproduced from Fig. 5 (see also 4th paragraph of col. 6) of US 7794670 below showing the distribution plate 62 placed inside a reactor body 61 by supporting means 66 and further showing a space between the showerhead and the chamber and plural sub-spaces between the supporting means 66.
PNG
media_image1.png
588
626
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Based on the structural configuration of the illustration, it is considered a ratio of a total area of the sub-spaces between the connections to a total area of the space between the showerhead and the chamber is determined by the total numbers of the connection and each connection’s area.
Consequently, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have configured ‘616, such that the ratio of total area of sub-spaces between the connections to a total area of a space between the showerhead and the chamber is no less than 80%, for the purpose of determining whether stable fixation of the showerhead by fewest possible connection, depending on the desired application, and/or further since 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.
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘616 (optionally with ‘861), as being applied to Claim 12 rejection above, further in view of ‘819.
Regarding Claims 14-15,
Claims 14-15 are the same as Claims 7-8.
The teaching of ‘819 was discussed in the claims 7-8 rejection above, thus, Claims 14-15 are rejected for substantially the same reason as the claims 7-8 rejections above.
Claims 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘616 in view of ‘819.
Regarding Claim 16, ‘616 teaches:
Process chamber 400, and substrate support 422 (Fig. 4, [0048], the claimed “An apparatus for processing a substrate, the apparatus comprising: a reaction chamber configured to receive the substrate; a support in the reaction chamber configured to support the substrate”);
showerhead 410 ([0048], the claimed “and a showerhead between the reaction chamber and the support configured to inject a reaction gas to the substrate on the support”);
the showerhead generally includes a plurality of through holes ([0051], note when the plasma is generated, un-ionized gas portion is still existed, thus, the un-ionized gas passes through the showerhead alongside the plasma, see the 112 rejection above, the claimed “wherein the showerhead comprises a plurality of injection holes configured to inject the reaction gas, a plurality of plasma holes configured to allow a plasma to pass from a first plasma region into a second plasma region”);
Fig. 4 clearly shows a diameter of the showerhead 410 is greater than a diameter of the substrate support 422 ([0094], the claimed “wherein a diameter of the showerhead is longer than a diameter of the support”);
Fig. 4 clearly shows a radial difference between the diameter of the showerhead 410 and the diameter of the substrate support 422 is more than half of a distance between the showerhead 410 and the substrate support 422 (the claimed “wherein a radial difference between the diameter of the showerhead and the diameter of the support is no less than half of a gap between the showerhead and the support”);
Fig. 4 clearly shows a distance between an outer edge of the showerhead 410 and a wall of the process chamber 400 is greater than a thickness of the showerhead 410 (the claimed “and wherein a gap between an outer circumferential surface of the showerhead and an inner wall of the reaction chamber is greater than a thickness of the showerhead”).
Fig. 4 of ‘616 clearly shows the showerhead is disposed in the process chamber 400. Consequently, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have connected the showerhead of ‘616, to the chamber wall by a connection, for the purpose of disposing the showerhead above the substrate support, as required by ‘616, otherwise it cannot be disposed above the substrate (the claimed “and a connection connected between the showerhead and an inner wall of the reaction chamber”), thus ‘616 does not explicitly teach the other limitations (BOLD and ITALIC letter) of:
Claim 16: and a plurality of connections connected between the showerhead and an inner wall of the reaction chamber.
The teaching of ‘819 was discussed in the Claim 7 rejection above, thus Claim 16 is rejected for substantially the same reason as the claim 7 rejections with ‘819 above.
Regarding Claims 17-20,
Claims 17-20 are the same as Claims 3-4, 6 and 8.
Claims 17-20 are rejected for substantially the same reason as the claims 3-4, 6 and 8 rejections with ‘616 and ‘819 above.
Alternatively, Claims 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘616 and ‘819, further in view of ‘061 and ‘861.
In case the applicants argue that the “no less than half” and “greater” of Claim 16 are not explicitly taught by ‘616 and ‘819,
The teaching of ‘061 and ‘861 was discussed in the alternative claims 1-2 rejection above, thus Claim 16 is alternatively rejected for substantially the same reason as the alternative claims 1-2 rejections with ‘061 and ‘861 above.
Regarding Claims 17-20,
Claims 17-20 are alternatively rejected for substantially the same reason as the claims 17-20 rejections with ‘616 and ‘819 above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AIDEN Y LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-1440. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 9am-5pm PT.
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 on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/AIDEN LEE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights