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 as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “ER” has been used to designate both an edge region of the distribution space (in Fig. 1) and an edge ring (Fig. 1). 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. 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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 702a, 702b, 702c, 702d. 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. 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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 70a (Fig. 6), 70b (Fig. 7), 70c (Fig. 8), and 70d (Fig. 9). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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 Interpretation
In claim 18, the limitation “the first bonding portion is more protruded in a direction of the edge ring than the second body” is understood to mean that the first bonding portion protrudes in a direction of the edge ring more than the second body protrudes in the same direction.
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 17 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.
In claim 17, the limitation “a lower surface of the second region” is indefinite because it is unclear whether this limitation is intended to refer to the “second substrate arrangement portion” recited in claim 17 or the “second region” of the first edge band recited in claim 10. Furthermore, if the limitation were to refer to the “second region” of the first edge band it is unclear what is required for the first edge band to be in contact with a lower surface of the second region of the first edge band itself. This rejection may be overcome by amending the limitation to recite “a lower surface of the second substrate arrangement portion”.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yamaguchi (US 20140202635 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Yamaguchi (US 20140202635 A1) teaches a substrate processing apparatus 1 including a conductive support 4 (body portion), an electrostatic chuck 6 (substrate arrangement portion) disposed on the body portion and a base 2a (bonding portion) disposed between and connecting the substrate arrangement portion 6 and the body portion 4, wherein a pin hole 200 configured to receive lifter pins 61 (lifting pin) that extend through the pin hole, wherein the pin hole includes a first through hole 17 with a first diameter in the chuck/substrate arrangement portion 6 and a second through hole 18 with a second diameter larger than the first diameter in the bonding portion/base 2a, where the second hole contains a pin sleeve 203 (first edge band) within the second hole and in contact with a lower surface of the chuck/substrate arrangement portion 6, a side portion of the bonding portion/base 2a and an upper surface of the body portion/conductive support 4 (para 0029, 0033, 0047, 0056; Fig. 1-3).
Regarding claim 2, Yamaguchi teaches the body portion 4 contains a third hole in the pin hole 200 with a third diameter that the lifting pin passes through (Fig. 1).
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.
Claim(s) 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamaguchi (US 20140202635 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Yamaguchi fails to explicitly teach the first diameter is the same as the third diameter. However, the hole for the lifter pin 61 through the body portion 4 (para 0033; Fig. 1-3) must necessarily be large enough for the lifter pin to pass through the hole. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the (third) hole in the body portion with a diameter the same as the diameter of the first hole in the substrate arrangement portion so that the lifter pin can pass through each hole.
Alternatively, it would have been obvious to form the third hole of Yamaguchi to have a diameter the same as the first diameter because the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, so the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A).
Regarding claim 4, Yamaguchi teaches that the pin sleeve 203 (first edge band) has an inner diameter equal to the first diameter of the first through hole 17 because the pin spacer 201 is fitted in both the pin sleeve 203 (first edge band) and the first through hole 17 (para 0056-0057; Fig. 3).
Claim(s) 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamaguchi (US 20140202635 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee (US 20200013595 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Yamaguchi teaches the second hole 18 has a first thickness within the bonding portion 2a (Fig. 3) but fails to explicitly teach the first thickness is thicker than the bonding portion. However, Lee (US 20200013595 A1), in the analogous art of substrate supports, teaches an adhesive layer 156 for joining an upper plate 154 and a lower plate 153 of a chuck base, wherein a bushing 157 may be provided in a hole 193 in the chuck base for a gas passage and extend up to the upper plate 154 such that it contacts a side surface of the adhesive layer (para 0027-0028, 0033, 0036-0037; Fig. 2). Yamaguchi teaches an opening in the chuck base 2a containing a sleeve (203, 204) similar to the bushing of Lee and extending up to the electrostatic chuck 6 where the sleeve can be used for both a gas hole/passage and a lift pin hole (para 0046-0047; Fig. 3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to include an adhesive layer between the chuck 6 and base 2a of Yamaguchi, where the sleeve/edge band is adjacent to the side of the adhesive layer, as described by Lee, in order to attach the electrostatic chuck and base of Yamaguchi.
As a result, the combination of Yamaguchi and Lee teaches the second hole filled by the sleeve has a first thickness equal to the combined thickness of the adhesive layer and the base 2a (bonding portion) and thus the first thickness is thicker than the bonding portion (Yamaguchi Fig. 3).
Alternatively, the combination of Yamaguchi and Lee may be interpreted as including an adhesive layer 156 as the bonding portion (Lee Fig. 2), the chuck 6 as the substrate arrangement portion, and the base 2a and conductive support 4 as the body portion (Yamaguchi Fig. 1, 3). In this case, the second hole corresponding to the sleeve/edge band would have a thickness extending through the adhesive layer (bonding portion) and the base (body portion), thus resulting in a first thickness thicker than the bonding portion.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Yamaguchi and Lee teaches the second hole is defined as the length/thickness of the sleeve 203 and is located in the base 2a (bonding portion) as well as the adhesive layer, which may be defined as part of the substrate arrangement portion (Yamaguchi Fig. 3, Lee Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Yamaguchi and Lee teaches the second hole is defined as the length thickness of the sleeve 203 and is installed in the base 2a (portion of the body portion) (Yamaguchi Fig. 3) as well as in the adhesive layer 156 (bonding portion) (Lee Fig. 2).
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamaguchi (US 20140202635 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Koh (US 20240258076 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Yamaguchi fails to explicitly teach the side surface of the bonding portion in contact with the first edge band includes an inclined surface. However, Koh (US 20240258076 A1), in the analogous art of lift pins, teaches that lift pins may pass through a hole 300 in a chuck body 180 (bonding portion) having an inclined/chamfered surface 301 in contact with a pin sleeve 409 (first edge band) and on a side surface of the body (para 0029-0034; Fig. 3-6). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the shape of the base and pin sleeve of Yamaguchi with the shape of the base and pin sleeve of Koh, including an inclined surface on the side of the base/bonding portion in contact with the sleeve (edge band), because this is a substitution of known elements yielding predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Claim(s) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamaguchi (US 20140202635 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sasaki (US 20180090361 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Yamaguchi fails to explicitly teach the upper surface of the body portion in contact with the first edge band includes an inclined surface. However, Sasaki (US 20180090361 A1), in the analogous art of substrate supports, teaches that segments of the substrate support may have chamfered/inclined surfaces at their top and bottom edges/corners (Fig. 4 – 2a, 6a). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the shape of the conductive support (body portion) of Yamaguchi with a shape including chamfered/inclined edges/corners because this is a substitution of known elements yielding predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B). As a result, the pin sleeve (first edge band) would be at least indirectly in contact with the upper surface of the body portion including an inclined surface.
Claim(s) 10-15 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koiwa (US 20200273680 A1) in view of Schaefer (US 20130097840 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Koiwa (US 20200273680 A1) teaches a substrate processing apparatus 1 comprising a disk-shaped lower electrode 18 (body portion) including a lower portion (first body) having a first diameter and an upper portion (second body) having a second diameter smaller than the first diameter disposed on the first body and a disk shaped electrostatic chuck 21 (substrate arrangement portion) disposed on the second body 18 and having a third diameter larger than the second diameter at the upper surface of the lower electrode/second body 18 (see Fig. 3 – 18, 21), wherein the chuck 21 (substrate arrangement portion) and the body portion 18 are connected by a bonding layer 23 (first bonding portion) disposed between them, wherein an edge ring 25 is disposed around the substrate arrangement portion 21, and wherein a sealing member 26 (first edge band) is installed in a space defined by the first body, second body, substrate arrangement portion, and the edge ring and installed to be in direct or indirect contact with a lower surface of the substrate arrangement portion 21, a side of the first bonding portion 23, a side of the second body, and an upper surface of the first body, wherein the first edge band includes a first region in the center of the band 26, a second region below the first region and in at least indirect contact with the first body 18, and a third region above the first region and in contact with the substrate arrangement portion 21 (para 0014, 0018-0021, 0037, 0039, 0056, 0060, 0071; Fig. 1, 3).
Koiwa fails to explicitly teach a width of the first region is smaller than a width of the second region or a width of the third region. However, Schaefer (US 20130097840 A1), in the analogous art of substrate supports, teaches an elastomeric band 200 as an edge seal between an electrostatic clamping electrode containing member 180 and a lower base member 100 (first body) and adjacent to a heater plate 140 (second body) and adhesive bonding layers (120, 160), wherein the elastomeric band may have a concave outer surface (first region smaller than a width of the second region or a width of the third region) instead of a convex surface to reduce bulging and prevent particle generation or contamination in the chamber (para 0021, 0028-0029; Fig. 3-4). Koiwa teaches a similar sealing member 26 (first edge band) between the electrostatic chuck and the base where the shape of the outer surface of the sealing member may be convex (para 0059; Fig. 3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the sealing member shape of Koiwa with the concave seal shape of Schaefer in order to prevent contamination in the chamber because this is a substitution of known elements yielding predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Alternatively, or in addition, it would have been obvious to change the shape of the first edge band such that a first width is smaller than the second or third width above or below it because the shape is a matter of choice absent persuasive evidence that the particular shape is significant. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Koiwa and Schaefer teaches the surface of the first edge band 200 facing the edge ring has a concave shape (Schaefer para 0028-0029, 0039, Fig. 4; Koiwa Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Koiwa and Schaefer teaches the sealing member (edge band) may be perfluoro elastomer (rubber), such as FFKM, which contains carbon (Koiwa para 0041, Schaefer para 0030).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Koiwa and Schaefer teaches the elastomeric band (first edge band) may be out of direct contact with the edge ring (Schaefer para 0028-0029, 0032).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Koiwa and Schaefer teaches a second bonding layer 24 (second bonding portion) between the first body 18 and the edge ring 25 for fixing the edge ring to the body via a second electrostatic chuck 22 holding the edge ring in place, where the sealing member 26 (first edge band) is not in contact with but faces the second bonding portion (Koiwa para 0021, 0037, 0040, 0048, 0053; Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 15, the previous combination of Koiwa and Schaefer teaches the edge ring includes a stepped surface 250 (protrusion) facing the chuck 21 (substrate arrangement portion) and an upper surface of the first edge band 26 is indirectly in contact with a lower surface of the edge ring protrusion 250 through the other components (21, 23, 18, 24, 22) (para 0047, 0054; Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 17, the previous combination of Koiwa and Schaefer fails to explicitly teach the substrate arrangement portion includes a first substrate arrangement portion having a first thickness and a second substrate arrangement portion having a second thickness smaller than the first thickness. However, Koiwa teaches the electrostatic chuck 21 (substrate arrangement portion) may have a tapered surface 211 (second substrate arrangement portion having a second thickness smaller than the first thickness) in contact with the sealing member (para 0042-0043, 0048; Fig. 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the flat electrostatic chuck of Koiwa in view of Schaefer with an electrostatic chuck having a tapered edge surface because this is a substitution of known elements yielding predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B). As a result, the sealing member (edge band) in contact with the electrostatic chuck lower surface (Koiwa Fig. 3) would necessarily be at least indirectly contacting the lower surface of the tapered section (second substrate arrangement portion).
Alternatively, or in addition, it would have been obvious to change the shape of the electrostatic chuck such that an outer portion of the chuck is thinner than the rest of the chuck because the shape is a matter of choice absent persuasive evidence that the particular shape is significant. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Koiwa and Schaefer teaches the first bonding portion 23 extends out in the direction of the edge ring 25 from the second body into contact with the sealing member 26 while the second body is separated from the sealing member by an insulating layer 181 (Koiwa para 0038, 0043, 0053; Fig. 3) thus resulting in the first bonding portion being more protruded toward the edge ring than the second body is protruded toward the edge ring.
Claim(s) 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koiwa (US 20200273680 A1) in view of Schaefer (US 20130097840 A1), as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Arakane (US 20240212996 A1).
Regarding claim 15, the previous combination of Koiwa and Schaefer teaches the edge ring includes a stepped surface 250 (protrusion) facing the chuck 21 (substrate arrangement portion) and an upper surface of the first edge band 26 is indirectly in contact with a lower surface of the edge ring protrusion 250 through the other components (21, 23, 18, 24, 22) (para 0047, 0054; Fig. 3).
Alternatively, the previous combination fails to explicitly teach a surface of the edge ring facing the substrate arrangement portion includes a protrusion and an upper surface of the first edge band is in contact with a lower surface of the protrusion. However, Arakane (US 20240212996 A1), in the analogous art of substrate supports, teaches an edge ring 112 may have a protrusion extending toward the electrostatic chuck 1111, where a protective member (edge band) formed of elastic material is disposed in the recess contacting the bottom of the edge ring protrusion as well as the lower surface of the chuck 1111 (substrate arrangement portion) at least indirectly, side surface of an adhesive layer 114 (bonding portion), and the side surface of the base 1110 (second body) (para 0041, 0063; Fig. 4A). Koiwa teaches the sealing member 26 can be positioned in different positions relative to the edge ring 25 including being positioned below a protrusion of the edge ring (Fig. 2-4). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the seal member and edge ring arrangement of Koiwa with the seal member and edge ring arrangement of Arakane because this is a substitution of known elements yielding predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Claim(s) 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koiwa (US 20200273680 A1) in view of Schaefer (US 20130097840 A1), as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Maeda (US 20210308812 A1).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Koiwa and Schaefer fails to explicitly teach an upper surface of the first body includes an inclined surface and an angle formed by a side surface of the second body and the inclined surface is an acute angle. However, Maeda (US 20210308812 A1), in the analogous art of substrate supports, teaches a band 17A (first body) of the pedestal that holds a focus ring 12 (edge ring) includes an inclined surface sloping upwards, resulting in an acute angle formed between the inclined surface and a side surface of the dielectric substrate 24 (second body) (Abstract, para 0057, 0064-0065, 0084; Fig. 1-2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the flat surface of the first body of Koiwa with a positively inclined surface, as described by Maeda, for holding the edge/focus ring because this is a substitution of known elements yielding predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Claim(s) 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koiwa (US 20200273680 A1) in view of Schaefer (US 20130097840 A1) and Sasaki (US 20180090361 A1).
Regarding claim 19, Koiwa (US 20200273680 A1) teaches a substrate processing apparatus 1 comprising a disk-shaped lower electrode 18 (body portion) including a lower portion (first body) having a first diameter and an upper portion (second body) having a second diameter smaller than the first diameter disposed on the first body and a disk shaped electrostatic chuck 21 (substrate arrangement portion) disposed on the second body 18 and having a third diameter larger than the second diameter at the upper surface of the lower electrode/second body 18 (see Fig. 3 – 18, 21), wherein the chuck 21 (substrate arrangement portion) and the body portion 18 are connected by a bonding layer 23 (bonding portion) disposed between them, wherein an edge ring 25 is disposed around the substrate arrangement portion 21 and on the body portion 18, and wherein a sealing member 26 (second edge band) is installed in a space defined by the first body, second body, substrate arrangement portion, and the edge ring and installed to be in direct or indirect contact with a lower surface of the substrate arrangement portion 21, a side of the first bonding portion 23, a side of the second body 18, and an upper surface of the first body 18 (para 0014, 0018-0021, 0037, 0039, 0056, 0060, 0071; Fig. 1, 3).
Koiwa fails to explicitly teach a surface of the second edge band, which faces the edge ring, has a concave shape. However, Schaefer (US 20130097840 A1), in the analogous art of substrate supports, teaches an elastomeric band 200 as an edge seal (second edge band) between an electrostatic clamping electrode containing member 180 and a lower base member 100 (first body) and adjacent to a heater plate 140 (second body) and adhesive bonding layers (120, 160), wherein the elastomeric band may have a concave outer surface facing an edge ring instead of a convex surface to reduce bulging and prevent particle generation or contamination in the chamber (para 0021, 0028-0029, 0032, 0039; Fig. 3-4). Koiwa teaches a similar sealing member 26 (second edge band) between the electrostatic chuck and the base where the shape of the outer surface of the sealing member may be convex (para 0059; Fig. 3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the sealing member shape of Koiwa with the concave seal shape of Schaefer in order to prevent contamination in the chamber because this is a substitution of known elements yielding predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Alternatively, or in addition, it would have been obvious to change the shape of the second edge band such that a surface facing the edge ring has a concave shape because the shape is a matter of choice absent persuasive evidence that the particular shape is significant. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B).
The combination of Koiwa and Schaefer fails to explicitly teach a first hole installed in the substrate arrangement portion having a first diameter, a second hole installed in the bonding portion having a second diameter larger than the first diameter, a third hole installed in the body portion having a third diameter, a first edge band installed in the second hole and installed to be in contact with a lower surface of the substrate arrangement portion a side surface of the bonding portion and an upper surface of the body portion, and a lifting pin installed to extend through the first hole, second hole, third hole, and first edge band. However, Sasaki (US 20180090361 A1), in the analogous art of substrate supports, teaches a through hole 200 for receiving a lift pin (31, 61) and comprising a through hole 17 (first hole) in the electrostatic chuck 6 (substrate arrangement portion) with a first diameter, a through hole (second hole) formed through an adhesive layer and having a second diameter larger than the first diameter, a through hole 18 (third hole) installed in the base 2a (body portion) and having a third diameter, and a pin spacer (203, 204) (first edge band) installed at least partially in the second hole due to being in contact with a side surface of the adhesive layer between the chuck 6 and base 2a (see Fig. 4) and where the pin spacer (first edge band) is in at least indirect contact with a lower surface of the chuck 6 (substrate arrangement portion), a side surface of the adhesive layer (bonding portion) and an upper surface of the base 2a (body portion) (para 0023, 0040, 0044-0046, 0061; Fig. 3-4). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention modify the substrate support of Koiwa in view of Schaefer to include the through holes, lift pins, and pin spacers of Sasaki in order to vertically move the substrate/wafer atop the electrostatic chuck.
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Koiwa, Schaefer, and Sasaki teaches the sealing member (second edge band) may be made of perfluoro elastomer (rubber), such as FFKM, which contains carbon (Koiwa para 0041, Schaefer para 0030).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK S OTT whose telephone number is (571)272-2415. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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, James Lin can be reached at (571) 272-8902. 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.
/PATRICK S OTT/Examiner, Art Unit 1794
Prosecution Insights