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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I (claims 34-50) in the reply filed on 03/11/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 51-53 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II (method), there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 03/11/2026.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
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 sinusoidal voltage waveform matching network must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 44 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 44 recites “coupled wi 15th the filter;” should be “coupled with the filter.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
RF generator (sinusoidal voltage waveform generator, para. [0050]) in at least claims 34-50.
non-sinusoidal voltage waveform generator (DC-like voltage, para. [0032]) in at least claims 35-36, 44-47, 49.
sinusoidal voltage waveform generator (RF voltage generator, para. [0032, 0050]) in at least claims 34-50.
sinusoidal voltage waveform generating system in claim (RF matching network, sinusoidal voltage waveform generator, para. [0037]).
Non-sinusoidal voltage waveform generating system in claim (filter, non-sinusoidal voltage waveform generator, para. [0036]).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 34-43 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.
Claims 34, 40 recites the limitation " sinusoidal voltage waveform matching network " in the claim. It is unclear what the term is. Examiner interprets as “sinusoidal voltage waveform generator.” Appropriate clarification is requested in every instance.
Claims 44-47 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.
Claim 44 recites the limitation " sinusoidal voltage waveform matching network " in the claim. It is unclear what the term is. Examiner interprets as “sinusoidal voltage waveform generator.” Appropriate clarification is requested.
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 (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.
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) 48 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 20190393017 to Kang.
Claim 48: Kang discloses a system comprising: a plasma etch chamber (processing chamber [110], Fig. 1A) configured to produce and contain a plasma (para. [0025]); an RF generator (142b [sinusoidal wave generator]) coupled with the plasma etch chamber (110); an electrostatic chuck (E2 [second electrode]) at a base portion of the plasma etch chamber (110), the electrostatic chuck (E2) electrically coupled to a node (at 148 [mixer]), wherein the electrostatic chuck (E2) is configured to mechanically support a substrate (S [substrate]);
The apparatus of Kang discloses a non-sinusoidal voltage waveform generating system (144b [non-sinusoidal wave generator], Fig. 7, para. [0069], Kang) system electrically coupled to the node (148), wherein the non-sinusoidal voltage waveform generating system is configured to produce a first pulsed voltage waveform at the electrostatic chuck (E2 [second electrode/susceptor], para. [0034]), wherein the filter (144a1) is in series between the non- sinusoidal voltage waveform generator (144b) and the node (148); and
a sinusoidal voltage waveform generating system (142b [sinusoidal wave generator], Fig. 1A) electrically coupled to the node (at 148), wherein the RF generator (interpreted as the RF generator is part of the sinusoidal voltage waveform generating system) is configured to produce a second pulsed voltage waveform at the electrostatic chuck (E2, para. [0035]).
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 (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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 34, 37-38, 40, 42 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20190393017 to Kang in view of US 20160064194 to Tokashiki.
Claim 34: Kang discloses an apparatus comprising: a filter (144a [second filter], Fig. 1); the filter (144a) at a node (148 [mixer]); and an electrostatic chuck (E2 [second electrode]) coupled with the filter (144a) and a sinusoidal voltage waveform generator (142b [sinusoidal wave generator]) at the node (148).
However Kang does not disclose an RF matching network coupled with filter at the node.
Tokashiki discloses an RF matching network (555 [high-frequency matching unit], Fig. 1) coupled with the filter (563 [filter]) at the node (node at BCA), for the purpose of improving transmission efficiency of the high-frequency power (para. [0062]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the RF matching network and configuration as taught by Tokashiki with motivation to improve transmission efficiency of the high-frequency power.
Claim 37: The apparatus of Kang in view of Tokashiki discloses wherein the filter (144a, Fig. 1, Kang) is a low pass filter (144a1 [low pass filter], Fig. 7, similar embodiment), wherein the low pass filter (144a1) is coupled to a DC source (144b [non-sinusoidal wave generator], para. [0069]).
Claim 38: The apparatus of Kang in view of Tokashiki discloses wherein the low pass filter (144a1, Fig. 7, Kang) comprises a cutoff frequency of less than 5MHz (para. [0069]).
Claim 40: The apparatus of Kang in view of Tokashiki discloses wherein the sinusoidal voltage waveform generator (142b, Fig. 1, Kang) is a sinusoidal voltage waveform generator (142b).
Claim 42: The apparatus of Kang in view of Tokashiki discloses wherein the RF matching network (555, Fig. 1, Tokashiki) facilitates power delivery at a range between 13.56 MHz and 100 MHz (para. [0024]).
Claim(s) 35, 36, 39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang in view of Tokashiki as applied to claims 34, 37-38, 40, 42 above, and further in view of US 20150002018 to Lill.
Claims 35-36, 39: The apparatus of Kang in view of Tokashiki does not disclose discloses (claim 35) wherein the filter is a notch filter, wherein the notch filter is coupled to a non-sinusoidal voltage waveform source; (claim 36) wherein the notch filter comprises a stopband frequency between 12 MHz and 100 MHz; (claim 39) wherein the non-sinusoidal voltage waveform source outputs a voltage signal in a range between 400 kHz and 4000 kHz.
Lill discloses (claim 35) wherein the filter (116 [filter], Fig. 1A) is a notch filter (116, para. [0052]), wherein the notch filter (116) is coupled to a non-sinusoidal voltage waveform source (120 [nonsinusoidal RF generator); (claim 36) wherein the notch filter (116) comprises a stopband frequency between 12 MHz and 100 MHz (para. [0067]); (claim 39) wherein the non-sinusoidal voltage waveform source (120) outputs a voltage signal in a range between 400 kHz and 4000 kHz (para. [0067], where multiple options are given) for the purpose of controlling ion energy within a plasma chamber (para. [0007-0008]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the limitations above and optimization of voltage as taught by Lill with motivation to control ion energy within a plasma chamber.
Claim(s) 41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang in view of Tokashiki as applied to claims 34, 37-38, 40, 42 above, and further in view of US 20220093363 to Romanus.
Claim 41: The apparatus of Kang in view of Tokashiki does not disclose wherein the RF matching network facilitates power delivery of up to 100 kV.
Regarding the power range, Romanus teaches an RF generator (108, Fig. 1), with matching network (106), config facilitates power delivery of up to 100 kV (para. [0021]), for the purpose of regulating the applied power based upon a power setpoint received from an operator of the system (para. [0021]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the range options above, as taught by Romanus with motivation to regulate the applied power based upon a power setpoint received from an operator of the system.
Claim(s) 43 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang in view of Tokashiki as applied to claims 34, 37-38, 40, 42 above, and further in view of US 20220037121 to Dorf.
Claim 43: The apparatus of Kang in view of Tokashiki does not disclose wherein the electrostatic chuck comprises a conductive plate and an insulative layer on the conductive plate.
Dorf discloses wherein the electrostatic chuck (136 [substrate support assembly], Fig. 1B) comprises a conductive plate (107 [para. [0045]) and an insulative layer (105, para. [0047]) on the conductive plate (107), for the purpose of regulating the substrate support via thermal coupling (para. [0045]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the material requirements as taught by Dorf with motivation to regulate the substrate support via thermal coupling.
Claim(s) 44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20190393017 to Kang in view of US 20160064194 to Tokashiki.
Claim 44: Kang discloses an apparatus comprising: a filter (144a [second filter], Fig. 1); the filter (144a) at a node (148 [mixer]); and an electrostatic chuck (E2 [second electrode]) coupled with the filter (144a) and a sinusoidal voltage waveform generator (142b [sinusoidal wave generator]) at the node (148).
However Kang does not disclose an RF matching network coupled with filter at the node.
Tokashiki discloses an RF matching network (555 [high-frequency matching unit], Fig. 1) coupled with the filter (563 [filter]) at the node (node at BCA), for the purpose of improving transmission efficiency of the high-frequency power (para. [0062]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the RF matching network and configuration as taught by Tokashiki with motivation to improve transmission efficiency of the high-frequency power.
The apparatus of Kang in view of Tokashiki discloses a non-sinusoidal voltage waveform generator (144b [non-sinusoidal wave generator], Fig. 7, para. [0069], Kang) configured to produce a first pulsed voltage waveform at the electrostatic chuck (E2 [second electrode/susceptor]), wherein the filter (144a1) is in series between the non- sinusoidal voltage waveform generator (144b) and the node (148); and
a sinusoidal voltage waveform generator (142b [sinusoidal wave generator]) configured to produce a second pulsed voltage waveform at the electrostatic chuck (E2, para. [0035]), wherein the RF matching network (555, Fig. 1, Tokashiki) is in series between the sinusoidal voltage waveform generator (550) and the node (node at BCA, Fig. 1).
Claim(s) 45 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang in view of Tokashiki as applied to claims 44 above, and further in view of US 20190287766 to Jeon, US 20220093363 to Romanus.
Claim 45: The apparatus of Kang in view of Tokashiki does not disclose wherein the sinusoidal voltage waveform generator produces power at 13.56 MHz to 100 MHz, at a power range between 0-100 kW.
Jeon discloses wherein the sinusoidal voltage waveform generator (40 [RF power source]) produces power at 13.56 MHz to 100 MHz (para. [0029]) for the purpose of generating power over the substrate (para. [0028]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the limitations above as taught by Jeon with motivation to generate power over the substrate.
Regarding the power range, Romanus teaches an RF generator (108, Fig. 1), with matching network (106), configured to produce power at a power range between 0-100 kW (para. [0021]), for the purpose of regulating the applied power based upon a power setpoint received from an operator of the system (para. [0021]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the range options above, as taught by Romanus with motivation to regulate the applied power based upon a power setpoint received from an operator of the system.
Claim(s) 46 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang in view of Tokashiki as applied to claims 44 above, and further in view of US 20150002018 to Lill.
Claims 46: The apparatus of Kang in view of Tokashiki does not disclose wherein the non-sinusoidal voltage waveform source outputs a voltage signal in a range between 400 kHz and 4000 kHz with a voltage output between 5-10 kV.
Lill discloses wherein the non-sinusoidal voltage waveform source (120) outputs a voltage signal in a range between 400 kHz and 4000 kHz at various voltage outputs (para. [0067] [0174-0176], where multiple options are given) for the purpose of controlling ion energy within a plasma chamber (para. [0007-0008]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the limitations above and optimization of voltage as taught by Lill with motivation to control ion energy within a plasma chamber.
Claim(s) 47 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang in view of Tokashiki as applied to claim 44 above, and further in view of US 20220037121 to Dorf.
Claim 47: The apparatus of Kang in view of Tokashiki does not disclose wherein the electrostatic chuck comprises a conductive plate and an insulative layer on the conductive plate.
Dorf discloses wherein the electrostatic chuck (136 [substrate support assembly], Fig. 1B) comprises a conductive plate (107 [para. [0045]) and an insulative layer (105, para. [0047]) on the conductive plate (107), for the purpose of regulating the substrate support via thermal coupling (para. [0045]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the material requirements as taught by Dorf with motivation to regulate the substrate support via thermal coupling.
Claim(s) 49 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang as applied to claim 48 above, and in view of US 20150002018 to Lill.
Claims 49: The apparatus of Kang discloses wherein the non-sinusoidal voltage waveform generating system (144b, Fig. 1A, Kang) further comprises a non-sinusoidal voltage waveform generator (144b).
The apparatus of Kang does not disclose wherein the non-sinusoidal voltage waveform generator configured to operate between 400 kHz and 4000 kHz with a voltage output between 5-10 kV, and a filter in series.
Lill discloses wherein the non-sinusoidal voltage waveform generator (120) configured to operate between 400 kHz and 4000 kHz at various voltage outputs (para. [0067] [0174-0176], where multiple options are given), and a filter (116 [filter]) in series (para. [0052]), for the purpose of controlling ion energy within a plasma chamber (para. [0007-0008]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the limitations above and optimization of voltage as taught by Lill with motivation to control ion energy within a plasma chamber.
Claim(s) 50 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang as applied to claim 48 above, and in view of US 20160064194 to Tokashiki, and further in view of US 20220093363 to Romanus.
Claim 50: The apparatus of Kang discloses wherein the sinusoidal voltage waveform generating system (142b, Fig. 1A, Kang) further comprises a sinusoidal voltage waveform generator (142b).
However Kang does not disclose the sinusoidal voltage waveform generator configured to produce power at 13.56 MHz to 100 MHz, at a power range between 0-100 kW and an RF matching network.
Tokashiki discloses disclose the sinusoidal voltage waveform generator configured to produce power at 13.56 MHz to 100 MHz (para. [0024], [0059]), and a RF matching network (555, Fig. 1), for the purpose of improving transmission efficiency of the high-frequency power (para. [0062]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the RF matching network and ranges as taught by Tokashiki with motivation to improve transmission efficiency of the high-frequency power.
Regarding the power range, Romanus teaches an RF generator (108, Fig. 1), with matching network (106), configured to produce power at a power range between 0-100 kW (para. [0021]), for the purpose of regulating the applied power based upon a power setpoint received from an operator of the system (para. [0021]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the range options above, as taught by Romanus with motivation to regulate the applied power based upon a power setpoint received from an operator of the system.
Claims 51-53: (Withdrawn).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20220367158 discloses configured to detect an RF waveform (181, Fig. 1B) established at different points within the RF source assembly (163) during plasma processing (para. [0059]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Charlee J. C. Bennett whose telephone number is (571)270-7972. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 10am-6pm.
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 at 5712725166. 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.
/Charlee J. C. Bennett/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights