DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined
under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
2. The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p) because the same reference character “11” has been incorrectly used to designate the ICP, the OPTICS and the DET. in 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.
Claim Objection
3. Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 9, the limitation “after causing a display device to output the associated curve includes receiving a user selection of the associated curve for use in subsequent analysis" appears having a grammatical error. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
4. 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.
5. 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: “spectrometer controller for a spectrometer” or “a spectrometer controller” in claims 21-23.
The disclosure provides that said “controller” may be implemented in a computer with corresponding hardware (see Specification, e.g., page 8, lines 15-17; page 11, lines 25-32). Therefore, the claim limitations in question will be interpreted to be a generic computer with corresponding hardware (see MPEP § 2181(II)(B)).
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 § 101
6. 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
7. Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 24 drawn to a storage medium carrying processor executable computer program instructions itself is directed non-statutory subject matter, since the BRI of machine-readable media can encompass non-statutory transitory forms of signal transmission. The Federal Circuit court held that “a transitory, propagating signal does not fall within any statutory category [of 35 USC 101].” See MPEP 2106.03
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
8. 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; or
(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.
9. Claims 1-5, 7-8, 11, 15-19, and 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang et al. (US 20210262779 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 21 and 24, Wang discloses a controller (e.g., 102 in Fig. 1) for a spectrometer and a method of operating the controller (Abstract; para. 0004-0005) including a computer-readable medium comprising instructions which, when executed by a computer, cause the computer to carry out the method (para. 0007), the method comprising the steps of:
obtaining an interfered peak using a detector (e.g., 304 in Fig. 3B) of a spectrometer (para. 0047: “spectrum signals … are obtained either directly from a spectrometer or indirectly from interference signals”; para. 0055: “a database 312 may be connected to detector 304 to store the interference signals or any other information associated with the interference signals”), wherein the interfered peak (e.g., interference fringe 208 or 210 of low coherent interferometry; note, an interference fringe is formed when two or more coherent waves overlap, resulting from constructive or destructive interference) is produced by a plurality of spectral emissions of different wavelengths, each of the plurality of spectral emissions in the interfered peak incident on the detector at an associated detector location (para. 0052: “An interference signal … includes an interference fringe 208 (also known as a “signal envelope”) of low coherent interferometry, which shows how the superimposed signals for the constituent wavelengths result in high fringe contrast at the point where all the patterns agree in phase… As such, the surface height of the position on the surface of sample 308 by this pixel corresponds to the z-value of scanner 310 when the modulation of the correlogram is the greatest”; para. 0068: “Each pixel of detector 304 can sample a different position within the image of the surface of sample 308”);
for one or more of the spectral emissions of the interfered peak, generating an associated curve (para. 0052: “The surface height at the position can thus be resolved and derived from interference fringe 208 of the interference signa”; para. 0078: “by using interference signal classifier 602 based on interference signals 612 and model 608, the surface topography of the semiconductor chip can be characterized with high throughput”; para. 0084: “the characterization of the surface topography of a semiconductor chip may be presented in any suitable forms, such as a calibrated height map”; note: by inherency, the characterization of the surface topography presented in the height map encompasses “an associated curve”) using a neural network, wherein the neural network is trained to output data indicative of a shape of the associated curve based on data representative of the associated detector location (para. 0005: “The plurality of interference signals are transformed … into a plurality of spectrum signals each corresponding to the respective one of the positions on the surface of the semiconductor chip. The spectrum signals are classified by the at least one processor into a plurality of categories using a model”; para. 0047: “spectrum signals, such as reflectance spectrums which contain the sample's material and structure information, are obtained either directly from a spectrometer or indirectly from interference signals (e.g., using Fourier transform) can be similarly classified into several categories (e.g., using another machine learning model)”; para. 0054: “machine learning models run by computing device 102 can filter the complication of the input signals, such as interference signals having multi-component interference fringe, into categories without knowing the actual structure, thereby improving the accuracy and precision of surface topography measurement”; para. 0067: “Model 608 can include, … artificial neural network (ANN)”; see also discussion about “interference fringe” and/or “signal envelope” in para. 0046, 0052, 0057, 0066, 0070, 0109); and
for one or more of the spectral emissions of the interfered peak, outputting the associated curve (para. 0047: “interference signals, such as low coherent interference infringes … each of which is added with a respective surface height offset calibrated from another measurement …. As a result, calibrated surface heights (and a calibrated height map therefrom in some cases) of a semiconductor chip having multiple layers can be readily attained with high accuracy and precision”; para. 0082, 0084, 0085: “ … proceeds to operation 1104, in which the original height map is transformed into a classification map based, at least in part, on the classified interference signals and the categories. For example, as shown in FIG. 12, original height map 1202 may be transformed into a classification map 1204 by interference signal classifier 602 based on classified interference signals 612 and the categories”).
Regarding claim 2, Wang discloses: wherein the neural network is to output an encoded representation (e.g., a narrower and simpler interference fringe; see para. 0054, 0057, 0066) of a shape of the associated curve; and generating an associated curve (the “signal envelope”) includes decoding the encoded representation (para. 0052, 0070, 0080, 0109).
Regarding claim 3, Wang discloses: training the neural network based on a plurality of training peaks, wherein each training peak is a single spectral emission of associated with a different detector location generated by the spectrometer (para. 0067: “model 608 includes a classification model, as part of the supervised learning, the categories are known and predetermined. For example, each category may correspond to a region having the same material on the surface of the semiconductor chip. That is, based on the design of the semiconductor chip, e.g., the structures and materials in the sampling field, a plurality of categories can be identified and used as the labels for the training as well as the output variables for classification”; para. 0090, 0114-0117; see also Figs. 22, 23 and related discussion).
Regarding claim 4, Wang discloses: wherein: training is initiated for a detector region (para. 0067: “For example, each category may correspond to a region having the same material on the surface of the semiconductor chip”) based on a user indication (e.g., the labels for the training as well as the output variables for classification) of the detector region to be trained (para. 0055: “a database 312 may be connected to detector 304 to store the interference signals or any other information associated with the interference signals, such as the original surface heights derived from the interference signals, for future processing”; para. 0062: “Each pixel of detector 304 can sample a different position within the image of the surface of sample 308”; para. 0067: “… That is, based on the design of the semiconductor chip, e.g., the structures and materials in the sampling field, a plurality of categories can be identified and used as the labels for the training as well as the output variables for classification”; para. 0115: “each training interference signal may be manually, … labeled with one of multiple predetermined categories each corresponding to a region having the same material on the surface of the semiconductor chip. … a training interference signal includes an interference fringe of low coherent interferometry, which may be used as the signature for labeling the training interference signal”).
Regarding claim 5, Wang discloses: wherein: the training peaks are associated with one or more single-element solutions (para. 0091: “based on the design of the semiconductor chip, e.g., the structures and materials in the sampling field, a plurality of categories can be identified as the labels for the training as well as the output variables for classification. In one example, a first category may correspond to a first region of silicon oxide (a transparent layer), a second category may correspond to ....”).
Regarding claim 7, Wang discloses: obtaining further training peaks generated by the spectrometer for a detector region of the detector (para. 0055: “a database 312 may be connected to detector 304 to store the interference signals or any other information associated with the interference signals”; para. 0115: “a training interference signal includes an interference fringe of low coherent interferometry, which may be used as the signature for labeling the training interference signal”); and repeating the training of the neural network based on the further training peaks (para. 0117: “Model training module 2102 can jointly adjust the parameters of model 2104 to minimize objective function 2110 over training samples 2106 using training algorithm 2108…. the training of model 2104, e.g., the adjustment of the parameter, may be performed in an iterative manner”).
Regarding claim 8, Wang discloses: identifying a calibration sample to be used to obtain the further training peaks (para. 0071: “determine a surface height offset between a surface baseline and at least one of the categories based, at least in part, on a calibration signal 614 associated with the region corresponding to the at least one of the categories … Depending on the specific instrument providing calibration signals 614, calibration signals 614 can include AFM signals from an AFM, SEM signals from an SEM, or TEM signals from a TEM”).
Regarding claim 11, Wang discloses: identifying a sample peak as an interfered peak (para. 0057).
Regarding claim 15, Wang discloses: wherein the spectrometer controller calculates a concentration (e.g., density-based clustering) of an element based on an area under the associated curve (para. 0067-0068).
Regarding claim 16, Wang discloses: wherein, the spectrometer (i.e., the provider that provides data to the database 312 in Fig. 3B) is an optical emission spectrometer, and the spectrometer controller is an optical emission spectrometer controller (para. 0049, 0063).
Regarding claim 17, Wang discloses: wherein the detector of the spectrometer is an array detector (para. 0062).
Regarding claim 18, Wang discloses: wherein a curve is output for each of the spectral emissions in the interfered peak (para. 0070, 0089).
Regarding claim 19, Wang discloses: wherein a comparison curve associated with a spectral emission is obtained by subtracting the curves for the other spectral emissions of the interfered peak from the interfered peak (para. 0119: “a parameter of the model is adjusted based, at least in part, on a difference between the labeled category and a classified category of the interference signal in each of the training samples”).
Regarding claim 22, Wang discloses a spectrometry system (Figs. 1 and 3) comprising: a spectrometer (e.g., the combination of 304/316 as the data provider for database 312) comprising a detector (304), the spectrometer configured to generate a sample spectrum from a sample using the detector (para. 0055, 0062); a spectrometer controller (102 in Fig. 1) configured to process the sample spectrum, the controller further configured to: obtain an interfered peak from the sample spectrum using the detector of the spectrometer, wherein the interfered peak is produced by a plurality of spectral emissions of different wavelengths, each of the plurality of spectral emissions in the interfered peak incident on the detector at an associated detector location; for one or more of the spectral emissions of the interfered peak, generate an associated curve using a neural network, wherein the neural network is trained to output data indicative of a shape of the associated curve based on data representative of the associated detector location; and for one or more of the spectral emissions of the interfered peak, output the associated curve (see discussion for claims 1 and 21 above).
Regarding claim 23, Wang discloses: wherein the spectrometer comprises an excitation source (302 in Fig. 3).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
10. 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.
11. Claims 9 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. in view of KIKKAI et al. (JP 4500500 B2, machine translation).
Regarding claim 9, Wang discloses: after outputting the associated curve (para. 0085: “original height map 1202 may be transformed into a classification map 1204 by interference signal classifier 602 based on classified interference signals 612 and the categories. Classification map 1204 represents 8 categories (e.g., 1 to 8) … A category may correspond to a region having the same material on the surface of the semiconductor chip”; note, the instant claims do not require to output the associated curve itself without combining it with any other information), receiving a selection of the associated curve for use in subsequent analysis (para. 0073: “The surface baseline can be preset to any suitable value, such as 0. In some embodiments, to determine the surface height offset, calibration module 604 is configured to designate the surface baseline to a baseline region corresponding to one of the categories. In one example, calibration module 604 may select a region in the sampling field that corresponds to the category having the largest number of interference signals 612 as the baseline region …”; para. 0086: “One of the regions may be selected as the baseline region, and the surface baseline (e.g., 0) may be designated to the corresponding category. For example, surface baseline 0 may be designated to category 4”).
Wang is silent on: causing a display device to output the associated curve, and said selection is made by a user.
KIKKAI discloses a controller for a spectrometer and a method of operating the controller (para. 0029), comprising: obtaining an interfered peak using a detector, wherein the interfered peak is produced by a plurality of spectral emissions of different wavelengths (para. 0022, 0033); for one or more of the spectral emissions of the interfered peak, generating an associated curve, and causing a display device (para. 0041) to output the associated curve (para. 0035, 0045). KIKKAI further discloses: receiving a user selection of the displayed information for use in subsequent analysis (para. 0047).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate KIKKAI’s teaching of the display device and its functionalities into the system/method of Wang to output a visual representation of the associated curve together with (or embedded within) the classification map (1204) such that a user can interactively select or designate an associated curve, e.g., the one corresponding to the “surface baseline”, for use in subsequent analysis. The skilled person would conceive and apply such modification without needing inventive skill but depending on practical considerations and according to the dictates of the circumstances. It has been held that the mere application of a known technique to a specific instance by those skilled in the art would have been obvious.
Regarding claim 14, Wang is silent on: wherein the spectrometer controller causes a display device to output the associated curve. However, as discussion for claim 9 above, the combination of Wang and KIKKAI renders this limitation obvious.
12. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. in view of De Groot et al. (US 8126677 B2).
Regarding claim 10, Wang discloses: wherein the spectrometer comprises a two-dimensional array detector (304 in Fig. 3B), wherein the spectrometer generates a sample spectrum to transmit light (via beam splitter 318) on to the two-dimensional detector (para. 0063).
Wang is silent on: wherein the spectrometer comprises an echelle grating, wherein the spectrometer generates a sample spectrum using the echelle grating to diffract light on to the two-dimensional detector.
De Groot discloses a method/system of analyzing surface structure using scanning Interferometry (Abstract; col. 18, lines 21-47), comprising: an echelle grating which generates a sample spectrum to diffract light on to a two-dimensional detector (col. 4, lines 50-56; col. 5, lines 63-67; col. 7, lines 38-43; col. 8, lines 37-44; col. 11, lines 47-53; col. 18, lines 21-47; see also Fig. 1 and related discussion about the surface structure of the test object 145).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Wang’s invention to the test object of De Groot to arrive the claimed feature as an intended use of a known technique taught by Wang. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of such a modification were predictable for scanning interferometry to analyze the surface structure of a test object, since the use of that known technique provides the rationale to arrive at a conclusion of obviousness.
13. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. in view of Martin et al. (US 20080153105 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Wang does not teach: wherein identifying the sample peak as an interfered peak comprises calculating a first derivative of the sample peak, wherein the sample peak is determined to be an interfered peak based on a number of zero-crossings of the first derivative of the sample peak.
Martin teaches a technique of identifying a sample peak as an interfered peak (para. 0005, 0010: “… utilizing a white light source and thin film interference techniques with spectrometers arranged to detect changes in indices of refraction in the region where the binding and disassociation reactions occur”) comprising: calculating a first derivative of the sample peak, wherein the sample peak is determined to be an interfered peak based on a number of zero-crossings of the first derivative of the sample peak (para. 0087, 0095: “To find the peak where X.sub.pk.apprxeq.OPD, we look for the value of X where the derivative of C(X) is equal to zero”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Martin’s simple math method of identifying an interfered peak into Wang to arrive the claimed feature. It has been held that the mere application of a known technique to a specific instance by those skilled in the art would have been obvious.
14. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. in view of Anderson et al. (US 20200302301 A1).
Regarding claim 20, Wang is silent on: comparing the comparison curve of the spectral emission to a curve output by the spectrometer controller for the same spectral emission; and determining a confidence level for the curve output by the spectrometer controller based on the comparison.
Anderson discloses a technique of training a neural network model, comprising: making a predictive classification of an event using the neural network model (para. 0018); determining a difference dataset (i.e., “error”) between the predictive classification and a classification provided with the data used for training the neural network model (para. 0118: “If the model mis-classifies the input or provides a low level of confidence (low probability) about a classification, an error can be determined by, e.g., comparing the classification generated by the model against a classification provided with the training sample”), and determining a confidence level (high/low probability) for the predictive classification made by the neural network model based on the difference dataset (para. 0018).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wang to arrive the claimed invention by determining and evaluating the difference or error between the labeled category and a classified category of the interference signal in each of the training samples using Anderson’s teaching of confidence level assessment technique. Doing so would allow for adjusting the model to reinforce correct classifications or high probabilities (Anderson, para. 0118).
Examiner’s Note on Subject Matter Eligibility
15. According to MPEP 2106 and the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG), the USPTO determines claim eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 using the Alice framework. The analysis under Step 2A - Prong 1 evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. Step 2A - Prong 2 asks does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and, if necessary, Step 2B further analyzes whether or not the claim provides an Inventive Concept. That is, the claim needs to be analyzed limitation by limitation, and/or element by element, following the MPEP/2019 PEG guidelines.
In the instant case, Examiner considers that the generation of the associated curve using a neural network for the spectral emissions as recited in the pending claims of the present application is similar to Example 48 claim 2 of USPTO Subject Matter Eligibility Examples, and ultimately the claims recite receive data, apply to the neural network, and output results which are similar to Example 39 that “does not recite an abstract idea”.
Allowable Subject Matter
16. Claims 6 and 13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Reasons for Allowance
17. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The primary reason for the allowance of claim 6 is the inclusion of the limitation: the training peaks are associated with one or more single-element solutions, wherein an individual one of the single-element solutions is a transition metal solution. It is this limitation found in the claim, in combination with the rest of the limitations as recited in claims 1 and 3, that has not been found, taught or suggested by the prior art of record, which makes claim 6 distinguish over the prior art.
The primary reason for the allowance of claim 13 is the inclusion of the limitation: wherein the associated detector location of each spectral emission in the interfered peak is determined based on the zero-crossings of the first derivative of the sample peak. It is this limitation found in the claim, in combination with the rest of the limitations as recited in claims 1 and 11-12, that has not been found, taught or suggested by the prior art of record, which makes claim 13 distinguish over the prior art.
Contact Information
18. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XIUQIN SUN whose telephone number is (571)272-2280. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30am-6:00pm.
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, Shelby A. Turner can be reached on (571) 272-6334. 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.
/X.S/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/SHELBY A TURNER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights