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 .
Election
Applicant's election without traverse of Invention I (claims 1-6) in the reply filed on 4/20/2026 is acknowledged. Non-elected claims 7-10 are withdrawn.
Examiner’s Comments
Although the specification and the claims use the term “radiator,” perhaps a more accurate term might be “heat sink.” Regardless, for examination purposes, “radiator” and “heat sink” are generally interpreted as interchangeable or synonymous.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 recites “the inorganic cleaning reagent is selected from one of [A], [B], … and [Z].” It should be “the inorganic cleaning reagent is one selected from [A], [B], …and [Z].”
Claim 3 at lines 1-3 recites: “the strong acid solution is selected from one or more of [A], [B], …and [Z].” It should be “the strong acid solution is one or more selected from [A], [B], …and [Z].”
Claim 3 at line 4 recites: “the weak acid solution is selected from hydrofluoric acid and/or acetic acid.” The words “selected from” are redundant given the presence of “and/or.” The phrase should be changed to “the weak acid solution is
Claim 3 at lines 5-6 recites: “the strong alkali solution is selected from one or more of [A], [B], …and [Z].” It should be “the strong alkali solution is one or more selected from [A], [B], …and [Z].”
Claim 3 at last 2 lines recites: “the weak alkaline solution is selected from sodium bicarbonate and/or sodium carbonate.” The words “selected from” are redundant given the presence of “and/or.” The phrase should be changed to “the weak alkaline solution is
Claim 5 recites: “the organic reagent is selected from one or more of [A], [B], …and [Z].” It should be “the organic reagent is one or more selected from [A], [B], …and [Z].”
Claim 5 recites “hydrocarbon” and “toluene” at line 3. “Hydrocarbon” is a class, and “toluene” is a member of the hydrocarbon class. The rest of the listed chemicals are all specific members of their respective class, so “hydrocarbon” appears to be misplaced. As a suggestion, “hydrocarbon” should be deleted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites “a cleaning method for a liquid metal substrate, comprising a substrate cleaning . . .” (line 1-2) and “the liquid metal substrate” (line 8). To the extent that the claim requires the substrate to be made of liquid metal, this is not sufficiently disclosed in the specification, for several reasons.
First, the specification discloses only one example of the material for the substrate: i.e., nickel-plated copper (see Spec. at ¶¶ 0050-52), which is not a liquid metal. Also, the substrate shown in Figs. 3-5 has a rigid surface, which means it’s not a liquid metal. And although the specification discloses chips and radiators as examples of the substrate (see id. at ¶¶ 0007, 0026, 0050), wherein a liquid metal is used as a thermal interface material to bridge the gap between a chip and a radiator (see id.), those disclosures are not the same thing as saying the substrate itself is made of liquid metal.
Second, the specification does not explicitly state that the substrate is made of a liquid metal. In particular, the specification does not disclose which element(s) (e.g., mercury, cesium, gallium, etc.) constitute the recited “liquid metal,” and the specification does not disclose that the substrate is made of such element(s).
Third, the specification contains extensive discussion on cleaning the substrate before applying a liquid metal coating onto the substrate. For example:
¶ 0003 discloses that it’s difficult to coat liquid metal on the substrate without reducing the thermal performance of the liquid metal;
¶ 0016 discloses that the substrate is cleaned and the cleaned substrate is coated;
¶¶ 0043-49 disclose cleaning substrate first, then coating it with liquid metal;
¶¶ 0007, 0026, 0050 disclose cleaning substrates such as chips and radiators so that liquid metal can be quickly and uniformly coated on said chips and radiators, and the liquid metal forms good contact with the substrates;
Figs. 3-5 and ¶¶ 0050-52 disclose cleaning the substrate first, then applying liquid metal coating on the substrate.
For examination purposes, the term “liquid metal substrate” is not interpreted to mean that the substrate is made of liquid metal, but rather it’s a substrate that may or may not be coated with liquid metal after the substrate is cleaned.
Claims 2-6 are rejected because they depend on Claim 1.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-6 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 1 recites “a cleaning method for a liquid metal substrate, comprising a substrate cleaning . . .” (line 1-2) and “the liquid metal substrate” (line 8).
First, it’s unclear whether or not the substrate is actually made of liquid metal. The only example of the material for the substrate is nickel-plated copper (see Spec. at ¶¶ 0050-52), which is not a liquid metal. Figs. 3-5 show a substrate having a rigid surface, i.e., not a liquid metal.
Second, while the substrate is being cleaned, does the substrate actually have liquid metal thereon? The specification contains extensive discussion on cleaning the substrate before applying the liquid metal coating onto the substrate. For example:
¶ 0003 discloses that it’s difficult to coat liquid metal on the substrate without reducing the thermal performance of the liquid metal;
¶ 0016 discloses that the substrate is cleaned and the cleaned substrate is coated;
¶¶ 0043-49 disclose cleaning substrate first, then coating it with liquid metal;
¶¶ 0007, 0026, 0050 disclose cleaning substrates such as chips and radiators so that liquid metal can be quickly and uniformly coated on said chips and radiators, and the liquid metal forms good contact with the substrates;
Figs. 3-5 and ¶¶ 0050-52 disclose cleaning the substrate first, then applying liquid metal coating on the substrate.
For examination purposes, the term “liquid metal substrate” is not interpreted to mean that the substrate is made of liquid metal, but rather it’s a substrate that may or may not be coated with liquid metal after the substrate is cleaned.
Claim 1 recites at lines 1-2: “A cleaning method for a liquid metal substrate, comprising a substrate cleaning and a cleaning qualification inspection, and the steps are as follows.” First, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the term “the steps.” Second, it’s unclear whether or not “the steps” refers back to “substrate cleaning” and “cleaning qualification inspection.” Clarification is requested. As a suggestion, line 1-2 may be amended as follows:
A cleaning method for a liquid metal substrate, comprising a substrate cleaning and a cleaning qualification inspection, wherein:
A cleaning method for a liquid metal substrate, comprising a substrate cleaning step and a cleaning qualification inspection step, wherein:
Claim 1 recites “the cleaning qualification inspection is judged as qualified or not” at line 7. It’s unclear if this phrase means the act/manner/methodology of inspection is judged, or a result of the inspection is judged. The specification appears to support the latter (see ¶ 0047, the cleaning is detected qualified or not). Clarification is requested.
For examination purpose, it’s interpreted to mean that after cleaning, the substrate’s cleanliness is inspected, and a result of that inspection (or the substrate’s cleanliness) is judged as qualified or not.
Claim 1 recites “the organic reagent” at line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation because there is no prior recitation of “an organic reagent.”
Claim 1 recites: “when the diffusion area does not meet the predetermined requirement, the substrate cleaning step is repeated, and the steps are repeated in this way until the diffusion area meets the predetermined requirement” at lines 9-12.
First, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the steps.”
Second, it’s unclear whether or not “the steps” refers back to “substrate cleaning” and “cleaning qualification inspection.”
Third, it’s unclear what “in this way” means.
Fourth, if “the steps” already include “substrate cleaning,” then it’s also unclear whether the phrase means:
(1) when the diffusion area does not meet the predetermined requirement → perform the substrate cleaning step → perform the cleaning qualification inspection step; OR
(2) when the diffusion area does not meet the predetermined requirement → perform the substrate cleaning step → perform the substrate cleaning step again → perform the cleaning qualification inspection step.
For examination purpose, “the steps” is interpreted to refer back to a step of “substrate cleaning” and a step of “cleaning qualification inspection,” and when the diffusion area does not meet the predetermined requirement, option (1) is performed.
As a suggestion, the above phrase may be changed to:
“when the diffusion area does not meet the predetermined requirement, a sequence of the substrate cleaning step followed by the cleaning qualification inspection step is repeated until the diffusion area meets the predetermined requirement.”
Claim 2 recites “the inorganic cleaning reagent” at line 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation because there is no prior recitation of “an inorganic cleaning reagent.”
In Claim 2, the terms “high-concentration” and “low-concentration” are relative terms that render the claim indefinite. The terms “high-concentration” and “low-concentration” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. As a suggestion, the terms “high-concentration” and “low-concentration” should be removed from the claim language.
In Claim 3, the term “dilute” is a relative term that renders the claim indefinite. The term “dilute” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. As a suggestion, the term “dilute” should be removed.
Claim 3 recites “the weak alkaline solution” on pg. 3 line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation; it should be “the weak alkali solution.”
Claim 3, which depends on Claim 2, recites two conflicting limitations:
wherein the inorganic cleaning reagent is selected from one of a sodium bicarbonate solution, a low-concentration strong acid solution, a high-concentration weak acid solution, a low-concentration strong alkali solution and a high-concentration weak alkali solution (claim 2)
the weak alkaline solution is selected from sodium bicarbonate and/or sodium carbonate (claim 3 on pg. 3 line 1-2).
According to Claim 2, “sodium bicarbonate solution” and “weak alkali solution” appear to be alternative members of a Markush group, but claim 3 recites the two as overlapping, in conflict with Claim 2. Clarification is requested. As a suggestion, “sodium bicarbonate” should be deleted from claim 3 on pg. 3 line 1-2.
Claim 4 recites: “wherein the organic reagent is selected from one or more of alcohols, hydrocarbons, ethers, esters and ketones.” First, it’s unclear whether or not the claim requires all 5 classes of organic reagent (i.e., alcohols, hydrocarbons, ethers, esters and ketones are all required), or simply at least one class out of the 5 classes. Second, it’s unclear whether or not the claim requires the selected class to be plural. For example, if the class of “alcohol” is selected, does the claim require a plurality of alcohols? As another example, if the class of “ketone” is selected, does the claim require a plurality of ketones? Clarification is requested.
Claim 4 recites “the organic reagent” at line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation because there is no prior recitation of “an organic reagent.”
Claim 5 recites “the organic reagent” at line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation because there is no prior recitation of “an organic reagent.”
In Claim 6, each of methods (4) through (15) recites “a combined cleaning” followed by certain cleaning types. The relationship between “combined cleaning” and the subsequent cleaning type(s) is unclear. For example, method (4) recites: “a combined cleaning, the plasma cleaning first, and then the inorganic cleaning reagent cleaning.” Does the “combined cleaning” comprise “the plasma cleaning first, and then the inorganic cleaning reagent cleaning”? Clarification is requested.
It’s highly recommended that, for each of methods (4) through (15), “a combined cleaning” is followed by “comprising” to clearly indicate the relationship between “combined cleaning” and the subsequent cleaning type(s). For example, method (4) should be amended to recite: “a combined cleaning[[,]] comprising the plasma cleaning first, and then the inorganic cleaning reagent cleaning.”
The remaining claims are rejected because they depend on a claim rejected herein.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 6 recites 15 permutations, each permutation modified by “and/or.” But Claim 1, which Claim 6 depends on, already recites:
the substrate cleaning comprises one or more of a plasma cleaning, an inorganic cleaning reagent cleaning, and an organic reagent cleaning, and any combination of the plasma cleaning, the inorganic cleaning reagent cleaning and the organic reagent cleaning (lines 3-6 of Claim 1)
Claim 1 already says that the substrate cleaning comprises: (1) plasma cleaning (“P” for short); and/or (2) inorganic cleaning reagent cleaning (“I” for short); and/or (3) organic reagent cleaning (“O” for short); and/or (4) P+I; and/or (5) P+O; and/or (6) I+P; and/or (7) I+O; and/or (8) O+P; and/or (9) O+I; . . . so forth. The list of 15 permutations in Claim 6 is already summarized by lines 3-6 of Claim 1, so Claim 6 fails to further limit the subject matter of Claim 1.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FURMAN et al. (US PGPUB 20080165502), in view of QIN et al. (Chinese Publication CN113053723A, as translated by Espacenet) and “Thin Film Physics and Devices” (Nat’l Defense Industry Press, May 2011, as provided with the 6/28/2024 IDS).
Regarding Claim 1, FURMAN teaches a cleaning method for a substrate (see ¶¶ 0002, 0004, a substrate to be coated with liquid metal interface or “LMI”), comprising a substrate cleaning (see ¶ 0009, cleaning with “at least one of: an acid, a base, a plasma clean, a chemical cleaning agent or a mechanical abrasive”).
As explained above, the term “liquid metal substrate” is not interpreted to mean that the substrate is made of liquid metal, but rather it’s a substrate that may or may not be coated with liquid metal after the substrate is cleaned. The specification of this application discloses chips and radiators—“radiator” and “heat sink” are interchangeable or synonymous—as examples of “liquid metal substrate” (see Spec. at ¶¶ 0007, 0026, 0050).
FURMAN teaches that the substrate to be cleaned may a chip or a heat sink (see ¶¶ 0002-03, 0005, 0011-12, 0023-24, 0053) and that a liquid metal coating may be applied to said substrate (see ¶¶ 0002, 0004), just like the present application. Thus, FURMAN teaches the claimed “liquid metal substrate.”
FURMAN teaches the substrate cleaning comprises one or more of a plasma cleaning (see ¶ 0009, “plasma clean”), an inorganic cleaning reagent cleaning (see id., cleaning with an acid, cleaning with a base, cleaning with hydrochloric acid, oxalic acid, acetic acid), and an organic reagent cleaning (see id., cleaning with at least one of isopropyl alcohol, methyl alcohol, ethyl alcohol, acetone, and xylene), and any combination of the plasma cleaning, the inorganic cleaning reagent cleaning and the organic reagent cleaning (see ¶ 0009, cleaning with “at least one of: an acid, a base, a plasma clean, a chemical cleaning agent…”).
FURMAN does not explicitly teach that
the cleaning method comprises “a cleaning qualification inspection”;
wherein “the cleaning qualification inspection is judged as qualified or not based on a diffusion area of the organic reagent on a surface of the liquid metal substrate, and when the diffusion area meets a predetermined requirement, the cleaning is finished; and when the diffusion area does not meet the predetermined requirement, the substrate cleaning step is repeated, and the steps are repeated in this way until the diffusion area meets the predetermined requirement.”
QIN teaches cleaning a substrate (see ¶¶ 0022-25) and then measuring the substrate’s cleanliness (see ¶¶ 0026, 0040), i.e., “a cleaning qualification inspection.” QIN teaches that:
when the substrate’s measured cleanliness (i.e., a result of the cleaning qualification inspection) meets a predetermined requirement, the cleaning is finished (see ¶ 0040);
when the substrate’s measured cleanliness (i.e., a result of the cleaning qualification inspection) does not meet the predetermined requirement, the substrate cleaning step is repeated (see id.), and the steps (i.e., cleaning then inspection) are repeated in this way until the substrate’s measured cleanliness meets the predetermined requirement (see id.).
A person of ordinary skill in the art would readily appreciate that the cleaning qualification inspection allows for accurate determination of the cleaning’s endpoint, thereby conserving time and resources.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would’ve been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify FURMAN to incorporate a cleaning qualification inspection, with reasonable expectation of monitoring the cleaning’s endpoint. First, given the benefit of accurately determining the endpoint of cleaning (so that time and resources may be conserved), a person of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated to incorporate a cleaning qualification inspection into FURMAN’s method. Second, it’s already known in the prior art to perform cleaning qualification inspection after cleaning has been performed (see QIN). All the claimed elements were known in the prior art, and one skilled in the art could’ve combined them by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421 (2007); MPEP § 2143, A.
In the resulting combination of FURMAN and QIN: after cleaning the substrate, a cleaning qualification inspection would be performed to determine the substrate’s cleanliness; when the substrate’s measured cleanliness (i.e., a result of the cleaning qualification inspection) meets a predetermined requirement, the cleaning is finished; and when the substrate’s measured cleanliness (i.e., a result of the cleaning qualification inspection) does not meet the predetermined requirement, the substrate cleaning step is repeated, and the steps (i.e., cleaning then inspection) are repeated in this way until the substrate’s measured cleanliness meets the predetermined requirement.
The combination of FURMAN and QIN does not explicitly teach that the substrate’s cleanliness (i.e., a result of the cleaning qualification inspection) is judged as qualified or not based on “a diffusion area of the organic reagent on a surface of the liquid metal substrate,” i.e., whether or not “the diffusion area meets a predetermined requirement.”
But such test for substrate cleanliness is already known in the prior art. “Thin Film Physics and Devices” (Nat’l Defense Industry Press, May 2011) teaches a cleaning qualification inspection used to determine the cleanliness of a substrate (see § 4.1.2.3 cleanliness test on pg. 115-17), wherein the substrate’s cleanliness (i.e., a result of the cleaning qualification inspection) is judged as qualified or not based on a diffusion area of an organic reagent (e.g., ethanol) on a surface of the substrate (see “droplet test method” on pg. 116).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would’ve been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination of FURMAN and QIN to incorporate a droplet test method (i.e., diffusion area of an organic reagent on the substrate’s surface) as the cleaning qualification inspection, with reasonable expectation of determining the endpoint of cleaning. It’s already known in the prior art to judge the substrate’s cleanliness (i.e., a result of the cleaning qualification inspection) as qualified or not based on a diffusion area of an organic reagent (e.g., ethanol) on a surface of the substrate (see “Thin Film Physics and Devices”). All the claimed elements were known in the prior art, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 415-421; MPEP § 2143, A.
In the resulting combination of FURMAN, QIN, and “Thin Film Physics and Devices”: The substrate’s cleanliness (i.e., a result of the cleaning qualification inspection) would be judged as qualified or not based on a diffusion area of the organic reagent (e.g., ethanol) on a surface of the liquid metal substrate; when the diffusion area meets a predetermined requirement, the cleaning is finished; and when the diffusion area does not meet the predetermined requirement, the substrate cleaning step is repeated, and the steps (i.e., cleaning then inspection) are repeated in this way until the diffusion area meets the predetermined requirement.
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of FURMAN, QIN, and “Thin Film Physics and Devices” teaches the method of claim 1. The combination teaches wherein the inorganic cleaning reagent is selected from a strong acid solution (e.g., hydrochloric acid, see FURMAN at ¶ 0009) and a weak acid solution (e.g., acetic acid, see id.).
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of FURMAN, QIN, and “Thin Film Physics and Devices” teaches the method of claim 2. The combination teaches wherein the strong acid solution is selected from hydrochloric acid (see FURMAN at ¶ 0009), and/or the weak acid solution is selected from acetic acid (see id.).
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of FURMAN, QIN, and “Thin Film Physics and Devices” teaches the method of claim 1. The combination teaches the organic reagent is selected from an alcohol (see FURMAN at ¶ 0009, isopropanol, methanol, ethanol), a hydrocarbon (see id., xylene), and a ketone (see id., acetone).
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of FURMAN, QIN, and “Thin Film Physics and Devices” teaches the method of claim 1. The combination teaches the organic reagent is selected from one or more of ethanol, methanol, hydrocarbon, acetone (see FURMAN at ¶ 0009).
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of FURMAN, QIN, and “Thin Film Physics and Devices” teaches the method of claim 1. The combination teaches wherein the substrate cleaning method comprising:
Method (1): the plasma cleaning (see FURMAN at ¶ 0009);
and/or, Method (2): the inorganic cleaning reagent cleaning (see id.);
and/or, Method (3): the organic reagent cleaning (see id.).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-3422. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 09:00-17:00 Eastern.
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, KAJ OLSEN can be reached at (571) 272-1344. 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.
/R.Z.Z./Examiner, Art Unit 1714
/KAJ K OLSEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1714
Prosecution Insights