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
Acknowledgement is made that the instant application is a continuation of application PCT/EP2022/082902, filed on 11/23/2022, which claims priority from DE102021214366, filed on 12/15/2021.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 22 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 6, “configured set” should be changed to --configured to set-- to correct the missing word.
Claim 22, line 3, “T2” should be changed to --a temperature T2-- to properly introduce “T2.”
Appropriate correction is required to place claims in better form.
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: “a measurement device” in lines 4-5 in claim 1; “a temperature controller” in lines 6-7 in claim 1.
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 4, the limitation “wherein the temperature controller for passively setting a temperature T1 of the optical measurement surface differently, in particular, lower compared with a temperature T2 of the optical used surface owing to different heat capacities of the at least one first optical element and of the at least one second optical element” includes the phrase “in particular” in line 2 and is vague and indefinite. The phrase “in particular” renders the limitation indefinite because it is unclear if the claim language requires the temperature T1 of the optical measurement surface to be configured strictly lower than the temperature T2 of the optical used surface, or if the lower temperature is an example of the temperature T1, or if the claim language merely requires the temperature T1 to be controlled to be different from the temperature T2. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claimed invention are unclear. For the purposes of examination, the limitation is being interpreted as meaning wherein the temperature controller for passively setting a temperature T1 of the optical measurement surface lower compared with a temperature T2 of the optical used surface owing to different heat capacities of the at least one first optical element and of the at least one second optical element. Thus, claim 4 is rejected as being indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7, 14, 15, 17, 19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kraus et al. (US PGPub 2010/0045948, Kraus hereinafter).
Regarding claim 1, Kraus discloses a mirror module for a projection exposure apparatus (Figs. 1-3, paras. [0027]-[0032], [0039]-[0043], the EUV lithography apparatus 1 includes mirrors), comprising:
an optical used surface (Figs. 1-3, paras. [0027], [0033]-[0036], [0039]-[0041], mirror element 6 includes multilayer system 32 with an EUV reflective optical surface 6a that reflects EUV light in the beam path 16),
an optical measurement surface (Figs. 1-3, paras. [0032]-[0034], [0038]-[0047], EUV-reflective surface 6b on multilayer system 32a is measured in reflectometer 20),
a measurement device configured to determine a degradation state of the optical measurement surface (Figs. 1-3, paras. [0032]-[0034], [0038]-[0047], reflectometer 20 includes a detection unit 26 and measures contamination formed on the surface 6b), and
a temperature controller configured set a temperature of the optical measurement surface lower than a temperature of the optical used surface (Figs. 1-3, paras. [0016]-[0017], [0038]-[0042], a temperature adjusting unit 33 cools the optical surface 6b relative to the surface 6a).
Regarding claim 3, Kraus discloses wherein the mirror module comprises at least one first optical element with the optical used surface and at least one second optical element with the optical measurement surface (Figs. 1-3, paras. [0032]-[0034], [0038]-[0047], the optical surface 6a is on a mirror element 6, and optical surface 6b is arranged on multilayer system 32a).
Regarding claim 4, as best understood, Kraus discloses wherein the temperature controller for passively setting a temperature T1 of the optical measurement surface differently, in particular, lower compared with a temperature T2 of the optical used surface owing to different heat capacities of the at least one first optical element and of the at least one second optical element (Fig. 2, paras. [0038]-[0041], the optical surface 6b is controlled to be cooled compared to optical surface 6a using a thermally insulating layer 34 arranged in the substrate 31).
Regarding claim 5, Kraus discloses wherein the at least one second optical element is arranged separated from the at least one first optical element (Figs. 1-3, paras. [0032]-[0034], [0038]-[0047], the optical surface 6a is on a mirror element 6, and optical surface 6b is arranged on a separate element (see at least para. [0042])).
Regarding claim 7, Kraus discloses wherein the at least one first optical element comprises a plurality of used facets (Figs. 1-3, paras. [0028], [0033]-[0034], [0038]-[0047], the EUV-reflective optical surface 6a is part of a mirror 6 with pupil raster elements).
Regarding claim 14, Kraus discloses wherein the measurement device is configured such that it determines the degradation state based on a reflectivity value, phase value or polarization value (Figs. 1-3, paras. [0032]-[0042], [0047], detection unit 26 in reflectometer 20 detects the intensity of reflected light from optical surface 6b).
Regarding claim 15, Kraus discloses an illumination system for a projection exposure apparatus, comprising a mirror module according to claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection above, Figs. 1-3, paras. [0027]-[0028], [0032]-[0037], [0039]-[0042], [0047], the illumination system 3 includes reflective optical element 6 and reflectometer 20).
Regarding claim 17, Kraus discloses a projection exposure apparatus comprising an illumination system according to claim 15 (see claim 15 rejection above, Figs. 1-3, paras. [0027]-[0028], [0032]-[0037], [0039]-[0042], [0047], the EUV lithography apparatus 1 includes an illumination system 3 including optical element 6 with the reflectometer).
Regarding claim 19, Kraus discloses a method for avoiding a degradation of an optical used surface of a mirror module for a projection exposure apparatus, wherein a degradation value of an optical measurement surface of the mirror module is determined (Figs. 1-3, paras. [0013], [0027]-[0032], [0033]-[0037], [0039]-[0045], the EUV lithography apparatus 1 includes mirrors and a reflectometer 20 measures the change in intensity of reflected light owing to contamination formed on an optical surface 6b. The illumination system includes mirror element 6 includes multilayer system 32 with an EUV reflective optical surface 6a that reflects EUV light in the beam path 16), the method comprising:
setting a temperature difference between the optical measurement surface and the optical used surface such that a temperature of the optical measurement surface is lower than a temperature of the optical used surface (Figs. 1-3, paras. [0016]-[0017], [0038]-[0042], a temperature adjusting unit 33 cools the optical surface 6b relative to the surface 6a); and
determining the degradation value of the optical measurement surface based on a change in optical properties of the optical measurement surface (Figs. 1-3, paras. [0032]-[0047], reflectometer 20 determines contamination status of contamination formed on the optical surface 6b using detection unit 26 to detect the intensity of reflected light).
Regarding claim 21, Kraus discloses further comprising performing at least one measure for reducing the degradation of the optical used surface when the determined degradation value deviates from threshold degradation value (Figs. 1-3, paras. [0013], [0020], [0037]-[0047], the contamination status measured by reflectometer 20 is used as input for the cleaning arrangement 27 to apply cleaning gas to optical surface 6a when the contamination and actual thickness of the contamination is unacceptable according to a feedback signal).
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.
Claims 2 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kraus as applied to claims 1 and 19 above, and further in view of Hauf (US PGPub 2016/0041480)
Regarding claim 2, although Kraus discloses wherein the temperature of the optical measurement surface is lower than the temperature of the optical used surface (Figs. 1-3, paras. [0016]-[0017], [0038]-[0042], a temperature adjusting unit 33 cools the optical surface 6b relative to the surface 6a), Kraus does not appear to explicitly describe wherein the temperature of the optical measurement surface is at least 0.5 K lower than the temperature of the optical used surface.
Hauf discloses wherein the temperature of the optical surface is at least 0.5 K lower than the temperature of the optical used surface (Figs. 1-2, paras. [0048]-[0050], the region remote from the optically effective surface is set to be at a temperature of greater than 0.5 K (for example, -15°C) less than the temperature of the optically effective surface 101 at 30°C).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included wherein the temperature of the optical surface is at least 0.5 K lower than the temperature of the optical used surface as taught by Hauf as the temperature of the optical measurement surface in the mirror module as taught by Kraus since including the temperature of the optical measurement surface is at least 0.5 K lower than the temperature of the optical used surface is commonly used to control the temperature in the mirror module as desired when a portion of the mirror is irradiated with exposure radiation (Hauf, para. [0049]).
Regarding claim 20, Kraus discloses wherein setting the temperature difference comprises setting a temperature difference (Figs. 1-3, paras. [0016]-[0017], [0038]-[0042], a temperature adjusting unit 33 cools the optical surface 6b relative to the surface 6a), but Kraus does not appear to explicitly describe wherein setting the temperature difference comprises setting a temperature difference of at least 0.5 K.
Hauf discloses setting the temperature difference comprises setting a temperature difference of at least 0.5 K (Figs. 1-2, paras. [0048]-[0050], the region remote from the optically effective surface is set to be at a temperature of greater than 0.5 K (for example, -15°C) less than the temperature of the optically effective surface 101 at 30°C).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included wherein setting the temperature difference comprises setting a temperature difference of at least 0.5 K as taught by Hauf as the temperature difference between the optical measurement surface and the optical used surface in the method as taught by Kraus since including wherein setting the temperature difference comprises setting a temperature difference of at least 0.5 K is commonly used to control the temperature in the mirror module as desired when a portion of the mirror is irradiated with exposure radiation (Hauf, para. [0049]).
Claims 6, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kraus as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Ehm et al. (US PGPub 2008/0315134, Ehm hereinafter).
Regarding claim 6, Kraus discloses wherein the at least one second optical element is arranged on a separate holder (Figs. 1-3, para. [0042], the optical surface can be arranged on a separate holder, such as an aperture stop), but Kraus does not appear to explicitly describe wherein the at least one second optical element is exchangeable.
Ehm discloses wherein the at least one second optical element is exchangeable (Figs. 1-3, paras. [0041], [0044]-[0048], [0051], the sample elements 21a to 21d on aperture stop 20 are exchanged).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included wherein the at least one second optical element is exchangeable as taught by Ehm in the mirror module as taught by Kraus since including wherein the at least one second optical element is exchangeable is commonly used to adapt to the imaging conditions of the lithography apparatus without necessitating fully venting the vacuum system (Ehm, paras. [0047]-[0048]).
Regarding claim 8, Kraus does not appear to explicitly describe wherein the at least one second optical element comprises a plurality of measurement facets.
Ehm discloses wherein the at least one second optical element comprises a plurality of measurement facets (Figs. 1-3, paras. [0039], [0041], [0044]-[0048], [0051]-[0052], the sample elements 21a to 21d, 31a to 31d are measured).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included wherein the at least one second optical element comprises a plurality of measurement facets as taught by Ehm in the mirror module as taught by Kraus since including wherein the at least one second optical element comprises a plurality of measurement facets is commonly used to accurately determine contamination of optical surfaces in multiple locations of the illumination system during the exposure process (Ehm, paras. [0007]-[0008], [0024]).
Regarding claim 9, Kraus does not appear to explicitly describe wherein each measurement facet is assigned a separate measurement apparatus.
Ehm discloses wherein each measurement facet is assigned a separate measurement apparatus (Fig. 3, paras. [0051]-[0052], each sample element 31a to 31d has a corresponding detection unit 37 (see 37a, 37b, for example, in Fig. 3b).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included wherein each measurement facet is assigned a separate measurement apparatus as taught by Ehm in the mirror module as taught by Kraus since including wherein each measurement facet is assigned a separate measurement apparatus is commonly used to quickly perform online inspection of the contamination during exposure (Ehm, para. [0052]) in multiple locations of the illumination system.
Claims 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kraus as modified by Ehm as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Bach et al. (US PGPub 2011/0181850, Bach hereinafter).
Regarding claim 10, Kraus as modified by Ehm does not appear to explicitly describe wherein the temperature controller is configured to set different temperatures on different measurement facets.
Bach discloses the temperature controller is configured to set different temperatures on different facets (Figs. 1, 2, 3, 5, 8-12, 14, paras. [0056], [0058], [0074], [0091]-[0092], [0095]-[0097], [0102]-[0103], [0120]-[0123], the mirror elements are heated by heating members 114 or temperature controlled by Peltier elements 130 individually driven by temperature control device 90 such the different elements have different temperatures).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the temperature controller is configured to set different temperatures on different facets as taught by Bach for the measurement facets in the mirror module as taught by Kraus as modified by Ehm since including wherein the temperature controller is configured to set different temperatures on different measurement facets is commonly used to obtain the desired curvature and deformation of the mirror to prevent optical aberrations (Bach, paras. [0016]-[0017], [0022]-[0023], [0028]-[0029], [0123]).
Regarding claim 11, Kraus as modified by Ehm in view of Bach discloses wherein the temperature controller comprises at least one first temperature controller configured to set a first temperature T1 of the optical measurement surface (Kraus, Figs. 1-3, paras. [0016]-[0017], [0038]-[0042], a temperature adjusting unit 33 cools the optical surface 6b relative to the surface 6a, and as modified by Bach, Figs. 1, 2, 3, 5, 8-12, 14, paras. [0056], [0058], [0074], [0091]-[0092], [0095]-[0097], [0102]-[0103], [0120]-[0123], temperature control device 90 includes heating members 114 or Peltier elements 130 to control the temperatures for mirror elements such the different elements have different temperatures).
Regarding claim 12, Kraus as modified by Ehm in view of Bach discloses wherein the temperature controller comprises at least one second temperature controller configured to set a second temperature T2 of the optical used surface (Kraus, Figs. 1-3, paras. [0027], [0033]-[0036], [0039]-[0041], mirror element 6 includes multilayer system 32 with an EUV reflective optical surface 6a, and as modified by Bach, Figs. 1, 2, 3, 5, 8-12, 14, paras. [0056], [0058], [0073]-[0075], [0091]-[0092], [0095]-[0097], [0102]-[0103], [0120]-[0123], temperature control device 90 includes heating members 114 or Peltier elements 130 to control the temperatures for mirror elements such the different elements have different temperatures).
Regarding claim 13, Kraus as modified by Ehm in view of Bach discloses wherein the at least one first temperature controller and/or the at least one second temperature controller is designed as a fluid heater, Peltier element, radiant heater or electrical resistance heater (Kraus, Fig. 2, para. [0041], the temperature adjusting unit 33 is a Peltier element, and as modified by Bach, Figs. 1, 2, 3, 5, 8-12, 14, paras. [0056], [0058], [0073]-[0075], [0091]-[0092], [0095]-[0097], [0102]-[0103], [0120]-[0123], temperature control device 90 includes heating members 114 formed by patterns of electrically conductive resistance wires or Peltier elements 130).
Claims 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kraus as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kurt et al. (US PGPub 2004/0227102, Kurt hereinafter).
Regarding claim 16, although Kraus discloses a mirror module according to claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection above, Figs. 1-3, paras. [0027]-[0028], [0032]-[0037], [0039]-[0042], [0047]) and discloses a projection lens for a projection exposure apparats (Fig. 1, paras. [0027]-[0029], the lithography apparatus 1 includes a projection system 4), Kraus does not appear to explicitly describe the projection lens for a projection exposure apparatus, comprising the mirror module.
Kurt discloses a projection lens for a projection exposure apparatus, comprising a mirror module (Figs. 1-10, paras. [0035], [0044]-[0053], the lithographic projection apparatus 1 includes a measurement device that monitors a surface in the projection optical system PL).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included a projection lens for a projection exposure apparatus, comprising a mirror module as taught by Kurt with the mirror module as taught by Kraus since including a projection lens for a projection exposure apparatus, comprising a mirror module is commonly used to detect and determine the properties of contamination formed on components of the projection system and direct cleaning of optical surface if necessary (Kurt, paras. [0016]-[0020], [0052]).
Regarding claim 18, Kraus as modified by Kurt discloses a projection exposure apparatus comprising a projection lens according to claim 16 (see claim 16 rejection above, Kraus, Fig. 1, paras. [0027]-[0029], the lithography apparatus 1 includes a projection system 4, and as modified by Kurt, Figs. 1-10, paras. [0035], [0044]-[0053], the lithographic projection apparatus 1 includes a measurement device that monitors a surface in the projection optical system PL).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kraus as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Miyake (US PGPub 2003/0142410).
Regarding claim 22, Kraus does not appear to explicitly describe wherein the at least one measure performed comprises one or more of an increase in the temperature of the optical measurement surface and/or T2 of the optical used surface; a change in a purge gas atmosphere; or a partial or complete reduction in a power of EUV radiation used for imaging.
Miyake discloses wherein the at least one measure performed comprises one or more of an increase in the temperature of the optical measurement surface and/or T2 of the optical used surface; a change in a purge gas atmosphere; or a partial or complete reduction in a power of EUV radiation used for imaging (Fig. 1, 5, paras. [0060], [0063]-[0065], [0067], [0073]-[0077], controller 151 reduces the amount of light by suppressing some of the pulsed light emission in the EUV light source when the amount of light measured by intensity detector 202 is excessive).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included wherein the at least one measure performed comprises one or more of an increase in the temperature of the optical measurement surface and/or T2 of the optical used surface; a change in a purge gas atmosphere; or a partial or complete reduction in a power of EUV radiation used for imaging as taught by Miyake as the measure performed in the method as taught by Kraus since including wherein the at least one measure performed comprises one or more of an increase in the temperature of the optical measurement surface and/or T2 of the optical used surface; a change in a purge gas atmosphere; or a partial or complete reduction in a power of EUV radiation used for imaging is commonly used to improve the uniformity of the exposure amount to provide a constant amount of EUV radiation to expose resist to form stable circuit pattern exposure while precisely determining the necessity for exchanging system parts (Miyake, paras. [0014], [0026]-[0027], [0073]-[0075]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINA A. RIDDLE whose telephone number is (571)270-7538. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 6:30AM-5PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Minh-Toan Ton can be reached at (571)272-2303. 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.
/CHRISTINA A RIDDLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2882