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 .
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: semiconductor device in claim 1 understood to be a thermoelectric device.
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.
Thermoelectric device is not interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) as it is understood to have a specific structure and is an interchangeable term for “Peltier element”, “Peltier device”, or “thermoelectric element”.
Gas and temperature flow rates maps in view of the invention was understood to be obtained from multiple sensors at once (paragraphs 23-24 of the instant specification).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-10, 17-20 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 “the wafer” which is considered indefinite as the claims have not positively recited the presence of a wafer but only a after holder configured to hold a wafer. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is interpreted only as where the spray is intended to be used and not that a wafer is present.
Claim 10 recites “a back side of the wafer” which is considered indefinite as the claims have not positively recited the presence of a wafer but only a after holder configured to hold a wafer. Further, a wafer does not have an inherent front or back side so it is unclear where the back side would be located. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is understood that as long as the sensor can have some form of contact with a side of the wafer.
Claim 17 recites “at least one row of gas nozzles” which is considered indefinite. The claims have not required a row of nozzles and the array being in a semi-circular pattern does not inherently require the presence of a semi-circular pattern rendering the limitation unclear what is required of the invention. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is understood that there is a row of nozzles.
Claims 2-9, 18-20 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected claim.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-2, 5-7 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-10 of U.S. Patent No. 12033873 in view of Oda et al. (US PG Pub 20010038988), hereinafter referred to as Oda.
With respect to claim 1 of the present claims, the allowed claims do not teach “a second semiconductor device stacked over the first semiconductor device; and a gas inlet disposed between he first and second semiconductor devices and configured to supply the gas to the thermal system”.
Oda teaches (Figure 17) that to control the temperature of a gas supply (163) passed to a manifold (M) (paragraph 96) which provide gas to cool the wafer (paragraph 91-92) where two Peltier elements can be provided one on the top and one on the bottom of a container used to cool the gas passing into the manifold (paragraphs 95-97).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed top have in the allowed claims had a Peltier element (a semiconductor device) above and below the pipe which carries the gas being controlled since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby having Peltier elements on multiple sides of the flowpath would provide what would be common knowledge in the art of a more uniform temperature by not heating only one side to heat all of it. The part of the gas flowpath upstream of the two elements would be the inlet.
In view of the modification to the allowed claim 1 above, the remaining claims are rejected as such:
Allowed claim present claim
1 2
8 5
9 6
1 7
Claims 11, 16-17, 19 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 11-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12033873. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the allowed claims encompass the present claims as follows:
Allowed claim Present claim
11 11
12 11
13 16
13 17
17 17
19 19
Claims 1-2, 7-10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 11560993 in view of Oda et al. (US PG Pub 20010038988), hereinafter referred to as Oda.
With respect to claim 1 of the present claims, the allowed claim 1 does not teach the temperature control device being a semiconductor device. “a second semiconductor device stacked over the first semiconductor device; and a gas inlet disposed between he first and second semiconductor devices and configured to supply the gas to the thermal system”.
Oda teaches (Figure 17) that to control the temperature of a gas supply (163) passed to a manifold (M) (paragraph 96) which provide gas to cool the wafer (paragraph 91-92) where two Peltier elements can be provided one on the top and one on the bottom of a container used to cool the gas passing into the manifold (paragraphs 95-97).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed top have in the allowed claims had the temperature control device be a Peltier element and to have had a Peltier element above and below the pipe which carries the gas being controlled since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby having Peltier elements on multiple sides of the flowpath would provide what would be common knowledge in the art of a more uniform temperature by not heating only one side to heat all of it. The part of the gas flowpath upstream of the two elements would be the inlet, and having two Peltier elements would be a first and second semiconductor as in the present claims.
In view of the modification to the allowed claim 1 above, the remaining claims are rejected as such:
Allowed claim Present claim
1 2
1 7
6 10
With respect to claim 1 of the present claims, the allowed claim 8 does not teach the temperature control device being a semiconductor device. “a second semiconductor device stacked over the first semiconductor device; and a gas inlet disposed between he first and second semiconductor devices and configured to supply the gas to the thermal system”.
Oda teaches (Figure 17) that to control the temperature of a gas supply (163) passed to a manifold (M) (paragraph 96) which provide gas to cool the wafer (paragraph 91-92) where two Peltier elements can be provided one on the top and one on the bottom of a container used to cool the gas passing into the manifold (paragraphs 95-97).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed top have in the allowed claims had the temperature control device be a Peltier element (a semiconductor device) and to have had a Peltier element above and below the pipe which carries the gas being controlled since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby having Peltier elements on multiple sides of the flowpath would provide what would be common knowledge in the art of a more uniform temperature by not heating only one side to heat all of it. The part of the gas flowpath upstream of the two elements would be the inlet, and having two Peltier elements would be a first and second semiconductor as in the present claims.
In view of the modification to the allowed claim 8 above, the remaining claims are rejected as such:
Allowed claim Present claim
8 8
8 9
With respect to claim 1 of the present claims, the allowed claim 16 does not teach the temperature control device being a semiconductor device. “a second semiconductor device stacked over the first semiconductor device; and a gas inlet disposed between he first and second semiconductor devices and configured to supply the gas to the thermal system”.
Oda teaches (Figure 17) that to control the temperature of a gas supply (163) passed to a manifold (M) (paragraph 96) which provide gas to cool the wafer (paragraph 91-92) where two Peltier elements can be provided one on the top and one on the bottom of a container used to cool the gas passing into the manifold (paragraphs 95-97).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed top have in the allowed claims had the temperature control device be a Peltier element (a semiconductor device) and to have had a Peltier element above and below the pipe which carries the gas being controlled since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby having Peltier elements on multiple sides of the flowpath would provide what would be common knowledge in the art of a more uniform temperature by not heating only one side to heat all of it. The part of the gas flowpath upstream of the two elements would be the inlet, and having two Peltier elements would be a first and second semiconductor as in the present claims.
In view of the modification to the allowed claim 1 above, the remaining claims are rejected as such:
Allowed claim Present claim
1 2
1 7
6 10
Claims 11, 13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 16-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11560993. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the allowed claims encompass the present claims as follows:
Allowed claim Present claim
16 11
16 13
16 17
13 17
17 17
Claims 3-4 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11560993 as modified by Oda and further in view of Albayrak et al. (US PG Pub 20090049843), hereinafter referred to as Albayrak.
With respect to claims 3-4 the allowed claim as modified does not teach wherein the thermal system further comprises: a third semiconductor device adjacent to the first semiconductor device; a fourth semiconductor device stacked over the third semiconductor device; and a gas outlet disposed between the third and fourth semiconductor devices and configured to supply the gas to the array of gas nozzles wherein the gas outlet is in contact with a top surface of the third semiconductor device and with a bottom surface of the fourth semiconductor device.
Albayrak teahces that along a pathway for heat transfer multiple Peltier elements can be disposed (paragraphs 22, Figure 1).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have two sets of devices as in claim 1 as modified formed as a third and fourth semiconductor stacked over the flowpath of the allowed claim based on the teaching of Albayrak (this would effectively have two of the configuration as shown in Oda side by side) since it has been shown that a duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new an unexpected result is produced, whereby having twice as many devices where the second set is in series downstream of the first set would be obvious whereby providing two sets of devices would allow for additional cooling or heating input from the devices increasing the overall capacity for cooling and heating as compared to only two. The second set of devices would be in contact with the gas outlet as the gas outlet would be thermally connected to where the flowpath leaves passing through the Peltier elements.
Claims 12 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 8-15 of U.S. Patent No. 11560993 and further in view of Sawatani (JP2004006717A), hereinafter referred to as Sawatani.
With respect to claim 12, the allowed claim 8 can be said to teach the entirety of the present claims but does not teach that the gas diffuser comprises diffuser rods with circular cross-sectional profiles along the horizontal plane.
Sawatani teaches (paragraph 97) that a manifold can have different shapes including a circular shape.
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention as filed to have had the diffuser rods (which are manifolds) in the allowed claims to have based on Sawatani have had a circular cross section since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby when considering the shape of the diffuser rods it would be common knowledge in the art to have chosen from a known shape to provide a suitable shape for allowing the flow through it as needed.
Claims 14 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 8-15 of U.S. Patent No. 11560993 and further in view of Kersey et al. (US PG Pub 20070242121), hereinafter referred to as Kersey.
With respect to claim 14, the allowed claim 8 does not teach a control system coupled to the gas diffuser and configured to detect a clogged nozzle in the vertically-stacked row of gas nozzles.
Kersey teaches that a sensor can be provided to determine whether nozzles are clogged and based on the determination send signals to a controller (paragraph 40).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention as filed to have based on the teaching of Kersey to have in the allowed claim 8 to have provided a controller that is able to detect if any of the nozzles are clogged since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby it would be common knowledge in the art that by being able to determine if a nozzle is clogged, any problems causing or caused by the clogging be addressed.
Claims 15 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 8-15 of U.S. Patent No. 11560993 and further in view of Przilas et al. (US Patent No .5907473), hereinafter referred to as Przilas.
With respect to claim 15, the allowed claim 8 does not teach the vertically-stacked rows of gas nozzles have spray angles different from each other.
Przilas teaches that when multiple nozzles are used together they can be positioned at different angles relative to one another to vary the distribution of spray (Column 7, lines 15-19).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention as filed for the nozzles of the claimed invention to have been at different angles relative to one another since it has been shown that combining prior art to yield predictable results is obvious whereby having the nozzles at different angles would provide what is common knowledge in the art that by providing the nozzles at different angles would ensure better distribution of the coolant and possibly aide in preventing hot spots.
Claims 18 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 8-15 of U.S. Patent No. 11560993 and further in view of Zurecki (US PG Pub 2008008337359), hereinafter referred to as Zurecki.
The allowed claim 8 does not teach wherein adjusting the temperature comprises: generating a temperature map for each wafer; and changing the temperature of the gas based on the temperature map for each wafer.
Zurecki teaches that a workpiece surface can be altered by a thermal treatment and multiple temperatures at a plurality of locations on the surface of the workpiece can be monitored and based an average temperature a controllable condition can be changed if not between the preselected values (abstract). Zurecki teaches that a heating means or cooling means can be controllable to maintain the temperature or controlling the flowrate of the coolant (paragraphs 66 and 68).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have based on the teaching of Zurecki to have in the allowed claims based on measurements of different parts of the wafers to have determined average temperatures of the wafers and provided additional heating if needed (which would be heating of the gas as that is the heating or cooling mechanism) since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby providing measurements of temperature at different points and then adjusting the heating applied to the wafers (which in this case is by adjusting a temperature of the gas) would be common knowledge in the art to ensure that the proper temperature was applied. Providing measuring temperatures of different parts of the wafers would qualify as a heat map, and as there are multiple wafers applying this limitation would be understood to be obvious to apply to each wafer as there are multiple wafers present.
Claims 20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 8-15 of U.S. Patent No. 11560993 and further in view of Schober et al. (US PG Pub 20170372930), hereinafter referred to as Schober and Zurecki.
The allowed claim 8 does not teach wherein adjusting the temperature comprises: generating a gas flow rate map for each wafer; and changing the flow rate of the of the gas based on the gas flow rate map for each wafer.
Schober teaches that a substrate holder can include flow sensors and control sources can be used to control air flow (paragraph 83) that the gas provided to the substrate holder can be used for cooling (paragraph 94).
Therefore it would have been obvious to have included on the wafers of the allowed claim 8 based the teaching of Schober flow sensors since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby providing said sensors would allow for the measurement of the incoming gas flow and ensure that the wafers are cooled properly. Further, while the use of a gas flow rate map is not taught by the modification, as understood in view of the invention, a flow rate map is understood to be when there are more than one sensor providing information and as such having multiple sensors positioned on each wafer would just provide for additional measurements to provide more information, which would be an expected result and it has been held that a mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result it produced (MPEP 2144.04 VI B).
Zurecki teaches that coolant flow rate can be controllable (paragraph 68) and that in response to sensors controllable conditions can be adjusted (abstract).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have in the allowed claim 8 as modified to have in response to measurements form the flow rate sensors to have adjusted the flow rate of the gas being dispensed the wafers since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby providing flow rate response to the sensors would provide what is common knowledge in the art in ensuring the proper cooling was provided to the wafers.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if the rejections for double patenting as well as the rejections to claims 1-10 and 17-20 under 35 USC 112(b) were resolved.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the claims contain the same or substantially similar allowable subject matter as US patents 11569099 and 12033873 from which this application is a continuation of as well and to which the double patenting rejections are drawn from as well as US Patent 10872789. The closet prior art is Tada (US PG Pub 20120043062) and Oda, which was used in the rejection of similar claims in application 18148878 (now the US Patent 12033873 listed above) in the office action dated 6/29/2023 which shows that Tada teaches a wafer holder with a wafer (cooling stage 52 with wafer in center paragraphs 46-47) with an array of gas nozzles to spray a gas on the wafer (showerhead 54 with gas injection holes 52a, paragraph 46 which injection holes can be considered nozzles). While the showerhead nozzles can be considered to exist in a semi-circle pattern, as some of the nozzles within the circular showerhead should result in being in a semi-circular pattern, they are above the wafer and not in a configuration around the wafer (see Figure 2 of the instant specification drawings where the diffuser 140 is around the wafers 240).The additional teaching of having a semiconductor device and in particular two semiconductor devices can be shown as in the double patenting rejection above to be taught by Oda, where Oda teaches (Figure 17) that to control the temperature of a gas supply (163) passed to a manifold (M) (paragraph 96) which provide gas to cool the wafer (paragraph 91-92) where two Peltier elements can be provided one on the top and one on the bottom of a container used to cool the gas passing into the manifold (paragraphs 95-97). These references do not provide any teaching of the semi-circular configuration of the nozzles being placed around the wafer holder as claimed in claim 1, with similar limitations found for the vertically stacked nozzles in claim 11 and clam 17, both claims of which are seen to be entirely encompassed by claims of the allowed patent 12033873 and contain the same allowable subject matter. Cole et al. (US PG Pub 20020163782) provides a similar teaching to that of Tada but lacks the same teachings as Tada with respect to the claim language.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN M KING whose telephone number is (571)272-2816. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 0800-1700.
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, Frantz Jules can be reached at 5712726681. 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.
/BRIAN M KING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights