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 .
Status of Claims
The Amendment filed 03/13/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 are currently pending in the application. Claims 1, 9, 12-13, and 18 have been amended. No new claims have been added.
Response to Amendment
35 USC 112(b). The amendments to claims 13 and 18 have overcome the rejection of claims 13-20 under 35 USC 112(b) as being indefinite set forth in the Office Action mailed 12/16/2025. The rejection is withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 03/16/2026 with respect to the rejections of claims 1 under 35 USC 102 as being anticipated by Oh (US 2017/0209960 A1) and claims 13 and 18 under 35 USC 103 as being obvious over Oh (US 2017/0209960 A1) in view of Woo (US 2004/0095575 A1) and have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.
However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Hong (US 2003/0006221 A1 - of record). The rejection of claims 1-20 may be found below.
Claim Interpretation
Functional language is often associated with a "controller" in the claims (see instant claims 14 and 19-20). The specific language associated with the "controller" will determine what subject matter must be given patentable weight.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong (US 2003/0006221 A1 - of record).
Regarding claim 1, Hong teaches an apparatus for dicing a wafer, the apparatus comprising a first laser beam (10) and a second laser beam (20) arranged to irradiate the same lateral face of an IC package (40) which is supported by an X-Y stage (30) (a stage configured to receive a wafer, and move the wafer in a first direction; a plurality of laser heads above the stage along the first direction); the first laser beam (10) is focused onto a first laser focus point on the substrate, the said point being located on the first layer (42) and that laser beam (20) is provided adjacent to laser beam (10) and focused onto a second laser focus point on the substrate, the said second point being offset from the first point in the direction opposite to the direction of motion of the substrate and located on the second layer (44) (wherein the plurality of laser heads are configured to, based on the stage moving the wafer in the first direction, emit a plurality of laser beams onto the wafer along a plurality of cutting lines) (Fig 3-4 and ¶0027-0029).
While Hong discloses an apparatus comprising a plurality of laser heads, Hong does not explicitly disclose wherein the plurality of laser heads are configured to emit a plurality of laser beams onto the wafer along a plurality of cutting lines, the plurality of cutting lines extending in the first direction and each cutting line spaced apart from other cutting lines in a second direction, the second direction perpendicular to the first direction.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the apparatus disclosed in Hong such that the plurality of laser heads are configured to emit a plurality of laser beams onto the wafer along a plurality of cutting lines, the plurality of cutting lines extending in the first direction and each cutting line spaced apart from other cutting lines in a second direction, the second direction perpendicular to the first direction, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention is an obvious matter of design choice and would not have modified the operation of the device. MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C).
Regarding claims 2 and 8, as applied to claim 1, the limitations “wherein a distance in the second direction between optical axes of each of the plurality of laser heads is equal to a distance between each of the plurality of cutting lines” and “the plurality of laser heads are configured to emit the plurality of laser beams to a plurality of depths below a first surface of the wafer, each of the plurality of depths being a different depth” are a recitation of intended use of the claimed plurality of laser heads. A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. MPEP 2114(II). Here, Hong teaches an apparatus which includes all the structural limitations of the claim (Fig 3-4 and ¶0027-0029).
Regarding claim 3, as applied to claim 1, Hong teaches an apparatus further comprising a plurality of laser beam emitters configured to output the plurality of laser beams (Fig 3-4 and ¶0027-0029).
Regarding claim 4, as applied to claim 1, Hong teaches an apparatus further comprising a plurality of laser beam modulators each disposed between a corresponding laser beam emitter of the plurality of laser beam emitters and a corresponding laser head of the plurality of laser heads (Fig 3-5 and ¶0027-0037).
Regarding claims 5-6, as applied to claim 1, Hong teaches an apparatus further comprising a laser beam emitter configured to output a laser beam; a beam splitter configured to split the laser beam into the plurality of laser beams; a laser beam modulator disposed between the laser beam emitter and the beam splitter (Fig 7-8 and ¶0038-0040).
Regarding claim 7, as applied to claim 5, although Hong does not specify an apparatus further comprising a plurality of laser beam modulators disposed between the beam splitter and the plurality of laser heads, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to duplicate the laser beam modulator disposed between the beam splitter and the plurality of laser heads disclosed in Hong, since it has been held that the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced, and since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B).
Regarding claim 9-10, as applied to claim 1, Hong teaches an apparatus further comprising laser head comprising a beam splitter configured to split a corresponding laser beam of the plurality of laser beams into a first split laser beam and a second split laser beam (Fig 7-8 and ¶0038-0040). Hong teaches an apparatus wherein laser heads is configured to, based on the stage moving the wafer in the first direction, transmit the first split laser beam and the second split laser beam into the wafer along different cutting lines of the plurality of cutting lines; wherein each of the plurality of laser heads are configured to transmit the first split laser beam to a first depth from a first surface of the wafer and transmit the second split laser beam to a second depth from the first surface of the wafer, wherein the second depth is different from the first depth (see rejection of claim 1; Fig 3-4 and ¶0027-0029; Fig 7-8 and ¶0038-0040).
Although Hong does not specify an apparatus wherein each of the plurality of laser heads further includes a beam splitter configured to split a corresponding laser beam of the plurality of laser beams into a first split laser beam and a second split laser beam; and each of the plurality of laser heads is configured to, based on the stage moving the wafer in the first direction, transmit the first split laser beam and the second split laser beam into the wafer along different cutting lines of the plurality of cutting lines; wherein each of the plurality of laser heads are configured to transmit the first split laser beam to a first depth from a first surface of the wafer and transmit the second split laser beam to a second depth from the first surface of the wafer, wherein the second depth is different from the first depth, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to duplicate the beam splitter taught by Hong, since it has been held that the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced, and since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong (US 2003/0006221 A1 - of record), as applied to claim 1, and in view of Tamura (US 7968432 B2 - of record; citing US 2007/0202619 A1 as equivalent).
Regarding claim 11, as applied to claim 1, Hong teaches an apparatus wherein the stage is further configured to rotate the wafer by 90 degrees.
However, in the same field of endeavor, dicing apparatus, Tamura teaches a known technique wherein an apparatus comprises a stage configured to rotate a wafer by 90 degrees (Fig 11 and ¶0171-0174).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the apparatus disclosed in Hong by applying the known technique of a stage configured to rotate a wafer by 90 degrees disclosed in Tamura to the apparatus disclosed in Hong with predictable results and resulting in an improved apparatus. MPEP 2143(D).
The limitation “after the stage rotates the wafer by 90 degrees and the stage moves the wafer in the first direction, each of the plurality of laser heads are further configured to emit a respective laser beam of the plurality of laser beams into the wafer along a respective secondary cutting line of a plurality of secondary cutting lines, each of the plurality of secondary cutting lines extending in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction, and each of the plurality of secondary cutting lines being different from each other” are a recitation of intended use of the claimed stage and plurality of laser heads. A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. MPEP 2114(II). Here, Hong in view of Tamura teaches an apparatus which includes all the structural limitations of the claim.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong (US 2003/0006221 A1 - of record), as applied to claim 1, and in view of Hosseini (US 2015/0038313 A1 - of record).
Regarding claim 12, as applied to claim 1, Hong teaches an apparatus wherein each of the plurality of laser heads includes an optical system (Fig 3-8 and ¶0027-0028 and ¶0038-0040).
While Hong discloses an apparatus comprising a plurality of laser heads, Hong does not disclose an apparatus wherein each of the plurality of laser heads include a height sensor configured to generate height data based on a height from a first surface of the wafer to a respective laser head of the plurality of laser heads and a camera configured to generate image data based on an image of the wafer.
However, in the same field of endeavor, dicing wafers, Hosseini teaches the known technique of optical scanning of a beam or a light source across the work piece, where the reflected light is interrogated to measure the distance between the work and the camera; for example, such an embodiment could be implemented as a confocal system; a confocal or similar fast auto focus mechanism may be sufficient to provide accurate street location and die corner edge location relative to LED wafer notch or flat; wherein the z position would be selected to coincide with the desired focus position, plus or minus the wafer curvature offset, as a function of XY and theta positions; wherein the pre-mapped data could then be loaded into the system control computer, and used to drive the real-time auto-focus system in Z with a servo coordinated signal; and wherein such a system could enable autofocus control of approximately +/−50 nm in the position of the geometric focus relative to the surface of the part or stage, while translating the sample relative to the optical beam at high linear speeds (such as up to 1.5 m/s) (a height sensor configured to generate height data based on a height from a first surface of the wafer to a respective laser head of the plurality of laser heads and a camera configured to generate image data based on an image of the wafer) (¶0219-0220).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the apparatus disclosed in Hong by applying the known technique of a height sensor configured to generate height data based on a height from a first surface of the wafer to a respective laser head of the plurality of laser heads and a camera configured to generate image data based on an image of the wafer disclosed in Hosseini to each of the plurality of laser heads disclosed in Hong with predictable results and resulting in an improved apparatus. MPEP 2143(D).
Claim 13 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong (US 2003/0006221 A1 - of record) in view of Hosseini (US 2015/0038313 A1 - of record).
Regarding claim 13, Hong teaches an apparatus for dicing a wafer, the apparatus comprising a first laser beam (10) and a second laser beam (20) arranged to irradiate the same lateral face of an IC package (40) which is supported by an X-Y stage (30) (a stage configured to receive a wafer, and move the wafer in a first direction; a plurality of laser heads along the first direction); wherein the first laser beam (10) is focused onto a first laser focus point on the substrate via optics 1, the said point being located on the first layer (42) and that laser beam (20) is provided adjacent to laser beam (10) and focused onto a second laser focus point on the substrate via optics 2, the said second point being offset from the first point in the direction opposite to the direction of motion of the substrate and located on the second layer (44) (wherein each of the plurality of laser heads including an optical system; wherein the plurality of laser heads are configured to, based on the stage moving the wafer in the first direction, emit a plurality of laser beams onto the wafer along a plurality of cutting lines) (Fig 3-4 and ¶0027-0029).
While Hong discloses an apparatus comprising a plurality of laser heads, Hong does not explicitly disclose wherein the plurality of laser heads are configured to emit a plurality of laser beams onto the wafer along a plurality of cutting lines, the plurality of cutting lines extending in the first direction and each cutting line spaced apart from other cutting lines in a second direction, the second direction perpendicular to the first direction.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the apparatus disclosed in Hong such that the plurality of laser heads are configured to emit a plurality of laser beams onto the wafer along a plurality of cutting lines, the plurality of cutting lines extending in the first direction and each cutting line spaced apart from other cutting lines in a second direction, the second direction perpendicular to the first direction, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention is an obvious matter of design choice and would not have modified the operation of the device. MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C).
While Hong discloses an apparatus comprising a plurality of laser heads, Hong does not disclose an apparatus wherein each of the plurality of laser heads include a height sensor configured to generate height data based on a height from a first surface of the wafer to a respective laser head of the plurality of laser heads and a camera configured to generate image data based on an image of the wafer.
However, in the same field of endeavor, dicing wafers, Hosseini teaches the known technique of optical scanning of a beam or a light source across the work piece, where the reflected light is interrogated to measure the distance between the work and the camera; for example, such an embodiment could be implemented as a confocal system; a confocal or similar fast auto focus mechanism may be sufficient to provide accurate street location and die corner edge location relative to LED wafer notch or flat; wherein the z position would be selected to coincide with the desired focus position, plus or minus the wafer curvature offset, as a function of XY and theta positions; wherein the pre-mapped data could then be loaded into the system control computer, and used to drive the real-time auto-focus system in Z with a servo coordinated signal; and wherein such a system could enable autofocus control of approximately +/−50 nm in the position of the geometric focus relative to the surface of the part or stage, while translating the sample relative to the optical beam at high linear speeds (such as up to 1.5 m/s) (a height sensor configured to generate height data based on a height from a first surface of the wafer to a respective laser head of the plurality of laser heads and a camera configured to generate image data based on an image of the wafer) (¶0219-0220).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the apparatus disclosed in Hong by applying the known technique of a height sensor configured to generate height data based on a height from a first surface of the wafer to a respective laser head of the plurality of laser heads and a camera configured to generate image data based on an image of the wafer disclosed in Hosseini to each of the plurality of laser heads disclosed in Hong with predictable results and resulting in an improved apparatus. MPEP 2143(D).
Regarding claim 15, as applied to claim 13, the limitations “wherein a distance in the second direction between optical axes of each of the plurality of laser heads is equal to a distance between each of the plurality of cutting lines” is a recitation of intended use of the claimed plurality of laser heads. A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. MPEP 2114(II). Here, Hong in view of Hosseini teaches an apparatus which includes all the structural limitations of the claim (Hong, Fig 3-4 and ¶0027-0029).
Regarding claim 16, as applied to claim 13, Hong in view of Hosseini teach an apparatus further comprising a plurality of laser beam emitters configured to output the plurality of laser beams (Hong, Fig 3-4 and ¶0027-0029).
Regarding claim 17, as applied to claim 13, Hong in view of Hosseini teach an apparatus further comprising a laser beam emitter configured to output a laser beam; a beam splitter configured to split the laser beam into the plurality of laser beams (Hong, Fig 7-8 and ¶0038-0040).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong (US 2003/0006221 A1 - of record) in view of Hosseini (US 2015/0038313 A1 - of record), as applied to claim 13, and in further view of Tamura (US 7968432 B2 - of record; citing US 2007/0202619 A1 as equivalent).
Regarding claim 14, as applied to claim 13, Hong in view of Hosseini does not specify an apparatus further comprising at least one controller configured to adjust a distance between the wafer and the plurality of laser heads based on respective height data corresponding to each of the plurality of laser heads, and align the wafer and each of the plurality of laser heads based on the plurality of image data.
However, in the same field of endeavor, dicing apparatus, Tamura teaches the known technique of an apparatus comprising a controller configured to adjust a distance between the wafer and the plurality of laser heads and align the wafer and each of the plurality of laser heads (Fig 11 and ¶0171-0174).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the apparatus disclosed in Hong in view of Hosseini by applying the known technique of an apparatus comprising a controller configured to adjust a distance between the wafer and the plurality of laser heads and align the wafer and each of the plurality of laser heads disclosed in Tamura to the apparatus disclosed in Hong in view of Hosseini such that the controller is configured to move at least one of the plurality of laser heads and the stage based on height data and image data with predictable results and resulting in an improved apparatus. MPEP 2143(D).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong (US 2003/0006221 A1 - of record) in view of Hosseini (US 2015/0038313 A1 - of record).
Regarding claim 18, Hong teaches an apparatus for dicing a wafer, the apparatus comprising a first laser beam (10) and a second laser beam (20) arranged to irradiate the same lateral face of an IC package (40) which is supported by an X-Y stage (30) (a stage configured to receive a wafer, and move the wafer in a first direction; a plurality of laser heads along the first direction); wherein the first laser beam (10) is focused onto a first laser focus point on the substrate via optics 1, the said point being located on the first layer (42) and that laser beam (20) is provided adjacent to laser beam (10) and focused onto a second laser focus point on the substrate via optics 2, the said second point being offset from the first point in the direction opposite to the direction of motion of the substrate and located on the second layer (44) (wherein each of the plurality of laser heads including an optical system; wherein the plurality of laser heads are configured to, based on the stage moving the wafer in the first direction, emit a plurality of laser beams onto the wafer along a plurality of cutting lines) (Fig 3-4 and ¶0027-0029).
While Hong discloses an apparatus comprising a plurality of laser heads, Hong does not explicitly disclose wherein the plurality of laser heads are configured to emit a plurality of laser beams onto the wafer along a plurality of cutting lines, the plurality of cutting lines extending in the first direction and each cutting line spaced apart from other cutting lines in a second direction, the second direction perpendicular to the first direction nor wherein a plurality of optical axes corresponding to the plurality of laser heads respectively encounter different cutting lines among the plurality of cutting lines.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the apparatus disclosed in Hong such that the plurality of laser heads are configured to emit a plurality of laser beams onto the wafer along a plurality of cutting lines, the plurality of cutting lines extending in the first direction and each cutting line spaced apart from other cutting lines in a second direction, the second direction perpendicular to the first direction, and wherein a plurality of optical axes corresponding to the plurality of laser heads respectively encounter different cutting lines among the plurality of cutting lines, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention is an obvious matter of design choice and would not have modified the operation of the device. MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C).
While Hong discloses an apparatus comprising a plurality of laser heads, Hong does not disclose an apparatus wherein each of the plurality of laser heads include a height sensor configured to generate height data based on a height from a first surface of the wafer to a respective laser head of the plurality of laser heads and a camera configured to generate image data based on an image of the wafer.
However, in the same field of endeavor, dicing wafers, Hosseini teaches the known technique of optical scanning of a beam or a light source across the work piece, where the reflected light is interrogated to measure the distance between the work and the camera; for example, such an embodiment could be implemented as a confocal system; a confocal or similar fast auto focus mechanism may be sufficient to provide accurate street location and die corner edge location relative to LED wafer notch or flat; wherein the z position would be selected to coincide with the desired focus position, plus or minus the wafer curvature offset, as a function of XY and theta positions; wherein the pre-mapped data could then be loaded into the system control computer, and used to drive the real-time auto-focus system in Z with a servo coordinated signal; and wherein such a system could enable autofocus control of approximately +/−50 nm in the position of the geometric focus relative to the surface of the part or stage, while translating the sample relative to the optical beam at high linear speeds (such as up to 1.5 m/s) (a height sensor configured to generate height data based on a height from a first surface of the wafer to a respective laser head of the plurality of laser heads and a camera configured to generate image data based on an image of the wafer) (¶0219-0220).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the apparatus disclosed in Hong by applying the known technique of a height sensor configured to generate height data based on a height from a first surface of the wafer to a respective laser head of the plurality of laser heads and a camera configured to generate image data based on an image of the wafer disclosed in Hosseini to each of the plurality of laser heads disclosed in Hong with predictable results and resulting in an improved apparatus. MPEP 2143(D).
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong (US 2003/0006221 A1 - of record) in view of Hosseini (US 2015/0038313 A1 - of record), as applied to claim 18, and in further view of Tamura (US 7968432 B2 - of record; citing US 2007/0202619 A1 as equivalent).
Regarding claims 19-20, as applied to claim 18, Hong in view of Hosseini does not specify an apparatus further comprising a controller configured to move at least one of the plurality of laser heads and the stage in a third direction perpendicular to the first direction and the second direction based on the height data nor a controller configured to move at least one of the plurality of laser heads and the stage in at least one of the first direction and the second direction based on the image data.
However, in the same field of endeavor, dicing apparatus, Tamura teaches the known technique of an apparatus comprising a controller configured to move at least one of the plurality of laser heads and the stage in a third direction perpendicular to the first direction and the second direction and a controller configured to move at least one of the plurality of laser heads and the stage in at least one of the first direction and the second direction (Fig 11 and ¶0171-0174).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the apparatus disclosed in Hong in view of Hosseini by applying the known technique of an apparatus comprising a controller configured to move at least one of the plurality of laser heads and the stage in a third direction perpendicular to the first direction and the second direction and a controller configured to move at least one of the plurality of laser heads and the stage in at least one of the first direction and the second direction disclosed in Tamura to the apparatus disclosed in Hong in view of Hosseini such that the controller configured to move at least one of the plurality of laser heads and the stage based on height data and image data with predictable results and resulting in an improved apparatus. MPEP 2143(D).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JaMel M Nelson whose telephone number is (571)272-8174. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 AM ET - 5:00 PM ET.
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, Galen Hauth can be reached on (571) 270-5516. 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.
/JAMEL M NELSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743
Prosecution Insights