Detailed Correspondence
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-18, drawn to a substrate processing apparatus, classified in CPC H10P 72/7621.
II. Claims 19-21, drawn to a rotation state detection method and a computer-readable medium storing a program, classified in H10P 72/0616.
The inventions are distinct, each from the other because of the following reasons:
Inventions II and I are related as process and apparatus for its practice. The inventions are distinct if it can be shown that either: (1) the process as claimed can be practiced by another and materially different apparatus or by hand, or (2) the apparatus as claimed can be used to practice another and materially different process. (MPEP § 806.05(e)). In this case, the apparatus can be used to practice by another and materially different process, such as cleaning the chamber.
This application contains claims directed to the following patentably distinct species of the claimed invention of contact/separation mechanism:
1) Figs. 3-4, or
2) Figs. 5-6, or
3) Figs. 7-8.
Currently, Claims 1-2, and 6-18 are considered generic.
The species are independent or distinct because they are mutually exclusive, as only one of the contact/separation mechanism is used in the invention. Applicant is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 to elect a single disclosed species, even though this requirement is traversed. Applicant is advised that a reply to this requirement must include an identification of the species that is elected consonant with this requirement, and a listing of all claims readable thereon, including any claims subsequently added. An argument that a claim is allowable or that all claims are generic is considered nonresponsive unless accompanied by an election.
Upon the allowance of a generic claim, applicant will be entitled to consideration of claims to additional species which depend from or otherwise require all the limitations of an allowable generic claim as provided by 37 CFR 1.141. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which are readable upon the elected species. MPEP § 809.02(a).
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all these inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
(a) the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification;
(b) the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter;
(c) the inventions require a different field of search (for example, searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries);
(d) the prior art applicable to one invention would not likely be applicable to another invention;
(e) the inventions are likely to raise different non-prior art issues under 35 U.S.C. 101 and/or 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable on the elected invention.
If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancellation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be amended in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(b) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. Any amendment of inventorship must be accompanied by a request under 37 CFR 1.48(b) and by the fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
A phone call to Applicants’ representative Patrick Finan on 07/24/2026, Applicants elected Apparatus claims, and Species 1), Figs. 3-4. Applicants identified claims 1-4 and 7-18 read into the elected Species 1).
Claim Interpretations
The “wherein the detector comprises a sensor configured to detect a position of an edge of the rotating structure” of claim 3, “an edge“ is considered as an edge region. In case Applicants’ argue that it has to be exactly the side surface of the edge, it is noticed that the sensor (such as light) is not exactly mathematically point source. As long as the light beam cover the side surface of the edge, it is detecting the side surface of the edge.
This “the detector is further configured to detect a change in a power supplied to the electric motor” of claim 8, Applicants’ Specification describes “when the detector is configured to detect the change in the power supplied to the electric motor, it is possible to reliably detect the rotational fluctuation when the substrate placing plate 318 is rotated” ([0125]), therefore, claim 8 includes detecting rotational fluctuation and the operator infers that as the change in a power supplied to the electrical motor.
Based on Applicants’ Specification, the detector of claim 8 is 319f (Fig. 2) but the detector of claim 3 is sensor 361 (Fig. 3). Seems there is no overlap in claim 8 and 3, it does not raises 112(a) or 112(b) issue. However, the claim is examined broader than this interpretation.
The “the detector is further configured to detect the rotation state of the substrate support before the substrate processing apparatus is started up“ of claim 14, is considered an intended use of the apparatus. A detector that is capable of performing detection of the rotation state before the start up is considered read into the claim.
The “wherein the detector is further configured to detect the rotation state of the substrate support with the gas being supplied through the gas supplier” of claim 16 and “wherein the gas supplier is further configured to supply the gas into the process chamber when the detector detects the rotation state of the substrate support such that a pressure in the process chamber reaches a pressure at which the plurality of substrates are processed in the process chamber” of claim 17 is also considered an intended use of the apparatus.
It has been held that claim language that simply specifies an intended use or field of use for the invention generally will not limit the scope of a claim (Walter, 618 F.2d at 769, 205 USPQ at 409; MPEP 2106). Additionally, in apparatus claims, intended use must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim (In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); MPEP2111.02). When the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent (In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977); MPEP 2112.01).
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 1-4 and 7-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “a detector configured to detect a rotation state of the substrate support”, it is not clear the metes and bounds of “rotation state”, see the following issue with claim 2.
Claim 2 recites “wherein the detector is further configured to detect a presence or absence of an abnormality in a state of the rotating structure”, it is not clear what exactly is considered abnormality.
The examiner notices Applicants’ Specification includes “the tilt of the rotation axis thereof “ ([0104]), “a variation in the distance from the heater 380 due to the tilt of the rotation axis thereof or the bending of the substrate placing plate 318” ([0106]), “the rotational fluctuation due to a motor trouble” ([0107]), “the defect in the bearing or the eccentricity of the rotation axis” ([0108]), the bending of the substrate placing plate 318 occurs is detected, or a case where the abnormality in which the distance between the substrate placing plate 318 and the heater 380 goes beyond the allowable range” ([0121]), “processing quality of each of the substrates” ([0132]). Note the bending and tilting being a substrate property, seems not exactly due to rotation state. However, there are numerous other states of rotation structure, such as the orientation of the wafer notch, accuracy of the alignment, the temperature, etc..
Furthermore, it is not clear the degree of deviation from each of the above features is considered as “abnormality”.
Claim 1 will be examined based on BRI of any possible state of the substrate support, claim 2 will be examined inclusive any abnormality deviate from the set points.
The ”the controller is further configured to be capable of controlling the rotation state of the substrate support to be constant based on the detection result detected by the detector” of claim 11, as the “a rotation state” may include numerous attributes, it is not clear what does it means for being constant for each and every attribute. For example, what is bending being constant?
Furthermore, even for the rotation speed, the controller is able to set the aim of the rotation state being constant, the nature fluctuation of the substrate support will cause deviation from the constant rotation speed.
Claim 11 will be examined inclusive any set aim point of various attributes.
Dependent claims 3-4 and 7-18 are also rejected under USC 112(b) at least due to dependency to rejected claims 1-2.
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, 7, 10, 12, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Park et al. (KR 1020210070178, from IDS, hereafter ‘178).
‘178 teaches all limitations of:
Claim 1: a substrate processing apparatus (English translation supplied by the examiner, [0001], includes the claimed “A substrate processing apparatus comprising”):
the process chamber 100 may include a chamber body in which a processing space capable of processing a plurality of substrates S is formed (Fig. 1, [0020], includes the claimed “a process chamber in which a plurality of substrates are processed”);
The gas ejection unit 300 is formed in the upper center of the process chamber 1000 , and can inject the process gas toward the lower substrates ([0030], includes the claimed “a gas supplier configured to be capable of supplying a gas to the process chamber”);
the substrate support 200 is rotatably installed in the lower portion of the processing space to revolve the substrate S, and the substrate S may be seated in the circumferential direction of the upper portion. A plurality of pocket grooves 210 having a concave upper surface may be formed so as to be concave. For example, the substrate support 200 may be a substrate support structure including a susceptor or a table capable of supporting the plurality of substrates S ([0023], includes the claimed “a substrate support provided in the process chamber so as to be rotatable and configured to be capable of supporting the plurality of substrates in a circumferential arrangement” and as shown in Fig. 2);
by detecting the rotation pattern 430 of the satellite 200 in real time by the rotation detecting unit 500 , it is possible to detect that the detected rotation pattern 430 changes to a value greater than or equal to a preset value (Fig. 3, [0062], includes the claimed “and a detector configured to detect a rotation state of the substrate support”).
Claim 2: The substrate support 200 is a process of depositing a thin film on the plurality of substrates S through a heater that is heated to a process temperature and heats the plurality of substrates S seated in the plurality of pocket groove portions 210 ([0027], includes the claimed “further comprising: a heater configured to heat the plurality of substrates, wherein the substrate support comprises: a rotating structure of a plate shape configured to support the plurality of substrates” and as shown in Figs. 1-3);
a shaft 700 receiving rotational power from the driving unit M to rotate the substrate support 200 ([0026], includes the claimed “and a support shaft configured to rotatably support the rotating structure”),
the heater may be formed on the substrate support 200 ([0028], includes the claimed “wherein the heater is provided to face the rotating structure”, note “face” can be in any direction),
by detecting the rotation pattern 430 of the satellite 200 in real time by the rotation detecting unit 500 , it is possible to detect that the detected rotation pattern 430 changes to a value greater than or equal to a preset value ([0062]), the rotation detection unit 500 monitors the gap of the floating satellite 400 to check the state of the satellite 400 in real time, and the substrate support 100 . You can monitor the deformation, inclination, bolt loosening, rotation speed, etc. ([0046], includes the claimed “and wherein the detector is further configured to detect a presence or absence of an abnormality in a state of the rotating structure”, see also 112(b) rejection above).
Claim 3: Figs. 1-3 shows the rotation detection unit 500 is position at the edge region of the substrate support 200 (includes the claimed “wherein the detector comprises a sensor configured to detect a position of an edge of the rotating structure”).
Claim 7: the rotation detection unit 500 monitors the gap of the floating satellite 400 to check the state of the satellite 400 in real time, and the substrate support 100 . You can monitor the deformation, inclination, bolt loosening, rotation speed, etc. ([0046], includes the claimed “wherein the detector is further configured to detect a tilt of the rotating structure, a bending of the rotating structure or both of the tilt of the rotating structure and the bending of the rotating structure”).
Claim 10: the control unit 600 calculates the number of rotation patterns of the satellite 400 using the number of revolution patterns and the number of revolution patterns, and uses the number of revolution patterns and the rotation speed of the substrate support 200 to rotate the rotation pattern ([0048]), during the processing of the substrate, the rotational motion of the substrate seated in the pocket groove of the substrate support can be checked, and this can be controlled stably, thereby inducing the growth of the thin film on the substrate more uniformly, thereby improving the processing quality of the substrate ([0013], includes the claimed “further comprising: a controller configured to be capable of controlling the rotation state of the substrate support based on a detection result detected by the detector”).
Claim 12: as the rotation pattern 430 is part of the substrate support, the rotation detection unit 500 is capable of the claimed “wherein the detector is further configured to detect the rotation state of the substrate support before the substrate processing apparatus is started up”.
Claims 16-17: the pattern formed on the satellite seated in the pocket groove of the substrate support is sensed during the processing of the substrate ([0012], as the rotation detection unit 500 is applied during processing, it is clearly capable of the claimed “wherein the detector is further configured to detect the rotation state of the substrate support with the gas being supplied through the gas supplier” of claim 16 and “wherein the gas supplier is further configured to supply the gas into the process chamber when the detector detects the rotation state of the substrate support such that a pressure in the process chamber reaches a pressure at which the plurality of substrates are processed in the process chamber” of claim 17).
Claim 18: the substrate support 200 is rotatably installed in the lower portion of the processing space to revolve the substrate S ([0023], see also [0026], includes the claimed “wherein the substrate support comprises: a first rotating structure configured to rotate the plurality of substrates around a center of the first rotating structure”);
the satellite 400 of the present invention is inserted into the pocket groove portion 210 and floats and rotates in the pocket groove portion 210 by the driving gas supplied through the substrate support 200 ([0032], includes the claimed “and a second rotating structure configured to rotate each of the plurality of substrates around a center of each of the plurality of substrates”),
the rotation pattern 430 may be engraved or embossed along the edge portion 420 , and may be detected by the rotation detection unit 500 ([0037], includes the claimed “wherein the detector is further configured to be capable of detecting a rotation state of the first rotating structure or a rotation state of the second rotating structure, or both”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 4, and alternatively claim 3, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘178, as being applied to claim 1 rejection above, in view of Kagami (US 5264918, hereafter ‘918).
In case Applicants argue that “wherein the detector comprises a sensor configured to detect a position of an edge of the rotating structure” has to be a lateral side and vertical edge of the rotating structure.
‘178 does not teach the limitations of:
Claim 4: wherein the sensor is provided at a plurality of locations in a circumferential direction of the rotating structure in accordance with an outer peripheral shape of the rotating structure.
‘918 is analogous art in the field of A wafer center detecting method comprises steps of giving turn to a wafer held by a holder, optically detecting two points at which the true rim line of the wafer crosses the fictitious rim line thereof obtained when the center of the wafer is in accord with the rotation center of the holder (abstract). ‘918 teaches that The optical sensor 42 of the reflector type is positioned, facing this fictitious line S of the wafer rim, to optically detect the rim of the wafer 4 (col. 4, lines 37-39), The optical sensor 42 of the reflector type includes a light receiving element 60 and plural (four in this case) light sources 62. The light receiving element 60 is attached to the underside of the optical sensor 42 at the center thereof and the light sources 62 to it along its rim, having a certain interval between them, as shown in FIGS. 5 and 6. Even when only one of the light sources 62 faces the wafer 4, its light is reflected by the wafer 4 and received by the light receiving element 60, so that it can be detected that the wafer 4 is present under the optical sensor 42. The optical sensor 42 of the reflector type can detect the presence of the wafer 4 under it even when the wafer 4 is made of transparent material such as quartz glass, crystal or gallium arsenic through which its detecting light can pass. For the sake of clarity, the optical sensor 42 is shown enlarged in relation to the wafer 4 in FIGS. 5 and 6, but its true size or dimension is only several millimeters (col. 4, lines 48-65), for the purpose of more quickly and accurately detecting how the center a wafer is shifted from the rotation center of a holder (col. 2, lines 5-7). ‘918 further teaches that S1, S2 and S3 in FIG. 14 denotes fictitious rim lines of 3-, 4- and 5-inch wafers and the line S1 has a pair of optical sensors 42a, 43a, the line S2 a pair of optical sensors 42b, 43b and the line S3 a pair of optical sensors 42c, 43c (col. 7, lines 13-17).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have adopted the a pair of optical sensors 42 of ‘918 that is capable of detecting the rim of the substrate support, as the rotating sensing unit 500 of ‘178, for the purpose of more quickly and accurately detecting how the center a wafer is shifted from the rotation center of a holder, as taught by ‘918 (col. 2, lines 5-7). Note detecting a wafer shift is also an abnormality.
Claims 8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘178, as being applied to claims 2 and 10 rejection above, in view of Waqar et al. (US 20180374719, hereafter ‘719).
‘178 is silent on the details of the driving unit M and does not teach the limitation of:
Claim 8: further comprising: an electric motor used as a drive source configured to rotate the support shaft,
wherein the detector is further configured to detect a change in a power supplied to the electric motor.
Claim 11: wherein the controller is further configured to be capable of controlling the rotation state of the substrate support to be constant based on the detection result detected by the detector.
‘719 is analogous art in the field of SYSTEMS AND METHODS OF GAP CALIBRATION VIA DIRECT COMPONENT CONTACT IN ELECTRONIC DEVICE MANUFACTURING SYSTEMS (title), While process variability tolerance in the semiconductor industry continues to decrease as the size of semiconductor devices shrink, there is a need to maintain a tightly controlled gap between process components during substrate processing ([0027]). ‘719 teaches that Motion control system 300 may also include one or more actuators 332 and 334 (Fig. 3, [0040], 2nd sentence), actuator 332 may include a mechanical fixture in connection with an electric motor that can move process delivery apparatus 333 in a first direction ([0041], 3rd sentence), Filtering digitally (i.e., removing) via the software control program executing in the motion controller stochastic (random) noise and deterministic (periodic) noise from actuator (e.g., motor) feedback … misalignment of bearing and motor axis, eccentricity of rotating components, and/or pulsating torque ripples from motor cogging at low velocities ([0060]), wherein the feedback device measures at least one of position, velocity, torque, current, force, or strain (claim 7 of ‘719).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have adopted an electric motor of ‘719 as the driving unit M of ‘178, and to have applied feedback control of position, velocity, torque, current, etc., for the purpose of reducing noise and tightly controlled processing, as taught by ‘719 ([0027] and [0060]). Note feedback control to reduce noise is to be as constant as possible.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘178, as being applied to claim 2 rejection above, in view of Kato et al. (US 20170218514, hereafter ‘514).
‘178 does not teach the limitation of:
Claim 9: wherein the heater is divided into a plurality of zones along a circumferential direction of the rotating structure, and is further configured to be capable of individually adjusting a temperature of each of the plurality of zones based on a detection result detected by the detector.
‘514 is analogous art in the field of SUBSTRATE PROCESSING APPARATUS (title), an ALD (Atomic Layer Deposition) … an apparatus which rotates a rotary table holding a plurality of wafers to revolve the wafers ([0003]). ‘514 teaches that Heaters 33 for heating the wafers W mounted on the upper surface side of the rotary table 2 are disposed in these recesses 311 and 312 (Fig. 1, [0049], 2nd sentence).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have adopted heaters for heating the wafers of ‘514, as the heater of ‘178, for the purpose of independent heating wafer for ALD process, as taught by ‘514 ([0003]).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘178, as being applied to claim 2 rejection above, in view of Mori (US 20220051876, hereafter ‘876).
‘178 does not teach the limitation of:
Clam 13: further comprising: a posture controller configured to be capable of adjusting an angle of a shaft supporting the substrate support based on a detection result detected by the detector to set the substrate support to be at a predetermined substrate processing angle.
Claim 14: wherein the posture controller is further configured to be capable of adjusting the angle of the shaft based on the detection result detected by the detector before the substrate processing apparatus is started up.
Claim 15: further comprising: a storage configured to store and accumulate information about the detection result detected by the detector,
wherein the posture controller is further configured to be capable of adjusting the angle of the shaft before the plurality of substrates are processed in the process chamber based on an analysis result of the information stored in the storage.
‘876 is analogous art in the field of VACUUM PROCESSING APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR CONTROLLING VACUUM PROCESSING APPARATUS (title), performs a plasma CVD process ([0023]) for a semiconductor wafer ([0024]), the support part 8 is provided with a rotational driving mechanism 9 configured to rotate the support member 4 (Fig. 1, [0025], 3rd sentence). ‘876 teaches that The controller 60 controls the actuators 86 such that the stage 2 is tilted and the substrate W placed on the stage 2 is located within a detection range of the film thickness sensor 95 (Fig. 7, [0072], see also Fig. 2, [0052]), The controller 60 acquires an inclination of the stage 2 (step S101). The inclination of the stage 2 may be acquired by detecting inclinations of the support member 4, the holder part 81, and the rotational driving mechanism 9 using various detectors ([0063]), The controller 60 calculates a correction amount for setting the stage 2 to a desired inclination from the acquired inclination of the stage 2 (step S102). For example, the controller 60 calculates, as correction amounts, direction and an angle that cause the stage 2 to be tilted in order to make the stage 2 to be at a desired inclination ([0064]), In the vacuum processing apparatus 100, measurement data indicating a state of a substrate W and an inclination of the stage 2 are stored in the memory 62 for each substrate process executed in the processing container 1 ([0087]), for the purpose of improving the in-plane uniformity of a substrate process ([0085], last sentence).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have added tilting capability and detecting inclination and data storage, as taught by ‘876, to the shaft 700 and the control unit 600 of ‘178, for the purpose of improving the in-plane uniformity of a substrate process ([0085], last sentence).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20100171823 is cited for photosensor 2 passing through the cutout 7 of the holding stage 1 (Figs. 1 and 3).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEATH T CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1870. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30am-5:00 pm.
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, Parviz Hassanzadeh can be reached at 571-272-1435. 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.
/KEATH T CHEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights