Detailed Action
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
2. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Interpretation
3. 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.
Regarding claim 1, applicant invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed rotation mechanism and as seen in applicant’s originally filed disclosure the rotation mechanism is detailed as a first holding unit, a second holding unit, a first rotation drive unit and a second rotation drive unit as detailed in paragraph [0018] of applicant’s originally filed specification, the first holding unit and the second holding unit each being a roller as detailed in paragraph [0019] of applicant’s originally filed specification, and the first and second rotation drive units are detailed as a drive mechanism having a rotary cylinder and drive shaft as detailed in paragraphs [0022]-[0023] of applicant’s originally filed specification. Further, applicant invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed cleaning liquid supply unit and as seen in applicant’s originally filed disclosure the cleaning liquid supply unit is detailed as a liquid feeding device, a valve and the like connected to a pure water storage tank, an ozone water storage tank and a SC-1 supply device as described in paragraphs [0033]-[0034] of applicant’s originally filed specification.
Regarding claims 3 and 4, applicant invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed cleaning unit and as seen in applicant’s originally filed disclosure the cleaning unit is detailed as a first self-cleaning stage, a second self-cleaning stage, a self-cleaning substrate and cleaning liquid supply units being nozzles as seen in paragraph [0047] of applicant’s originally filed specification, the first self-cleaning stage including a supply pipe and a cleaning member as seen in paragraph [0049] of applicant’s originally filed specification, the cleaning member having a through hole as seen in paragraph [0050] of applicant’s originally filed specification.
Regarding claims 5 and 9, applicant invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed supply unit and as seen in applicant’s originally filed specification the supply unit is detailed as being connected to a cleaning liquid supply device having a liquid feeding device, a valve and the like connected to a pure water storage tank, an ozone water storage tank and a SC-1 supply device as described in paragraphs [0033]-[0034] of applicant’s originally filed specification.
Regarding claims 6 and 8, applicant invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed first cleaning unit and the second cleaning and as seen in applicant’s originally filed disclosure as seen in paragraphs [0047]-[0055] of applicant’s originally filed specification a brush cleaning unit is disclosed that includes a first self-cleaning stage, a second self-cleaning stage, a self-cleaning substrate and cleaning liquid supply units being nozzles as seen in paragraph [0047] of applicant’s originally filed specification, the first self-cleaning stage including a supply pipe and a cleaning member as seen in paragraph [0049] of applicant’s originally filed specification, the cleaning member having a through hole as seen in paragraph [0050] of applicant’s originally filed specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. 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 1-9 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 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Applicant invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed rotation mechanism as detailed in paragraph 3 of this office action and is detailed in paragraphs [0018]-[0023] of applicant’s originally filed specification and as seen in paragraphs [0020]-[0021] of applicant’s originally filed specification the turning mechanism disclosed is detailed as related to the first and second rotation drive units but given how the specification is written it is unclear as to whether the turning mechanism is part of the first and second rotation drive units and is to be considered part of the claimed drive units given the 112(f) analysis. Further, if the turning mechanism is to be part of the first and second rotation drive units than as seen in paragraph [0021] of applicant’s specification, the phrases “for example” and “Note the turning mechanism is not limited thereto” render the claim indefinite in that it is unclear as to whether other types of turning mechanisms than those disclosed are being contemplated by the claim. Further, applicant invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed cleaning liquid supply unit as detailed earlier in paragraph 3 of this office action and as seen in applicant’s originally filed specification in paragraphs [0033]-[0034], the liquid supply unit is detailed as being connected to a cleaning liquid supply device having a liquid feeding device, a valve and the like connected to a pure water storage tank, an ozone water storage tank and a SC-1 supply device. This portion of applicant’s originally filed specification in paragraph [0034] of applicant’s originally filed specification makes it unclear since it states the liquid supply unit is connected to all of these components which implies the liquid supply unit is separate from these components and given that there are not other structures disclosed related to the liquid supply unit, it is unclear as to what structures encompass the claimed cleaning liquid supply unit. Further, if the structures detailed in applicant’s paragraph [0034], are part of the cleaning liquid supply unit the phrase “and the like” renders the claim indefinite in that it is unclear as to what other structures than those disclosed encompass the claimed cleaning liquid supply unit.
Claims 3 and 4 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. Applicant invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed cleaning unit as detailed earlier in paragraph 3 of this office action and as seen in paragraphs [0047]-[0055] of applicant’s originally filed specification it is unclear to whether the second self-cleaning stage of the cleaning unit has the same structural components as the first self-cleaning stage of the cleaning unit. Further, it is unclear as to whether the self-cleaning substrate of the cleaning unit is the same or different than the substrate detailed in lines 1, 2 and 5 of claim 1. Further, it is unclear as to whether the cleaning liquid supply units of the cleaning unit are the same or different than the cleaning liquid supply unit detailed in line 4 of claim 1.
Claims 5 and 9 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. Applicant invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed supply unit as detailed earlier in paragraph 3 of this office action and as seen in applicant’s originally filed specification in paragraphs [0033]-[0034], the supply unit is detailed as being connected to a cleaning liquid supply device having a liquid feeding device, a valve and the like connected to a pure water storage tank, an ozone water storage tank and a SC-1 supply device. This portion of applicant’s originally filed specification in paragraph [0034] of applicant’s originally filed specification makes it unclear since it states the supply unit is connected to all of these components which implies the supply unit is separate from these components and given that there are no other structures disclosed related to the supply unit, it is unclear as to what structures encompass the claimed supply unit. Further, if the structures detailed in applicant’s paragraph [0034], are part of the supply unit the phrase “and the like” renders the claim indefinite in that it is unclear as to what other structures than those disclosed encompass the claimed supply unit. Further, it is unclear as to whether the supply unit in claim 5 is the same or different than the cleaning liquid supply unit in parent claim 1 and it is unclear as to whether the supply unit in claim 9 is the same or different than the cleaning liquid supply unit in parent claim 1 and if the it is different than the cleaning liquid supply units that are part of the cleaning unit in claim 4 given the 112(f) analysis of claim 4.
Claims 6 and 8 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. Applicant invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed first cleaning unit and the claimed second cleaning unit and as seen in applicant’s originally filed specification in paragraphs [0047]-[0055], a singular brush cleaning unit is disclosed and therefore it is unclear as to whether all of the structural components related to the brush cleaning unit in applicant’s specification encompass each of the first and second cleaning units claimed or whether portions of the structural components disclosed relate to the first cleaning unit and other portions relate to the second cleaning unit in that applicant has not disclosed a first and second cleaning unit in applicant’s originally filed disclosure. Further, applicant invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed cleaning unit as detailed earlier in paragraph 3 of this office action and as seen in paragraphs [0047]-[0055] of applicant’s originally filed specification it is unclear to whether the second self-cleaning stage of the cleaning unit has the same structural components as the first self-cleaning stage of the cleaning unit. Further, it is unclear as to whether the self-cleaning substrate of the cleaning unit is the same or different than the substrate detailed in lines 1, 2 and 5 of claim 1. Further, it is unclear as to whether the cleaning liquid supply units of the cleaning unit are the same or different than the cleaning liquid supply unit detailed in line 4 of claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 7 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 6,543,079 to Yeo in view of U.S. Patent No. 7,803,230 to Amai et al.
Referring to claims 1 and 10, Yeo discloses a substrate cleaning apparatus and substrate cleaning method comprising, a rotation mechanism – at 2,21,25,26, configured to rotate a substrate – at W, in a held state – see figures 3 and 8-10 and column 3 lines 50-60 and column 7 lines 14-30 (regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed rotation mechanism items 2,21,25, of Yeo are a holding unit and item 26 of Yeo, is a rotation drive unit consistent with applicant’s originally filed disclosure), a cleaning liquid supply unit – at 3,32,34, configured to supply a cleaning liquid to the substrate – at W, rotated by the rotation mechanism – at 2,21,25,26 – see figures 3 and 8-10 and column 3 lines 50-65 and column 7 lines 14-30 (regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed cleaning liquid supply unit item 3 of Yeo is a liquid feeding device, item 32 of Yeo is a valve and item 34 of Yeo is a liquid storage reservoir/tank consistent with applicant’s originally filed disclosure), a first cleaning head – at 40, having a first brush – see figures 3 and 8-10 and column 3 lines 65-67, and configured to clean at least one surface of the substrate – top surface of W, rotated by the rotation mechanism – at 2,21,25,26, by bringing the first brush – at 40, into contact with the one surface – top surface, of the substrate – at W – see figures 3 and 8-10 and column 7 line 14 to column 9 line 30, a second cleaning head – at 60, having a second brush – see figures 3 and 8-10 and column 3 lines 65-67, and configured to clean the one surface of the substrate – top surface of W, by bringing the second brush – at 60, into contact with the one surface – top surface, of the substrate – at W – see figures 3 and 8-10 and column 7 line 14 to column 9 line 30, a turning arm – at 80, having one end to which the first cleaning head – at 40, is attached – see figures 8-10, and another end to which the second cleaning head – at 60, is attached – see figures 8-10, the turning arm – at 80, configured to turn the first cleaning head – at 40, and the second cleaning head – at 60 – see figures 8-10 and column 7 line 14 to column 9 line 30, and the device is controlled so at to be configured to control the rotation mechanism – at 2,21,25,26, the cleaning liquid supply unit – at 3,32,34, and the turning arm – at 80 – see figures 3 and 8-10 and column 7 line 14 to column 9 line 30, wherein the device controls the turning arm – at 80, such that, during cleaning in which a brush of one cleaning head of the first cleaning head – at 40, and the second cleaning head – at 60, is brought into contact with a surface – top surface of the substrate – at W, to perform cleaning – see figures 3 and 8-10 and column 7 line 14 to column 9 line 30, a brush of another cleaning head of the first cleaning head – at 40, and the second cleaning head – at 60, is positioned at a position outside the substrate – see figure 10. Yeo does not specifically disclose a controller. Amai et al. does disclose a substrate cleaning device having a brush – at 3, liquid supply – at 5,7, and arms – at 60-61 having drive devices – at 62,63 controlled by a controller – at 15,90,91 – see figures 1-2. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device/method of Yeo and add the controller of Amai et al., so as to yield the predictable result of automatically controlling operation so as to facilitate quicker and more accurate processing of multiple substrates as desired.
Referring to claim 2, Yeo as modified by Amai et al. further discloses the controller turns the turning arm – at 80, such that a cleaning head – at 40 or 60, for cleaning the surface of the substrate – at W, is switched every time a predetermined number of the substrates – at W, are cleaned – see figures 3 and 8-10 and column 7 line 14 to column 9 line 30 of Yeo and see figures 1-2 of Amai et al., where the controller is at least capable of switching to another cleaning head after processing a number of substrates given the orientation of cleaning heads – at 40,60 of Yeo and the controller – at 15,90,91 of Amai et al. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device/method of Yeo and add the controller of Amai et al., so as to yield the predictable result of automatically controlling operation so as to facilitate quicker and more accurate processing of multiple substrates as desired.
Referring to claim 7, Yeo as modified by Amai et al. further discloses a swing arm – at 90, which turnably supports the turning arm – at 80, and swings in a direction along the one surface – top surface, of the substrate – at W – see figures 8-10 of Yeo, wherein the first cleaning head – at 40, and the second cleaning head – at 60, are moved by swinging the swing arm – at 90 – see figures 8-10 of Yeo.
Claim(s) 3-5 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeo as modified by Amai et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,647,083 to Sugimoto et al.
Referring to claim 3, Yeo as modified by Amai et al. further discloses the controller moves the first cleaning head – at 40, and the second cleaning head – at 60, to a standby position after cleaning of the substrate – at W, by the brush of the one cleaning head – at 40 or 60, is completed – see figures 3 and 8-10 and column 7 line 14 to column 9 line 30 of Yeo, but does not disclose the substrate cleaning apparatus comprising a cleaning unit configured to clean brushes of both the first cleaning head and the second cleaning head positioned at the standby position. Sugimoto et al. does disclose the substrate cleaning apparatus comprising a cleaning unit – at TP, (Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed cleaning unit item TP of Sugimoto et al. has a cleaning stage – at TP and nozzles for liquid supply – at SN, consistent with applicant’s originally filed disclosure), configured to clean brushes – at 1a, of both the first cleaning head and the second cleaning heads – at 1,2, positioned at the standby position – see figures 1-3 and 15. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Yeo as modified by Amai et al. and add the cleaning unit of Sugimoto et al., so as to yield the predictable result of ensuring any debris/contaminants are removed from the device during operation.
Referring to claim 4, Yeo as modified by Amai et al. does not disclose a cleaning unit configured to clean, during cleaning in which the brush of the one cleaning head is brought into contact with the surface of the substrate to perform cleaning, the brush of the other cleaning head positioned at the position outside the substrate. Sugimoto et al. does disclose a cleaning unit – at TP, (Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed cleaning unit item TP of Sugimoto et al. has a cleaning stage – at TP and nozzles for liquid supply – at SN, consistent with applicant’s originally filed disclosure), configured to clean, during cleaning in which the brush of the one cleaning head – at 1,2, is brought into contact with the surface of the substrate – at W, to perform cleaning, the brush of the other cleaning head – other of 1,2, positioned at the position outside the substrate – at W – see figures 1-15 where brushes are cleaned in TP while other brushes can be used to clean the substrate. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Yeo as modified by Amai et al. and add the cleaning unit of Sugimoto et al., so as to yield the predictable result of ensuring any debris/contaminants are removed from the device during operation.
Referring to claim 5, Yeo as modified by Amai et al. does not disclose a supply unit configured to supply, during cleaning in which the brush of the one cleaning head is brought into contact with the surface of the substrate to perform cleaning, a cleaning liquid to the brush of the other cleaning head. Sugimoto et al. does disclose a supply unit – at TP,SN, configured to supply, during cleaning in which the brush of the one cleaning head – at 1,2, is brought into contact with the surface of the substrate – at W, to perform cleaning, a cleaning liquid to the brush of the other cleaning head – at other of 1,2 – see figures 1-15 where brushes are cleaned in TP via liquid supplied via SN, while other brushes can be used to clean the substrate. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Yeo as modified by Amai et al. and add the cleaning unit of Sugimoto et al., so as to yield the predictable result of ensuring any debris/contaminants are removed from the device during operation.
Referring to claim 9, Yeo as modified by Amai et al. does not disclose the cleaning unit comprises a self-cleaning substrate and a supply unit configured to supply a cleaning liquid to the self-cleaning substrate, and cleans the brush of the other cleaning head by using the cleaning liquid supplied to the self-cleaning substrate, and the controller controls the supply unit such that the cleaning liquid is supplied to the self-cleaning substrate even after cleaning of the brush of the other cleaning head is completed. Sugimoto et al. does disclose the cleaning unit comprises a self-cleaning substrate – at TP, and a supply unit – at SN, (Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the supply unit item SN of Sugimoto et al. is a liquid feeding device consistent with applicant’s originally filed disclosure), configured to supply a cleaning liquid to the self-cleaning substrate – at W, and cleans the brush – at 1a, of the other cleaning head – at 1,2, by using the cleaning liquid supplied to the self-cleaning substrate – at TP – see figures 1-15, and the controller controls the supply unit – at SN, such that the cleaning liquid is supplied to the self-cleaning substrate – at W, even after cleaning of the brush – at 1a, of the other cleaning head – at the other of 1,2 is completed – see figures 1-15. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Yeo as modified by Amai et al. and add the cleaning unit of Sugimoto et al., so as to yield the predictable result of ensuring any debris/contaminants are removed from the device during operation. It is recommended in line 4 of claim 9 to change “confifigured” to - -configured- -.
Allowable Subject Matter
6. Claims 6 and 8 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
7. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The following patents are cited to further show the state of the art with respect to substrate cleaning devices/methods in general:
U.S. Pat. No. 5,947,134 to Kim et al. – shows substrate cleaning device
U.S. Pat. No. 6,286,525 to Nishimura et al. – shows substrate cleaning device
U.S. Pat. No. 6,643,882 to Sotozaki et al. – shows substrate cleaning device
U.S. Pat. No. 6,651,285 to Yeo – shows substrate cleaning device
U.S. Pat. No. 6,842,932 to Ishihara – shows substrate cleaning device
U.S. Pat. No. 6,990,704 to Namba – shows substrate cleaning device
U.S. Pat. No. 11,948,811 to Miyazaki et al. – shows substrate cleaning device
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID J PARSLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-6890. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8am-4pm EST.
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, Peter Poon can be reached at (571) 272-6891. 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.
/DAVID J PARSLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3643
Prosecution Insights