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
Claims 9-16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on April 8, 2026.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-3 and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2 recites:
“the plurality of orifices are configured to discharge a liquid solution with a dispersion of microscopic gas bubbles towards the plurality of substrates”
A suggested revision is as follows:
“wherein the liquid solution having the dispersion of the gas bubbles is a dispersion of microscopic gas bubbles
Claim 3 recites:
“the plurality of orifices are configured to discharge a liquid solution with a dispersion of nanoscopic gas bubbles towards the plurality of substrates”
A suggested revision is as follows:
“wherein the liquid solution having the dispersion of the gas bubbles is a dispersion of nanoscopic gas bubbles
Claim 8 recites:
“a cavitation device configured to receive the liquid solution exiting the processing tank, wherein the cavitation device is configured to replenish the received liquid solution with gas bubbles and direct the replenished liquid solution to the processing tank”
A suggested revision is as follows:
“a cavitation device configured to receive a spent spent received by the cavitation device with the gas bubbles and direct the replenished with the gas bubbles to the processing tank”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claims 1-2 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20040231997 A1 to Wang et al (hereinafter Wang) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20160076150 A1 to Wainwright et al (hereinafter Wainwright).
Regarding claim 1, Wang teaches an apparatus for wet chemical processing of a plurality of substrates, comprising: a processing tank configured to support the plurality of substrates; and a flow plate ( inner wall 18) disposed in the processing tank such nearthat, when the plurality of substrates are supported in the processing tank, the flow plate ( inner wall 18) is positioned below the plurality of substrates (W), wherein the flow plate ( inner wall 18) includes a plurality of orifices (18a) configured to discharge a liquid solution. (See Wang, Abstract, Fig. 2, and paragraphs 52-55.)
Wang does not explicitly teach the flow plate includes a plurality of orifices configured to discharge a liquid solution having a dispersion of gas bubbles therein towards the plurality of substrates.
Wainwright is directed to a container containing a plating solution.
Wainwright teaches the flow plate includes a plurality of orifices (324) configured to discharge a liquid solution having a dispersion of gas bubbles therein towards the plurality of substrates. (See Wainwright, Abstract, Figs. 1-8, and paragraphs 1, 53-58, 62, .)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed to include flow plate includes a plurality of orifices configured to discharge a liquid solution having a dispersion of gas bubbles therein towards the plurality of substrates, because Wainwright teaches an injection of an inert gas in the form of microbubbles can facilitate the preferred displacement of dissolved oxygen from the plating solution. (See Wainwright, Abstract, Figs. 3-4, and paragraphs 1, 53-57.)
Regarding claim 2, Wang does not explicitly teach the plurality of orifices are configured to discharge a liquid solution with a dispersion of microscopic gas bubbles towards the plurality of substrates.
Wainwright teaches the plurality of orifices are configured to discharge a liquid solution with a dispersion of microscopic gas bubbles towards the plurality of substrates. (See Wainwright, Abstract, Figs. 3-4, and paragraphs 1, 53-57.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed to include the plurality of orifices are configured to discharge a liquid solution with a dispersion of microscopic gas bubbles towards the plurality of substrates, because Wainwright teaches an injection of an inert gas in the form of microbubbles can facilitate the preferred displacement of dissolved oxygen from the plating solution. (See Wainwright, Abstract, Figs. 3-4, and paragraphs 1, 53-57.)
Regarding claim 5, Wang teaches the plurality of orifices (holes 18a) are evenly spaced apart on the flow plate. (See Wang, Abstract, Fig. 2, and paragraphs 52-55.)
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20040231997 A1 to Wang et al (hereinafter Wang) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20160076150 A1 to Wainwright et al (hereinafter Wainwright) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20240109107 A1 to Yamauchi et al (hereinafter Yamauchi).
Regarding claim 3, Wang does not explicitly teach the plurality of orifices are configured to discharge a liquid solution with a dispersion of nanoscopic gas bubbles towards the plurality of substrates
Yamauchi teaches the plurality of orifices (nano-sized pores) are configured to discharge a liquid solution with a dispersion of nanoscopic gas bubbles towards the plurality of substrates. (See Yamauchi, Abstract, Figs. 2-8, and paragraph 85.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed to include the plurality of orifices are configured to discharge a liquid solution with a dispersion of nanoscopic gas bubbles towards the plurality of substrates, because Yamauchi teaches nanoscopic bubbles are useful for removed particles from the substrate. (See Yamauchi, Abstract, Figs. 2-8, and paragraphs 8, 83-85, and 151.)
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20040231997 A1 to Wang et al (hereinafter Wang) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20160076150 A1 to Wainwright et al (hereinafter Wainwright) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20260216757 A1 to Xu et al (hereinafter Xu).
Regarding claim 4, Wang does not explicitly teach the flow plate is configured such that a flow rate of the liquid solution through a first set of orifices of the plurality of orifices can be independently varied relative to a second set of orifices of the plurality of orifices.
Xu is directed to using bubbles to treat substrates.
Xu teaches the flow rate of different hole regions (K1, K2) can be adjusted. (See Xu, Abstract, Figs. 1-10, and paragraphs 79-85.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the flow plate is configured such that a flow rate of the liquid solution through a first set of orifices of the plurality of orifices can be independently varied relative to a second set of orifices of the plurality of orifices, through routine experimentation, with a reasonable expectation of success, to the select the proper flow rate, as a result-effective variable, in order to provide better in-surface and intersheet uniformity of the substrate. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1969)) (See Xu, Abstract, Figs. 1-10, and paragraphs 79-85.)
Claims 4 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20040231997 A1 to Wang et al (hereinafter Wang) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20160076150 A1 to Wainwright et al (hereinafter Wainwright) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20040187891 A1 to Singh et al (hereinafter Singh).
Regarding claim 4, Wang does not explicitly teach the flow plate is configured such that a flow rate of the liquid solution through a first set of orifices of the plurality of orifices can be independently varied relative to a second set of orifices of the plurality of orifices.
Singh is directed to using holes in a flat sheet to form jets of liquid in the container of liquid. (See Singh, Abstract, Figs. 1-10, and paragraph 53.)
Singh teaches the diameter and number of holes can be varied to meet process requirements. (See Singh, Abstract, Figs. 1-10, and paragraph 53.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the flow plate is configured such that a flow rate of the liquid solution through a first set of orifices of the plurality of orifices can be independently varied relative to a second set of orifices of the plurality of orifices., through routine experimentation, with a reasonable expectation of success, to the select the proper diameter for the holes, as a result-effective variable, in order to provide the optimal jetting properties for each liquid and process. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1969)) (See Singh, Abstract, Figs. 1-10, and paragraph 53.)
Regarding claim 6, Wang does not explicitly teach each orifice of the plurality of orifices have a diameter between about 0.005 inches to 0.2 inches.
Singh teaches the diameter and number of holes can be varied to meet process requirements. (See Singh, Abstract, Figs. 1-10, and paragraph 53.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to substitute different pitch for the holes, through routine experimentation, with a reasonable expectation of success, to the select the proper spacing and location for each of the holes, as a result-effective variable, in order to provide the optimal jetting properties for each liquid and process. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1969)) (See Singh, Abstract, Figs. 1-10, and paragraph 53.)
Regarding claim 7, Wang does not explicitly teach a pitch of the plurality of orifices is between about 0.1 - 1.0 inch.
Singh teaches the diameter and number of holes can be varied to meet process requirements. (See Singh, Abstract, Figs. 1-10, and paragraph 53.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to substitute different pitch for the holes, through routine experimentation, with a reasonable expectation of success, to the select the proper spacing and location for each of the holes, as a result-effective variable, in order to provide the optimal jetting properties for each liquid and process. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1969)) (See Singh, Abstract, Figs. 1-10, and paragraph 53.)
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20040231997 A1 to Wang et al (hereinafter Wang) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20160076150 A1 to Wainwright et al (hereinafter Wainwright) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20040187891 A1 to Chou et al (hereinafter Chou).
Regarding claim 8, Wang does not explicitly teach a device configured to receive the liquid solution exiting the processing tank, wherein the device is configured to replenish the received liquid solution with gas bubbles and direct the replenished liquid solution to the processing tank.
Wainwright teaches a device (333) configured to receive the liquid solution exiting the processing tank (320), wherein the device is configured to replenish the received liquid solution with gas bubbles and direct the replenished liquid solution to the processing tank (320). (See Wainwright, Abstract, Figs. 3-4, and paragraphs 1,12, 53-57.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed to include a device configured to receive the liquid solution exiting the processing tank, wherein the device is configured to replenish the received liquid solution with gas bubbles and direct the replenished liquid solution to the processing tank, because Wainwright teaches an injection of an inert gas in the form of microbubbles can facilitate the preferred displacement of dissolved oxygen from the plating solution. (See Wainwright, Abstract, Figs. 3-4, and paragraphs 1,12, 53-57.)
Regarding claim 8, Wang does not explicitly teach a cavitation device configured to receive the liquid solution exiting the processing tank, wherein the cavitation device is configured to replenish the received liquid solution with gas bubbles.
Chou is directed to a cavitation system connected with a wafer processing tank.
Chou teaches a cavitation device configured to receive the liquid solution exiting the processing tank, wherein the cavitation device is configured to replenish the received liquid solution with gas bubbles and direct the replenished liquid solution to the processing tank. (See Chou, Abstract, Figs. 1-3, and paragraphs 8, 10-13, 15-27.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed to include a cavitation device configured to receive the liquid solution exiting the processing tank, wherein the cavitation device is configured to replenish the received liquid solution with gas bubbles, because Chou teaches a cavitation device is a known way for generating bubbles of gas for use in a substrate treatment facility. (See Chou, Abstract, Figs. 1-3, and paragraphs 8, 10-13, 15-27.)
Claims 1-2 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Num. 6,132,587 to Jorne et al (hereinafter Jorne) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20040231997 A1 to Wang et al (hereinafter Wang) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20160076150 A1 to Wainwright et al (hereinafter Wainwright).
Regarding claim 1, Jorne teaches an apparatus for wet chemical processing of a plurality of substrates, comprising: a processing tank configured to support the plurality of substrates; and a flow plate ( distributor 21) disposed in the processing tank, wherein the flow plate ( inner wall 18) includes a plurality of orifices (22) configured to discharge a liquid solution. (See Jorne, Abstract, Fig. 3, col. 6, line 50 to col. 7, line 15.)
Jorne does not explicitly teach the flow plate includes a plurality of orifices configured to discharge a liquid solution having a dispersion of gas bubbles therein towards the plurality of substrates.
Wainwright is directed to a container containing a plating solution.
Wainwright teaches the flow plate includes a plurality of orifices (324) configured to discharge a liquid solution having a dispersion of gas bubbles therein towards the plurality of substrates. (See Wainwright, Abstract, Figs. 1-8, and paragraphs 1, 53-58, 62, .)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed to include flow plate includes a plurality of orifices configured to discharge a liquid solution having a dispersion of gas bubbles therein towards the plurality of substrates, because Wainwright teaches an injection of an inert gas in the form of microbubbles can facilitate the preferred displacement of dissolved oxygen from the plating solution. (See Wainwright, Abstract, Figs. 3-4, and paragraphs 1, 53-57.)
Jorne does not explicitly teach wet chemical processing of a plurality of substrates, said processing tank configured to support the plurality of substrates,and said flow plate disposed in the processing tank such that, when the plurality of substrates are supported in the processing tank, the flow plate is positioned below the plurality of substrates.
Wang is directed to a container containing a plating solution.
Wang teaches wet chemical processing of a plurality of substrates, said processing tank configured to support the plurality of substrates, and said flow plate disposed in the processing tank such that, when the plurality of substrates are supported in the processing tank, the flow plate is positioned below the plurality of substrates. (See Wang, Abstract, Fig. 2, and paragraphs 52-54 and 58.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed to include wet chemical processing of a plurality of substrates, said processing tank configured to support the plurality of substrates,and said flow plate disposed in the processing tank such that, when the plurality of substrates are supported in the processing tank, the flow plate is positioned below the plurality of substrates, because Wang teaches this structure enables a plurality of substrates to processed as a batch which an ordinary person would recognize as increasing efficiency and a costing saving. (See Wang, Abstract, Fig. 2, and paragraphs 52-54 and 58.)
Regarding claim 5, Jorne teaches the plurality of orifices (holes 21) are evenly spaced apart on the flow plate. (See Jorne, Abstract, Fig. 3, col. 6, line 50 to col. 7, line 15.)
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Num. 6,132,587 to Jorne et al (hereinafter Jorne) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20040231997 A1 to Wang et al (hereinafter Wang) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20160076150 A1 to Wainwright et al (hereinafter Wainwright) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20240109107 A1 to Yamauchi et al (hereinafter Yamauchi).
Regarding claim 3, Jorne does not explicitly teach the plurality of orifices are configured to discharge a liquid solution with a dispersion of nanoscopic gas bubbles towards the plurality of substrates.
Yamauchi teaches the plurality of orifices (nano-sized pores) are configured to discharge a liquid solution with a dispersion of nanoscopic gas bubbles towards the plurality of substrates. (See Yamauchi, Abstract, Figs. 2-8, and paragraph 85.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed to include the plurality of orifices are configured to discharge a liquid solution with a dispersion of nanoscopic gas bubbles towards the plurality of substrates, because Yamauchi teaches nanoscopic bubbles are useful for removed particles from the substrate. (See Yamauchi, Abstract, Figs. 2-8, and paragraphs 8, 83-85, and 151.)
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Num. 6,132,587 to Jorne et al (hereinafter Jorne) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20040231997 A1 to Wang et al (hereinafter Wang) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20160076150 A1 to Wainwright et al (hereinafter Wainwright) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20260216757 A1 to Xu et al (hereinafter Xu).
Regarding claim 4, Jorne does not explicitly teach the flow plate is configured such that a flow rate of the liquid solution through a first set of orifices of the plurality of orifices can be independently varied relative to a second set of orifices of the plurality of orifices.
Xu is directed to using bubbles to treat substrates.
Xu teaches the flow rate of different hole regions (K1, K2) can be adjusted. (See Xu, Abstract, Figs. 1-10, and paragraphs 79-85.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the flow plate is configured such that a flow rate of the liquid solution through a first set of orifices of the plurality of orifices can be independently varied relative to a second set of orifices of the plurality of orifices, through routine experimentation, with a reasonable expectation of success, to the select the proper flow rate, as a result-effective variable, in order to provide better in-surface and intersheet uniformity of the substrate. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1969)) (See Xu, Abstract, Figs. 1-10, and paragraphs 79-85.)
Claims 4 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Num. 6,132,587 to Jorne et al (hereinafter Jorne) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20040231997 A1 to Wang et al (hereinafter Wang) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20160076150 A1 to Wainwright et al (hereinafter Wainwright) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20040187891 A1 to Singh et al (hereinafter Singh).
Regarding claim 4, Jorne does not explicitly teach the flow plate is configured such that a flow rate of the liquid solution through a first set of orifices of the plurality of orifices can be independently varied relative to a second set of orifices of the plurality of orifices.
Singh is directed to using holes in a flat sheet to form jets of liquid in the container of liquid. (See Singh, Abstract, Figs. 1-10, and paragraph 53.)
Singh teaches the diameter and number of holes can be varied to meet process requirements. (See Singh, Abstract, Figs. 1-10, and paragraph 53.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the flow plate is configured such that a flow rate of the liquid solution through a first set of orifices of the plurality of orifices can be independently varied relative to a second set of orifices of the plurality of orifices., through routine experimentation, with a reasonable expectation of success, to the select the proper diameter for the holes, as a result-effective variable, in order to provide the optimal jetting properties for each liquid and process. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1969)) (See Singh, Abstract, Figs. 1-10, and paragraph 53.)
Regarding claim 6, Jorne does not explicitly teach each orifice of the plurality of orifices have a diameter between about 0.005 inches to 0.2 inches.
Singh teaches the diameter and number of holes can be varied to meet process requirements. (See Singh, Abstract, Figs. 1-10, and paragraph 53.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to substitute different diameter for the holes, through routine experimentation, with a reasonable expectation of success, to the select the proper diameter for each of the holes, as a result-effective variable, in order to provide the optimal jetting properties for each liquid and process. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1969)) (See Singh, Abstract, Figs. 1-10, and paragraph 53.)
Regarding claim 7, Jorne does not explicitly teach a pitch of the plurality of orifices is between about 0.1 - 1.0 inch.
Singh teaches the diameter and number of holes can be varied to meet process requirements. (See Singh, Abstract, Figs. 1-10, and paragraph 53.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to substitute different pitch for the holes, through routine experimentation, with a reasonable expectation of success, to the select the proper spacing and location for each of the holes, as a result-effective variable, in order to provide the optimal jetting properties for each liquid and process. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1969)) (See Singh, Abstract, Figs. 1-10, and paragraph 53.)
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Num. 6,132,587 to Jorne et al (hereinafter Jorne) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20040231997 A1 to Wang et al (hereinafter Wang) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20160076150 A1 to Wainwright et al (hereinafter Wainwright) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20040187891 A1 to Chou et al (hereinafter Chou).
Regarding claim 8, Jorne does not explicitly teach a device configured to receive the liquid solution exiting the processing tank, wherein the device is configured to replenish the received liquid solution with gas bubbles and direct the replenished liquid solution to the processing tank.
Wainwright teaches a device (333) configured to receive the liquid solution exiting the processing tank (320), wherein the device is configured to replenish the received liquid solution with gas bubbles and direct the replenished liquid solution to the processing tank (320). (See Wainwright, Abstract, Figs. 3-4, and paragraphs 1,12, 53-57.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed to include a device configured to receive the liquid solution exiting the processing tank, wherein the device is configured to replenish the received liquid solution with gas bubbles and direct the replenished liquid solution to the processing tank, because Wainwright teaches an injection of an inert gas in the form of microbubbles can facilitate the preferred displacement of dissolved oxygen from the plating solution. (See Wainwright, Abstract, Figs. 3-4, and paragraphs 1,12, 53-57.)
Regarding claim 8, Jorne does not explicitly teach a cavitation device configured to receive the liquid solution exiting the processing tank, wherein the cavitation device is configured to replenish the received liquid solution with gas bubbles.
Chou is directed to a cavitation system connected with a wafer processing tank.
Chou teaches a cavitation device configured to receive the liquid solution exiting the processing tank, wherein the cavitation device is configured to replenish the received liquid solution with gas bubbles and direct the replenished liquid solution to the processing tank. (See Chou, Abstract, Figs. 1-3, and paragraphs 8, 10-13, 15-27.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed to include a cavitation device configured to receive the liquid solution exiting the processing tank, wherein the cavitation device is configured to replenish the received liquid solution with gas bubbles, because Chou teaches a cavitation device is a known way for generating bubbles of gas for use in a substrate treatment facility. (See Chou, Abstract, Figs. 1-3, and paragraphs 8, 10-13, 15-27.)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KARL V KURPLE whose telephone number is (571)270-3477. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8 AM-5 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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached at (571) 272-1295. 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.
/KARL KURPLE/Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights