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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I (Claims 1-15), Species B (the concentration of both the first species and second species varies through the thickness of the coating) in the reply filed on 8/17/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 3 and 16-23 have been withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species and a nonelected invention, respectively, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 8/17/2026.
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 11-12 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 11 recites, “The device of claim 1, wherein, when the coating is exposed to a corrosive component, a difference in a thickness of the coating, before and after being exposed, 1% or less,” however, it is first noted that the limitation appears to be incomplete given that it is unclear whether the “1% or less” somehow refers to the “exposed” condition(s) or whether the “1% or less” refers to the difference in the thickness of the coating. Additionally, given that whether a particular coating material corrodes and/or has a greater than 1% decrease in thickness when exposed to a corrosive component depends not only upon the coating material and the corrosive component but also upon exposure conditions, e.g., duration, the state of said corrosive component (e.g., water as vapor, liquid, or ice), temperature, etc., and initial coating thickness, the Examiner takes the position that the limitation is a relative limitation that is not defined by the claim and the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Dependent claim 12 does not remedy the above given that, for example, water “comprises” hydrogen, and hence is indefinite for the same reasons.
Claim 15 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. Claim 15 recites, “wherein the device is a component used in a semiconductor manufacturing process” (emphasis added), however, given that the claim and the specification fail to clearly recite how the component is being “used” in a semiconductor manufacturing process, one having ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the claimed invention and could not interpret the metes and bounds of the claim so as to understand how to avoid infringement.
Claim Interpretation
Consistent with MPEP § 2111, claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation wherein “the meaning given to a claim term must be consistent with the ordinary and customary meaning of the term (unless the term has been given a special definition in the specification), and must be consistent with the use of the claim term in the specification and drawings. Further, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims must be consistent with the interpretation that those skilled in the art would reach. In re Cortright, 165 F.3d 1353, 1359, 49 USPQ2d 1464, 1468 (Fed. Cir. 1999).” However, although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 f.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993.) It is also noted that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention 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.
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, 4-5, 11-12, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang (WO2020/143101A1, please refer to the attached machine translation for the below cited sections). Wang discloses a gradient self-doped pure-phase multi-element metal oxide thin film provided on a substrate, wherein the multi-element metal oxide is AxByOz, wherein A is metal A, B is metal B, O is an oxygen atom, and x, y, z refer to chemical doses of the metal A, the metal B, the oxygen atom O, respectively; and there is a gradient change of a metal ion A/B proportion from the bottom of the thin film to the top of the thin film (Abstract, Paragraphs 0004-0006), such as a decrease in x:y from the top to the bottom of the film in a thickness direction as in Example 1 shown in Fig. 2(a) or an increase in x:y as in Example 2 shown in Fig. 2(b) (thus a concentration of A and B as the claimed first and second species varying through the thickness of the coating as in instant claims 1 and 4), with a molar ratio of A/(A+B) ranging from about 0.45 to about 0.55 falling within the claimed range of 0.3 to 0.85 as recited in instant claim 5 (Paragraph 0019, Fig. 2). Hence, Wang anticipates instant claims 1 and 4-5.
With respect to instant claims 11-12, given that the claimed invention does not require any specific exposure conditions, and that upon a very brief exposure to water, i.e., a corrosive component that comprises hydrogen, such as a quick water rinsing, the metal oxide coating disclosed by Wang would not change in thickness, the Examiner takes the position that Wang anticipates instant claims 11-12 in light of the lack of clarity thereof as discussed in detail above.
With respect to instant claim 15, Wang discloses that the high purity multi-element metal oxide thin films are “suitable for basic research on semiconductor thin films” (Paragraph 0016), and given that the claimed “device is a component used in a semiconductor manufacturing process” limitation does not provide any additional material or structural limitations to the claimed “device” to differentiate the claimed “device” from the coated substrate disclosed by Wang, the Examiner takes the position that Wang anticipates instant claim 15.
Claims 1, 4-8, 10-13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Repenning (US2023/0091812A1). Repenning discloses a biocompatible, adherent coating for an element that can be integrated in hard and soft tissue such as an implant or screw (a “device”), wherein the coating has a structure made from metalliferous gradient layers having varying oxygen content, with a crystalline outermost gradient layer and the gradient layers comprise tantalum and/or niobium and/or zirconium and/or titanium (Abstract). Repenning specifically discloses an element (20), such as a titanium implant, coated with several coating layers (11, 12, 13), including a lowermost gradient layer (11) formed on the element (20) as a metallic adhesion bonding layer that is substantially free from oxygen, an outermost gradient layer (13) that is a white layer containing a metal oxide having full stoichiometry, and one or more gradient layers (12) positioned therebetween and having an oxygen content that gradually increases from the lowermost gradient layer (11) of metal to the outermost gradient layer (13) of metal oxide with full stoichiometry, such that as the oxygen content gradually increases via the gradient layers, the adhesive bonding between the gradient layers is improved (Paragraphs 0011-0012 and 0023-0024). Repenning discloses one embodiment that in the simplest case includes a 20 nm thick zirconium layer is deposited on the element (20) as the lowermost gradient layer (11), with a final outermost layer (13) of zirconium dioxide of full stoichiometry via gradient layers (12) having gradually increasing oxygen content; while in a second exemplary embodiment, a mixed phase having 20 mol% of Nb2O5 and 80 mol% of Ta2O5 is adjusted for the outermost gradient layer (13) and the full stoichiometry is established starting from the lowermost metallic gradient layer (11) via the intermediate gradient layers (12); with a further exemplary embodiment comprising a crystalline layer of ZrTi2O6 as the outermost gradient layer (13) and gradient layers (12) of (Ti,Zr)O2-x that are amorphous (as in instant claim 10), with the oxygen content increasing from the metallic (Ti,Zr) lowermost gradient layer (11), such that the concentration of the Zr and Ti as the claimed first and second species varies through the thickness of the multi-metal oxide coating as in instant claims 1 and 4. Hence, Repenning anticipates instant claims 1, 4, and 10.
With respect to instant claim 5, given that the ratio of Zr/Ti remains constant throughout the coating while the oxygen content increases to provide an outermost coating of ZrTi2O6, the ratio of Zr/(Zr+Ti) is 0.33 falling within the claimed 0.3 to 0.85 range. Hence, Repenning anticipates instant claim 5.
With respect to instant claim 6, Repenning discloses that the entire thickness of the coating amounts to between 3 and 7 µm (Claim 31), falling within the claimed thickness range and hence anticipating instant claim 6.
With respect to instant claims 7-8, Repenning discloses that the gradient layers (11, 12, 13) comprising tantalum and/or niobium and/or zirconium and/or titanium as discussed above, further comprise aluminum and/or tin (Claims 25 and 37); and/or that one or more of the gradient layer(s) contain(s) carbon and/or nitrogen and/or boron and/or fluor (i.e., fluorine; Claims 27 and 40), and given again that the oxygen content would increase such that the content of the other elements would decrease through the thickness of the coating, the Examiner takes the position that Repenning discloses the claimed invention with sufficient specificity to anticipate instant claims 7-8.
With respect to instant claims 11-12, it is again noted that Repenning discloses that the biocompatible, adherent coating for an element that can be integrated in hard and soft tissue such as an implant or screw, and thus the coated implant would be exposed to a biological environment (which includes water or other “corrosive component”), and given that Repenning specifically discloses that the coating has particularly high biochemical stability and bacteria resistance (Paragraphs 0008, 0014-0015, and 0020), the Examiner takes the position that Repenning anticipates instant claims 11-12 particularly given the lack of clarity thereof as discussed in detail above.
With respect to instant claim 13, given that the outermost gradient layer (13) of metal oxide having full stoichiometry is “different” from the gradient layer (12) having reduced oxygen stoichiometry and that the gradient layer (12) as the claimed “coating” is located between the element (20) as the claimed substrate and the outermost gradient layer (13) as the claimed “at least one layer comprising a metal oxide” that “is different” from the gradient layer (12) or “the coating”, Repenning anticipates instant claim 13.
With respect to instant claim 15, given that the claim does not specify how the device as the claimed component is “used in a semiconductor manufacturing process” and that at least a coated screw disclosed by Repenning is capable of being used as a component or part of a semiconductor apparatus for a semiconductor manufacturing process, the Examiner takes the position that Repenning anticipates instant claim 15, particularly given the lack of clarity thereof as discussed in detail above.
Claims 1, 4-5, 9, 11-12, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Han (US2004/0191545A1). Han discloses a plasma resistant component capable of being exposed to a plasma in a process chamber such as shown in Fig. 1, wherein the corrosion resistance of the chamber component (114) is improved by providing an integral surface coating (117) comprising yttrium-containing species, such as yttrium oxide (Y2O3) or oxidized yttrium species, and the chamber component (114) can comprise, for example, “at least a portion or structure of one or more of a chamber wall 107, chamber liner 105, substrate support 110, gas supply 130, gas energizer 154, gas exhaust 144, and substrate transport 101” (Abstract, Paragraphs 0020-0022; e.g., “a component used in a semiconductor manufacturing process” as in instant claim 15). Han discloses that the “integral surface coating 117 is provided to protect the surfaces 115 of components 114 that are exposed to energized gas plasmas, high temperatures, corrosive gases, and/or erosive sputtering species in the process zone 108 of a process chamber, or that are otherwise susceptible to erosion” (Paragraph 0020), and can comprise yttrium-aluminum alloys and compounds such as a yttrium-aluminum compound having a predefined stoichiometric ratio of yttrium oxide and aluminum oxide such as in yttrium aluminum garnet (YAG) (Paragraph 0022, as in instant claim 9); wherein in one embodiment, the coating is formed by electroplating a layer comprising yttrium onto the surface, and then electroplating a second layer comprising aluminum or zirconium onto the first layer, and annealing the first and second layers; or in another embodiment, the first electroplating layer comprises aluminum or zirconium and the second layer comprises yttrium followed by annealing the first and second layers; or in a further embodiment, an electroplating layer comprising a mixture of aluminum and yttrium may be applied onto the surface of the component and then the layer annealed as shown in flowchart of Fig. 5B, wherein annealing the coating/layers in an oxygen containing atmosphere forms corrosion resistant oxides of one or more of yttrium, aluminum and zirconium in the electroplated coating (117) (Paragraphs 0030-0039).
Han discloses that the coating can have a compositional gradient of the species through a thickness of the coating (Abstract), for example, “the coating 117 can comprise a concentration gradient of one or more of elemental yttrium, yttrium oxide, and yttrium aluminum oxide that decreases the concentration of the yttrium-containing species from a first concentration at the surface 113 of the coating 117, to a second concentration at the surface 112 of the underlying structure 111, without forming discrete boundaries regions in the coating 117, and at a gradual rate throughout a thickness of the coating 117” (Paragraph 0024); wherein the “surface coating 117 can also comprise a second concentration gradient of a second species, such as aluminum or zirconium-containing species, comprising at least one of elemental aluminum, elemental zirconium, aluminum oxide and zirconium oxide” and the “second concentration gradient can increase or decrease with the first concentration gradient of yttrium-containing species, or can be substantially opposite the yttrium-containing species concentration gradient” (Paragraph 0025; as in instant claim 4). Han also discloses that the “heat provided during the annealing process also facilitates the oxidation of the coating materials by speeding up the oxidation reaction” and that the “oxidized species formed by annealing the component 114 can comprise one or more of as Y2O3 and Al2O3, as well as oxidized yttrium aluminum compounds, such as yttrium aluminum garnet (YAG)” (as in instant claim 9, Paragraph 0032) and that “because the oxygen containing atmosphere contacts the surface 113 of the coating 117, the annealing process results in a coating composition having a concentration gradient of oxidized species, with a greater concentration of oxidized species near the surface 113 of the coating 117, thus enhancing the corrosion resistance of the coating 117” (Paragraph 0032). Hence, Han anticipates instant claims 1, 4, 9, and 15.
With respect to instant claim 5, given that Han specifically discloses that the yttrium-aluminum compound can have a predefined stoichiometric ratio of yttrium oxide and aluminum oxide such as in yttrium aluminum garnet (YAG) (Paragraph 0022), i.e., Y3Al5O12, and thus a ratio of X/(X+Y) falling within the claimed range of 0.3 to 0.85, Han anticipates instant claim 5.
With respect to instant claims 11-12, given that Han discloses that the component is a plasma resistant component capable of being exposed to a plasma in a process chamber as discussed above, wherein the coating protects the surfaces of the components that are exposed to energized gas plasmas, high temperatures, corrosive gases, and/or erosive sputtering species in the process zone of a process chamber (Paragraph 0020), the Examiner takes the position that the coating disclosed by Han would inherently exhibit a thickness difference of 1% or less as recited in instant claim 11 when exposed to a corrosive component, particularly comprising at least one of a hydrogen, a halide, or a combination thereof as recited in instant claim 12 under some arbitrary conditions, thereby anticipating instant claims 11-12 given the lack of clarity thereof.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6-9, 11-12, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lin (US2016/0273095A1). Lin discloses semiconductor process chamber components, particularly for use in reactive-ion etching (RIE) processes, that are coated with fluoro-annealed films that provide the coated components with superior plasma etch-resistance, wherein the coating films are tunable and include a metal oxide containing yttrium, such as yttria or yttrium aluminum oxide, applied to the RIE components and then fluorinated in a fluoro-annealing process to convert the yttria or yttrium aluminum oxide to yttrium oxyfluoride or fluorinated yttrium aluminum oxide, respectively, with the resulting protective film being either fully fluorinated or partially fluorinated (Entire document, particularly Abstract, Paragraphs 0002-0008). Lin discloses that the film can also be a graded film with the fluorine content of the film decreasing over a thickness of the film, for example, the film can have an outer portion that is yttrium oxyfluoride having the highest fluorine content and an inner portion that is yttria with the fluorine content gradually decreasing from the outer portion to the inner portion of the film that is closest to and interfaces with the substrate; or alternatively, the film can have an outer portion that is fluorinated yttrium aluminum oxide, i.e., yttrium aluminum oxyfluoride, and an inner portion that is (unfluorinated) yttrium aluminum oxide (Paragraph 0007); and wherein the film can include YeAlfOgFh, where h/(e+f+g)=0.05~0.54, and YoAlpOq, where o/(p+q)=0.03~0.18 (Paragraphs 0008 and 0041). Lin also discloses that some metal oxides are not able to be fluorinated and that in such case, a metal oxide that is capable of being fluorinated can be added to the composition as discussed in Paragraph 0045 to thereby enable the coating to be fluorinated by fluoro-annealing, and that for films comprising other metal oxides, e.g., erbium oxide and cerium oxide, yttrium and/or yttria may be introduced into the material to ensure successful fluorination of the film by fluoro-annealing (Paragraphs 0045-0046); and given that Lin specifically discloses working examples wherein the content of two or more species varies through the thickness of the coating as well as an example wherein a deposited coating of yttrium aluminum oxide is successfully fluoro-annealed to provide a varying fluorine content, the Examiner takes the position that Lin discloses the claimed invention with sufficient specificity to anticipate instant claims 1, 4, and 7-9 (Entire document, particularly as noted above, Examples and Figures).
With respect to instant claims 2 and 15, Lin discloses that the article or substrate to be coated is a vacuum compatible substrate (Abstract), and that the vacuum compatible substrate can be quartz, alumina, aluminum steel, metal, metal alloy, ceramic or plastics suitable for semiconductor manufacturing; and more particularly can be component in a semiconductor manufacturing system, for example, a chamber, chamber component, wafer susceptor, chuck, showerhead, liner, ring, nozzle, baffle, fastener, or wafer transport component (Paragraphs and 0040); and given that Lin specifically discloses examples utilizing a ceramic substrate of alumina, Lin anticipates instant claims 2 and 15.
With respect to instant claim 6, Lin discloses that in one version, the film has a thickness of about 1 micron to about 15 microns, and in a preferred version, the film is at least 3 microns thick, or more preferred at least 4 or 5 microns thick (Paragraph 0044), thereby anticipating instant claim 6.
With respect to instant claims 11-12, as noted above, Lin discloses that the fluoro-annealed films provide the coated components with superior plasma etch-resistance (Abstract), and discloses that fluoro-annealed yttria films offer several advantages and have several desirable characteristics including high fluorine plasma etch resistance, e.g., about 0.1 to about 0.2 microns/hr (Paragraph 0034), and given the dry etch resistance properties with respect to fluorine (a halogen) plasma resistance as shown in Fig. 9, in light of the film thickness above, the Examiner takes the position that Lin discloses the claimed invention with sufficient specificity to anticipate instant claims 11-12.
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.
Claims 2, 6, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han as applied above to claims 1, 4-5, 9, 11-12, and 15, and further discussed below.
The teachings of Han are discussed in detail above and incorporated herein by reference. With respect to instant claim 2, Han teaches that the underlying structure (111) as the claimed substrate may be formed from a metal or an alloy, and although Han does not specifically teach that the metal alloy is stainless steel as instantly claimed, given that stainless steel is an obvious metal alloy utilized in the art as a substrate for chamber components (as evidenced by Wu, US2018/0327899A1, Paragraph 0055), the Examiner takes the position that absent any clear showing of criticality and/or unexpected results, the claimed invention as recited in instant claim 2 would have been obvious over the teachings of Han.
With respect to instant claim 6, Han teaches that the “composition and thickness of the integral surface coating 117 is selected to enhance its resistance to corrosion and erosion, or other detrimental effects” (Paragraph 0026), and that a “suitable thickness of the oxidized species in the integral surface coating 117 may be, for example, from about 12 micrometers (0.5 mils) to about 203 micrometers (8 mils), or even from about 25 micrometers (1 mil) to about 102 micrometers (4 mils)” (Paragraph 0026), thereby overlapping the claimed thickness range and hence rendering instant claim 6 obvious over the teachings of Han.
With respect to instant claim 10, given that Han does not specifically limit the oxidized species to amorphous or crystalline materials and that the multi-metal oxide coating is formed by annealing an electroplated metal coating in an oxygen atmosphere, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to reasonably expect the resulting oxidized coating to comprise an amorphous multi-metal oxide as instantly claimed, and/or given that Han teaches that other oxidized species in various phased can also form according to the composition of materials electroplated onto the structure, the Examiner takes the position that absent any clear showing of criticality and/or unexpected results, the claimed invention as recited in instant claim 10 would have been obvious over the teachings of Han.
Claims 5, 10, 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin, as applied above to claims 1-2, 4, 6-9, 11-12, and 15 and further discussed below.
The teachings of Lin are discussed in detail above and incorporated herein by reference, wherein with respect to instant claim 5, Lin teaches that the protective film can include aluminum yttrium oxide YoAlpOq, where o/(p+q)=0.03~0.18 that can convert to aluminum yttrium oxyfluoride YeAlfOgFh, where h/(e+f+g)=0.05~0.54, following fluoro-annealing (Paragraphs 0008 and 0045), wherein the fluorine can react with the yttria in YoAlpOq (Paragraph 0100), such that the ratio of Y/(Y+Al) and/or Al/(Al+Y) overlaps and thus renders obvious the claimed range. Hence, instant claim 5 would have been obvious over the above teachings of Lin.
With respect to instant claim 10, given that Lin does not specifically limit the metal oxide(s) to crystalline materials only and broadly recites that the “yttria or yttrium aluminum oxide film is preferably columnar in structure” (emphasis added) given that an “amorphous yttria structure (i.e., non-columnar, or less-columnar) does not permit fluorine to penetrate as easily during the fluoro-annealing process” (Paragraph 0039), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize amorphous and/or crystalline multi-metal oxides in the invention taught by Lin such that absent any clear showing of criticality and/or unexpected results, the claimed invention as recited in instant claim 10 would have been obvious over the above teachings of Lin.
With respect to instant claims 13-14, it is first noted that Lin teaches that the vacuum compatible substrate can be alumina or aluminum, and given that an aluminum substrate would have a natural oxide or alumina layer on a surface thereof upon which the fluoro-annealed film is deposited, instant claim 13 would have been obvious over the teachings of Lin given that it is prima facie obviousness to choose from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Further, with respect to instant claim 14, Lin teaches a version wherein the top 1-2 microns of the film is the yttrium aluminum oxyfluoride and a remaining depth of the film is yttrium aluminum oxide (Paragraph 0044) and given that the yttrium aluminum oxide is different from the yttrium aluminum oxyfluoride, and that Lin teaches that YoAlpOq is a mixture of yttria and alumina (Paragraph 0100) and thus may be considered as a “second layer comprising yttria” positioned between the oxidized aluminum surface and the yttrium aluminum oxyfluoride coating, the claimed invention as recited in instant claim 14 would have been obvious over the teachings of Lin.
Citation of Pertinent Prior art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Wu (US2018/0327899A1) discloses metal oxy-fluoride (M-O-F) films, particularly yttrium-based oxy-fluoride (Y-O-F) films for chamber components, wherein a metal oxide coating deposited on a surface of a chamber component, such as a stainless steel chamber component, is subjected to a fluorination process to convert at least a surface of the deposited oxide coating to a metal oxy-fluoride and the oxide coating may comprise a complex metal oxide.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MONIQUE R JACKSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1508. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays-Thursdays from 10:00AM-5:00PM.
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, Callie Shosho can be reached at 571-272-1123. 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.
/MONIQUE R JACKSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787
Prosecution Insights