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 Group II (claim 2 and added claims 4-22) in the reply filed on 03/19/2026 is acknowledged.
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.
The following title is suggested: METHOD OF FILLING HIGH ASPECT RATIO VIAS OF A MONOLITHIC SUBSTRATE BODY WITH LIQUID METAL.
Claim Objections
Claims 2 and 4-22 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2, lines 4-5, the limitation of “wherein the metal comprises gold or gold alloy” should be amended to - - wherein the solid metal comprises gold or gold alloy - -.
Claims 5, 11, 18 and 19 appear to use the determiners “a” and “the” interchangeably which can cause some confusions. The conventional way is to use “a” to recite a limitation for the first time and then use “the” or “said” to refer back to the already recited limitation. However, Applciant’s using “the step” to recite a step for the first time can cause antecedent basis issues of the claimed term. Therefore, claims 5, 11, 18 and 19 may have to be amended to recite “a step” rather than “the step” to prevent any rejection under 112(b) for antecedent basis of the claimed term.
Claim 18, line 2, the limitation of “by metal in the via” should be amended to - - by the solidified metal in the via - -.
Claim 20, line 1, the limitation of “a first mass of metal” should be amended to - - a first solid mass of metal - -.
Claim 20, line 2, the limitation of “a second mass of metal” should be amended to - - a second solid mass of metal - -.
Claim 22, line 3, the limitation of “the-opposed second surface” should be amended to - - the opposed second surface - -.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Independent claim 2, last paragraph recites that the solidified metal defines an electrically conductive path between the first surface and the second surface. However, claim 9 which is dependent on claim 2 recites the limitation “wherein the solidified metal defines an electrical path from first surface to the second surface.” It is unclear if claim 9 is redundant and need to be cancelled or is meant to differentiate that the electrically conductive path in claim 2 is only through the thickness between surfaces (and not from outer surface to outer surface) while claim 9 recites that any portion of the outer first surface has an electrical path with any portion of the outer second surface. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Examiner’s Note
Claim 16 recites the relative term of “approximately” and claim 21 as amended on 03/19/2028 includes a negative limitation of “does not extend along either of the first and the opposed second surface.” Upon further review of the original disclosure, it has been determined that paragraph [0033] and paragraph [0038] of the originally filed specification provides proper support for reciting such limitations in the claims.
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.
Claim(s) 2 and 4-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson (US 3,770,529) in view of Knickerbocker et al. (US 10,130,302, hereinafter “Knickerbocker”).
As applied to claims 2 and 4-9, Anderson teaches a method of metallizing a monolithic substrate body, the method comprising the steps of physically contacting a solid metal with one of a first surface of the monolithic substrate and an opposed second surface of the monolithic substrate body; melting the solid metal so as to define a molten metal; causing a quantity of the molten metal to flow via capillary action from the one of the first surface and the opposed second surface toward the other of the first surface and the opposed second surface in a via; and solidifying the molten metal in the molten state in the via to produce a solidified metal that defines an electrically conductive path between the first surface and the second surface (and electrical path from first to second surfaces as in claim 9, see col. 6, lines 13-31, Figs. 3C, 3D, 4).
Anderson does not explicitly teach wherein the metal comprises gold or a gold alloy, wherein the monolithic substrate body comprises sapphire and wherein a wetting liner is placed in the via (as in claim 2), applying an adhesion layer having claimed composition to an inner surface in the via from first to second surfaces (as in claims 4 and 8), step of applying the wetting liner having claimed composition prior to melting step such that adhesion layer disposed between the inner surface (as in claims 5 and 6), 5), and both the adhesion and wetting liners are each devoid of tin (as in claim 7).
Knickerbocker teaches a conventional method of metallizing a substrate 102 including forming one or more vias 103 (Figs. 1, 2A-2B, 3A-3B) in the substrate, forming at least one liner 104 on at least one sidewall of at least one of the vias, and filling said at least one via with solder material using injection molded soldering (abstract, lines 1-7, col. 4, lines 47-59).
In some embodiments, the liner 104 comprises a solder adhesion layer. A solder adhesion layer may be formed from a metal that helps solder wetting and allows solder fill material to flow easily into the vias 103. The solder adhesion layer therefore improves solder filling yield for vias 103 having high aspect ratios. In particular, the use of a solder adhesion layer as the liner 104 may be useful in cases where the via 103 has a high aspect ratio of 5:1 or greater for both a Si substrate and a glass substrate, as it is difficult to fill such high aspect ratio through vias or blind vias due to lower solder flow/wetting in the through via or blind via. The solder adhesion layer, however, is not limited solely to use with vias having aspect ratios 5:1 or greater.
The solder adhesion layer may be formed from copper (Cu), gold (Au), chromium (Cr), tin (Sn), a copper-nickel (CuNi) alloy, a chromium-nickel-gold (CrNiAu) alloy, a chromium-nickel-copper-gold (CrNiCuAu) alloy, a titanium-nickel (TiNi) alloy, a titanium-copper-nickel-gold (TiCuNiAu) alloy, etc. The solder adhesion layer may have a thickness of 0.1 microns to 10 microns in some embodiments. The thickness of the solder adhesion layer may depend on the type of solder material used. For example, a high Sn percentage solder would benefit from a thicker adhesion layer.
In other embodiments, the liner 104 may be a barrier layer. Some substrate materials, such as silicon, are not attractive for high frequency RF applications due to the low resistivity of silicon. The low resistivity of silicon raises concerns about power consumption and noise coupling performance. These concerns may be at least partially reduced via the use of a barrier layer as the liner 104.
The barrier layer may be formed from nickel (Ni), titanium (Ti), molybdenum (Mo), titanium nitride (TiN), tantalum (Ta), tantalum nitride (TaN), etc. The barrier layer may have a thickness of 0.1 microns to 2 microns.
In some embodiments, the liner 104 may include both a barrier layer and a solder adhesion layer. For example, the liner 104 may include a barrier layer formed on sidewalls of one or more of the vias 103, and a solder adhesion layer formed over the barrier layer. In such embodiments, the thicknesses of the barrier layer and solder adhesion layer may be the same as that described above. Generally, the solder adhesion layer is formed thicker than the barrier layer but this is not a strict requirement (col. 4, lines 47-67, col. 5, lines 1-23).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to employ a conventional multi-layer liner (including barrier, adhesion, and wetting layers) comprising the claimed compositions (i.e., copper, gold for wetting liner and titanium, tantalum for barrier layer with each being devoid of tin) into the vias of the substrate of Anderson before the step of physically contacting the conductive metal, as taught by Knickerbocker, as an effective means of reducing the concerns about the power consumption and noise coupling performance of the substrate (see Knickerbocker, col. 5, lines 4-10) and providing a wetting effect thus allowing the molten metal to flow easier into the vias of the substrate (see Knickerbocker, col. 4, lines 48-52).
As applied to claim 10, the combination of Anderson and Knickerbocker teaches the invention cited including Anderson further teaches wherein the contacting step comprises placing a quantity of the metal in a solid state on the first surface of the substrate body such that the quantity of the metal in the solid state is in physical contact with the first surface of the monolithic substrate body (see globule 45 in Fig. 3D).
As applied to claim 11, the combination of Anderson and Knickerbocker teaches the invention cited including Anderson further teaches wherein the step of melting the metal in the solid state after the placing step, so as to transition the metal in the solid state to the metal in the molten state (col. 6, lines 23-26).
Claim(s) 12-13, 16 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson (US 3,770,529) in view of Knickerbocker et al. (US 10,130,302, hereinafter “Knickerbocker”) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Kochupurackal et al. (WO2009153728A1, hereinafter “Kochupurackal”).
As applied to claims 12-13, the combination of Anderson and Knickerbocker teaches the invention cited including step of melting the metal but does not explicitly teach the step of melting comprises selectively applying an excitation device sufficient to cause the solid state metal to reach melting temperature (as in claim 12) and the excitation device being a laser with laser beam (as in claim 13).
Kochupurackal teaches a method of metallizing a substrate body (10) comprising the steps of physically contacting a metal (16) with a first surface of the substrate body opposite a second surface of the substrate body, causing a quantity of the metal in a molten state to flow from the first surface toward the second surface of the substrate body in a via (12) that extends from the first surface to the second surface; and solidifying the metal in the molten state in the via to produce a solidified metal that defines an electrically conductive path between the first surface and the second surface (page 1, lines 14-16, page 6, line 28 to page 7, line 4, Figs. 1a-1d and 2). Kochupurackal further teaches wherein the contacting step comprises placing a quantity of the metal (16) in a solid state on the first surface of the substrate body (10) such that the quantity of the metal in the solid state is in physical contact with the first surface of the monolithic substrate body (page 6, lines 26-27, Figs. 2 and 4), that the method further comprising the step of melting the metal in the solid state after the placing step, so as to transition the metal in the solid state to the metal in the molten state (page 7, lines 13-16), wherein the melting step comprises selectively applying an excitation device to the quantity of solid metal sufficient to cause the solid metal to reach a melting temperature that causes the solid metal to melt and wherein the excitation device is a laser (20, abstract, Fig. 2) that directs a laser beam to the quantity of solid metal (page 4, lines 10-13, Figs. 2-4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to employ a conventional excitation device including a laser for melting step of Anderson/Knickerbocker, as taught by Kochupurackal, as an effective means of avoiding premature solidification of the molten metal prior to entering and covering the interior of the via of the substrate (see Kochupurackal, page 4, lines 12-13).
As applied to claim 16, the combination of Anderson and Knickerbocker teaches the invention cited including a via extended from first surface to second surface of the substrate but does not explicitly recite the claimed aspect ratio.
Kochupurackal teaches the vias have a high aspect ratio, wherein the aspect ratio is a ratio of a length of the via from the first surface to the second surface along a central axis with respect to a maximum cross-sectional dimension of the via along a direction perpendicular to the central axis (see page 3, lines 3-14, page 8, lines 18-21, Fig. 5 showing aspect ratios of 5-40). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the via in the substrate of Anderson/Knickerbocker with a high aspect ratio such as the claimed aspect ratio, as taught by Kochupurackal, as an effective means of filling the molten metal by facilitating the capillary action of the molten metal into the via of the substrate (page 3, lines 3-14).
As applied to claim 19, the combination of Anderson and Knickerbocker teaches the invention cited but does not explicitly teach a step of applying a redistribution layer to at least one or both of the first and second surfaces in electrical communication with the via.
Kochupurackal teaches the method of metalizing the substrate body including step of applying a redistribution layer (22) to at least one or both of the first and second surfaces in electrical communication with the via (page 10, lines 30-32, Figs. 3 & 4). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the substrate of Anderson/Knickerbocker with a redistribution layer to at least one or both of the first and second surfaces in electrical communication with the via, as taught by Kochupurackal, as an effective means of increasing the capillary force and thus, facilitating the deposition of the molten metal by into the via of the substrate (paragraph bridging pages 10-11).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson (US 3,770,529) in view of Knickerbocker et al. (US 10,130,302, hereinafter “Knickerbocker”) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Ward (US 3,735,911).
As applied to claim 14, the combination of Anderson and Knickerbocker teaches the inventio cited including the melting step but does not explicitly teach a further step of pre-heating the substrate body prior to the heating step.
Ward teaches a method of manufacturing a semiconductor substrate (240) wherein the substrate is pre-heated (by pre-heater 20) prior to being worked on in order to prevent the substrate from being subjected to any thermal shock (col. 3, lines 15-19). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to employ a step of preheating the substrate in the method of Anderson/Knickerbocker, as taught by Ward, as a matter of use of known technique to improve similar methods in the same way (see MPEP 2143, KSR, Rationale “C”). The resulting method would be reasonably expected to ensure the substrate of Anderson/Knickerbocker would be heated sufficiently without being subjected to a sudden thermal shock during the heating of the metal from solid state to molten state as it is flown into the vias of the substrate.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson (US 3,770,529) in view of Knickerbocker et al. (US 10,130,302, hereinafter “Knickerbocker”) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Kemper (US 20080023530, hereinafter “Kemper”).
As applied to claim 15, the combination of Anderson and Knickerbocker teaches the invention cited including the melting step but does not explicitly teach wherein the step of melting comprises inducing eddy currents in the metal in the solid state.
Kemper teaches a method of manufacturing a semiconductor device wherein a metal material is melted from solid state to molten state using eddy currents (col. 2, lines 37-39). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to substitute a conventional heating source of eddy currents for the heating source of Anderson/Knickerbocker, as taught by Kemper, as a matter of simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results (see MPEP 2143, KSR, Rationale “B”) and in order to provide uniform melting of the metal resulting in a filled via having continuous porosity. The resulting method would be reasonably expected to perform in the manner taught by Anderson without modification of the principles of operation of Anderson.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson (US 3,770,529) in view of Knickerbocker et al. (US 10,130,302, hereinafter “Knickerbocker”) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of either Ahn et al. (US 3,852,877 hereinafter “Ahn”) or Feulner et al. (US 3,561,110, hereinafter “Feulner”).
As applied to claim 17, the combination of Anderson and Knickerbocker teaches the invention cited including the contacting step but does not explicitly teach wherein the contacting step comprises placing the substrate body in a bath of the metal in the molten state.
Ahn teaches a method of metalizing a substrate by dipping the substrate into the molten conductor (52), using capillary forces to enter into the interior of the substrate structure to form desired circuits (col. 6, lines 25-30).
Feulner teaches a method of making connections and conductive paths wherein a solder is applied to the interior surface of a via hole (22) by dipping the entire substrate into a molten solder bath for a period of time sufficient to allow the solder (72) to permeate to the bottom of the via hole (22, col. 7, lines 25-28, Figs. 1-6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to employ a conventional soaking/filling technique of dipping the entire substrate of Anderson/Knickerbocker into a conductive metal bath in molten state, as taught by either Ahn or Feulner, as a matter of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (see MPEP 2143, KSR, Rationale “A”). The resulting method would be reasonably expected to perform in the manner taught by Anderson without modification of the principles of operation of Anderson, especially since Anderson does not dissuade one of ordinary skill to use such a conventional hole filling technique.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson (US 3,770,529) in view of Knickerbocker et al. (US 10,130,302, hereinafter “Knickerbocker”) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Nomura et al. (US 10,755,998, hereinafter “Nomura”).
As applied to claim 18, Anderson as modified by Knickerbocker teaches the invention cited with the exception of explicitly teaching step of filling the voids with a polymer.
Nomura teaches a method of manufacturing a semiconductor device (col. 2, lines 37-39) wherein a metal layer (12) of a substrate (10/M1, Figs. 5 & 6) has hole-like voids (12a) which are filled with resin member (20) made of a polymer (col. 11, 47-65, paragraph bridging cols.11-12). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to employ a conventional void filling technique in the method of Anderson/Knickerbocker, as taught by Nomura, as a matter of use of known technique to improve similar methods in the same way (see MPEP 2143, KSR, Rationale “C”). The resulting method would be reasonably expected to ensure to fill the voids of the substrate of Anderson/Knickerbocker resulting in a via having uniform and continuous porosity that would improve and enhance the performance of the substrate in use. A person having ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect that technique of using the polymer by Nomura could be used to fill any voids that may have been created during the solidification of the molten metal in the vias of the substrate of Anderson without modification of the principles of operation of Anderson.
Claim(s) 20 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson (US 3,770,529) in view of Knickerbocker et al. (US 10,130,302, hereinafter “Knickerbocker”) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Umetsu et al. (US 20030060000A1, hereinafter “Umetsu”).
As applied to claim 20, Anderson as modified by Knickerbocker teaches the invention cited including the first mass of solid metal physically contacting the first surface of the substrate causing a quantity of the first mass to flow via capillary action from first surface to second surface. The combination fails to teach a further step of
physically contacting a second mass of solid metal with the second surface of the monolithic substrate body, causing a quantity of the second solid mass of metal in a molten state to flow via capillary action from the second surface toward the first surface in the via; and solidifying the metal of the second mass of solid metal in the molten state in the via.
Umetsu teaches a method of metallizing a substrate body (10) comprising the steps of physically contacting a solid metal (bump 42) with a first surface (top) of the substrate body opposite a second surface (bottom) of the substrate body, causing a quantity of the solid metal in a molten state (40/44) to flow from the first surface toward the second surface of the substrate body in a via (24) that extends from the first surface to the second surface; contacting a mass of solid metal (46) with a second surface (bottom) of the substrate body opposite a first surface (top) of the substrate body, causing a quantity of the metal in a molten state to flow from the second surface toward the first surface of the substrate body in a via (24) that extends from the second surface to the first surface; and solidifying the metal in the molten state in the via to produce a solidified metal that defines an electrically conductive path between the first surface and the second surface (paragraph [0145], Fig. 3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to replace the step of physically contacting the first surface with solid metal in method of Anderson as modified by Knickerbocker with steps of physically contacting first and second surfaces with first and second solid mass of solid metals, respectively, as taught by Umetsu, as a matter of use of known technique to improve similar methods in the same way (see MPEP 2143, KSR, Rationale “C”). The resulting method would be reasonably expected to fill the vias of the substrate of Anderson/Knickerbocker with reduced filling time and ensuring no trapped air remains in the center of the via thus, resulting in the substrate having enhanced strength and optimal thermal management.
As applied to claim 22, Anderson as modified by Knickerbocker teaches the invention cited including the first mass of solid metal physically contacting the first surface of the substrate causing a quantity of the first mass to flow via capillary action from first surface to second surface. The combination fails to teach wherein the physically contacting step comprises physically contacting the solid metal with each of the first surface and the opposed second surface; the causing step comprises causing a respective quantity of the molten metal to flow via capillary action from the first surface toward the opposed second surface along the metallic wetting liner, and further causes a respective quantity of the molten metal to flow via capillary action from the second surface toward the opposed first surface along the metallic wetting liner.
Umetsu teaches a method of metallizing a substrate body (10) comprising the steps of physically contacting a solid metal (bump 42) with a first surface (top) of the substrate body opposite a second surface (bottom) of the substrate body, causing a quantity of the solid metal in a molten state (40/44) to flow from the first surface toward the second surface of the substrate body in a via (24) that extends from the first surface to the second surface; contacting a mass of solid metal (46) with a second surface (bottom) of the substrate body opposite a first surface (top) of the substrate body, causing a quantity of the metal in a molten state to flow from the second surface toward the first surface of the substrate body in a via (24) that extends from the second surface to the first surface; and solidifying the metal in the molten state in the via to produce a solidified metal that defines an electrically conductive path between the first surface and the second surface (paragraph [0145], Fig. 3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to replace the step of physically contacting the first surface with solid metal in method of Anderson as modified by Knickerbocker with steps of physically contacting first and second surfaces with first and second solid mass of solid metals, respectively, as taught by Umetsu, as a matter of use of known technique to improve similar methods in the same way (see MPEP 2143, KSR, Rationale “C”). The resulting method would be reasonably expected to fill the vias of the substrate of Anderson/Knickerbocker with reduced filling time and ensuring no trapped air remains in the center of the via thus, resulting in the substrate having enhanced strength and optimal thermal management.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson (US 3,770,529) in view of Knickerbocker et al. (US 10,130,302, hereinafter “Knickerbocker”) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Kirby (US 20060148250A1).
As applied to claim 21, the combination of Anderson and Knickerbocker teaches the invention cited including forming the wetting layer along the interior surface of the via but does not explicitly teach the wetting layer does not extend along either of the first and the second opposed surfaces.
Kirby teaches a methods for forming interconnections in microelectronic workpieces wherein a hole/via is formed in the workpiece (stage 310), a dielectric liner is formed in the hole/via (stage 330) and a wetting layer is formed on the dielectric liner (which is only in the hole/via and thus, not extending on any of the two opposite surfaces) at stage 330 (paragraph [0032], Fig. 3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to employ in the method of Anderson/Knickerbocker the step of forming the wetting layer only inside the via and not extending to any of the two outside surfaces, as taught by Kirby, as a matter of use of known technique to improve similar methods in the same way (see MPEP 2143, KSR, Rationale “C”). The resulting method would be reasonably expected to ensure facilitating the deposition of subsequent molten metal only into the via without any subsequent steps of cleaning any residue of the wetting liner outside the via.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARANG AFZALI whose telephone number is (571)272-8412. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7 am - 4 pm 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, Thomas Hong can be reached at 571-272-0993. 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.
/SARANG AFZALI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726 05/08/2026
Prosecution Insights