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 .
The response of the applicant has been read and given careful consideration. Rejections of the previous office action, not repeated below are withdrawn. Response to the arguments of the applicant are presented after the first rejection they are directed to.
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 17-18,21,31-34,36 and 46-49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. 20140063490, in view of Kato 20080186509, Yang et al. KR 20090095388 and Jin et al. CN 104298068.
Zhang et al. 20140063490 discloses a test structure for measuring the wavefront aberration of and EUV inspection system [0002,0007]. The test structure is a non-reflective substrate (302) with a reflective multilayered (ML) stack/pillar (304) of alternating multilayers of Mo/Si, Ru/Si or Mo/Si/C. This can be provided with a capping layer (308) to protect the multilayer from moisture and oxygen, which attack/degrade these materials. The thickness/height of the ML pillar structure can be comparable to or less than the resolution of the projection optics, which allows the ML to be patterned ay a much finer resolution [0058- 0062]. Figure 5 teaches an alternative wavefront aberration measurement structure where a substrate (502), is provided with a reflective multilayer ML (504), capping layer on the reflective ML (508) and an absorber layer (506) with a pinhole sized opening (508). The depth and width of the pinhole are selected to minimize adverse optical effect, such as shadowing which would affect the ability of the light reflected from the exposed (pinhole) portion of the from filling the pupil area. The absorber thickness of less than 50 nm works well. The pinholes can be any shape, including cube, oval [0071-0076]. Each of the ML pillar and pinhole provide sufficient contrast and have features of 50 nm or less for a good uniform pupil fill. [0077]. The pinhole design has poor signal to noise for dimensions of less than 50 nm, but this may be improved by choosing different absorbers which would lower the light reflected by the absorber. The ML pillar structures is a much better background reflectance suppression [0078-0080]. The ML pillar or pinhole inspection tools are used to fill the pupil areas of the inspection tool [0081]. Figures 8C and 8F shows a much better fill for the ML pillar structures than observed in figures 8A and 8D where a 40 bilayer and 50 nm thick absorber layer is used or figures 8B and 8E where a thinner ML is used (5-15 bilayers) [0057,0084-0087]. The substrate is formed of a material (glass, silicon, LTEM) not reflecting in the EUV in the ML pillar embodiment [0059], while the substrate choice is not critical in the pinhole embodiment [0071]. The adjustment of the imaging optical is disclosed [0039]. Zhang teaches that the reflective multilayer is different from those used in EUV photomasks as the reflective multilayer is optimized to maximize angular bandwidth, rather than high peak reflectivity. Using (traditional) EUV masks for wavefront aberration would be suited only for projection optics with small numerical apertures [0053]. The use of thick absorber materials used in EUV masks which are necessary for low background (reflected) intensity results in an high/increased aspect ratio for test features, resulting in shadowing and thick mask effects associated with off axis illumination used in EUV inspection/metrology systems. The absorber may have a non-zero reflectivity which also would affect aberration metrology [0054]. Conventionally, EUV masks have 40-60 Mo/Si pairs ion the reflective multilayer, but the use of 15 or fewer pairs, 10 or fewer pairs, with a preference for about 5 pairs of Mo/Si bilayer pairs increases the bandwidth while optimization of the bilayer thickness flattens out the angular reflectivity [0057]. The use of a pinhole mask structure which is similar to EUV photomasks is taught with respect to figure 5, including a substrate (502) , reflective multilayer (405), capping layer (508) and absorber (506) and describes the use of TaN absorber layers and absorber thicknesses of 50 or less. The use of 15 or fewer pairs, 10 or fewer pairs, preferably 5 pairs of Mo/Si bilayers [0071-0075].
PNG
media_image1.png
177
201
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
150
226
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
745
461
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
723
473
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
261
328
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
648
476
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Kato 20080186509 teaches with respect to figure 1, the measurement of the wavefront aberration using a shearing interferometer set up which includes detection unit (50) and the masks of figures 2 and 3 [0027-0037].
PNG
media_image7.png
221
190
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
117
207
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
213
181
media_image9.png
Greyscale
In the mask illustrates in figures 2 and 3, a substrate (ST) is provided with a reflective Mo/Si multilayer (310) which is shielded outside the group opening (322b) by the patterned absorber layer (322) and the patterned antireflection layer (324) and within the group opening by the patterned absorber layer (322), which leaves openings/windows where the reflective multilayer is exposed and can reflect the incident EUV light [0028-0050]. Figure 4 illustrates the importance of the antireflection layer [0037]. Figures 7a-d and 8a-e illustrate alternative processes of forming the wavefront aberration mask [0055-0062].
Yang et al. KR 20090095388 (machine translation attached) teaches with respect to figures 3-5, a quartz glass substrate (300), which is provided with a Mo/Si reflective multilayer (310) which is then provided with a resist pattern (320). The resist (320) is used as a mask to etch the reflective multilayer (310) down to the substrate, the resist is then removed and the recesses are filled with absorber materials (330) such as TaN, Ta, TiN or Ti. The top surface of the absorber is equal to the top surface of the reflective ML is as to not cause a shadow effect <17-22>. Figure 2 illustrates the shadowing effect <8>.
PNG
media_image10.png
243
332
media_image10.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image11.png
155
321
media_image11.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image12.png
162
321
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Jin et al. CN 104298068 (machine translation attached) teaches in figure 1 an EUV mask
including a low expansion substrate (10), Mo/Si reflective multilayer (11/12), a capping layer
(13) or Ru or Si02, a recess in the reflective multilayer with a Cr or TaN absorber (16) and an
antireflection coating (15) [0027-0028].
PNG
media_image13.png
150
342
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Zhang et al. 20140063490 teaches the apparatus of figure 2 where the wavefront aberration mask is placed at location (210), the incident EUV light is reflected off the wavefront aberration mask forming an image of the mask which fills the pupil and is used to measure the aberration and provide a basis for adjusting the exposure apparatus the imaging optics, but does not teach a wavefront aberration mask meeting the claims. .
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the apparatus of figure 2 of Zhang et al. 20140063490 using the pinhole mask similar to that of figure 5 with a thin reflective ML (having 5-15 bilayer pairs) and the process of using the apparatus by replacing the pinhole mask used by Zhang et al. 20140063490 with one where an array of reflective pinhole areas are formed across the mask surface as in Kato 20080186509 in the thin reflective layer of Zhang et al. 20140063490, but using the buried/embedded absorber structure similar to that of Yang et al. KR 20090095388, where the reflective multilayer stack is etched down to the glass substrate using the etching processes taught by Zhang et al. 20140063490 for forming reflective layer stacks of figures 3A,4F and 4G and filling the openings with absorber capped with an antireflection layer so that the top surface of the absorber/antireflection layer stack is even with the top surface of the reflective ML as in Jin et al. CN 104298068, where the coplanar top surfaces eliminate shadowing as discussed in Yang et al. KR 20090095388 which is discussed as an issue for thick absorbing layers on the reflective layer in Zhang et al. 20140063490 at [0054,0074,0087] noting the use of antireflection layers on the wavefront aberration mask of Kato 20080186509 to reduce reflectance form the absorber layer. The glass substrate inherently does not reflect EUV (See Zhang et al. at [0059] and effectively decreases the light reflected from the absorber areas in a manner similar to using a different absorber or a thicker absorber discussed in Zhang et al. at [0072], but due the co-planarity of the reflective ML and absorber/antireflection stack the resulting pinhole array mask does not suffer from shadowing.
The use of 5 bilayer pairs has a relatively flat angular reflectance of about 20% as evidenced in figure 7C and fills the pupil as evidenced in figure 8C and 8F of Zhang et al.
The resultant mask would have an array of reflective pinhole areas arranged similarly to figure 3 of Kato 20080186509, but would be an embedded mask similar to those of Yang et al. KR 20090095388 and Jin et al. CN 104298068 with 5-15 reflective bilayers as in Zhang et al., where the top surface of the reflective ML and the absorber/antireflection layer are coplanar to address the issue of shadowing raised in Zhang et al.
The applicant argues that Zhang et al. teaches away from the use of conventional mask structures/patterns for wavefront aberration. The applicant argues that figures 7A-G, teaches the effect of changing the period of the bilayers. The examiner points out that figures 7A-C use 5 bilayers, figures 7D-F use 10 bilayers. Figure 7G illustrates of the use of 40 pairs. With lower numbers of pairs, the reflectance is lower, but the angular sensitivity is increased. Figure 5 of Zhang is similar to the structure of figures 2 and 3 of Kato 20080186509, where a patterned absorber is placed on a reflective multilayer, so the arguments that Zhang et al. teaches away from Kato is not persuasive. The EUV masks of Yang et al. KR 20090095388 and Jin et al. CN 104298068 include both a reflective multilayer with (more) 40 pairs and an absorber layer, but differ from the structure of figure 5 of Zhang et al. in that the absorber is embedded in the reflective multilayer and from the structure of figures 3A,4F and 4G of Zhang et al. in that the absorber fills the space between the reflective stacks (304) formed by etching, rather than relying upon the substrate (302) to be EUV absorbing.
The applicant argues that the use of the larger number of reflective pairs in Yang et al. KR 20090095388 and Jin et al. CN 104298068 teaches away from their combination with Zhang et al. The examiner disagrees, noting that the use of 5,10 or 40 bilayer pairs in the structures is evidenced in Zhang et al. together with the lower reflectivity and lower angular selectivity when 5 (figures 7A-C) or 10 (figures 7D-F) bilayers pairs are used, rather than the conventional 40 pairs of figure 7G. This decreased angular selectivity (for 5 pairs in particular) meets the uniform tolerance for collection angles, particularly when shadowing is not an issue due to the co-planarity of the upper surfaces of the reflective multilayer and the absorber/antireflection bilayer as taught in Yang et al. KR 20090095388 and Jin et al. CN 104298068, particularly figure 2 of Yang et al. KR 20090095388 which clearly illustrates the impact of shadowing on angular reflectance.
The applicant argues that the etching down to the substrate is not obvious form the references. The examiner points to figures 3A,4F and 4G of Zhang et al. and Yang et al. KR 20090095388 which establish that it is known to etch down to the substrate. While there is an issue with etching the substrate taught in Jin et al. CN 104298068, the issue of diffusion during etching (side etching) would be expected to be less with a thinner reflective multilayer as the etching duration would be reduced. Additionally, any over etch would be expected to have minimal effect as Zhang et al. teaches that the glass substrate has a low reflectance (less and 0.1%) for EUV at [0059]. While the use of 40 pairs is taught by Zhang et al. as having high angular selectivity (drop off at ~15 degrees), the reflectance of 5 bilayer pairs is relatively flat for 0-25 degrees (figures 7A-C). The rejection stands.
As discussed in the advisory action, figure 1 of Jin et al. CN 10429068 shows the top surfaces of the reflective multilayer and the absorber/ antireflective layer to be coplanar The applicant argues as if the references are non-analogous. The examiner disagrees, pointing out that each of the references describes a reflective mask including an absorber region and a reflective multilayer region.
The applicant argues that Zhang teaches away from modifying the text structure based upon the language describing the different reflectivity, thickness of the absorber and number of Mo/Si bilayers. Zhang et al teaches less than 15 bilayer pairs [0057], rather than 40-60 pairs used in semiconductor imaging masks to increase the bandwidth of the mask (reflectivity). The absorber thickness in Zhang is less than 100 nm and can be thicknesses of 50 nm [0013,0074] which is congruent with the less than 75 nm or less than 50 nm discussed for the reflective pillars [0062]. The use of a thick absorber is taught as degrading the image quality due to shadowing and thick mask effect as discussed at [0054]. The teachings point to the ML and absorber both being thin, such as 50 nm. The difference in reflectivity in the multilayer using less than 15 pairs vs 40-60 is discussed and the desired use of 15 of fewer is clearly articulated.
In the response of 7/14/2025 at page 10-11, the applicant argues as if the examiner has not provided any motivation for the changes described in the rejection. The applicant argues that Zhang et al. describes the positioning of the reflective pinhole mask for measuring the wavelength in the same position as an EUV mask. Kato et al. also describes the reflective pinhole mask as being at the object plane (where the mask would be placed). The examiner agrees with these points, noting that figure2 od Zhang et al.
PNG
media_image14.png
775
472
media_image14.png
Greyscale
is similar to figure 2 of the instant application
PNG
media_image15.png
563
395
media_image15.png
Greyscale
as well as figure 1 of Kato et al. (see below).
PNG
media_image16.png
626
482
media_image16.png
Greyscale
Th applicant argues that Yang et al. and Jin relates to the production of reflective/EUV photomasks used for forming devices, rather than wavefront analysis. The examiner points out that each of the references forms a reflective EUV mask based upon an the pattern of the combination of the absorber and reflective multilayer. These reflective pinhole masks of Zhang et al. 20140063490 and Kato 20080186509 function in exactly the same manner as the reflective photomasks of Yang et al. KR 20090095388 and Jin et al. CN 104298068, differing in the specific patterns formed in the maskblanks (pinhole patterns vs semiconductor device patterns). The EUV light reflects off the exposed reflective multilayer portions and the absorber prevents the reflection of the EUV light in portions. The positioning of the pinhole masks in the same position as used for EUV masks supports their similarity and functionality in reflecting EUV light in a pattern-wise manner. Additionally, Zhang et al. describes the problem of shadowing at [0054] and Yang et al. does the same (abstract) and clearly states that the flatness of the top surface does not exhibit the shadowing effect which improves the uniformity of the critical dimensions (CD) of the pattern <15>. This problem is recognized in both the pinhole EUV masks used for metrology and conventional EUV masks used in semiconductor/lithographic patterning
On pages 11-13 of the response, the applicant argues that Zhang et al. teaches away from the high reflectivity of (conventional) EUV masks as the optimization high reflectivity limits the angular bandwidth that the mask is useful with and that the thick absorbers used in conventional EUV masks suffer from shadowing and may interfere with the measurements of aberration. Zhang et al. reduces the number of multilayer pairs in the reflective multilayer to increase the angular bandwidth, which also reduces its reflectivity. The teaching away in Zhang et al. is limited to the teaching away from the use of a large number of pairs/layers in the reflective multilayer to increase the useful angular range of reflected light with the mask. The analysis of the applicant notes the shadowing, but fails to appreciate that this establishes shadowing as a problem and in discussing a reduction in the thickness of the absorber, points to the solution known in the reflective EUV mask art, specifically reducing/minimizing the thickness difference between the top surface of the absorber regions and the regions with the reflective multilayer.
On page 13 of the response, the applicant argues that the examiner has not established why one skilled in the art would be directed to the embedded structures of Jin et al. form the teachings of Zhang et al., As discussed above, the teaching away in Zhang et al. is limited to the teaching away from the use of a large number of pairs/layers in the reflective multilayer to increase the useful angular range of reflected light with the mask. The analysis of the applicant notes the shadowing, but fails to appreciate that this establishes shadowing as a problem and in discussing a reduction in the thickness of the absorber, points to the solution known in the reflective EUV mask art, specifically reducing/minimizing the thickness difference between the top surface of the absorber regions and the regions with the reflective multilayer. Additionally, the discussion of the problem of reflectance off the absorber discussed in Zhang et al. at [0054] would clearly be addressed by using an antireflection layer as part of the absorber structure.
The teaching away in Zhang et al. asserted by the applicant on page 13-15 is limited to teaching away from the use of high reflective multilayers with the large number of paired layers (~40), which also would require the mask structure to be thicker. There is every indication in the applied art that forming embedded structures where the surfaces of the relatively thin reflective multilayer areas and the antireflection/absorber bilayer are coplanar would address the issues of shadowing and reflection from the absorber surface discussed in Zhang et al. as issues while maintaining the increase angular reflectivity of the reflective multilayer areas. The position of the examiner is that the rejection clearly establishes motivation to modify the teachings of Zhang et al. by using layout of pinholes of Kato et al and the embedded absorbers of Jin et al. and Yang et al. with the antireflection layer of Jin et al. to address the issues of shadowing and reflection off the absorber articulated in Zhang et al.
On page 15-17 of the response, the applicant argues that the combination of references do not teach each and every limitation required by the claims. Specifically the pillars with the absorber formed around them to prevent oxidation. The examiner strongly disagrees, pointing out that the reflective pinholes in Kato and Zhang et al. clearly correspond to the multilayer pillars and when the embedded structure is formed, the sides of the reflective multilayer portions are in contact with the solid absorber/antireflective bilayer and so would inherently be protected from contact with any oxygen in the atmosphere. One skilled in the art recognizes that solids impede the flow/migration of gasses.
The applicant argues on page 17 that Jin et al. uses absorber merely to fill defects on the reflective multilayer. This is entirely without merit and conflicts with the applicant’s earlier position that the Jin et al. is used to form semiconductor devices. Jin in the abstract states “The invention relates to an extreme ultraviolet lithography mask structure for large numerical aperture, from bottom to top in turn comprises a mask substrate, extreme ultraviolet multilayer high reflection film, cap layer; the top part of the extreme ultraviolet multilayer high reflection film is provided with absorbing layer for filling the defect in the defect is filled with the absorbing layer; the top part of the absorbing layer and the top part of the extreme ultraviolet multilayer high reflection film is the same, the pattern structure of the absorption layer photoetching mask structure for carrying pattern information. different from the traditional reflective mask structure, a reflection area and absorption area of the mask structure is located in a same plane, which belongs to the two-dimensional structure. exposure pattern by the absorption area, absorbing area comprises two parts of absorbing layer and anti-reflection layer, multiple layer films is deposited after the etching. the structure can completely eliminate the mask shadow effect, but also can protect the reflective area a multilayer film structure, the mask contrast and structural stability.” Additionally, The invention of extreme ultraviolet lithography mask structure for large numerical aperture, using the top of extreme ultraviolet multilayer high reflection film is etched and filled in the absorption layer material forming an absorption layer to form a mask pattern, instead of as in the prior art extreme ultraviolet multilayer high reflection film all etching until the mask substrate is exposed, to form a mask pattern. avoid the easy diffusion to cause reflection area film bottom layer structural damage in the process of etching extreme ultraviolet multilayer high reflection film so as to reduce reflectivity even causes reflection area collapse and finally affect the exposure quality [0019]. This teaching in Jin et al. of the desirability of using thinner absorber structures is entirely congruent with the large NA/angular bandwidth based upon thinner absorbers and reflective multilayers discussed in Zhang et al.
The examiner relies upon the response above to address any arguments which might apply to independent claim 32 (see pages 17 and 18) as well as the dependent claims.
In the response of 12/31/2025, the applicant argues on pages 8-11 of the response that there is no motivation to combine Zhang, Jin, Yang and Kato in the manner asserted in the previous action. The applicant argues that Zhang teaches away from using traditional EUV reticle patterns of a fabrication EUV mask. The examiner responds that Zhang et al. 20140063490 describes the diagnostic mask as residing in the same place as the photomask would be at [0051]. As EUV photomasks are reflective, the diagnostic mask may be based upon reflective designs [0052]. Zhang teaches that the reflective multilayer is different from those used in EUV photomasks as the reflective multilayer is optimized to maximize angular bandwidth, rather than high peak reflectivity. Using (traditional) EUV masks for wavefront aberration would be suited only for projection optics with small numerical apertures [0053]. The use of thick absorber materials used in EUV masks which are necessary for low background (reflected) intensity results in an high/increased aspect ratio for test features, resulting in shadowing and thick mask effects associated with off axis illumination used in EUV inspection/metrology systems. The absorber may have a non-zero reflectivity which also would affect aberration metrology [0054]. Conventionally, EUV masks have 40-60 Mo/Si pairs ion the reflective multilayer, but the use of 15 or fewer pairs, 10 or fewer pairs, with a preference for about 5 pairs of Mo/Si bilayer pairs increases the bandwidth while optimization of the bilayer thickness flattens out the angular reflectivity [0057]. The use of a pinhole mask structure which is similar to EUV photomasks is taught with respect to figure 5, including a substrate (502) , reflective multilayer (405), capping layer (508) and absorber (506) and describes the use of TaN absorber layers and absorber thicknesses of 50 or less. The use of 15 or fewer pairs, 10 or fewer pairs, preferably 5 pairs of Mo/Si bilayers [0071-0075].
The examiner holds that the differences between traditional EUV photomask and the diagnostic mask in the second embodiment of Zhang et al. is mainly the difference in the optimal number or Mo/Si pairs and the optical thickness of the bilayers, where the number of bilayers is reduced and the thicknesses of the bilayers optimized for increased angular bandwidth, rather than high peak reflectivity [0053,0071-0075]. This is clear from the cited portions of Zhang et al. and problems with shadowing due to the thickness of the absorber layer above the multilayered reflector surface is solved by the flat surfaces in the embedded absorber masks of Yang et al. KR 20090095388 and Jin et al. CN 104298068. The examiner disagrees that Zhang et al. teaches broadly away from traditional EUV photomask, noting that the differences between “traditional” EUV photomasks and the diagnostic masks of the second embodiment (see figure 5 and associated text) are only differences in the number of Mo/Si pairs in the reflective layer.
In the response of 12/31/2025, the applicant argues on pages 11-12 that Zhang et al. does not provide motivation to form the EUV wavefront aberration mask of the claims where the reflective multilayer pillars with which are capped and absorber/absorption materials is formed around these reflective pillars. In each of the embodiment of Zhang et asl. the reflective multilayers are formed on the substrate and have a uniform thickness with the first embodiment forming pillars (304) of the reflective multilayer (see figure 4G) with capping layer (308 and 452) on a substrate having a low EUV reflectivity. The position of the examiner is that the discussion of shadowing in Zhang et al. directs one skilled in the art toward the teachings of Yang et al. KR 20090095388 and Jin et al. CN 104298068. If the absorbing substrate (302) in the first embodiment of Zhang et al. (see figure 4G) is not within the focal plane, it may be that reflection from the sides of the isolated pillars is not an issue and that back filling/planarizing with absorber would be detrimental, but there is no evidence of a detrimental or unexpected effect to this backfilling in the record. The examiner notes also that the etching to form the pillars in the reflective multilayer of Zhang et al. (see figures 4A-4G) is similar to the etching/patterning of Yang et al. KR 20090095388 and Jin et al. CN 104298068. The rejection stands.
Claims 17-18,21,24,31-34,36,39 and 46-49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. 20140063490, in view of Kato 20080186509, Yang et al. KR 20090095388 and Jin et al. CN 104298068, further in view of Kodera JP 2018-010192.
Kodera JP 2018-010192 teaches a multilayer reflective film 12 for reflecting exposure light in the EUV region is formed on one surface of the reflective mask 100 (surface on which the circuit pattern A is formed). The multilayer reflective film 12 is formed by alternately forming 40 pairs of a molybdenum (Mo) film having a thickness of 4.2 nm and a silicon (Si) film having a thickness of 2.8 nm using an ion beam sputtering apparatus. At this time, the molybdenum (Mo) film and the silicon (Si) film are laminated so that the uppermost layer of the multilayer reflective film 12 is a silicon (Si) film [0024].
With respect to the embodiments of claims 24 and 39, in addition to the basis above, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art to modify the apparatus rendered obvious by the combination of Zhang et al. 20140063490, Kato 20080186509, Yang et al. KR 20090095388 and Jin et al. CN 104298068 by using Mo/Si bilayers with 2.8nm Si layers and 4.2nm Mo layer which is known in the art as evidenced by Kodera JP 2018-010192.
The examiner relies upon the response above as no further arguments were directed at this rejection.
This is a n RCE of applicant's earlier Application No. 16864972. All claims are identical to, patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with the invention claimed in the earlier application (that is, restriction (including lack of unity) would not be proper) and could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the earlier application. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action in this case. See MPEP § 706.07(b). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Martin J Angebranndt whose telephone number is (571)272-1378. The examiner can normally be reached 7-3:30 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, Mark F Huff can be reached on 571-272-1385. 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.
MARTIN J. ANGEBRANNDT
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1737
/MARTIN J ANGEBRANNDT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1737 January 8, 2026