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 .
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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-16, in the reply filed on March 29, 2024 is acknowledged.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the limitations “the first reactive gas line connected to one or more of the gas line at a distance L2 from the first end of the gas line” must be shown or the features canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Regarding claim 1 and it dependent claims 2-16, the newly added limitation “the first reactive gas line connected to one or more of the gas line” is not taught or suggested in the specification or drawings.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-16 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.
Regarding claim 1 and its dependent claims 2-16 include the limitation “the first reactive gas line connected to one or more of the gas line” is not clear because the limitation requires one or more of the gas line, but the claim only claims “a gas line” not “one or more gas line”.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahn et al, US 2005/0023624 A1, in view of Oosterlaken et al, US 2120304935 A1, and Rice et al, US 2019/0332129 A1.
Regarding claims 1, 4, 6, 7, and 11-13, Ahn et al teaches: a gas delivery system for an atomic layer deposition (ALD) process chamber comprising: a gas line 270 (line connecting gas sources 251-254, 261-262) having a first end and a second end defining a length (Figure 2A), the first end connected to a purge gas source 261 configured to provide a constant flow of purge gas during an ALD process (i.e. the mass-flow controller 266 is capable of providing a constant flow of purge gas during an ALD process), the second end configured to connect with the ALD process chamber 220; an inert gas line (line containing mass-flow controller 267) in fluid communication with the gas line, the inert gas line connected to the gas line along the length of the gas line between the first end and the second end (Figure 2A), the inert gas line connected at a distance L1 from the first end of the gas line, the distance L1 as shown in Figure 2A is about 10% from the first end which is in in a range of 5% to 95% of a length L between the first end and the second end;
PNG
media_image1.png
890
401
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In a second example, the drawing was reduced
in size to better fit the office action (as shown above) and the
(L1/L) was measured to be 23mm/225mm or about 10%.
Thus it is clear that the drawings can be used to show
ratios or percentages and Ahn et al teaches a percentage
of about 10%.
and a first reactive gas line (line containing mass-flow controller 256) in fluid communication with the gas line 270, the first reactive gas line connected to the gas line along the length of the gas line between the inert gas line (line containing mass-flow controller 267) and the second end (Figure 2A), the first reactive gas line (line containing mass-flow controller 256) connected to the gas line at a distance L2 from the first end of the gas line, the distance L2 as shown in Figure 2A is about 20% from the first end which is in a range of 5% to 95% of the length L, or at a distance L3 from the second end of the gas line, the distance L3 as shown in Figure 2A is about 80% from the second end of the gas line, which is in a range of 5% to 95% of the length L.
Ahn et al differs from the present invention in that Ahn et al does not teach: a controller configured to control the constant flow of purge gas during the ALD process; or that the inert gas line, the first reactive gas line, and the second reactive gas line comprise: a fast switching gas valve (claim 1, 11); gas orifice upstream of the valve (claims 6, 12); and a gas reservoir upstream of the orifice (claim 4, 7, 13).
Oosterlaken et al teaches a controller 60 that controls a mass-flow controllers 26, 36. Oosterlaken et al also teaches that mass-flow controllers can control the gas flow to establish a constant and controlled flow (Paragraph 0010).
Rice et al teaches a gas supply system that is located between a gas source 102 and a processing station 101 that includes: a fast pulsing (switching) valve 174, gas orifice 172 upstream of the valve 174; and a gas reservoir 120 upstream of the orifice 172; and a mass-flow controller 162.
The motivation for adding the controller of Oosterlaken et al to the apparatus of Ahn et al is to control the mass-flow controllers of Ahn to supply the desired flow rates for each of the mass-flow controllers. Furthermore, it has been held that applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results is obvious (see KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.).
The motivation for using the controller of Oosterlaken et al to set the flow of the purge gas, inert gas, and precursors gases of Ahn et al to a desired value (i.e. a constant value or pulsed as taught by Oosterlaken et al) is to provide the desired flow rate as taught by Oosterlaken et al. Furthermore, it has been held that automation is obvious. (In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958); MPEP 2144.04)
The motivation for adding the fast switching valve, gas orifice, and gas reservoir of Rice et al downstream of the mass-flow controller in the gas supply system of Ahn et al is to improve the gas supply from the gas source to the chamber reducing switching time, improve flow uniformity and concentration of the process gas, and to reduce waste of the process gas by storing the process gas in the gas reservoir and removing the need to vent the process gas when it is not supplied to the chamber as taught by Rice and well known in the art.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to add the controller of Oosterlaken et al to the apparatus of Ahn et al; to set the flow of the purge gas, inert gas, and precursors gases of Ahn et al to a desired value (i.e. a constant value or pulsed as taught by Oosterlaken et al) as taught by Oosterlaken et al; and add the fast switching valve, gas orifice, and gas reservoir of Rice et al downstream of the mass-flow controller in the gas supply system of Ahn et al as taught by Rice et al.
Alternately, if it is held that Ahn et al does not teach the claimed % of L1, L2, or L3 as claimed in claim 1, then it has been held: in Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), by the Federal Circuit that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. (Also see MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(A)); and that dimensions are not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art. (See In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) or MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(A) The only difference between the apparatus of Ahn et al, Oosterlaken et al, and Rice et al is a recitation of relative dimension of the claimed device and the apparatus of Ahn et al, Oosterlaken et al, and Rice et al having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device. Therefore the claimed % of L1, L2, or L3 as claimed in claim 1 is not patentably distinct from the prior art apparatus of Ahn et al, Oosterlaken et al, and Rice et al and does not distinguish over the apparatus of Ahn et al, Oosterlaken et al, and Rice et al.
Or alternately if it is held that Ahn et al does not teach the claimed % of L1, L2, or L3 as claimed in claim 1, then, a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have known to how determine the optimum or workable placement of the connection of the inert gas line and the first reactive gas line in the gas line to provide optimum flow of the inert gas and first reactive gas to the second end of the gas line by routine experimentation. Having determined such optimum or workable range, such person would have been motivated to modify Ahn et al to include the placement of the connection of the inert gas line and the first reactive gas line in the gas line to provide a flow of inert gas and first reactive gas to the second end of the gas line.
Applicant is reminded that when a particular parameter is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of the variable might be characterized as routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In addition, where the general conditions of such a particular parameter in a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) as well as MPEP § 2144.05 (II)(A). In the present case, it is well known in the art that the placement of the connection of the inert gas line and the first reactive gas line in the gas line determines the flow of the inert gas and first reactive gas to the end of the gas line is a result-effective variable.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Ahn et al and Rice et al so that placement of the connection of the inert gas line and the first reactive gas line in the gas line to provide a desired flow of the inert gas and the first reactive gas to the second end of the gas line. To that end, claim 1 is obvious in view of Ahn et al, Oosterlaken et al, and Rice et al.
The Examiner also notes that:
It was held in Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), by the Federal Circuit that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. (Also see MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(A))
It has been held that dimensions are not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art. (See In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) or MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(A)
Regarding claim 2, Ahn et al teaches supplying sequential pulses of inert gas through the inert gas line and a first reactive gas that are out of phase. It would be obvious to use the controller of Oosterlaken et al to control the flow rates of the inert and processing gases as taught by Ahn et al
Regarding claim 5, Ahn et al teaches an inert gas mixing chamber having a volume (the internal volume of the gas line at inert gas line) at a junction of the gas line and the inert gas line, the inert gas mixing chamber configured to allow for mixing with gas coming in at the junction of the gas line and the inert gas line without backflow toward the inert gas line.
Regarding claim 8, Ahn et al teaches a first reactive gas mixing chamber (the internal volume of the gas line at the first reactive gas line) at a junction of the first reactive gas line and the gas line, the first gas mixing chamber configured to allow mixing with gas coming in at the junction of the gas line and the first reactive gas line without backflow toward the first reactive gas line.
Regarding claim 9, Ahn et al teaches a second reactive gas line (line containing mass-flow controller 258) in fluid communication with the gas line, the second reactive gas line connected to the gas line along the length of the gas line between the inert gas line and the second end. (Figure 2A)
Regarding claim 10, Ahn et al teaches the second reactive gas line is connected to the gas line downstream of the first reactive gas line. (Figure 2A)
Regarding claim 14,
Ahn et al and Rice et al differ from the present invention in that they do not teach that the first reactive gas line is connected to the gas line at a position sufficient to provide a flow of first reactive gas to the second end of the gas line within 100 msec of opening the first reactive gas valve for a predetermined flow rate.
However, a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have known to how determine the optimum or workable placement of the connection of the first reactive gas line to the gas line to provide a flow of first reactive gas to the second end of the gas line within 100 msec of opening the first reactive gas valve for a predetermined flow by routine experimentation. Having determined such optimum or workable range, such person would have been motivated to modify Ahn et al to include the placement of the connection of the first reactive gas line to the gas line to provide a flow of first reactive gas to the second end of the gas line within 100 msec of opening the first reactive gas valve for a predetermined flow.
Applicant is reminded that when a particular parameter is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of the variable might be characterized as routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In addition, where the general conditions of such a particular parameter in a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) as well as MPEP § 2144.05 (II)(A). In the present case, it is well known in the art that the placement of the connection of the first reactive gas line and the gas line determines the time it will take a gas as a predetermined flow rate to flow from the connection to the end of the gas line. To that end, the placement of the connection of the first reactive gas line to the gas line is a result-effective variable.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Ahn et al and Rice et al so that placement of the connection of the first reactive gas line to the gas line to provide a flow of first reactive gas to the second end of the gas line within 100 msec of opening the first reactive gas valve for a predetermined flow. To that end, claim 14 is obvious in view of Ahn et al and Rice et al.
The Examiner also notes that:
It was held in Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), by the Federal Circuit that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. (Also see MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(A))
It has been held that dimensions are not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art. (See In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) or MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(A)
Regarding claims 15 and 16, Ahn et al and Oosterlaken et al teaches a controller controls the mass-flow controllers 267, 256, and 258 to pulse the flow an inert gas through the gas line, a flow of a first reactive gas through the first reactive gas line and a flow of a second reactive gas through the second reactive gas line so that a pressure at the second end of the gas line remains substantially uniform.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 13, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the arguments directed to dimensions, the Examiner disagrees for the following reasons:
While it is true that drawings that are not scale cannot be use to show particular sizes, however, the claims do not claim dimensions or specific sizes. The claims are directed to relative ratios of elements, specifically the percentage of the L1, L2, or L3 to the total length. The drawing of Ahn et al show the claimed relative ratios of the elements.
As discussed above, the claimed % of L1, L2, or L3 as claimed in claim 1 is not patentably distinct from the prior art apparatus of Ahn et al, Oosterlaken et al, and Rice et al and does not distinguish over the apparatus of Ahn et al, Oosterlaken et al, and Rice et al.
As argued above, it would be obvious to optimize the placement of the inert gas line and the first reactive gas line in the gas line.
No criticality of the claimed ratio is taught or argued, and the claimed ratio is so large (i.e. 90% of the total length) that the placement is a prima facia obvious design choice.
In regard to the argument directed to Ahn et al and Rice et al, the Examiner disagrees. The claims are rejected under 103 in view of Ahn et al, Oosterlaken et al, and Rice et al. Oosterlaken et al teaches the argued missing elements (a controller that controls mass flow controllers to provide a constant flow of one gas and a pulsed flow of a second gas. Thus the rejection is proper because Ahn et al, Oosterlaken et al, and Rice et al teach all of the claimed elements. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant argues that the "reason for combining the teachings of Rice to modify Ahn lack rational underpinning" because the problem identified by Rice et al is not present in Ahn et al. This is incorrect for the following reasons:
While it is true that Ahn et al is directed to a single reactor in the disclosed embodiment and Rice et al is directed to a plurality of reactors. There is no requirement in Ahn et al that the gas be supplied to only one reactor and the gas supply system of Ahn et al could be used to supply multiple reactors. Rice et al teaches that "In some embodiments, the shared volume 110 includes a downstream distribution line 140 from the gas reservoir 120 to the plurality of downstream ends 112." One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that if some embodiments include the downstream distribution line 140 to a plurality of downstream ends 112, then in other embodiments the gas distribution line 140 and gas supply system only supplies a single downstream end.
Ahn et al does share common problems. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Ahn et al has the common problems identified and solved by Rice et al. First, Ahn et al is an old reference and uses mass flow controllers to control the flow of the gases. The mass flow controllers are relatively slow leading to a slow ramp up and down to the desired flow rate. This results in a less accurate and unrepeatable/unreproducible precursor delivery. Adding the tank, orifice, and fast switching valve of Rice et al to Ahn et al would result in more accurate and repeatable/reproducible precursor delivery in Ahn et al. Second, the slow ramp up and down of Ahn et al also results in more of the expensive precursor gases being fed to the foreline of the vacuum pump 201 and being wasted. Adding the tank, orifice, and fast switching valve of Rice et al to Ahn et al would result in less expensive precursor gases being wasted.
In regard to the argument directed to claim 2, the Examiner disagrees. The claims are rejected under 103 in view of Ahn et al, Oosterlaken et al, and Rice et al. Oosterlaken et al teaches the argued missing elements (a controller that controls mass flow controllers to provide a constant flow of one gas and a pulsed flow of a second gas. Thus the rejection is proper because Ahn et al, Oosterlaken et al, and Rice et al teach all of the claimed elements. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Regarding the arguments directed to claims 5 and 8, the Examiner disagrees for the following reasons:
The limitation "without backflow toward the inert gas line" does not include any structure that prevents backflow (such as a one way valve or the like). Without such structure the limitation can only be interpreted as being inherent in the structure of the junction or a functional limitation based on pressure differentials. Since Ahn et al teaches the same structure of the mixing chamber at the junction of the inert gas line and gas line as the present invention (See Figure 1 of the specification and Figure 2A of Ahn et al) then the gas mixing chamber of Ahn et al is the inherently prevents backflow toward the inert gas line based on the same structure as the present invention. Alternately, Ahn et al can supply the inert gas flow at a higher pressure than the purge gas so as to prevent backflow. Thus Ahn et al teaches the claim limitations of claims 5 and 8.
The use of the case law KSR Int'l Co. V. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418, 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1741, (2007) is not proper because KSR deals with the combination of references. Claims 5 and 8 are rejected under 103 because of their dependency. Claims 5 and 8 are clearly taught by Ahn et al and not combined with any other reference or obvious arguments.
Applicant has not provided any evidence that the structure of Ahn et al, which is identical to the claimed structure of Figure 1, will not function in the same manner.
The Examiner notes that the limitation “mixing chamber” includes a wide variety of shapes including the T junction of Figure 1 of the present invention and Figure 2A of Ahn et al. If Applicant desires the structure of the “mixing chamber” shown in Figure 2, Applicant needs to claim the structure.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited art teaches the technological background of the invention. The cited art contains patents that could be used to reject the claims under 35 USC § 103. These rejections have not been made because they do not provide any additional or different teachings, and if they were applied, would have resulted in an undue multiplication of references. (See MPEP 707.07(g))
The following references could be used to reject the claims under 102 or 103: US 20110143034 A1; US 7837797 B2; US 20100151261 A1; US 6905547 B1; US 5690745 A; US 6503330 B1; or US 5645642 A.
The following references also teach the use of fast switching valves, orifices, and/or reservoirs: US 20200071827 A1; US 6905549 B2; US 20050081787 A1; US 20040261703 A1; US 5989345 A; US 20050221004 A1; US 9238865 B2; or US 10927459 B2.
The newly cited references all teach the use of a controller supplying gases at a constant flow rate.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Jeffrie R Lund whose telephone number is (571)272-1437. The examiner can normally be reached 9 am-5 pm (Monday-Friday).
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, Parviz Hassanzadeh can be reached on (571) 272-1435. 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.
/Jeffrie R Lund/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716