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 .
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.
Claim 32 is 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.
In claim 32, the limitation that the examining and/or observing the ablated plurality of materials is performed by “examining a location on the object at which the plurality of materials is arranged” is not supported by the original specification. On pg. 9 line 29-39, it is described that examining a location on the object is performed when the examination is performed “after the material has been ablated” from the material unit as opposed to during the ablation, as required by claim 30. Therefore, claim 32 lacks written description support.
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.
Claim(s) 30, 2, 4-7, 13, 15-16, 29, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmidt (US 20080073587 A1) in view of Krempel-Hesse (US 20100181187 A1) and Gerlach (US 6414307 B1).
Regarding claim 30, Schmidt (US 20080073587 A1) teaches a charged particle beam system (apparatus) having a charged particle beam directed toward (feeding onto) a source material (para 0012) comprising a GIS (gas injection system) nozzle 304 (material unit formed from the material or having material thereon) arranged a distance from a work piece 306 (object) to be sputtered (ablated) into atoms 314 by the ion (particle) beam 310 such that the atoms are ejected toward the work piece to form a sputtered layer (arranging the ablated material on the object) (para 0034-0035, 0037; Fig. 3).
Schmidt fails to explicitly teach ablating a plurality of materials, wherein the plurality of materials are arranged on the object as at least one of a mixture of the plurality of materials and an alloy of the plurality of materials. However, Krempel-Hesse (US 20100181187 A1), in the analogous art of physical vapor deposition, teaches other coating materials, such as alloys of aluminum or other metals, may be used with charged particle beam deposition (para 0025). Schmidt teaches the source material may be aluminum or any other metallic material that allows operation of a charged particle beam system (para 0025). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the source material of Schmidt with a metallic alloy source material because this is a substitution of known elements yielding predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B). As a result, the deposition of Schmidt in view of Krempel-Hesse involves ablation of a plurality of materials and arranging the ablated material on the object as an alloy of materials.
Schmidt teaches a secondary electron detector 244 for detecting secondary ion emission for imaging the workpiece while directing a charged particle beam toward the substrate after coating the workpiece with a coating (para 0028-0030, 0045, claims 1-3; Fig. 2). The combination of Schmidt and Krempel-Hesse fails to explicitly teach examining and/or observing the ablated plurality of materials using a secondary ion mass spectrometer during ablation of the plurality of materials from the material unit.
However, Gerlach (US 6414307 B1), in the analogous art of charged particle beam systems, teaches a secondary ion mass spectrometer is used in conjunction with focused ion beam (FIB) systems to image and determine the composition of a film formed on a substrate, wherein the ion beam is used to sputter (ablate) the material from the sample and ejected secondary ions are passed through the mass spectrometer to determine a composition and identify the content of contaminants/impurities (examining and/or observing the materials) in order to improve process yield (col 1 line 10-28, col 4 line 8-20, col 10 line 9-23, claim 1). Schmidt and Gerlach teach similar purposes of imaging a substrate based on secondary ions emitted from the substrate (Schmidt para 0028-0030; Gerlach col 1 line 10-28, col 4 line 8-20). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the secondary electron detector of Schmidt with the secondary ion mass spectrometer of Gerlach because this is a substitution of known elements yielding predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The previous combination of Schmidt, Krempel-Hesse, and Gerlach fails to explicitly teach the secondary ion mass spectrometer examines the ablated materials during ablation from the material unit. However, Schmidt teaches that the GIS needle or micromanipulator (material unit) may be coated with one or multiple coatings (para 0035, 0037), which necessarily must occur before the particle beam is fed to the ablatable material on the material unit. Additionally, Schmidt teaches that the source material can be attached to the GIS nozzles (material unit) by using FIB deposition (para 0033). Schmidt also describes a focused ion beam system using an ion source having a gas supply (first gas feed device) for the purpose of material deposition by sputtering a GIS needle/nozzle sputter source with an ion (particle) beam (para 0026-0028). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the ion beam source used for sputtering the GIS needle to also sputter material onto the GIS needle to provide it with a coating for future deposition.
Additionally, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to observe/examine the layers coated on the GIS needle of Schmidt using the secondary ion mass spectrometer to detect secondary ions from sputtering/ablating the layers (during ablation from the material unit) on the sample in order to identify any impurities/contaminants present on the material unit so that process yield and subsequent film quality may be increased.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Schmidt, Krempel-Hesse, and Gerlach teaches that a workpiece (object) may be a semiconductor device positioned on a movable X-Y stage, wherein the sample is moved to achieve larger coverage areas (Schmidt para 0026, 0034, 0036, 0039), which inherently moves the object in such a way that the object is either arranged at a distance from the material unit or the object contacts the material unit.
Alternatively, Schmidt teaches that a nozzle 240 (material unit) may be moved into and out of the path of the ion beam 218 using an electric motor 280 (material unit movement device) so that the ions in the beam sputter material from the nozzle onto the workpiece 222 (object) or the ion beam may process the work piece (para 0031, 0033, 0036; Fig. 2), thus necessarily moving the material unit relative to the object in such a way that the material unit is either arranged at a distance from the object or contacts the object.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Schmidt, Krempel-Hesse, and Gerlach teaches one gas injection system (GIS) needle (first gas supply unit) may dispense a (first) gas for beam assisted gas deposition while another GIS needle is used as a source of material for sputtering at the same time (Schmidt para 0037), thus necessarily guiding gas to a location of incidence of the particle beam on the ablatable material.
Alternatively, Schmidt teaches that a single gas injection system needle may dispense a (first) gas for beam assisted gas deposition, thus necessitating a gas supply unit for providing the gas through the needle, and be used as a source for sputtering at the same time (para 0037) and the precursor gas is introduced in the vicinity of the beam impact area to leave a coating on the surface (para 0008). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to direct the precursor gas toward the location of incidence on the sputtering GIS needle to deposit a coating on the substrate.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Schmidt, Krempel-Hesse, and Gerlach teaches that the source materials (plurality of materials) can be attached to the GIS nozzles (material unit) by using FIB deposition with a gas supply (first gas feed device) and the ion (particle) beam sputtering a separate GIS needle/nozzle sputter source (Schmidt para 0026-0028, 0033, 0035, 0037).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Schmidt, Krempel-Hesse, and Gerlach teaches a micromanipulator (structural unit embodied as a manipulator) having a probe for attaching to a sample and manipulating small items within the vacuum chamber (Schmidt para 0035, claim 20) and a work piece stage 308 (structural unit embodied as a sample carrier) for supporting the work piece 306 (Schmidt para 0034; Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Schmidt, Krempel-Hesse, and Gerlach teaches the workpiece (object) is on a movable X-Y stage (sample stage), wherein the sample/object is moved to achieve a larger coverage area (Schmidt para 0030, 0034, 0039), which necessarily moves the sample stage in such a way that the manipulator (structural unit embodied as a manipulator) either contacts the object or is arranged at a distance from the object.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Schmidt, Krempel-Hesse, and Gerlach teaches the ablatable plurality of materials on the material unit is an alloy (Krempel-Hesse para 0025), and thus the material includes a first material and second material. Additionally, the combination of Schmidt, Krempel-Hesse, and Gerlach teaches that the material unit 304, and thus the second material, is arranged at a distance from the object 306 and the particle beam 310 is fed to the alloy material (first and second material) to ablate the alloy and deposit/arrange the alloy on the object (Schmidt para 0034-0035, 0037; Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Schmidt, Krempel-Hesse, and Gerlach teaches the ablatable plurality of materials on the material unit is an alloy (Krempel-Hesse para 0025), and thus the material unit includes a first material and second material. Additionally, the combination of Schmidt and Krempel-Hesse teaches the orientation and position of the sputter material source can be varied for precise targeting of sputtering onto features of interest of the workpiece, wherein the source may be moved by an electric motor (Schmidt para 0031, 0037). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to move the sputter material source (material unit) between different regions (first position and second position) to be sputtered in order to control the deposition process. Because the material unit contains an alloy (Krempel-Hesse para 0025), the particle beam is guided to a first material and second material in the first position and then guided to the first and second material in the second position because the first and second material are both part of the same alloy.
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Schmidt, Krempel-Hesse, and Gerlach teaches the movement of the GIS sources (from the first position to the second position) is performed using one or more electric motors (material unit movement device) (Schmidt para 0031).
Regarding claim 29, the combination of Schmidt, Krempel-Hesse, and Gerlach teaches the particle beam is a focused particle beam (Schmidt para 0003, 0025, 0028, 0034, claims 7, 14).
Regarding claim 31, the combination of Schmidt, Krempel-Hesse, and Gerlach teaches the examining/observing the ablated plurality of materials using the secondary ion mass spectrometer is performed by sputtering, and thus examining, a surface of the sample/material unit with an ion beam (Gerlach claim 1).
Claim(s) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmidt (US 20080073587 A1) in view of Krempel-Hesse (US 20100181187 A1) and Gerlach (US 6414307 B1), as applied to claim 30 above, and further in view of Sed’a (US 9053899 B2).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Schmidt, Krempel-Hesse, and Gerlach fails to explicitly teach a first voltage is applied between the material unit and the object for the purposes of arranging the ablated material on the object. However, Sed’a (US 9053899 B2), in the analogous art of particle beam deposition, teaches applying a bias (voltage) between the sample (object) and electrically conductive parts, such as a gas injection system (material source) or micromanipulator, to correct for beam displacement and chromatic aberration and allow for more accurate detection of secondary or backscattered electrons (Abstract, col 2 line 15-62).
Schmidt similarly teaches a gas injections system (GIS) or micromanipulator near the substrate surface in an SEM system with a secondary electron detector to image the sample in the same chamber the film is deposited in as the material on the object is being ablated by the charged particle beam (for the purposes of arranging the ablated material on the object) (para 0026-0028, 0035, claims 1-3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply a bias voltage between the sample/substrate and the GIS/micromanipulator of Schmidt in view of Krempel-Hesse during imaging to allow for more accurate detection and imaging by the FIB/SEM system.
Claim(s) 8-9, 14, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmidt (US 20080073587 A1) in view of Krempel-Hesse (US 20100181187 A1) and Gerlach (US 6414307 B1), as applied to claims 6, 13, and 30 above, and further in view of Doemer (US 20160118216 A1).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Schmidt, Krempel-Hesse, and Gerlach fails to explicitly teach the structural unit includes the ablatable plurality of materials. However, Doemer (US 20160118216 A1), in the analogous art of particle beam devices, teaches including a manipulator (structural unit) included in the receiving unit configured to receive deposition from a gas feeding device on a tip such that the surface of the object is connected to the manipulator tip 139 (structural unit) such that the object 4 can be lifted out and fastened to another object holder (para 0039, 0044, 0131; Fig. 1, 8). Schmidt teaches using a micromanipulator having a probe for attaching to a sample and manipulating small items within the vacuum chamber (para 0035).
Because Doemer teaches that such deposition methods were operable, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange a manipulator to be deposited upon with the work piece/object such that the manipulator is secured to the object by the plurality of materials and can transport the object within the chamber with a reasonable expectation of success. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143(A)). Because the manipulator (structural unit) is connected to the object by gas deposition onto the surface of the object and manipulator, the manipulator (structural unit) includes the plurality of ablatable materials.
Regarding claim 9, the previous combination of Schmidt, Krempel-Hesse, Gerlach, and Doemer fails to explicitly teach another ablatable material is applied to the structural unit using the particle beam and a second gas feed device before the particle beam is fed to the ablatable plurality of materials or the other ablatable material is applied to the structural unit by condensation, wherein the structural unit is cooled and/or has been cooled. However, Schmidt teaches that the micromanipulator (structural unit) may be coated with one or multiple coatings (para 0035, 0037). Additionally, Schmidt teaches that the source material can be attached to the GIS nozzles by using FIB deposition or brazing or welding (para 0033), wherein GIS nozzles and micromanipulators are alternative deposition sources (para 0035). Schmidt also describes a focused ion beam system using an ion source having a gas supply (second gas feed device) for the purpose of material deposition by sputtering a GIS needle/nozzle sputter source with an ion (particle) beam (para 0026-0028). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the ion beam source used for sputtering the GIS needle and manipulator, or welding, or brazing to coat material onto the manipulator to provide it with a coating for future deposition.
Because Schmidt teaches coating the micromanipulator with coatings for deposition on the object and that multiple coatings can be performed without removing the work piece from the vacuum chamber (para 0035, 0037), it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to coat/apply the other ablatable material to the structural unit before feeding the particle beam to the plurality of ablatable materials so that both coatings can be deposited on the object sequentially. Alternatively, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to coat/apply the other ablatable material to the structural unit before feeding the particle beam to the first ablatable material because the selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(C). Alternatively, brazing and welding (Schmidt para 0033) both inherently involve heating and then cooling (either directly or naturally by heat dissipating) to solidify the heated material (applied to the structural unit by condensation, wherein the structural unit has been cooled).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Schmidt, Krempel-Hesse, and Gerlach fails to explicitly teach the ablated plurality of materials are formed on a surface of the object between a structural unit and the object to connect the object to the structural unit. However, Doemer (US 20160118216 A1), in the analogous art of particle beam devices, teaches including a manipulator (structural unit) included in the receiving unit configured to receive deposition from a gas feeding device on a tip such that the surface of the object is connected to the manipulator tip 139 (structural unit) such that the object 4 can be lifted out and fastened to another object holder (para 0039, 0044, 0131; Fig. 1, 8). Schmidt teaches using a micromanipulator having a probe for attaching to a sample and manipulating small items within the vacuum chamber (para 0035).
Because Doemer teaches that such deposition methods were operable, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange a manipulator to be deposited upon with the work piece/object such that the manipulator is secured to the object by the plurality of materials and can transport the object within the chamber with a reasonable expectation of success. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143(A)).
Regarding claim 28, the combination of Schmidt, Krempel-Hesse, and Gerlach fails to explicitly teach the ablated plurality of materials are formed on a surface of the object between a structural unit and the object to securely connect the object to the structural unit. However, Doemer (US 20160118216 A1), in the analogous art of particle beam devices, teaches including a manipulator (structural unit) included in the receiving unit configured to receive deposition from a gas feeding device on a tip such that the surface of the object is connected to the manipulator tip 139 (structural unit) such that the object 4 can be lifted out and fastened to another object holder (para 0039, 0044, 0131; Fig. 1, 8). Schmidt teaches using a micromanipulator having a probe for attaching to a sample and manipulating small items within the vacuum chamber (para 0035).
Because Doemer teaches that such deposition methods were operable, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange a manipulator to be deposited upon with the work piece/object such that the manipulator is secured to the object by the plurality of materials and can transport the object within the chamber with a reasonable expectation of success. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143(A)).
Claim(s) 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmidt (US 20080073587 A1) in view of Krempel-Hesse (US 20100181187 A1) and Gerlach (US 6414307 B1), as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Doemer (US 20160118216 A1) and Sed’a (US 9053899 B2).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Schmidt, Krempel-Hesse, and Gerlach fails to explicitly teach a second voltage is applied between the material unit and the structural unit for the purposes of arranging the ablated material on the structural unit. However, Doemer (US 20160118216 A1), in the analogous art of particle beam devices, teaches including a manipulator (structural unit) included in the receiving unit configured to receive deposition from a gas feeding device on a tip such that the surface of the object is connected to the manipulator tip 139 (structural unit) such that the object 4 can be lifted out and fastened to another object holder (para 0039, 0044, 0131; Fig. 1, 8). Schmidt teaches using a micromanipulator having a probe for attaching to a sample and manipulating small items within the vacuum chamber (para 0035).
Because Doemer teaches that such deposition methods were operable, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange a manipulator to be deposited upon with the work piece/object such that the manipulator is secured to the object by the plurality of materials and can transport the object within the chamber with a reasonable expectation of success. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143(A)).
Furthermore, Sed’a (US 9053899 B2), in the analogous art of particle beam deposition, teaches applying a bias (second voltage) between the sample and electrically conductive parts, such as a gas injection system (material unit) or micromanipulator (structural unit), to correct for beam displacement and chromatic aberration and allow for more accurate detection of secondary or backscattered electrons (Abstract, col 2 line 15-62).
Schmidt similarly teaches a gas injections system (GIS) or micromanipulator near the substrate surface in an SEM system with a secondary electron detector to image the sample in the same chamber the film is deposited as the material on the object is being ablated by the charged particle beam (for the purposes of arranging the ablated material on the object) (para 0026-0028, 0035, claims 1-3). Additionally, Doemer teaches a manipulator connected to the object/substrate by deposited material (para 0039, 0044, 0131). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply a bias voltage between the GIS (material unit) and the micromanipulator (structural unit) of Schmidt in view of Doemer to allow for more accurate ablation, detection, and imaging by the FIB/SEM system.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Schmidt, Krempel-Hesse, Gerlach, Doemer, and Sed’a teaches one gas injection system (GIS) needle (second gas supply unit) may dispense a (second) gas for beam assisted gas deposition while another GIS needle is used as a source of material for sputtering at the same time (Schmidt para 0037). Additionally, Schmidt teaches that the precursor gas is introduced in the vicinity of the beam impact area to leave a coating on the surface (para 0008). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to direct the precursor gas toward the location of incidence of the particle beam on the sputtering GIS needle (material unit) to deposit a coating on the substrate.
Claim(s) 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmidt (US 20080073587 A1) in view of Krempel-Hesse (US 20100181187 A1) and Gerlach (US 6414307 B1), as applied to claim 13, and further in view of Harkness (US 20100055499 A1).
Regarding claim 17, the previous combination of Schmidt, Krempel-Hesse, and Gerlach fails to explicitly teach using a first material device and a second material device as the material unit wherein the first material device includes the ablatable first material and wherein the second material device includes the ablatable second material. However, Schmidt teaches multiple GIS needles (first and second material units) comprising a first needle coated with one material and a second needle made of a different material for sputtering to apply multiple coatings sequentially (para 0037). Additionally, Harkness (US 20100055499 A1), in the analogous art of sputtering, teaches that alloys may be deposited by sequential sputter deposition of multiple atomic monolayers (para 0007, 0026-0027). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the single GIS needle with an alloy source material of Schmidt in view of Krempel-Hesse with two GIS needles (first and second material device) each having a different elemental component of the alloy and depositing them through sequential deposition to form an alloy because this is a substitution of known elements yielding predictable results of forming an alloy layer. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 8-10, filed 10/10/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 30 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of a new interpretation of Gerlach (US 6414307 B1).
Schmidt teaches that the material unit/GIS needle may be coated with a layer by FIB deposition, thus making the material unit a “sample” that it would be obvious to analyze as described by Gerlach to ensure that the film has sufficient quality.
Conclusion
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 PATRICK S OTT whose telephone number is (571)272-2415. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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, James Lin can be reached at (571) 272-8902. 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.
/PATRICK S OTT/Examiner, Art Unit 1794