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 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.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-2, 5-8, 10, 12-13, and 15-19 are pending.
Claims 1 has been amended.
Claims 3-4, 9, 11 and 14 have been cancelled.
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.
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.
Claim 19 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.
Regarding Claim 19:
Claim 19 recites the limitation “wherein the plasma processing chamber includes: a showerhead; a sidewall; a ring-shaped insulating member surrounding the sidewall; and a ring-shaped ground ring disposed at an outer periphery of the insulating member, wherein the ground ring has a same ground potential as a ground potential of the sidewall” There is insufficient support in the written specification for this limitation. The instant application discloses that the ring-shaped insulating member 14 surrounds the showerhead, not the sidewall 10a [IA – Fig. 4B & 0010].
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 19:
Claim 19 recites the limitation “wherein the plasma processing chamber includes: a showerhead; a sidewall; a ring-shaped insulating member surrounding the sidewall; and a ring-shaped ground ring disposed at an outer periphery of the insulating member, wherein the ground ring has a same ground potential as a ground potential of the sidewall” There is insufficient support in the written specification for this limitation. The instant application discloses that the ring-shaped insulating member 14 surrounds the showerhead, not the sidewall 10a [IA – Fig. 4B & 0010]. As such, it is unclear what the applicant means by the insulating member surrounding the side wall. Therefore, for the purposes of prosecution on the merits, the limitation will be read as “wherein the plasma processing chamber includes: a showerhead; a sidewall; a ring-shaped insulating member surrounding the showerhead
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-8, and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishijima et al. (US 20170338084), in view of Sun et al. (US 20200335376), Chen et al. (US 6872281), Hanaoka et al. (US 20120160418), and Sato et al. (US 20050103440).
Regarding Claim 1:
Nishijima teaches A plasma processing apparatus, comprising: a plasma processing chamber (processing chamber 10); a plasma generator (high frequency power supplies 32 and 34) configured to generate a plasma in the plasma processing chamber; a substrate support (stage 12) disposed in the plasma processing chamber; a first conductive ring (focus ring 15) disposed to surround a substrate on the substrate support [Fig. 1 & 0019-0021].
Nishijima does not specifically disclose an insulating ring surrounding the first conductive ring and overlapping a top surface of the substrate support in a vertical direction;
Sun teaches a first conductive ring (focus ring 21; the focus ring 231 may include an upper layer 231a made of silicon) disposed to surround a substrate (substrate W) on the substrate support; an insulating ring (cover ring 232; the cover ring 232 may comprise quartz) surrounding the first conductive ring and overlapping a top surface of the substrate support in a vertical direction (as evidenced by Fig. 1, the cover ring 232 overlaps an upper surface of support 200 in a vertical direction) [Fig. 1, 4 & 0026, 0052-0053].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus of Nishijima to further comprise a first conductive ring with an insulating ring, as in Sun, to provide more uniform plasma and to provide further support for a focus ring [Sun - 0025, 0035, 0046].
Modified Nishijima does not specifically disclose a second conductive ring surrounding the insulating ring, and connected to a ground potential.
Chen teaches and a second conductive ring (outer side ring 208) surrounding the insulating ring (as evidenced by Fig. 6, inner side ring 206 is surrounded by outer side ring 208), and connected to a ground potential (the outer side ring is grounded as indicated by 84) [Fig. 1-2, and 6 & Col. 9 lines 47-49, Col. 12 lines 60-67, Col. 13 lines 1-26].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus of Modified Nishijima to further comprise a grounded second conductive ring surrounding the insulating ring, as in Chen, to improve plasma confinement [Chen - Col. 1 lines 26-38, Col. 13 lines 47-67, Col. 14 lines 1-6].
Modified Nishijima (Nishijima modified by Sun and Chen) does not specifically disclose a third conductive ring disposed under the second conductive ring in the vertical direction and connected to the ground potential.
Hanaoka teaches a third conductive ring (ground ring 45) disposed below a second ring (member 16), and connected to the ground potential (ground ring 45 is a grounding electrode) [Fig. 1, 2 & 0035, 0040, 0043].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the second conductive ring of Modified Nishijima to include a third conductive ring, as in Hanaoka, to be able to control grounding potential; grounding potential can influence etching conditions [Hanaoka - 0043, 0044].
Modified Nishijima (Nishijima modified by Sun, Chen, and Hanaoka) does not specifically disclose a conductive baffle plate including a plurality of through holes, the conductive baffle plate being connected to the ground potential and disposed around the substrate support, and the second conductive ring is connected to the ground potential through the conductive baffle plate or the third conductive ring.
Sato teaches a conductive baffle plate (baffle plate 10) including a plurality of through holes (through holes 10b), the conductive baffle plate being connected to the ground potential (baffle plate 10 is grounded via processing chamber 1) and disposed around the substrate support (as evidenced by Fig. 6, the baffle plate 10 is disposed around mounting table 2), wherein the second ring (member 3a) is connected to the ground potential via the conductive baffle plate through the conductive baffle plate or the third conductive ring (baffle plate 10 may comprise of aluminum and is grounded; as evidenced by Fig. 6, baffle plate 10 is in contact with member 3a) [Fig. 6 & 0030, 0043].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the ring assembly of Modified Nishijima to include a baffle plate, as in Sato, to improve exhaust conductance and efficiency [Sato - 0046, 0057].
It’s also noted that the combination of references would disclose "the baffle plate is connected to the second conductive ring and is connected to ground potential via the second conductive ring." Chen discloses a grounded second conductive ring (outer side ring 208) [Sato - Fig. 1-2, and 6 & Col. 9 lines 47-49, Col. 12 lines 60-67, Col. 13 lines 1-26]. Modification of this second conductive ring to be connected to a baffle plate would result in the baffle plate being connected to a ground potential via the second conductive ring.
Furthermore, the limitation “the first conductive ring having conductivity to allow RF current to flow therethrough” is a functional limitation and does not impart any additional structure. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431- 32 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Since the structure of the prior art teaches all structural limitations of the claim, the same is considered capable of meeting the functional limitations. Where the claimed and prior art apparatus are identical or substantially identical in structure, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). It is noted that silicon is conductive, as such, a focus ring comprised of silicon would be capable of allowing an RF current to flow therethrough (the focus ring 15 of Nishijima is comprised of silicon) [Nishijima – Fig. 1 & 0020].
Regarding Claim 2:
Modified Nishijima (Nishijima modified by Sun) does not specifically disclose wherein the second conductive ring is disposed on an outer sidewall of the insulating ring
Chen teaches wherein the second conductive ring is disposed on an outer sidewall of the insulating ring (as evidenced by Fig. 6, outer side ring 208 is disposed on an outer sidewall of inner side ring 206) [Fig. 6 & Col. 12 lines 63-65].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus of Modified Nishijima to further comprise a grounded second conductive ring surrounding the insulating ring, as in Chen, to improve plasma confinement [Chen - Col. 1 lines 26-38, Col. 13 lines 47-67, Col. 14 lines 1-6].
Regarding Claim 5:
Nishijima does not specifically disclose teaches wherein the insulating ring is made of quartz or alumina surrounding the first conductive ring.
Sun teaches wherein the insulating ring is made of quartz or alumina (the cover ring 232 may comprise quartz) surrounding the first conductive ring [Fig. 1, 4 & 0052-0053].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus of Nishijima to further comprise a first conductive ring with an insulating ring, as in Sun, to provide more uniform plasma and to provide further support for a focus ring [Sun - 0025, 0035, 0046].
Regarding Claim 6:
Nishijima teaches wherein the first conductive ring is made of any one of silicon (Si), silicon carbide (SiC), and silicon oxide (focus ring 15 may be made of silicon) [Fig. 1 & 0020].
Regarding Claim 7:
Modified Nishijima (Nishijima modified by Sun) does not specifically disclose wherein the second conductive ring is made of any one of silicon (Si), silicon carbide (SiC), and silicon oxide.
Chen teaches wherein the second conductive ring is made of any one of silicon (Si), silicon carbide (SiC), and silicon oxide (outer side ring 208 may be made of SiC) [Fig. 6 & Col. 13 lines 4-8].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus of Modified Nishijima to further comprise a grounded second conductive ring surrounding the insulating ring, as in Chen, to improve plasma confinement [Chen - Col. 1 lines 26-38, Col. 13 lines 47-67, Col. 14 lines 1-6].
Regarding Claim 8:
Modified Nishijima (Nishijima modified by Sun) does not specifically disclose wherein the second conductive ring has a vertically elongated rectangular cross-sectional shape.
Chen teaches wherein the second conductive ring has a vertically elongated rectangular cross-sectional shape (as evidenced by Fig. 6, outer side ring 208 has a vertically elongated rectangular cross-sectional shape) [Fig. 6 & Col. 12 lines 63-65].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus of Modified Nishijima to further comprise a grounded second conductive ring surrounding the insulating ring, as in Chen, to improve plasma confinement [Chen - Col. 1 lines 26-38, Col. 13 lines 47-67, Col. 14 lines 1-6].
Regarding Claim 12:
Modified Nishijima (Nishijima modified by Sun and Chen) does not specifically disclose wherein the third conductive ring is made of aluminum (Al).
Hanaoka teaches wherein the third conductive ring is made of aluminum (Al) (ground ring 45 may be formed of aluminum) [Fig. 1, 2 & 0035].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the second conductive ring of Modified Nishijima to include a third conductive ring, as in Hanaoka, to be able to control grounding potential; grounding potential can influence etching conditions [Hanaoka - 0043, 0044].
Regarding Claim 13:
Modified Nishijima (Nishijima modified by Sun) does not specifically disclose a second conductive ring.
Chen teaches and a second conductive ring (outer side ring 208) surrounding the insulating ring (as evidenced by Fig. 6, inner side ring 206 is surrounded by outer side ring 208) [Fig. 1-2, and 6 & Col. 9 lines 47-49, Col. 12 lines 60-67, Col. 13 lines 1-26].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus of Modified Nishijima to further comprise a grounded second conductive ring surrounding the insulating ring, as in Chen, to improve plasma confinement [Chen - Col. 1 lines 26-38, Col. 13 lines 47-67, Col. 14 lines 1-6].
Modified Nishijima (Nishijima modified by Sun and Chen) does not specifically disclose an actuator configured to vertically move the second conductive ring and the third conductive ring.
Hanaoka teaches an actuator configured to vertically move the second ring and the third conductive ring (ground ring 45 can be actuated by mechanism 50 to change its ground potential; an actuator for mechanism 50 can be reasonably inferred. Vertically moving ground ring 45 to be in contact with member 16 would mean that the mechanism 50 is capable of moving the member 16 as well) [Fig. 1, 2 & 0035, 0040, 0043].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the second conductive ring of Modified Nishijima to include a third conductive ring, as in Hanaoka, to be able to control grounding potential; grounding potential can influence etching conditions [Hanaoka - 0043, 0044].
Regarding Claim 17; Nishijima teaches a radio frequency (RF) power supply (high frequency power supplies 32 and 34) connected to the plasma processing chamber by at least one impedance matching circuit (matching unit 33) [Fig. 1 & 0021].
Furthermore, the limitations “wherein the RF power supply supplies RF power to the substrate support, such that RF current flows through surface layers of the substrate support, then through the first conductive ring and the cover ring, then flows from the third conductive ring to the ground via the second conductive ring,” are merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). It is noted that the combination of references would be capable of performing this intended use; the combination of references discloses the same structural elements as claimed, and as such, would be capable of flowing a current to the third conductive ring and to an eventual ground.
Regarding Claim 18:
The limitations of claim 18 are merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). It is noted that the combination of references would be capable of performing this intended use; the combination of references discloses the same structural elements as claimed, and as such, would be capable of flowing a parallel to the cover ring.
Regarding Claim 19:
Nishijima teaches wherein the plasma processing chamber includes: a showerhead (showerhead 21); a sidewall (sidewalls of chamber 10); a ring-shaped insulating member (quartz member 22) surrounding the showerhead (showerhead 21); and a ring-shaped ground ring (electrode plate 21b) disposed at an outer periphery of the insulating member, wherein the ground ring has a same ground potential as a ground potential of the sidewall (the sidewall of chamber 10 and the plate 21b can both be connected to ground, and as such, be maintained at the same ground potential) [Fig. 1 & 0025-0027].
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishijima et al. (US 20170338084) in view of Sun et al. (US 20200335376), Chen et al. (US 6872281), Hanaoka et al. (US 20120160418), and Sato et al. (US 20050103440), as applied to claims 1-2, 5-8, and 12-13 above, and further in view of Rice et al. (US 20170213758).
The limitations of claims 1-2, 5-8, and 12-13 have been set forth above.
Regarding Claim 10:
Modified Nishijima teaches a second conductive ring (outer side ring 208) [Chen - Fig. 6 & Col. 12 lines 63-65]. Modified Nishijima does not specifically disclose an actuator configured to vertically move the second conductive ring.
Rice teaches an actuator configured to vertically move the second ring (support assembly 700 may have one or push pins 733 to raise or tilt cover ring 734; an actuator for the push pins 733 may be reasonably inferred) [Fig. 7, 12 & 0051].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the ring assembly of Modified Nishijima to include an actuator, as in Rice, to allow for the vertical adjustment of rings on a support; as parts erode, height adjustment can be used to maintain plasma uniformity in order to account for the erosion [Rice - Abstract, 0037, 0067].
"[I]n considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom." In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968) [MPEP 2144.01].
Claim(s) 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishijima et al. (US 20170338084) in view of Sun et al. (US 20200335376), Chen et al. (US 6872281), Hanaoka et al. (US 20120160418), and Sato et al. (US 20050103440), as applied to claims 1-2, 5-8, and 12-13 above, and further in view of Chhatre et al. (US 20150179412).
The limitations of claims 1-2, 5-8, and 12-13 have been set forth above.
Regarding Claim 15:
Modified Nishijima teaches wherein the second conductive ring comprises a conductor (outer side ring 208 can comprise of a bare metal) having an upper portion (upper portion of outer side ring 208 near top surface 210) and a lower portion (bottom portion of outer side ring 208 further away from top surface 210), and the lower portion of the conductor is connected to the ground potential (as evidenced by Fig. 6, the bottom portion of outer side ring 208 is connected to ground) [Chen - Fig. 6 & Col. 13 lines 1-6].
Modified Nishijima does not specifically disclose a plasma-resistant coating formed on the upper portion of the conductor.
Chhatre teaches a plasma-resistant coating formed on the upper portion of the conductor (edge ring 200 can be coated with thermal sprayed yttria; edge ring 200 can be of an electrically conductive material) [Fig. 2 & 0023].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the ring assembly of Modified Nishijima to have conductive surfaces coated with a plasma-resistant coating, as in Chhatre, to reduce contamination of processed substrates [Chhatre - 0023].
Regarding Claim 16:
Modified Nishijima teaches wherein the conductor is made of aluminum (Al) (outer side ring 208 may correspond to outer side ring 78 in Fig. 1; outer side 78 is comprised of aluminum. Outer side ring 208 can be formed from a bare metal) [Chen - Fig. 1, 6 & Col. 9 lines 50-51, Col. 13 lines 5-16].
Modified Nishijima does not specifically disclose the plasma-resistant coating contains yttria (Y).
Chhatre teaches and the plasma-resistant coating contains yttria (Y) (edge ring 200 can be coated with thermal sprayed yttria; edge ring 200 can be of an electrically conductive material) [Fig. 2 & 0023].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the ring assembly of Modified Nishijima to have conductive surfaces coated with a plasma-resistant coating, as in Chhatre, to reduce contamination of processed substrates [Chhatre - 0023].
Response to Arguments
Applicant' s arguments, see Remarks, filed 01/02/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-2, 5-8, 10, 12-13, and 15-19 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the combination of references does not specifically disclose “the baffle plate is connected to the second conductive ring and is connected to the ground potential via the second conductive ring,” because Sato et al. (US 20050103440) does not connect to a grounded second conductive ring, but is instead mounted to an outer periphery of mounting table 2.
The examiner respectfully disagrees, as this is a piecemeal analysis. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, 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). It is noted that the combination of references would disclose the aforementioned limitation. Specifically, Chen et al. (US 6872281) discloses a grounded second conductive ring (outer side ring 208) [Chen - Fig. 1-2, and 6 & Col. 9 lines 47-49, Col. 12 lines 60-67, Col. 13 lines 1-26]. Modification of this second conductive ring to be connected to a baffle plate would result in the baffle plate being connected to a ground potential via the second conductive ring.
Applicant argues that the combination of references does not specifically disclose “wherein the RF power supply supplies RF power to the substrate support, such that RF current flows through surface layers of the substrate support, then through the first conductive ring and the cover ring, then flows from the third conductive ring to the ground via the second conductive ring,” and “wherein a direction of the RF current is substantially horizontal respect to the cover ring.” The examiner respectfully disagrees, as the aforementioned limitations are merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). It is noted that the combination of references would be capable of performing this intended use; the combination of references discloses the same structural elements as claimed, and as such, would be capable of flowing a current to the third conductive ring and to an eventual ground, and be capable of flowing a parallel current to the cover ring.
Applicant argues that the combination of references does not specifically disclose “a showerhead; a sidewall; a ring-shaped insulating member surrounding the sidewall; and a ring-shaped ground ring disposed at an outer periphery of the insulating member, wherein the ground ring has a same ground potential as a ground potential of the sidewall.” This argument has been fully considered but is moot because the argument does not apply to the combination of references being used in the current rejection. The teachings of Nishijima et al. (US 20170338084) remedy anything lacking in the combination of references as applied above the top amended claims.
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 JOSHUA NATHANIEL PINEDA REYES whose telephone number is (571)272-4693. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 AM to 4:30 PM.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at (571) 272-5166. 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.
/J.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1718
/GORDON BALDWIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights