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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed on 09/30/2025 and 11/24/2025 fail to comply with 37 C.F.R. § 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. Here, only translations were filed; the original documents from the Korean and Taiwanese Patent Offices were not filed. They have been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 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.
Iida in view of Yamamoto, Ando, Ito, and Taylor
Claims 1-2 and 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US 20160260624 A1 (“Iida”) in view of US 20180065187 A1 (“Yamamoto”), US 20180099375 A1 (“Ando”), US 20150122464 A1 (“Ito”), and US 20040011461 A1 (“Taylor”).
Iida pertains to a wafer holding system for a wafer processing machine (Fig. 1; ¶ 0004). Yamamoto pertains to a wafer chuck table (Abstr.; Fig. 1). Ando pertains to a wafer chuck table (Abstr.; Fig. 1). Ito pertains to a wafer chuck table (Abstr.; Figs. 1(a), 2(a)). Taylor pertains to a wafer planarization apparatus (Abstr.; Figs. 1-10). These references are in the same field of endeavor.
Regarding claim 1, Iida discloses a processing apparatus (Fig. 1, apparatus 1) comprising:
a holding unit for holding a wafer under suction thereon (Fig. 1, holding unit 33 holds wafer W under suction; ¶ 0018, “workpiece W is held on the holding plate 34 under suction by the vacuum produced in the holding plate 34”; Examiner notes that this limitation, as used here, does not invoke interpretation under § 112(f), as the term is known by one skilled in the art and denotes the type of structural device that includes a chuck or clamp);
and a processing fluid supply unit for supplying a processing fluid to the wafer (Fig. 1, cooling means 37; ¶ 0018, “a refrigerant fed from cooling means 37 flows in the cooling passage 38”; Examiner notes that this limitation, as used here, does not invoke interpretation under § 112(f), as the term is known by one skilled in the art and denotes the type of structural device that includes nozzles, pipes, pumps, and fluid tanks),
wherein the holding unit includes: a chuck table for holding the wafer thereon, and a table base on which the chuck table is...supported (see annotated Fig. 1 below),
wherein the chuck table includes:
a porous plate having an attracting surface for attracting the wafer thereto (Fig. 1, porous plate 34; ¶ 0018, “The holding plate 34 is formed of a porous material”),
a frame assembly surrounding a portion of the porous plate other than the attracting surface, wherein the frame assembly includes an upper frame and a lower frame (see annotated Fig. 1 below),
a cooling water channel that is defined in the lower frame of the frame assembly and guides cooling water to an entire inner area of the lower frame of the frame assembly (see annotated Fig. 1 below, channel 38 of “lower frame”; ¶ 0018),
a wafer suction hole that is defined in the upper frame of the frame assembly and a through hole that is defined in the lower frame of the frame assembly, wherein the wafer suction hole and the through hole are in fluid communication with each other and are configured and arranged to transmit a suction force to the attracting surface of the porous plate (see annotated Fig. 1 below; ¶ 0018),
wherein and the table base includes:
a cooling water supply hole held in fluid communication with the cooling water channel for supplying the cooling water to the cooling water channel (see annotated Fig. 1 below, channel 38 of “table base” portion).
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (“Through hole”)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (“Wafer suction hole[s]”)][AltContent: textbox (“Frame assembly”)][AltContent: textbox (“Lower frame”)][AltContent: textbox (“Upper frame”)][AltContent: ][AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (“Table base”)][AltContent: ][AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (“Chuck table”)]
PNG
media_image1.png
1071
662
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Iida Fig. 1 (annotated)
Iida does not explicitly disclose:
a processing unit having a rotatable grinding wheel for grinding the wafer held on the holding unit;
a table base on which the chuck table is detachably supported,
wherein the frame assembly includes an upper frame and a lower frame that are removably attached to each other,
wherein a lower surface of the upper frame is configured and arranged to be seated upon a face side of the lower frame,
wherein the cooling water channel is connected to a cooling water drain port for draining cooling water that has been guided through the cooling water channel of the lower frame,
a bolt hole defined in the frame assembly to fasten the chuck table to the table base,
wherein the table base includes: a rest surface on which a lower surface of the lower frame of the frame assembly is placed, a frame suction hole that is defined in the rest surface and transmits a suction force therethrough to attract the lower frame of the frame assembly to the rest surface.
However, the Iida/Yamamoto/Ando/Ito/Taylor combination makes obvious this claim.
Yamamoto discloses:
a table base on which the chuck table is detachably supported (Figs. 2A-C, chuck table 64 is detachably supported by table base 67),
wherein the table base includes: a rest surface on which a lower surface of the lower frame of the frame assembly is placed (Figs. 2A-C, 3, rest surface 67a is configured for placement of the lower surface of the frame 642; see discussion below re “the lower frame”), a frame suction hole that is defined in the rest surface and transmits a suction force therethrough to attract the lower frame of the frame assembly to the rest surface (Figs. 2A-C, 3, frame suction hole 67c; ¶ 0024, “The bottom of the circular recess 67a also has a suction hole 67c defined therethrough for attracting under suction the bottom surface of the circular boss 642e fitted in the circular recess 67a thereby to secure the chuck table 64 under suction on the support base 67”).
Ando discloses:
a holding unit for holding a wafer under suction thereon (Figs. 1-2, holding unit including elements 3 (which includes porous plate 300) and 4 for holding wafer W under suction);
a processing unit having a rotatable grinding wheel for grinding the wafer held on the holding unit (Fig. 4, processing unit 7 having rotatable grinding wheel 74 for grinding wafer W on chuck table 3);
wherein the holding unit includes: a chuck table for holding the wafer thereon, and a table base on which the chuck table is detachably supported (Figs. 1-2, chuck table (elements 30, 40, 41) holds wafer W, and is detachably supported by table base 31),
wherein the chuck table includes:
a porous plate having an attracting surface for attracting the wafer thereto (Figs. 1-2, porous plate 300),
a frame assembly surrounding a portion of the porous plate other than the attracting surface, wherein the frame assembly includes an upper frame and a lower frame, and wherein a lower surface of the upper frame is configured and arranged to be seated upon a face side of the lower frame (Figs. 1-2, lower surface of upper frame 41 seats on upper surface of lower frame 40, both of which surround porous plate 300 other than at the attracting surface 300a),
a bolt hole defined in the frame assembly to fasten the chuck table to the table base (Figs. 1-2, bolt holes 40d in frame assembly 4 (in lower frame 40) for fastening the chuck table (elements 30, 40, 41) to the table base 31),
wherein the table base includes: a rest surface on which a lower surface of the lower frame of the frame assembly is placed (Figs. 1-2, table base 31 has rest surface 31a on which the lower surface of the lower frame 40 is placed).
Ito discloses:
a frame assembly surrounding a portion of the porous plate other than the attracting surface, wherein the frame assembly includes an upper frame and a lower frame, and wherein a lower surface of the upper frame is configured and arranged to be seated upon a face side of the lower frame (Figs. 2(a), 3(a)-(c); ¶¶ 0043-0047, frame assembly 4 surrounds porous plate 5 on the sides (other than at the attracting surface), and includes upper frame 4a and lower frame 4b, wherein the lower surface of upper frame 4a is configured and arranged to be seated on the upper face side of lower frame 4b).
Taylor discloses:
wherein the cooling water channel is connected to a cooling water drain port for draining cooling water that has been guided through the cooling water channel of the lower frame (Figs. 2, 5-8; ¶¶ 0030, 0034, cooling fluid (gas) is directed via channels (573/566 or 777/773) and to drain port (568 or 770) for draining out of the system; ¶¶ 0027-0028).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to combine the teachings of Yamamoto, Ando, Ito, and Taylor with Iida.
First, with respect to the “processing unit” limitation, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Ando with Iida to use the Iida device with a grinding apparatus having a rotatable grinding wheel, as taught by Ando. A person of ordinary skill would recognize that although Iida discloses the use of the “holding unit” with a semiconductor wafer etching apparatus, Iida’s “holding unit” and its teachings may be applied to other wafer processing apparatus, including ones having a grinding wheel as disclosed by Ando because the Iida device includes means to cool and counteract the detrimental effects of heat to the holding unit and the held wafer during a grinding process (see Ito Fig. 2(a); ¶¶ 0019-0025, holding unit 4 having a porous plate 5 connected to suction holes 7, and fluid cooling channels and holes 6; ¶ 0060, “For example, the above embodiment has been described by an example in which the flow path member 1 is used for back grinding process or polishing process of semiconductor wafers. However, the flow path member 1 may be used for any other semiconductor manufacturing process such as exposure process, etching process or film forming process of semiconductor wafers or may be used for FPD manufacturing process.”).
Second, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Yamamoto, Ando, and Ito with Iida (including the Ando “processing unit” combination) to modify Iida to arrive at the recited multipiece, detachable holding unit, which includes the recited chuck table and table base (and their recited subcomponents) (i.e., to separate into multiple pieces as illustrated in Iida Fig. 1 above). Ando teaches a three-piece chuck table design (element 30 including porous plate 300, lower frame 40, upper frame 41) that is attached to table base 31 using bolts 31e in bolt hole 40d, all of which are removably attached to each other (Ando Figs. 1-2). Yamamoto teaches a chuck table 64 removably attached to table base 67, including details about how the vacuum hole 642d of the chuck table 64 is connected to the vacuum hole 67b of table base 67, and how vacuum hold 67c of table base 67 attracts the bottom surface of the chuck table 64 (Yamamoto Figs. 2A-C, 3; ¶ 0024). Ito teaches a chuck table having a frame assembly, with separate upper frame 4a and lower frame 4b, where their suctions holes align (Ito Figs. 2(a), 3(a)-(c); ¶¶ 0043-0047). In light of these teachings, it would have been obvious to modify Iida as stated because a multipiece, detachable holding unit design allows a user to switch to a different sized chuck table in order to process different sized wafers without having to also switch out the table base (see annotated Iida Fig. 1 above), and would lead to a lower cost (due to only requiring different sized chuck tables and not different sized chuck tables with table bases) and faster processing times (due to faster swapping times by being able to use the same table base for different sized chuck tables). Also, because the Iida device has internal cooling and vacuum holes/channels, this multipiece design allows for easier fabrication of the overall assembly (e.g., forming the interior vacuum and fluid cooling channels (see Ito ¶¶ 0043-0047)) and easier maintenance (e.g., for access to and the cleaning of the interior vacuum and fluid cooling channels) compared to a one-piece frame design. Additionally, Applicant states no new and unexpected result due to making the chuck table detachable from the table base, or having the frame assembly composed of two separate “upper frame” and “lower frame” parts that are removably attached to each other. MPEP § 2144.04(V)(C). In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523 (CCPA 1961) (“If it were considered desirable for any reason to obtain access to the end of Peterson’s holder to which the cap is applied, it would be obvious to make the cap removable for that purpose.”); MPEP § 2144.04(V)(C).
Third, with the multipiece, detachable design as discussed, it would have been obvious to further incorporate the use of the frame suction hole, as taught by Yamamoto, to properly secure the detachable chuck table to the table base (Yamamoto ¶ 0024). Examiner notes that this modification contemplates the use of Yamamoto hole 67b (of table base 67) with the holes (vacuum pathways) of Iida that lead to the Iida wafer suction holes 35.
Fourth, the use of Ando’s bolts/holes would be obvious (also discussed above) because they would further secure the detachable chuck table to the table base (Ando ¶ 0021, “In this manner, the frame member 301 is fixed to the body portion 31 by the four bolts 31d. Thus, the chuck portion 30 is fixedly supported to the body portion 31.”). Examiner notes that for the proposed modification, due to the arrangement of Iida, the bolt holes would extend between the upper frame and the lower frame, securing them to the table base below (see Iida annotated Fig. 1 above, the proposed modification places bolts/holes around the circumference of the holding unit) (see US 20190348316 A1 (“Hayashi”) Figs. 4-6, bolt holes 12e and 13b extend through upper frame 12 and lower frame 13 respectively, allowing bolts 61 to secure upper frame 12 and lower frame 13 to base 15).
Finally, it would have been obvious to modify the Iida/Yamamoto/Ando/Ito combination to add drain ports connected to the cooling water channel as taught by Taylor (e.g., at the circumference of the lower frame of Iida where the cooling water channels (see annotated Fig. 1 of Iida above)). This use of drain ports allows for the perimeter (e.g., the radially outmost portions) of the chuck table to be adequately cooled because the cooling fluid would travel all the way to the perimeter of the chuck table before exiting through the drain ports (see Taylor ¶ 0027, “One advantage of the pad support 450 is that the greater concentration of apertures 251 in the perimeter region provides for greater heat transfer between a perimeter region of the planarizing pad 240). It should be noted that Iida describes element 37 as a “cooling means” (Iida Fig. 1; ¶ 0018) but is silent about how the cooling water leaves the chuck table after it is supplied by element 28 (notably, Iida does not state that the water is recirculated back to element 37). Nevertheless, the use of drain ports would reduce the cost and complexity of the device, as the cooling fluid could be expelled without additional channels/valves/fittings to recirculate and cool the used fluid; the fluid could be disposed of or recirculated in a cooling system outside the processing apparatus. Although the Taylor disclosure applies to a gas fluid cooling system, the use of drain ports would apply in the same way to a liquid fluid cooling system (see Taylor ¶¶ 0007, 0037). Examiner notes that although the drain port and cooling channels taught by Taylor pertain to a polishing pad platen, the same principles apply for cooling channels and drain ports located in a wafer chuck table.
To the extent Iida does not disclose that “cooling water” is used for cooling (as opposed to another refrigerant), this would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art because water is a known refrigerant and could be substituted for other refrigerants based on the design of the cooling system (US 20180143544 A1 (“Iida2”) Fig. 1; ¶¶ 0014, 0021, “while the cooling water is illustrated as a refrigerant, the heat may be absorbed from the holding table 22 by another refrigerant.”).
Regarding claim 2, the Iida/Yamamoto/Ando/Ito/Taylor combination makes obvious the processing apparatus of claim 1, as applied above.
Iida further discloses wherein: the wafer suction hole is defined in a plate rest surface of the frame assembly on which the porous plate is placed (Fig. 1, wafer suction holes 35 below porous plate 34 on a plate rest surface).
Yamamoto further discloses the rest surface of the table base has a fluid communication hole that is defined therein and held in fluid communication with the wafer suction hole and that transmits a suction force therethrough independently of the frame suction hole (Fig. 3, rest surface 67a of table base 67 has hole 67b that transmits suction force to wafer suction hole 642d, and is independent of frame suction hole 67c).
The obviousness rationale for claim 2 is the same as for claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, the Iida/Yamamoto/Ando/Ito/Taylor combination makes obvious the processing apparatus of claim 1, as applied above. Iida, as modified by Yamamoto/Ando/Ito/Taylor for claim 1, includes wherein the bolt hole extends between both the upper frame and the lower frame (see discussion and annotated Fig. 1 above for claim 1 re “bolt hole”).
Regarding claim 5, the Iida/Yamamoto/Ando/Ito/Taylor combination makes obvious the processing apparatus of claim 1, as applied above.
Taylor further discloses wherein the cooling water drain port is open at an outer circumferential surface of the lower frame (Figs. 2, 5-8; ¶¶ 0030, 0034, cooling fluid (gas) is directed via channels (573/566 or 777/773) and to drain port (568 or 770) located at the circumferential surface of the platen for draining out of the system; ¶¶ 0027-0028).
The obviousness rationale for claim 5 is the same as for claim 1.
Iida in view of Yamamoto, Ando, Ito, Taylor, and Tandou
Claims 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US 20160260624 A1 (“Iida”) in view of US 20180065187 A1 (“Yamamoto”), US 20180099375 A1 (“Ando”), US 20150122464 A1 (“Ito”), US 20040011461 A1 (“Taylor”), and US 20080289767 A1 (“Tandou”).
Iida pertains to a wafer holding system for a wafer processing machine (Fig. 1; ¶ 0004). Yamamoto pertains to a wafer chuck table (Abstr.; Fig. 1). Ando pertains to a wafer chuck table (Abstr.; Fig. 1). Ito pertains to a wafer chuck table (Abstr.; Figs. 1(a), 2(a)). Taylor pertains to a wafer planarization apparatus (Abstr.; Figs. 1-10). Tandou pertains to a wafer processing apparatus (Abstr.; Figs. 1-11). These references are in the same field of endeavor.
Regarding independent claim 6, this claim differs from claim 1 as follows:
Claim 6 does not include the limitation “wherein the cooling water channel is connected to a cooling water drain port for draining cooling water that has been guided through the cooling water channel of the lower frame”, but has the additional limitation “a cooling water annular groove that is fluidly connected with the cooling water supply hole.”
The Iida/Yamamoto/Ando/Ito/Taylor combination makes obvious the processing apparatus of claim 6, as discussed above for claim 1, with the addition of Tandou as follows:
Tandou discloses a cooling water annular groove that is fluidly connected with the cooling water supply hole (Fig. 9; ¶¶ 0089-0095, cooling annular groove 2-1, 2-2, 2-3 is fluidly connected with the cooling supply hole 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to further modify the Iida/Yamamoto/Ando/Ito/Taylor combination with the teachings of Tandou to implement a cooling water annular groove. Iida does not provide details about the structure of the cooling water channels 38. Nevertheless, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to implement the annular groove design of Tandou because it is a matter of routine optimization. The various designs (Tandou Figs. 9, 5B, 6B; ¶ 0086 “the in-plane temperature distribution...can be controlled by using a plurality of refrigerant flow paths 2”) for the cooling channels allow for a desired temperature profile across the chuck table, where the coolant is the coldest when emerging from the supply hole and warms up as the coolant travels through the channels. The desired design could be determined based on experimenting using the different channel designs to obtain the desired temperature profile across the chuck table (Taylor ¶¶ 0027, “In other embodiments, other pad supports with different arrangements of apertures can be used to provide different temperature distributions.”). Examiner notes although Tandou does not discuss the use of water as a coolant, the same principles of channel design would apply where the coolant used is water instead of another refrigerant.
Regarding claim 7, the Iida/Yamamoto/Ando/Ito/Taylor/Tandou combination makes obvious the processing apparatus of claim 6, as applied above.
Yamamoto further discloses wherein the table base further includes: a suction communication hole that is in fluid communication with the through hole of the lower frame, and a suction annular groove that is fluidly connected with the suction communication hole (Figs. 2A-C, 3, suction communication hole 642d in fluid communication with through hole 67b of the lower frame 67 and with suction annular grooves 642b).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to further modify the Iida/Yamamoto/Ando/Ito/Taylor combination with the teachings of Yamamoto to implement the suction communication hole and suction annular grooves as recited. With respect to the “suction communication hole”, the obviousness rationale is the same as for claim 6 (see claim 1), where Yamamoto is relied upon (with other references) to arrive at the multipiece, detachable holding unit. With respect to the “suction annular groove”, to the extent Iida does not disclose this (see Iida Fig. 1), it would have been obvious to implement suction annular grooves below the wafer suction holes of Iida (see annotated Fig. 1 of Iida for claim 1 above) fluidly connecting the wafer suction holes via the suction annular grooves of Yamamoto because the grooves would distribute suction to all of the wafer holes to provide an evenly distributed suction force across the surface of the wafer (see Yamamoto Fig. 2A; ¶¶ 0023-0024). Uneven suction forces acting across the surface of the wafer may cause damage to the wafer and/or undesired grinding/polishing results due to the wafer warping under the uneven suction forces.
Regarding claim 8, the Iida/Yamamoto/Ando/Ito/Taylor/Tandou combination makes obvious the processing apparatus of claim 7, as applied above. The Iida/Yamamoto/Ando/Ito/Taylor/Tandou combination as discussed for claim 7 above satisfies the limitation of claim 8: wherein the suction annular groove of the table base is spaced radially outwardly from the cooling water annular groove of the table base is satisfied (compare radial position of suction annular groove 642b (i.e., the inner one of the two referenced in Yamamoto Fig. 2A) with Tandou cooling annular groove 2-1, relative to the outer circumference of the chuck). The obviousness rationale for claim 8 is the same as for claim 7. Further, Applicant has not disclosed that the recited suction annular groove and cooling water annular groove spacing provides an advantage, solves any stated problem, or is used for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with other designs. Furthermore, absent a teaching as to criticality of this configuration as claimed, this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to this particular arrangement. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555 (CCPA 1975).
Regarding independent claim 9, this claim differs from claim 1 as follows:
Claim 9 does not include the limitation “[wherein the cooling water channel] is connected to a cooling water drain port for draining cooling water that has been guided through the cooling water channel of the lower frame”, but has the additional limitation “wherein the cooling water channel includes a plurality of arcuate portions and a plurality of radially extending portions, wherein adjacent ones of the arcuate portions are connected to each other by one of the radially extending portions”.
The Iida/Yamamoto/Ando/Ito/Taylor combination makes obvious the processing apparatus of claim 9, as discussed above for claim 1, with the addition of Tandou as follows:
Tandou discloses wherein the cooling water channel includes a plurality of arcuate portions and a plurality of radially extending portions, wherein adjacent ones of the arcuate portions are connected to each other by one of the radially extending portions (Fig. 9; cooling channels include arcuate portions (at references 2-1, 2-2, 2-3) connected to each other via radially extending portions as recited; ¶¶ 0089-0095).
The obviousness rationale for claim 9 is the same as for claim 6.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s Amendment and remarks have been considered. New claims 5-9 have been added. Claims 1-9 are pending. Claim 3 has been withdrawn from further consideration under 37 C.F.R. § 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention. Claims 1-2 and 4-9 are rejected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered. With respect to the alleged teaching away of Iida (Reply at 10-11), this argument is misplaced because as discussed in claim 1, the Iida device (specifically the chuck table) is modified with the other cited references for a grinding/polishing operation, where moisture and atmospheric conditions are generally not controlled, as evidenced by the widespread use of liquid slurry during grinding/polishing. Iida originally pertains to an etching apparatus within a decompression chamber (Fig. 1; ¶ 0013). Examiner notes that the other references do not appear to mention any problems with moisture present in their respective systems.
Applicant’s arguments for the other claims are conclusory and are not persuasive.
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 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 extension fee pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENT N SHUM whose telephone number is (703)756-1435. The examiner can normally be reached 1230-2230 EASTERN TIME M-TH.
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, MONICA S CARTER can be reached at (571)272-4475. 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.
/KENT N SHUM/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/MONICA S CARTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723