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 .
Response to Amendment
The Office acknowledges receipt on 5 December 2025 of Applicants’ amendments in which claims 1, 2, 6, 8-13, 15, 21, and 24 are amended, claim 5 is cancelled, and claim 25 is newly added. The Office withdraws the drawing objections, section 35 USC 112(a) rejections, 35 USC section 112(b) rejections, and 35 USC section 112(d) rejections identified in the Office Communication dated 1 August 2025 in view of the amendments.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed 5 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants argue on pages 8 and 9 and with respect to claim 1 (and similarly with respect to independent claims 11 and 21) that Lin provides inadequate motivation for “keeping all the floating metals in A1-A3 while discriminately removing all the floating metals in B1-B4.” See, e.g., last paragraph of page 8. Claim 1 recites, in relevant part, modifying the layout with representation to indicate … removing each one of the metal portions that are floating in the second set of metal interconnects from the layout, while each one of the metal portions that are floating in the first set of metal interconnects remains in the layout and is rejected as being obvious over the disclosure of Lin.
Obviousness can be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so. MPEP §2143.01. As this principle applies to the present circumstance, Lin teaches in an embodiment illustrated by Fig. 7 modifying a layout (700) with representation to indicate removing each one of metal portions that are floating in a second set of metal interconnects (B2-B3) from the layout (700) {e.g., 602 and floating metal portion in B2 that is not connected to a via within Fig. 6; Fig. 6 is cited here solely for providing context to removed floating-metal-portions from B2-B3 in the embodiment illustrated by Fig. 7}.
Lin does not teach, in the embodiment illustrated by Fig. 7, each one of the metal portions that are floating in the first set of metal interconnects remains in the layout. However, Lin teaches in paragraph [0016] that an embodiment … may include a particular feature, structure, or characteristic, but every embodiment may not necessarily include the particular feature, structure, or characteristic. … Further, when a particular feature, structure or characteristic is described in connection with an embodiment, it would be within the knowledge of one skilled in the art to effect such feature, structure or characteristic in connection with other embodiments whether or not explicitly described. Thus, Lin teaches the layout (700) embodiment illustrated by Fig. 7 may include some, but not other, aspects of another layout (600) embodiment illustrated by Fig. 6. And Lin teaches in the embodiment of Fig. 6 a layout (600) in which each one of metal portions (e.g., 601, 603, 604, 605, 606) that are floating in a first set of metal interconnects (A1-A3) remains in the layout (600). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lin’s method based on the further teachings of Lin – such that each one of the metal portions that are floating in the first set of metal interconnects remains in the layout – because: (1) the first set of metal interconnects is used for a process of forming the second set of metal interconnects by self-alignment {Lin ¶0051}, (2) the first set of metal interconnects must have sufficient length, which is increased by not removing the floating metal portions therein, to fulfill the self-alignment process of the second set of metal interconnects {Lin ¶0021}, and (3) the electrical disconnection [of the first and second sets of metal interconnects] and/or reduction of redundant metal portions [within the second set of metal interconnects] would thus have little or no adverse impact on the subsequent IC fabrication process … [t]he resultant IC can thus have uniform [(critical dimensions)] CD and reduced parasitic capacitance, and consequently, the speed of the IC can be improved {Lin ¶0053}.
Stated another way for increased understanding, Lin’s embodiment illustrated by Fig. 7 teaches modifying the layout with representation to indicate removing each one of the metal portions that are floating in the second set of metal interconnects from the layout. And Lin’s embodiment illustrated in Fig. 6 teaches modifying the layout with representation to indicate that each one of the metal portions that are floating in the first set of metal interconnects remains in the layout. And the motivation for modifying Lin’s embodiment illustrated by Fig. 7 with the specific and above-cited teachings of Fig. 6 is to maintain a sufficient length of metal interconnects in the first set (e.g., A1-A3) so that they may fulfill their self-alignment functionality with respect to the second set of metal interconnects (e.g., B2-B3).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following features must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Claim 2, lines 2 and 3, recites “providing the layout with removal of each one of the metal portions that are floating in the second set of metal interconnects portions for fabricating a photomask,” which is not illustrated by the drawings for the reasons identified below in the section 112(a) rejection of claim 2.
Claim 8, line 2, recites “reducing a length of the metal cuts on the first set of metal interconnects,” which is not illustrated by the drawings for the reasons identified below in the section 112(a) rejection of claim 8.
Claim 12, lines 2 and 3, recites “wherein the modifying of the layout further includes forming an extra metal cut pattern to sharpen edges of the first and second metal interconnects,” which is not illustrated by the drawings for the reasons identified below in the section 112(a) rejection of claim 12.
Claim 13, lines 2-4, recites “wherein the modifying of the layout further includes adjusting locations of the vias on the second metal interconnects according to locations of the metal cuts on the second metal interconnects,” which is not illustrated by the drawings for the reasons identified below in the section 112(a) rejection of claim 13.
Claim 15, lines 2 and 3, recites “wherein the modifying of the layout further includes reducing a length of the metal cuts on the first metal interconnects,” which is not illustrated by the drawings for the reasons identified below in the section 112(a) rejection of claim 15.
Claim 24, lines 2 and 3, recites “wherein the modifying of the layout further includes merging at least two of the metal cuts associated with the second metal lines to form a merged metal cut,” which is not illustrated by the drawings for the reasons identified below in the section 112(a) rejection of claim 24.
Claim 25, lines 1-4, recites “wherein the modifying of the layout further includes adjusting a length of the metal cuts based on locations of the metal cuts whether on the first metal lines or on the second metal lines, such that the length of the metal cuts on the first metal lines is reduced,” which is not illustrated by the drawings for the reasons identified below in the section 112(a) rejection of claim 25.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 2, 8, 12-16, 24, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 2, lines 2 and 3, recites “providing the layout with removal of each one of the metal portions that are floating in the second set of metal interconnects portions for fabricating a photomask,” which is new matter lacking written description support in the original application because: (1) base claim 1 recites modifying a layout with representation to indicate metal cuts resulting metal portions that are floating, which means the metal cuts are representations rather than being real, (2) claim 2 recites removing from the layout real metal portions that are floating, and (3) the instant specification does not describe how real metal portions that are floating can be removed from representations of the metal portions that are floating within a layout.
Claim 8, line 2, recites “reducing a length of the metal cuts on the first set of metal interconnects,” which is new matter lacking written description support in the original application because: (1) base claim 1 recites modifying a layout with representation to indicate metal cuts on a first set of metal interconnects, (2) claim 8 recites reducing a length of real metal cuts on a real set of metal interconnects, and (3) the instant specification does not describe how the length of real metal cuts in real metal interconnects can be reduced within a representation of the metal cuts in a layout.
Claim 12, lines 2 and 3, recites “wherein the modifying of the layout further includes forming an extra metal cut pattern to sharpen edges of the first and second metal interconnects,” which is new matter lacking written description support in the original application because: (1) base claim 11 recites modifying a layout with representation to indicate particular features of first and second metal interconnects, (2) claim 12 recites forming a real metal cut pattern to sharpen edges of real first and second metal interconnects, and (3) the instant specification does not describe how a real metal cut pattern may be formed to sharpen edges of real first and second metal interconnects within a representation of the metal cuts in a layout.
Claim 13, lines 2-4, recites “wherein the modifying of the layout further includes adjusting locations of the vias on the second metal interconnects according to locations of the metal cuts on the second metal interconnects,” which is new matter lacking written description support in the original application because: (1) base claim 11 recites modifying a layout with representation to indicate particular features of metal cuts and second metal interconnects, (2) claim 13 recites adjusting locations of real vias on real second metal interconnects according to locations of real metal cuts on the real second metal interconnects, and (3) the instant specification does not describe how locations of real vias on real second metal interconnects may be adjusted according to locations of real metal cuts on the real second metal interconnects within a representation of the metal cuts and second metal interconnects in a layout. Claim 14 is rejected due to its dependence from intermediate claim 13.
Claim 15, lines 2 and 3, recites “wherein the modifying of the layout further includes reducing a length of the metal cuts on the first metal interconnects,” which is new matter lacking written description support in the original application because: (1) base claim 11 recites modifying a layout with representation to indicate particular features of metal cuts and first metal interconnects, (2) claim 15 recites reducing a length of real metal cuts on real first metal interconnects, and (3) the instant specification does not describe how a length of real metal cuts on real first metal interconnects may be reduced within a representation of the metal cuts and first metal interconnects in a layout. Claim 16 is rejected due to its dependence from intermediate claim 15.
Claim 24, lines 2 and 3, recites “wherein the modifying of the layout further includes merging at least two of the metal cuts associated with the second metal lines to form a merged metal cut,” which is new matter lacking written description support in the original application because: (1) base claim 21 recites modifying a layout with representation to indicate particular features of metal cuts and second metal lines, (2) claim 24 recites merging at least two real metal cuts associated with real second metal lines to form a real merged metal cut, and (3) the instant specification does not describe how two real metal cuts associated with real metal lines can be merged to form a real merged metal cut within a representation of the metal cuts and the second metal lines in a layout.
Claim 25, lines 1-4, recites “wherein the modifying of the layout further includes adjusting a length of the metal cuts based on locations of the metal cuts whether on the first metal lines or on the second metal lines, such that the length of the metal cuts on the first metal lines is reduced,” which is new matter lacking written description support in the original application because: (1) base claim 21 recites modifying a layout with representation to indicate particular features of metal cuts and first metal lines, (2) claim 25 recites adjusting a length of real metal cuts based on locations of the real metal cuts such that the length of the real metal cuts on real first metal lines is reduced, and (3) the instant specification does not describe how a length of real metal cuts based on locations of the real metal cuts can be adjusted such that the length of the real metal cuts on the real first metal lines is reduced within a representation of the metal cuts and the first metal lines in a layout.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2, 8, 12-16, 24, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2, lines 2 and 3, recites “providing the layout with removal of each one of the metal portions that are floating in the second set of metal interconnects portions for fabricating a photomask,” which is indefinite for the reason identified with respect to the 35 USC §112(a) rejection of this claim. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the claim will be interpreted to recite “providing the modified layout with the representation to indicate removal of each one of the metal portions that are floating in the second set of metal interconnects for fabricating a photomask.”
Claim 8, line 2, recites “reducing a length of the metal cuts on the first set of metal interconnects,” which is indefinite for the reason identified with respect to the 35 USC §112(a) rejection of this claim. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the claim will be interpreted to recite “modifying the layout with representation to indicate reducing lengths of the metal cuts on the first set of metal interconnects, while a length of each of the metal cuts on the second set of metal interconnects remains unchanged.”
Claim 12, lines 2 and 3, recites “wherein the modifying of the layout further includes forming an extra metal cut pattern to sharpen edges of the first and second metal interconnects,” which is indefinite for the reason identified with respect to the 35 USC §112(a) rejection of this claim. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the claim will be interpreted to recite “further comprising modifying the layout with representation to indicate forming an extra metal cut pattern to sharpen edges of the first and second metal interconnects.”
Claim 13, lines 2-4, recites “wherein the modifying of the layout further includes adjusting locations of the vias on the second metal interconnects according to locations of the metal cuts on the second metal interconnects,” which is indefinite for the reason identified with respect to the 35 USC §112(a) rejection of this claim. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the claim will be interpreted to recite “further comprising modifying the layout with representation to indicate adjusting locations of the vias on the second metal interconnects according to locations of the metal cuts on the second metal interconnects.” Claim 14 is rejected due to its dependence from intermediate claim 13.
Claim 15, lines 2 and 3, recites “wherein the modifying of the layout further includes reducing a length of the metal cuts on the first metal interconnects,” which is indefinite for the reason identified with respect to the 35 USC §112(a) rejection of this claim. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the claim will be interpreted to recite “further comprising modifying the layout with representation to indicate reducing lengths of the metal cuts on the first metal interconnects.” Claim 16 is rejected due to its dependence from intermediate claim 15.
Claim 24, lines 2 and 3, recites “wherein the modifying of the layout further includes merging at least two of the metal cuts associated with the second metal lines to form a merged metal cut,” which is indefinite for the reason identified with respect to the 35 USC §112(a) rejection of this claim. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the claim will be interpreted to recite “further comprising modifying the layout with representation to indicate merging at least two of the metal cuts associated with the second metal lines to form a merged metal cut.”
Claim 25, lines 1-4, recites “wherein the modifying of the layout further includes adjusting a length of the metal cuts based on locations of the metal cuts whether on the first metal lines or on the second metal lines, such that the length of the metal cuts on the first metal lines is reduced and the length of the metal cuts on the second metal lines remains unchanged,” which is indefinite for the reason identified with respect to the 35 USC §112(a) rejection of this claim. This claim is further indefinite because it is unclear how the lengths of metal cuts on the second metal lines can be both: (1) adjusted and (2) unchanged. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the claim will be interpreted to recite “further comprising modifying the layout with representation to indicate reducing lengths of the metal cuts on the first metal lines based on locations of these metal cuts and lengths of the metal cuts on the second metal lines remain unchanged.”
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) 1, 2, 4, 6-9, 11, 12, 15, 16, 21, and 23-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. (US20200098631A1).
Regarding claim 1, Lin teaches in Figs. 6-8 a method, comprising:
receiving (810) a layout (700) that includes a plurality of metal interconnects (A1-A3: B2-B3) {Figs. 7, 8, ¶0055};
identifying a first set of metal interconnects (A1-A3) from the metal interconnects (A1-A3, B2-B3) corresponding to a first patterning process and a second set of metal interconnects (B2-B3) from the metal interconnects (A1-A3, B2-B3) corresponding to a second patterning process associated with and performed after the first patterning process {Fig. 7; ¶0052; ¶0025, patterns of the redundant metal portions 105 in metal interconnects 110A2-110A3 can be removed during the first patterning process. The patterns of metal interconnects 100A1, 101, and 102 are retained for self-aligning of metal interconnects 110B1-110B2 and 100B3 during the second patterning process}; and
modifying the layout (700) with representation to indicate:
adding metal cuts (e.g., cuts on opposing ends of 601, 602, 603, 604, 605, 606 within Fig. 6 cited for providing context to removed floating-metal-portions in Fig. 7) to the first set of metal interconnects (A1-A3) and the second set of metal interconnects (B2-B3), the adding of the metal cuts (e.g., cuts on opposing ends of 601, 602, 603, 604, 605, 606 within Fig. 6 cited for providing context to removed floating-metal-portions in Fig. 7) resulting in creating metal portions (e.g., 601, 602, 603, 604, 605, 606 within Fig. 6 cited for providing context to removed floating-metal-portions in Fig. 7) that are floating in the first set of metal interconnects (A1-A3) and the second set of metal interconnects (B2-B3), each of the metal cuts (e.g., cuts on opposing ends of 601, 602, 603, 604, 605, 606 within Fig. 6 cited for providing context to removed floating-metal-portions in Fig. 7) having a length not greater than one gate pitch {Fig. 7; ¶0052};
identifying all the metal portions (e.g., 601, 603, 604, 605, 606 within Fig. 6 cited for providing context to removed floating-metal-portions in Fig. 7) that are floating in the first set of metal interconnects (A1-A3) and all the metal portions (e.g., 602 and floating metal portion in B2 that is not connected to a via within Fig. 6 cited for providing context to removed floating-metal-portions in Fig. 7) that are floating in the second set of metal interconnects (B2-B3) {Fig. 7; ¶0052}; and
removing each one of the metal portions that are floating in the second set of metal interconnects (B2-B3) from the layout (700) {e.g., 602 and floating metal portion in B2 that is not connected to a via within Fig. 6 cited for providing context to removed floating-metal-portions from B2-B3 in Fig. 7}.
Lin does not teach, in the embodiment illustrated by Fig. 7, each one of the metal portions that are floating in the first set of metal interconnects remains in the layout.
However, Lin teaches in paragraph [0016] that an embodiment … may include a particular feature, structure, or characteristic, but every embodiment may not necessarily include the particular feature, structure, or characteristic. … Further, when a particular feature, structure or characteristic is described in connection with an embodiment, it would be within the knowledge of one skilled in the art to effect such feature, structure or characteristic in connection with other embodiments whether or not explicitly described. Thus, Lin teaches the layout (700) embodiment illustrated by Fig. 7 may include some, but not other, aspects of another layout (600) embodiment illustrated by Fig. 6.
Lin teaches in the embodiment of Fig. 6 a layout (600) in which each one of metal portions (e.g., 601, 603, 604, 605, 606) that are floating in a first set of metal interconnects (A1-A3) remains in the layout (600). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lin’s method based on the further teachings of Lin – such that each one of the metal portions that are floating in the first set of metal interconnects remains in the layout – because: (1) the first set of metal interconnects are used for a process of forming the second set of metal interconnects by self-alignment {Lin ¶0051}, (2) the first set of metal interconnects must have sufficient length, which is increased by not removing the floating metal portions therein, to fulfill the self-alignment process of the second set of metal interconnects {Lin ¶0021}, and (3) the electrical disconnection [of the first and second sets of metal interconnects] and/or reduction of redundant metal portions [within the second set of metal interconnects] would thus have little or no adverse impact on the subsequent IC fabrication process … [t]he resultant IC can thus have uniform [(critical dimensions)] CD and reduced parasitic capacitance, and consequently, the speed of the IC can be improved {Lin ¶0053}.
Regarding claim 2, as interpreted in view of the indefiniteness rejection, Lin teaches the method of claim 1, and Lin further teaches further comprising: providing (1001) the modified layout (700) with the representation to indicate removal of each one of the metal portions that are floating (e.g., 602 and floating metal portion in B2 that is not connected to a via within Fig. 6 cited for providing context to removed floating-metal-portions in Fig. 7) in the second set of metal interconnects (B2-B3) for fabricating a photomask (1002) {Fig. 10; ¶0066, 0077; ¶0077, a photomask with a layout pattern}.
Regarding claim 4, Lin teaches the method of claim 1, and Lin further teaches wherein the metal interconnects (A1-A3, B2-B3) have a uniform pattern {Fig. 6; each metal line has the same width … and is separated from an adjacent metal line for the same distance … in a layout area of interest, as “uniform pattern” is defined in paragraph [0020] of the instant application}.
Regarding claim 6, Lin teaches the method of claim 5, and Lin further teaches wherein the modifying of the layout further includes representation to indicate merging at least two metal cuts on the second set of metal interconnects (B2-B3) to form a merged metal cut {Figs. 6, 7; the cuts on opposite sides of the floating metal portion in B2 are merged into a single metal cut upon the removal of the floating metal portion to create L5 as illustrated by Fig. 7}.
Regarding claim 7, Lin teaches the method of claim 6, and Lin further teaches wherein the merged metal cut has a length of least 2 contact poly pitch (CPP) {Fig. 7}.
Regarding claim 8, as interpreted in view of the indefiniteness rejection, Lin teaches the method of claim 5, but Lin does not teach in the embodiment illustrated by Fig. 7 further comprising: modifying the layout with representation to indicate reducing lengths of the metal cuts on the first set of metal interconnects, while a length of each of the metal cuts on the second set of metal interconnects remains unchanged.
However, Lin teaches in Fig. 5 and paragraph [0049] reducing a length of metal cuts on a first set of metal interconnects (A1-A3) {See Examiner’s Note below; and see ¶0049, distance D6 between adjacent metal portions 501 and 502 has a variable range of 0.5 CPP to 2 CPP}. Lin further teaches in paragraph [0056] that redundant metal portions are electrically disconnected and/or removed to optimize the lengths of the metal interconnects. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lin’s method based on the further teachings of Lin for discovering an optimum or workable range of metal cut length – achieved by modifying the layout with representation to indicate reducing a length of each of the metal cuts on the first set of metal interconnects – because where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. MPEP §2144.05(II)(A). Moreover, [i]n the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP §2144.05(I). Furthermore, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. MPEP ¶2143(I)(E).
Regarding the limitation whereby a length of each of the metal cuts on the second set of metal interconnects remains unchanged, Lin does not teach in Fig. 5 and paragraph [0049] that reducing a length of the metal cuts on the first set of metal interconnects causes or requires reducing a length of each of the metal cuts on the second set of metal interconnects. Instead, Lin teaches in Fig. 5 and paragraph [0049] that the metal cuts on the second set of metal interconnects may have lengths within a particular range for some, but not necessarily all, embodiments. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lin’s method based on the further teachings of Lin – to include modifying the layout with representation to indicate reducing a length of the metal cuts on the first set of metal interconnects, while a length of each of the metal cuts on the second set of metal interconnects remains unchanged – because: (1) the first set of metal interconnects are used for a process of forming the second set of metal interconnects by self-alignment {Lin ¶0051}, (2) the first set of metal interconnects must have sufficient length for the self-alignment process {Lin ¶0021} – which lengths may be increased by expanding the length(s) of one or more adjacent metal interconnects of the first set and thereby reducing the length of the metal cuts between such adjacent ones of the first set of metal interconnects, and (3) such would thus have little or no adverse impact on the subsequent IC fabrication process … [t]he resultant IC can thus have uniform [(critical dimensions)] CD and reduced parasitic capacitance, and consequently, the speed of the IC can be improved {Lin ¶0053}.
Examiner’s Note: The instant application interprets both: (1) the slicing (e.g., 102 in Fig. 5) of an interconnect to separate such interconnect into multiple portions/segments and (2) the portion/segment (e.g., 114 in Fig. 7) between two such slicings of an interconnect that is removed from the interconnect as a metal cut. Accordingly, the Office may use the same interpretation in evaluating the prior art.
Regarding claim 9, Lin teaches the method of claim 1, and Lin further teaches further comprising: locating vias on the first and second sets of metal interconnects (A1-A3, B2-B3), wherein the identifying of all metal portions (e.g., 602 and floating metal portion in B2 that is not connected to a via within Fig. 6 cited for providing context to removed floating-metal-portions in Fig. 7) that are floating in the second set of metal interconnects (B2-B3) is based on locations of the vias on the second set of metal interconnects (B2-B3) {¶0048, the metal interconnects can include active metal portions that are placed based on the locations of the vias; because the active portions of the metal interconnects are identified based on the vias, the remaining portions (i.e., floating metal portions) of the metal interconnects are also identified by the vias}.
Regarding claim 11, Lin teaches in Figs. 6-8 a method, comprising:
scanning (810) a layout (700) to determine first metal interconnects (A1-A3) corresponding to a first patterning process and second metal interconnects (B2-B3) corresponding to a second patterning process following the first patterning process {Fig 8; ¶0055; see also ¶0044, 0051; ¶0022, Metal interconnects 100A1-100A3 can be patterned by a first patterning process, and metal interconnects 100B1-100B3 can be patterned by a second patterning process following the first patterning process};
locating in the layout (700) metal cuts (e.g., cuts on opposing ends of 601, 602, 603, 604, 605, 606 within Fig. 6 cited for providing context to removed floating-metal-portions in Fig. 7) and vias on the first and second metal interconnects (A1-A3, B2-B3) {¶0055, a circuit layout is scanned to determine redundant metal portions that need to be removed and/or electrically disconnected, it can be determined (e.g., by the EDA tool) that the metal portions not connected with vias are redundant metal portions},
wherein each of the metal cuts (e.g., cuts on opposing ends of 601, 602, 603, 604, 605, 606 within Fig. 6 cited for providing context to removed floating-metal-portions in Fig. 7) has a length not greater than one contact poly pitch (CPP) {Fig. 6; ¶0052};
modifying the layout (700) with representation to indicate:
merging at least two metal cuts on one (B3) of the second metal interconnects (B2-B3) to form an enlarged first metal cut (L7) on the one (B3) of the second metal interconnects (B2-B3) {Figs. 6, 7; the cuts on opposite sides of floating metal portion 602 illustrated by Fig. 6 are merged into a single metal cut upon the removal of the floating metal portion 602 as illustrated by Fig. 7, thereby enlarging the metal cut; ¶0056, redundant metal portions are electrically disconnected and/or removed to optimize the lengths of the metal interconnects, the removal of redundant portions can include replacement of the redundant metal portions with dielectric materials};
adding an extra metal cut between a via and a metal cut on another one (B2) of the second metal interconnects (B2-B3) {Figs. 6, 7; the cuts – one of which is between a via and another metal cut – on opposite sides of the only floating metal portion within B2 of Fig. 6 not having a via thereon are merged into a single metal cut upon the removal of this floating metal portion as illustrated by Fig. 7, thereby enlarging the metal cut; ¶0056, redundant metal portions are electrically disconnected and/or removed to optimize the lengths of the metal interconnects, the removal of redundant portions can include replacement of the redundant metal portions with dielectric materials};
merging the extra metal cut and the metal cut on the another one (B2) of the second metal interconnects (B2-B3) to form an enlarged second metal cut (L5) on the another one (B2) of the second metal interconnects (B2-B3) {Figs. 6, 7; the cuts on opposite sides of floating metal portion 601 illustrated by Fig. 6 are merged into a single metal cut upon the removal of the floating metal portion 601 as illustrated by Fig. 7, thereby enlarging the metal cut; ¶0056, redundant metal portions are electrically disconnected and/or removed to optimize the lengths of the metal interconnects, the removal of redundant portions can include replacement of the redundant metal portions with dielectric materials}; and
removing portions of the second metal interconnects (B2-B3) corresponding to the metal cuts, the enlarged first metal cut, and the enlarged second metal cut from the layout {Fig. 7; which removal achieves the merging identified in the previous paragraphs}; and
providing the layout (100-700) with removal of the portions of the first and second metal interconnects (B2-B3) for fabricating a photomask (1002) {Fig. 10; ¶0066, 0077; ¶0077, a photomask with a layout pattern similar to layout 100}.
Lin does not teach in the embodiment of layout (700) illustrated by Fig. 7, removing portions of the first metal interconnects corresponding to the metal cuts from the layout.
However, Lin teaches in paragraph [0016] that an embodiment … may include a particular feature, structure, or characteristic, but every embodiment may not necessarily include the particular feature, structure, or characteristic. … Further, when a particular feature, structure or characteristic is described in connection with an embodiment, it would be within the knowledge of one skilled in the art to effect such feature, structure or characteristic in connection with other embodiments whether or not explicitly described. Thus, Lin teaches the layout (700) embodiment illustrated by Fig. 7 may include some, but not other, aspects of another layout (600) embodiment illustrated by Fig. 6.
Lin teaches in the embodiment of Fig. 6 a layout (600) in which each one of metal portions (e.g., 601, 603, 604, 605, 606) that are floating in a first set of metal interconnects (A1-A3), due to metal cuts on opposing sides of the floating portions, remains in the layout (600). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lin’s method based on the further teachings of Lin – to include removing portions of the first metal interconnects corresponding to the metal cuts from the layout – because: (1) the first set of metal interconnects are used for a process of forming the second set of metal interconnects by self-alignment {Lin ¶0051}, (2) the first set of metal interconnects must have sufficient length, which is increased by not removing the floating metal portions therein, to fulfill the self-alignment process of the second set of metal interconnects {Lin ¶0021}, and (3) the electrical disconnection [of the first and second sets of metal interconnects] and/or reduction of redundant metal portions [within the second set of metal interconnects] would thus have little or no adverse impact on the subsequent IC fabrication process … [t]he resultant IC can thus have uniform [(critical dimensions)] CD and reduced parasitic capacitance, and consequently, the speed of the IC can be improved {Lin ¶0053}.
Regarding claim 12, as interpreted in view of the indefiniteness rejection, Lin teaches the method of claim 11, and Lin further teaches further comprising modifying the layout with representation to indicate forming an extra metal cut pattern to sharpen edges of the first and second metal interconnects (B2-B3) {¶0044, a metal cut pattern (e.g., 301-1 or 301-2) can have an axe-like shape}.
Regarding claim 15, as interpreted in view of the indefiniteness rejection, Lin teaches the method of claim 11, but Lin does not teach in the embodiment illustrated by Fig. 7 further comprising modifying the layout with representation to indicate reducing a length of the metal cuts on the first metal interconnects.
However, Lin teaches in Fig. 5 and paragraph [0049] reducing a length of metal cuts on first metal interconnects (A1-A3) {See Examiner’s Note below; and see ¶0049, distance D6 between adjacent metal portions 501 and 502 has a variable range of 0.5 CPP to 2 CPP}. Lin further teaches in paragraph [0056] that redundant metal portions are electrically disconnected and/or removed to optimize the lengths of the metal interconnects. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lin’s method based on the further teachings of Lin for discovering an optimum or workable range of metal cut length – achieved by modifying the layout with representation to indicate reducing a length of the metal cuts on the first metal interconnects – because where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. MPEP §2144.05(II)(A). Moreover, [i]n the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP §2144.05(I). Furthermore, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. MPEP ¶2143(I)(E).
Examiner’s Note: The instant application interprets both: (1) the slicing (e.g., 102 in Fig. 5) of an interconnect to separate such interconnect into multiple portions/segments and (2) the portion/segment (e.g., 114 in Fig. 7) between two such slicings of an interconnect that is removed from the interconnect as a metal cut. Accordingly, the Office may use the same interpretation in evaluating the prior art.
Regarding claim 16, Lin teaches the method of claim 15, but Lin does not expressly teach wherein the reduced length of the metal cuts is from about 0.4 to about 1 CPP.
However, Lin teaches in Fig. 5 and paragraph [0049] the reduced length of the metal cuts is from about 0.4 to about 1 CPP {See Examiner’s Note below; and see ¶0049, distance D6 between adjacent metal portions 501 and 502 has a variable range of 0.5 CPP to 2 CPP}. Lin further teaches in paragraph [0056] that redundant metal portions are electrically disconnected and/or removed to optimize the lengths of the metal interconnects. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lin’s method based on the further teachings of Lin for discovering an optimum or workable range of metal cut length – such that the reduced length of the metal cuts is from about 0.4 to about 1 CPP – because where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. MPEP §2144.05(II)(A). Moreover, [i]n the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP §2144.05(I). Furthermore, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. MPEP ¶2143(I)(E).
Examiner’s Note: The instant application interprets both: (1) the slicing (e.g., 102 in Fig. 5) of an interconnect to separate such interconnect into multiple portions/segments and (2) the portion/segment (e.g., 114 in Fig. 7) between two such slicings of an interconnect that is removed from the interconnect as a metal cut. Accordingly, the Office may use the same interpretation in evaluating the prior art.
Regarding claim 21, Lin teaches in Figs. 6-8 a method, comprising:
receiving (810) a layout (700) that includes a plurality of first metal lines (A1-A3) associated with a first patterning process and a plurality of second metal lines (B2-B3) associated with a self-aligning patterning process following the first patterning process {¶0044, 0048, Metal interconnects A1′-A3′ can be patterned first, followed by the patterning of metal interconnects B1′-B3′in a self-alignment process based on the patterns of metal interconnects A1′-A3′},
the first metal lines (A1-A3) being interleaved by the second metal lines (B2-B3), the first and second metal lines (B2-B3) being in a same metal layer of a semiconductor device {Figs. 6, 7};
modifying the layout with representation to indicate:
adding metal cuts (e.g., cuts on opposing ends of 601, 602, 603, 604, 605, 606 within Fig. 6 cited for providing context to removed floating-metal-portions in Fig. 7) on the first metal lines (A1-A3) and second metal lines (B2-B3), wherein the metal cuts (e.g., cuts on opposing ends of 601, 602, 603, 604, 605, 606 within Fig. 6 cited for providing context to removed floating-metal-portions in Fig. 7) create metal potions (e.g., 601, 602, 603, 604, 605, 606 within Fig. 6 cited for providing context to removed floating-metal-portions in Fig. 7) that are floating, wherein each of the metal cuts (e.g., cuts on opposing ends of 601, 602, 603, 604, 605, 606 within Fig. 6 cited for providing context to removed floating-metal-portions in Fig. 7) has a length not greater than one gate pitch {0052 };
identifying all of the metal portions (e.g., 601, 603, 604, 605, 606 within Fig. 6 cited for providing context to removed floating-metal-portions in Fig. 7) that are floating (e.g., 601, 603, 604, 605, 606 within Fig. 6 cited for providing context to removed floating-metal-portions in Fig. 7) in the first metal lines (A1-A3) and all of the metal portions (e.g., 602 and floating metal portion in B2 that is not connected to a via within Fig. 6 cited for providing context to removed floating-metal-portions in Fig. 7) that are floating (e.g., 602 and floating metal portion in B2 that is not connected to a via within Fig. 6 cited for providing context to removed floating-metal-portions in Fig. 7) in the second metal lines (B2-B3) {¶0052 }}; and
removing each one of the metal portions that are floating in the second metal lines (B2-B3) from the layout (700) {e.g., 602 and floating metal portion in B2 that is not connected to a via within Fig. 6 cited for providing context to removed floating-metal-portions from B2-B3 in Fig. 7}; and
providing the layout (700) for photomask fabrication (1002) {Fig. 10; ¶0066, 0077; ¶0077, a photomask with a layout pattern similar to layout 100}.
Lin does not teach in the embodiment of layout (700) illustrated by Fig. 7, that each one of the metal portions that are floating in the first metal lines remains in the layout.
However, Lin teaches in paragraph [0016] that an embodiment … may include a particular feature, structure, or characteristic, but every embodiment may not necessarily include the particular feature, structure, or characteristic. … Further, when a particular feature, structure or characteristic is described in connection with an embodiment, it would be within the knowledge of one skilled in the art to effect such feature, structure or characteristic in connection with other embodiments whether or not explicitly described. Thus, Lin teaches the layout (700) embodiment illustrated by Fig. 7 may include some, but not other, aspects of another layout (600) embodiment illustrated by Fig. 6.
Lin teaches in the embodiment of Fig. 6 a layout (600) in which each one of metal portions (e.g., 601, 603, 604, 605, 606) that are floating in a first set of metal lines (A1-A3) remains in the layout (600). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lin’s method based on the further teachings of Lin – such that each one of the metal portions that are floating in the first metal lines remains in the layout – because: (1) the first set of metal lines are used for a process of forming the second set of metal lines by self-alignment {Lin ¶0051}, (2) the first set of metal lines must have sufficient length, which is increased by not removing the floating metal portions therein, to fulfill the self-alignment process of the second set of metal lines {Lin ¶0021}, and (3) the electrical disconnection [of the first and second sets of metal lines] and/or reduction of redundant metal portions [within the second set of metal lines] would thus have little or no adverse impact on the subsequent IC fabrication process … [t]he resultant IC can thus have uniform [(critical dimensions)] CD and reduced parasitic capacitance, and consequently, the speed of the IC can be improved {Lin ¶0053}.
Regarding claim 23, Lin teaches the method of claim 21, and Lin further teaches wherein the first and second metal lines (B2-B3) each have a same width and an equal spacing from an adjacent one of the first and second metal lines (B2-B3) {Fig. 7}.
Regarding claim 24, as interpreted in view of the indefiniteness rejection, Lin teaches the method of claim 21, and Lin further teaches further comprising modifying the layout (700) with representation to indicate merging at least two of the metal cuts associated with the second metal lines (B2-B3) to form a merged metal cut {Figs. 6, 7; the cuts on opposite sides of the floating metal portion in B2 are merged into a single metal cut upon the removal of the floating metal portion to create L5 as illustrated by Fig. 7}.
Regarding claim 25, as interpreted in view of the indefiniteness rejection, Lin teaches the method of claim 21, but Lin does not teach further comprising modifying the layout with representation to indicate reducing lengths of the metal cuts on the first metal lines based on locations of these metal cuts and lengths of the metal cuts on the second metal lines remain unchanged.
However, Lin teaches in Fig. 5 and paragraph [0049] reducing a length of metal cuts on a first set of metal interconnects (A1-A3) {See Examiner’s Note below; and see ¶0049, distance D6 between adjacent metal portions 501 and 502 has a variable range of 0.5 CPP to 2 CPP}. Lin further teaches in paragraph [0056] that redundant metal portions are electrically disconnected and/or removed to optimize the lengths of the metal interconnects. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lin’s method based on the further teachings of Lin for discovering an optimum or workable range of metal cut length – achieved by modifying the layout with representation to indicate reducing a length of each of the metal cuts on the first set of metal interconnects – because where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. MPEP §2144.05(II)(A). Moreover, [i]n the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP §2144.05(I). Furthermore, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. MPEP ¶2143(I)(E).
Regarding the limitation whereby lengths of the metal cuts on the second metal lines remain unchanged, Lin does not teach in Fig. 5 and paragraph [0049] that reducing a length of the metal cuts on the first set of metal interconnects causes or requires reducing a length of each of the metal cuts on the second set of metal interconnects. Instead, Lin teaches in Fig. 5 and paragraph [0049] that the metal cuts on the second set of metal interconnects may have lengths within a particular range for some, but not necessarily all, embodiments. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lin’s method based on the further teachings of Lin – to include modifying the layout with representation to indicate reducing a length of the metal cuts on the first set of metal interconnects, while lengths of the metal cuts on the second metal lines remain unchanged – because: (1) the first set of metal interconnects are used for a process of forming the second set of metal interconnects by self-alignment {Lin ¶0051}, (2) the first set of metal interconnects must have sufficient length for the self-alignment process {Lin ¶0021} – which lengths may be increased by expanding the length(s) of one or more adjacent metal interconnects of the first set and thereby reducing the length of the metal cuts between such adjacent ones of the first set of metal interconnects, and (3) such would thus have little or no adverse impact on the subsequent IC fabrication process … [t]he resultant IC can thus have uniform [(critical dimensions)] CD and reduced parasitic capacitance, and consequently, the speed of the IC can be improved {Lin ¶0053}.
Examiner’s Note: The instant application interprets both: (1) the slicing (e.g., 102 in Fig. 5) of an interconnect to separate such interconnect into multiple portions/segments and (2) the portion/segment (e.g., 114 in Fig. 7) between two such slicings of an interconnect that is removed from the interconnect as a metal cut. Accordingly, the Office may use the same interpretation in evaluating the prior art.
Claim(s) 3 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin as applied to claims 1 and 21 respectively above, and further in view of Lei et al. (US20190095552A1).
Regarding claim 3, Lin teaches the method of claim 1, and Lin further teaches wherein the metal interconnects (A1-A3: B2-B3) are in a layer {Fig. 11; ¶0073, 0077}.
Lin does not expressly teach the layer is a metal 0 (M0) interconnect layer.
In an analogous art, Lei teaches the metal interconnects are in a metal 0 (M0) interconnect layer {¶0011}. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lin’s method based on the teachings of Lei – such that the metal interconnects are in a metal 0 (M0) interconnect layer – because all the claimed elements (e.g., same metal layer and metal 0 (M0) layer) 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 yields nothing more than predictable results (e.g., the same metal layer is a metal 0 (M0) layer rather than a different layer) to one of ordinary skill in the art. See e.g., KSR International v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US 398, 416 (2007); MPEP §2143(I)(A).
Regarding claim 22, Lin teaches the method of claim 21, but Lin does not teach wherein the same metal layer is a metal 0 (M0) layer of the semiconductor device.
Lei teaches the metal interconnects are in a metal 0 (M0) interconnect layer {¶0011}. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lin’s method based on the teachings of Lei – such that the metal interconnects are in a metal 0 (M0) interconnect layer – because all the claimed elements (e.g., same metal layer and metal 0 (M0) layer) 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 yields nothing more than predictable results (e.g., the same metal layer is a metal 0 (M0) layer rather than a different layer) to one of ordinary skill in the art. See e.g., KSR International v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US 398, 416 (2007); MPEP §2143(I)(A).
Claim(s) 10, 13, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin as applied to claims 9 (for claim 10) and 11 (for claims 13 and 14) respectively above, and further in view of Sriram et al. (US20200202064A1).
Regarding claim 10, Lin teaches the method of claim 9, but Lin does not teach wherein the modifying of the layout further includes representation to indicate relocating at least one of the vias on the second set of metal interconnects to reduce a distance between the via and a metal cut on the second set of metal interconnects.
In an analogous art pertaining to automated interconnect routing, Sriram teaches relocating (1058) a via {Fig. 10B; ¶0089}. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lin’s method based on the teachings of Sriram – such that Lin’s layout further includes representation to indicate a via on the second set of metal interconnects is relocated as taught by Sriram, thereby reducing a distance between the via and a metal cut on the second set of metal interconnects – for the purpose of satisfying a design rule. Sriram ¶0089. For example, regardless of whether the via identified in the annotated copy of Lin’s Fig. 6 below is moved leftward or rightward, such movement reduces its distance to either the first or second cut identified in the drawing.
PNG
media_image1.png
541
678
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 13, as interpreted in view of the indefiniteness rejection, Lin teaches the method of claim 11, but Lin does not teach further comprising modifying the layout with representation to indicate adjusting locations of the vias on the second metal interconnects according to locations of the metal cuts on the second metal interconnects.
However, Lin teaches in paragraph [0033] that a design rule for vias and interconnects is that vias on active metal portions adjacent to these small floating metal portions can be formed at a distance D (e.g., ranging from about 3 nm to about 5 nm) from the active metal portion ends.
Sriram teaches adjusting (1058) a location of a via {Fig. 10B; ¶0089}. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lin’s method based on the teachings of Sriram – such that the locations of Lin’s layout further includes representation to indicate vias on the second set of metal interconnects are relocated as taught by Sriram, according to Lin’s design rule (identified in the preceding paragraph) regarding locations of the metal cuts on the second metal interconnects – for the purpose of satisfying a design rule. Sriram ¶0089.
Regarding claim 14, Lin as modified by Sriram teaches the method of claim 13, but Lin does not teach wherein the adjusting of the location of the vias includes reducing a minimum distance between a via and an edge of an adjacent metal cut.
Sriram teaches adjusting (1058) the location a via {Fig. 10B; ¶0089}. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lin’s method as modified by Sriram based on the further teachings of Sriram – such that the locations of Lin’s vias on the second set of metal interconnects are relocated as taught by Sriram, thereby reducing a minimum distance between the via and an edge of an adjacent metal cut – for the purpose of satisfying a design rule. Sriram ¶0089. For example, regardless of whether the via identified in the annotated copy of Lin’s Fig. 6 below is moved leftward or rightward, such movement reduces its distance to an edge of either the first or second cut identified in the drawing.
PNG
media_image1.png
541
678
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 DAVID WARD whose telephone number is (703)756-1382. The examiner can normally be reached 6:30-3:30 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Matthew Landau can be reached at (571)-272-1731. 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.
/D.W.W./Examiner, Art Unit 2891
/MATTHEW C LANDAU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2891