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
Claims 1,3-4,7-9 and 11-12, 14 are pending. Claims 1, 3, 9 ,11 are currently amended.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities: consider -- conducting [[a]] the heated heating liquid into the working gap during the heating step--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: a heating apparatus in claim 9 corresponding to heating apparatus in [0011, 0019] as an external heat source.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
The term “processing steps” in claim 1, 8 is interpreted under 35 USC. 112(f), the interpretation of a processing step(s), consistent with the instant disclosure being “polishing, lapping, or grinding” or equivalents thereof.
The term “heating apparatus” in claim 9 is interpreted under 35 USC. 112(f), the interpretation of a processing step(s), consistent with the instant disclosure being an electrical heating mat, or an arrangement that facilitates heated fluid.
The term “heating step” is not interpreted under 35 USC 112(f), as the claims recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
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, 3, 8-9, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikeda (US Pub. 20210394331 A1) and in view of Ising (US Pub. 20060040589 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Ikeda discloses:
A method for operating a double-sided processing machine (polisher 102, fig. 1 is explained in [0022] as being a double sided polishing machine) having a top working disk (polishing head 110, fig. 1; explained as having a first plate 118 and a first polishing pad 120 attached to the first plate in [0021]) and a bottom working disk (polishing head 114, fig. 1; explained as having a second plate 126 and a second polishing pad 128 attached to the second plate in [0021]) which rotate relative to each other (through shafts 112 and 116, fig. 1, explained as being rotating, in [0021]) and define a working gap between them that is configured for processing flat workpieces (a working gap is shown by the carrier 146, fig. 1, positioned as explained in [0039] during polishing which means that there is a gap between the top and bottom working disks where the carrier is placed during polishing; carrier 164 is described as holding wafers 108 (workpieces) in [0039]) the method comprising:
performing a heating step before one or more processing steps for steps for processing workpieces in the working gap, wherein the heating step comprises heating the top and bottom working disks to an operating temperature using a heating apparatus ([0019] describes preheating the polishing pad to achieve a consistent polishing temperature, which as explained above is part of the working disk, preheating is further explained in [0023-0025] describing the structure of a heating apparatus as preheating system 204 in [0023], [0020,0028] explains that preheating is done before polishing; both polishing pads, top and bottom are heated by the fluid as in [0021, 0031-0032]);
conducting a heated heating liquid through tempering channels positioned in at least one of (i) the top working disk or (ii) the bottom working disks (channels 124, fig. 1; [0021], in top disk) and
processing the workpieces using one or more processing steps after completion of the heating step ([0039] explains that after the preheating step, polishing (processing) is performed on wafer 108)
conducting a heated heating liquid into the working gap during the heating step ([0030] describes the steps of heating a first fluid to a predetermined temperature; [0031] describes the distribution of the first fluid from a conduit 144, positioned in first shaft 112, fig. 1, which then falls to the second polishing pad 128, this is described as heating the first and second polishing pads; the term falls is evidence that there is a working gap during the heating step and further evidence of distribution into a working gap is that the first and second pads are rotated to distribute the first fluid, as in [0031] and that slurry is flowed during polishing with the carrier (which defines a working gap in the rejection of claim 1 above) in place with the slurry falling to the second polishing pad the same way), wherein the heating of the top and bottom working disks is performed without frictional contact between the top and bottom working disks while preventing influence to an optional covering of the top and bottom working disks, wherein the optional covering comprise a polishing pad (the heating is done without frictional contact because the disks are spaced apart which would prevent frictional influence from the pads rubbing against each other).
However, Ikeda does not explicitly disclose mechanically holding the top and bottom working disks at a defined distance from each other during the heating step.
Ising, in the same field of endeavor, as related to double sided processing, teaches of ensuring at any time, a uniform polishing gap ([0008-0009], addressing a gap width [distance]), by adjusting a temperature to maintain a desired value and to adjust the geometry of the gap ([0016-0017], [0018] notes that this is independent of a cooling means). Ising teaches that it is undesirable to have a temperature induced deformation ([0009]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the method of Ikeda, such that the top and bottom working disks are fixed at a defined distance from each other during the heating step, by adjusting the heating of the working disks, as taught by Ising, in order to avoid undesired deformation. This arrangement is mechanical in nature as adjusting temperature/or adjusting geometry amounts to adjusting physical geometry, or fluid flow which is mechanical in nature.
With respect to claim 3, Ikeda, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 1 above and further teaches: further comprising structuring one or more supply lines to each define a supply opening positioned in the working gap and configured to conduct the heated heating liquid via the one or more supply lines and eject the heated heating liquid into the working gap through the supply openings (in [0031] the first fluid is distributed through conduits 144 to tubes 124 (as the fluid is distributed there are openings for the fluid to leave (into the working gap) and fall to the second polishing pad, as explained in the rejection of claim 1 above; [0039] describes similarly during the polishing step, slurry is flowed from conduits 144 to distribution tubes 124, with the slurry falling onto the 2nd polishing pad; thus showing that the same conduits/tubes also flow slurry)
With respect to claim 8, Ikeda, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 1 and further teaches:
measuring a temperature of at least one of the top working disk and the bottom working disk during the heating step ([0036] explains that the temperature of both polishing pads is measured); and
terminating the heating step after the operating temperature has been reached ([0031] explains that the first fluid is applied for a predetermined time; [0036] explains that the temperature measured can be used to vary the predetermined time, and controls the variable such that a second predetermined temperature is reached and is stable; [0037] explains that the heating step is done before polishing so that it reaches the second predetermined temperature, [0039] explains that after preheating, the wafer polishing step is done and slurry is flowed using the same conduits/tubes 144; [0040] explains that the slurry maintains the pads at the second predetermined temperature (thus showing that the second predetermine temperature is an operating temperature); together showing that the heating step is terminated when the operating temperature is reached) and performing a first of the one or more processing steps for processing the workpieces ([0039] explains that after the preheating step, polishing (processing) is performed on wafer 108).
With respect to claim 9, Ikeda discloses: A double-sided processing machine (polisher 102, fig. 1 is explained in [0022] as being a double sided polishing machine) comprising:
a top working disk (polishing head 110, fig. 1; explained as having a first plate 118 and a first polishing pad 120 attached to the first plate in [0021]);
a bottom working disk (polishing head 114, fig. 1; explained as having a second plate 126 and a second polishing pad 128 attached to the second plate in [0021]) ;
a working gap configured for processing flat workpieces defined between the top and bottom working disk (a working gap is shown by the carrier 146, fig. 1, positioned as explained in [0039] during polishing which means that there is a gap between the top and bottom working disks where the carrier is placed during polishing; carrier 164 is described as holding wafers 108 (workpieces) in [0039]);
a plurality of tempering channels positioned in at least one of (i) the top working disk or (ii) the bottom of the working disk (channels 124, fig. 1; [0021], in top disk).
a heating apparatus configured to heat at least one of the top and bottom working disks in to an operating temperature in a heating step and without frictional contact between the top and bottom working disks ([0019] describes preheating the polishing pad, which as explained above is part of the working disk, preheating is further explained in [0023-0025] describing the structure of a heating apparatus as preheating system 204 in [0023], [0020,0028] explains that preheating is done before polishing, the preheating system being a 112(f) equivalent that performs the claimed functions; [0031-0032] describes how both disks are heated; the heating is performed non frictionally as the disks are spaced apart),
wherein the top and bottom working disk are configured to rotate relative to each other (through shafts 112 and 116, fig. 1, explained as being rotating, in [0021]),
and wherein the heating step is performed before a first processing step for processing the flat workpieces ([0039] explains that after the preheating step, polishing (processing) is performed on wafer 108), and prevents influence to an optional covering of the top and bottom working disks, wherein the optional covering comprises a polishing pad (in [0018-0019] of Ikeda, the heating is uniform which is consistent with the instant disclosure of even heating in instant spec, [0017]).
Ikeda does not explicitly disclose wherein the top working disk and the bottom working disk are mechanically held at a defined distance from each other during the heating step.
Ising, in the same field of endeavor, as related to double sided processing, teaches of ensuring at any time, a uniform polishing gap ([0008-0009], addressing a gap width [distance]), by adjusting a temperature to maintain a desired value and to adjust the geometry of the gap ([0016-0017], [0018] notes that this is independent of a cooling means). Ising teaches that it is undesirable to have a temperature induced deformation ([0009]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Ikeda, such that the top and bottom working disks are fixed at a defined distance from each other during the heating step, by adjusting the heating of the working disks, as taught by Ising, in order to avoid undesired deformation. This arrangement is mechanical in nature as adjusting temperature/or adjusting geometry amounts to adjusting physical geometry, or fluid flow which is mechanical in nature.
With respect to claim 11, Ikeda, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 9 above and further teaches one or more supply lines each defining a supply opening positioned in the working gap, wherein the heated heating liquid is conducted via the one or more supply lines and ejected into the working gap through the supply openings. ([0031] the first fluid is distributed through conduits 144 to tubes 124 (as the fluid is distributed there are openings for the fluid to leave (into the working gap) and fall to the second polishing pad; rejection of claim 9 describes how both pads are heated).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikeda (US Pub. 20210394331 A1) and in view of Ising (US Pub. 20060040589 A1) as applied to the rejection of claim 1 above and as further evidenced by Senderzon (US Pub. 20150306728 A1)
With respect to claim 4, Ikeda, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 1 above, and further teaches: that the top and bottom working disks are rotated during the heating step ([0031] explains that the “shafts 112 and 116 simultaneously rotate the first and second polishing heads 110 and 114 to coat the first fluid on the first and second polishing pads 120 and 128” ([0031]; the structural relationship between the polishing heads and polishing pads (together comprising the top and bottom working disks) is explained in the rejection of claim 1 above, which is occurring during a heating step, also explained in the rejection of claim 1 above), however, does not explicitly disclose: rotating the top and bottom working disks in a same direction during the heating step.
However, when given the identified problem of the direction to rotate the top and bottom working disks during a heating step, there would have been a finite number of identified solutions. In particular, one would have rotated the two working disks in a same direction, or in a different direction. Thus, there would have been two different possible solutions.
MPEP 2143 provides that it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have chosen a solution, from a finite number of solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success.
As provided above, there are two possible solutions to the problem of selecting a rotation direction, and thus it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have made the two working disks of Ikeda rotate in a same direction during a heating step.
One skilled in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in trying any of the identified solutions.
As further evidence, Senderzon, in the same field of endeavor, relating to planarization of workpieces, provides evidence that one may rotate top (62, fig. 1) and bottom (82, fig. 1) working disks in a same or opposite direction during an operation of a machine ([0033] explains that rotating in a same direction is an alternative to rotating in an opposite direction with respect to the top and bottom working disks 62 and 82).
Thus, it would have, been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have tried one of the identified solutions, and with a reasonable expectation of success, have made the top and bottom working disks rotate in a same direction during the heating step, in view of the evidence provided by Senderzon.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikeda (US Pub. 20210394331 A1) and in view of Ising (US Pub. 20060040589 A1) as applied to the rejection of claim 1 and 9 above, and further in view of Xu (US Pub. 20100279435 A1) and as further evidenced by Sharan (US Pub. 20020081950 A1)
With respect to claim 7, Ikeda discloses the limitations of claim 1, however does not explicitly disclose: wherein the heating step comprises heating the working disks to an operating temperature using at least one electrical heating mat. Instead, Ikeda discloses conducting a heated heating liquid into the working gap during the heating step which involves distributing a heated fluid onto a polishing pad ([0030] describes the steps of heating a first fluid to a predetermined temperature; [0031] describes the distribution of the first fluid from a conduit 144, positioned in first shaft 112, fig. 1, which then falls to the second polishing pad 128, this is described as heating the first and second polishing pads).
Xu, in the same field of endeavor, relating to abrading, teaches of regulating a temperature at a polishing surface though channels as to heat a polishing pad ([0033] which describes the channels 22, located at a platen 12 with a polishing pad 14 attached (structure described in [0021-0022] and shown in fig. 1). Xu further teaches of temperature control of a polishing pad/platen using a fluid supply sprayed onto the surface of said pad ([0034] describes the fluid 56 directed to polishing surface 34; polishing surface 34 is described as the surface of a polishing pad in [0022], analogous to how the fluid is sprayed in Ikeda). Xu teaches that in doing so, better temperature control is achieved ([0034]) and that the fluid in channels 22 is heated ([0033]) as well as the fluid directed to the polishing surface ([0034]).
Ising, provides evidence, that it is known to provide temperature channels with a fluid in a double sided polishing machine ([0029] describes the temperature controlling passages 54, fig. 1 in an upper working disk 14, fig. 1 which is analogous to second plate 126 of Ikeda as explained in the rejection of claim 1 above, [0025] explains the structure of the upper working disk of Ising, [0030] explains that the fluid in the passages 54 is heated; [0004] explains that the apparatus is for double sided polishing). Ising further describes, that the temperature of the polishing pad is influenced by the temperature of the fluid ([0015]). Ising, as noted in the rejection of claim 1 above, also evidences that one may use an electrical heating device with the temperature channels with a fluid ([0032] describes that the temperature of the carrier disk 14 can be varied by an electrical heater positioned within; [0015] links the temperature of the polishing pad and carrier disk 14).
Ising does not explicitly describe an electrical heating mat. Ising describes a generic electrical heating device, positioned within a carrier disk. Sharan, in the same field of endeavor, relating to abrading, describes “Integrated into polishing pad 301 is heating element 310. Heating element 310 may comprise an electrically resistive plate (a heating mat), or other component (e.g., a coil or mesh), that may be used to vary the temperature of the polishing pad” ([0015]), thus providing evidence that one skilled in the art would use a heating mat as an electrical heating element.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have included a heating mat into Ikeda (as shown by Xu, in the bottom working disk, for better temperature control) and as described above by Ising and Sharan, and have utilized it as part of the method disclosed by Ikeda, in order to achieve better temperature control.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikeda (US Pub. 20210394331 A1) and in view of Ising (US Pub. 20060040589 A1), as applied in the rejection of claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of Xu (US Pub. 20100279435 A1)
With respect to claim 12, Ikeda, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 9 above, however does not explicitly teach wherein the plurality of tempering channels are positioned in the bottom working disk (claim 9 already requires tempering channels in either the top or bottom working disks, and addressed in claim 9 above, the top working disk has tempering channels to conduct a fluid).
Xu, in the same field of endeavor, relating to abrading, teaches of regulating a temperature at a polishing surface though channels as to heat a polishing pad ([0033] which describes the channels 22, located at a platen 12 with a polishing pad 14 attached (structure described in [0021-0022] and shown in fig. 1; analogous to a bottom working disk). Xu further teaches of temperature control of a polishing pad/platen using a fluid supply sprayed onto the surface of said pad ([0034] describes the fluid 56 directed to polishing surface 34; polishing surface 34 is described as the surface of a polishing pad in [0022], analogous to how Ikeda sprays fluid from a top working disk). Xu teaches that in doing so, better temperature control is achieved ([0034]) and that the fluid in channels 22 is heated ([0033]) as well as the fluid directed to the polishing surface ([0034]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Ikeda with tempering channels in the bottom working disk, as taught by Xu, for the purpose of better temperature control.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikeda (US Pub. 20210394331 A1) and in view of Ising (US Pub. 20060040589 A1), and further in view of Suverkrop (US 1257046 A).
With respect to claim 14, Ikeda, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 1 above, however does not explicitly teach wherein mechanically holding the top and bottom working disks at a defined distance from each other during the heating step further comprises locking a position of the top working disk and the bottom working disk relative to each other such that the defined distance between the top working disk and the bottom working disk is prevented from changing during performing the heating step.
As noted in the rejection of claim 1, Ising teaches of ensuring at any time, a uniform polishing gap and that it is undesirable to have a temperature induced deformation ([0009]).
Suverkrop, in the same field of endeavor, relating to abrading teaches wherein mechanically holding the top and bottom working disks at a defined distance from each other during the heating step further comprises locking a position of the top working disk and the bottom working disk relative to each other such that the defined distance between the top working disk and the bottom working disk is prevented from changing (page 1 lines 22-35 teaches of maintaining the plates absolutely parallel and maintaining a minimum gap and being stopped at an exact distance; this is done through posts 7 clamps 8, and stop screws 13; figs 2 and 4, page 1 lines 70-91; that mechanically lock the plates to a defined range of distance). Suverkrop teaches that this arrangement requires minimum labor and can be done through unskilled persons (page 1 lines 9-21)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Ikeda, such that mechanically holding the top and bottom working disks at a defined distance from each other during the heating step further comprises locking a position of the top working disk and the bottom working disk relative to each other such that the defined distance between the top working disk and the bottom working disk is prevented from changing during performing the heating step, using the teachings of Suverkrop for the purpose of ensuring parallelism with minimum skill.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/09/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the applicant’s arguments that Ising is not mechanical (response page 8-9), the applicant’s position is that because Ising uses thermal deformation, it is not a mechanical hold or lock (the term lock is not in independent claims 1 and 9). The examiner disagrees, because the term “hold” or “holding” is broad, and does not, as the applicant alleges, refer to a specific fixture (like the instant spacer or lock) that holds it in place. In Ising, the specific gap is held, or kept constant/uniform in dimension, so as to hold at a defined distance. The examiner also submits that thermal deformation is mechanical in nature, and is done through the application of mechanical principles regarding material response to temperature, and heating. Applicant also argues that Ising requires high precision, which would be defeated by a static and mechanical lock, however the examiner notes that the claim does not require a static and mechanical lock (and it appears that the instant lock is not static [in that it does not change] as it has to be locked in the first place [and if it was static then it would not need to be locked given that it does not, and cannot change], therefore being adjustable, at least once). The examiner understands that the originally filed drawings do not show a lock, however the applicant may show it schematically as a labeled box if necessary, and if the applicant submits that such an arrangement is a conventional feature, as in 37 CFR 1.83).
No specific arguments were presented with respect to the dependent claims.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Steven Huang whose telephone number is (571)272-6750. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 6:30 am to 2:30 pm, Friday 6:30 am to 11:00 am (Eastern Time).
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, David Posigian can be reached on 313-446-6546. 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.
/Steven Huang/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/DAVID S POSIGIAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights