DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claim Objections
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation of “polishing the wafer by the polishing pad according to removal rate that is increased or decreased” is grammatically improper. Consider ––polishing the wafer by the polishing pad according to the removal rate that is increased or decreased––. Appropriate correction is required.
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 21-24 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 21 recites the limitations “...tuning at least one polishing condition to increase or decrease a removal rate in one of a plurality of regions of a wafer corresponding to the first region of the plurality of regions or the second region of the plurality of regions; before reconditioning the plurality of regions of the polishing pad, polishing the wafer by the polishing pad according to removal rate that is increased or decreased”.
The term “polishing condition” is disclosed as referring to parameters of the conditioner and conditioning process. (e.g., Specification [0024]-[0025]) rather than conditions of a polishing process, and the removal rate is disclosed as correlated with the polishing conditions (Specification [0031]), but is only changed as part of a conditioning process, which is separate than the claimed step of “tuning” (see, e.g., step S11 of fig. 4b).
The claim has been amended to specify that the step of “polishing the wafer by the polishing pad according to removal rate that is increased or decreased” occurs before any conditioning step. As best understood by the examiner, claim 21 has been amended to require that the step of polishing occurs between the steps of tuning a polishing condition (i.e. adjusting a variable of the conditioning process) and performing conditioning, but somehow happens according to a “removal rate that is increased or decreased” before the actual act of conditioning that increases or decreases the removal rate has occurred. There is nothing in the disclosure that explains how this sequence of events could occur. Because the subject matter of amended claim 21 was not disclosed in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventors had possession of the claimed invention at the time the application was filed, it fails to comply with the written description requirement and is rejected under 35 USC 112(a). Claims 22-24 depend from claim 21 and are likewise rejected.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 29 recites the limitation “the membrane”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claims 7-18 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 10675732, "Chen '732") in view of Huang et al. (US PGPub 2020/0130136, "Huang").
7. Regarding claim 7, Chen '732 teaches a control method for a chemical mechanical polishing apparatus (100) having a polishing pad (106), a sensor (128), a polishing head (112) and a conditioner (120, see Chen '732 fig. 1), the control method comprising:
conditioning, by the conditioner, a plurality of regions of the polishing pad (conditioning head brought into contact with pad and translated in step 1004, see Chen '732 figs. 10A-10E; conditioning performed across polishing zones Z1-Z6, see Chen '732 fig. 3 and 5:54-6:9);
capturing, by the sensor, data of the polishing pad associated with each of the plurality of regions of the polishing pad to obtain a plurality of surface roughnesses of the polishing pad at the plurality of regions (sensor 128 provides a signal based on a surface condition such as surface roughness, see Chen '732 4:40-54 and fig. 10E; data includes information regarding plurality of zones, see Chen '732 5:54-6:9);
tuning at least one polishing condition of the conditioner to adjust removal rate in one of a plurality of regions of a wafer corresponding to a first region of the plurality of regions or the second region of the plurality of regions (1008A adjusting a position of the conditioning pad in response to the surface condition signal, see Chen '732 fig. 10E; see also Chen '732 claim 5, teaching conditioner position or rotation is adjusted in response to the surface condition signal; conditioning processes are based on regions Z1-Z6, see Chen '732 5:37-40; control of conditioning variables is based on the relative condition of various zones of the polishing pad and ensures that the condition is within a target range, and that the method includes control based on a surface condition such as roughness being within a signal target range, see Chen '732 5:54-6:9; control of conditioning may be modified if data is outside a predetermined threshold value, see Chen '732 7:15-26; conditioning is correlated with removal rate, see Chen '732 2:41-60);
polishing a wafer according to the removal rate before reconditioning the plurality of regions of the polishing pad (conditioning may occur after wafer polishing, see Chen '732 3:4-8; because no conditioning will have been performed, the polishing prior to conditioning will occur at a removal rate associated with the polishing pad before the conditioning process); and
reconditioning, by the conditioner, the plurality of regions of the polishing pad according to the at least one polishing condition that is tuned (steps 1004 and 1006, see Chen '732 fig. 10E).
Chen '732 does not explicitly teach a step of determining, after conditioning the plurality of regions of the polishing pad, whether a difference between a first one of the plurality of surface roughnesses at a first region of the plurality of regions and a second one of the plurality of surface roughnesses at a second region of the plurality of regions is greater than an acceptable value to confirm an existence of a surface roughness variation of the polishing pad or that the tuning is performed when the difference is determined to be greater than an acceptable value and the existence of a surface roughness variation is confirmed.
However, Chen '732 does teach that the control of conditioning variables is based on both the relative condition of various zones of the polishing pad and a surface condition such as roughness being within a signal target range (see Chen '732 5:54-6:9). It has been held that “in considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom.” MPEP 2144.01, citing In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968). Furthermore, “[a] person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007) “[I]n many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle.” Id. at 420, 82 USPQ2d at 1397. Office personnel may also take into account “the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” Id. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
From Chen '732's teachings that conditioning has been completed when a surface condition signal is within a signal target range, that the surface condition may incorporate data regarding the relative condition of various polishing zones, and that the zones may be subjected to different conditioning parameters to generate zones having different surface properties (see Chen '732 8:36-56), one of ordinary skill would infer that the process involves a step of comparing the different surface roughnesses in adjacent zones to a predetermined target range for the relative values to ensure that difference between the surface roughnesses in different zones is held within a target range. As a person of ordinary creativity, they would further understand that determining the relative conditions of different zones is impossible without a comparison of some sort, and that such a comparison would most likely involve taking a difference and comparing it to an acceptable signal target range. Furthermore, a determination that relative conditions of different zones are outside an acceptable range would require there to be an actual difference in conditions, so such a determination would inherently identify the existence of variation in surface conditions such as surface roughness. Finally, because Chen '732 teaches that the conditioning process may involve multiple conditioning processes (Chen '732 8:45-56), one of ordinary skill would conclude that the surface roughness comparison may occur after a different conditioning process has occurred.
Consequently, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to modify the method of Chen '732 to include a step of determining, after conditioning the plurality of regions of the polishing pad, whether a difference between a first one of the plurality of surface roughnesses at a first region of the plurality of regions and a second one of the plurality of surface roughnesses at a second region of the plurality of regions is greater than an acceptable value to confirm an existence of a surface roughness variation of the polishing pad; wherein the step of tuning was performed when the difference is determined to be greater than an acceptable value and the existence of the surface roughness variation is confirmed, as doing so would improve the uniformity and efficiency of the conditioning process (see Chen '732 8:45-56).
Chen '732 as modified does not explicitly teach that the data of the polishing pad are images of the polishing pad. Chen '732 is also silent as to the specific nature of the sensor, referring only to a "optical scanner" (see Chen '732 4:43-48).
However, Huang teaches a chemical mechanical polishing apparatus (200) having a polishing pad (290), a sensor (detection module 260), a polishing head (210) and a conditioner (280, see Huang fig. 2), wherein the sensor is configured to detect a surface roughness of the pad (sensor detects profile of polishing pad, profile can include a surface roughness, see Huang [0025]). Huang further teaches that an optical module that captures 3-dimensional holographic images, such as a digital holography device, is suitable for use in obtaining a surface roughness of a polishing pad (see Huang [0047]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to try using a scanner such as the digital holography device taught by Huang as the optical scanner of unknown form taught by Chen '732.
Chen '732 teaches the use of an optical scanner, but does not teach any specific type of optical scanner. A person of ordinary skill would be motivated to find prior art that taught a suitable sort of optical scanner. Huang identifies a set of sensors suitable for use as an optical scanner to capture data for determining a surface roughness (an optical profilometer, a digital holography device configured to build holography images, or a confocal microscopy device configured to record multiple two-dimensional images of top surface 302 at different focal planes, see Huang [0047]). Because these sensors, several of which capture surface images, are taught as suitable for use as an optical scanner for determining a surface roughness in a conditioning apparatus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to use one of the devices taught by Huang for the method of Chen '732 with a reasonable expectation of success.
8. Chen '732 as modified teaches the control method according to claim 7, wherein the sensor comprises a three-dimensional image sensor (sensor is a digital holography device that builds three dimensional holographic images, see Huang [0047]) disposed upstream or downstream of the conditioner (sensor 128 is disposed on arm 122 and is capable of being rotated such that it is sensing surface conditions upstream or downstream of the conditioner, e.g., if the pad is rotating counterclockwise, then rotating arm 122 counterclockwise would result in the sensor obtaining data directly upstream from the conditioner see Chen '732 fig. 2).
9. Chen '732 as modified teaches the control method according to claim 7, wherein a field of view of the sensor is smaller than an area of the polishing pad (128′ is smaller than area of 106, see Chen '732 fig. 1), and wherein capturing the images of the polishing pad comprises: moving the sensor between a center and an edge of the polishing pad so that the sensor is able to capture images correspond to regions between the center and the edge of the polishing pad (arm 122 rotates, allowing sensor 128 to move and capture images in zones Z1-Z6, see Chen '732 5:62-6:3 and fig. 3).
10. Chen '732 as modified teaches the control method according to claim 9, wherein reconditioning the polishing pad comprises: moving the conditioner between the center and the edge of the polishing pad so that the conditioner is able to polish the polishing pad from the center to the edge of the polishing pad (Conditioner 120 moves along line A3 and rotates with arm 122, see Chen '732 5:7-24 and fig. 3).
11. Chen '732 as modified teaches the control method according to claim 10, wherein the sensor and the conditioner are moved synchronously (sensor 128 and conditioner 120 are both are both on arm 122 of conditioning apparatus 200, and would move synchronously as the arm swings, see Chen '732 fig. 3).
12. Chen '732 as modified teaches the control method according to claim 7, wherein the at least one polishing condition comprises at least one of a rotational speed of the conditioner, a downward force of the conditioner against the polishing pad, and a polishing time of the conditioner (rotation of conditioner, see Chen '732 claim 5).
Regarding claims 13-18, Chen '732 as modified teaches the control method according to claim 7, but does not explicitly teach a specific timing for the step of reconditioning the polishing pad relative to the step of polishing the wafer. However, Chen '732 does teach that the conditioning step may be performed during, before, or after wafer polishing operations (conditioning may occur concurrently to wafer polishing or as a separate process, see Chen '732 3:4-8). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide additional conditioning steps of before, during, and after wafer polishing, as doing so represents the combination of known prior art elements (performing the conditioning process before, during, or after polishing) according to known methods (Chen '732 teaches that conditioning may be performed sequentially, using different pads) such that a person of ordinary skill would recognize that the results of the combinations were predictable.
Regarding claim 26, Chen '732 teaches a control method for a chemical mechanical polishing apparatus (100) having a polishing pad (106), a sensor (128), a polishing head (112) and a conditioner (120, see Chen '732 fig. 1), the control method comprising:
conditioning, by the conditioner, a plurality of regions of the polishing pad (conditioning head brought into in contact with pad and translated in step 1004, see Chen '732 figs. 10A-10E; conditioning performed across polishing zones Z1-Z6, see Chen '732 fig. 3 and 5:54-6:9);
capturing, by the sensor, data of the polishing pad associated with each of the plurality of regions of the polishing pad to obtain a plurality of surface roughnesses of the polishing pad at the plurality of regions (sensor 128 provides a signal based on a surface condition such as surface roughness, see Chen '732 4:40-54 and fig. 10E; data includes information regarding plurality of zones, see Chen '732 5:54-6:9);
tuning a plurality of polishing conditions to adjust a plurality of removal rates in a plurality of polishing regions of a wafer based on the plurality of surface roughnesses associated with the plurality of regions of the polishing pad (step 1008A: adjusting a position of the conditioning pad in response to the surface condition signal, see Chen '732 fig. 10E; see also Chen '732 claim 5, teaching position or rotation is adjusted in response to the surface condition signal; conditioning processes are based on regions Z1-Z6, see Chen '732 5:37-40; control of conditioning variables is based on the relative condition of various zones of the polishing pad and ensures that the condition is within a target range, and that the method includes control based on a surface condition such as roughness being within a signal target range, see Chen '732 5:54-6:9; control of conditioning may be modified if data is outside a predetermined threshold value, see Chen '732 7:15-26; conditioning of a region of the pad is correlated with removal rate in a corresponding region of a wafer, see Chen '732 2:41-60);
before reconditioning the first region and the second region of the polishing pad, polishing a wafer which is pushed against the polishing pad by the polishing head (conditioning may occur after wafer polishing, see Chen '732 3:4-8; because the first and second regions of the pad will be associated with the first and second removal rates, the polishing would occur according to the first and second removal rates. At the time of polishing, the rates would not have been adjusted, but the claimed method does not require that the polishing occur at the adjusted polishing rates, and as noted in the rejection of claims 21-24 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) above, the disclosure does not support a method wherein removal rates are adjusted before conditioning); and
reconditioning, by the conditioner, the plurality of regions of the polishing pad (steps 1004 and 1006, see Chen '732 fig. 10E).
Chen '732 does not specifically teach that the step of tuning a first removal rate in a first polishing region of a wafer corresponding to the first region or a second removal rate in a second polishing region of a wafer corresponding to the second region of the polishing pad is performed when a difference between the first and second surface roughnesseses is greater than an acceptable value to confirm an existence of a surface roughness variation of the polishing pad, or that the step of reconditioning is likewise performed according to the difference between the first surface roughness and the second surface roughness. However, Chen '732 does teach that the control of conditioning variables is based on both the relative condition of various zones of the polishing pad and a surface condition such as roughness being within a signal target range (see Chen '732 5:54-6:9). It has been held that it is proper to take into account the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw from a reference. MPEP 2144.01. From Chen '732's teachings that conditioning has been completed when a surface condition signal is within a signal target range, that the surface condition may incorporate data regarding the relative condition of various polishing zones, and that the zones may be subjected to different conditioning parameters to generate zones having different surface properties (see Chen '732 8:36-56), one of ordinary skill would infer that the process involves a step of comparing the different surface roughnesses in adjacent zones to a predetermined target range for the relative values to ensure that difference between the surface roughnesses in different zones is held within a target range (which necessarily includes a step of confirming the presence of a variation, as any non-zero number compared to the target range represents a variation in surface roughness), and that the step of reconditioning is performed according to the difference between the first surface roughness and the second surface roughness.
Consequently, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would find it obvious to modify the method of Chen '732 such that the step of tuning a first removal rate in a first polishing region of a wafer corresponding to the first region or a second removal rate in a second polishing region of a wafer corresponding to the second region of the polishing pad is performed when a difference between the plurality of surface roughnesses of the polishing pad at the plurality of regions of the polishing pad is greater than an acceptable value to confirm an existence of a surface roughness variation of the polishing pad and the step of reconditioning is performed according to the difference between the first surface roughness and the second surface roughness, as doing so would improve the uniformity and efficiency of the conditioning process (see Chen '732 8:45-56).
Chen '732 as modified does not explicitly teach that the data of the polishing pad are images of the polishing pad. Chen '732 is also silent as to the specific nature of the sensor, referring only to a "optical scanner" (see Chen '732 4:43-48).
However, Huang teaches a chemical mechanical polishing apparatus (200) having a polishing pad (290), a sensor (detection module 260), a polishing head (210) and a conditioner (280, see Huang fig. 2), wherein the sensor is configured to detect a surface roughness of the pad (sensor detects profile of polishing pad, profile can include a surface roughness, see Huang [0025]). Huang further teaches that an optical module that captures 3-dimensional holographic images, such as a digital holography device, is suitable for use in obtaining a surface roughness of a polishing pad (see Huang [0047]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use a scanner such as the digital holography device taught by Huang as the optical scanner of unknown form taught by Chen '732.
Chen '732 teaches the use of an optical scanner, but does not teach any specific type of optical scanner. A person of ordinary skill would be motivated to find prior art that taught a suitable sort of optical scanner. Huang identifies a set of sensors suitable for use as an optical scanner to capture data for determining a surface roughness (an optical profilometer, a digital holography device configured to build holography images, or a confocal microscopy device configured to record multiple two-dimensional images of top surface 302 at different focal planes, see Huang [0047]). Because these sensors, several of which capture surface images, are taught as suitable for use as an optical scanner for determining a surface roughness in a conditioning apparatus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to use one of the devices taught by Huang for the method of Chen '732 with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 29 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Chen '732 in view of Huang as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Huey et al. (US 11710228, "Huey").
29. Chen '732 as modified teaches the control method according to claim 7, but does not teach that the polishing head further comprises a retaining ring surrounding the membrane, wherein a lower surface of the retaining ring is brought into contact with the polishing pad during the polishing process, and an inner surface of the retaining ring is configured to circumferentially surround an edge of the wafer to retain the wafer during polishing.
However, Huey teaches a polishing head (70) comprising a membrane (80) that forms a pressurizable chamber therein (membrane 80 forms a plurality of chambers 82, see Huey fig. 2) and a retaining ring (86) that contacts the polishing pad during polishing and has an inner surface that circumferentially surrounds an edge of the wafer (retainer 86 surrounds wafer 10, see Huey fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to implement the carrier head of Huey in the method of Chen as modified such that the polishing head comprises a retaining ring surrounding the membrane, wherein a lower surface of the retaining ring is brought into contact with the polishing pad during the polishing process, and an inner surface of the retaining ring is configured to circumferentially surround an edge of the wafer to retain the wafer during polishing, as doing so represents the simple substitution of one sort of carrier head for another, the results of such a substitution being predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
31. Chen '732 as modified teaches the control method according to claim 7, but does not specifically teach a step of performing a cleaning process over the wafer after polishing the wafer, wherein reconditioning the plurality of regions of the polishing pad is performed after the cleaning process.
However, Huey teaches the inclusion of a mechanism for cleaning a wafer (load cup 8 may include elements for cleaning the carrier head and substrate, see Huey 7:11-20) in a transfer station used to move substrates between processing stations before and after polishing (Huey 6:50-57).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to include cleaning mechanisms for cleaning a wafer after polishing as taught by Huey in the method of Chen '732 as modified such that it included a step of performing a cleaning process over the wafer after polishing the wafer, wherein reconditioning the plurality of regions of the polishing pad is performed after the cleaning process, as doing so represents the combination of known prior art elements according to known methods, and the results of such a combination would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill. Note that Chen '732 teaches that conditioning may be performed before, during, or after polishing (Chen '732 3:35-54), which means that the cleaning step would occur before, after, or at the same time as the at least one conditioning step. When processing a succession of wafers, at least one cleaning process would occur before at least one reconditioning step.
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Chen '732 in view of Huang as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Chen et al. (US 9768080, "Chen '080").
32. Chen '732 as modified teaches the control method according to claim 7, and further teaches that slurry is dispensed during CMP operations (Chen '732 3:65-4:9), but does not teach a step of tuning, during the polishing, a flow rate of a polishing slurry supplied by a slurry dispenser according to the plurality of surface roughnesses of the polishing pad.
However, Chen '080 teaches a control method (Chen '080 fig. 7) for a chemical mechanical polishing apparatus (100, Chen '080 fig. 1), wherein the method includes a step (416) of tuning, during the polishing, a flow rate of a polishing slurry supplied by a slurry dispenser according to a plurality of surface roughnesses of the polishing pad (adjusting a slurry flow rate to a specific zone based on a surface roughness detected in that zone, Chen '080 8:6-20).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of Chen '732 such that it included a step of tuning, during the polishing, a flow rate of a polishing slurry supplied by a slurry dispenser according to the plurality of surface roughnesses of the polishing pad, as doing so represents the combination of known prior art elements in a polishing method according to known methods, the results of such a combination being predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 22 July 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's arguments do not address the cited references and consequently fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Furthermore, Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
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 JONATHAN R ZAWORSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-7804. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00-5:00, Fridays 9:00-1:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Monica Carter can be reached at (571)-272-4475. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/J.R.Z./Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/MONICA S CARTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights