DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to Applicant’s reply filed 7/29/2026.
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 Status
Claims 1-12 and 14-22 are pending.
Claim 21 is withdrawn.
Claim 13 is cancelled.
Claims 1, 5-6, 9, 14-16, and 18-20 are currently amended.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamagishi (US Patent 6,630,053) in view of Madsen (US Pub. 2015/0225854) and Satoh (US Pub. 2007/0160507) with Van Groos (US Pub. 2004/0218168) as an evidentiary/supporting reference.
Regarding claim 1, Yamagishi teaches a substrate processing apparatus (Fig. 8, entirety; see also C11, L44- C12,L67 for details), comprising: a reaction chamber (Fig. 8, reactor unit #80); a susceptor plate positioned within the reaction chamber (Fig. 8, susceptor #81), constructed and arranged to support a substrate (Fig. 8, substrate #93), and provided with one or more holes (Fig. 8, holes in #81 for lift pin #87); wherein the susceptor plate is supported by a susceptor shaft (Fig. 8, shaft #95), and wherein a lower end of the susceptor shaft is fixedly connected to the reaction chamber (Fig. 8: while #81/#95 is capable of moving, the structure is capable of remaining stationary also- meeting the limitation of the claim); a substrate lift mechanism (see elements as follows) comprising: a plurality of lift pins to support the substrate (Fig. 8, lift pin #87; C12, L49: at least three pins); and a lift pin support member to move the lift pins in a vertical direction through the one or more holes (Fig. 8, seal plate #82); a substrate transfer robot provided with one or more robotic arms to transfer the substrate to a position above the lift pins (Fig. 8, unlabeled robotic arm left of chamber #80); and a gas supply unit constructed and arranged to face the susceptor plate (Fig. 8, showerhead #92).
Yamagishi does not teach wherein the gas supply unit is constructed and arranged to move in the vertical direction thereby positioning the gas supply unit in a processing position in the reaction chamber.
However, Madsen teaches wherein the gas supply unit is constructed and arranged to move in the vertical direction thereby positioning the gas supply unit in a processing position in the reaction chamber (Madsen – [0016] and Figs. 3-5, ball screw showerhead module adjuster assembly #400 moves showerhead #211 via plate #316).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the Yamagishi apparatus to comprise the gas supply unit movement assembly of Madsen in order to increase process gas distribution uniformity (Madsen – [0012]-[0013]) while shortening leveling time and increasing uptime (Madsen – [0016]).
Modified Yamagishi does not teach a plurality of magnetic elements comprising a first subset of magnetic elements and a second subset of magnetic elements, wherein the first subset of magnetic elements comprises a magnetic element provided to a lower end of each of the plurality of lift pins, and wherein the second subset of magnetic elements comprises one or more magnetic elements provided to a surface of the lift pin support member.
However, Satoh teaches a plurality of magnetic elements, one of which is provided to a lower end of each lift pin, and the other is provided to a surface of the lift pin support member (Satoh – [0070], [0077] and Fig. 3, magnets #22 in each lift pin #11 and magnet #21 in supporting member #10).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to further modify the modified Yamagishi apparatus to comprise the magnetic lift pins of Satoh in order to allow for transverse movement of the wafer lift pin without contacting the lift pin hole and causing misalignment (Satoh – [0017], [0078]).
Alternatively/additionally, Van Groos teaches wherein substrate supports can be fixed or movable as obvious alternatives (Van Groos – [0171]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to utilize either a rigidly fixed or movable connection for the modified Yamagishi apparatus as a matter of simple substitution to obtain predictable results (Van Groos – [0171]).
Regarding claim 2, Yamagishi teaches a first motor connected to the lift pin support member, wherein the first motor is disposed outside of the reaction chamber (Fig. 8, driving means #85 located outside #80).
Regarding claim 3, Yamagishi teaches wherein the substrate lift mechanism further comprises: a first lift shaft coupled to the lift pin support member; a first shaft support member coupled to the first lift shaft; a first bracket coupled to the first shaft support member; a first ball screw rotatably coupled to the first bracket; and a first motor coupled to the first ball screw and configured to rotate the first ball screw thereby moving the substrate in the vertical direction (Fig. 8, ball screw #83, elevating plate #84, driving means #85, unlabeled plates and brackets supporting the aforementioned elements).
Regarding claim 5, Yamagishi teaches wherein the susceptor shaft extends through an opening in the bottom wall of the reaction chamber (Fig. 8, shaft #95 extends out of the chamber).
Claims 4 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamagishi (US Patent 6,630,053), Madsen (US Pub. 2015/0225854), Satoh (US Pub. 2007/0160507), and Van Groos (US Pub. 2004/0218168), as applied to claims 1-3 and 5 above, further in view of Kamikawa (US Patent 5,445,699) with Shuto (US Pub. 2006/0063284) as an evidentiary reference.
The limitations of claims 1-3 and 5 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 4, Yamagishi teaches wherein the gas supply unit further comprises: a shower plate provided with a plurality of gas channels (Fig. 8, lowermost plate of showerhead #92 with unlabeled gas channels facing #93); an upper body coupled to the shower plate (Fig. 8, uppermost plate of #92).
Yamagishi does not teach a means to rotate the second ball screw thereby moving the shower plate in the vertical direction, wherein the means comprises a second lift shaft coupled to the upper body; a second shaft support member coupled to the second lift shaft; a second bracket coupled to the second shaft support member; or a second ball screw rotatably coupled to the second bracket.
However, Madsen teaches a means to rotate the second ball screw thereby moving the shower plate in the vertical direction (Madsen – [0016] and Figs. 3-5, ball screw showerhead module adjuster assembly #400 moves showerhead #211 via plate #316) wherein the means comprises a second lift shaft coupled to the upper body; a second shaft support member coupled to the second lift shaft; a second bracket coupled to the second shaft support member (Figs. 3-5, sleeve #415 with related brackets and supports), and a second ball screw rotatably coupled to the second bracket (Figs. 3-5, any of ball screws #405).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the Yamagishi apparatus to comprise the gas supply unit movement assembly of Madsen in order to increase process gas distribution uniformity (Madsen – [0012]-[0013]) while shortening leveling time and increasing uptime (Madsen – [0016]).
Modified Yamagishi does not teach a second motor coupled to the second ball screw.
However, Kamikawa teaches wherein an adjustment means comprises a motor coupled to a ball screw (Kamikawa – Fig. 1, motor #22 drives ball screw #21).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to further modify the movement assembly of modified Yamagishi to comprise a motor (instead of individual hand screws, see Madsen) similar to Kamikawa as an obvious substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. Both Madsen and Kamikawa describe devices for moving a CVD showerhead (see previous citations) where Madsen uses individual hand screws and Kamikawa uses a motor. The Examiner respectfully submits that the level of ordinary skill in the art is a highly educated, highly trained, highly skilled engineer that could easily interchange the movement means of Madsen and Kamikawa to achieve showerhead movement with predictable results (positive results cited by both Madsen – [0028] and Kamikawa – C7, L21-47).
Regarding claim 6, Yamagishi teaches wherein the shower plate and the susceptor plate serve as electrodes (C3, L59-63 and Fig. 7, RF generators #70/#71 connected to reactors; Fig. 8 does not depict any inductive coils and does depict two parallel plates- #92 and #81, that would participate in capacitively-coupled plasma generation). The Examiner submits Shuto Fig. 1A as evidence of a plasma system of standard construction to that as claimed (RF sources #7/7’ connected to showerhead #4, susceptor #3 grounded at #10).
Regarding claim 7, Yamagishi teaches an RF generator electrically coupled in RF power providing communication to the shower plate, with the susceptor plate electrically grounded (C3, L59-63 and Fig. 7, RF generators #70/#71 connected to reactors; Fig. 8 does not depict any inductive coils and does depict two parallel plates- #92 and #81, that would participate in capacitively-coupled plasma generation). The Examiner submits Shuto Fig. 1A as evidence of a plasma system of standard construction to that as claimed (RF sources #7/7’ connected to showerhead #4, susceptor #3 grounded at #10).
Regarding claim 8, Yamagishi teaches a first rod disposed between the RF generator and the shower plate (see Fig. 7) and a second rod disposed between the susceptor plate and ground (Figs. 7-8, while not depicted, must be present for plasma generation). The Examiner submits Shuto Fig. 1A as evidence of a plasma system of standard construction to that as claimed (RF sources #7/7’ connected to showerhead #4, susceptor #3 grounded at #10).
Claims 9-12 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamagishi (US Patent 6,630,053), Madsen (US Pub. 2015/0225854), Satoh (US Pub. 2007/0160507), Van Groos (US Pub. 2004/0218168), and Kamikawa (US Patent 5,445,699), as applied to claims 4 and 6-8 above, further in view of Mori (US Pub. 2017/0051406).
The limitations of claims 4 and 6-8 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 9, modified Yamagishi does not teach the added limitations of the claim.
However, Mori teaches wherein the susceptor plate is provided with a heater (Mori – [0051] and Fig. 3, heater #50+#52).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to further modify the modified Yamagishi apparatus to comprise the heater of Mori in order to regulate processing temperature and allow for uniform or non-uniform temperature profiles (Mori – [0005]-[0006]).
Regarding claim 10, modified Yamagishi does not teach the added limitations of the claim.
However, Mori teaches a third rod embedded within the susceptor shaft, the third rod being connected to the heater (Mori – [0055] and Fig. 3, wires #50a and/or #52a).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to further modify the modified Yamagishi apparatus to comprise the heater of Mori in order to regulate processing temperature and allow for uniform or non-uniform temperature profiles (Mori – [0005]-[0006]).
Regarding claim 11, modified Yamagishi does not teach the added limitations of the claim.
However, Mori teaches wherein the third rod is a power cable (Mori – [0055] and Fig. 3, wires #50a and/or #52a).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to further modify the modified Yamagishi apparatus to comprise the heater of Mori in order to regulate processing temperature and allow for uniform or non-uniform temperature profiles (Mori – [0005]-[0006]).
Regarding claim 12, modified Yamagishi does not teach the added limitations of the claim.
However, Mori teaches wherein the third rod is provided with a plurality of cables, each of which is connected to the heater (Mori – [0055] and Fig. 3, wires #50a and/or #52a).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to further modify the modified Yamagishi apparatus to comprise the heater of Mori in order to regulate processing temperature and allow for uniform or non-uniform temperature profiles (Mori – [0005]-[0006]).
Regarding claim 14, Yamagishi teaches wherein the second rod is provided with a lower connector at a lower end (Figs. 7-8, while not depicted, must be present for plasma generation). The Examiner submits Shuto Fig. 1A as evidence of a plasma system of standard construction to that as claimed (RF sources #7/7’ connected to showerhead #4, susceptor #3 grounded at #10).
Modified Yamagishi does not teach wherein the third rod is provided with a lower connector at lower end.
However, Mori teaches wherein a third rod is provided with a lower connector at lower end (Mori – [0055] and Fig. 3, wires #50a and/or #52a connect to controller #60).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to further modify the modified Yamagishi apparatus to comprise the heater of Mori in order to regulate processing temperature and allow for uniform or non-uniform temperature profiles (Mori – [0005]-[0006]).
Regarding claim 15, modified Yamagishi does not teach the added limitations of the claim.
However, Mori teaches a plurality of upper connectors embedded in a bottom wall of the reaction chamber, wherein each of the plurality of upper connectors is configured to connect to a corresponding lower connector (Mori – [0055] and Fig. 3, wires #50a and/or #52a connect to heaters #50 and/or #52 with some sort of connection structure).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to further modify the modified Yamagishi apparatus to comprise the heater of Mori in order to regulate processing temperature and allow for uniform or non-uniform temperature profiles (Mori – [0005]-[0006]).
Claims 16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benjaminson (US Pub. 2020/0090972) in view of Yamagishi (US Patent 6,630,053), Satoh (US Pub. 2007/0160507), and Madsen (US Pub. 2015/0225854), with Lee (US Patent 4,971,512) and Van Groos (US Pub. 2004/0218168) as evidentiary/supporting references.
Regarding claim 16, Benjaminson teaches a substrate processing apparatus (see elements as follows) comprising: one or more reaction chamber modules ([0025] and Fig. 1, tandem sections #109a-c), each reaction chamber module comprising two or more stations (Fig. 1: two per section), each station comprising an upper compartment and a lower compartment (see Figs. 2 and 4), wherein each of the upper compartments is configured to contain a substrate ([0027] and Fig. 2A, space for substrate #255), and wherein the lower compartment comprises a shared intermediate space between the two or more stations (Fig. 1, space around robotic arm #110); two or more susceptor assemblies ([0027] and Fig. 2A, substrate support #265 for each station), each provided with a susceptor plate (see previous) and positioned in a respective station; and two or more susceptor shafts (Fig. 2A, unlabeled shaft below #265, for each station), each susceptor shaft supporting a respective susceptor plate (see Fig. 2A), wherein a lower end of each susceptor shaft is fixedly connected to a respective reaction chamber module (shown generally in Fig. 4, while substrate support #410 appears capable of moving, the structure is thus capable of remaining stationary also- meeting the limitation of the claim; see also as in Fig. 2A), wherein each susceptor plate is constructed and arranged to support a substrate (see Fig. 2A); a substrate transfer robot centrally disposed relative to the two or more stations and provided with one or more robotic arms to transfer the substrate of a respective mechanism in the shared intermediate space ([0024] and Fig. 1, robotic arm #110 transferring substrates); and two or more gas supply units, each of which constructed and arranged to face the susceptor plate ([0038] and Fig. 2A, showerhead #225 for each station).
Benjaminson does not teach wherein the susceptor plate is provided with one or more holes formed therethrough; wherein two or more substrate lift mechanisms are provided, each comprising: a plurality of lift pins to support a respective substrate at a respective station; and a lift pin support member configured to move each of the plurality of lift pins; wherein the substrate lift mechanism is configured to move in a vertical direction through the one or more holes.
However, Yamagishi teaches the above (and provided with one or more holes (Fig. 8, holes in #81 for lift pin #87); a substrate lift mechanism (see elements as follows) comprising: a plurality of lift pins to support the substrate (Fig. 8, lift pin #87; C12, L49: at least three pins); and a lift pin support member to move the lift pins in a vertical direction through the one or more holes (Fig. 8, seal plate #82);)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the substrate support of Benjaminson to that of Yamagishi in order to shorten deposition/cleaning time and achieve simple and secure sealing (Yamagishi – C13, L48-54)
Modified Yamagishi does not teach a plurality of magnetic elements, wherein the plurality of magnetic elements comprises a first subset of magnetic elements and a second subset of magnetic elements, wherein the first subset of magnetic elements comprises a magnetic element provided to a lower end of each of the plurality of lift pins, and wherein the second subset of magnetic elements comprises one or more magnetic elements provided to a surface of the lift pin support member.
However, Satoh teaches a plurality of magnetic elements, one of which is provided to a lower end of each lift pin, and the other is provided to a surface of the lift pin support member (Satoh – [0070], [0077] and Fig. 3, magnets #22 in each lift pin #11 and magnet #21 in supporting member #10).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to further modify the modified Yamagishi apparatus to comprise the magnetic lift pins of Satoh in order to allow for transverse movement of the wafer lift pin without contacting the lift pin hole and causing misalignment (Satoh – [0017], [0078]).
Modified Benjaminson does not teach wherein each gas supply unit is configured to move in the vertical direction thereby positioning the respective gas supply unit in a processing position of the in a respective upper compartment.
However, Madsen teaches this limitation (Madsen – [0016] and Figs. 3-5, ball screw showerhead module adjuster assembly #400 moves showerhead #211 via plate #316).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to further modify the modified Benjaminson apparatus to comprise the gas supply unit movement assembly of Madsen in order to increase process gas distribution uniformity (Madsen – [0012]-[0013]) while shortening leveling time and increasing uptime (Madsen – [0016]).
Alternatively/additionally, Van Groos teaches wherein substrate supports can be fixed or movable as obvious alternatives (Van Groos – [0171]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to utilize either a rigidly fixed or movable connection for the modified Yamagishi apparatus as a matter of simple substitution to obtain predictable results (Van Groos – [0171]).
Regarding claim 18, Benjaminson teaches wherein the substrate transfer robot is configured to horizontally move a substrate from one of the two or more stations to the another one of the two or more stations ([0024]).
Regarding claim 19, Benjaminson teaches wherein the substrate transfer robot further comprise: a shaft coupled to the one or more robotic arms of the robot (see Fig. 1); and a motor rotatably coupled to the shaft to provide rotary movement to the one or more robotic arms around an axis of the shaft (while not explicitly shown, the Examiner respectfully submits such a feature must inherently be present, otherwise the arm would not operate – see Lee C2, L62-64).
Regarding claim 20, Benjaminson teaches wherein each of the two or more gas supply units further comprises: a shower plate provided with a plurality of gas channels; an upper body coupled to the shower plate ([0038] and Fig. 2A, showerhead #225).
Modified Benjaminson does not teach a lift shaft coupled to the upper body.
However, Madsen teaches a means to rotate the second ball screw thereby moving the shower plate in the vertical direction (Madsen – [0016] and Figs. 3-5, ball screw showerhead module adjuster assembly #400 moves showerhead #211 via plate #316) wherein the means comprises a second lift shaft coupled to the upper body (see Figs. 3-5).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to further modify the modified Benjaminson apparatus to comprise the gas supply unit movement assembly of Madsen in order to increase process gas distribution uniformity (Madsen – [0012]-[0013]) while shortening leveling time and increasing uptime (Madsen – [0016]).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benjaminson (US Pub. 2020/0090972), Yamagishi (US Patent 6,630,053), Satoh (US Pub. 2007/0160507), Madsen (US Pub. 2015/0225854), Lee (US Patent 4,971,512), and Van Groos (US Pub. 2004/0218168), as applied to claims 16 and 18-20 above, further in view of Iizuka (US Pub. 2005/0000450).
The limitations of claims 16 and 18-20 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 17, modified Benjaminson does not appear to be capable of performing the added functional limitation.
However, Iizuka teaches wherein the lift pin support member is configured to move in relation to the reaction chamber and the susceptor plate (Iizuka – Fig. 1, push-up member #54 can move relative to container #22 and stand #38).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the lift pin support structure of modified Benjaminson (particularly, Yamagishi) in order to quickly discharge gas around the process target, preventing undesirable displacement of the target (Iizuka – Abstract, [0009]-[0014]).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamagishi (US Patent 6,630,053), Madsen (US Pub. 2015/0225854), Satoh (US Pub. 2007/0160507), and Van Groos (US Pub. 2004/0218168), as applied to claims 1-3 and 5 above, further in view of Iizuka (US Pub. 2005/0000450).
The limitations of claims 1-3 and 5 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 22, modified Yamagishi does not appear to be capable of performing the added functional limitation.
However, Iizuka teaches wherein the lift pin support member is configured to move in relation to the reaction chamber and the susceptor plate (Iizuka – Fig. 1, push-up member #54 can move relative to container #22 and stand #38).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the lift pin support structure of modified Yamagishi (particularly, Yamagishi) in order to quickly discharge gas around the process target, preventing undesirable displacement of the target (Iizuka – Abstract, [0009]-[0014]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments concerning the §103 rejections of claims 1 and 16 have been carefully considered, but are not persuasive.
The focus of Applicant’s arguments is the limitation: “wherein a lower end of the susceptor shaft is fixedly connected to the reaction chamber” added to independent claims 1 and 16.
Applicant asserts that the previous rejection construction does not meet the limitation above. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The limitation above describes the nature of the connection, but does not positively recite any structural features of the connection. Put differently, the claim merely requires any fixed connection between the susceptor shaft and the reaction chamber.
Merriam-Webster dictionary defines the word “fixed” as: “securely placed or fastened”, “not subject to change or fluctuation”, and/or “immobile”.
The Examiner notes the BRI of this limitation, in light of the instant disclosure, can cover either: 1) a movable susceptor plate that is stationary (see instant Fig. 2) or 2) a susceptor plate rigidly attached to the reaction chamber via some coupling means and no means for moving said plate (see instant Fig. 4).
As was stated in the previous Office Action: even considering the BRI of this limitation in light of the instant disclosure, it would be improper for the Examiner to import additional structure into the claim. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
As such, given the totality of the information available to the Examiner, the essence of the limitation above is nearly identical to its previous iteration. The scope of the claim, therefore, has not changed to the extent that the prior rejection construction has been invalidated.
Applicant cites par. [0051] of the as-filed specification as describing connectors embedded in the lower wall of the chamber, but these features are not positively recited in the claim. The Examiner strongly suggests positively reciting these features if the Applicant feels they would differentiate over the prior art of record.
Even assuming, arguendo, that Applicant can successfully rebut the Examiner’s position set forth herein, the Examiner has supplied the Van Groos reference as teaching wherein fixed or movable substrate supports are known in the art as obvious alternatives (see at least par. [0171], Id.).
The rejections herein should be interpreted as two-fold: 1) with Van Groos as an evidentiary reference to demonstrate the knowledge of a PHOSITA in the art prior to filing, and 2) with Van Groos specifically relied upon in an obviousness rejection.
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 Kurt Sweely whose telephone number is (571)272-8482. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00am - 5:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at (571)-272-5166. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Kurt Sweely/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights