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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: the recitation of “detect a change in slope of a power signal” should read –detect a change in a slope of the power signal— to maintain consistent terminology as “a slope” has been used in the other claims and “a power signal” has already previously been recited in claim 13. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 7-9, 12, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 7, the metes and bounds of the limitation “detecting a change in slope of the power signal to detect the removal of the topography; and detecting a decrease in a magnitude of the slope of the power signal to detect the removal of the topography” is unclear to examiner. Is detecting the change in slope of the power signal the same as detecting a decrease in the magnitude of the slope of the power signal or are these two different steps in the method? These two steps are considered to be the same step in at least claims 6, 12, and 18, and therefore, for the sake of compact prosecution and for use in this office action, examiner is interpreting “detecting a change in slope of the power signal to detect the removal of the topography; and detecting a decrease in a magnitude of the slope of the power signal to detect the removal of the topography” to be --and detecting a change in slope of the power signal to detect the removal of the topography--.
Examiner notes that claim 19 is rejected for a similar limitation and examiner is interpreting “detect a change in slope of the power signal to detect the removal of the topography, detect a decrease in a magnitude of the slope of the power signal to detect the removal of the topography” to be --detect a change in slope of the power signal to detect the removal of the topography--.
Regarding claim 7, the metes and bounds of the limitation of “a sensor of an in-situ acoustic monitoring system to generate acoustic measurements; detecting…using a signal from the sensor” is unclear to examiner. Are “acoustic measurements” different than “a signal from the sensor” or is the signal from the sensor acoustic measurements generated by the sensor? For the sake of compact prosecution and for use in this office action, examiner is interpreting “a sensor of an in-situ acoustic monitoring system to generate acoustic measurements; detecting…using a signal from the sensor” to be --a sensor of an in-situ acoustic monitoring system to generate a signal from the sensor; detecting…using the signal from the sensor--.
Regarding claim 12, the metes and bounds of the limitation “wherein detecting the change in the slope of the power signal comprises detecting a decrease in a magnitude of the slope of the power signal” is unclear to examiner. Is detecting the change in slope of the power signal the same as detecting a decrease in the magnitude of the slope of the power signal or are these two different steps in the method? Examiner notes that based on examiner’s interpretation of claim 7, described above, claim 12 will be examined as it is currently claimed.
Claims 8-9 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 6, 13, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tang et al. (US20160256978), hereinafter Tang.
Regarding claim 1, Tang discloses a chemical mechanical polishing apparatus (Fig. 1 element 100), comprising:
a platen (Fig. 1 element 120);
a polishing pad (Fig. 1 element 110) supported on the platen (Fig. 1);
a carrier head (Fig. 1 element 140) to hold a surface of a substrate (Fig. 1 element 10) against the polishing pad (0035);
a motor (Fig. 1 element 121) to generate relative motion between the platen and the carrier head so as to polish an overlying layer on the substrate (0033 and 0039);
an in-situ acoustic monitoring system (Fig. 1 element 160) comprising an acoustic sensor (Fig. 1 element 162) that receives acoustic signals from the surface of the substrate (0040); and
a controller (Fig. 1 element 190) which configured to detect, prior to exposure of the underlying layer (0006, where “underlying layer” corresponds to underlying layer), removal of topography from the overlying layer on the substrate using a signal from the in-situ acoustic monitoring system (0006 and 0061-0062, where “the signal from the sensor” corresponds to a signal from the sensor), and, in response to detecting removal of the topography generate a signal representing removal of the topography (0062, where the controller is capable of generating a signal representing removal of the topography since the signal which is sent to trigger the endpoint functions in the same way (i.e. both signals represent transitions between distinctly different portions of the substrate; the endpoint portions are an overlying layer and an underlying layer and the removal of topography portions are the topography of a layer and the remainder of the layer)),
wherein the controller is configured to perform a Fourier transform on the signal, sum a spectral power density over a frequency range to generate a power signal (0061-0062, Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) corresponds to a Fourier transform, a frequency spectrum corresponds to a spectral power density, a frequency band corresponds to a frequency range, and the signals which are generated by the FFT correspond to a power signal), and detect a change in a slope of the power signal to detect removal of the topography (0061-0062, where when the power signal goes from a value which is within the threshold to a value which is outside the threshold, this corresponds to detecting a change in slope of the power signal to detect removal of the topography).
Regarding claim 6, Tang discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses detecting the change in the slope of the power signal comprises detecting a decrease in a magnitude of the slope of the power signal (0062, where when the power signal goes from a local minima value which is within the threshold to a local minima value which is outside the threshold, this corresponds to detecting a decrease in the magnitude of the slope of the power signal).
Regarding claim 13, Tang discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium encoded with a computer program comprising instructions to cause one or more computers (0017) to:
receive signals from a sensor (Fig. 1 element 162) of an in-situ acoustic monitoring system (Fig. 1 element 160) during polishing of an overlying layer (0030, where “overlying layer” corresponds to overlying layer) of a substrate (0040);
detect, prior to exposure of an underlying layer (0006, where “underlying layer” corresponds to underlying layer), removal of topography from the overlying layer on the substrate using a signal from the in-situ acoustic monitoring system (0006 and 0061-0062, where “the signal from the sensor” corresponds to a signal from the sensor), and, in response to detecting removal of the topography, generating an acoustic signal representing removal of the topography (0062, where the controller is capable of generating an acoustic signal representing removal of the topography since the signal which is sent to trigger the endpoint functions in the same way (i.e. both signals represent transitions between distinctly different portions of the substrate; the endpoint portions are an overlying layer and an underlying layer and the removal of topography portions are the topography of a layer and the remainder of the layer));
perform a Fourier transform on the acoustic signal (0061-0062, Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) corresponds to a Fourier transform);
sum a spectral power density over a frequency range to generate a power signal (0061-0062, a frequency spectrum corresponds to a spectral power density, a frequency band corresponds to a frequency range, and the signals which are generated by the FFT correspond to a power signal); and
detect a change in slope of a power signal to detect the removal of the topography (0061-0062, where when the power signal goes from a value which is within the threshold to a value which is outside the threshold, this corresponds to detecting a change in a slope of the power signal to detect the removal of topography).
Regarding claim 18, Tang discloses the limitations of claim 16, as described above, and further discloses detecting the change in the slope of the power signal comprises detecting a decrease in a magnitude of the slope of the power signal (0062, where when the power signal goes from a local minima value which is within the threshold to a local minima value which is outside the threshold, this corresponds to detecting a decrease in the magnitude of the slope of the power signal).
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 2-3, 14-15, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang et al. (US20160256978), hereinafter Tang, in view of Yu et al. (US5240552), hereinafter Yu.
Regarding claim 2, Tang discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, but fails to disclose the controller is configured to cause a dispenser to switch from dispensing a first polishing liquid to dispensing a second polishing liquid in response to detecting removal of the topography.
Yu is also concerned with a chemical mechanical polishing apparatus and teaches the controller is configured to cause a dispenser to switch from dispensing a first polishing liquid to dispensing a second polishing liquid in response to detecting removal of the topography (4:13-33, where control means corresponds to a controller and controlling a polishing slurry composition corresponds to changing from a first polishing liquid to a second polishing liquid in response to detecting removal of the topography). It 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 to modify the chemical mechanical polishing apparatus of Tang to have the controller be capable of causing a dispenser to switch from dispensing a first polishing liquid to dispensing a second polishing liquid in response to detecting removal of the topography, as taught by Yu, because Yu teaches that controlling operational parameters (e.g. a polishing slurry composition) based on detecting removal of the topography (e.g. received signals during polishing) increases the uniformity of the CMP process (4:13-33).
Regarding claim 3, Tang discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, but fails to disclose the controller is configured to cause a carrier head to switch from applying a first pressure to applying a second pressure to the substrate in response to detecting removal of the topography.
Yu is also concerned with a chemical mechanical polishing apparatus and teaches the controller is configured to cause a carrier head to switch from applying a first pressure to applying a second pressure to the substrate in response to detecting removal of the topography (4:13-33, where control means corresponds to a controller and controlling a wafer backside pressure downforce corresponds to switching from applying a first pressure to applying a second pressure to the substrate in response to detecting removal of the topography). It 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 to modify the chemical mechanical polishing apparatus of Tang to have the controller be capable of causing a carrier head to switch from applying a first pressure to applying a second pressure to the substrate in response to detecting removal of the topography, as taught by Yu, because Yu teaches that controlling operational parameters (e.g. a wafer backside pressure downforce) based on detecting removal of the topography (e.g. received signals during polishing) increases the uniformity of the CMP process (4:13-33).
Regarding claim 14, Tang discloses the limitations of claim 13, as described above, but fails to disclose instructions to switch from dispensing a first polishing liquid to dispensing a second polishing liquid in response to detecting removal of the topography.
Yu is also concerned with a non-transitory computer readable medium and teaches instructions to switch from dispensing a first polishing liquid to dispensing a second polishing liquid in response to detecting removal of the topography (4:13-33, where controlling a polishing slurry composition corresponds to instructions to switch from a first polishing liquid to a second polishing liquid in response to detecting removal of the topography). It 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 to modify the non-transitory computer readable medium of Tang to have instructions to switch from dispensing a first polishing liquid to dispensing a second polishing liquid in response to detecting removal of the topography, as taught by Yu, because Yu teaches that controlling operational parameters (e.g. a polishing slurry composition) based on detecting removal of the topography (e.g. received signals during polishing) increases the uniformity of the CMP process (4:13-33).
Regarding claim 15, Tang discloses the limitations of claim 13, as described above, but fails to disclose instructions to switch from applying a first pressure to applying a second pressure to the substrate in response to detecting removal of the topography.
Yu is also concerned with a non-transitory computer readable medium and teaches instructions to switch from applying a first pressure to applying a second pressure to the substrate in response to detecting removal of the topography (4:13-33, where controlling a wafer backside pressure downforce corresponds to instructions to switch from applying a first pressure to applying a second pressure to the substrate in response to detecting removal of the topography). It 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 to modify the non-transitory computer readable medium of Tang to have instructions to switch from applying a first pressure to applying a second pressure to the substrate in response to detecting removal of the topography, as taught by Yu, because Yu teaches that controlling operational parameters (e.g. a wafer backside pressure downforce) based on detecting removal of the topography (e.g. received signals during polishing) increases the uniformity of the CMP process (4:13-33).
Regarding claim 19, Tang discloses a chemical mechanical polishing apparatus (Fig. 1 element 100), comprising:
a platen (Fig. 1 element 120);
a polishing pad (Fig. 1 element 110) supported on the platen (Fig. 1);
a dispenser (Fig. 1 element 130) arranged to dispense a fluid (Fig. 1 element 132) onto the polishing pad (0034);
a carrier head (Fig. 1 element 140) to hold a surface of a substrate (Fig. 1 element 10) against the polishing pad (0035);
a motor (Fig. 1 element 121) to generate relative motion between the platen and the carrier head so as to polish the substrate (0033 and 0039);
an in-situ acoustic monitoring system (Fig. 1 element 160) comprising an acoustic sensor (Fig. 1 element 162) that receives acoustic signals from the surface of the substrate (0040); and
a controller (Fig. 1 element 190) configured to:
detect, a transition of a surface of the substrate from a non-planar surface having topography in a form of higher and lower portions of the surface to a planar surface in which the topography is removed from the surface of the substrate such that the surface is smooth using a signal from the in-situ acoustic monitoring system (0006 and 0061-0062, where “the signal from the sensor” corresponds to a signal from the in-situ acoustic monitoring system and where the controller being able to compare the “intensity in the frequency band”, which is obtained from “the signal” discussed in 0062, means that the controller is also capable of detecting a transition as claimed),
in response to detecting removal of the topography, generate a signal (0062, where the controller is capable of generating a signal since the signal which is sent to trigger the endpoint functions in the same way (i.e. both signals represent transitions between distinctly different portions of the substrate; the endpoint portions are an overlying layer and an underlying layer and the removal of topography portions are the topography of a layer and the remainder of the layer)),
perform a Fourier transform on the signal and summing a spectral power density over a frequency range to generate a power signal (0061-0062, Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) corresponds to a Fourier transform, a frequency spectrum corresponds to a spectral power density, a frequency band corresponds to a frequency range, and the signals which are generated by the FFT correspond to a power signal),
detect a change in slope of the power signal to detect the removal of the topography (0061-0062, where when the power signal goes from a value which is within the threshold to a value which is outside the threshold, this corresponds to detecting a change in a slope of the power signal to detect the removal of topography)
Tang fails to disclose the controller is configured to, in response to detecting the removal of the topography, modify a polishing control parameter to modify operation of the chemical mechanical polishing apparatus.
Yu is also concerned with a chemical mechanical polishing apparatus and teaches the controller is configured to, in response to detecting the removal of the topography, modify a polishing control parameter to modify operation of the chemical mechanical polishing apparatus (4:13-33, where control means corresponds to a controller, “data from the transducer 36 and receiver 38” corresponds to detecting removal of topography as the data has to do with the thickness of the wafer at any given point in operation, “operational parameters” corresponds to a polishing control parameter and “controlling the operational parameters of the (CMP) apparatus 18 in response to this data” corresponds to in response to the signal, modifying a polishing control parameter to modify operation of the chemical mechanical polishing apparatus). It 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 to modify the chemical mechanical polishing apparatus of Tang to have the controller be capable of, in response to detecting the removal of the topography, modifying a polishing control parameter to modify operation of the chemical mechanical polishing apparatus, as taught by Yu, because Yu teaches that controlling operational parameters (i.e. a polishing control parameter) based on signals received during polishing (i.e. detecting the removal of the topography) increases the uniformity of the CMP process (4:13-33).
Claims 7 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang et al. (US20160256978), hereinafter Tang, in view of Kistler (US20070218806), and in further view of Bennett et al. (US7024268), hereinafter Bennett.
Regarding claim 7, Tang discloses a method of chemical mechanical polishing, comprising:
bringing a substrate (Fig. 1 element 10) into contact with a polishing pad (Fig. 1 element 110) and generating relative motion between the substrate and polishing pad so as to polish an overlying layer on the substrate (0033 and 0039);
acoustically monitoring the substrate during polishing with a sensor (Fig. 1 element 162) of an in-situ acoustic monitoring system (Fig. 1 element 160, 0040) to generate a signal from the sensor (0042, where “the signal from the sensor” corresponds to a signal from the sensor);
detecting, removal of topography (i.e. the act of removing topography, which can be considered detecting any amount of removal of the topography) from the overlying layer on the substrate using the signal from the sensor (0006 and 0061-0062, where the signal from the sensor would be functioning during removal of topography and therefore would detect removal of topography); and an underlying layer (0006, where “underlying layer” corresponds to underlying layer); and
performing a Fourier transform on the signal and to sum a spectral power density over a frequency range to generate a power signal (0061-0062, Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) corresponds to a Fourier transform, a frequency spectrum corresponds to a spectral power density, a frequency band corresponds to a frequency range, and the signals which are generated by the FFT correspond to a power signal)
Tang fails to disclose prior to exposure of an underlying layer and in response to detecting removal of the topography generating a signal; detecting a change in slope of the power signal to detect the removal of the topography.
Kistler is also concerned with a method of chemical mechanical polishing and teaches detecting removal of topography on the substrate using a signal from the sensor (0050-0051, where “the signals generated with the vibrational or acoustic emissions” corresponds to a signal from the sensor), and, prior to exposure of an underlying layer (0050-0051, where 0050 discusses detecting transition between an overlying layer and an underlying layer as well as changes in topography and 0051 discusses the change in surface topography, which is the topography of the current layer being polished and when the overlying layer is being polished the detection of removal of the topography is detected prior to exposure of the underlying layer) and in response to detecting removal of the topography (0051, where “a change in surface topography” corresponds to detecting removal of the topography), generating a signal representing removal of the topography (0052, where the signal which is sent which causes “A set response such as altering the speed or other parameter of the planarizing operation” corresponds to generating a signal representing removal of the topography). It 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 to modify the chemical mechanical polishing method of Tang to, prior to exposure of an underlying layer, generate a signal representing removal of topography in response to detecting removal of the topography, as taught by Kistler, because Kistler teaches that detecting removal of topography prior to exposure of an underlying layer and generating a signal representing removal of topography, specifically the removal of unevenness of an individual layer, allows for automated changes to the process parameters as needed (0018 and 0052).
Tang, as modified, fails to disclose detecting a change in slope of the power signal to detect the removal of the topography.
Bennett is also concerned with a method of chemical mechanical polishing and teaches detecting a change in slope of the power signal to detect the removal of the topography (8:45-60, where “Possible process control and endpoint criteria for the detector logic include local minima or maxima, changes in slope, threshold values in amplitude or slope, or combinations thereof” corresponds to detecting a change in slope of the power signal to detect removal of the topography). Pursuant of MPEP 2144.06-II, it has been held obvious to substitute equivalents for the same purpose. Tang, as modified, discloses the invention except that the detection is a change in amplitude of the power signal instead of the detection being of a change in slope of the power signal. Bennett shows that detecting a change in slope of the power signal is an equivalent method known in the art (8:52-55, where Bennett explicitly considers that the “detector logic” could be either “threshold values in amplitude or slope”). Therefore, because these two detection methods were art-recognized equivalents at the time the invention was made, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to substitute detecting a change in amplitude of the power signal for detecting a change in slope of the power signal.
Regarding claim 12, Tang, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 10, as described above, and further discloses detecting the change in the slope of the power signal comprises detecting a decrease in the magnitude of the slope of the power signal (Bennett, 10:30-34).
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang et al. (US20160256978), hereinafter Tang, in view of Kistler (US20070218806), in further view of Bennett et al. (US7024268), hereinafter Bennett, and in further view of Yu et al. (US5240552), hereinafter Yu.
Regarding claim 8, Tang, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 7, as described above, but fails to disclose switching from dispensing a first polishing liquid to dispensing a second polishing liquid upon detection of the planarization.
Yu is also concerned with a method of chemical mechanical polishing apparatus and teaches the switching from dispensing a first polishing liquid to dispensing a second polishing liquid in response to detecting removal of the topography (4:13-33, where controlling a polishing slurry composition corresponds to changing from a first polishing liquid to a second polishing liquid in response to detecting removal of the topography). It 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 to modify the method of chemical mechanical polishing apparatus of Tang, as modified, to have switch from dispensing a first polishing liquid to dispensing a second polishing liquid in response to detecting removal of the topography, as taught by Yu, because Yu teaches that controlling operational parameters (e.g. a polishing slurry composition) based on detecting removal of the topography (e.g. received signals during polishing) increases the uniformity of the CMP process (4:13-33).
Regarding claim 9, Tang, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 7, as described above, but fails to disclose switching from applying a first pressure to applying a second pressure to the substrate in response to detecting removal of the topography.
Yu is also concerned with a method of chemical mechanical polishing apparatus and teaches switching from applying a first pressure to applying a second pressure to the substrate in response to detecting removal of the topography (4:13-33, where controlling a wafer backside pressure downforce corresponds to switching from applying a first pressure to applying a second pressure to the substrate upon detection of the planarization). It 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 to modify the method of chemical mechanical polishing apparatus of Tang, as modified, to switch from applying a first pressure to applying a second pressure to the substrate in response to detecting removal of the topography, as taught by Yu, because Yu teaches that controlling operational parameters (e.g. a wafer backside pressure downforce) based on detecting removal of the topography (e.g. received signals during polishing) increases the uniformity of the CMP process (4:13-33).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/12/2026 with regards to claims 1, 13, and 19, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claims 1, 13, and 19 Applicant argues that “Tang does not disclose ‘detect[ing] a change in a slope of the power signal to detect removal of the topography’” because the controller of Tang monitors the change in intensity (i.e. amplitude) of the power signal instead of monitoring the change in slope of the power signal. Applicant provides a specific example of “if the rate of change of the intensity of Tang’s frequency band is constant, the intensity could cross the threshold value without the slope changing” to support this argument. Examiner respectfully disagrees. It is unclear to examiner under what condition(s) the intensity would cross the threshold without the slope changing. Examiner finds that when rotation of the carrier head or platen occurs before the substrate contacts the polishing pad, there is a noise generated by the chemical mechanical polishing apparatus (hereinafter referred to as initial noise), which would be detected by the sensor, and when the substrate contacts the polishing pad, the noise that is produced is different than the initial noise. Examiner finds that the difference in the power signal produced by these two sounds will show up as a spike in the graph representing the power signal vs time and that this spike will have a different slope than the slope representing the initial noise.
Applicant’s arguments filed 5/12/2026 with respect to the rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Tang et al. (US20160256978), hereinafter Tang, in view of Kistler (US20070218806), and in further view of Bennett et al. (US7024268), hereinafter Bennett.
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 CALEB A HOLIZNA whose telephone number is (571)272-5659. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00-4:30.
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 on 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.
/C.A.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/MONICA S CARTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights