DETAILED ACTION
Status
The amendment filed 06/26/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-17 and 21-22 are pending. Claims 5, 7, and 13-14 remain withdrawn from consideration as being drawn to a nonelected species or invention. In the amendment filed 06/26/2026, claims 1 and 10 were amended, no claims were newly added, and claim 23 was canceled.
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 5, 7, 13-14 remain withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 02/13/2025.
Claim Interpretation
The claims contain multiple references to portions of the showerhead being fluidly isolated. It is noted that the gas flows from the claimed “fluidly isolated” spaces into chamber space 233 (Fig 2A-C). It is noted that gas from chamber space 233 (Fig 2A-C) may reverse flow into the “fluidly isolated” space and gas from each of the “fluidly isolated” spaces is intended to mix within the chamber (Fig 2B). Therefore, “fluidly isolated” is interpreted inclusive of within the showerhead with the understanding that the gases may mix in the chamber and that in conditions in the chamber that allow for reverse flow, gas may flow between the sections if it is first flowed into the chamber. This interpretation is consistent with the text of specification paragraph [0042], and in particular line 19-25 of p15 of the specification.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“fastening mechanisms” in claims 1-4, 6, 8-12, 15-17, and 21-22 interpreted as screws, bolts, a clamp, [0051] and equivalents thereof.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claims 15 and 16 depend from claim 10 and recite limitations which have been added to claim 10 without reciting any additional limitations. Therefore, the claims fail to further limit the subject matter of claim 10. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6, and 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication 2004/0123800 of Schlottmann (prev. cited not relied on in office action mailed 03/26/2025), hereinafter Schlottmann, in view of Yudovsky (prev. presented US 2012/0135609), Olgado (prev. presented US 2012/0234945), Breiling (prev. presented US 2014/0235069), and US Patent Application Publication 2009/0071407 of Kuznetsov, hereinafter Kuznetsov.
Regarding claim 1, Schlottmann teaches a dual-channel showerhead (Fig 4, 5) [0040-0041], comprising: an upper plate (19 Fig 4,5) [0040-0041] that defines a first plurality of aperture (shown, not numbered as apertures through plate 19 Fig 4,5) [0040-0041]; a base comprising a lower plate (6 Fig 4,5) [0040-0041], the lower plate defining a second plurality of apertures (holes 9 that are connected to the through holes of plate 19 Fig 4,5) [0040-0041] and a third plurality of apertures (holes 9 in plate 6 that are not connected to the through holes of plate 19 Fig 4,5) [0040-0041], wherein: each of the first plurality of apertures and each of the second plurality of apertures are generally cylindrical (Fig 3-5) and an inner wall of each of the third plurality of apertures tapers inward in a downstream direction to to a choke point (Fig 4-5, note there is a taper visible in Fig 4-5 and the claim does not require a continuous taper from the aperture opening to the choke point); each of the first plurality of apertures is fluidly coupled with a respective one of the second plurality of apertures to define a fluid path extending from a top surface of the showerhead through a bottom surface of the showerhead (shown in Fig 4,5); there is a gas inlet (8A Fig 4,5) [0040-0041] that is that is fluidly coupled with the third plurality of apertures (third plurality of apertures are the through holes 9 of plate 6 that are not connected to the through holes of plate 19 Fig 4,5) [0040-0041] by a plenum (space above the third apertures). Schlottmann fails to teach the base defines a gas inlet, the base coupled with the upper plate using one or more fastening mechanisms, and fails to teach the bottommost end of compressible gasket forms a top end of the plenum. Schlottmann fails to teach the choke point is disposed within a medial portion of the respective aperture. Regarding the bottommost end of compressible gasket forms a top end of the plenum, in the same field of endeavor of a dual channel showerheads (abstract), Yudovsky teaches the dual channel showerhead plates may be arranged so that the base plate is flat (156 Fig 3) and the top plate (150 Fig 3) has columns that protrude downward to interface with the base plate (Fig 3), which is the embodiment of Schlottmann, or alternatively the showerhead may have a base (180 Fig 2) with columns that protrude upward to interface with a flat upper plate (172 Fig 2) [0026]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shape of the plate of Schlottmann, to include the lower plate having protrusions to project upward to meet the upper plate (shape of embodiment of Yudovsky Fig 2) instead of the current shape of the plates of Schlottmann (shape of embodiment of Yudovsky Fig 3) because Yudovsky teaches they are functional alternatives that achieve the same purpose of dual gas showerhead supply [0026]. Note that in this alternative shape arrangement, the gasket (15 or 16 Fig 4,5) of Schlottmann is positioned to interface with the flat lower surface of the upper plate and therefore is positioned such that a bottommost end of the gasket forms a top end of the plenum because this is where the interface of the two plates is positioned which is where the sealing gasket is required to be positioned.
Regarding the base coupled with the upper plate using one or more fastening mechanisms, in the same field of endeavor of dual-channel showerheads (abstract), Olgado teaches the base coupled with the upper plate using one or more fastening mechanisms (screws 312 Fig 3A, [0036]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Schlottmann to include the one or more fastening mechanisms because Olgado teaches the screws allow for coupling of the plates to attach and secure them and Schlottmann is silent as to how the plates are attached and secured.
Regarding the base defines a gas inlet, the gas inlet is shown as being routed through the upper plate (19 Fig 4,5) in Schlottmann. However moving the inlet to be routed through the base lower plate represents a mere rearrangement of parts. Mere rearrangement of parts which does not modify the operation of a device is prima facie obvious. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975). Additionally, the modification as applied above of Schlottmann in view of Yudovsky to change the shape of the plates renders obvious having the gas inlet at the lower plate when the shape is changed to have the plenum in the lower plate. Additionally, in the same field of endeavor of a dual channel showerhead (Fig 1A-4B and [0060]), Breiling teaches the base defines a gas inlet that is fluidly coupled with the third plurality of apertures (shown as inlet in 103 Fig 1A and 248 Fig 2A [0067], see also 448 Fig 4A ) from a side gas entrance. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Schlottmann to include the gas inlet is from a side of the base of the showerhead because this represents a mere rearrangement of parts and because Breiling demonstrates this arrangement works to provide gas to lower holes of the showerhead.
Regarding the choke point is disposed within a medial portion of the respective aperture, Schlottmann fails to teach this because in Schlottmann the choke point is at the bottom of the aperture, although it is noted that the upper portion of the choke point may be considered within a “medial portion” of the aperture. Addressing the same problem of gas supply to a chamber (abstract), Kuznetsov teaches each gas hole of a showerhead has a constriction or restriction that narrows it located near a central part of the hole [0024] (Fig 5) as an alternative to a constriction or restriction located near one end of the hole [0024] (Fig 4) and teaches the hole may be shaped such that the hole tapers to the constriction (Fig 5) [0024], [0043-0044]. Kuznetsov teaches the restriction (212) is in a central region (medial portion) along the length of the hole [0038] to facilitate uniform distribution of gases and reduce the distance between the restriction and the outer surfaces (202, 204) [0038]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shape of the hole of Schlottmann to include the restriction is in a central (medial) portion because Kuznetsov teaches this is a functional alternative to a restriction at the bottom of the hole (embodiment of Schlottmann) and because Kuznetsov teaches this reduces the distance between the restriction and the upper surface [0038]. Also note that if applicant argues that Schlottmann does not teach the taper inward in a downstream direction to the choke point, it is noted that Kuznetsov as cited above teaches this shape.
PNG
media_image1.png
415
571
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Schlottmann teaches each of the third plurality of apertures (third plurality of apertures are holes 9 that are not connected to the through holes of plate 19, Fig 4,5) is fluidly isolated from the first plurality of apertures and the second plurality of apertures [0040-0041].
Regarding claim 3, Schlottmann teaches the plenum (see annotated Fig 5 above) fluidly couples the gas inlet (8A Fig 4,5) with each of the third plurality of apertures (third plurality of apertures are the holes 9 that are not connected to the through holes of plate 19, Fig 4,5).
Regarding claim 6, Schlottmann fails to teach the gasket comprises polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE). Schlottmann teaches a variety of materials may be used [0038]. Olgado teaches the seal between plates of the showerhead may be made of polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) [0040]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the gasket of Schlottmann to be formed of polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) because Olgado demonstrates this material may be used in a dual channel shower head for separating the two zones [0040].
Regarding claim 21 and 22, Schlottmann teaches the compressible gasket defines a fourth plurality of apertures that are axially aligned with the first plurality of apertures and the second plurality of apertures (Fig 4,5 and [0040-0041]). Regarding a lower surface of the compressible gasket defines a solid body that is axially aligned with and extends over the third plurality of apertures, in the modification as applied in the rejection of claim 1 above in which the gasket forms the upper surface of the plenum because the change in shape of the showerhead plate, the gasket (15 or 16 Fig 4,5) of Schlottmann does not need holes for the third plurality of apertures because the gas does not need to flow through the gasket to the third plurality of apertures and therefore the gasket having a solid body that is axially aligned with and extends over the third plurality of apertures and does not have apertures in the gasket positioned above the third apertures is an obvious result of the modification as applied to claim 1.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schlottmann in view of Yudovsky, Olgado, Breiling, and Kuznetsov as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Noorbakhsh (prev. presented US 2011/0162800).
Regarding claim 4, the combination remains as applied to claim 3 above. The combination as applied to claim 3 fails to teach the base defines a recursive flow path that fluidly couples the gas inlet with the plenum because Schlottmann teaches a single inlet (8A Fig 4,5). In the same field of endeavor of a showerhead (abstract), Noorbakhsh teaches an outer annular gas delivery plenum using recursive flow (Fig 4B-4C) [0039]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the plenum of Schlottmann to include the recursive flow plenum of Noorbakhsh because Noorbakhsh teaches this provides a more uniform gas distribution [0039].
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schlottmann in view of Yudovsky, Olgado, Breiling, and Kuznetsov as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Choi (prev. presented US 2004/0206305).
Regarding claim 8, the combination remains as applied to claim 1 above. The combination as applied to claim 1 fails to teach the lower plate is detachably coupled with the base using one or more fasteners because Schlottmann and Olgado teach a unibody base and lower plate (see Olgado [0038] teaches the plates are brazed or welded). In the same field of endeavor of showerheads (gas distribution plate) (abstract), Choi teaches the lower gas distribution plate may be a single piece (158 Fig 2 or 300 Fig 3) or may be formed of a lower plate (506 Fig 5, 654 Fig 6) attached to an upper plate (504 Fig 5, 652 Fig 6) using a fastener (544 Fig 5, 602 Fig 6). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the base of Schlottmann to include a lower plate attached using a fastener in place of the single body plate (or base formed by brazing or welding plates) because Choi teaches this is a functional alternative [0046-0048] and teaches the separation of the plates reduces fabrication costs [0048].
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schlottmann in view of Yudovsky, Olgado, Breiling, and Kuznetsov as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of White (prev. presented US 2014/0103145).
Regarding claim 9, the combination remains as applied to claim 1 above. The combination as applied to claim 1 fails to teach the gasket has a thickness that decreases as a radial distance from a center of the gasket increases. In the same field of endeavor of showerheads (abstract), White teaches a cavity (52 Fig 8-9) for supplying a second gas to the chamber [0036] and teaches it may be shaped such that the thickness decreases as a radial distance from a center of the showerhead increases (see Fig 8 and [0040]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Schlottmann to include the space between the plates is shaped such that the thickness decreases as a radial distance from a center of the showerhead increases because White teaches this is a functional alternative to having the surfaces be flat (embodiment of Schlottmann and Olgado) and teaches it may provide better flow characteristics and limit pocket formation [0040]. In the combination as applied the space between the plates has a thickness that decreases as a radial distance from a center of the showerhead increases and therefore the gasket of Schlottmann must be modified to have a thickness that decreases as a radial distance from a center of the gasket increases to maintain the desired sealing effect of the gasket.
Claim(s) 10-11 and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schlottmann in view of Yudovsky, Olgado, Breiling, Kuznetsov and White.
Regarding claim 10, 15, and 16, the combination remains as applied to the analogous limitations of claim 1 above and of claim 9 above.
Regarding claim 11, the combination remains as applied to claim 10 above. White further teaches the base (36 Fig 13) defines a seat that receives the upper plate (plate 34) (Fig 13). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the base defines a seat that receives the upper plate because White demonstrates this as a functional alternative for the coupling of the plates of a showerhead.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schlottmann in view of Yudovsky, Olgado, Breiling, Kuznetsov, and White as applied to claim 10-11 above, and further in view of Hur (prev. presented US 2005/0103267).
Regarding claim 12, the combination remains as applied above to claim 11. White demonstrates an outer region of the seat widens upward toward a periphery of the seat (see portion around 106 Fig 13). However, the combination fails to teach the peripheral edge of the bottom surface of the upper plate includes a taper and fails to demonstrate the degree of taper of the outer region of the seat matches a degree of taper of the peripheral edge of the bottom surface of the seat. It is noted that the claimed limitation merely represents a change of shape of the interface surfaces of the upper plate and the seat of the base. It is further recognized that a change of shape is generally considered to be within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art, there being no evidence to suggest any unexpected results due to the shape of the peripheral edge of the seat and the upper plate. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Additionally, in the same field of endeavor of a plasma processing apparatus (abstract), Hur teaches that the interface surface between two structures of the chamber (portions 42 and 41 of ring 40 Fig 10) includes a tapered interface (Fig 11) or a stepped interface (Fig 14). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the shape of the outer region of the seat and the peripheral edge of the upper plate because Hur teaches a tapered interface is a functional alternative to a stepped interface (Fig 11 and 14).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schlottmann in view of Yudovsky, Olgado, Breiling, Kuznetsov, and White as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Liang (prev. presented US 2019/0244792).
Regarding claim 17, the combination remains as applied above to claim 10. Schlottmann is silent about heating. Olgado teaches the base comprises a heating fluid at least extending partially about a circumference of the base (337 Fig 3A [0039]) but fails to teach the base comprises a heating coil extending at least partially about a circumference of the base. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Schlottmann to include the heating system because Olgado teaches this helps regulate the temperature of the showerhead [0031]. In the same field of endeavor of a dual channel showerhead (abstract), Liang teaches the base comprises a heating coil extending at least partially about a circumference of the base (recess 342 Fig 3A-B to hold a heating element [0041]) and teaches this as an alternative to a heat exchange fluid [0042]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Schlottmann to include a heating element because Liang teaches this is an alternative to a heat exchange fluid (embodiment of Olgado) (see Liang [0042]) and teaches it enables maintaining the temperature of the showerhead [0042].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 06/26/2026, hereinafter reply, have been fully considered but are not persuasive in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Regarding the arguments regarding Hur as applied to claim 23, the reference is no longer being applied to teach this limitation because the inclusion of the taper inward in a downstream direction necessitated an additional search of the art which identified the new reference Kuznetsov which has been applied herein. Regarding the argument (reply p7) that there is no reason to modify only the third plurality of apertures, Examiner notes that the combination as applied previously and herein does not require only modifying the third apertures to be a different shape. The rejection merely refers to the third apertures because that is the claim language. The modification may be made to the second while they are still considered “generally cylindrical” in shape. If applicant intends to limit the second apertures from having the choke point, applicant may wish to amend the claims for clarity such as by removing “generally”. The argument that modification of Schlottmann (reply p7-8) would not be obvious due to the teaching of Schlottmann to have the choke point at the lower end is not persuasive because Kuznetsov teaches that shape is a functional alternative to the shape of the choke point in the middle portion. For these reasons the arguments are not persuasive as to the allowability of the instant claims. The remaining arguments rely on the arguments presented regarding an amended independent claim, which have been addressed above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2019/0385823 teaches different shapes for the first and second apertures (360, 365 Fig 3D) than the third apertures (375 Fig 3D). US 2005/0223986 teaches a taper inward to a downstream choke point (see surface 803 and 802 Fig 8B). US 2011/0011338 teaches different shapes for the first and second apertures (360, 365 Fig 3L) than the third apertures (375 Fig 3L) and demonstrates the third apertures taper inward to a downstream choke point (377 to 378 Fig 3G). US 2021/0156028 teaches an inward taper to a choke point (324 Fig 3).
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 MARGARET D KLUNK whose telephone number is (571)270-5513. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:30-5:30.
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, Parviz Hassanzadeh can be reached on 571-272-1435. 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.
/MARGARET KLUNK/Examiner, Art Unit 1716 /Jeffrie R Lund/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
