Detailed Correspondence
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Applicants’ submission, filed on 1/13/2025, addressing rejection of claims 1-10 and 21-27 from the non-final office action (08/19/2025), by amending claims 1 and 22-26 and adding new claims 28-32 is entered and will be addressed below.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 11-12 and 14-20 remain withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Interpretation
The previously added limitation ““wherein heights of the plurality of studs are based on at least one of thickness, height, and surface variations of at least one of the top plate and the baseplate” includes several interpretations. If “based on” as a design criteria, the design purpose if not part of the apparatus structure. If “based on” describes certain height relationship to “thickness, height, and surface variations“, this includes any relationship as the claim and SPEC does not have a clear definition of such relationship (e.g. height equals to the thickness, height, and surface variations, or any other proportional or non-proportional relationship). Note adhesive layer filling between two plates needs to fill the entire gap between two plates unless it is intentionally leaving air pockets for other purpose (which generally weakens the bonding).
The ”based on” or “based respectively on” of dependent claims have similar issue.
The “wherein a material of the studs is a same material as the bonding material” of claim 6, Applicants Specification describes the material of the stud is being cured ([0079], for example), therefore, at least for material before and after treatment is considered as being the same material. Even the treatment induces some composition change, such as polymerization, the starting material is still the same material.
The “a heating layer attached to a bottom surface of the top plate and in contact with the bonding layer” of claim 9, Applicants’ Specification describes “An example heating layer 910 is shown, which may include one or more heating elements” ([0059], 3rd sentence), therefore, the heating layer may include other element than the heating elements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 4-5, 7, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by MAEDA et al. (JP 2019165184, from IDS, hereafter ‘184).
‘184 teaches all limitations of:
Claim 1: a plate-like sample such as a silicon wafer is fixed to an electrostatic chuck member having an electrostatic chuck function by electrostatic attraction (2nd last sentence, P1, includes the claimed “A substrate support comprising”):
As shown in FIG. 1, the electrostatic chuck device 1 includes a disk-shaped electrostatic chuck member 2, a disk-shaped temperature adjusting base member 3 that adjusts the electrostatic chuck member 2 to a desired temperature, And a bonding layer 4 for bonding and integrating the electrostatic chuck member 2 and the temperature adjusting base member 3 (4th paragraph, P3, includes the claimed “a baseplate; a top plate disposed above the baseplate and configured to contact and support a substrate during processing of the substrate; and a bonding layer bonding the top plate to the baseplate”),
A plurality of spacers 32 are arranged approximately regularly at a substantially constant density in the same plane (bottom of page 5), As shown in FIG. 3, the spacer 32 is provided on one surface (upper surface) 3 a of the temperature adjusting base member 3 via the adhesive layer 33 (P6, 2nd complete paragraph, the spacer 32 and the adhesive layer 33, together, reads into the claimed “wherein the bonding layer comprises a plurality of studs separating the top plate from the baseplate and contacting the baseplate”, note dividing as separating),
In the bonding layer 4, the thickness variation in the direction perpendicular to the bonding surface in the bonding surface with the electrostatic chuck member 2 and the bonding surface with the temperature adjusting base member 3 is the maximum value of the thickness (P9, 1st complete paragraph), To provide an electrostatic chuck device that suppresses variations in the thickness of a bonding layer that joins an electrostatic chuck member and a temperature adjustment base member (abstract, includes the claimed “wherein heights of the plurality of studs are based on at least one of thickness, height, and surface variations of at least one of the top plate and the baseplate”, there are several ways to interpret this limitation, as a design criteria is not part of the apparatus; or any relationship reads into “bases on thickness, height, and surface variations”, including a constant relationship, or because there is variation due to filler 34, making adhesive layer constant require variation in the spacers 32 and adhesive layer 33. See claim interpretation above),
As shown in FIG. 3, the spacer 32 is provided on one surface (upper surface) 3a of the temperature adjusting base member 3 via the adhesive layer 33. As shown in FIG. 3, the bonding layer 4 includes a filler 34 (2nd complete paragraph, page 6, includes the claimed “and a bonding material disposed in areas laterally surrounding the plurality of studs and located between the top plate and the baseplate”).
Claims 4-5: In FIG. 2, eight spacers 32 are arranged at regular intervals on the outermost concentric circle, eight at regular intervals on the inner concentric circle, and four at regular intervals on the innermost concentric circle (1st complete paragraph of P6, includes the claimed “wherein the plurality of studs are arranged in a symmetric pattern” of claim 4 and “wherein the plurality of studs are arranged in concentric circles” of claim 5).
Claim 7: The support plate 12 is made of the same material as the ceramics constituting the placement plate 11 (3rd complete paragraph, P4, includes the claimed “ wherein the top plate is a ceramic layer in contact with the bonding layer”).
Claim 10: A flow path 21 for circulating a cooling medium such as water, He gas, N2 gas or the like is formed inside the casing of the temperature adjusting base member 3 (5th paragraph, P5, includes the claimed “wherein the baseplate comprises coolant channels”).
Claims 1, 4, 6-8, 10, 28, and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fujii et al. (JP 2003258072, from IDS, hereafter ‘072).
‘072 teaches all limitations of:
Claim 1: a ceramic electrostatic chuck is used as a susceptor and a heat treatment is performed while a semiconductor wafer is attracted to the susceptor ([0002], includes the claimed “A substrate support comprising”):
The metal member 7 of this example is a cooling flange having a cooling function ([0010], “a baseplate”);
The electrostatic chuck 1 includes a ceramic base 2 and an electrostatic chuck electrode 3 embedded in the base 2 ([0009], includes the claimed “a top plate disposed above the baseplate and configured to contact and support a substrate during processing of the substrate”);
In this apparatus 11, the bonding surface 2 b of the ceramic member 2 and the bonding surface 7 a of the metal member 7 are bonded by the bonding layer 27. The bonding layer 27 includes an adhesive portion 13 made of a cured product of the fluid adhesive composition 4 and spacer portions 15 and 15A made of resin ([0040], includes the claimed “and a bonding layer bonding the top plate to the baseplate, wherein the bonding layer comprises a plurality of studs separating the top plate from the baseplate and contacting the baseplate” and as shown in Fig. 4),
there is a possibility that the thickness of the adhesive becomes non-uniform or uneven for each product ([0004], reads into the claimed “wherein heights of the plurality of studs are based on at least one of thickness, height, and surface variations of at least one of the top plate and the baseplate”, see claim interpretation above, and Fig. 4 shows adhesive portion 13 surrounding the spacer portions 15 and 15A, includes the claimed “a bonding material disposed in areas laterally surrounding the plurality of studs and located between the top plate and the baseplate”).
Claim 4: Here, as shown in FIG. 5, the spacer portions 15 have a substantially circular shape, and are regularly arranged on the bonding surface 7 with a substantially constant density ([0040], includes the claimed “wherein the plurality of studs are arranged in a symmetric pattern relative to one or more radially extending centerlines of the baseplate”).
Claim 6: an adhesive part made of a cured product of the adhesive composition and a spacer part made of a resin ([0006]), the resin which comprises a spacer part is not specifically limited ([0024], same as Applicants’ same starting material yet differ in curing, includes the claimed “wherein a material of the studs is a same material as the bonding material”).
Claim 7: The electrostatic chuck 1 includes a ceramic base 2 ([0009], Fig. 4 shows the claimed “wherein the top plate is a ceramic layer in contact with the bonding layer”).
Claim 8: when an electrostatic chuck electrode is provided inside the substrate, the ceramic member can be used as an electrostatic chuck. Further, when a resistance heating element is provided inside the substrate, this holding member can be used as a ceramic heater ([0011], includes the claimed “wherein the top plate comprises one or more heating layers” of claim 8).
Claim 10: The metal member 7 of this example is a cooling flange having a cooling function ([0010], includes the claimed “wherein the baseplate comprises coolant channels”).
Claim 28: Fig. 4 shows the claimed “wherein the plurality of studs contact the top plate and the baseplate”.
Claim 32: The metal member 7 of this example is a cooling flange having a cooling function ([0010], includes the claimed “the baseplate comprises coolant channels”);
when an electrostatic chuck electrode is provided inside the substrate, the ceramic member can be used as an electrostatic chuck. Further, when a resistance heating element is provided inside the substrate, this holding member can be used as a ceramic heater ([0011], includes the claimed “and the top plate comprises heating elements “).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 21-26, and alternatively claims 1, 4, 6-8, 10, 28, and 32, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘072, in view of Maeta et al. (US 20140355169, hereafter ‘169).
‘072 teaches some limitations of:
Claim 24: a ceramic electrostatic chuck is used as a susceptor and a heat treatment is performed while a semiconductor wafer is attracted to the susceptor ([0002], includes the claimed “A substrate support comprising”):
The metal member 7 of this example is a cooling flange having a cooling function ([0010], “a baseplate”);
The electrostatic chuck 1 includes a ceramic base 2 and an electrostatic chuck electrode 3 embedded in the base 2 ([0009], includes the claimed “a top plate disposed above the baseplate and configured to contact and support a substrate during processing of the substrate”);
In this apparatus 11, the bonding surface 2 b of the ceramic member 2 and the bonding surface 7 a of the metal member 7 are bonded by the bonding layer 27. The bonding layer 27 includes an adhesive portion 13 made of a cured product of the fluid adhesive composition 4 and spacer portions 15 and 15A made of resin ([0040], includes the claimed “and a bonding layer bonding the top plate to the baseplate, wherein the bonding layer comprises a plurality of studs separating the top plate from the baseplate” ),
there is a possibility that the thickness of the adhesive becomes non-uniform or uneven for each product ([0004], reads into the claimed “wherein heights of the plurality of studs are based on at least one of thickness, height, and surface variations of at least one of the top plate and the baseplate”, see claim interpretation above, and Fig. 4 shows adhesive portion 13 surrounding the spacer portions 15 and 15A, includes the claimed “a bonding material disposed in areas laterally surrounding the plurality of studs and located between the top plate and the baseplate”).
‘236 does not teach the limitations of:
Claim 24: wherein heights of the plurality of studs are at least one of (i) based respectively on corresponding local thickness offsets of the baseplate, and (ii) based respectively on corresponding local thickness offsets of the top plate,
the local thickness offsets of the baseplate refer to variations in distances between a reference plane and top or bottom surfaces of the baseplate, and
the local thickness offsets of the top plate refer to variations in distances between a reference plane and top or bottom surfaces of the top plate.
Claim 21: wherein: heights of the plurality of studs are at least one of (i) based respectively on corresponding local thickness offsets of the baseplate, and (ii) based respectively on corresponding local thickness offsets of the top plate; and
the local thickness offsets of the top plate refer to variations in distances between a reference plane and top or bottom surfaces of the top plate.
Claims 22 and 25: wherein: the heights of the plurality of studs are based respectively on corresponding local thickness offsets of the baseplate; and
the local thickness offsets of the baseplate refer to variations in distances between a reference plane and top or bottom surfaces of the baseplate.
Claims 23 and 26: wherein: the heights of the plurality of studs are based respectively on corresponding local thickness offsets of the baseplate; and
the local thickness offsets of the top plate refer to variations in distances between a reference plane and top or bottom surfaces of the top plate.
‘169 is analogous art in the field of ELECTROSTATIC CHUCK DEVICE (title), including an organic adhesive layer 4 which bonds and integrates the electrostatic chuck section 2 and the base section for cooling 3 (Fig. 1, [0053). ‘169 teaches that the placement plate 11 and the support plate 12 configuring principal sections of the electrostatic chuck section 2 have disk shapes in which the shapes of overlapping surfaces are the same, and are configured by a ceramic ([0058]), The organic adhesive layer 4 is for bonding and integrating the electrostatic chuck section 2 bent such that the entirety has a concave surface shape with a central portion as a basal plane and the base section for cooling 3 while the upper end portion 21a of the annular projection portion 21 and the upper end portions 22a of the plurality of projection portions 22 maintain the shape and the position of the concave surface 23 ([0093], Fig. 1 shows the heights of the adhesive layer 4 equal to ”the local thickness offsets of the top plate refer to variations in distances between a reference plane and top or bottom surfaces of the top plate”), for the purpose of no concern of deformed plate ([0019]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have changed the shape of the ceramic member 2 and the metal member 7 of ‘072 to the shape of the placement plate 11 and the support plate 12 of ’169, for the purpose of purpose of no concern of deformed plate ([0019]).
In case Applicants argue that “wherein heights of the plurality of studs are based on at least one of thickness, height, and surface variations of at least one of the top plate and the baseplate” of claim 1, heights of studs have to be equal to one of thickness, height, and surface variations, the combination of ‘072 and ‘169 clearly teaches this.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘072 and ‘169, as being applied to claim 24 rejection above, further in view of Ito et al. (US 20180068883, hereafter ‘883). (Chang US 20060197891, hereafter ‘891, is evidenced for the mound shape of resin after dropping and curing).
The combination of ‘072 and ‘169 does not teach the limitations of:
Claim 27: wherein each of the plurality of studs are mounded.
‘883 is analogous art in the field of ELECTROSTATIC CHUCK DEVICE (title), a first adhesion layer which contains spacers and a silicone adhesive (abstract). ‘883 teaches that the ratio (φS/D) of the average particle diameter φS of the spacers 22 to the layer thickness D in the first adhesion layer 20 is in a range of 0.1 to 1.0, and therefore, the silicone adhesive 24 can be sufficiently included in the first adhesion layer 20, and thus a decrease in the adhesive force of the first adhesion layer 20 can be suppressed ([0026], last sentence, Fig. 1 shows φS = D, or spacer filled the entire adhesive layer).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have changed the shape of the spacer portions of ‘072, to a round shape spacer of ‘833, as taught by ‘833, for the purpose of adhesive force, as taught by ‘833 ([0026]).
Furthermore, the examiner considers the shape of the columnar bodies 22 in Figs. 4A-4C is for presentation. Laying down a resin layer is more like a mound in entire height than a mound at the top on a straight cylinder. This is evidenced by ‘891 which teaches “Then a heating apparatus 50 is used for hard baking the drops on the planarized layer 10 to solidify and shape the resin drops 30 for forming bumps 40, as shown in FIG. 2(b). After solidification, the bumps 40 obtained from resin drops 30 will be cured and have a shape with concave surface”. Therefore, even after grinding in Fig. 4B of ‘236, the bumps 40 is still mound shaped.
Claims 2-3, 5, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘072 and ‘169, as being applied to claims 23 and 1 rejection above, further in view of Iijima et al. (US 20200395236, hereafter ‘236).
‘072 further teaches some limitations of:
Claim 2: the fluid adhesive compositions 4A and 4B are provided on one or both of the adhesive surface 2b of the ceramic member 1 and the adhesive surface 7a of the metal member 7 according to a predetermined pattern (Fig. 3, [0015], includes the claimed “wherein the bonding layer comprises: a first bonding layer, and a second bonding layer disposed on the first bonding layer and comprising the plurality of studs”).
Claim 3: Fig. 3 shows the claimed “wherein: the first bonding layer is in contact with the baseplate; and the second bonding layer is in contact with the top plate”.
The combination of ‘072 and ‘169 does not teach the limitations of:
Claim 2: (a first bonding layer) void of studs.
Claim 5: wherein the plurality of studs are arranged in concentric circles.
Claim 9: further comprising a heating layer attached to a bottom surface of the top plate and in contact with the bonding layer.
‘236 is analogous art in the field of SUBSTRATE FIXING APPARATUS (title). ‘236 teaches that With reference to FIG. 1, the substrate fixing apparatus 1 has a base plate 10, an adhesive layer 20, support column structure bodies 21 and an electrostatic adsorption member 50, as main constituent elements ([0017]), a silicone resin, an epoxy resin, an acrylic resin and a polyimide resin are listed as the materials of the adhesive layer 12, the adhesive layer 20 and the support column structure bodies 21 ([0058], 2nd sentence, note the adhesive layer is void of the support column structure bodies), As shown in FIG. 6C, the support column bodies 21 may be disposed on the center point of the base plate 10 and on the circumferences of two concentric circles each whose center corresponds to the center point of the base plate 10 ([0057], i.e. concentric circles), the heating portion 30 has an insulating layer 31, and heat generating elements 32 which are built in the insulating layer 31 ([0022], i.e. in contact with the bonding layer), for the purpose of a satisfactory uniform temperature characteristic ([0004]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have omitted the spacers in the fluid adhesive composition 4B in Fig. 3 of ‘072, arranged the spacers in concentric circles, and arranged the heater layer in contact with the fluid adhesive composition 4A in Fig. 3 of ‘072, as taught by ‘236, for the purpose of a satisfactory uniform temperature characteristic ([0004]).
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘072 and ‘169, as being applied to claim 1 rejection above, further in view of Tsukamoto et al. (US 20080083723, previously cited, hereafter ‘723).
The combination of ‘072 and ‘169 does not teach the limitations of:
Claim 29: wherein the heights of the plurality of studs are different.
‘723 is analogous art in the field of Temperature Controlled Substrate Holder With Non-uniform Insulation Layer For A Substrate Processing System (title). ‘723 teaches that The thermal insulator 140 can comprise an adhesive made of polymer, plastic or ceramic. The thermal insulator 140 may include an organic or an inorganic material. For example, the thermal insulator 140 can comprise a room-temperature-vulcanizing (RTV) adhesive, a plastic such as a thermoplastic, a resin such as a thermosetting resin or a casting resin (or pourable plastic or elastomer compound), an elastomer, etc. In addition to providing a thermal resistance between the substrate support 130 and the temperature-controlled support base 120, the thermal insulator 140 may provide a bond layer or adhesion layer between the substrate support 130 and the temperature-controlled support base 120 (Fig. 1, [0024]), a thermal insulator 240 disposed between the substrate support 230 and the temperature-controlled support base 220 … The thermal insulator 240 comprises a non-uniform thickness (Fig. 3, [0031], 2nd sentence), for controlling the temperature of a substrate ([0006]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have re-arranged the bonding layer 27 of ‘072 to non-uniform thickness, as taught by ‘723, for the purpose of controlling the temperature of a substrate, as taught by ‘723 ([0006]).
Claims 29-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘072 and ‘169, as being applied to claim 1 rejection above, further in view of Miyamoto et al. (US 20180155847, hereafter ‘847).
The combination of ‘072 and ‘169 does not teach the limitations of:
Claim 29: wherein the heights of the plurality of studs are different.
Claim 30: wherein: thicknesses of the baseplates are not uniform and a top surface of the baseplate have varying heights relative to a horizontal reference plane; and
the top surface of the baseplate is generally planar with surface variations in distances between the top surface of the baseplate and the horizontal reference plane.
Claim 31: wherein: thicknesses of the top plate are not uniform and a bottom surface of the top plate have varying heights relative to a horizonal reference plane; and
the bottom surface of the top plate is generally planar with surface variation in distances between the bottom surface of the top plate and the horizontal reference plane.
‘847 is analogous art in the field of SUBSTRATE HOLDER, PLATING APPARATUS, AND METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING SUBSTRATE HOLDER (title), a semiconductor ware ([0002]). ‘847 teaches that FIG. 28A to FIG. 28D show another examples of a configuration where a distance between the movable base 412 and the support base 411 at a portion where the elastic body 413 is disposed varies depending on place (a region or a position on a movable base) ([0168], note Fig. 28A shows both movable base 412 and the base 411 are varying heights relative to a horizonal reference plane), for the purpose of biasing against fluid pressure ([0166], 3rd sentence).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have re-arranged the bonding layer 27 of ‘072 to non-uniform thickness, as shown in Fig. 28A of ‘847, for the purpose of biasing against fluid pressure ([0166], 3rd sentence).
Claims 29-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘072 and ‘169, as being applied to claim 1 rejection above, further in view of KURIBAYASHI et al. (US 20210233785, hereafter ‘785).
The combination of ‘072 and ‘169 does not teach the limitations of:
Claim 29: wherein the heights of the plurality of studs are different.
Claim 30: wherein: thicknesses of the baseplates are not uniform and a top surface of the baseplate have varying heights relative to a horizontal reference plane; and
the top surface of the baseplate is generally planar with surface variations in distances between the top surface of the baseplate and the horizontal reference plane.
Claim 31: wherein: thicknesses of the top plate are not uniform and a bottom surface of the top plate have varying heights relative to a horizonal reference plane; and
the bottom surface of the top plate is generally planar with surface variation in distances between the bottom surface of the top plate and the horizontal reference plane.
‘785 is analogous art in the field of HOLDING DEVICE (title), The electrostatic chuck 100 is a device which attracts and holds an object (e.g., a wafer W) by electrostatic attraction force and is used, for example, to fix the wafer W in a vacuum chamber of a semiconductor manufacturing apparatus ([0027]). ‘785 teaches that The bonding portion 30 contains an adhesive such as a silicone-based resin, an acrylic-based resin, or an epoxy-based resin and joins the ceramic member 10 and the base member 20 together ([0034]), As shown in FIG. 2, FIG. 4(B), and FIG. 5, the joining portion 30 includes a constant thickness part 32 and a thickness varying part 34 ([0036]), for the purpose of control the temperature distribution ([0003]). Note the bottom of the ceramic member in Fig. 2 is considered generally planar.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have re-arranged the bonding layer 27 of ‘072 to non-uniform thickness, as shown in Fig. 2 of ‘785, for the purpose of control the temperature distribution ([0003]). Note in Claim 30, it is merely reverse the direction of the thickness varying part 34.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/13/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regarding to claim interpretation, applicants argue that because the specification Fig. 12 describe the process formed, it should be the scope of claims 1 and 24.
This argument is found not persuasive.
The claims are examined under BRI. The detailed specification of step in Fig.12 cannot be imported into the claim. Furthermore, various newly added limitations are trying to approach the description of Fig. 12.
In regarding to 35 USC 102 rejection of claims 1, 4-5, 7, and 10 by ‘184, Applicants argument is the spacers 32 of ‘184 are a constant thickness, see the top of page 12.
This argument is found not persuasive.
Applicants’ argument against claim interpretation is not persuasive, as discussed above. Considered the “based on” of claim 1 as design criteria, ‘184 clearly reads into claim 1.
Furthermore, To provide an electrostatic chuck device that suppresses variations in the thickness of a bonding layer that joins an electrostatic chuck member and a temperature adjustment base member (abstract) means that the device before ‘184’s invention includes variation in the thickness of the bonding layer.
In regarding to 35 USC 102 rejection of by ‘236, the examiner does not agree with the argument, but in light of the new dependent claims, the examiner decides to switch to another IDS JP 2003258072 to streamline the rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20240128062 is cited for “the heating element is affixed to the ceramic base via an adhesive material” ([0105]).
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 KEATH T CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1870. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30am-5:00 pm.
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 at 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.
/KEATH T CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716