DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to Amendment filed September 17, 2025.
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
Claims 1, 2, 9-12 and 20-22 are objected to because of the following informalities:
On line 11 of claims 1 and 12, “AIN” should be replaced with “AlN”, because “AI” in the term “AIN” is the same with the acronym “AI” for artificial intelligence rather than the acronym “Al” for aluminum.
On line 11 of claims 1 and 12, “AIGan” should be replaced with “AlGaN”, because “AI” in the term “AIGan” is the same with the acronym “AI” for artificial intelligence rather than the acronym “Al” for aluminum.
On line 2 of claim 2, “the barrier layer” should be replaced with “the digital alloy barrier layer” or “composite barrier layer” to avoid confusion and potentially indefiniteness, because there is another barrier layer of “an AlGaN barrier layer”.
Claims 9-11 and 20-22 should be identified as withdrawn claims rather than original claims, because claims 9-11 and 20-22 depend on withdrawn claims 8 and 19, respectively.
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 1-3, 7, 12-14 and 18 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.
(1) Regarding claims 1 and 12, it is not clear what “a digital alloy barrier layer” recited on line 9 of claims 1 and 12 refers to, because (a) in Applicant’s elected species shown in Fig. 8 of current application, there are two digital alloy barrier layers 141 sandwiching the AlGaN barrier layer 142, (b) Applicant claims that “a digital alloy barrier layer … and an AlGaN barrier layer … are disposed in a laminated manner (emphasis added)” on lines 9-10 of claims 1 and 12, which suggests that there is one digital alloy barrier layer and one AlGaN barrier layer disposed in the laminated manner, and (c) if there are a plurality of digital alloy barrier layers, a lower/bottom/first digital alloy barrier layer, an AlGaN barrier layer and an upper/top/second digital alloy barrier layer are disposed in a laminated manner, where each of the lower/bottom/first digital alloy barrier layer and the upper/top/second digital alloy barrier layer comprises an AlN layer rather than “a digital alloy barrier layer” or a single digital alloy barrier layer including “two AlN layers” and then “the two AlN layers are disposed on each side of the AlGaN barrier layer” as recited on lines 9-11 of claims 1 and 12.
(2) Also regarding claims 1 and 12, it is not clear what “a digital alloy” recited on line 9 of claims 1 and 12 refers to, because (a) it is not clear whether the “digital alloy” barrier layer recited on line 9 of claims 1 and 12 is directed to (i) a design of the barrier layer that does not actually exist in the claimed semiconductor epitaxial structure and semiconductor device, or (ii) an actual barrier layer where atoms constituting the “digital alloy” have not diffused into neighboring layers at all, which may be in violation of Laws of Thermodynamics, (b) as recited in claims 3 and 14, it appears that Applicant’s “digital alloy” barrier layer has a stacked structure or a superlattice structure of AlN/GaN, which is disclosed in the title and Fig. 3(b) of Hofstetter et al. (“AlN/GaN-superlattice structures for the fabrication of intersubband detectors in the telecom wavelength range,” Proceedings of SPIE 6894 (2008) 68940S), which shows that, even though Applicant may have intended to form a stacked structure or a superlattice structure of AlN/GaN by forming a “digital alloy”, atoms constituting the sublayers of AlN and GaN would diffuse into the neighboring layers, see the sinusoidal concentration profiles of Al and Ga in Fig. 3(b) of Hofstetter et al., such that originally intended “digital alloy” barrier layer would not exactly be observed in the final structure, (c) in addition, these profiles of Al and Ga would be more or less the same with Al and Ga profiles measured from a regular AlGaN layer after diffusion of Al and Ga atoms, which has not necessarily be formed by using a “digital alloy” barrier layer as in view of Fig. 1 of Bennett et al. (“Mg dopant distribution in an AlGaN/GaN p-type superlattice assessed using atom probe tomography, TEM and SIMS,” Journal of Physics: Conference Series 209 (2010) 012014), (d) in this case, the digital alloy barrier layer formed of AlN/GaN as recited in claims 3 and 14 would be more or less the same with the AlGaN barrier layer recited on line 10 of claims 1 and 12 in their respective final structures, which can be substantiated by the teachings of Chu et al. (US 10,651,306) who disclose that “It uses alternating AlN/GaN layers forming a superlattice structure 205, which is referred to as a digital AlGaN alloy, to serve as the back barrier” on lines 5-8 of column 5, which clearly states that an AlN/GaN superlattice structure is an AlGaN layer, and (e) therefore, it appears that the limitation “a digital alloy” barrier layer recited on line 9 of claims 1 and 12 is directed to a method of forming the claimed composite barrier layer rather than an actual characteristic of the claimed semiconductor epitaxial structure and the claimed semiconductor device, in which case, the limitation “digital alloy” would be directed to a product by process limitation that does not structurally distinguish the claimed invention over the prior art; Note that a product by process claim is directed to the product per se, no matter how actually made, In re Hirao, 190 USPQ 15 at 17 (footnote 3); See also In re Brown, 173 USPQ 685; In re Luck, 177 USPQ 523; In re Fessmann, 180 USPQ 324; In re Avery, 186 USPQ 161; In re Wertheim, 191 USPQ 90 (209 USPQ 554 does not deal with this issue); and In re Marosi et al, 218 USPQ 289, all of which make it clear that it is the patentability of the final product per se which must be determined in a product by process claim, and not the patentability of the process, and that an old or obvious product by a new method is not patentable as a product, whether claimed in product by process claims or not; Note that applicant has the burden of proof in such cases, as the above case law makes clear.
(3) Further regarding claims 1 and 12, it is not clear whether the “two AlN layers” recited on lines 9-10 of claims 1 and 12 are actually observed “two AlN layers” in the claimed semiconductor epitaxial structure and semiconductor device, because (a) the “two AlN layers” should be two AlN layers from the “1 to 10 periodic AlN layers/GaN layers” recited in claims 3 and 14, which would eventually become AlGaN layers as discussed before in the Non Final Office Action mailed June 17, 2025 and again above in current Office Action, and when the “1 to 10 periodic AlN layers/GaN layers” recited in claims 3 and 14 become AlGaN layers, then there would be no “two AlN layers” in the claimed semiconductor epitaxial structure and semiconductor device, (b) therefore, it is not clear whether the “two AlN layers” recited on lines 9-10 of claims 1 and 12 is directed to (i) a design of the two AlN layers that do not actually exist in the claimed semiconductor epitaxial structure and semiconductor device, or (ii) actual two AlN layers where atoms constituting the “two AlN layers” have not diffused into neighboring layers at all, which may be in violation of Laws of Thermodynamics, (c) as recited in claims 3 and 14, it appears that Applicant’s “digital alloy” barrier layer has a stacked structure or a superlattice structure of AlN/GaN, which is disclosed in the title and Fig. 3(b) of Hofstetter et al. (“AlN/GaN-superlattice structures for the fabrication of intersubband detectors in the telecom wavelength range,” Proceedings of SPIE 6894 (2008) 68940S), which shows that, even though Applicant may have intended to form a stacked structure or a superlattice structure of AlN/GaN by forming a “digital alloy”, atoms constituting the sublayers of AlN and GaN would diffuse into the neighboring layers, see the sinusoidal concentration profiles of Al and Ga in Fig. 3(b) of Hofstetter et al., such that originally intended “digital alloy” barrier layer would not exactly be observed in the final structure, and thus originally intended “two AlN layers” would not exactly be observed in the final structure, (d) in addition, these profiles of Al and Ga would be more or less the same with Al and Ga profiles measured from a regular AlGaN layer after diffusion of Al and Ga atoms, which has not necessarily be formed by using a “digital alloy” barrier layer as in view of Fig. 1 of Bennett et al. (“Mg dopant distribution in an AlGaN/GaN p-type superlattice assessed using atom probe tomography, TEM and SIMS,” Journal of Physics: Conference Series 209 (2010) 012014), (e) in this case, the digital alloy barrier layer formed of AlN/GaN as recited in claims 3 and 14 would be more or less the same with the AlGaN barrier layer recited on line 10 of claims 1 and 12 in their respective final structures, which can be substantiated by the teachings of Chu et al. (US 10,651,306) who disclose that “It uses alternating AlN/GaN layers forming a superlattice structure 205, which is referred to as a digital AlGaN alloy, to serve as the back barrier (emphasis added)” on lines 5-8 of column 5, which clearly states that an AlN/GaN superlattice structure is an AlGaN layer, and (e) therefore, the two AlN layers recited in the amended claims 1 and 12 appear to be directed to Applicant’s intention or design of depositing two AlN layers, which would be subsequently merged with the GaN layers recited in claims 3 and 14, and then with the AlGaN barrier layer recited on line 10 of claims 1 and 12 such that the two AlN layers would not be present in the claimed semiconductor epitaxial structure and semiconductor device.
Claims 2, 3 and 7 depend on claim 1, and claims 13, 14 and 18 depend on claim 12, and therefore, claims 2, 3, 7, 13, 14 and 18 are also indefinite.
(4) Regarding claim 2, it is not clear what “the one of the AlN layers” recited on line 2 refers to, because (a) Applicant does not claim “one of the AlN layers” before claiming “the one of the AlN layers”, and (b) therefore, the limitation “the one of the AlN layers” lacks the antecedent basis. Claims 3 and 7 depend on claim 2, and therefore, claims 3 and 7 are also indefinite.
(5) Regarding claims 3 and 14, it is not clear whether the “1 to 10 periodic AlN layers/GaN layers” includes the “AlN layers” recited in the amended claims 1 and 12, and it is not clear whether the limitation of claims 3 and 14 is compatible with the newly added limitation “two AlN layers” recited in the amended claims 1 and 12, because (a) the “two AlN layers” recited in the amended claims 1 and 12 do not appear to have any periodic structure, not to mention the amended claims 1 and 12 not claiming “GaN layers”, and (b) in addition, the newly added limitation “two AlN layers” cannot be present when there is “1 … periodic AlN layers/GaN layers” since 1 period of AlN/GaN does not include “two AlN layers”.
(6) Further regarding claims 3 and 14, it is not clear whether “the digital alloy barrier layer” recited in claims 3 and 14 refers to “a digital alloy barrier layer” recited on line 9 of claims 1 and 12 or a plurality of digital alloy barrier layers that Applicant does not claim, because (a) depending on which interpretation it should be, the number of the period of the AlN layers/GaN layers included in the digital alloy barrier layer would be different from each other, and (b) for example, if “a digital alloy barrier layer” recited on line 9 of claims 1 and 12 actually implies two digital alloy barrier layers sandwiching the AlGaN barrier layer as discussed above, then the limitation of claims 3 and 14 can suggest that each of the two digital alloy barrier layers is formed by 1 to 10 periodic AlN layers/GaN layers, or the two digital alloy barrier layers collectively is formed by 1 to 10 periodic AlN layers/GaN layers.
Claim 7 depends on claim 2, and claim 18 depends on claim 14, and therefore, claims 7 and 18 are also indefinite.
(7) Regarding claims 7 and 18, it is not clear what the limitation “the proportion of the quantity of Al atoms” recited on line 3 refers to, because Applicant does not claim “a proportion of a quantity of Al atoms” before claiming “the proportion of the quantity of Al atoms”, and therefore, the limitation cited above lacks the antecedent basis.
(8) Further regarding claims 7 and 18, it is not clear what the limitation “the proportion of the quantity of Al atoms in the digital alloy barrier layer” recited on lines 3-4 of claims 7 and 18 is directed to the feature of the “two AlN layers” recited on lines 9-10 of the amended claims 1 and 12, which appears to be the case, because (a) after altering the claim dependency of claims 7 and 18, and after amending claims 1 and 12, the amended claims 7 and 18 is indefinite for claiming a broader range of the limitation “the proportion of the quantity of Al atoms in the digital alloy barrier layer” on lines 3-4 of claims 7 and 18 after claiming the limitation “two AlN layers” on lines 9-10 of the amended claims 1 and 12, and (b) in this case, the amended claims 7 and 18 are indefinite for the following reasons: a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claims 7 and 18 recite the broad recitation “the proportion of the quantity of Al atoms in the digital alloy barrier layer is greater than or equal to a proportion of a quantity of Al atoms in the AlGaN barrier layer”, and the claim also recites “two AlN layers” in claims 1 and 12 which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claims are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
(9) Regarding claim 18, it is not clear what the “two digital alloy barrier layers” recited on line 2 refer to, because (a) it appears that the “two digital alloy barrier layers” refer to the “two AlN layers” recited on lines 9-10 of the amended claim 12, and (b) therefore, it is not clear whether the “two digital alloy barrier layers” refer to the “two AlN layers” recited on lines 9-10 of the amended claim 12, or another pair of “two digital alloy barrier layers”.
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 1-3, 7, 12-14 and 18, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xie et al. (US 9,202,905) as evidenced by Chu et al. (US 10,651,306)
In the below prior art rejections, the limitation “digital alloy” is a product-by-process limitation that does not structurally distinguish the claimed invention over the prior art as discussed above. Note that a product by process claim is directed to the product per se, no matter how actually made, In re Hirao, 190 USPQ 15 at 17 (footnote 3). See also In re Brown, 173 USPQ 685; In re Luck, 177 USPQ 523; In re Fessmann, 180 USPQ 324; In re Avery, 186 USPQ 161; In re Wertheim, 191 USPQ 90 (209 USPQ 554 does not deal with this issue); and In re Marosi et al, 218 USPQ 289, all of which make it clear that it is the patentability of the final product per se which must be determined in a product by process claim, and not the patentability of the process, and that an old or obvious product by a new method is not patentable as a product, whether claimed in product by process claims or not. Note that applicant has the burden of proof in such cases, as the above case law makes clear.
Regarding claim 1, Xie et al. disclose a semiconductor epitaxial structure (Fig. 1) of a semiconductor device (Title), which is also directed to an intended use of the claimed semiconductor epitaxial structure, the semiconductor epitaxial structure comprising: a channel layer (120) (col. 4, line 31); a composite barrier layer (125) (col. 4, lines 58-59); a layer (130) (col. 5, line 41) disposed on the composite barrier layer; and wherein: the channel layer is disposed on a side of the composite barrier layer (125) that faces away from the layer, and the composite barrier layer comprises a digital alloy barrier layer (portion of 125 including at least one unit of 135/140) (col. 5, lines 7-8) that includes two AlN layers (two of AlN layers 140) and an AlGaN barrier layer (one unit of 135/140) that are disposed in a laminated manner as evidenced by Chu et al. who disclose that “It uses alternating AlN/GaN layers forming a superlattice structure 205, which is referred to as a digital AlGaN alloy, to serve as the back barrier” on lines 5-8 of column 5, which clearly states that an AlN/GaN superlattice structure is an AlGaN layer, especially because Applicant does not specifically claim any distinction between the claimed digital alloy barrier layer and the AlGaN barrier layer, wherein the two AlN layers are disposed on each side of the AlGaN barrier layer, because two AlN layers 140 sandwich one unit of AlGaN layer 135/140 in Fig. 1 of Xie et al.
Xie et al. differ from the claimed invention by not showing that the layer 130 is a doped layer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that that the layer 130 can be a doped layer, because (a) a doped semiconductor layer such as a p-GaN layer has been commonly employed in forming a heterojunction field effect transistor to form a Schottky contact between a channel layer/barrier layer and a gate electrode, and (b) it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use, In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claims 2, 3 and 7, Xie et al. further disclose that the one of the AlN layers (one AlN layer 140) of the barrier layer (125) is disposed between the doped layer (130) and the AlGaN barrier layer (one unit of 135/140) (claim 2), wherein the digital alloy barrier layer (topmost portion of 125 including at least one unit of 135/140) is a laminated layer formed by 1 to 10 periodic AIN layers/GaN layers (claim 3), wherein the proportion of the quantity of Al atoms in the digital alloy barrier layer (Al quantity of AlN 140) is greater than or equal to a proportion of a quantity of Al atoms in the AlGaN barrier layer (135/140), because (a) this limitation is indefinite as discussed above under 35 USC 112(b) rejections, and (b) the average Al quantity of the AlN layer 140 is greater than the average Al quantity of the AlGaN layer 135/140 (claim 7).
Please refer to the explanations of the corresponding limitations above.
Regarding claim 12, Xie et al. disclose a semiconductor device (Title and Fig. 1) that comprises: a semiconductor epitaxial structure (Fig. 1), further comprising: a channel layer (120) a composite barrier layer (125); a layer (130) disposed on the composite barrier layer; and wherein: the channel layer is disposed on a side of the composite barrier layer that faces away from the layer, the composite barrier layer comprises a digital alloy barrier layer (portion of 125 including at least one unit of 135/140) that includes two AlN layers (two AlN layers 140) and an AlGaN barrier layer (one unit of 135/140) that are disposed in a laminated manner as evidenced by Chu et al., wherein the two AlN layers are disposed on each side of the AlGaN barrier layer.
Xie et al. differ from the claimed invention by not showing that the layer 130 is a doped layer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that that the layer 130 can be a doped layer, because (a) a doped semiconductor layer such as a p-GaN layer has been commonly employed in forming a heterojunction field effect transistor to form a Schottky contact between a channel layer/barrier layer and a gate electrode, and (b) it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use, In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claims 13, 14 and 18, Xie et al. further disclose that the digital alloy barrier layer (topmost portion of 125 including at least one unit of 135/140) is disposed between the doped layer (130) and the AlGaN barrier layer (one unit of 135/140) (claim 13), wherein the digital alloy barrier layer (topmost portion of 125 including at least one unit of 135/140) is a laminated layer formed by 1 to 10 periodic AIN layers/GaN layers (claim 14), wherein there are two digital alloy barrier layers (two AlN layers 140), the two digital alloy barrier layers are respectively disposed on two sides of the AlGaN barrier layer (one unit of 135/140), and the proportion of the quantity of Al atoms in the digital alloy barrier layer is greater than or equal to a proportion of a quantity of Al atoms in the AlGaN barrier layer for the same reason stated above with respect to the prior art rejection of claim 7(claim 18).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 12 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
First of all, the Examiner notes that Applicant’s arguments in the REMARKS are ether based on incorporation of claim limitations from the specification, which is improper as stipulated in MPEP 2111.01, or based on features that Applicant does not claim. For example, Applicant does not claim that the doped layer is a Mg-doped nitride-based semiconductor layer, and Applicant does not claim any function of the claimed digital alloy barrier layer. In addition, Applicant does not claim any growth condition(s) of the claimed digital alloy barrier layer.
On page 6 of the REMARKS, Applicant argues that “The Applicant notes that the AIN layer and the AlGaN layer are combined in a laminated manner as is stated throughout the specification”, and that “The Applicant respectfully urges that the requirements of Section 112 are satisfied and one of average skill in the art could, without undue experimentation, create the barrier layer which comprises the laminated AIN and AlGaN layers.” These arguments are not persuasive, because (a) it is not clear what Applicant argues about since it appears that Applicant may have a certain narrow definition of the word “laminated”, (b) it appears that Applicant argues that the claimed digital alloy barrier layer should be formed in a certain way, or Applicant argues that the claimed digital alloy barrier layer is a design of the digital alloy barrier layer rather than an actual digital alloy barrier layer where atoms from neighboring layers inherently diffuse toward each other such that the originally intended digital alloy barrier layer is altered, (c) all of the component layers disclosed by Xie et al. are laminated, and (d) the latter argument above made by Applicant appears to be directed to 35 USC 112(a) rejection, while the Examiner’s rejection was made under 35 USC 112(b).
In addition, Applicant argues that “The Applicant disagrees with the Official Action’s assertion that the suggestions of Hofstetter, et. al would not allow an AIN layer to be grown and then joined to the AlGaN layer in a laminated form.” This argument is not persuasive, because it is not clear what Applicant argues about, and whether Applicant’s argument is based on a certain and narrow definition of the word “laminated”.
On page 8 of the REMARKS, Applicant argues that “The term “digital alloy layer” is a structural feature of the epitaxial structure”, and that “The term imparts a specific physical configuration and should be interpreted as a structural limitation rather than a process step or a product by process element.” This argument is not persuasive, because (a) Applicant simply made an allegation without providing any substantiating evidence, (b) the structural feature of the epitaxial structure would depend on numerous parameter such as a growth temperature, a duration of growth, a thickness of the digital alloy layer, a growth rate, presence or absence of impurities which can function as nuclei, a cooling condition, etc., (c) therefore, for Applicant to make any persuasive argument, Applicant should first provide a substantiating evidence that regardless of the numerous parameters listed above, the digital alloy layer has one and only one structural feature, (d) if and when the structural feature of the digital alloy layer varies depending on any of the parameters listed above, none of which Applicant claims, Applicant cannot persuasively argue that “The term “digital alloy layer” is a structural feature of the epitaxial structure”, and that “The term imparts a specific physical configuration and should be interpreted as a structural limitation rather than a process step or a product by process element”, and (e) in other words, if there can be thousands, if not millions or billions, of different structural features of the digital alloy layer depending on the parameters listed above, the term “digital alloy layer” cannot be directed to any specific structural feature.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bajaj et al. (US 12,439,627)
Chen et al. (US 11,594,413)
Tsuchiya et al. (US 9,070,619)
Dupuis et al. (US 2005/0006639)
Inoue et al. (US 9,660,068)
Nikishin et al., “Digital Alloys of AlN/AlGaN for Deep UV Light Emitting Diodes,” Japanese Journal of Applied Physics 44 (2005) pp. 7221-7226.
Wu et al., “Determination of the electronic band structure for a graded modulation-doped AlGaN/AlN/GaN superlattice,” APPLIED PHYSICS LETTERS 91 (2007) 142121.
Gao et al., “Integral Monolayer-Scale Featured Digital-Alloyed AlN/GaN Superlattices Using Hierarchical Growth Units,” Crystal Growth & Design 19 (2019) pp. 1720-1727.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground 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 JAY C KIM whose telephone number is (571) 270-1620. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 AM - 6:00 PM EST.
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, Joshua Benitez can be reached at (571) 270-1435. 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.
/J.K./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2815 November 26, 2025
/JAY C KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2815
Prosecution Insights