DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Claims
This is a final office action in response to the applicant’s arguments and remarks filed on 02/02/2026. Claims 1-13 and 21-25 are pending in the current office action. Claim 1 has been amended.
Status of the Rejection
All 35 U.S.C. § 102 and 103 rejections from the previous office action are substantially maintained and modified only in response to the amendments to the claims.
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 1-3, 5-11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipate by Cabansky et al. (WO-2020167765-A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Cabansky teaches a method for selectively etching at least one feature in a first region with respect to a second region of a stack (Paragraph [0004] a method for selectively etching a silicon oxide region with respect to a lower oxygen silicon containing region), comprising:
a) selectively etching the first region with respect to the second region to form at least one partial feature in the first region, the at least one partial feature having a depth with respect to a surface of the second region, wherein a top surface of the first region and a top surface of the second region are exposed to the selective etching, wherein before selectively etching there is no mask above the exposed top surface of the first region and the exposed top surface of the second region (Paragraphs [0013-0015] silicon oxide region (element 204), equivalent to the claimed first region, is selectively etched with respect to a silicon oxycarbonitride region (element 208) and a silicon region (element 212), which can be considered equivalent to the second region. Paragraph [0016] Figure 2C the selectivity of the etch is improved by the process, therefore some etching of the SiOCN and Si regions (elements 208 and 212) can occur. Figure 2C shows that the SiOCN and Si regions (elements 208 and 212) are exposed to the etching by the end of the etching process, at which point there is also no mask above the exposed surfaces. The claimed “selective etching” can be considered to occur at the point when both the SiOCN and Si regions are being etched, and not before, and under this interpretation, the claimed “selective etching” would begin when “there is no mask above the exposed top surface of the first region and the exposed top surface of the second region”. All moments of etching prior to that point could be considered a separate etching that is etching the sacrificial mask (element 416) and the Si region, and if there is a selectivity in this etching it is between those elements);
b) depositing in-situ a fluorine-free, non-conformal, carbon-containing mask over the first region and the second region, wherein the carbon-containing mask is selectively deposited on the second region at a second thickness with respect to the first region at a first thickness, the second thickness being greater than the first thickness (Paragraph [0014] Figure 2B a sacrificial mask containing carbon is deposited over the silicon oxide and lower oxygen silicon containing regions and selectively deposited on the lower oxygen silicon containing regions (elements 208 and 212) such that the thickness of the mask is greater over these regions. Paragraph [0022] in another embodiment the sacrificial mask is a metal containing layer can be a metal carbide layer, which would contain carbon); and
c) further etching in-situ the first region to etch the at least one partial feature and wherein the carbon-containing mask acts as an etch mask for the second region (Paragraph [0013] Figure 1 the process can be repeated such that multiple instances of etching and using the sacrificial mask as an etch mask during the etching can occur in the process).
Regarding Claim 2, Cabansky teaches wherein the first region comprises a silicon oxide region and the second region comprises a lower oxygen region, and wherein the selective etch etches some of the top surface of the second region exposed to the selective etching (Paragraphs [0013-0015] silicon oxide region (element 204), equivalent to the claimed first region, is selectively etched with respect to a silicon oxycarbonitride region (element 208) and a silicon region (element 212), which are lower oxygen containing compared to silicon oxide. Paragraph [0016] Figure 2C the selectivity of the etch is improved by the process, therefore some etching of the SiOCN and Si regions (elements 208 and 212) can occur. Figure 2C shows that the SiOCN and Si regions (elements 208 and 212) are exposed to the etching by the end of the etching process).
Regarding Claim 3, Cabansky teaches wherein the second region comprises a silicon nitride region, and wherein the selective etch etches some of the top surface of the second region exposed to the selective etching (Paragraphs [0013-0015] silicon oxide region (element 204), equivalent to the claimed first region, is selectively etched with respect to a silicon oxycarbonitride region (element 208). The silicon oxycarbonitride region comprises silicon nitride. Paragraph [0016] Figure 2C the selectivity of the etch is improved by the process, therefore some etching of the SiOCN and Si regions (elements 208 and 212) can occur. Figure 2C shows that the SiOCN and Si regions (elements 208 and 212) are exposed to the etching by the end of the etching process).
Regarding Claim 5, Cabansky teaches wherein the carbon-containing mask comprises a hydrocarbon (Paragraph [0014] deposition of the sacrificial mask uses a deposition gas of methane which is a hydrocarbon and therefore the mask would comprise a hydrocarbon).
Regarding Claim 6, Cabansky teaches wherein the carbon-containing mask is deposited via plasma-enhanced chemical vapor deposition (PECVD) (Paragraph [0014] uses plasma and gases to deposit the carbon-containing mask and therefore can be considered a PECVD process).
Regarding Claim 7, Cabansky teaches wherein the further etching is an atomic layer etch (Paragraph [0015] the selective etching is an atomic layer etch).
Regarding Claim 8, Cabansky teaches that the method further comprises repeating steps b and c (Paragraph [0013] Figure 1 the process can be repeated such that multiple instances of etching and using the sacrificial mask as an etch mask during the etching can occur in the process, thereby meeting the instant limitation).
Regarding Claim 9, Cabansky teaches wherein the carbon-containing mask is deposited at a temperature of between 20°C and 250°C (Paragraphs [0017-0018] in an embodiment, a deposition process for a metal containing sacrificial mask is presented where the temperature is 20-200°C. Paragraph [0022] the metal containing sacrificial mask layer can be a metal carbide layer, which would contain carbon, thereby meeting the limitations of claim 1).
Regarding Claim 10, Cabansky teaches wherein the further etching is an atomic layer etch (Paragraph [0015] the selective etching is an atomic layer etch).
Regarding Claim 11, Cabansky teaches that the method further comprises repeating steps b and c (Paragraph [0013] Figure 1 the process can be repeated such that multiple instances of etching and using the sacrificial mask as an etch mask during the etching can occur in the process, thereby meeting the instant limitation).
Regarding Claim 13, Cabansky teaches wherein the at least one partial feature in the first region forms a recessed region of the stack and remaining portions of the stack form a non- recessed region of the stack and wherein depositing in-situ a fluorine-free, non-conformal, carbon-containing mask over the first region and the second region comprises selectively depositing on the non-recessed region with respect to the recessed region based on geometry (Paragraph [0013] Figure 1 the process can be repeated such that multiple instances of etching and using the sacrificial mask as an etch mask during the etching can occur in the process. When this process is repeated the deposition step will selectively deposit on the silicon oxycarbonitride region (element 208) and a silicon region (element 212), which would be the non-recessed region. This deposition would be “based on geometry” in that the deposition is selective based on the underlying geometry of the different regions).
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cabansky as applied to claims 1 and 2 above, and further in view of Tan et al. (US-20160196985-A1).
Regarding Claim 4, Cabansky teaches all the limitations of claims 1 and 2 as outlined above.
Cabansky is silent on the depth etched and therefore fails to teach wherein selectively etching the first region comprises etching at least one partial feature to a depth of at least 20 nm.
Tan teaches a method of selective anisotropic etching ([abstract] anisotropic etching can be performed selectively) on semiconductor wafers to form recessed features (Paragraph [0004] methods used on semiconductor wafers). Tan teaches a process of etching that includes an etching step and a deposition step (Paragraph [0005] in step (b) a first process gas etches the substrate and in step (d) a second process gas passivates a surface of the substrate). Tan teaches that the process can be repeated multiple times (Paragraph [0008]). Tan teaches that during a single etching process cycle 10-50nm of material is etched in the feature (Paragraph [0012] 10-50nm are removed).
It would have been obvious to have modified the method of Cabansky such that during the selective etching the at least one partial feature was etched to a depth of 10-50nm as taught by Tan.
This modification would have been obvious as it would have been the combination of prior art elements by known methods to yield predictable results. This combination would have had the predictable result of etching the feature to a depth of 10-50nm. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected and incorporated the feature depth etched at a level within the disclosed range of 10-50nm, including at amounts that overlap with the claimed range of 20nm or more. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cabansky as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhang et al. (US-20200321218-A1).
Regarding Claim 12, Cabansky teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as outlined above.
Cabansky fails to teach that the method further comprises ashing the carbon-containing mask.
Zhang teaches a method of selective etching (Paragraph [0007]). Zhang teaches the use of a carbon-containing mask that is utilized as an etch mask during the etching process (Paragraphs [0018-0019] a passivation layer is formed and used as an etching mask during the etching process). Zhang teaches that after etching is completed the carbon-containing mask can be removed using an ashing process (Paragraph [0029] passivation layer is removed using an ashing process).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the method of Cabansky by forming an ashing process after the completion of the etching, as taught by Zhang.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to because after the etching process taught by Cabansky there could be remaining parts of the carbon-containing layer that would need to be removed prior to any further processing. Additionally, this modification could be considered combination of prior art elements by known methods to yield predictable results. This combination would have had the predictable result of ashing any of the carbon-containing mask that remained after etching. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Claims 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cabansky in view of Yang et al. (US-20210119012-A1), and Schaefer et al. (US-7205226-B1).
Regarding Claim 21, Cabansky teaches a method for selectively etching at least one feature in an oxide region with respect to a nitride region of a stack (Paragraph [0004] method for selectively etching a silicon oxide region relative to a lower oxygen silicon containing region. Paragraph [0013] Figure 2A a SiOCN region (element 208) is a lower oxygen containing region, and contains silicon nitride), comprising:
providing a stack structure with a nitride region and oxide region in a reactor chamber (Paragraph [0013] Figure 2A substrate comprises a silicon oxide region (element 204) and a SiOCN region (element 208) which contains silicon nitride. Paragraph [0018] during processing vapors are purged from a chamber, therefore the process is conducted in a chamber);
selectively depositing a carbon-based mask such that the mask on the nitride region is deposited at a higher rate than on the oxide region, creating a thicker layer on the nitride region than the oxide region (Paragraph [0014] Figure 2B a sacrificial mask (element 216) is selectively deposited on lower oxygen regions (elements 208 and 212) in comparison to the oxide region (element 204), as more deposited on the nitride region (element 208) the deposition rate was higher than for the oxide region); and
performing an etch in-situ on the stack, thereby etching the oxide region to form a feature in the oxide region (Paragraph [0015] the silicon oxide region is selectively etched. Figure 2C shows the substrate after etching, showing a feature etched into the silicon oxide region).
Cabansky fails to teach adding CO gas in the reactor chamber. Cabansky teaches that the carbon-based mask is formed from methane (Paragraph [0014] deposition gas of methane is used).
Schaefer teaches a method of etching a substrate that includes deposition of a protective layer (Column 1 lines 64-67 and Column 2 lines 1-2 method includes deposition of a protective layer). Schaefer teaches a method of depositing a layer that is formed from a gas that can comprise a hydrocarbon (Column 7 lines 18-23 organic material supplied to form a sacrificial carbon-based layer can include a “hydrofluorocarbon” where the integer denoting the number of fluorine atoms is zero). Schaefer teaches that deposition can be optimized with the inclusion of additional gases, such as carbon monoxide, in the deposition process (Column 7 lines 18-23 carbon monoxide can be included in the gases for the deposition process).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the method of Cabansky by including carbon monoxide using the gas composition taught by Schaefer for depositing a protective mask layer.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because Schaefer teaches that including carbon monoxide can allow for optimizing the deposition process (Schaefer Column 7 lines 18-23). Additionally, this modification would have been obvious as it would have been the combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. This modification would have had the predictable result of supplying a suitable gas for use in the deposition process. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Cabansky fails to teach that a bias of less than 60W is used.
Yang teaches a method of forming a semiconductor device ([abstract]). Yang teaches that during the process a protection layer containing carbon is formed (Paragraph [0072] the first protection layer is made of carbon-containing material. Paragraph [0071] the first deposition operation forms the first protection layer). Yang teaches that the first deposition process uses a bias power of 0W – 20W (Paragraph [0074] the first deposition operation has a bias power of about 0W – 20W applied).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have modified the method of Cabansky by including a bias within the range taught by Yang during the deposition process which is when the CO gas is added to the chamber.
This modification would have been obvious as it would have been the combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. This modification would have had the predictable result of supplying a suitable bias during the deposition process. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Regarding Claim 22, modified Cabansky teaches all the limitations of claim 21 as outlined above. Cabansky further teaches wherein the oxide region comprises SiO2 (Paragraph [0004] method for selectively etching a silicon oxide region relative to a lower oxygen silicon containing region.).
Regarding Claim 23, modified Cabansky teaches all the limitations of claim 21 as outlined above. Cabansky further teaches wherein the nitride region comprises SiN (Paragraph [0013] Figure 2A a SiOCN region (element 208) is a lower oxygen containing region, and contains silicon nitride).
Regarding Claim 24, modified Cabansky teaches all the limitations of claim 21 as outlined above.
Modified Cabansky, as outlined above in regards to claim 21, fails to teach wherein H2 gas is combined with the CO gas in the reactor chamber.
Schaefer teaches that deposition can be optimized with the inclusion of additional gases, such as hydrogen, in the deposition process (Column 7 lines 18-23 carbon monoxide can be included in the gases for the deposition process).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the method of modified Cabansky by including hydrogen using the gas composition taught by Schaefer for depositing a protective mask layer.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because Schaefer teaches that including hydrogen can allow for optimizing the deposition process (Schaefer Column 7 lines 18-23). Additionally, this modification would have been obvious as it would have been the combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. This modification would have had the predictable result of supplying a suitable gas for use in the deposition process. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cabansky in view of Yang et al. (US-20210082829-A1, hereafter referred to as Yang ‘829).
Regarding Claim 25, Cabansky teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as outlined above.
Cabansky fails to teach that wherein the depositing in-situ a fluorine-free, non-conformal, carbon-containing mask over the first region and the second region comprises providing a deposition gas comprising at least one of C2H2 (acetylene), C2H4 (ethylene), and C3H6 (propylene).
Yang ‘829 teaches methods of forming semiconductor devices ([Abstract]). Yang ‘829 teaches a method that includes the deposition of a carbon layer, where the carbon layer is deposited using PE-CVD and hydrocarbon precursors that have the formula CxHy, such as methane and ethene (Paragraph [0031], a carbon layer can be formed by PE-CVD using hydrocarbons, such as methane and ethene, where ethene is another name for ethylene).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the method of Cabansky by replacing methane with ethene, as taught by Yang ‘829.
This modification would have been the simple substitution of one gas suitable for use in a PE-CVD deposition process with another such gas. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See MPEP §2143(B). Furthermore, the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.07.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cabansky in view of Wang et al. (US-20010118687-A1). Note that this claim is being rejected here under an alternative interpretation of the Cabansky, where it is interpretated that Cabansky fails to teach all the limitations of the claimed step “a”.
Regarding Claim 1, Cabansky teaches a method for selectively etching at least one feature in a first region with respect to a second region of a stack (Paragraph [0004] a method for selectively etching a silicon oxide region with respect to a lower oxygen silicon containing region), comprising:
b) depositing in-situ a fluorine-free, non-conformal, carbon-containing mask over the first region and the second region, wherein the carbon-containing mask is selectively deposited on the second region at a second thickness with respect to the first region at a first thickness, the second thickness being greater than the first thickness (Paragraph [0014] Figure 2B a sacrificial mask containing carbon is deposited over the silicon oxide and lower oxygen silicon containing regions and selectively deposited on the lower oxygen silicon containing regions (elements 208 and 212) such that the thickness of the mask is greater over these regions. Paragraph [0022] in another embodiment the sacrificial mask is a metal containing layer can be a metal carbide layer, which would contain carbon); and
c) further etching in-situ the first region to etch the at least one partial feature and wherein the carbon-containing mask acts as an etch mask for the second region (Paragraph [0013] Figure 1 the process can be repeated such that multiple instances of etching and using the sacrificial mask as an etch mask during the etching can occur in the process).
Cabansky fails to teach selectively etching the first region with respect to the second region to form at least one partial feature in the first region, the at least one partial feature having a depth with respect to a surface of the second region, wherein a top surface of the first region and a top surface of the second region are exposed to the selective etching, wherein before selectively etching there is no mask above the exposed top surface of the first region and the exposed top surface of the second region.
Wang teaches a method of etching silicon oxide (Paragraph [0016]) and teaches that the etching can be conducted selectively with respect to silicon nitride (Paragraph [0035]). Wang teaches a method of etching that includes multiple steps that can be repeated as required (Paragraphs [0021] and [0029] Figure 2A, steps 220, 230A, 240, and 250 can be repeated as needed). Wang teaches that this cyclic method of selective etching does not include the use of a deposition step (Paragraphs [0021-0029] Figure 2A).
Cabansky further teaches that the cyclic etching method taught is selective without the deposition of the mask layer, and that the use of the mask improves the selectivity (Cabansky Paragraphs [0015-0016]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the method of Cabansky by conducting one or more cycles of the etching method of Cabansky without depositing a mask layer, as Cabansky teaches that this would be a selective etching method and Wang teaches a similar cyclic etching method that does not include a deposition step, prior to conducting further cycles that include depositing a mask layer.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because the conducting the etching method without the deposition step as taught by Wang would require less steps, and therefore potentially less time and expense, by removing the step of deposition of a mask layer and then requiring the etching through the mask layer prior to etching the etching target layer. This could be beneficial in situations where additional selectivity of a mask, as taught by Cabansky, is not required in the initial etching cycles of the cyclic method. Additionally, this modification would have been obvious as it would have been the combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Both Cabansky and Wang teach cyclic etching methods that can be used to selectively etch silicon oxide with respect to silicon nitride. This modification would have modified one or more of the initial cycles of Cabansky with the cycles of that did not include a deposition step, as taught by Wang, to the predictable result of etching the silicon oxide material. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks Pg. 1-6, filed 02/02/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Cabansky fails to teach that before selectively etching there is no mask above the exposed top surface of the first region and the exposed top surface of the second region.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above, there is an interpretation of the teachings of Cabansky, wherein the selective etching of the first region with respect to a second region can only be considered to occur after a point in time when there is no mask above the exposed surfaces, as prior to that point the etching that is occurring can be considered to be selective between the mask and the first region.
However, in the interest of compact prosecution, examiner notes that an alternative rejection has been provided to claim 1 using an interpretation of the claimed limitations as outlined by the applicant’s argument.
Applicant argues that Schaefer teaches a method that results in a uniform deposition and therefore the prior art fails to teach the use of CO or H2 in a selective deposition process.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response, examiner notes that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). In this particular case, Schaefer is relied upon within the rejection to teach that CO and H2 gas can be used in a deposition of a carbon layer, while Cabansky teaches selective deposition.
Applicant argues that Yang teaches a method that results in a uniform deposition and therefore the prior art fails to teach the use of a bias of less than 60 W in a selective deposition process.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response, examiner notes that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). In this particular case, Yang is relied upon within the rejection to teach that a bias of 60 W can be used in a deposition of a carbon layer, while Cabansky teaches selective deposition.
Applicant argues that it would not be obvious to combine the teachings of Tan with Cabansky because Tan teaches a different etching process.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). In this particular case, as outlined in the rejection above, Tan teaches an etching method where a selective etching can be conducted before and after the deposition of a mask and in particular is relied upon for teaching an etching depth that can be achieved, while Cabansky teaches the particular etching method relied upon.
Applicant appears to argue that in regards to claim 13, a special definition has been given to the term “geometry” and therefore the prior art fails to teach the claimed limitation.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. MPEP 2111.01 provides the standards for determining the meaning of words within a claim. In particular, MPEP 2111.01(IV) states “The only exceptions to giving the words in a claim their ordinary and customary meaning in the art are (1) when the applicant acts as their own lexicographer; and (2) when the applicant disavows or disclaims the full scope of a claim term in the specification. To act as their own lexicographer, the applicant must clearly set forth a special definition of a claim term in the specification that differs from the plain and ordinary meaning it would otherwise possess.” Examiner takes the position that applicant fails to meet this standard. The term “geometry” has a plain meaning and the instant specification does not have an express intent to provide a special meaning to the term. As outlined in the rejection of claim 13 above, the prior art does teach that the deposition process is “based on geometry” as claimed under the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation.
Examiner further notes that in the arguments regarding claim 13, applicant refers to the Zhang reference. This appears to be an error as the rejection of claim 13 does not rely upon Zhang.
Applicant argues that Yang ‘829 teaches a method that results in a uniform deposition and therefore the prior art fails to teach the use of CO or H2 in a selective deposition process.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response, examiner notes that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). In this particular case, Yang ‘829 is relied upon within the rejection to teach that ethylene can be used in a deposition of an amorphous carbon layer, while Cabansky teaches selective deposition.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ANDREW KEELAN LAOBAK whose telephone number is (703)756-5447. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am - 5:30pm.
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 Allen can be reached at 571-270-3176. 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.
/A.K.L./ Examiner, Art Unit 1713 /DUY VU N DEO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713