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 Claims
This office action is in response to “Amendment/Req. Reconsideration-After Non-Final Reject - 03/06/2017”. As no claims have been added, canceled, or amended, this office action considers claims 1-10 and 12-19 in “Claims - 01/22/2026” pending for further prosecution.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments “Remarks - 01/22/2026 - Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment”, have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s assertion that 1) recitation of Laermer - whether taken from these paragraphs of from anywhere else in the Laermer reference - expressly specifies the layer 6 as "monocrystalline"; 2) “there is no express teaching in Laermer that layer 7 is monocrystalline. 3) Each of claims 1, 15 recites, in relevant part, that "composition of ... monocrystalline sacrificial intermediate layer varies across a thickness [of this very layer]. On the contrary, “Non-Final Rejection - 08/25/2025” properly anticipated the limitation with sufficient specificity.
Examiner like to note that the prior art description i.e., ipsis verbis, such as “1) layer 6 as monocrystalline” 2) “layer 7 is monocrystalline”; and 3) "composition of ... monocrystalline sacrificial intermediate layer varies across a thickness [of this very layer” are not required to understand the monocrystalline and/or thickness variation (See Vas-Cath, 935 F.2d at 1563, 19 USPQ2d at 1116; Martin v. Johnson, 454 F.2d 746, 751, 172 USPQ 391, 395 (CCPA 1972). Moreover, Examiners would like to note that MPEP § 2141.02. VI “A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984).
As best understood, for item 1 and 2 above, the claimed limitation of “sacrificial layer with monocrystalline property” maps to the instant specification PGPUB paragraph [0018] as “ the sacrificial intermediate layer 104 may be formed from a monocrystalline silicon germanium (SiGe) material. The SiGe material may be represented as the formula Si.sub.1-xGe.sub.x, where “X” represents the mole fraction percentage of Ge in the SiGe alloy. The molar fraction percentage of Ge (“X”) may be between about 1% and about 100%, such as between about 20% and about 70%, or between about 30% and about 50%”. The cited prior art Laermer in paragraph [0025]: teaches layer 6 is SiGe (identical to what is claim is referred to); and the content of germanium in the Si.sub.1-xGe.sub.x alloy can be varied as needed; a possible value range for x is the range of x=0.05 to x=0.5. So, in fact, Laermer anticipates both monocrystalline property and composition variation property with sufficient specificity.
For item 3) in Laermer teaches layer 7 is monocrystalline as interpreted from [0037] a silicon layer 7 is deposited thereon. Again Ipsis-verbis is not required that is monocrystalline layer
As no claims have been added, canceled, or amended, and Applicant's arguments are not persuasive, this Office Action maintains the rejection of the office action “Non-Final Rejection - 08/25/2025”.
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.
Notes: when present, semicolon separated fields within the parenthesis (; ;) represent, for example, as (Sub; Fig 5; [0021]) = (element sub; Figure No. 5; Paragraph No. [0021]). For brevity, the texts “Element”, “Figure No.” and “Paragraph No.” shall be excluded, though; additional clarification notes may be added within each field. The number of fields may be fewer or more than three indicated above. These conventions are used throughout this document.
Claims 1,15, and 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being anticipated by Laermer; Franz et al. (US 20080311751 A1, of record) hereinafter Laermer.
1. Laermer teaches an engineered substrate, comprising (see the entire document, Figs 1-2 along with the subject matters of relevant figures 3-6, specifically, as cited below; see alternative rejection of this claim in section I, infra):
PNG
media_image1.png
384
906
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Laermer Figure 5 and 6
a base substrate (Sub; fig 5; first cited at [0021] as silicon substrate Fig 1);
a monocrystalline sacrificial intermediate layer (6) epitaxially grown over the base substrate (Sub);
wherein a composition of said monocrystalline sacrificial intermediate layer (6) varies (construed from [0025]: the content of germanium in the Si.sub.1-xGe.sub.x alloy can be varied as needed; a possible value range for x is the range of x=0.05 to x=0.5 ) across a thickness of the monocrystalline sacrificial intermediate layer; and
a monocrystalline top layer (5/7; [0026/0037]: silicon layer 5/7) epitaxially grown over the monocrystalline sacrificial intermediate layer (6).
15. Laermer teachesa afree-standing microstructure (a sensor; [0037]), comprising (see the entire document, Figs 5-6 along with figs 1-4, specifically [0036+], and as cited below):
a base silicon substrate (Sub; fig 5; first cited at [0021] as silicon substrate Fig 1);
a monocrystalline sacrificial intermediate germanium-silicon (Si1-xGex ) layer (6) epitaxially grown over the base silicon substrate, wherein x denotes a mole fraction of germanium, and wherein a value of x varies (construed from [0025]: the content of germanium in the Si.sub.1-xGe.sub.x alloy can be varied as needed; a possible value range for x is the range of x=0.05 to x=0.5 ) across a thickness of the monocrystalline sacrificial intermediate Si1-xGex layer; and
a monocrystalline silicon layer (7; [0037]: silicon layer 7)) epitaxially grown on the monocrystalline sacrificial intermediate Si1-xGex layer (6);
wherein one or more voids (part of 15 overlying Sub; Fig 6) are present in the monocrystalline sacrificial intermediate Si1-xGex (6) layer directly between the base silicon substrate and the monocrystalline silicon layer (6).
2. The engineered substrate of claim 1, Laermer further discloses,
wherein the base substrate (1) comprises a silicon substrate {[0080]), and the monocrystalline sacrificial intermediate layer comprises a silicon-germanium (Si1-xGex) layer, wherein x denotes a mole fraction of germanium and wherein a value of x is within a range from 0.2 to 0.7 (construed from [0025]: the content of germanium in the Si.sub.1-xGe.sub.x alloy can be varied as needed; a possible value range for x is the range of x=0.05 to x=0.5 ; see note below MPEP 2131.03.II).
Examiner like to note that [0018] discloses “The molar fraction percentage of Ge (“X”) may be between about 1% and about 100%, such as between about 20% and about 70%, or between about 30% and about 50%”. The instant application paragraph 18 does not disclose any criticality to the claimed range from 0.2 to 0.7. Laermer teaches in [0025], the entire range of x=0.05 to 0.5 would be suitable, because there is no allegation of criticality and no evidence demonstrating a difference across the range Laermer. discloses the claimed range with sufficient specificity. See MPEP section 2131.03.II. ClearValue Inc. v. Pearl River Polymers Inc., 668 F.3d 1340, 101 USPQ2d 1773 (Fed. Cir. 2012)).
3. The engineered substrate of claim 2, Laermer further discloses, wherein a minimum mole fraction of germanium of the Si1-xGex of the monocrystalline sacrificial intermediate layer is sufficient to cause the monocrystalline sacrificial intermediate layer to be etched at an etch rate that is higher than those of the silicon substrate and the top layer (because of the presence of Ge in the composite layer [0008-0009, 0031]).
4. The engineered substrate of claim 3, Laermer further discloses, wherein the monocrystalline sacrificial intermediate layer (6) has a thickness greater (construed from [0031]) than a critical thickness of the Si1-xGex corresponding to a chosen value of x.
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 5-8, 12 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laermer; Franz et al. (US 20080311751 A1, of record) hereinafter Laermer; in view of Fitzgerald, Eugene A et al. (US 20020068393 A1, of record) hereinafter Fitzgerald.
5. The engineered substrate of claim 1, Laermer is silent on, wherein a material of at least one of the monocrystalline sacrificial intermediate layer (6) and the monocrystalline top layer (5/7) is a relaxed material at least substantially free of residual strain.
However, in the analogous art, Fitzgerald teaches (Fig 1A; [0006]), a Si surface channel device 100, in which a thin strained Si layer 102 is grown atop a relaxed SiGe virtual substrate. The SiGe virtual substrate can be relaxed SiGe 104 directly on a Si substrate 106. This is identical structure to Laermer that reveals the properties of relaxation.
PNG
media_image2.png
192
308
media_image2.png
Greyscale
1
Fitzgerald Figure 1A
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include Fitzgerald’s attribute to Laermer, and thereby the combination of (Laermer and Fitzgerald) engineered substrate will have the claimed attributes of wherein a material of at least one of the monocrystalline sacrificial intermediate layer (6) and the monocrystalline top layer (5/7) is a relaxed material at least substantially free of residual strain (see also MPEP § 2131.03.II),
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Laermer in the manner set forth above for, at least, the purpose of utilizing known properties to ensure successful substrate, on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). The selection of a known configuration or material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v.Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) see MPEP §2144.07.
6. The engineered substrate of claim 5, the combination of (Laermer and Fitzgerald) further discloses, wherein the at least one of the monocrystalline sacrificial intermediate layer and the monocrystalline top layer includes a plurality of dislocations (construed from Fitzgerald [0010]: the Si layer will begin to relax, introducing misfit dislocations at the Si/SiGe interface).
7. The engineered substrate of claim 6, the combination of (Laermer and Fitzgerald) further discloses, wherein the plurality of dislocations in the at least one of the monocrystalline sacrificial intermediate layer and the monocrystalline top layer has a density of less than 109cm-2 (construed from Fitzgerald Fig 10; [0055).
8. The engineered substrate of claim 1, Laermer is silent on, wherein both the monocrystalline sacrificial intermediate layer (6) and the monocrystalline top layer (7) are relaxed and substantially free of residual strain.
However, in the analogous art, Fitzgerald teaches (Fig 1A; [0006]), a Si surface channel device 100, in which a thin strained Si layer 102 is grown atop a relaxed SiGe virtual substrate. The SiGe virtual substrate can be relaxed SiGe 104 directly on a Si substrate 106. This is identical structure to Laermer that reveals the properties of relaxation. Paragraph (0058) presents a guideline for engineering strained layer stacks such that relaxation via misfit dislocation is prevented. Compressively strained intermediate layers increase the stability of tensile channel layers, and also serve as a barrier for misfit dislocation introduction into the underlying layers.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include Fitzgerald’s attribute to Laermer, and thereby the combination of (Laermer and Fitzgerald) engineered substrate will have the claimed attributes of wherein wherein both the monocrystalline sacrificial intermediate layer (6) and the monocrystalline top layer (7) are relaxed and substantially free of residual strain (see also MPEP § 2131.03.II),
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Laermer in the manner set forth above for, at least, the purpose of utilizing known properties to ensure successful substrate, on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). The selection of a known configuration or material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v.Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) see MPEP §2144.07.
12, 18. The engineered substrate of claim 1 and/or the free-standing microstructure of claim 17, Laermer does not expressly disclose, wherein the composition of the monocrystalline sacrificial intermediate layer (6) varies continuously across the thickness of the monocrystalline sacrificial intermediate layer.
However, in the analogous art, Fitzgerald teaches (Fig 1A; [0006]), a Si surface channel device 100, in which a thin strained Si layer 102 is grown atop a relaxed SiGe virtual substrate. The SiGe virtual substrate can be relaxed SiGe 104 directly on a Si substrate 106. This is identical structure to Laermer that reveals the properties of variable thickness of the SIGe layer. Paragraph (0053) and Fig 8 discloses wherein the composition of the monocrystalline sacrificial intermediate layer (7) varies continuously across the thickness of the monocrystalline sacrificial intermediate layer.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include Fitzgerald’s attribute to Laermer, and thereby the combination of (Laermer and Fitzgerald) engineered substrate will have the claimed attributes of wherein the composition of the monocrystalline sacrificial intermediate layer (6) varies continuously across the thickness of the monocrystalline sacrificial intermediate layer. (see also MPEP § 2131.03.II),
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Laermer in the manner set forth above for, at least, the purpose of utilizing known properties to ensure successful substrate, on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). The selection of a known configuration or material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v.Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) see MPEP §2144.07.
Claims 9-10 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laermer; Franz et al. (US 20080311751 A1) hereinafter Laermer; in view of Lagally; Max G. et al. (US 20190013200 A1) hereinafter Lagally.
9, 10. The engineered substrate of claim 1, but Laermer does not expressly disclose,
For claim 9: wherein an exposed surface of the monocrystalline top layer (7) has an RMS surface roughness of less than about 10 nm.
For claim 10: wherein the monocrystalline top layer has a thickness greater than a critical thickness of the monocrystalline top layer.
However, in the analogous art, Lagally teaches High-quality, single-crystalline silicon-germanium (Si.sub.(1-x)Ge.sub.x) and electronic devices incorporating the films ([0004]) that is identical structure to Laermer that reveals the properties of film RMS , wherein ([0028] the high-quality, single-crystalline silicon-germanium can be formed as large-area, free-standing films with low surface roughnesses. For example, films of the high-quality, single-crystalline silicon-germanium may have a root mean square (rms) roughness of 2.5 nm or lower, 2 nm or lower, 1 nm or lower, 0.6 nm or lower, 0.5 nm or lower, and 0.4 nm or lower.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to select Lagally’s RMS value for Laermer, and thereby the combination of (Laermer and Lagally) engineered substrate will have the claimed attributes of wherein an exposed surface of the monocrystalline top layer (7) has an RMS surface roughness of less than about 10 nm. (see also MPEP § 2131.03.I),
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Laermer in the manner set forth above for, at least, the purpose of utilizing known properties to ensure successful substrate, on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). The selection of a known configuration or material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v.Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) see MPEP §2144.07.
For claim 10: the combination of (Laermer and Lagally) further discloses, wherein (Lagally [0026]) the monocrystalline top layer (7) has a thickness greater than a critical thickness of the monocrystalline top layer.
16, 17. The free-standing microstructure of claim 15, but Laermer does not expressly disclose, wherein
For claim 16: an exposed surface of the monocrystalline silicon layer has an RMS surface roughness of less than about 10 nm.
For claim 17 wherein the value of x is within a range from 0.2 to 0.7.
However, in the analogous art, Lagally teaches High-quality, single-crystalline silicon-germanium (Si.sub.(1-x)Ge.sub.x) and electronic devices incorporating the films ([0004]) that is identical structure to Laermer that reveals the properties of film RMS , wherein ([0028] the high-quality, single-crystalline silicon-germanium can be formed as large-area, free-standing films with low surface roughnesses. For example, films of the high-quality, single-crystalline silicon-germanium may have a root mean square (rms) roughness of 2.5 nm or lower, 2 nm or lower, 1 nm or lower, 0.6 nm or lower, 0.5 nm or lower, and 0.4 nm or lower.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to select Lagally’s RMS value for Laermer, and thereby the combination of (Laermer and Lagally) engineered substrate will have the claimed attributes of wherein an exposed surface of the monocrystalline top layer (7) has an RMS surface roughness of less than about 10 nm. (see also MPEP § 2131.03.I),
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Laermer in the manner set forth above for, at least, the purpose of utilizing known properties to ensure successful substrate, on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). The selection of a known configuration or material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v.Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) see MPEP §2144.07.
For claim 17: the combination of (Laermer and Lagally) further discloses, wherein (Lagally [0026]) the monocrystalline top layer (7) has a thickness greater than a critical thickness of the monocrystalline top layer.
Claims 13, 19 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laermer; Franz et al. (US 20080311751 A1, of record) hereinafter Laermer; in view of WU, KENNETH C. et al. (US 20010003269 A1, of record) hereinafter Wu.
13,19. The engineered substrate of claim 1, and/or the free-standing microstructure of claim 17, but Laermer does not expressly disclose, wherein the monocrystalline sacrificial intermediate layer (6) comprises a plurality of sublayers, each sublayer of the plurality having a composition or a composition profile that differs, respectively, from compositions or composition profiles of immediately adjacent sublayers of the plurality such that a composition of the monocrystalline sacrificial intermediate layer Si1-xGex varies discontinuously across the thickness of the monocrystalline sacrificial intermediate Si1-xGex layer,
However, in the analogous art, Wu teaches (Fig 1A; [00952]), a relaxed epitaxial SiGe layer, on a silicon substrate 102. The structure includes a plurality of relaxed graded layers 104 that vary from Si.sub.0.98Ge.sub.0.02, 5.times.10.sup.20 cm.sup.-3 B at the substrate surface, to the top surface layer of Si.sub.0.74Ge.sub.0.26, 10.sup.18 cm.sup.3 P. The thickness of each layer are provided in .mu.m.
PNG
media_image3.png
476
592
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Wu Figure 2A
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to configure Wu’s attribute to Laermer, and thereby the combination of (Laermer andWu) engineered substrate will have the claimed attributes of wherein the monocrystalline sacrificial intermediate layer (7 in view of Wu 104) comprises a plurality of sublayers, each sublayer of the plurality having a composition or a composition profile that differs, respectively, from compositions or composition profiles of immediately adjacent sublayers of the plurality such that a composition of the monocrystalline sacrificial intermediate layer Si1-xGex varies discontinuously across the thickness of the monocrystalline sacrificial intermediate Si1-xGex layer (see also MPEP § 2131.03.II),
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Laermer in the manner set forth above for, at least, the purpose of utilizing known properties to ensure successful substrate, on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). The selection of a known configuration or material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v.Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) see MPEP §2144.07.
14. The engineered substrate of claim 1, while Laermer further discloses, (the substrate) further comprising one or more voids (part of 15 overlying Sub; Fig 6) in the monocrystalline sacrificial intermediate layer (6), but does not expressly disclose, that includes multiple sub-layers, wherein a dislocation density in a following sub-layer of the multiple sub-layers is different than that in a preceding sub-layer of said multiple sub-layers.
However, in the analogous art, Fitzergald’511 teaches Relaxed SiGe Platform For High Speed CMOS Electronics And High Speed Analog Circuits(Title), wherein (Fig 1A; [00952]), a relaxed epitaxial SiGe layer, on a silicon substrate 102. The structure includes a plurality of relaxed graded layers 104 that vary from Si.sub.0.98Ge.sub.0.02, 5.times.10.sup.20 cm.sup.-3 B at the substrate surface, to the top surface layer of Si.sub.0.74Ge.sub.0.26, 10.sup.18 cm.sup.3 P. The thickness of each layer are provided in .mu.m.
However, in the analogous art, Wu teaches (Fig 1A; [00952]), a relaxed epitaxial SiGe layer, on a silicon substrate 102. The structure includes a plurality of relaxed graded layers 104 that vary from Si.sub.0.98Ge.sub.0.02, 5.times.10.sup.20 cm.sup.-3 B at the substrate surface, to the top surface layer of Si.sub.0.74Ge.sub.0.26, 10.sup.18 cm.sup.3 P. The thickness of each layer are provided in .mu.m.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to configure Wu’s attribute to Laermer, and thereby the combination of (Laermer andWu) engineered substrate will have the claimed attributes of wherein the monocrystalline sacrificial intermediate layer (6 in view of Wu 104) includes multiple sub-layers, wherein a dislocation density in a following sub-layer of the multiple sub-layers is different than that in a preceding sub-layer of said multiple sub-layers. (see also MPEP § 2131.03.II),
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Laermer in the manner set forth above for, at least, the purpose of utilizing known properties to ensure successful substrate, on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). The selection of a known configuration or material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v.Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) see MPEP §2144.07.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to configure Wu’s attribute to Laermer, and thereby the combination of (Laermer andWu) engineered substrate will have the claimed attributes of wherein the monocrystalline sacrificial intermediate layer (7 in view of Wu 104) comprises a plurality of sublayers, each sublayer of the plurality having a composition or a composition profile that differs, respectively, from compositions or composition profiles of immediately adjacent sublayers of the plurality such that a composition of the monocrystalline sacrificial intermediate layer varies discontinuously across the thickness of the monocrystalline sacrificial intermediate layer (see also MPEP § 2131.03.II),
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Laermer in the manner set forth above for, at least, the purpose of utilizing known properties to ensure successful substrate, on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). The selection of a known configuration or material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v.Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) see MPEP §2144.07.17733
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Moazzam Hossain whose telephone number is (571)270-7960. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon to Friday 8.30 A.M -5.00 P.M.
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, Julio J. Maldonado can be reached on 571-272-1864. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR to register user only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MOAZZAM HOSSAIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898
March 24, 2026