Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I and Species A, claims 1-10, was previously acknowledged. Claims 11-15 were previously withdrawn. Claims 16-21 were added. Claim 4 was cancelled.
from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention(s), there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the aforementioned reply.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: claim 1 and claim 16 mist generation source which has been interpreted as raw material solution tank, water tank, and ultrasonic oscillator (and equivalents thereto) as set forth in the specification, e.g., at para. 29.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(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, 5-10 and 17 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. Any claim not specifically mentioned is rejected based on its dependence.
Claims 1 and 17 recite “a material” and “an element” as part of “the mist”. The claims also relate these terms to structural features of the claimed invention thereto and appear to be closely related to the crux of the claimed and disclosed inventions. Nevertheless, their relationship is unclear. The relationship needs to be clarified in the claims, in order properly address the subject matter inventor regards as their invention. In order to expedite examination, Examiner has assumed that the “material” and “the element” may at least overlap in identity and has examined accordingly.
Clarification and/or correction is requested.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. The coating layer containing hydroxide will necessarily contain oxide, thus the claim fails to further limit the invention.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Additional Claim Interpretation
“A coating layer containing …oxide or hydroxide” has been interpreted as a layer that is actually identified as such in the prior art and/or a layer that is formed using a processing material that is identified as an oxide or hydroxide. Notably, the disclosure provides a single example of an oxide film and no examples of hydroxide films, nor does any particular process with particular processing materials appear to be disclosed. Applicant is welcome to clarify, but should take care to depend upon the disclosure as originally disclosed and not introduce any new matter into the claims or disclosure.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 5-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2021/0013035 to Fujita et al. in view of U.S. Patent No. 4,699,675 to Longeway and U.S. Patent No. U.S. Patent No. 6,666,924 to van Bilsen.
Regarding claim 1: Fujita et al. disclose a film forming apparatus for (i.e. capable of) forming a film on a surface of substrate substantially as claimed and comprising: a stage (e.g., Fig. 1, 21) on which the substrate (20 ) is placed; a mist generation source (raw material solution tank 24, water tank 25, ultrasonic oscillator 26) configured to generate (i.e. capable of generating) a mist of a solution containing at least water and in which an element/material for forming the film is dissolved (dissolved in water, see e.g., paras. 61-83); a supply path (portion of 27 upstream of substrate and stage) configured to convey (i.e. capable of conveying) the mist generated by the mist generation source toward the substrate on the stage by a flow of a carrier gas (e.g., from 22a); a heater (28) configured to heat at least a part of the supply path, such that the part of the supply path heated by the heater is provided as a mist heating section in which heat is transferred from (or through) an inner surface of the supply path toward the mist.
Regarding the identity of the mist solution, Fujita et al. disclose a raw material solution containing elements/materials such as silicon and gallium, in order to form, e.g., a gallium oxide layer doped with silicon (see, e.g., paras. 61-83 and 114). Nevertheless, it is noted that none of the raw material solution itself, its composition or the layer formed on the substrate is considered a structural feature of the claimed invention/apparatus, rather they are features related to an intended use of the claimed apparatus, wherein the courts have ruled a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987); expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim. Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969); the inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. In re Young, 75 F.2d 966, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)).
Fujita et al. fail to disclose the inner surface of the supply path in the mist heating section is coated with a coating later containing at least one of an oxide and a hydroxide of an element/material in the mist and having an absorptivity of 50% or more of infrared rays radiated by the heater toward the mist from the inner surface of the supply path.
Longeway teach providing a film forming apparatus having a coating layer deposed on an inner surface of a supply path (i.e. portions of deposition chamber [40] between mixing chamber [30] and the location of deposition chamber where substrate [46] located on a stage [45]) that is the same composition as a layer intended to be deposited on the substrate for the purpose of, inter alia, forming the film on the substrate free of a depth compositional gradient (see, e.g., abstract). With respect to the absorptivity of the coating layer, this would be dependent on processing parameters used during an intended use of the apparatus, including, but not necessarily limited to, wavelength of infrared rays, number of infrared rays, pressure inside chamber, material of the chamber, thickness of chamber, composition of mist (when present), etc. See above regarding intended use.
Additionally, van Bilsen discloses use of an infrared heating source (60) in combination with a quartz chamber with absorption adjustment components (e.g., quartz chamber and/or a coating thereon) in order to reduce unwanted coatings on walls of the chamber (see, e.g., column 2, row 25 through column 3, rows 58; column 8, rows 19-42).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided a coating layer deposed on an inner surface of the supply path that is the same composition as a layer intended to be deposited on the substrate in Fujita et al. (e.g., gallium oxide doped with silicon) in order to form the film on the substrate free of a depth compositional gradient as taught by Longeway.
It would have additionally been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s invention was filed to have provided an infrared heater as the heater in modified Fujita et al. in order to work in combination with the absorption adjusting components of the apparatus, e.g., quartz chamber (Fujita et al.) and the coating layer (Longeway), in order to reduce unwanted coatings on walls/surfaces of the chamber/supply path as taught by van Bilsen.
With respect to claim 2, see above regarding intended use. Nevertheless, it is noted that in modified Fujita et al., the coating layer of Fujita et al. would consist of at least one of the oxide or the hydroxide of the element present in the mist during an intended use of the apparatus.
With respect to claims 3 and 9, in modified Fujita et al., Fujita et al. disclose the supply path also has a film formation chamber (portion of 107 in which the substrate and stage are located. With respect to the claimed process conditions according to an intended use of the apparatus, see above with respect to intended use.
With respect to claim 5, the film formed on the substrate is not considered part of the claimed apparatus. See above regarding intended use.
With respect to claim 6, in modified Fujita et al., Fujita et al. teach that the inner surface of the supply path in the mist heating section is made of quartz (see, e.g., para. 113).
With respect to claim 7, in modified Fujita et al., van Bilsen teaches use of quartz containing a hydroxyl group as a material of construction for a chamber wall in order to adjust absorption such that a desired wavelength of rays is transmitted therethrough (see, e.g., column 2, row 25 through column 3, rows 58).
With respect to claims 8, for the claimed process conditions according to an intended use of the apparatus, see above with respect to intended use. It is noted that the Fujita et al. teaches that the heater is capable of being set to 100 degrees C or more. See, e.g., para. 95.
With respect to claim 10, in modified Fujita et al., van Bilsen disclose the heater is provided such that the rays radiated toward the mist have a wavelength of 7.8 micrometers or less (see, e.g., column 2, row 25 through column 3, rows 58).
Claim(s) 16-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2021/0013035 to Fujita et al. in view of U.S. Patent No. 2006/0099457 to Moriya et al. and U.S. Patent No. 6,666,924 to van Bilsen.
Regarding claim 16: Fujita et al. disclose a film forming apparatus for (i.e. capable of) forming a film on a surface of substrate substantially as claimed and comprising: a stage (e.g., Fig. 1, 21) on which the substrate (20 ) is placed; a mist generation source (raw material solution tank 24, water tank 25, ultrasonic oscillator 26) configured to generate (i.e. capable of generating) a mist of a solution containing at least water and in which an element/material for forming the film is dissolved (dissolved in water, see e.g., paras. 61-83); a supply path (27) configured to convey (i.e. capable of conveying) the mist generated by the mist generation source toward the substrate on the stage by a flow of a carrier gas (e.g., from 22a); a heater (28) configured to heat at least a part of the supply path, such that the heater is provided as a mist heating section in which heat from (or through) an inner surface of the supply path toward the mist.
Regarding the identity of the mist solution, Fujita et al. disclose a raw material solution containing elements/materials such as silicon and gallium (see, e.g., para. 114). Nevertheless, it is noted that none of the raw material solution itself, its composition or the layer formed on the substrate is considered a structural feature of the claimed invention/apparatus,, rather they are related to an intended use of the claimed apparatus, wherein the courts have ruled a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987); expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim. Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969); the inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. In re Young, 75 F.2d 966, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)).
Although Fujita et al. do disclose the supply path is composed of quartz in order to reduce the possibility of foreign substances entering the film formed on the substrate, Fujita et al. fail to disclose the aforementioned heater configured for providing infrared rays or a coating layer disposed on the inner surface of the supply path in the mist heating section, wherein the coating layer contains hydroxide.
Additionally, van Bilsen discloses use of an infrared heating source (60) in combination with a quartz chamber with absorption adjustment components (e.g., quartz chamber and/or a coating thereon) in order to reduce unwanted coatings on walls of the chamber (see, e.g., column 2, row 25 through column 3, rows 58; column 8, rows 19-42).
Importantly, van Bilsen also teaches that forming portions of the chamber of quartz with hydroxyl groups (i.e. a hydroxide) allows for the selection and adjustment of wavelengths of light transmitted therethrough. Nevertheless, van Bilsen never explicitly teaches the coating itself containing hydroxide.
Moriya et al. disclose providing a coating film comprising a oxide/hydroxide for the purpose of preventing corrosion, suppressing detachment of chemically absorbed water, and controlling absorption of water from an exterior (see, paras. 83, 85 and 89-90).
Examiner also notes that the courts have ruled that selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is prima facie obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945); and the courts have ruled 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).
Thus, it would have additionally been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s invention was filed to have provided an infrared heater as the heater in modified Fujita et al. in order to work in combination with the absorption adjusting components of the apparatus, e.g., quartz chamber (Fujita et al.) and the quartz chamber and coating layer (van Bilsen), in order to reduce unwanted coatings on walls/surfaces of the chamber/supply path as taught by van Bilsen and to have further provided the coating containing a hydroxide in modified Fujita et al. in order to prevent corrosion, suppress detachment of chemically absorbed water, and control absorption of water from an exterior as taught by Moriya et al.
With respect to claim 17, as detailed above, elements/materials contained in the mist are not considered structural features of claimed apparatus. It follows that an element/material in the mist can be arbitrarily selected to correspond to an element/material in the hydroxide of the coating material according to intended use. See above with respect to intended use. Additionally, it is noted that Fujita et al. disclose a layer formed on a substrate comprising an aluminum oxide and Moriya discloses the protective coating layer for the apparatus may comprise aluminum oxide/hydride.
With respect to claim 18, in modified Fujita et al., Fujita et al. disclose the supply path also has a film formation chamber (portion of 107 in which the substrate and stage are located).
With respect to claim 19, in modified Fujita et al., Fujita et al. disclose the inner surface of the supply path in the mist heating section is made of quartz (see, e.g., para. 113).
With respect to claim 20, in modified Fujita et al., van Bilsen teaches use of quartz containing a hydroxyl group as a material of construction for a chamber wall in order to adjust absorption such that a desired wavelength of rays is transmitted therethrough (see, e.g., column 2, row 25 through column 3, rows 58).
With respect to claim 21, in modified Fujita et al., the coating layer containing hydroxide will necessarily contain oxide.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not fully persuasive. Nevertheless, the rejections have been modified to address the claimed invention as amended.
Regarding intended use of the claimed invention, Examiner acknowledges and thanks Applicant for their remarks regarding the claimed and disclosed inventions. The coating layer is addressed as a feature of the claimed apparatus. However, as addressed above, Applicant has chosen to construct their claims in way that directly relates the coating layer to an intended use of the apparatus. Thus, there are still issues related to intended use and claim clarity. In particular, if the apparatus is used to form a gallium film on a substrate in the apparatus, that is an intended use of the apparatus and the materials used to form the film are part of the intended use as well. They are not structural features of the claim. It follows that the structural features related to the intended use result in claim limitations that are extremely broad at best, unclear/undetermined at worst. In order to expedite examination, the above rejections are based on prior art that appears to closest to Applicant’s intended use, but it is also noted that even broader rejections may be proper in future as well.
Finally, it is noted that the courts have ruled the following: a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim; and although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Regarding the claim limitation drawn to the absorptivity of the coating layer: Examiner acknowledges and understands that individual materials and elements will have inherent properties that relate to its absorptivity. However, the absorptivity as found in the claimed apparatus will also be dependent on processing parameters used during an intended use of the claimed apparatus. For example, absorptivity will at least also be related to process parameters including, but not limited to: the heating applied to the apparatus (e.g. the overall composition of the film forming apparatus, the number of infrared rays radiated toward the mist, the wavelength of the infrared rays, and/or any other heating associated with the apparatus). These processing parameters are considered features related an intended use that will affect the absorptivity of the coating layer. Examiner also submits that dependent claims that seek to further clarify these parameters with respect to an intended use of the apparatus are evidence of the same. At present Applicant’s claimed invention merely states an ideal absorptivity for a somewhat generic layer in an apparatus capable of any number of processes that can and will affect the absorptivity of the layer. It is also noted that this finding is further evidenced by the teachings of relied upon prior art reference van Bilsen.
Regarding Applicant’s discussion of “element” and “material: Examiner acknowledges and thanks Applicant for their explanation. Examiner has made no accusation that the terms are unsupported in the original specification. Rather, the issue requiring further clarity is their relationship as recited in the claims. Their relationship is still not clear in the claims. Thus, the rejection remains. As set forth above, Examiner finds that there at least appears to be overlap and has examined accordingly. Besides the general lack of clarity introduced by use of both claims, it is further unclear why both terms need to be used when neither appears to have a specific definition and appears to merely relate to the same single chemical, e.g., gallium (or another material/element that is not set forth in the original disclosure) present in the layer formed on the substrate and/or the apparatus.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. USP Patent Pub. No. 2004/0216667 and 2022/0098728 disclose a hydroxide protective coating in substrate processing chamber.
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 KARLA MOORE whose telephone number is (571)272-1440. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-6pm 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, 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.
/KARLA A MOORE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716