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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/23/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 2, 6-9, 13, 16, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2012/0135612 (Matsumoto hereinafter) in view of US 2019/0362989 (Reuter hereinafter) and further in view of US 2005/0284572 (Chen hereinafter).
Regarding claim 1, Matsumoto teaches a system and method of processing substrates (Figure 1) that discloses at a semiconductor processing system including a front-end module connected to a load lock (Front end module 22 connected to load locks 16/18 in Figure 1), a process module coupled to the front-end module by the load lock (Process module 14/32/34/36/38), a purge/vent fluid inlet conduit connected to the load lock (Vacuum created in the load lock per ¶ 39); transferring a substrate carrying substrate moisture from the front-end module into the load lock (atmospheric moisture in 22); and transferring the substrate from the load lock to the process module for processing using the process module (Evident from ¶ 43).
Matsumoto is silent with respect to a heater element coupled to the load lock by the purge/vent fluid inlet conduit and a controller operably connected to the heater element; heating a purge/vent fluid using the heater element; flowing the heated purge/vent fluid into the load lock using the purge/vent fluid inlet conduit; removing the substrate moisture from the load lock using the heated purge/vent fluid.
However, Reuter teaches a substrate manufacturing system that discloses a heater element coupled to a sealed body by the purge/vent fluid inlet conduit (Heater 126 per ¶ 30 and 48) and a controller operably connected to the heater element (Controller 125 in Figure 1 and ¶ 55); heating a purge/vent fluid using the heater element (¶ 30 and 48); flowing the heated purge/vent fluid into the sealed body using the purge/vent fluid inlet conduit (Evident from Figure 1 and ¶ 30); removing the substrate moisture from the sealed body using the heated purge/vent fluid (¶ 30). The resultant combination would apply the heated purge/vent fluid of Reuter to the purging of the load lock of Matsumoto to assist in drying the substrate.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the load lock venting of Matsumoto with the heated purging of Reuter to assist in drying the substrate per Reuters ¶ 30.
Matsumoto, per Reuter, is silent with respect to the heater being arranged along or within the purge/vent fluid inlet conduit outside of the load lock and heating a purge/vent fluid outside of the load lock.
However, Chen teaches a substrate processing system with a load lock heater that discloses the heater being arranged along or within the purge/vent fluid inlet conduit outside of the load lock (Heater 62 connected to the purge/vent fluid conduit 76 which is connected to the load lock section 52 per Figure 2 and ¶ 30) and heating a purge/vent fluid outside of the load lock (¶ 30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the location of the heater of Matsumoto/Reuter with the location taught by Chen since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 2, Matsumoto’s modified teachings are described above in claim 1 where Reuter further discloses that the heated purge/vent fluid comprises (a) cleanroom air; (b) clean, dry air; (c) nitrogen; or (d) high purity nitrogen, wherein the substrate moisture comprises water (Reuter ¶ 62 details the use of nitrogen as the purge gas supply and atmospheric moisture inherently includes water).
Regarding claim 6, Matsumoto’s modified teachings are described above in claim 1 where Matsumoto would further disclose that the semiconductor processing system further comprises a front-end gate valve coupling the front-end module to the load lock (Figure 1 gate valve “G” between 22 and 16 of Matsumoto), and wherein removing the substrate moisture includes flowing the heated purge/vent fluid and evaporated moisture through the front-end gate valve (Evident of the combination).
Regarding claim 7, Matsumoto’s modified teachings are described above in claim 1 where Matsumoto would further disclose that the semiconductor processing system further comprises a back-end gate valve coupling the load lock to the process module (Figure 1 gate valve “G” between 14 and 16 of Matsumoto), and wherein removing the substrate moisture includes flowing the heated purge/vent fluid and evaporated moisture through the back-end gate valve (Evident from the combination).
Regarding claim 8, Matsumoto’s modified teachings are described above in claim 1 where Reuter further discloses that removing surface moisture from an interior surface or structure within the load lock using the heated purge/vent fluid, wherein the surface moisture comprises at least one of water, a condensed precursor, and a condensed reaction product (Inherent of the operation of Reuter).
Regarding claim 9, Matsumoto’s modified teachings are described above in claim 1 where Matsumoto would further disclose an evacuation pump fluidly coupled to the load lock (Vacuum pump disclosed by Matsumoto per ¶ 39), wherein the removing the substrate moisture includes evacuating the heated purge/vent fluid and evaporated moisture from the load lock using the evacuation pump (Combination of Matsumoto ¶ 39 and 30/48 of Reuter).
Regarding claim 13, Matsumoto teaches a system and method of processing substrates (Figure 1) that discloses at a semiconductor processing system including a front-end module connected to a load lock (Front end module 22 connected to load locks 16/18 in Figure 1), a process module coupled to the front-end module by the load lock (Process module 14/32/34/36/38), a purge/vent fluid inlet conduit connected to the load lock (Vacuum created in the load lock per ¶ 39); transferring a substrate carrying substrate moisture from the front-end module into the load lock (atmospheric moisture in 22); and transferring the substrate from the load lock to the process module for processing using the process module (Evident from ¶ 43).
Matsumoto is silent with respect to a heater element coupled to the load lock by the purge/vent fluid inlet conduit and a controller operably connected to the heater element and responsive to instructions recorded on a non-transitory machine-readable medium to; heat a purge/vent fluid using the heater element; flow the heated purge/vent fluid into the load lock using the purge/vent fluid inlet conduit; remove the substrate moisture from the load lock using the heated purge/vent fluid.
However, Reuter teaches a substrate manufacturing system that discloses a heater element coupled to a sealed body by the purge/vent fluid inlet conduit (Heater 126 per ¶ 30 and 48) and a controller operably connected to the heater element and responsive to instructions recorded on a non-transitory machine-readable medium(Controller 125 in Figure 1 and ¶ 55); heating a purge/vent fluid using the heater element (¶ 30 and 48); flowing the heated purge/vent fluid into the sealed body using the purge/vent fluid inlet conduit (Evident from Figure 1 and ¶ 30); removing the substrate moisture from the sealed body using the heated purge/vent fluid (¶ 30). The resultant combination would apply the heated purge/vent fluid of Reuter to the purging of the load lock of Matsumoto to assist in drying the substrate.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the load lock venting of Matsumoto with the heated purging of Reuter to assist in drying the substrate per Reuters ¶ 30.
Matsumoto, per Reuter, is silent with respect to the heater being arranged along or within the purge/vent fluid inlet conduit outside of the load lock and heating a purge/vent fluid outside of the load lock.
However, Chen teaches a substrate processing system with a load lock heater that discloses the heater being arranged along or within the purge/vent fluid inlet conduit outside of the load lock (Heater 62 connected to the purge/vent fluid conduit 76 which is connected to the load lock section 52 per Figure 2 and ¶ 30) and heating a purge/vent fluid outside of the load lock (¶ 30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the location of the heater of Matsumoto/Reuter with the location taught by Chen since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 16, Matsumoto’s modified teachings are described above in claim 13 where the combination of Matsumoto and Reuter would further disclose a purge/vent fluid source fluidly coupled to the purge/vent fluid inlet conduit and therethrough to an interior of the load lock (Source 109 of Reuter).
Regarding claim 19, Matsumoto’s modified teachings are described above in claim 13 where the combination of Matsumoto and Reuter would further disclose a front-end gate valve coupling the front-end module to the load lock (Gate valve “G” between 22 and 16 of Matsumoto); a back-end gate valve coupling the load lock to the process module and(Gate valve “G” between 14 and 16 of Matsumoto); an evacuation pump coupled to an interior of the load lock; wherein the instructions further cause the controller to remove evaporated moisture from the interior of the load lock through at least one of the front-end gate valve, the back-end gate valve, and the evacuation pump (Through evacuation pump of Matsumoto).
Regarding claim 20, Matsumoto teaches a system and method of processing substrates (Figure 1) that discloses a purge/vent fluid inlet conduit coupled to a load lock (); and a computer program product comprising a non-transitory machine-readable medium having a plurality of program modules recorded on the medium containing instructions that, when read by a processor (Inherent operation of the substrate treatment system that moves substrates from 22 to 16 to 14/32/34/36/38 to 18 then back to 22 in Figure 1), cause the processor to: transfer a substrate carrying substrate moisture from a front-end module of the semiconductor processing system into the load lock (Front end module 22 leading to 16/18 with atmospheric moisture in 22); remove the substrate moisture from the load lock using the heated purge/vent fluid (¶ 39); and transfer the substrate from the load lock to a process module of the semiconductor processing system for processing using the process module (Evident from ¶ 43 with process module 14/32/34/36/38).
Matsumoto is silent with respect to a heater element configured to be connected to a purge/vent fluid inlet conduit and thermally coupled therethrough to a load lock of the semiconductor processing system, the program able to heat a purge/vent fluid using the heater element; flow the heated purge/vent fluid into the load lock using the purge/vent fluid inlet conduit
However, Reuter teaches a substrate manufacturing system that discloses a heater element coupled to a sealed body by the purge/vent fluid inlet conduit (Heater 126 per ¶ 30 and 48) and a controller operably connected to the heater element and responsive to instructions recorded on a non-transitory machine-readable medium (Controller 125 in Figure 1 and ¶ 55); heating a purge/vent fluid using the heater element (¶ 30 and 48); flowing the heated purge/vent fluid into the sealed body using the purge/vent fluid inlet conduit (Evident from Figure 1 and ¶ 30); removing the substrate moisture from the sealed body using the heated purge/vent fluid (¶ 30). The resultant combination would apply the heated purge/vent fluid of Reuter to the purging of the load lock of Matsumoto to assist in drying the substrate.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the load lock venting of Matsumoto with the heated purging of Reuter to assist in drying the substrate per Reuters ¶ 30.
Matsumoto, per Reuter, is silent with respect to the heater being arranged along or within the purge/vent fluid inlet conduit outside of the load lock and heating a purge/vent fluid outside of the load lock.
However, Chen teaches a substrate processing system with a load lock heater that discloses the heater being arranged along or within the purge/vent fluid inlet conduit outside of the load lock (Heater 62 connected to the purge/vent fluid conduit 76 which is connected to the load lock section 52 per Figure 2 and ¶ 30) and heating a purge/vent fluid outside of the load lock (¶ 30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the location of the heater of Matsumoto/Reuter with the location taught by Chen since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2012/0135612 (Matsumoto) in view of US 2019/0362989 (Reuter) in view of US 2005/028472 (Chen) and further in view of US 7837799 (Bangert hereinafter).
Regarding claim 3, Matsumoto’s modified teachings are described above in claim 1 but are silent with respect that the load lock comprises an electric cartridge heater seated in a wall or an external heater, the method further comprising heating the load lock using the electric cartridge heater or the external heater. The current combination does allow for the heater of Reuter to heat the load lock chamber of Matsumoto.
However, Bangert teaches a system for treating a substrate that discloses the use of electric heating cartridge heaters (Column 3 Lines 39-40). The resultant combination would be such that the load lock comprises an electric cartridge heater seated in a wall or an external heater (use of Bangert’s electric heating cartridge for the heater of Reuter as applied to Matsumoto), the method further comprising heating the load lock using the electric cartridge heater or the external heater (Inherent operation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to replace the unspecified heater of Bangert with the electric cartridge heater of Bangert via simple substitution to provide the well-known and predictable result of heating the load lock chamber and purge fluid.
Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2012/0135612 (Matsumoto) in view of US 2019/0362989 (Reuter) in view of US 2005/028472 (Chen) and further in view of US 2008/0254599 (Kelkar hereinafter).
Regarding claim 4, Matsumoto’s modified teachings are described above in claim 1 but are silent with respect to a purge/vent fluid inlet valve arranged along the purge/vent fluid inlet conduit and operatively associated with the controller, the method further comprising closing the purge/vent fluid inlet valve prior to transferring the substrate to the process module.
However, Kelkar teaches a substrate processing system that discloses a purge/vent fluid inlet valve arranged along the purge/vent fluid inlet conduit and operatively associated with the controller (Figure 1 with valve 56 and ¶ 29-31), the method further comprising closing the purge/vent fluid inlet valve prior to transferring the substrate to the process module (¶ 29-31).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the purge/venting system of Matsumoto with the valve and control of Kelkar to ensure that the load lock chamber is kept at the designed pressure.
Regarding claim 14, Matsumoto’s modified teachings are described above in claim 13 but are silent with respect to a purge/vent fluid inlet valve arranged along the purge/vent fluid inlet conduit.
However, Kelkar teaches a substrate processing system that discloses a purge/vent fluid inlet valve arranged along the purge/vent fluid inlet conduit (Figure 1 with valve 56 and ¶ 29-31).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the purge/venting system of Matsumoto with the valve and control of Kelkar to ensure that the load lock chamber is kept at the designed pressure
Claims 5, 15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2012/0135612 (Matsumoto) in view of US 2019/0362989 (Reuter) in view of US 2005/028472 (Chen) and further in view of US 2017/0345609 (Saito hereinafter).
Regarding claim 5, Matsumoto’s modified teachings are described above in claim 1 but are silent with respect to the semiconductor processing system further comprises a purge/vent fluid inlet mass flow controller (MFC) arranged along the purge/vent fluid inlet conduit and operatively associated with the controller, and wherein flowing the heated purge/vent fluid includes throttling mass flow of the purge/vent fluid using the purge/vent fluid inlet MFC.
However, Saito teaches a vacuum exhaust control system for a substrate processing system that discloses a purge/vent fluid inlet mass flow controller (MFC) arranged along the purge/vent fluid inlet conduit and operatively associated with the controller (¶ 40), and wherein flowing the heated purge/vent fluid includes throttling mass flow of the purge/vent fluid using the purge/vent fluid inlet MFC (¶ 40).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the purge/vent line of Matsumoto with the MFC of Saito to ensure that the outflow is operating as required.
Regarding claim 15, Matsumoto’s modified teachings are described above in claim 13 but are silent with respect to a purge/vent fluid inlet mass flow controller arranged along the purge/vent fluid inlet conduit and operatively associated with the controller.
However, Saito teaches a vacuum exhaust control system for a substrate processing system that discloses a purge/vent fluid inlet mass flow controller arranged along the purge/vent fluid inlet conduit and operatively associated with the controller (¶ 40).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the purge/vent line of Matsumoto with the MFC of Saito to ensure that the outflow is operating as required.
Regarding claim 17, Matsumoto’s modified teachings are described above in claim 13 where Matsumoto and Reuter further discloses an evacuation conduit connected to the load lock (Vacuum pump of Matsumoto per ¶ 39 and the conduit leading to said vacuum pump); an evacuation pump connected to the evacuation conduit and fluidly coupled therethrough to an interior of the load lock (Matsumoto ¶ 39).
Matsumoto is silent with respect to an evacuation mass flow controller (MFC) arranged along the evacuation conduit and operably associated with the controller.
However, Saito teaches a vacuum exhaust control system for a substrate processing system that discloses a purge/vent fluid inlet mass flow controller arranged along the purge/vent fluid inlet conduit and operatively associated with the controller (¶ 40).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the purge/vent line of Matsumoto with the MFC of Saito to ensure that the outflow is operating as required.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2012/0135612 (Matsumoto) in view of US 2019/0362989 (Reuter) in view of US 2005/028472 (Chen) and further in view of US 2011/0240462 (Yamazaki hereinafter).
Regarding claim 10, Matsumoto’s modified teachings are described above in claim 1 but are silent with respect that the substrate moisture consists of adsorbed water resident on the substrate.
However, Yamazaki teaches a substrate processing assembly that discloses the removal of adsorbed water from the substrate in the load lock chamber (¶ 167). The resultant combination would be such that the substrate moisture consists of adsorbed water resident on the substrate.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the operation of Matsumoto and Reuter with the adsorbed water removal of Yamazaki to ensure that the substrate is free from water/moisture that is not desired/required.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2012/0135612 (Matsumoto) in view of US 2019/0362989 (Reuter) in view of US 2005/028472 (Chen) and further in view of CN 101061253 (Thakur hereinafter).
Regarding claim 11, Matsumoto’s modified teachings are described above in claim 1 but are silent with respect that the substrate is an unprocessed substrate, the method further comprising: flowing one or more of a residual precursor, residual etchant, and a reaction product from the process module into the load lock; condensing the one or more of the residual precursor, the residual etchant, and the reaction product within the load lock; evaporating the condensed one or more of the residual precursor, the residual etchant, and the reaction product using the heated purge/vent fluid; and removing the evaporated one or more of the residual precursor, the residual etchant, and the reaction product from the load lock using the heated purge/vent fluid.
However, Thakur teaches a method of processing a substrate that discloses flowing one or more of a residual precursor, residual etchant, and a reaction product from the process module into the load lock (Precursor per “In another embodiment, the precursor recirculation system 560 continuously recycling through liquid precursor a certain amount of liquid precursor to provide a continuously flowing through the evaporator 530. the recycling program typically by an amount of the remaining of the recycling bottle 561 liquid precursor "A" into the evaporator 530 to complete, then changing to the recycling bottle 561, which is condensed and collected again, it can again be directed through the evaporator 530. In one aspect of the invention, by maintaining the recirculation system 560 of the continuous liquid stream, even when the full cylinder 543 so as to avoid damage to chamber hardware, generates particles and/or with " fresh " precursor to supplement the recycled bottle 561 in some portion of the precursor. In another aspect of the invention, a recycle program flows into the evaporator 530 before the liquid precursor from the ampoule 520 during or after termination.”); condensing the one or more of the residual precursor, the residual etchant, and the reaction product within the load lock (See quote above of Thakur). The resultant combination would further include the finishing steps of evaporating the condensed one or more of the residual precursor, the residual etchant, and the reaction product using the heated purge/vent fluid (Heating of the purge fluid from Reuter); and removing the evaporated one or more of the residual precursor, the residual etchant, and the reaction product from the load lock using the heated purge/vent fluid (Combination of Matsumoto and Reuter).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the operation of Matsumoto/Reuter with the method of Thakur to ensure that the substrate is properly treated and ready for finishing or further treatments.
Claims 12 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2012/0135612 (Matsumoto) in view of US 2019/0362989 (Reuter) in view of US 2005/028472 (Chen) and further in view of US 2004/0187452 (Edo hereinafter).
Regarding claim 12, Matsumoto’s modified teachings are described above in claim 1 but are silent with respect that the semiconductor processing system further comprises a hygrometer fluidly coupled to the load lock and disposed in communication with the controller, wherein flowing the heated purge/vent fluid to the load lock comprises: acquiring a dew point measurement from an interior of the load lock using the hygrometer; comparing the dew point measurement to a predetermined dew point value using the controller; increasing mass flow of the heated purge/vent fluid admitted to the load lock when the dew point measurement is greater than the predetermined dew point value; and decreasing mass flow of the heated purge/vent fluid admitted to the load lock when the dew point measurement is less than the predetermined dew point value.
However, Edo teaches a load lock system and method of manufacturing a substrate that discloses a hygrometer fluidly coupled to the load lock and disposed in communication with the controller, wherein flowing the heated purge/vent fluid to the load lock comprises: acquiring a dew point measurement from an interior of the load lock using the hygrometer (Edo ¶ 50); comparing the dew point measurement to a predetermined dew point value using the controller (Edo ¶ 57); increasing mass flow of the heated purge/vent fluid admitted to the load lock when the dew point measurement is greater than the predetermined dew point value (Edo ¶ 57); and decreasing mass flow of the heated purge/vent fluid admitted to the load lock when the dew point measurement is less than the predetermined dew point value (¶ 57).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the load lock system of Matsumoto and Reuter with the hygrometer and control of Edo to ensure that the load lock environment in a correct condition for operation.
Regarding claim 18, Matsumoto’s modified teachings are described above in claim 1 but are silent with respect to a hygrometer fluidly coupled to the load lock and disposed in communication with the controller, wherein the instructions further cause the controller to: acquire a dew point measurement from an interior of the load lock using the hygrometer; compare the dew point measurement to a predetermined dew point value using the controller; increase mass flow of the heated purge/vent fluid admitted to the load lock when the dew point measurement is greater than the predetermined dew point value; and decrease mass flow of the heated purge/vent fluid admitted to the load lock when the dew point measurement is less than the predetermined dew point value.
However, Edo teaches a load lock system and method of manufacturing a substrate that discloses a hygrometer fluidly coupled to the load lock and disposed in communication with the controller, wherein flowing the heated purge/vent fluid to the load lock comprises: acquiring a dew point measurement from an interior of the load lock using the hygrometer (Edo ¶ 50); comparing the dew point measurement to a predetermined dew point value using the controller (Edo ¶ 57); increasing mass flow of the heated purge/vent fluid admitted to the load lock when the dew point measurement is greater than the predetermined dew point value (Edo ¶ 57); and decreasing mass flow of the heated purge/vent fluid admitted to the load lock when the dew point measurement is less than the predetermined dew point value (¶ 57).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the load lock system of Matsumoto and Reuter with the hygrometer and control of Edo to ensure that the load lock environment in a correct condition for operation.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
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 CONNOR J. TREMARCHE whose telephone number is (571)272-2175. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 0700-1700 Eastern.
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, MICHAEL HOANG can be reached at (571) 272-6460. 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.
/CONNOR J TREMARCHE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights