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 .
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s Amendment filed on 11/20/2025. Claims 1, 7-8, 18, and 29 have been amended. No new claims have been added or canceled. Claims 4-5 have been canceled. Claim 14 has been withdrawn. Currently, claims 1-15, 18-19, and 29-31 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 11/20/2025 have been considered but are moot as applied to the newly added claim limitations because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claims 1-9, 13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 20200144316, hereinafter “Kim I”) in view of Jang et al. (US 20210408094) and Hu et al. (US 9054007 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Kim I teaches, in Fig. 6 separately, an image sensor (100C, [0074]) comprising:
a pixel division structure (130C, [0075]) extending through a substrate (110, [0076]) in a vertical direction, the vertical direction being substantially perpendicular to an upper surface of the substrate (110F1, [0076]) (see Fig. 6), the pixel division structure (130C) defining unit pixel regions in which unit pixels are respectively formed (PX) (see Fig. 6, [0032]),
a light sensing element (120, [0060]) in each of the unit pixel regions (PX);
a color filter array layer (layer of left and right 166) on the substrate (110), the color filter array layer comprising color filters (166, [0047]); and
a microlens (168, [0047]) on the color filter array layer (layer of 166),
wherein the pixel division structure comprises:
a core (134C and 136C) (see Fig. 6); and
a lateral pattern structure (132, [0066]) on a sidewall (left and right sides) of the core (134C/136C),
wherein the core comprises:
a first filling pattern (136C; [0076]) comprising polysilicon doped with p-type impurities or n-type impurities at a first impurity concentration ([0076], p-type dopant); and
a second filling pattern (134C; [0066], [0075]; labelled as 134A in Fig. 4) in a space formed by the first filling pattern (136C) (see Fig. 6), a sidewall of the second filling pattern (134C) being covered by the first filling pattern (136C) (see Fig. 6, [0072]), and the second filling pattern (134C) comprising polysilicon doped with p-type impurities or n-type impurities at a second impurity concentration ([0066], p-type dopant).
Kim I does not teach that the core comprises a first portion comprising only the first filling pattern and a second portion comprising both the first filling pattern and the second filling pattern, and that the first portion and the second portion are defined by a boundary of the second filling pattern, in a plan view.
In a similar field of endeavor, Jang teaches, in Fig. 12, that the core comprises a first portion (1220, [0206]) comprising only the first filling pattern (1200, [0200]) and a second portion (1210, [0205]) comprising both the first filling pattern (1200) and the second filling pattern (T1-T4, Figs. 12-13, [0012], [0065], [0077]) (see Fig. 12), and that the first portion (1220) and the second portion (1210) are defined by a boundary of the second filling pattern (T1-T4), in a plan view ([0201], see Fig. 12 how second portion 1210 is located at the grid vertex points defined by T1-T4 while the first portion 1220 is the rest of the pixel division structure), because this configuration allows the pixel division structure to have conductive contacts while also reducing crosstalk noise ([0202], [0204], [0208]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the pixel division structure of Kim I with the first portion and second portion pattern of Jang, because this configuration allows the pixel division structure to have conductive contacts while also reducing crosstalk noise ([0202], [0204], [0208]).
However, Kim I in view of Jang does not explicitly teach that the second impurity concentration is different from the first impurity concentration. Nonetheless, the skilled artisan would know too that the concentrations would impact dark current (Hu; col. 4, lines 50-60).
The specific claimed concentrations, absent any criticality, is only considered to be the “optimum” concentrations disclosed by Kim I in view of Jang and Hu that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been able to determine using routine experimentation (see In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)) based, among other things, on the desired dark current level, manufacturing costs, etc. (see In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), and since neither non-obvious nor unexpected results, i.e. results which are different in kind and not in degree from the results of the prior art, will be obtained as long as the second impurity concentration being different from the first impurity concentration is used, as already suggested by Kim I in view of Jang and Hu.
Since the applicant has not established the criticality (see next paragraph) of the concentrations stated and since these concentrations are in common use in similar devices in the art, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use these values in the device of Kim I in view of Jang and Hu.
Please note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed concentrations or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 2, Kim I in view of Jang and Hu teaches the limitations of claim 1. Kim I in view of Jang and Hu does not explicitly teach that the first impurity concentration is greater than the second impurity concentration. Nonetheless, the skilled artisan would know too that the concentrations would impact dark current (Hu; col. 4, lines 50-60).
The specific claimed concentrations, absent any criticality, is only considered to be the “optimum” concentrations disclosed by Kim I in view of Jang and Hu that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been able to determine using routine experimentation (see In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)) based, among other things, on the desired dark current level, manufacturing costs, etc. (see In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), and since neither non-obvious nor unexpected results, i.e. results which are different in kind and not in degree from the results of the prior art, will be obtained as long as the first impurity concentration being greater than the second impurity concentration is used, as already suggested by Kim I in view of Jang and Hu.
Since the applicant has not established the criticality (see next paragraph) of the concentrations stated and since these concentrations are in common use in similar devices in the art, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use these values in the device of Kim I in view of Jang and Hu.
Please note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed concentrations or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 3, Kim in view of Jang and Hu teaches the limitations of claim 1. Kim in view of Jang and Hu does not explicitly teach that the second impurity concentration is greater than the first impurity concentration. Nonetheless, the skilled artisan would know too that the concentrations would impact dark current (Hu; col. 4, lines 50-60).
The specific claimed concentrations, absent any criticality, is only considered to be the “optimum” concentrations disclosed by Kim I in view of Jang and Hu that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been able to determine using routine experimentation (see In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)) based, among other things, on the desired dark current level, manufacturing costs, etc. (see In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), and since neither non-obvious nor unexpected results, i.e. results which are different in kind and not in degree from the results of the prior art, will be obtained as long as the second impurity concentration being greater than the first impurity concentration is used, as already suggested by Kim I in view of Jang and Hu.
Since the applicant has not established the criticality (see next paragraph) of the concentrations stated and since these concentrations are in common use in similar devices in the art, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use these values in the device of Kim I in view of Jang and Hu.
Please note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed concentrations or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 4, Kim I in view of Jang and Hu teaches the limitations of claim 1. Kim I further teaches that the p-type impurities or n-type impurities of the first filling pattern (136C in Fig. 6, [0071]) are substantially the same as the p-type impurities or n-type impurities of the second filling pattern (134C in Fig. 6, labelled as 134A in Fig. 4, [0066]).
Regarding claim 5, Kim I in view of Jang and Hu teaches the limitations of claim 1. Kim I, in Figure 6, further teaches that a width of the second filling pattern (134C) gradually increases in the vertical direction from a top of the second filling pattern toward a bottom of the second filling pattern (see Fig. 6, [0037]).
Regarding claim 6, Kim I in view of Jang and Hu teaches the limitations of claim 5. Kim I further teaches, in Fig. 6, that a thickness of a portion of the first filling pattern (136C) contacting the second filling pattern (134C) gradually decreases in the vertical direction from a top of the first filling pattern toward a bottom of the first filling pattern (see Fig. 6, [0076]).
Regarding claim 7, Kim I in view of Jang and Hu teaches the limitations of claim 1. Jang further teaches, in Fig. 12, that a minimum width of a portion of the pixel division structure (1200) corresponding to the second portion of the core (covered by 1210) is greater than a minimum width of a portion of the pixel division structure corresponding to the first portion of the core (1220) (see how width of T1 is greater than w1).
Regarding claim 8, Kim I in view of Jang and Hu teaches the limitations of claim 7. Kim I further teaches, in Fig. 1, that the pixel division structure (130B, [0032], labelled as 130 in Fig. 1) has a lattice shape in a plan view (see Fig. 1), that wherein the unit pixel regions (PX) are spaced apart from each other by the pixel division structure (130) in a first direction (x-direction) and a second direction (y-direction) substantially parallel to the upper surface of the substrate (x-y plane).
Jang further teaches, in Fig. 12, that the second portion of the core (covered by 1210) is disposed among four unit pixel regions adjacent to one another (see Fig. 12, [0065]).
Regarding claim 9, Kim I in view of Jang and Hu teaches the limitations of claim 1. Kim I further teaches that at least one of the first filling pattern and the second filling pattern comprises carbon or oxygen ([0035], second filling pattern 134C comprises carbon or oxygen).
Regarding claim 13, Kim I in view of Jang and Hu teaches the limitations of claim 1. Kim I further teaches, in Fig. 6, that the lateral pattern structure (132) comprises a single layer comprising an oxide ([0034]).
Regarding claim 15, Kim I in view of Jang and Hu teaches the limitations of claim 1. Kim I further teaches, in Fig. 6, that the core and the lateral pattern structure form a first filling pattern structure, and that the pixel division structure further comprises a second filling pattern structure (140, [0039]) under the first filling pattern structure (see Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 31, Kim I in view of Jang teaches the limitations of claim 29, as described below. Kim I further teaches, in Fig. 6, that the first filling pattern (136C) comprises polysilicon doped with p-type impurities or n-type impurities at a first impurity concentration ([0076], p-type dopant), and wherein the second filling pattern (134C) comprises polysilicon doped with p-type impurities or n-type impurities at a second impurity concentration ([0066]).
However, Kim I in view of Jang does not explicitly teach that that the second impurity concentration is different from the first impurity concentration. Nonetheless, the skilled artisan would know too that the concentrations would impact dark current (Hu; col. 4, lines 50-60).
The specific claimed concentrations, absent any criticality, is only considered to be the “optimum” concentrations disclosed by Kim I in view of Jang and Hu that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been able to determine using routine experimentation (see In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)) based, among other things, on the desired dark current level, manufacturing costs, etc. (see In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), and since neither non-obvious nor unexpected results, i.e. results which are different in kind and not in degree from the results of the prior art, will be obtained as long as the second impurity concentration being different from the first impurity concentration is used, as already suggested by Kim I in view of Jang and Hu.
Since the applicant has not established the criticality (see next paragraph) of the concentrations stated and since these concentrations are in common use in similar devices in the art, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use these values in the device of Kim I in view of Jang and Hu.
Please note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed concentrations or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 20200144316, hereinafter “Kim I”) in view of Jang et al. (US 20210408094) and Hu et al. (US 9054007 B2), and further in view of Kao et al. (US 12278250 B2).
Regarding claim 10, Kim I in view of Jang and Hu teaches the limitations of claim 1. Kim I in view of Jang and Hu does not explicitly teach that the lateral pattern structure comprises a first lateral pattern and a second lateral pattern stacked from the sidewall of the core, and that the first lateral pattern and the second lateral pattern comprise a nitride and an oxide, respectively.
In a similar field of endeavor, Kao teaches, in Fig. 1A, that that the lateral pattern structure comprises a first lateral pattern (116) and a second lateral pattern (117) stacked from the sidewall of the core (P1a) (col. 5, lines 55-65) (see Fig. 1A), and that the first lateral pattern and the second lateral pattern comprise a nitride (col. 16, lines 5-10) and an oxide (col. 16, lines 15-20), respectively, for the purpose of “avoiding issues such as dark current” (col. 19, lines 5-20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the image sensor of Kim I in view of Jang and Hu with the lateral pattern structure of Kao, in order to avoid issues such as dark current.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 20200144316, hereinafter “Kim I”) in view of Jang et al. (US 20210408094), Hu et al. (US 9054007 B2), and Kao et al. (US 12278250 B2), and further in view of Chou et al. (US 10964746).
Regarding claim 11, Kim I in view of Jang, Hu, and Kao teaches the limitations of claim 10. Kao further teaches that the first lateral pattern (116) comprises silicon nitride (col. 16, lines 5-10).
Kim I in view of Jang, Hu, and Kao does not explicitly teach that the pixel division structure further comprises a seed pattern between the first lateral pattern and the first filling pattern.
In a similar field of endeavor, Chou, in Fig. 2C, teaches that the pixel division structure (212C; col. 5, lines 1-10) further comprises a seed pattern (266) between the first lateral pattern (254) and the first filling pattern (218C) (col. 5, lines 15-25), so that it “promotes tungsten deposition within the high-aspect-ratio deep trench” (col. 5, lines 15-25).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the image sensor of Kim I in view of Jang, Hu, and Kao with the seed pattern of Chou, in order to promote deposition of the first filling pattern within the trench.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 20200144316, hereinafter “Kim I”) in view of Jang et al. (US 20210408094), Hu et al. (US 9054007 B2), Kao et al. (US 12278250 B2), and Chou et al. (US 10964746), and further in view of Song (US 7795050).
Regarding claim 12, Kim I in view of Jang, Hu, Kao, and Chou teaches the limitations of claim 11. Kim I in view of Jang, Hu, Kao, and Chou does not teach that the seed pattern comprises silicon carbonitride.
In a similar field of endeavor, Song teaches, in Fig. 1B, that the seed pattern (110a) comprises silicon carbonitride (col. 5, lines 25-30) (col. 10, lines 1-20; col. 9, lines 30-35; col. 8, lines 35-55; where 100 is the first filling pattern, 110a is the seed pattern, 110b is the second lateral pattern, and 120 and 130 is the first lateral pattern), because it “primarily assists the growth of the multifunctional substrate, which is essentially required for the growth of the single-crystal nitride-based semiconductor substrate” (col. 3, lines 10-20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the image sensor of Kim I in view of Jang, Hu, Kao, and Chou with the seed pattern material of Song, in order to assist the growth of the first lateral pattern comprising silicon nitride.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 20200144316, hereinafter “Kim I”) in view of Jang et al. (US 20210408094) and Hu et al. (US 9054007 B2), and further in view of Kim (US 20200279877, hereinafter “Kim II”).
Regarding claim 14, Kim I in view of Jang and Hu teaches the limitations of claim 1. Kim I in view of Jang and Hu does not teach that a center portion of a lower surface of the core protrudes in an upward direction.
In a similar field of endeavor, Kim II teaches, in Figs. 5-6, that a center portion of a lower surface (top surface) of the core (140, [0058]) protrudes in an upward (downward) direction (see Fig. 6, [0059]), in order to make “image sensors having improved electrical and/or optical characteristics” ([0002]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the image sensor of Kim I in view of Jang and Hu with the lower surface of the core of Kim II, in order to make image sensors having improved electrical and/or optical characteristics.
Claims 18-19 and 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 20200144316, hereinafter “Kim I”) in view of Hu et al. (US 9054007 B2).
Regarding claim 18, Kim I teaches, in Fig. 6, an image sensor (100C, [0074]) comprising:
a pixel division structure (130C, [0075]) extending through a substrate (110, [0076]) in a vertical direction, the vertical direction being substantially perpendicular to an upper surface of the substrate (110F1, [0076]) (see Fig. 6), the pixel division structure (130C) defining unit pixel regions in which unit pixels are respectively formed (PX) (see Fig. 6, [0032]),
a light sensing element (120, [0060]) in each of the unit pixel regions (PX);
a color filter array layer (layer of left and right 166) on the substrate (110), the color filter array layer comprising color filters (166, [0047]); and
a microlens (168, [0047]) on the color filter array layer (layer of 166),
wherein the pixel division structure comprises:
a core (134C and 136C) (see Fig. 6); and
a lateral pattern structure (132, [0066]) on a sidewall (left and right sides) of the core (134C/136C), and
wherein the core comprises:
a first filling pattern (136C) comprising a conductive material ([0076]); and
a second filling pattern (134C, [0075]) in a space formed by the first filling pattern (136C) (see Fig. 6), a sidewall of the second filling pattern (134C) being covered by the first filling pattern (136C) (see Fig. 6),
wherein a thickness of a portion of the first filling pattern (136C) contacting the second filling pattern (134C) gradually decreases in the vertical direction from a top of the first filling pattern toward a bottom of the first filling pattern (see Fig. 6, [0076]).
Kim I does not teach that the core comprises a first portion comprising only the first filling pattern and a second portion comprising both the first filling pattern and the second filling pattern, and that the first portion and the second portion are defined by a boundary of the second filling pattern, in a plan view.
In a similar field of endeavor, Jang teaches, in Fig. 12, that the core comprises a first portion (1220, [0206]) comprising only the first filling pattern (1200, [0200]) and a second portion (1210, [0205]) comprising both the first filling pattern (1200) and the second filling pattern (T1-T4, Figs. 12-13, [0012], [0065], [0077]) (see Fig. 12), and that the first portion (1220) and the second portion (1210) are defined by a boundary of the second filling pattern (T1-T4), in a plan view ([0201], see Fig. 12 how second portion 1210 is located at the grid vertex points defined by T1-T4 while the first portion 1220 is the rest of the pixel division structure), because this configuration allows the pixel division structure to have conductive contacts while also reducing crosstalk noise ([0202], [0204], [0208]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the pixel division structure of Kim I with the first portion and second portion pattern of Jang, because this configuration allows the pixel division structure to have conductive contacts while also reducing crosstalk noise ([0202], [0204], [0208]).
Regarding claim 19, Kim I in view of Jang teaches the limitations of claim 18. Kim I, in Fig. 6, further teaches that a width of the second filling pattern (134C) gradually increases in the vertical direction from a top of the second filling pattern toward a bottom of the second filling pattern (see Fig. 6, [0037]).
Regarding claim 29, Kim I teaches, in Fig. 6, a pixel division structure (130C, [0075]) extending through a substrate (110, [0076]) in a vertical direction, the vertical direction being substantially perpendicular to an upper surface of the substrate (110F1, [0076]) (see Fig. 6), the pixel division structure (130C) defining unit pixel regions in which unit pixels are respectively formed (PX) (see Fig. 6, [0032]),
a light sensing element (120, [0060]) in each of the unit pixel regions (PX);
a color filter array layer (layer of left and right 166) on the substrate (110), the color filter array layer comprising color filters (166, [0047]); and
a microlens (168, [0047]) on the color filter array layer (layer of 166),
wherein the pixel division structure comprises:
a core (134C and 136C) (see Fig. 6); and
a lateral pattern structure (132, [0066]) on a sidewall (left and right sides) of the core (134C/136C), and
wherein the core comprises a first filling pattern (136C) comprising a conductive material ([0076]) and a sidewall of the second filling pattern (134C, [0075]) being covered by the first filling pattern (136C) (see Fig. 6).
Kim I does not teach the core comprises a first portion and a second portion, wherein the first portion of the core comprises only the first filling pattern, wherein the second portion of the core comprises the first filling pattern and the second filling pattern, and that the first portion and the second portion are defined by a boundary of the second filling pattern, in a plan view.
In a similar field of endeavor, Jang teaches, in Fig. 12, that the core comprises a first portion (1220, [0206]) and a second portion (1210, [0205]), wherein the first portion of the core comprises only the first filling pattern (1200, [0200]), wherein the second portion (1210) of the core comprises both the first filling pattern (1200) and the second filling pattern (T1-T4, Figs. 12-13, [0012], [0065], [0077]) (see Fig. 12), and that the first portion (1220) and the second portion (1210) are defined by a boundary of the second filling pattern (T1-T4), in a plan view ([0201], see Fig. 12 how second portion 1210 is located at the grid vertex points defined by T1-T4 while the first portion 1220 is the rest of the pixel division structure), because this configuration allows the pixel division structure to have conductive contacts while also reducing crosstalk noise ([0202], [0204], [0208]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the pixel division structure of Kim I with the first portion and second portion pattern of Jang, because this configuration allows the pixel division structure to have conductive contacts while also reducing crosstalk noise ([0202], [0204], [0208]).
Regarding claim 30, Kim I in view of Jang teaches the limitations of claim 29. Jang further teaches, in Fig. 12, that a minimum width of a portion of the pixel division structure (1200) corresponding to the second portion of the core (covered by 1210) is greater than a minimum width of a portion of the pixel division structure corresponding to the first portion of the core (1220) (see how width of T1 is greater than w1).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kim et al. (US 20180286896), in Figs. 1, 3, and 6B, teaches at least most of the limitations of claims 18 and 29.
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 ERIKA HEERA SON whose telephone number is (703)756-4644. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 11:30-8:30 PM ET.
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, Yara Green can be reached on 571-270-3035. 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.
/ERIKA H SON/Examiner, Art Unit 2893
/YARA B GREEN/Supervisor Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2893