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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 24 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 5 of claim 24, the term “whrein” is misspelled. The correct spelling is –wherein--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 6 and 25 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
On page 3, lines 1-2, claim 6 recites the limitation, “wherein a combined thickness of the second layer, the transition region, and the third layer is less than 200 nm”. There is no support for this limitation. The specification fails to teach a specific combined thickness of “wherein a combined thickness of the second layer, the transition region, and the third layer is less than 200 nm”. In addition, the term “transition region” is not even used in the specification. The specification supports that the nickel fluoride coating layer 240 has a thickness of 200nm (par.[0031]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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) 1-2, 5, 7-10, 21-24, and 27-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Duan et al. al. (U.S. 2022/0181124) as evidenced by Narushima et al. (U.S. 2010/0081292).
Referring to Figures 1-2 and paragraphs [0028]-[0042], Duan et al. discloses a chamber component for a processing chamber, comprising: a substrate 210 and a first layer 215 disposed on the substrate, the first layer comprising a metal with a first atomic concentration (Fig. 2B, par.[0042], i.e. ENP layer); a second layer disposed on the first layer, the second layer comprising the metal with a second atomic concentration that is at least 5 percent higher than the first atomic concentration; a transition region between the first layer and wherein the second layer, wherein is formed by increasing concentration of the metal is continuously increased across the transition region from the first atomic concentration to the second atomic concentration, wherein the first layer, the second layer, and the transition region are seamlessly formed from a common layer.
With respect to the second layer formed by increasing the concentration of the metal, it is inherent that a second layer is formed from a common layer (i.e. first layer). Since the common layer 215 (i.e. first layer) is made from a electroless nickel plating (ENP) layer comprising phosphorus (par.[0057]) and is directly processed with fluorine gases such as NF3 (par.[0043]), then the resulting product from the chemical reaction of phosphorus and fluorine would yield a second layer comprising nickel (Ni) with a second atomic concentration that is at least 5 percent higher than the first atomic concentration. In other words, due to the chemical reaction between phosphorus and fluorine, when the phosphorus of the ENP layer is exposed to fluorine gas or fluorine radicals, the phosphorus is depleted which increases the concentration of nickel. Hence, with reduced phosphorus, a nickel layer with a higher concentration of nickel will form (i.e. purer nickel). Additionally, the transition region would occur because the fluorine radicals react at different rates to the top of layer versus the middle of the layer. Lastly, in paragraphs [0096] and [0098], Doan et al. indicate that after the ENP layer is exposed to fluorine radicals the ENP layer is changed to nickel phosphide and nickel (see last lines of pars.[0096],[0098]). Furthermore, on page 12, Table 3, Doan et al. shows that SEM observation shows of ENP layer a decrease in phosphorus levels and thus an increase in Ni concentration. Therefore, Doan et al. teaches a product that appears to be the same as, or an obvious variant of, the product set forth in a product-by-process claim although produced by a different process.
Furthermore, Narushima et al. gives evidence why a second layer of a pure nickel layer is desirable in a plasma processing chamber. Referring to Figure 1 and paragraphs [0041],[0055]-[0063], Narushima et al. teach a chamber component 31, 40 having a pure nickel layer 31c (i.e. second layer) comprising a metal with an atomic concentration at or above 99 percent (i.e. a second atomic concentration that is at least 5 percent higher than the first atomic concentration) since it improves corrosion resistance and reduces metal contamination in a plasma environment.
With respect to wherein a second layer disposed on the first layer, the second layer comprising the metal with a second atomic concentration that is at least 5 percent higher than the first atomic concentration; a transition region between the first layer and wherein the second layer, wherein is formed by increasing concentration of the metal is continuously increased across the transition region from the first atomic concentration to the second atomic concentration, wherein the first layer, the second layer, and the transition region are seamlessly formed from a common layer, this is considered a product by process limitation. Thus, even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. Therefore, the resulting apparatus of Duan et al. as evidenced by Narushima et al. would yield the product of a second layer disposed on the first layer, the second layer comprising the metal with a second atomic concentration that is at least 5 percent higher than the first atomic concentration; a transition region between the first layer and wherein the second layer, wherein is formed by increasing concentration of the metal is continuously increased across the transition region from the first atomic concentration to the second atomic concentration, wherein the first layer, the second layer, and the transition region are seamlessly formed from a common layer and hence satisfies the product-by-process claim limitation.
With respect to claim 2, the chamber component of Duan et al. as evidenced by Narushima et al. further includes wherein the metal comprises nickel (Duan et al.-par.[0042]).
With respect to claim 5, the chamber component of Duan et al. as evidenced by Narushima et al. further comprising: a third layer 230 disposed on the second layer, wherein the third layer comprises a nickel fluoride layer (Duan et al.-Fig. 2B, pars.[0040]-[0042]-Nickel fluoride layer is a top protective layer used in plasma fluorine environment).
With respect to claim 7, the chamber component of Duan et al. as evidenced by Narushima et al. further includes wherein the substrate comprises at least one of aluminum alloy, aluminum nitride (AIN), alumina (A12O3), nickel (Ni), stainless steel, nickel-chromium alloy, austenitic nickel-chromium-based superalloy, pure nickel, quartz, iron, cobalt, titanium, magnesium, copper, zinc, or chromium (Duan et al.-par.[0036]).
With respect to claim 8, the chamber component of Duan et al. in view of Narushima et al. and Okuda further includes wherein the second atomic concentration is at or above 97 percent (i.e. pure nickel-Narushima et al.-par.[0041]).
With respect to claim 9, the chamber component of Duan et al. as evidenced by Narushima et al. further includes wherein the second atomic concentration is at or above 99 percent (i.e. pure nickel-Narushima et al.-par.[0041], Additionally, it would be obvious to one ordinary skill in the art to optimize the second atomic concentration since reducing impurities yield the desired film properties. Thus, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)).
With respect to claim 10, the chamber component of Duan et al. as evidenced by Narushima et al. further includes wherein the substrate comprises a surface of a tool of a semiconductor processing chamber, and wherein the tool comprises at least one of a heater, an electrostatic chuck, a faceplate, a showerhead, a liner, a blocker plate, a gas box, an edge ring, or a bellows (Duan et al.-par.[0035]).
With respect to claim 21, referring to Figures 1-2 and paragraphs [0028]-[0042], Doan et al. disclose a processing chamber comprising: a chamber component (par.[0035]), comprising: a substrate 210; and a metal layer 215 disposed on the substrate, the metal layer comprising a first region with a first atomic concentration of a metal concentration (Fig. 2B, par.[0042], i.e. ENP layer).
With respect to a second region with a second atomic concentration of the metal that is at least 5 percent higher than the first atomic concentration, and (iii) a transition region having a continuous transition from the first atomic concentration to the second atomic concentration, it is inherent that a second region is formed from a first region. Since the first region 215 (i.e. first layer) is made from a electroless nickel plating (ENP) layer comprising phosphorus (par.[0057]) and is directly processed with fluorine gases such as NF3 (par.[0043]), then the resulting product from the chemical reaction of phosphorus and fluorine would yield a second region comprising nickel (Ni) with a second atomic concentration that is at least 5 percent higher than the first atomic concentration. In other words, due to the chemical reaction between phosphorus and fluorine, when the phosphorus of the ENP layer is exposed to fluorine gas or fluorine radicals, the phosphorus is depleted which increases the concentration of nickel. Hence, with reduced phosphorus, a nickel layer with a higher concentration of nickel will form (i.e. purer nickel). Additionally, the transition region would occur because the fluorine radicals react at different rates to the top of layer versus the middle of the layer. Lastly, in paragraphs [0096] and [0098], Doan et al. indicate that after the ENP layer is exposed to fluorine radicals the ENP layer is changed to nickel phosphide and nickel (see last lines of pars.[0096],[0098]). Furthermore, on page 12, Table 3, Doan et al. shows that SEM observation shows of ENP layer a decrease in phosphorus levels and thus an increase in Ni concentration. Therefore, Doan et al. teaches a product that appears to be the same as, or an obvious variant of, the product set forth in a product-by-process claim although produced by a different process.
Furthermore, Narushima et al. gives evidence why a second region of a pure nickel layer is desirable in a plasma processing chamber. Referring to Figure 1 and paragraphs [0041],[0055]-[0063], Narushima et al. teach a chamber component 31, 40 having a pure nickel layer 31c (i.e. second layer) comprising a metal with an atomic concentration at or above 99 percent (i.e. a second atomic concentration that is at least 5 percent higher than the first atomic concentration) since it improves corrosion resistance and reduces metal contamination in a plasma environment.
With respect to wherein a second region with a second atomic concentration of the metal that is at least 5 percent higher than the first atomic concentration, and (iii) a transition region having a continuous transition from the first atomic concentration to the second atomic concentration, this is considered a product by process limitation. Thus, even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. Therefore, the resulting apparatus of Duan et al. as evidenced by Narushima et al. would yield the product of a second region with a second atomic concentration of the metal that is at least 5 percent higher than the first atomic concentration, and (iii) a transition region having a continuous transition from the first atomic concentration to the second atomic concentration and hence satisfies the product-by-process claim limitation.
With respect to claim 22, the chamber component of Duan et al. in view of Narushima et al. and Okuda further includes wherein the second layer 31c faces an environment of the processing chamber (Fig. 1, Narushima et al.-par.[0041]).
With respect to claim 23, referring to Figures 1-2 and paragraphs [0028]-[0042], Duan et al. discloses a chamber component for a processing chamber, comprising: a substrate 210 and a first layer 215 disposed on the substrate, the first layer comprising a metal with a first atomic concentration (Fig. 2B, par.[0042]).
Duan et al. is silent on a second layer disposed on the first layer, the second layer comprising the metal with a second atomic concentration that is at least 5 percent higher than the first atomic concentration.
With respect to the second layer formed by increasing the concentration of the metal, it is inherent that a second layer is formed from a common layer (i.e. first layer). Since the common layer 215 (i.e. first layer) is made from a electroless nickel plating (ENP) layer comprising phosphorus (par.[0057]) and is directly processed with fluorine gases such as NF3 (par.[0043]), then the resulting product from the chemical reaction of phosphorus and fluorine would yield a second layer comprising nickel (Ni) with a second atomic concentration that is at least 5 percent higher than the first atomic concentration. In other words, due to the chemical reaction between phosphorus and fluorine, when the phosphorus of the ENP layer is exposed to fluorine gas or fluorine radicals, the phosphorus is depleted which increases the concentration of nickel. Hence, with reduced phosphorus, a nickel layer with a higher concentration of nickel will form (i.e. purer nickel). Lastly, in paragraphs [0096] and [0098], Doan et al. indicate that after the ENP layer is exposed to fluorine radicals the ENP layer is changed to nickel phosphide and nickel (see last lines of pars.[0096],[0098]). Furthermore, on page 12, Table 3, Doan et al. shows that SEM observation shows of ENP layer a decrease in phosphorus levels and thus an increase in Ni concentration. Therefore, Doan et al. teaches a product that appears to be the same as, or an obvious variant of, the product set forth in a product-by-process claim although produced by a different process.
Furthermore, Narushima et al. gives evidence why a second layer of a pure nickel layer is desirable in a plasma processing chamber. Referring to Figure 1 and paragraphs [0041],[0055]-[0063], Narushima et al. teach a chamber component 31, 40 having a pure nickel layer 31c (i.e. second layer) comprising a metal with an atomic concentration at or above 99 percent (i.e. a second atomic concentration that is at least 5 percent higher than the first atomic concentration) since it improves corrosion resistance and reduces metal contamination in a plasma environment.
With respect to wherein a second layer disposed on the first layer, the second layer comprising the metal with a second atomic concentration that is at least 5 percent higher than the first atomic concentration this is considered a product by process limitation. Thus, even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. Therefore, the resulting apparatus of Duan et al. as evidenced by Narushima et al. would yield the product of a second layer disposed on the first layer, the second layer comprising the metal with a second atomic concentration that is at least 5 percent higher than the first atomic concentration and hence satisfies the product-by-process claim limitation.
Additionally, the chamber component of Duan et al. further includes the chamber component of Duan et al. in view of Narushima et al. and Okuda further includes wherein the second layer interfaces with a third layer 230 comprising a nickel fluoride layer (Duan et al.-Fig. 2B, pars.[0040]-[0042]-Nickel fluoride layer is a top protective layer used in plasma fluorine environment).
With respect to claim 24, the chamber component of Duan et al. as evidenced by Narushima et al. further comprising: a transition region between the first layer and the second layer, wherein concentration of the metal is continuously increased across the transition region second layer is formed by increasing concentration of the metal, from the first atomic concentration to the second atomic concentration, and wherein the first layer, the second layer, and the transition region are formed from in a portion of a common layer (As stated above, Thus, even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production).
Therefore, the resulting apparatus of Duan et al. would yield the product of : a transition region between the first layer and the second layer, wherein concentration of the metal is continuously increased across the transition region second layer is formed by increasing concentration of the metal, from the first atomic concentration to the second atomic concentration, and wherein the first layer, the second layer, and the transition region are formed from in a portion of a common layer and hence satisfies the product-by-process claim limitation.
With respect to claim 27, the chamber component of Duan et al. as evidenced by Narushima et al. further includes wherein the substrate comprises at least one of aluminum alloy, aluminum nitride (AIN), alumina (A1203), nickel (Ni), stainless steel, nickel-chromium alloy, austenitic nickel-chromium-based superalloy, pure nickel, quartz, iron, cobalt, titanium, magnesium, copper, zinc, or chromium (Duan et al.-par.[0036]).
With respect to claim 28, the chamber component of Duan et al. as evidenced by Narushima et al. further includes wherein the second atomic concentration is above 97 percent (i.e. pure nickel-Narushima et al.-par.[0041]).
With respect to claim 29, the chamber component of Duan et al. as evidenced by Narushima et al. further includes wherein the second atomic concentration is at or above 99 percent (i.e. pure nickel-Narushima et al.-par.[0041], Additionally, it would be obvious to one ordinary skill in the art to optimize the second atomic concentration since reducing impurities yield the desired film properties. Thus, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)).
With respect to claim 30, the chamber component of Duan et al. in view of Narushima et al. and Okuda further includes wherein the substrate comprises a surface of a tool of a semiconductor processing chamber, and wherein the tool comprises at least one of a heater, an electrostatic chuck, a faceplate, a showerhead, a liner, a blocker plate, a gas box, an edge ring, or a bellows (Duan et al.-par.[0035]).
Claim(s) 3-4, 6 and 25-26 and is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duan et al. al. (U.S. 2022/0181124) as evidenced by Narushima et al. (U.S. 2010/0081292) in view of Okuda (JPH077243A).
With respect to claims 3-4, and 26, referring to paragraphs [0013], Okuda teaches that it is conventionally known in the art that the phosphorus content affects the crystal structure of the nickel film. Hence, when the phosphorus content is about 5% phosphorus, the nickel film is crystalline and when the phosphorus content is above 8% phosphorus the nickel film is amorphous. Additionally, Okuda teach a nickel layer wherein a first layer comprises an amorphous layer of electroless nickel plated layer, and wherein the second layer comprises a crystalline layer of nickel in order to achieve the desired film properties with corrosion resistance (pars.[0009]-[0020]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the first and second layers of Duan et al. as evidenced by Narushima et al. such that the first layer comprises an amorphous layer of electroless nickel plated layer, and wherein the second layer comprises a crystalline layer of nickel as taught by Okuda in order to achieve the desired film properties with corrosion resistance. The resulting apparatus of Duan et al. as evidenced by Narushima et al. in view of Okuda further includes wherein the first layer comprises an amorphous layer of electroless nickel plated layer, and wherein the second layer comprises a crystalline layer of nickel.
With respect to claim 6, the chamber component of Duan et al. in view of Narushima et al. and Okuda further includes wherein the first layer 7 comprises phosphorus with an atomic concentration at or above 10 percent, and wherein the second layer 8 is free of phosphorus or comprises phosphorus with atomic concentration at or below 5 percent (Okuda-Fig.1, and par.[0020]) and wherein a combined thickness of the second layer, the transition region, and the third layer is less than 200 nm (Duan et al.-third layer-pars.[0022], second layer, transition region-[0042]).
With respect to claim 25, the chamber component of Duan et al. as evidenced by Narushima et al. further includes wherein the metal comprises nickel (Duan et al.-par.[0042]), wherein the first layer 7 comprises phosphorus with an atomic concentration at or above 10 percent, and wherein the second layer 8 is free of phosphorus or comprises phosphorus with atomic concentration at or below 5 percent (Okuda-Fig.1, and par.[0020]) and wherein a combined thickness of the second layer, the transition region, and the third layer is less than 200 nm (Duan et al.-third layer-pars.[0022], second layer, transition region-[0042]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 8, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant has argued that the assertion that fluoridation increases concentration of nickel is a pure conjecture that is not supported with any citations.
It should be noted that in paragraphs [0037]-[0042], applicant’s specification discloses that the second layer (i.e. nickel (Ni)) is formed by exposing the first layer (i.e. electroless nickel plating (ENP) layer) to fluorine radicals at temperatures ranging from 260oC-500oC for target times ranging from 1-72 hours. Similarly, in paragraphs [0016],[0063], Doan et al. disclose that the second layer (i.e. nickel (Ni)) is formed by exposing the first layer (i.e. electroless nickel plating (ENP) layer) to fluorine radicals at temperatures ranging from 100oC-500oC for target times ranging from 1-72 hours. Furthermore, in paragraphs [0096] and [0098], Doan et al. indicate that after the ENP layer is exposed to fluorine radicals, the ENP layer is changed to nickel phosphide and nickel (see last lines of pars.[0096],[0098]). Furthermore, on page 12, Table 3, Doan et al. shows that the SEM observation of the ENP layer decreases in phosphorus levels. Thus, a decrease in phosphorus levels indicates an increase in Ni concentration at the exposed surface level of the ENP layer that resulted from fluorine radicals exposure.
Subsequent, since the common layer 215 (i.e. first layer) of Duan et al. is made from a electroless nickel plating (ENP) layer comprising phosphorus (par.[0057]) and is directly treated with fluorine processing gases such as NF3 (par.[0043]), then the resulting product from the chemical reaction of phosphorus and fluorine would yield a second layer comprising nickel (Ni) with a second atomic concentration that is at least 5 percent higher than the first atomic concentration. Thus, when the first layer is exposed to fluoride the second layer is formed. In other words, the chemical reaction between the ENP layer and fluorine gases or fluorine radicals used in prior art reference Doan et al. is similar to applicant’s and thus should result in a similar product of a single-film formed into a first ENP layer and a second nickel layer with a higher concentration of nickel. Furthermore, as evidenced by Narushima et al., the benefits of desiring a pure nickel layer is that it improves corrosion resistance and reduces metal contamination in a plasma environment (Figure 1 and paragraphs [0041],[0055]-[0063]). Lastly, with regards to the formation of the second layer, if the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Therefore, the chamber component of Duan et al. as evidence by Narushima et al. satisfies the claimed requirements.
Applicant has argued that the Office Action essentially asserts that the concentration of nickel in electroless nickel NiP is lower than concentration of nickel in a nickel fluoride coating NixFw formed thereon. Such assertion is incorrect.
It should be noted that applicant’s arguments are comparing NiP with NixFw. However, as explained in detail above, the examiner is referring to the nickel layer (i.e. intermediate or layer between ENP layer and NixFw layer) that forms when ENP layer is exposed to fluorine radicals due to the chemical reaction. Hence, the concentration of nickel in the electroless nickel plating (ENP) layer is lower than concentration of nickel in the nickel layer (i.e. intermediate or layer between ENP layer and NixFw layer). Consequently, the Examiner is not comparing electroless nickel NiP with the NiF layer but with Ni. Therefore, the chamber component of Duan et al. as evidence by Narushima et al. satisfies the claimed requirements.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Lin’805 teach a component having a 1st and 2nd coating layer and wherein the thermal expansion coefficient of the 2nd coating layer differs by less than 5% from the thermal expansion coefficient of the 1st coating layer.
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 Michelle CROWELL whose telephone number is (571)272-1432. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 10:00am-6:00pm.
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 on 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.
/Michelle CROWELL/Examiner, Art Unit 1716
/SYLVIA MACARTHUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716