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
The Office acknowledges receipt on 1 July 2026 of Applicants’ amendments in which claims 1, 6, and 11 are amended and claims 2 and 7 are cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 6, and 11 have been considered but are moot 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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith et al. (US20190288004A1) in view of Xie et al. (US20230378258A1).
Regarding claim 1, Smith teaches in Figs. 2A and 2B an integrated circuit structure, comprising:
a first plurality of horizontally stacked nanowires (124/126) laterally spaced apart from a second plurality of horizontally stacked nanowires (adjacent 124/126) {[0064]};
a gate stack (130) over the first plurality of horizontally stacked nanowires (124/126) and the second plurality of horizontally stacked nanowires (adjacent 124/126) {[0065]};
a first epitaxial source or drain structure (102a/104a) at an end of the first plurality of horizontally stacked nanowires (adjacent 124/126), with a first conductive source or drain contact (106a/108a) vertically beneath and in contact with a bottom of the first epitaxial source or drain structure (102a/104a), and with a first hardmask material (material of 110a/112a) beneath and in contact with the first conductive source or drain contact (106a/108a) {[0057, 0089, 0099]; drawing may be rotated to achieve claimed orientation}; and
a second epitaxial source or drain structure (102b/104b) at an end of the second plurality of horizontally stacked nanowires (adjacent 124/126), with a second conductive source or drain contact (106b/108b) vertically beneath and in contact with a bottom of the second epitaxial source or drain structure (102b/104b), and a second hardmask material (material of 110b/112b) beneath and in contact with the second conductive source or drain contact (106b/108b) {[0057, 0089, 0099]; drawing may be rotated to achieve claimed orientation},
the second hardmask material (material of 110b/112b) having a composition different than a composition of the first hardmask material (material of 110a/112a) {[0072], Capping materials used for forming the dielectric cap [110a/112a, 110b/112b] over the source and drain contacts can … be of different dielectric materials with different etch selectivity in order to provide better self-alignment}.
Smith does not teach a trench isolation structure laterally between and in contact with the first hardmask material and the second hardmask material, the trench isolation structure having a bottommost surface at a same level as a bottommost surface of the first hardmask material and a bottommost surface of the second hardmask material.
In an analogous art, Xie teaches in Fig. 23 and paragraph [0048, 0067] a trench isolation structure (122, 125) laterally between and in contact with the first hardmask material (220 or 155, 220) and the second hardmask material (adjacent 220 or 155, 220), the trench isolation structure (122, 125) having a bottommost surface at a same level as a bottommost surface of the first hardmask material (220 or 155, 220) and a bottommost surface of the second hardmask material (adjacent 220 or 155, 220) {the orientation of Xie’s Fig. 23 may be rotated to achieve the claimed orientation}. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Smith’s integrated circuit structure based on the teachings of Xie, to achieve the above-identified subject matter, because all the claimed elements (e.g., trench isolation structure, first and second hardmask materials) were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (e.g., as taught by Xie) with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielding nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP §2143(I)(A). Moreover, [t]he selection of a known … [structure] based on its suitability for its intended use [is] … prima facie obviousness. MPEP §2144.07. {Note, as discussed above, Smith’s orientation may also be rotated to achieve the claimed orientation.}
Regarding claim 3, Smith as modified by Xie teaches the integrated circuit structure of claim 1, and Smith further teaches wherein the second hardmask material (material of 110b/112b) has a different thickness than the first hardmask material (material of 110a/112a) {Fig. 2A, greatest thickness of 110a/112a is greater than smallest thickness of 110b/112b}.
Regarding claim 4, Smith as modified by Xie teaches the integrated circuit structure of claim 1, and Smith further teaches wherein one of the first hardmask material (material of 110a/112a) or the second hardmask material (material of 110b/112b) comprises silicon and carbon, and the other one of the first hardmask material (material of 110a/112a) or the second hardmask material (material of 110b/112b) comprises silicon and nitrogen {[0070], dielectric caps (i.e., hardmask material) may be SiO, SiC, SiN, SiOC, SICN, SiOCN; [0072], [c]apping materials used for forming the dielectric cap [110a/112a, 110b/112b] over the source and drain contacts can … be of different dielectric materials with different etch selectivity in order to provide better self-alignment}. A dielectric comprising silicon and carbon is more resistant to etching than is a dielectric comprising silicon and nitrogen. See, e.g., Liang [0037].
Regarding claim 6, Smith teaches in Figs. 2A and 2B an integrated circuit structure, comprising:
a first fin (fin 124/126) laterally spaced apart from a second fin (adjacent fin 124/126) {[0064]; see Examiner’s Note below};
a gate stack (130) over the first fin (fin 124/126) and the second fin (adjacent fin 124/126) {[0065]};
a first epitaxial source or drain structure (102a/104a) at an end of the first fin (fin 124/126), with a first conductive source or drain contact (106a/108a) vertically beneath and in contact with a bottom of the first epitaxial source or drain structure (102a/104a), and with a first hardmask material (material of 110a/112a) beneath and in contact with the first conductive source or drain contact (106a/108a) {[0057, 0089, 0099]; drawing may be rotated to achieve claimed orientation}; and
a second epitaxial source or drain structure (102b/104b) at an end of the second fin (adjacent fin 124/126), with a second conductive source or drain contact (106b/108b) vertically beneath and in contact with a bottom of the second epitaxial source or drain structure (102b/104b), and a second hardmask material (material of 110b/112b) beneath and in contact with the second conductive source or drain contact (106b/108b) {[0057, 0089, 0099]; drawing may be rotated to achieve claimed orientation},
the second hardmask material (material of 110b/112b) having a composition different than a composition of the first hardmask material (material of 110a/112a) {[0072], Capping materials used for forming the dielectric cap [110a/112a, 110b/112b] over the source and drain contacts can … be of different dielectric materials with different etch selectivity in order to provide better self-alignment}.
Smith does not teach a trench isolation structure laterally between and in contact with the first hardmask material and the second hardmask material, the trench isolation structure having a bottommost surface at a same level as a bottommost surface of the first hardmask material and a bottommost surface of the second hardmask material.
Xie teaches in Fig. 23 and paragraph [0048, 0067] a trench isolation structure (122, 125) laterally between and in contact with the first hardmask material (220 or 155, 220) and the second hardmask material (adjacent 220 or 155, 220), the trench isolation structure (122, 125) having a bottommost surface at a same level as a bottommost surface of the first hardmask material (220 or 155, 220) and a bottommost surface of the second hardmask material (adjacent 220 or 155, 220) {the orientation of Xie’s Fig. 23 may be rotated to achieve the claimed orientation}. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Smith’s integrated circuit structure based on the teachings of Xie, to achieve the above-identified subject matter, because all the claimed elements (e.g., trench isolation structure, first and second hardmask materials) were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (e.g., as taught by Xie) with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielding nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP §2143(I)(A). Moreover, [t]he selection of a known … [structure] based on its suitability for its intended use [is] … prima facie obviousness. MPEP §2144.07. {Note, as discussed above, Smith’s orientation may also be rotated to achieve the claimed orientation.}
Examiner’s Note: Paragraph [0043] of the instant specification identifies nanowires as forming the fins.
Regarding claim 8, Smith as modified by Xie teaches the integrated circuit structure of claim 6, and Smith further teaches wherein the second hardmask material (material of 110b/112b) has a different thickness than the first hardmask material (material of 110a/112a) {Fig. 2A, greatest thickness of 110a/112a is greater than smallest thickness of 110b/112b}.
Regarding claim 9, Smith as modified by Xie teaches the integrated circuit structure of claim 6, and Smith further teaches wherein one of the first hardmask material (material of 110a/112a) or the second hardmask material (material of 110b/112b) comprises silicon and carbon, and the other one of the first hardmask material (material of 110a/112a) or the second hardmask material (material of 110b/112b) comprises silicon and nitrogen {[0070], dielectric caps (i.e., hardmask material) may be SiO, SiC, SiN, SiOC, SICN, SiOCN; [0072], [c]apping materials used for forming the dielectric cap [110a/112a, 110b/112b] over the source and drain contacts can … be of different dielectric materials with different etch selectivity in order to provide better self-alignment}. A dielectric comprising silicon and carbon is more resistant to etching than is a dielectric comprising silicon and nitrogen. See, e.g., Liang [0037].
Claim(s) 5 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith in view of Xie as applied to claim 1 (for claim 5) and claim 6 (for claim 10) above, and further in view of Lin et al. (US20200373404A1).
Regarding claim 5, Smith as modified by Xie teaches the integrated circuit structure of claim 1, but Smith does not teach wherein one of the first conductive source or drain contact or the second first conductive source or drain contact comprises titanium and nitrogen, and the other one of the first conductive source or drain contact or the second first conductive source or drain contact comprises tungsten.
In an analogous art, Lin teaches in paragraph [0042] that the source contact and/or the drain contact may independently be selected from one or more of nitrogen (N), copper (Cu), cobalt (Co), tungsten (W), titanium (Ti), molybdenum (Mo), nickel (Ni), ruthenium (Ru), silver (Ag), gold (Au), iridium (Ir), tantalum (Ta), or platinum (Pt). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Smith’s integrated circuit structure as modified by Xie based on the teachings of Lin – such that one of the first conductive source or drain contact or the second first conductive source or drain contact comprises titanium and nitrogen, and the other one of the first conductive source or drain contact or the second first conductive source or drain contact comprises tungsten – because [t]he selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use [is] … prima facie obviousness. MPEP §2144.07. Moreover, all the claimed elements (e.g., source or drain contact, titanium and nitrogen, tungsten) were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (e.g., as taught by Lin) with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielding nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP §2143(I)(A).
Regarding claim 10, Smith as modified by Xie teaches the integrated circuit structure of claim 6, but Smith does not teach wherein one of the first conductive source or drain contact or the second first conductive source or drain contact comprises titanium and nitrogen, and the other one of the first conductive source or drain contact or the second first conductive source or drain contact comprises tungsten.
Lin teaches in paragraph [0042] that the source contact and/or the drain contact may independently be selected from one or more of nitrogen (N), copper (Cu), cobalt (Co), tungsten (W), titanium (Ti), molybdenum (Mo), nickel (Ni), ruthenium (Ru), silver (Ag), gold (Au), iridium (Ir), tantalum (Ta), or platinum (Pt). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Smith’s integrated circuit structure as modified by Xie based on the teachings of Lin – such that one of the first conductive source or drain contact or the second first conductive source or drain contact comprises titanium and nitrogen, and the other one of the first conductive source or drain contact or the second first conductive source or drain contact comprises tungsten – because [t]he selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use [is] … prima facie obviousness. MPEP §2144.07. Moreover, all the claimed elements (e.g., source or drain contact, titanium and nitrogen, tungsten) were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (e.g., as taught by Lin) with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielding nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP §2143(I)(A).
Claim(s) 11-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith in view of Agrawal et al. (US20210408284A1) and Xie.
Regarding claim 11, Smith teaches in Figs. 2A and 2B an integrated circuit structure, comprising:
a first plurality of horizontally stacked nanowires (124/126) or a first fin (fin 124/126) laterally spaced apart from a second plurality of horizontally stacked nanowires (adjacent 124/126) or a second fin (adjacent fin 124/126) {[0064]; see Examiner’s Note below};
a gate stack (130) over the first plurality of horizontally stacked nanowires (124/126) or the first fin (fin 124/126) and the second plurality of horizontally stacked nanowires (adjacent 124/126) or the second fin (adjacent fin 124/126) {[0065]};
a first epitaxial source or drain structure (102a/104a) at an end of the first plurality of horizontally stacked nanowires (124/126) or the first fin (fin 124/126), with a first conductive source or drain contact (106a/108a) vertically beneath and in contact with a bottom of the first epitaxial source or drain structure (102a/104a), and with a first hardmask material (material of 110a/112a) beneath and in contact with the first conductive source or drain contact (106a/108a) {[0057, 0089, 0099]; drawing may be rotated to achieve claimed orientation}; and
a second epitaxial source or drain structure (102b/104b) at an end of the second plurality of horizontally stacked nanowires (adjacent 124/126) or the second fin (adjacent fin 124/126), with a second conductive source or drain contact (106b/108b) vertically beneath and in contact with a bottom of the second epitaxial source or drain structure (102b/104b), and a second hardmask material (material of 110b/112b) beneath and in contact with the second conductive source or drain contact (106b/108b) {[0057, 0089, 0099]; drawing may be rotated to achieve claimed orientation},
the second hardmask material (material of 110b/112b) having a composition different than a composition of the first hardmask material (material of 110a/112a) {[0072], Capping materials used for forming the dielectric cap [110a/112a, 110b/112b] over the source and drain contacts can … be of different dielectric materials with different etch selectivity in order to provide better self-alignment}.
Smith does not teach a computing device, comprising: a board; and a component coupled to the board, the component including an integrated circuit structure.
In an analogous art, Agrawal teaches in Fig. 9 and paragraph [0117, 0120] a computing device (900), comprising: a board (902); and a component (904) coupled to the board (902), the component (904) including an integrated circuit structure. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Smith’s integrated circuit structure based on the teachings of Agrawal – to include a computing device, comprising: a board; and a component coupled to the board, the component including an integrated circuit structure – to provide a computing device that processes data. Agrawal [0123]. Moreover, all the claimed elements (e.g., computing device, board, component, integrated circuit structure) were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (e.g., as taught by Agrawal) with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielding nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP §2143(I)(A). Furthermore, [t]he selection of a known … [structure] based on its suitability for its intended use [is] … prima facie obviousness. MPEP §2144.07.
Smith as modified by Agrawal does not teach a trench isolation structure laterally between and in contact with the first hardmask material and the second hardmask material, the trench isolation structure having a bottommost surface at a same level as a bottommost surface of the first hardmask material and a bottommost surface of the second hardmask material.
Xie teaches in Fig. 23 and paragraph [0048, 0067] a trench isolation structure (122, 125) laterally between and in contact with the first hardmask material (220 or 155, 220) and the second hardmask material (adjacent 220 or 155, 220), the trench isolation structure (122, 125) having a bottommost surface at a same level as a bottommost surface of the first hardmask material (220 or 155, 220) and a bottommost surface of the second hardmask material (adjacent 220 or 155, 220) {the orientation of Xie’s Fig. 23 may be rotated to achieve the claimed orientation}. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Smith’s integrated circuit structure as modified by Agrawal based on the teachings of Xie, to achieve the above-identified subject matter, because all the claimed elements (e.g., trench isolation structure, first and second hardmask materials) were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (e.g., as taught by Xie) with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielding nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP §2143(I)(A). Moreover, [t]he selection of a known … [structure] based on its suitability for its intended use [is] … prima facie obviousness. MPEP §2144.07. {Note, as discussed above, Smith’s orientation may also be rotated to achieve the claimed orientation.}
Examiner’s Note: Paragraph [0043] of the instant specification identifies nanowires as forming the fins.
Regarding claim 12, Smith as modified by Agrawal and Xie teaches the computing device of claim 11, and Smith further teaches comprising the first plurality of horizontally stacked nanowires (124/126) and the second plurality of horizontally stacked nanowires (adjacent 124/126) {[0064]}.
Regarding claim 13, Smith as modified by Agrawal and Xie teaches the computing device of claim 11, and Smith further teaches comprising the first fin (fin 124/126) and the second fin (adjacent fin 124/126) {[0064]}.
Regarding claim 14, Smith as modified by Agrawal and Xie teaches the computing device of claim 11, but Smith does not teach further comprising: a memory coupled to the board.
Agrawal teaches in Fig. 9 and paragraph [0118] a memory (e.g., DRAM, ROM, flash) coupled to the board (902). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Smith’s integrated circuit structure as modified by Agrawal and Xie based on the further teachings of Agrawal – to include a memory coupled to the board – so electronic data … may be stored. Agrawal [0120]. Moreover, all the claimed elements (e.g., memory, board) were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (e.g., as taught by Agrawal) with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielding nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP §2143(I)(A). Furthermore, [t]he selection of a known … [structure] based on its suitability for its intended use [is] … prima facie obviousness. MPEP §2144.07.
Regarding claim 15, Smith as modified by Agrawal and Xie teaches the computing device of claim 11, but Smith does not teach further comprising: a communication chip coupled to the board.
Agrawal teaches in Fig. 9 and paragraph [0117] a communication chip (906) coupled to the board (902). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Smith’s integrated circuit structure as modified by Agrawal and Xie based on the further teachings of Agrawal – to include a communication chip coupled to the board – to enable[] wireless communications for the transfer of data to and from the computing device. Agrawal [0119]. Moreover, all the claimed elements (e.g., memory, board) were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (e.g., as taught by Agrawal) with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielding nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP §2143(I)(A). Furthermore, [t]he selection of a known … [structure] based on its suitability for its intended use [is] … prima facie obviousness. MPEP §2144.07.
Regarding claim 16, Smith as modified by Agrawal and Xie teaches the computing device of claim 11, but Smith does not teach further comprising: a battery coupled to the board.
Agrawal teaches in Fig. 9 and paragraph [0118] a battery coupled to the board (902). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Smith’s integrated circuit structure as modified by Agrawal and Xie based on the further teachings of Agrawal – to include a battery coupled to the board – to supply power for mobile applications of the computing device. Moreover, all the claimed elements (e.g., battery, board) were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (e.g., as taught by Agrawal) with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielding nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP §2143(I)(A). Furthermore, [t]he selection of a known … [structure] based on its suitability for its intended use [is] … prima facie obviousness. MPEP §2144.07.
Regarding claim 17, Smith as modified by Agrawal and Xie teaches the computing device of claim 11, but Smith does not teach further comprising: a camera coupled to the board.
Agrawal teaches in Fig. 9 and paragraph [0118] a camera coupled to the board (902). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Smith’s integrated circuit structure as modified by Agrawal and Xie based on the further teachings of Agrawal – to include a camera coupled to the board – so the computing device may process and/or store photographic images. Moreover, all the claimed elements (e.g., camera, board) were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (e.g., as taught by Agrawal) with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielding nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP §2143(I)(A). Furthermore, [t]he selection of a known … [structure] based on its suitability for its intended use [is] … prima facie obviousness. MPEP §2144.07.
Regarding claim 18, Smith as modified by Agrawal and Xie teaches the computing device of claim 11, but Smith does not teach further comprising: a display coupled to the board.
Agrawal teaches in Fig. 9 and paragraph [0118] a display coupled to the board (902). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Smith’s integrated circuit structure as modified by Agrawal and Xie based on the further teachings of Agrawal – to include a display coupled to the board – so the computing device may display images or data it has processed. Moreover, all the claimed elements (e.g., display, board) were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (e.g., as taught by Agrawal) with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielding nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP §2143(I)(A). Furthermore, [t]he selection of a known … [structure] based on its suitability for its intended use [is] … prima facie obviousness. MPEP §2144.07.
Regarding claim 19, Smith as modified by Agrawal and Xie teaches the computing device of claim 11, but Smith does not teach wherein the component is a packaged integrated circuit die.
Agrawal teaches in Fig. 9 and paragraph [0120] a component is a packaged integrated circuit die. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Smith’s integrated circuit structure as modified by Agrawal and Xie based on the further teachings of Agrawal – such that the component is a packaged integrated circuit die – to reduce the size and material resources of the component and for reducing the complexity of integrating the component with other components. Moreover, all the claimed elements (e.g., component, packaged integrated circuit die) were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (e.g., as taught by Agrawal) with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielding nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP §2143(I)(A). Furthermore, [t]he selection of a known … [structure] based on its suitability for its intended use [is] … prima facie obviousness. MPEP §2144.07.
Regarding claim 20, Smith as modified by Agrawal and Xie teaches the computing device of claim 11, but Smith does not teach wherein the component is selected from the group consisting of a processor, a communications chip, and a digital signal processor.
Agrawal teaches in Fig. 9 and paragraph [0149] a component is selected from the group consisting of a processor, a communications chip, and a digital signal processor. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Smith’s integrated circuit structure as modified by Agrawal and Xie based on the further teachings of Agrawal – such that the component is selected from the group consisting of a processor, a communications chip, and a digital signal processor – to: (1) process[] electronic data {Agrawal [0120]} or (2) enable[] wireless communications for the transfer of data to and from the computing device {Agrawal [0119]}. Moreover, all the claimed elements (e.g., component, processor, communications chip, digital signal processor) were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (e.g., as taught by Agrawal) with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielding nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP §2143(I)(A). Furthermore, [t]he selection of a known … [structure] based on its suitability for its intended use [is] … prima facie obviousness. MPEP §2144.07.
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 DAVID WARD whose telephone number is (703)756-1382. The examiner can normally be reached 6:30-3:30 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Matthew Landau can be reached at (571)-272-1731. 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.
/D.W.W./Examiner, Art Unit 2891
/MATTHEW C LANDAU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2891
Prosecution Insights