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 .
Acknowledgement
This office action is in response to the communication filed on 12/16/2025.
Claims 1, 7-11, and 13-24 are currently pending in the present application. Claims 1, 13, 14, 16, and 17 have been amended, claims 2-6 and 12 have been canceled, and new claims 18-24 have been added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/16/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues: “The cited references, individually or in combination, do not disclose or suggest the specific combination of features recited in the amended claims. Specifically, while Zope discloses a surface roughness of less than 0.2 nm, neither Zope nor Thombare discloses or suggests the combination of: (1) heating a substrate having an aluminum oxide film formed on its surface within the recited temperature range; (2) forming a molybdenum-containing film with an average surface roughness of 1.0 nm or less; and (3) employing a reducing gas that includes at least one of hydrogen (H2) gas, deuterium (D2) gas, and activated hydrogen-containing gas.
Even if one were to combine the teachings of the cited references, there is no disclosure or suggestion of the claimed configuration and its operational effects. A person of ordinary skill in the art would therefore lack the motivation to combine these references in a way that would arrive at the present invention. Accordingly, the claimed invention would not have been obvious over any combination of cited references. For these reasons, Applicant believes that the present 106invention would not have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art based on cited references”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with the above assertion.
Thombare discloses in figs. 1B, 4, 6A-6B, forming a molybdenum-containing film 108 on a nucleation layer (e.g., diffusion barrier layer 106), wherein the nucleation layer is formed on a dielectric layer 104. Thombare does not have expressed teaching of the average surface roughness of the molybdenum-containing film.
In the same field of substrate processing method, Zope discloses a substrate processing method (figs. 3-4), when a molybdenum-containing film 412 is formed on an intermediate nucleation film 404 instead of directly formed on a dielectric surface 402. Zope discloses the molybdenum-containing film 412 forming in this manner has an average surface roughness of 1.0 nm or less (¶123-124; e.g., the surface roughness is less than 2 Angstroms, i.e., 0.2 nm).
It 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 to recognize that the molybdenum-containing film 108 of Thombare which is formed on an intermediate nucleation film 106 can be formed to an average surface roughness of 1.0 nm or less, based on Zope’s teachings (¶123-124 of Zope).
One would have been motivated to do so as Zope teaches this improves the electrical resistivity of molybdenum metal films (¶123 of Zope).
Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would therefore have the motivation to combine these references in a way that would arrive at the present invention.
Hence, claims 1, 7-11, 13-24 are unpatentable over Thombare in view of Zope and stand rejected.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “a substrate having an aluminum oxide film formed a surface thereof” should read “a substrate having an aluminum oxide film formed on a surface thereof” in order to be grammatically correct. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 7-11, 13-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thombare et al. (US 20210140043 A1; hereinafter “Thombare”) in view of Zope et al. (US 20190067094 A1; hereinafter “Zope”).
In re claim 1, Thombare discloses a substrate processing method (figs. 1B, 4, 6A-6B) comprising:
heating a substrate 102 (¶28) having an aluminum oxide film 104 (¶29) formed a surface thereof to 445° C or more and 505° C or less (¶37-38; e.g., during deposition of pure metal films from metal oxohalide precursors, the substrate temperature during deposition is between 350° C. and 800° C);
supplying a molybdenum-containing gas to the substrate 102 (¶36); (c) supplying a reducing gas to the substrate 102 (¶6, 14, 37), and
(d) forming a molybdenum-containing film 108, on the substrate by performing (b) and (c) one or more times after performing (a) (¶30, 49).
wherein the reducing gas includes at least one of hydrogen (H2) gas (¶37), deuterium D2) gas, and a gas containing activated hydrogen.
Note, Thombare discloses heating a substrate between 350° C. and 800° C (¶6), which encompasses a narrower claimed range of 445 °C or more and 505 °C or less.
MPEP ¶2145.05-I states:
"[A] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness." In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). See also In re Harris, 409 F.3d 1339, 74 USPQ2d 1951 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (claimed alloy held obvious over prior art alloy that taught ranges of weight percentages overlapping, and in most instances completely encompassing, claimed ranges; furthermore, narrower ranges taught by reference overlapped all but one range in claimed invention).
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of "about 1-5%" while the claim was limited to "more than 5%." The court held that "about 1-5%" allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (Claim reciting thickness of a protective layer as falling within a range of "50 to 100 Angstroms" considered prima facie obvious in view of prior art reference teaching that "for suitable protection, the thickness of the protective layer should be not less than about 10 nm [i.e., 100 Angstroms]." The court stated that "by stating that ‘suitable protection’ is provided if the protective layer is ‘about’ 100 Angstroms thick, [the prior art reference] directly teaches the use of a thickness within [applicant’s] claimed range.").
Therefore, it 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 to employ the teachings of Thombare to control a thickness of the subsequently deposited film during the deposition process.
Thombare does not expressly disclose the molybdenum-containing film 108 has an average surface roughness of 1.0 nm or less.
In the same field of endeavor, Zope discloses a substrate processing method (figs. 3-4), when a molybdenum-containing film 412 is formed on an intermediate nucleation film instead of directly formed on a dielectric surface, the molybdenum-containing film 412 has an average surface roughness of 1.0 nm or less (¶123-124; e.g., the surface roughness is less than 2 Angstroms, i.e., 0.2 nm).
It 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 to recognize that the molybdenum-containing film 108 of Thombare which is formed on an intermediate nucleation film 106 has an average surface roughness of 1.0 nm or less, based on Zope’s teachings (¶123-124 of Zope).
One would have been motivated to do so as Zope teaches this improves the electrical resistivity of molybdenum metal films (¶123 of Zope).
In re claim 7, Thombare, as modified by Zope, discloses the method of claim 1.
Thombare further discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the molybdenum-containing gas comprises a gas containing molybdenum and oxygen (¶36, 44).
In re claim 8, Thombare, as modified by Zope, discloses the method of claim 1.
Thombare further discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the molybdenum-containing gas comprises a gas containing molybdenum, oxygen and chlorine (¶36).
In re claim 9, Thombare, as modified by Zope, discloses the method of claim 1.
Thombare further discloses the method of claim 7, wherein the molybdenum-containing gas comprises a molybdenum dichloride dioxide gas (¶36).
In re claims 10-11, Thombare, as modified by Zope, discloses the method of claim 1.
Thombare discloses heating a substrate between 350° C. and 800° C (¶6), which encompasses a narrower claimed range of 445 °C or more and 470 °C or less (or 450 °C or more and 465 °C or less).
MPEP ¶2145.05-I states:
"[A] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness." In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). See also In re Harris, 409 F.3d 1339, 74 USPQ2d 1951 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (claimed alloy held obvious over prior art alloy that taught ranges of weight percentages overlapping, and in most instances completely encompassing, claimed ranges; furthermore, narrower ranges taught by reference overlapped all but one range in claimed invention).
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of "about 1-5%" while the claim was limited to "more than 5%." The court held that "about 1-5%" allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (Claim reciting thickness of a protective layer as falling within a range of "50 to 100 Angstroms" considered prima facie obvious in view of prior art reference teaching that "for suitable protection, the thickness of the protective layer should be not less than about 10 nm [i.e., 100 Angstroms]." The court stated that "by stating that ‘suitable protection’ is provided if the protective layer is ‘about’ 100 Angstroms thick, [the prior art reference] directly teaches the use of a thickness within [applicant’s] claimed range.").
Therefore, it 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 to employ the teachings of Thombare to control a thickness of the subsequently deposited film during the deposition process.
In re claim 13, Thombare, as modified by Zope, discloses the method of claim 10.
Zope further discloses wherein the molybdenum-containing film in (d) has an average roughness of 0.8 nm or less (¶123-124; e.g., the surface roughness is less than 2 Angstroms, i.e., 0.2 nm).
In re claim 14, Thombare, as modified by Zope, discloses the method of claim 10.
Zope further discloses wherein the molybdenum-containing film in (d) has an average roughness of 0.7 nm or less (¶123-124; e.g., the surface roughness is less than 2 Angstroms, i.e., 0.2 nm).
In re claim 15, Thombare, as modified by Zope, discloses the method of claim 1.
Thombare further discloses a method of manufacturing a semiconductor device comprising the substrate processing method of claim 1.
In re claim 16, Thombare discloses a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a program that causes a substrate processing apparatus (¶51-66), by a computer (figs. 1B, 4, 6A-6B), to perform:
heating a substrate 102 (¶28) having an aluminum oxide film 104 (¶29) formed on a surface thereof to 445° C or more and 505° C or less (¶37-38; e.g., during deposition of pure metal films from metal oxohalide precursors, the substrate temperature during deposition is between 350° C. and 800° C);
supplying a molybdenum-containing gas to the substrate 102 (¶36);
(c) supplying a reducing gas, comprising at least one of hydrogen (H2) gas (¶37), deuterium D2) gas, and a gas containing activated hydrogen, to the substrate 102 (¶6, 14, 37), and
(d) forming a molybdenum-containing film 108, on the substrate by performing (b) and (c) one or more times after performing (a) (¶30, 49).
Note, Thombare discloses heating a substrate between 350° C. and 800° C (¶6), which encompasses a narrower claimed range of 445 °C or more and 505 °C or less.
MPEP ¶2145.05-I states:
"[A] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness." In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). See also In re Harris, 409 F.3d 1339, 74 USPQ2d 1951 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (claimed alloy held obvious over prior art alloy that taught ranges of weight percentages overlapping, and in most instances completely encompassing, claimed ranges; furthermore, narrower ranges taught by reference overlapped all but one range in claimed invention).
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of "about 1-5%" while the claim was limited to "more than 5%." The court held that "about 1-5%" allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (Claim reciting thickness of a protective layer as falling within a range of "50 to 100 Angstroms" considered prima facie obvious in view of prior art reference teaching that "for suitable protection, the thickness of the protective layer should be not less than about 10 nm [i.e., 100 Angstroms]." The court stated that "by stating that ‘suitable protection’ is provided if the protective layer is ‘about’ 100 Angstroms thick, [the prior art reference] directly teaches the use of a thickness within [applicant’s] claimed range.").
Therefore, it 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 to employ the teachings of Thombare to control a thickness of the subsequently deposited film during the deposition process.
Thombare does not expressly disclose the molybdenum-containing film 108 has an average surface roughness of 1.0 nm or less.
In the same field of endeavor, Zope discloses a substrate processing method (figs. 3-4), when a molybdenum-containing film 412 is formed on an intermediate nucleation film instead of directly formed on a dielectric surface, the molybdenum-containing film 412 has an average surface roughness of 1.0 nm or less (¶123-124; e.g., the surface roughness is less than 2 Angstroms, i.e., 0.2 nm).
It 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 to recognize that the molybdenum-containing film 108 of Thombare which is formed on an intermediate nucleation film 106 has an average surface roughness of 1.0 nm or less, based on Zope’s teachings (¶123-124 of Zope).
One would have been motivated to do so as Zope teaches this improves the electrical resistivity of molybdenum metal films (¶123 of Zope).
In re claim 17, Thombare discloses a substrate processing apparatus (figs. 1B, 4, 6A-6B) comprising:
a heater capable of heating a substrate 102 having an aluminum oxide film 104 (¶29) formed on a surface thereof (¶66);
a molybdenum-containing gas supplier through which a molybdenum-containing gas is supplied to the substrate 102 (¶36, 51, 61);
a reducing gas supplier through which a reducing gas is supplied to substrate (¶37-39, 51-52); and
a controller 629 (¶53, 61-66) configured to be capable of controlling the heater, the molybdenum-containing gas supplier and the reducing gas supplier to perform:
(a) heating a substrate 102 (¶28) to 445° C or more and 505° C or less (¶37-38; e.g., during deposition of pure metal films from metal oxyhalide precursors, the substrate temperature during deposition is between 350° C. and 800° C);
supplying a molybdenum-containing gas to the substrate 102 (¶36);
(c) supplying a reducing gas, comprising at least one of hydrogen (H2) gas (¶37), deuterium D2) gas, and a gas containing activated hydrogen, to the substrate 102 (¶6, 14, 37), and
(d) forming a molybdenum-containing film 108, on the substrate by performing (b) and (c) one or more times after performing (a) (¶30, 49).
Note, Thombare discloses heating a substrate between 350° C. and 800° C (¶6), which encompasses a narrower claimed range of 445 °C or more and 505 °C or less.
MPEP ¶2145.05-I states:
"[A] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness." In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). See also In re Harris, 409 F.3d 1339, 74 USPQ2d 1951 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (claimed alloy held obvious over prior art alloy that taught ranges of weight percentages overlapping, and in most instances completely encompassing, claimed ranges; furthermore, narrower ranges taught by reference overlapped all but one range in claimed invention).
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of "about 1-5%" while the claim was limited to "more than 5%." The court held that "about 1-5%" allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (Claim reciting thickness of a protective layer as falling within a range of "50 to 100 Angstroms" considered prima facie obvious in view of prior art reference teaching that "for suitable protection, the thickness of the protective layer should be not less than about 10 nm [i.e., 100 Angstroms]." The court stated that "by stating that ‘suitable protection’ is provided if the protective layer is ‘about’ 100 Angstroms thick, [the prior art reference] directly teaches the use of a thickness within [applicant’s] claimed range.").
Therefore, it 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 to employ the teachings of Thombare to control a thickness of the subsequently deposited film during the deposition process.
Thombare does not expressly disclose the molybdenum-containing film 108 has an average surface roughness of 1.0 nm or less.
In the same field of endeavor, Zope discloses a substrate processing method (figs. 3-4), when a molybdenum-containing film 412 is formed on an intermediate nucleation film instead of directly formed on a dielectric surface, the molybdenum-containing film 412 has an average surface roughness of 1.0 nm or less (¶123-124; e.g., the surface roughness is less than 2 Angstroms, i.e., 0.2 nm).
It 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 to recognize that the molybdenum-containing film 108 of Thombare which is formed on an intermediate nucleation film 106 has an average surface roughness of 1.0 nm or less, based on Zope’s teachings (¶123-124 of Zope).
One would have been motivated to do so as Zope teaches this improves the electrical resistivity of molybdenum metal films (¶123 of Zope).
In re claim 18, Thombare, as modified by Zope, discloses the method of claim 7.
Thombare further discloses the method of claim 7, wherein in (d), the molybdenum-containing film is characterized as having at least 99 atomic % metal (see Table I and ¶45-46). As can be seen from Table I, the methods described herein (as exemplified by the Precursor 3 results) result in improved TiN attack, less Cl in the bulk film, and less oxygen in the bulk film, with the amount of oxygen measured in the film below or near the detection limit of the measurement and comparable to the oxygen-free precursor (¶45).
Therefore, it 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 to employ the teachings of Thombare and tune in the process conditions to form the molybdenum-containing film free of oxygen and chlorine to uniformly deposit low resistivity metal films (¶3-14 of Thombare).
In re claim 19, Thombare, as modified by Zope, discloses the method of claim 10.
wherein the molybdenum-containing gas is a gas containing molybdenum and oxygen, and in (d), the molybdenum- containing film free of oxygen and chlorine is formed.
Thombare further discloses the method of claim 7, wherein the molybdenum-containing gas is a gas containing molybdenum and oxygen (e.g., MoO2Cl2; ¶44) and wherein in (d), the molybdenum-containing film is characterized as having at least 99 atomic % metal (see Table I and ¶45-46). As can be seen from Table I, the methods described herein (as exemplified by the Precursor 3 results) result in improved TiN attack, less Cl in the bulk film, and less oxygen in the bulk film, with the amount of oxygen measured in the film below or near the detection limit of the measurement and comparable to the oxygen-free precursor (¶45).
Therefore, it 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 to employ the teachings of Thombare and tune in the process conditions to form the molybdenum-containing film free of oxygen and chlorine to uniformly deposit low resistivity metal films (¶3-14 of Thombare).
In re claims 20-21, Thombare, as modified by Zope, discloses the method of claim 7 (or claim 10).
Thombare further discloses,
wherein in (b), a layer containing molybdenum, oxygen, and chlorine is formed (based on fig. 6B, first precursor MoO2Cl2 is supplied; ¶49), and
wherein in (c), the oxygen and chlorine in the layer react with the reducing gas to generate reaction by-products, and the reaction by-products are discharged from the substrate (figs. 4, 6B; ¶39-44, 49).
In re claim 22, Thombare, as modified by Zope, discloses the method of claim 21.
Furthermore, based on Thombare’s precursor (MoO2Cl2) and reducing gas (H2) and the ratio of H2 to MoO2Cl2, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the reaction by-products include H2O, HCl, and Cl2 (Table I, ¶39-44).
In re claim 23, Thombare, as modified by Zope, discloses the method of claim 10.
Thombare further discloses the method of claim 10, wherein in (c), a pressure in a space where the substrate exists is within a range from 1 to 3,990 Pa (for example, 1 to 100 torr, that is, 133.322 Pa to 133 Pa, which overlaps the claimed range).
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of "about 1-5%" while the claim was limited to "more than 5%." The court held that "about 1-5%" allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (Claim reciting thickness of a protective layer as falling within a range of "50 to 100 Angstroms" considered prima facie obvious in view of prior art reference teaching that "for suitable protection, the thickness of the protective layer should be not less than about 10 nm [i.e., 100 Angstroms]." The court stated that "by stating that ‘suitable protection’ is provided if the protective layer is ‘about’ 100 Angstroms thick, [the prior art reference] directly teaches the use of a thickness within [applicant’s] claimed range.").
Therefore, it 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 to modify the teachings of Thombare and arrive at the claimed range to control to reduce the reducing agent: precursor ratio (¶38 of Thombare).
In re claim 24, Thombare, as modified by Zope, discloses the method of claim 1, wherein in (d), the molybdenum-containing film having a thickness of 0.5 nm to 20.0 nm is formed on the substrate (¶131 of Zope; for example, the surface roughness is 10% of the total thickness of the molybdenum-containing film, when surface roughness is 2 angstroms, the total thickness of the molybdenum-containing film is 20 angstroms, i.e., 2 nm).
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 NILUFA RAHIM whose telephone number is (571)272-8926. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5:30pm 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, Yara J. Green can be reached at (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.
/NILUFA RAHIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893