DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Status of Claims
3. This action is in response to Applicant’s Request for Reconsideration dated 04/13/2026.
4. Claims 1-3 and 5-20 are currently pending.
5. Claims 1, 5-6, 10-11, and 17 have been amended.
6. Claim 4 has been cancelled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. Claim(s) 1-3, 5-10, and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al (US 2009/0142929) in view of Ishizuka et al (US 5,476,182) and Yin et al (US 6,352,049).
Regarding claim 1:
Chen teaches a substrate processing apparatus (plasma processing system, 101) [fig 1 & 0020] comprising: a chamber (105/110) comprising an upper chamber (105) defining a first plasma region (first plasma region, 142) for generating first plasma (first plasma), and the chamber (105/110) further comprising a lower chamber (110) defining a second plasma region (second plasma region, 152) for generating a second plasma (second plasma) [fig 1 & 0021]; a substrate support (substrate holder, 120) below the first plasma region (142) and the second plasma region (152) in the lower chamber (110), and configured to support a substrate (125) [fig 1 & 0020]; a distribution plate (170) between the first plasma region (142) and the second plasma region (152) in the upper chamber (105) [fig 1 & 0033]; a first gas supply device (line between 144 and 142) configured to supply a first process gas (first process gas) to the first plasma region (142) of the upper chamber (105) [fig 1 & 0022]; a second gas supply device (line between 154 and 152) configured to supply a second process gas (second process gas) to the second plasma region (152) of the lower chamber (110) [fig 1 & 0023]; a first gas supply source (144) comprising the first process gas (first process gas), the first gas supply source (144) connected to the first gas supply device (line between 144 and 142) and configured to supply the first process gas (first process gas) to the first gas supply device (line between 144 and 142) [fig 1 & 0022]; a second gas supply source (154) comprising the second process gas (second process gas), the second gas supply source (154) connected to the second gas supply device (line between 154 and 152) and configured to supply the second process gas (second process gas) to the second gas supply device (line between 154 and 152) [fig 1 & 0023]; a first plasma generating device (148’) on at least one side of the upper chamber (105) and configured to generate the first plasma (first plasma) from the first process gas (first process gas) [fig 1 & 0026, 0028]; a second plasma generating device (188) disposed on at least one side of the lower chamber (110) and configured to generate the second plasma (second plasma) from the second process gas (second process gas) [fig 1 & 0031]; and a controller (controller, 190) [fig 1 & 0059], wherein the first process gas (first process gas) comprises an inert gas (Ar) [fig 1 & 0022].
Although Chen teaches the second process gas may comprise any gas suitable for treating the substrate [0023], Chen does not specifically disclose the second process gas comprises an etching gas.
Ishizuka teaches a second process gas (reactive gas) comprises an etching gas (CHF3, CF4, or a gas mixture of CF4 and H2) [fig 5 & col 3-4, lines 56-3].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the second process gas of Chen to comprise an etching gas, as in Ishizuka, to carry out the desired process (i.e. etch an oxide film) [Ishizuka – col 3, lines 45-55].
Chen modified by Ishizuka does not specifically teach distribution plates between the first plasma region and the second plasma region; and a controller configured to alternately operate the first plasma generating device and the second plasma generating device.
Yin teaches distribution plates between the first plasma region and the second plasma region (plates interposed internally between the collateral source chamber and the primary chamber – additionally/alternatively, multiple filters may be employed) [fig 7A-7B, 8, 10 & col 16, lines 33-49 and col 18-lines 17-23]; and alternately operating the first plasma generating device and the second plasma generating device (application of source power to the collateral source chamber and to the primary processing chamber may alternate between chambers if desired) [fig 8, 10 & col 24, lines 32-42].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the controller of modified Chen to alternately operate the first plasma generating device and the second plasma generating device, as in Yin, because such a power supply scheme is effective to control the ratio of plasma species densities as desired in order to optimize process characteristics such as etch rate, selectivity, etch feature profile, etch rate microloading [Yin – col 5-6, lines 35-8 and col 24, lines 32-42]. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the distribution plate of modified Chen to comprise distribution plates, as in Yin, to further control the plasma species densities as desired in order to optimize process characteristics such as etch rate, selectivity, etch feature profile, etch rate microloading [Yin – col 22, lines 5-8].
The claim limitations “configured to inject ions included in the first plasma onto the substrate” are merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). It is noted that the distribution plates of Yin are capable of accelerating and injecting ions because Yin teaches combinations of filters may be employed to control the species density as desired [col 18-lines 17-23].
Regarding claims 2-3:
The claim limitations “wherein the distribution plates are configured to inject the ions such that at least a portion of the first plasma incident on the substrate via the distribution plates has a ratio of ions to radicals of 100:1 or more” and “wherein the second plasma is a plasma having a ratio of radicals to ions of 100:1 or more” are merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Regarding claims 5-6:
Modified Chen teaches the inert gas comprises at least one from among He, Ne, Ar, Kr, and Xe (Ar) [Chen - fig 1 & 0022]; and wherein the etching gas comprises at least one from among Cl2, HCl, CHF3, CH2F2, CH3F, H2, BCl3, SiCl4, Br2, HBr, NF3, CF4, C2F6, C4F6, C4F8, SF6, O2, SO2, and COS (CHF3, CF4, or a gas mixture of CF4 and H2) [Ishizuka - fig 5 & col 3-4, lines 56-3].
Although taught by the cited prior art, the claim limitations “wherein the inert gas comprises at least one from among He, Ne, Ar, Kr, and Xe” and “wherein the etching gas comprises at least one from among Cl2, HCl, CHF3, CH2F2, CH3F, H2, BCl3, SiCl4, Br2, HBr, NF3, CF4, C2F6, C4F6, C4F8, SF6, O2, SO2, and COS” do not impart any additional structure. Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim. Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969).
Regarding claims 7-8:
Chen modified by Ishizuka teaches a first radio frequency (RF) power source (146) configured to apply a first RF power (RF power) to the first plasma generating device (148’) [Chen - fig 1 & 0026]; and a second RF power source (186) configured to apply a second RF power (RF power) to the second plasma generating device (188) [Chen - fig 1 & 0031].
Modified Chen does not specifically disclose the controller is configured to control the first RF power source and the second RF power source such that the first RF power and the second RF power are alternately applied.
Yin teaches controlling the first RF power source and the second RF power source such that the first RF power and the second RF power are alternately applied (application of source power to the collateral source chamber and to the primary processing chamber may alternate between chambers if desired) [fig 8, 10 & col 24, lines 32-42].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the controller of modified Chen to alternately apply RF power to the first plasma generating device and the second plasma generating device, as in Yin, because such a power supply scheme is effective to control the ratio of plasma species densities as desired in order to optimize process characteristics such as etch rate, selectivity, etch feature profile, etch rate microloading [Yin – col 5-6, lines 35-8 and col 24, lines 32-42].
Regarding claims 9-10:
Modified Chen teaches the distribution plates comprise a first plate adjacent to the first plasma region, a second plate below the first plate, and a third plate below the second plate (multiple filters may be employed – e.g. 3 of 316b) [Yin - fig 7B, 8, 10 & col 16, lines 33-49 and col 18-lines 17-23].
The claim limitations “the first plate is configured to have a first voltage applied thereto, the second plate is configured to have a second voltage applied thereto, the second voltage being lower than the first voltage, and the third plate is configured to have a reference voltage applied thereto” are merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Regarding claim 17:
Chen teaches a substrate processing apparatus (plasma processing system, 101) [fig 1 & 0020] comprising:
a first gas supply source (144) comprising a first process gas (first process gas), the first gas supply source (144) configured to supply the first process gas (first process gas) [fig 1 & 0022]; a second gas supply source (154) comprising a second process gas (second process gas), the second gas supply source (154) configured to supply the second process gas (second process gas) [fig 1 & 0023]; a first plasma generating device (148’) configured to generate first plasma (plasma) from the first process gas (first process gas), in a first plasma region (142) of the substrate processing apparatus (101) [fig 1 & 0026, 0028]; a second plasma generating device (188) configured to generate second plasma (plasma in 152) from the second process gas (second process gas), in a second plasma region (152) of the substrate processing apparatus (101) [fig 1 & 0031]; a substrate support (substrate holder, 120) below the second plasma region (152) and configured to support a substrate (125) [fig 1 & 0020]; and a controller (controller, 190) configured to process the substrate (125) using radicals included in the second plasma (step 460) [fig 1 & 0059, 0070], wherein the first process gas (first process gas) comprises an inert gas (Ar) [fig 1 & 0022].
Although Chen teaches the second process gas may comprise any gas suitable for treating the substrate [0023], Chen does not specifically disclose the second process gas comprises an etching gas.
Ishizuka teaches a second process gas (reactive gas) comprises an etching gas (CHF3, CF4, or a gas mixture of CF4 and H2) [fig 5 & col 3-4, lines 56-3].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the second process gas of Chen to comprise an etching gas, as in Ishizuka, to carry out the desired process (i.e. etch an oxide film) [Ishizuka – col 3, lines 45-55].
Chen modified by Ishizuka does not specifically teach a controller configured to process the substrate using ions included in the first plasma
Yin teaches processing a substrate (610) using ions included in a first plasma (adjusting the collateral chamber parameters to provide control of the density of the neutral and charged particles within the collateral plasma. The collateral chamber, therefore, can be a source of charged particle species) [fig 8, 10 & col 8, lines 31-44 and col 23 – lines 55-62].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the controller of modified Chen to process a substrate using ions included in a first plasma, as in Yin, to control the ratio of plasma species densities as desired in order to optimize process characteristics such as etch rate, selectivity, etch feature profile, etch rate microloading [Yin – col 5-6, lines 35-8].
Regarding claim 18:
Modified Chen does not specifically teach the controller is configured to alternately apply radio frequency (RF) power to the first plasma generating device and the second plasma generating device.
Yin teaches alternately applying radio frequency (RF) power to the first plasma generating device and the second plasma generating device (application of source power to the collateral source chamber and to the primary processing chamber may alternate between chambers if desired) [fig 8, 10 & col 24, lines 32-42].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the controller of modified Chen to alternately apply RF power to the first plasma generating device and the second plasma generating device, as in Yin, because such a power supply scheme is effective to control the ratio of plasma species densities as desired in order to optimize process characteristics such as etch rate, selectivity, etch feature profile, etch rate microloading [Yin – col 5-6, lines 35-8 and col 24, lines 32-42].
Regarding claim 19:
The claim limitations “wherein the first plasma has a ratio of radicals to ions of 1000:1 or more, at least a portion of the first plasma incident on the substrate has a ratio of ions to radicals of 1000:1 or more, and the second plasma has a ratio between radicals and ions of about 1000:1 or more” are merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Regarding claim 20:
Modified Chen teaches a distribution plate (170) between the first plasma region (142) and the second plasma region (152) [Chen - fig 1 & 0033].
Modified Chen does not specifically teach distribution plates between the first plasma region and the second plasma region.
Yin teaches distribution plates between the first plasma region and the second plasma region (plates interposed internally between the collateral source chamber and the primary chamber – additionally/alternatively, multiple filters may be employed) [fig 7A-7B, 8, 10 & col 16, lines 33-49 and col 18-lines 17-23].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the distribution plate of modified Chen to comprise distribution plates, as in Yin, to further control the plasma species densities as desired in order to optimize process characteristics such as etch rate, selectivity, etch feature profile, etch rate microloading [Yin – col 22, lines 5-8].
The claim limitations “configured to accelerate and inject the ions included in the first plasma onto the substrate” are merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). It is noted that the distribution plates of Yin are capable of accelerating and injecting ions because Yin teaches combinations of filters may be employed to control the species density as desired [col 18-lines 17-23].
7. Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al (US 2009/0142929) in view of Ishizuka et al (US 5,476,182) and Yin et al (US 6,352,049) as applied to claims 1-3, 5-9, and 17-20 above, and further in view of Berry III et al (US 9,406,535).
The limitations of claims 1-3, 5-9, and 17-20 have been set forth above.
Regarding claim 10:
Although the plates of modified Chen are implicitly capable of having different voltages applied thereto, modified Chen does not explicitly teach the first plate is configured to have a first voltage applied thereto, the second plate is configured to have a second voltage applied thereto, the second voltage being lower than the first voltage, and the third plate is configured to have a reference voltage applied thereto.
Berry III teaches a first plate (111) is configured to have a first voltage (bias V1) applied thereto, a second plate (111) is configured to have a second voltage (bias voltage on 111) applied thereto, the second voltage being lower than the first voltage (bias voltage on 111 may be a negative voltage having a magnitude of 0.001 to 0.95 the potential V1), and a third plate (113) is configured to have a reference voltage (grounded) applied thereto [fig 1 & col 9-10, lines 34-4].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the plates of modified Chen to include three plates with voltages applied as in Berry III to carry out an ion beam etching operation that allows for the ions to be focused/directed as desired at many different ion energies [Berry III – col 10, lines 27-43].
8. Claim(s) 11-12 and 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al (US 2009/0142929) in view of Ishizuka et al (US 5,476,182).
Regarding claim 11:
Chen teaches a substrate processing apparatus (plasma processing system, 101) [fig 1 & 0020] comprising: a chamber (105/110) comprising an upper chamber (105) defining a first plasma region (first plasma region, 142), and the chamber (105/110) further comprising a lower chamber (110) defining a second plasma region (second plasma region, 152) [fig 1 & 0021]; a substrate support (substrate holder, 120) in the lower chamber (110) and configured to support a substrate (125) [fig 1 & 0020]; a first gas supply device (line between 144 and 142) configured to supply a first process gas (first process gas) to the first plasma region (142) of the upper chamber (105) [fig 1 & 0022]; a second gas supply device (line between 154 and 152) configured to supply a second process gas (second process gas) to the second plasma region (152) of the lower chamber (110) [fig 1 & 0023]; a first gas supply source (144) comprising the first process gas (first process gas), the first gas supply source (144) connected to the first gas supply device (line between 144 and 142) and configured to supply the first process gas (first process gas) to the first gas supply device (line between 144 and 142) [fig 1 & 0022]; a second gas supply source (154) comprising the second process gas (second process gas), the second gas supply source (154) connected to the second gas supply device (line between 154 and 152) and configured to supply the second process gas (second process gas) to the second gas supply device (line between 154 and 152) [fig 1 & 0023]; a first plasma generating device (148’) on at least one side of the upper chamber (105) and configured to generate first plasma (plasma) from the first process gas (first process gas) [fig 1 & 0026, 0028]; and a second plasma generating device (188) disposed on at least one side of the lower chamber (110) and configured to generate second plasma (plasma) from the second process gas (second process gas) [fig 1 & 0031], wherein a width of the second plasma region (152) is greater than a width (see fig 1) of the first plasma region (142) [fig 1 & 0021], wherein the first process gas (first process gas) comprises an inert gas (Ar) [fig 1 & 0022].
Although Chen teaches the second process gas may comprise any gas suitable for treating the substrate [0023], Chen does not specifically disclose the second process gas comprises an etching gas.
Ishizuka teaches a second process gas (reactive gas) comprises an etching gas (CHF3, CF4, or a gas mixture of CF4 and H2) [fig 5 & col 3-4, lines 56-3].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the second process gas of Chen to comprise an etching gas, as in Ishizuka, to carry out the desired process (i.e. etch an oxide film) [Ishizuka – col 3, lines 45-55].
Regarding claim 12:
Chen teaches the first plasma generating device (148’) comprises a first coil (first inductive coil) surrounding at least a portion of an upper surface of the upper chamber or at least a portion of a side surface of the upper chamber (105), wherein the second plasma generating device (180) comprises a second coil (second inductive coil) surrounding at least a portion of an upper surface of the lower chamber or at least a portion of a side surface of the lower chamber (110), and wherein an inner diameter of the second coil (second inductive coil) is longer than (see fig 1) an outer diameter of the first coil (first inductive coil) [fig 1 & 0026, 0028, 0031].
Regarding claim 14:
The claim limitations “wherein an electron temperature of the second plasma is lower than an electron temperature of the first plasma” are merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Regarding claims 15-16:
Chen teaches the upper chamber (105) comprises: an ion supplier (walls of 105) in which the first plasma generating device (148’) is configured to generate the first plasma (plasma) [fig 1 & 0026, 0028]; and an ion distributor (170) configured to inject ions included in the first plasma (plasma) onto the substrate (125) [fig 1 & 0033]; and wherein a width of the ion distributor (170) is greater than a width of the ion supplier (a width of inlet hole from 144) [fig 1 & 0022, 0033].
9. Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al (US 2009/0142929) in view of Ishizuka et al (US 5,476,182) as applied to claims 11-12 and 14-16 above, and further in view of Yin et al (US 6,352,049).
The limitations of claims 11-12 and 14-16 have been set forth above.
Regarding claim 13:
Modified Chen teaches the inner diameter of the second coil (188) is greater than 300 mm (inner diameter of 188 is greater than diameter of substrate) [Chen - fig 1].
Modified Chen does not specifically teach the outer diameter of the first coil is 300 mm or less.
Yin teaches the outer diameter of the first coil is 300 mm or less (outer diameter of 308 is less than diameter of substrate) [fig 8, 10].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the outer diameter of the first coil of modified Chen to be 300 mm or less, as in Yin, to scale for the size of the substrate and/or chamber, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art [MPEP 2144.04]. It is noted that 300 mm is the industry standard for substrate diameter.
Additionally/alternatively, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date select the desired size for the inner diameter of the second coil and the outer diameter of the first coil, to scale for the size of the substrate and/or chamber, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art [MPEP 2144.04].
Response to Arguments
10. Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 04/13/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim(s) 1-9, 13, and 17-20 under 35 USC 103 and claim(s) 11-12 and 14-16 have been fully considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the combination of references being used in the current rejection.
The teachings of Ishizuka et al (US 5,476,182) remedy anything lacking in the references as applied above to the amended claims.
11. Applicant's arguments, see Remarks, filed 04/13/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim(s) 10 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that nothing in Yin discloses or suggests that the plates are capable of independent voltage control. The claimed functional language “precisely defines structural attributes” such as electrical connections.
In response examiner disagrees. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim [MPEP 2114]. It is noted that the recited limitations do NOT define structural attributes between components. The power supplies (and electrical connections) are NOT positively recited structures of the apparatus. As such, it is not possible to precisely define a structural relationship between the apparatus and something external therefrom. A claim is only limited by positively recited elements [MPEP 2115].
Nevertheless, for purposes of compact prosecution, an alternative rejection was set forth. Berry III et al (US 9,406,535) explicitly teaches the limitations of the claim.
Conclusion
12. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Ashtiani et al (US 6,083,363) teaches distribution plates [fig 5]. Singh et al (US 2005/0205212) and Eom (KR 2003-0030100) teach a first plasma generating device and a second plasma generating device [fig 1 and 5, respectively].
13. 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.
14. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN R KENDALL whose telephone number is (571)272-5081. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thurs 9-5 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, William F Kraig can be reached at (571)272-8660. 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.
/Benjamin Kendall/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896
Prosecution Insights