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
Applicant’s amendments, filed 3/18/2026, have been fully considered and reviewed by the examiner. The examiner notes amendment to claims and therefore the 35 USC 112(b) paragraph rejection has been withdrawn. Claims 1-24 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant arguments related to Kang are noted, but not persuasive. Specifically, Applicant argues that Kang distinguishes the process from a flowable deposition process. The examiner disagrees and notes that claims do not require flowable CVD, but merely a flowable film, of which the prior art would necessarily include, as the film is gap filling. Regardless, the prior art discloses a film that fills various gap layers and thus reasonably reads on flowable film.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Kang related to the pump down is noted. While the examiner notes the prior art discloses a process that does not include an increase in pumping, the examiner notes the broadly drafted claims do not require a pump down, merely require a pumping operating for the reaction chamber is continuously maintained. The instant claims do not include a intervening pump down and therefore it is unclear the applicant’s reading of the prior art as it relates to the instant claims. A fair reading of the instant claim 13 merely require a pumping operating (and therefore irrespective of the presence or absence of a “pump down”). Kang discloses pressure within the reaction space in the depositing is in a range of about 1 Torr to about 10 Torr, and pressure within the reaction space during a discontinuous period of the depositing is less than or equal to about 3 Torr (see pressure of 1 Torr at 0069, constant at 0076). This pressure as taught by Kang would be continuous and a result of “a pumping operation” to achieve that pressure and maintain a constant pressure during the discontinuous flowable film deposition.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Gauri are noted as it relates to the added claim requirement. Here, Gauri discloses “Process conditions in the reactor are such that the reaction product is a condensed material that is deposited on the surface. In many embodiments, this involves bringing the substrate into the chamber under "dark", i.e., non-plasma conditions.” (column 4, lines 60-68). Here, the disclosure of Gauri discloses using process conditions that result in condensation and discloses that many embodiments (but not all), using non-plasma. However, newly cited prior art WO 2011072143 discloses “In certain embodiments, reactions conditions are such that the silicon- containing compound and oxidant, undergo a condensation reaction, condensing on the substrate surface to form a flowable film. In certain embodiments, the reaction takes place in dark or non-plasma conditions. In other embodiments, the reaction takes place in the presence of a plasma. Methods of depositing a flowable film for gap fill via a plasma-enhanced chemical vapor deposition (PECVD) reaction are described in U.S. Patent Application No. 12/334,726, incorporated by reference herein.” As such, as both references disclose the conditions used for deposition for the flowable film is related to the condensation reaction, it would have been obvious to have used the plasma conditions as suggested by WO 143, as Gauri discloses using process conditions that result in condensation and discloses embodiments using dark or non-plasma conditions, and WO 143 also related to condensation reaction to gapfill a flowable film using process conditions that result in condensation and discloses embodiments using dark or non-plasma condition or alternatively using plasma conditions. The claim would have been obvious because the substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. A predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions to achieve a predictable result is prima facie obvious. See KSR Int’l Inc. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S Ct. 1727, 1741, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Gauri reference and the disclosure of pressure cycles and argues that Gauri discloses the exact opposite as Gauri disclose the filling speed of the first and second gap increases, versus decreases as instantly claimed. Here, the examiner notes that the applicants are relying on the largest of the gaps versus the small gaps; however, the claims do not limit the scope of the gaps and notes that Gauri discloses a first and second gap that reads on the claims as drafted.
PNG
media_image1.png
348
539
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Here, as noted in the prior art rejection, Gauri discloses the strict control over the pressure in the chamber with the supply of the precursor and a reactant gas, including multiple pressurization/depressurization cycles, so as to provide a coating into the interior of the features and “then the pressure is decreased to a point between the hysteresis pressure and the saturation pressure and held until liquid is removed and some liquid remains in narrow dimensions features” (see column 12, lines 8-30, Figures 5a-5d and accompanying text). Here, Gauri explicitly discloses the pressure during the supply to condense the vapor phase precursors onto the trenches allowing the fluid to flow into the trenches and thereafter decrease pressure, i.e. the claimed pump down, to control the condensation/evaporation of the flowable fluid to achieve gap filling of the features. Gauri discloses to one of ordinary skill in the art to control the hysteresis loop depending on the size feature and shape. Therefore, taking the reference for its entire teaching and all that is known to one of ordinary skill in the art, it would have been obvious to have controlled the pressurization/depressurization during the gap filling through multiple cycles to control the condensation/evaporation of the reactant gas/precursor gas so as to control the gap filling of the features in the chamber.
Alternatively, the examiner cites here US 071, which is also in the art of gap filling and discloses the amount of condensation and the fill rate as it relates to the critical dimension of the feature can be tuned by varying the partial pressure and selectively varying the partial pressure of the reactants relative to their saturated vapor pressure improves the ability of the control the gap filling process (see 0100, Figure 6 and accompanying text). Here, US 071 discloses the pressure variable, similar to that as adjusted by Gauri, is a result effective variable to control to provide the control over the flowable precursor gap filling (by controlling the fill rate and condensation relative to the critical dimension). Therefore, adjusting the pressure to achieve the desired condensation and fill rate relative to the critical dimension would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art through routine experimentation.
With respect to the requirement of “decrease a height difference between a filling height of the flowable film filled in the first gap and a filling height of the flowable film filled in the second gap, a rate of increase of the filling height of the flowable film in the first gap increases relatively, and at the same time, the rate of increase of the filling height of the flowable film in the second gap decreases relatively”, the examiner notes that a full review of the specification and the claims as drafted illustrates that this claim limitation is a natural result that would flow from performing the sequence of supplying and pumping and therefore taking the prior art would necessarily have this same results unless that applicant is using different process steps, parameters or materials that are neither claimed nor disclosed as required. Mere recognition of latent properties in the prior art does not render nonobvious an otherwise known invention. In re Wiseman, 596 F.2d 1019, 201 USPQ 658 (CCPA 1979). Here, while the prior art does not specifically recognize the result (i.e. the relative rate of increase and decrease of the gaps with different cross sectional diameter) that would flow from performing the process steps, "[t]he fact that appellant has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious." Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Here, the applicant’s have merely claimed a result of the reduced pressure to control the condensation and based on a full review of the specification, the examiner maintains that by reducing the pressure as claimed, the results as specifically claimed by Applicant would follow unless the Applicant is using a very specific recipe or pressure cycle that is not disclosed or claims as being required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 13-14, 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent Application 20140106574 by Kang et al.
Claim 13: Kang discloses method of processing a substrate, the method comprising: providing a substrate to a reaction space, the substrate having at least two gaps in a surface of the substrate (Figure 2 and accompanying text); and depositing a flowable film in the at least two gaps (i.e. flows within the at least two gaps) while supplying a precursor and a reactant gas to the reaction space (see abstract, Figure 3 and accompanying text, 0051-0059) , wherein the depositing a flowable film is discontinuously performed while a pumping operation for the reaction space is continuously maintained (see 0075-0079, pulsing precursors, 0076 related to constant pressure in chamber, i.e. continuous). Kang discloses plasma (see Figure 5 and 6). Examiner incorporates herein by reference Response to Arguments section above.
Claim 14: Kang discloses during a discontinuous period of the depositing, the supply of the precursor and the reactant gas to the reaction space is blocked, and the supply of RF power applied to the reaction space is blocked.
Claim 18: Kang discloses pressure within the reaction space in the depositing is in a range of about 1 Torr to about 10 Torr, and pressure within the reaction space during a discontinuous period of the depositing is less than or equal to about 3 Torr (see pressure of 1 Torr at 0069, constant at 0076).
Claim 19: Kang discloses silicon precursor and nitrogen precursor as claimed (0055-0058)
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) 1-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 7524735 by Gauri et al. taken with WO 201107214, hereinafter WO 214, alone or with US Patent Application Publication 20180025907, hereinafter USPP 907 and US Patent Application Publication 20160056071, hereinafter USPP 071.
Claim 1: Gauri discloses a method of processing a substrate, the method comprising: providing a substrate in a reaction space, wherein a first gap having a first cross-sectional in a horizontal direction, and a second gap having a second cross-sectional in the horizontal direction are formed on a surface of the substrate, wherein the second cross-section is less than the first cross-section in the horizontal direction (see Figure 5a-5e and accompanying text, see also column 13, lines 25-45, stating substrates have a wide range of gaps of sizes and shapes to be filled); and filling the first gap and the second gap with a flowable film while supplying a precursor and a reactant gas to the reaction space, the filling comprising: supplying the precursor and the reactant gas to the reaction space; and pumping the reaction space (see e.g. Figure 5a-5e for gap filling and accompanying text, figure 12, related to pressurization/depressurization and multiple cycles). Additionally, Gauri discloses in Figure 5a, multiple features with multiple sizes, and gap filling the smallest features. Gauri discloses repeating the supply, condensation, and pressure control (see Claims 1, 3, 11).
Gauri discloses “Process conditions in the reactor are such that the reaction product is a condensed material that is deposited on the surface. In many embodiments, this involves bringing the substrate into the chamber under "dark", i.e., non-plasma conditions.” (column 4, lines 60-68) and therefore fails to explicitly disclose plasma conditions.
However, Gauri broadly discloses using process conditions that result in condensation and discloses that many embodiments (but not all), using non-plasma. However, WO 143 discloses “In certain embodiments, reactions conditions are such that the silicon- containing compound and oxidant, undergo a condensation reaction, condensing on the substrate surface to form a flowable film. In certain embodiments, the reaction takes place in dark or non-plasma conditions. In other embodiments, the reaction takes place in the presence of a plasma. Methods of depositing a flowable film for gap fill via a plasma-enhanced chemical vapor deposition (PECVD) reaction are described in U.S. Patent Application No. 12/334,726, incorporated by reference herein.” As such, as both references disclose the conditions used for deposition for the flowable film is related to the condensation reaction, it would have been obvious to have used the plasma conditions as suggested by WO 143, as Gauri discloses using process conditions that result in condensation and discloses embodiments using dark or non-plasma conditions, and WO 143 also related to condensation reaction to gapfill a flowable film using process conditions that result in condensation and discloses embodiments using dark or non-plasma condition or alternatively using plasma conditions. The claim would have been obvious because the substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. A predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions to achieve a predictable result is prima facie obvious. See KSR Int’l Inc. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S Ct. 1727, 1741, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007).
Gauri fails to discloses the features have diameters as claimed (generic to shape); however, explicitly discloses that the features can have essentially any shape (see e.g. column 13, lines 35-38) and therefore using circular openings would have been obvious as predictable and such are well-known in the semiconductor processing. Additionally, the examiner cites here USPP 907, also in the art of gap filling with silicon material and discloses the gaps in semiconductors are known to be cylindrical vias (0018) and therefore using cylindrical vias i.e. of cylindrical will include a diameter (cylinders including a diameter by their basic structure), would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as the known feature to be filled via a flowable silicon.
Gauri discloses the strict control over the pressure in the chamber with the supply of the precursor and a reactant gas, including multiple pressurization/depressurization cycles, so as to provide a coating into the interior of the features and “then the pressure is decreased to a point between the hysteresis pressure and the saturation pressure and held until liquid is removed and some liquid remains in narrow dimensions features” (see column 12, lines 8-30, Figures 5a-5d and accompanying text). Here, Gauri explicitly discloses the pressure during the supply to condense the vapor phase precursors onto the trenches allowing the fluid to flow into the trenches and thereafter decrease pressure, i.e. the claimed pump down, to control the condensation/evaporation of the flowable fluid to achieve gap filling of the features. Gauri discloses to one of ordinary skill in the art to control the hysteresis loop depending on the size feature and shape. Therefore, taking the reference for its entire teaching and all that is known to one of ordinary skill in the art, it would have been obvious to have controlled the pressurization/depressurization during the gap filling through multiple cycles to control the condensation/evaporation of the reactant gas/precursor gas so as to control the gap filling of the features in the chamber.
Alternatively, the examiner cites here US 071, which is also in the art of gap filling and discloses the amount of condensation and the fill rate as it relates to the critical dimension of the feature can be tuned by varying the partial pressure and selectively varying the partial pressure of the reactants relative to their saturated vapor pressure improves the ability of the control the gap filling process (see 0100, Figure 6 and accompanying text). Here, US 071 discloses the pressure variable, similar to that as adjusted by Gauri, is a result effective variable to control to provide the control over the flowable precursor gap filling (by controlling the fill rate and condensation relative to the critical dimension). Therefore, adjusting the pressure to achieve the desired condensation and fill rate relative to the critical dimension would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art through routine experimentation.
With respect to the requirement of “decrease a height difference between a filling height of the flowable film filled in the first gap and a filling height of the flowable film filled in the second gap, a rate of increase of the filling height of the flowable film in the first gap increases relatively, and at the same time, the rate of increase of the filling height of the flowable film in the second gap decreases relatively”, the examiner notes that a full review of the specification and the claims as drafted illustrates that this claim limitation is a natural result that would flow from performing the sequence of supplying and pumping and therefore taking the prior art would necessarily have this same results unless that applicant is using different process steps, parameters or materials that are neither claimed nor disclosed as required. Mere recognition of latent properties in the prior art does not render nonobvious an otherwise known invention. In re Wiseman, 596 F.2d 1019, 201 USPQ 658 (CCPA 1979). Here, while the prior art does not specifically recognize the result (i.e. the relative rate of increase and decrease of the gaps with different cross sectional diameter) that would flow from performing the process steps, "[t]he fact that appellant has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious." Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Claim 2: Gauri discloses pumping the reaction space continuously (paragraph bridging column 4-5) during supply and converting to flowable film. Here, the reference discloses repeating supply (and thus must necessarily stop the supply to achieve repeated supply) and condensing and continuously pumping and therefore at the very least, stopping supply in the pumping the reaction space, the supply of the precursor and the reactant gas is blocked and the supply of RF power applied to the reaction space is blocked for at least a period of time.
Claim 3: Gauri discloses continuously pumping during supply and condensation (column 5, lines 1-4).
Claim 4: The supply and control over the time of supply and pressure control would have been recognized as a result effective variable, directly affecting the amount of gases present in the chamber for condensing and gap filling, condensing and evaporation and therefore determination of the optimum supply and conversion to flowability ratio would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to achieve the desired gap-filling.
Claim 5: The filling speed appears to be met by Figure 5a-5b. Additionally, while the filling speed is not specifically designated by Gauri, the examiner notes that a full review of the specification and the claims as drafted illustrates that this claim limitation is a natural result that would flow from performing the sequence of supplying and pumping and therefore taking the prior art would necessarily have this same results unless that applicant is using different process steps, parameters or materials that are neither claimed nor disclosed as required. Mere recognition of latent properties in the prior art does not render nonobvious an otherwise known invention. In re Wiseman, 596 F.2d 1019, 201 USPQ 658 (CCPA 1979). Here, while the prior art does not specifically recognize the result (i.e. the relative rate of filling of the gaps with different cross sectional diameter) that would flow from performing the process steps, "[t]he fact that appellant has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious." Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). Alternatively, the examiner cites here US 071, which is also in the art of gap filling and discloses the amount of condensation and the fill rate as it relates to the critical dimension of the feature can be tuned by varying the partial pressure and selectively varying the partial pressure of the reactants relative to their saturated vapor pressure improves the ability of the control the gap filling process (see 0100, Figure 6 and accompanying text). Here, US 071 discloses the pressure variable, similar to that as adjusted by Gauri, is a result effective variable to control to provide the control over the flowable precursor gap filling (by controlling the fill rate and condensation relative to the critical dimension). Therefore, adjusting the pressure to achieve the desired condensation and fill rate relative to the critical dimension would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art through routine experimentation.
Claim 6: Gauri discloses an internal volume of the first gap is greater than an internal volume of the second gap (see Figure 5a-5e). Additionally, Gauri discloses that the features can have essentially any shape and size (see e.g. column 13, lines 35-38) and therefore using multiple volumes of openings would have been obvious as predictable.
Claim 7: The method of processing a substrate of claim 1, wherein pressure within the reaction space in the supplying the precursor and the reactant gas is in e.g. 10 Torr, and pressure within the reaction space in reducing the pressure, see e.g. Column 6, lines 20-25. Additionally, as noted above, Gauri explicitly discloses the pressure control to control the condensation/evaporation and control the hysteresis based on the Kelvin effect so that the liquid gap filling materially will remain in the small gap openings and therefore taking the reference for its entire teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to determine the optimum pressure for supply/condensation/evaporation to control the gap filling process.
Claim 8: Gauri discloses the control/reducing the pressure, i.e. pumping, and such would necessarily decrease a difference between partial pressure in the first gap and partial pressure in the second gap as specifically claimed. Mere recognition of latent properties in the prior art does not render nonobvious an otherwise known invention. In re Wiseman, 596 F.2d 1019, 201 USPQ 658 (CCPA 1979). Here, while the prior art does not specifically recognize the result (i.e. the relative rate of filling of the gaps with different cross sectional diameter) that would flow from performing the process steps, "[t]he fact that appellant has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious." Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). Alternatively, the examiner cites here US 071, which is also in the art of gap filling and discloses the amount of condensation and the fill rate as it relates to the critical dimension of the feature can be tuned by varying the partial pressure and selectively varying the partial pressure of the reactants relative to their saturated vapor pressure improves the ability of the control the gap filling process (see 0100, Figure 6 and accompanying text). Here, US 071 discloses the pressure variable, similar to that as adjusted by Gauri, is a result effective variable to control to provide the control over the flowable precursor gap filling (by controlling the fill rate and condensation relative to the critical dimension). Therefore, adjusting the pressure to achieve the desired condensation and fill rate relative to the critical dimension would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art through routine experimentation.
Claim 9: Gauri discloses a temperature that overlaps the range as claimed (column 6, lines 2-20).
Claims 10: WO 124 discloses silicon oxynitride flowable films and using a nitrogen gas (0082, 0056) and therefore using such would have been obvious as a known flowable film.
Claim 11-12: Gauri discloses various precursors that meet these claims, including TEOS (paragraph bridging column 13-14).
Claim 13: Gauri, US 907 and US 071 discloses all that is taught above. Gauri discloses discontinuous supply and continuously pumping during supply and condensation and repeating (column 5, lines 1-4, claim 11 for repeating, i.e. cycling) and therefore taking the reference for its entire teaching, it would have been obvious to have continuously pumped as claimed since such is taught as Gauri as providing the benefits of removing any byproducts from the chamber during the process.
Claims 14-19: The limitations of these claims are specifically addressed above and therefore are rejected for the same reasons as set forth above.
Claim 20: Gauri, US 907 and US 071 discloses all that is taught above. Gauri discloses discontinuous supply and continuously pumping during supply and condensation and repeating the process a number of times (column 5, lines 1-4, claim 11) and therefore taking the reference for its entire teaching, it would have been obvious to have repeated the supply and pumping as suggested by Gauri to reap the benefits of gap filling. As for the requirement of the number of repetitions of the cycle increases, a difference between a filling speed of the flowable film to be filled in the first gap and a filling speed of the flowable film to be filled in the second gap decreases, such would be evidence from Figure 5a-5e, specifically, the difference is reduced as the gap filling in in completed. Additionally, mere recognition of latent properties in the prior art does not render nonobvious an otherwise known invention. In re Wiseman, 596 F.2d 1019, 201 USPQ 658 (CCPA 1979). Here, while the prior art does not specifically recognize the result (i.e. the relative rate of filling of the gaps with different cross sectional diameter) that would flow from performing the process steps, "[t]he fact that appellant has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious." Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). Alternatively, the examiner cites here US 071, which is also in the art of gap filling and discloses the amount of condensation and the fill rate as it relates to the critical dimension of the feature can be tuned by varying the partial pressure and selectively varying the partial pressure of the reactants relative to their saturated vapor pressure improves the ability of the control the gap filling process (see 0100, Figure 6 and accompanying text). Here, US 071 discloses the pressure variable, similar to that as adjusted by Gauri, is a result effective variable to control to provide the control over the flowable precursor gap filling (by controlling the fill rate and condensation relative to the critical dimension). Therefore, adjusting the pressure to achieve the desired condensation and fill rate relative to the critical dimension would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art through routine experimentation.
Claims 21-24: The limitations of these claims are specifically addressed above and therefore are rejected for the same reasons as set forth above.
Conclusion
Pertinent Art cited on PTO 892 discloses the capillary condensation is controlled in the gap filling process by adjusting partial pressure (page 37, lines 25-20).
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 P TUROCY whose telephone number is (571)272-2940. The examiner can normally be reached Mon, Tues, Thurs, and Friday, 7:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at 571-272-5166. 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.
/DAVID P TUROCY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights