Attorney Docket Number: 22119US01
Filing Date: 5/23/2023
Claimed Foreign Priority Date: 3/18/2021 (JP 2021-045115)
Inventors: Nakano et al.
Examiner: Thomas McCoy
DETAILED ACTION
This Office action responds to the amendments filed 6/22/2026.
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 . In the event the determination of the status of the application as
subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 102 is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing
from AIA to pre-AIA ) for a 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.
Acknowledgement
The Amendment filed on 6/22/2026, responding to the Office action mailed 4/01/2026, has been entered. Applicant amended claims 1, 5, 9-10, and 20, and cancelled claims 4 and 8. Applicant added claims 21-22. The present Office action is made with all the suggested amendments being fully considered.
Response to Amendments
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have failed to overcome at least one of the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 as previously formulated in the Non-Final Office action mailed on 4/01/2026. Accordingly, pending in this application are claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-15, and 18-22. The amended claim limitation simply recites that the pad electrode has an overhanging portion that extends/rides along an outer surface of the photosensitive resin, but it is noted that the examiner is entitled to the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language. Additionally, although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In the instant case, it is noted that the limitation “…an overhanging portion that rides on an outside surface of the photosensitive resin in a gap of the thermosetting resin…” as argued, i.e., “…an overhanging portion extending over the electrode and rides on the outside surface of the photosensitive resin and directly between the photosensitive resin and the thermosetting resin…” (see, e.g., pages 9-10 of the remarks) configuration is not recited in the body of the claims. Instead, applicant merely relied on limiting the argued configuration as “…wherein the pad electrode has an overhanging portion that rides on an outside surface of the photosensitive resin in a gap of the thermosetting resin…”, which under BRI, is not precluded from being interpreted as, “…the pad electrode has a portion that extends/rides along some outer surface of the photosensitive resin in an absence of the thermosetting resin…” as in Kudou in view of Miyata further in view of Kubota (see the rejection of claim 1 and the annotated fig. 1 below). Applicant is encouraged to recite the argued limitations in the body of the claims, so as to clearly distinguish the instant inventions from the prior art of record.
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.
Claims 1-2, 5, 9, 12-14 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kudou (US 20190080976 A1) in view of Miyata (JP 2009188148 A) further in view of Kubota (US 20240164166 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kudou (see, e.g., fig. 7B) shows most aspects of the instant invention including a wide bandgap semiconductor device comprising:
A chip (e.g., semiconductor substrate 101 + first body region 103 + first semiconductor layer 102 + interlayer insulating layer 111) that includes a wide bandgap semiconductor (e.g., semiconductor substrate 101 + paragraph 2 “…power semiconductor devices using a silicon carbide (SiC) substrate…”) and that has a main surface (e.g., top surface of first semiconductor layer 102);
A main surface electrode (e.g., first electrode 159) arranged on the main surface (e.g., top surface of first semiconductor layer 102);
a pad electrode (e.g., electrode 112) that is formed on a part of the main surface electrode (e.g., first electrode 159) which is exposed from an organic protective layer (e.g., organic protective layer 126), and that has an electrode surface (e.g., top surface of electrode 112 between resin layers 126) exposed from the organic protective layer (e.g., organic protective layer 126).
Kudou (see, e.g., fig. 7B), however, fails to show a thermosetting resin that includes a matrix resin and a plurality of fillers and that covers the main surface such as to expose a part of the main surface electrode, while it also fails to show a photosensitive resin covering a peripheral edge portion of the main surface electrode, the thermosetting resin covering the photosensitive resin, and the pad electrode has an overhanging portion that rides on an outside surface of the photosensitive resin in a gap of the thermosetting resin.
Miyata (see, e.g., fig. 1A), in a similar device to Kudou, teaches a thermosetting resin (e.g., resin film 18A + paragraph 25 “Resin film 18A…thermosetting resin…may be constituted of a resin material filler is mixed”) that includes a matrix resin that covers a main surface (e.g., bottom surface of semiconductor wafer 24) and such as to expose a part of an electrode (e.g., electrode 20).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include the thermosetting resin of Miyata as part of the organic protective layer of Kudou (hereinafter resin-modified organic protective layer 126), in order to provide a rigid, cross-linked structure, enhancing the strength and reliability of the protective layer over the electrode. Note that the resin-modified organic protective layer already covers the main surface such as to expose a part of the main surface electrode.
Kudou in view of Miyata, however, fails to teach a photosensitive resin covering a peripheral edge portion of the main surface electrode; wherein the thermosetting resin covers the photosensitive resin, and the pad electrode has an overhanging portion that rides on an outside surface of the photosensitive resin in a gap of the thermosetting resin.
Kubota (see, e.g., fig. 40B), in a similar device to Kudou in view of Miyata, teaches a photosensitive resin (e.g., layer 128 + paragraph 640 “When a photosensitive resin is used, the layer 128 can be formed through only light-exposure and development steps, reducing the influence of dry etching, wet etching, or the like on the surfaces of the pixel electrode 111a”) covering a portion of an electrode (e.g., pixel electrode 111a).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include the photosensitive resin layer of Kubota within the inorganic protective layer (hereinafter photosensitive layer 125) of Kudou in view of Miyata, in order to provide additional protection for the chip and main surface electrode. Note that the layer 125 already lies on the peripheral edge portion of the main surface electrode (see, e.g., fig. 7B of Kudou). Also note that the pad electrode of Kudou rides on an outside surface of layer 125 (see annotated fig. 1), in a portion at least partially away from the thermosetting resin.
PNG
media_image1.png
213
440
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 1
Regarding claim 2, Kudou (see, e.g., fig. 7B) teaches the thermosetting resin (e.g., resin-modified organic protective layer 126) is thicker (see, e.g., fig. 7B) than the main surface electrode (e.g., first electrode 159).
Regarding claim 5, Kudou in view of Miyata further in view of Kubota teaches (see, e.g., fig. 7B of Kudou) the photosensitive resin (e.g., photosensitive layer 125) is thicker (see, e.g., fig. 7B) than the main surface electrode (e.g., first electrode 159), and the thermosetting resin (e.g., resin-modified organic protective layer 126) is thicker (see, e.g., paragraph 67 “…layer 126 has a thickness ranging from 3 μm to 10 μm (inclusive) in a direction perpendicular to semiconductor substrate 101.” + paragraph 70 “…film 125F has a thickness ranging from 0.2 μm to 2 μm (inclusive) in the direction perpendicular to semiconductor substrate 101”) than the photosensitive resin (e.g., photosensitive layer 125).
Regarding claim 9, Kudou (see, e.g., fig. 7B) shows wherein the electrode surface (e.g., top surface of electrode 112) forms a single flat surface together (see, e.g., flat contact surface between layer 126 and top surface of electrode 112) with an outside surface of the thermosetting resin (e.g., resin-modified organic protective layer 126).
Regarding claim 12, Kudou (see, e.g., fig. 7B) shows wherein the chip (e.g., semiconductor substrate 101 + first body region 103 + first semiconductor layer 102 + interlayer insulating layer 111) has a side surface (e.g., exposed surface of interlayer insulating layer 111), and the thermosetting resin (e.g., resin-modified organic protective layer 126) has a resin side surface (e.g., surface of layer 126 in contact with side surface of 111) continuous to the side surface (e.g., exposed surface of interlayer insulating layer 111).
Regarding claim 13, Kudou (see, e.g., fig. 7B) shows wherein the resin side surface (e.g., surface of layer 126 in contact with side surface of 111) forms a single flat surface together with the side surface (e.g., exposed surface of interlayer insulating layer 111) of the chip (e.g., semiconductor substrate 101 + first body region 103 + first semiconductor layer 102 + interlayer insulating layer 111).
Regarding claim 14, Kudou (see, e.g., fig. 7B) shows wherein the thermosetting resin (e.g., resin-modified organic protective layer 126) includes a portion directly covering the main surface at a peripheral edge portion (see, e.g., edge of layer 126 above interlayer insulating layer 111) of the chip (e.g., semiconductor substrate 101 + first body region 103 + first semiconductor layer 102 + interlayer insulating layer 111).
Regarding claim 18, Kudou (see, e.g., fig. 7B) shows a functional device (see, e.g., paragraph 39 “…the semiconductor device is a Schottky barrier diode…” + paragraph 105 “First electrode 159 forms a Schottky contact with drift layer 102”, hence device extends up to layer 102) formed at the chip (e.g., semiconductor substrate 101 + first body region 103 + first semiconductor layer 102 + interlayer insulating layer 111).
Regarding claim 19, Kudou (see, e.g., fig. 7B) shows the functional device includes at least either one of a diode (see, e.g., paragraph 39 “…the semiconductor device is a Schottky barrier diode…”) and a transistor.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kudou in view of Miyata further in view of Kubota, Hamaguchi (JP 2014056924 A), and Jeong (US 20140159095 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Kudou in view of Miyata further in view of Kubota fails to teach wherein the fillers include a plurality of first fillers that are thinner than the main surface electrode and a plurality of second fillers that are thicker than the main surface electrode.
Hamaguchi (see, e.g., fig. 5), in a similar device to Kudou in view of Miyata further in view of Kubota, teaches a plurality of first fillers with an average particle size of 1 μm or less (see, e.g., paragraph text “A thermosetting resin composition comprising an inorganic filler having…an average particle size of 1 μm or less”) and a plurality of second fillers that are 5 μm (see, e.g., paragraph text “A thermosetting resin composition comprising an inorganic filler having a maximum particle size of 5 μm”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include the plurality of first fillers and second fillers of Hamaguchi within the resin of Kudou in view of Miyata further in view of Kubota, in order to provide a necessary distribution of filler sizes, allowing smaller particles to fill the gaps between larger ones, enhancing the filler density within the resin’s volume and improving the thermal/mechanical characteristics within the resin.
Kudou in view of Miyata further in view of Kubota and Hamaguchi, however, fails to teach the main surface electrode has a thickness thicker than the plurality of first fillers and thinner than the plurality of second fillers.
Jeong (see, e.g., fig.2), in a similar device to Kudou in view of Miyata further in view of Kubota and Hamaguchi, teaches an electrode can comprise a width between that of 1 μm and 5 μm (see, e.g., paragraph 64 “the second electrode 115 may have a thickness h of about… 2 μm”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include the electrode thickness profile of Jeong within the main surface electrode of Kudou in view of Miyata further in view of Kubota and Hamaguchi, in order to limit the cost of manufacturing the materials while fabricating the device. Note that the 2 micrometer thickness lies between that of the first plurality of fillers of 1 μm and the second plurality of fillers of 5 μm.
Claims 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kudou in view of Miyata further in view of Kubota and Hamaguchi.
Regarding claim 6, Kudou in view of Miyata further in view of Kubota fails to teach the fillers include a plurality of large size fillers that are thicker than the photosensitive resin.
Hamaguchi (see, e.g., fig. 5), in a similar device to Kudou in view of Miyata further in view of Kubota, teaches a filler within a thermosetting resin can contain a filler with a thickness of 5 μm (see, e.g., paragraph text “A thermosetting resin composition comprising an inorganic filler having a maximum particle size of 5 μm or less…”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include the filler of Hamaguchi within the resin of Kudou in view of Miyata further in view of Kubota, as a filler size of 5 μm was well-known in the art at the time of filing, as taught by Hamaguchi. Note that the photosensitive resin thickness is .2 μm to 2 μm (see, e.g., paragraph 70 of Kudou), and hence these 5 μm filler sizes are thicker than the resin.
Claims 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kudou in view of Miyata further in view of Kubota and Ikegami (US 6674178 B1).
Regarding claim 10, Kudou in view of Miyata further in view of Kubota fails to teach wherein the pad electrode has a laminated structure including a first electrode film covering the main surface electrode and a second electrode film covering the first electrode film.
Ikegami (see, e.g., fig. 5), in a similar device to Kudou in view of Miyata further in view of Kubota, teaches a pad electrode (e.g., pad electrode 16) has a laminated structure (see, e.g., paragraph 12 “The pad electrodes 16 are formed as a laminate…”) including a first electrode film (see, e.g., paragraph 12 “…having a copper foil conductive pattern…”) and a second electrode film (see, e.g., paragraph 12 “…over which nickel is covered by plating…”) covering the first electrode film (see, e.g., paragraph 12).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include the laminated structure of Ikegami within the pad electrode of Kudou in view of Miyata further in view of Kubota, in order to enhance the mechanical integrity and interfacial contact of the different material layers within the pad electrode. Note that pad electrode covers the main surface electrode, and hence the first electrode film at the bottom of the pad electrode covers the main surface electrode.
Claims 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kudou in view of Miyata further in view of Kubota and Cai (US 20200286802 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Kudou in view of Miyata further in view of Kubota fails to teach the fillers include a plurality of filler fragments having particle shapes broken in a surface layer portion of the thermosetting resin.
Cai (see, e.g., fig. 3), in a similar device to Kudou in view of Miyata further in view of Kubota teaches a plurality of filler fragments (e.g., fillers F2) having particle shapes (see, e.g., filler particle shapes of fig. 3) broken in a surface layer portion of the resin (e.g., resin layer 61).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include the filler fragments having particle shapes of Cai broken in the surface layer portion of the thermosetting resin of Kudou in view of Miyata further in view of Kubota, in order to provide elongated filler volumes within the resin while limiting the vertical space needed, as taught by Cai (see paragraphs 25-26).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kudou in view of Miyata further in view of Kubota Asami (US 20110229708 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Kudou in view of Miyata further in view of Kubota fails to teach a second main surface electrode arranged on the main surface at an interval from the main surface electrode, wherein the thermosetting resin covers the main surface so as to expose a part of each of the main surface electrodes.
Asami (see, e.g., fig. 1), in a similar device to Kudou in view of Miyata further in view of Kubota, teaches a first and a second main electrode (see, e.g., module terminal electrode 7, see plurality of electrodes 7 of fig. 1) arranged on a main surface (e.g., surface of substrate 3B) at an interval (see, e.g., space between electrodes 7).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include the multi-electrode setup of Asami onto the main surface of Kudou in view of Miyata further in view of Kubota in place of the large singular main surface electrode, in order to limit the cost of manufacturing materials while fabricating the device, by using electrode material only where necessary. Note that the thermosetting resin lies on the edge of the original main surface electrode configuration, and hence the resin will expose a part of each of the main electrode and second main electrode.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kudou in view of Miyata further in view of Kubota and Hasegawa (US 20160254392).
Regarding claim 20, Kudou (see, e.g., fig. 7B) shows most aspects of the instant invention, including a semiconductor package comprising:
A package main body (e.g., organic protective layer 126 + interlayer insulating layer 111 + first semiconductor layer 102 + first body region 103 + semiconductor substrate 101 + electrode 110 + wiring electrode 113) constituted of a molded resin (see, e.g., paragraph 53 “…mold resin formed on organic protective layer 126…”);
A terminal electrode (e.g., electrode 110) arranged in the package main body (e.g., organic protective layer 126 + interlayer insulating layer 111 + first semiconductor layer 102 + first body region 103 + semiconductor substrate 101 + electrode 110 + wiring electrode 113);
A wide bandgap semiconductor device comprises:
A chip (e.g., semiconductor substrate 101 + first body region 103 + first semiconductor layer 102 + interlayer insulating layer 111) that includes a wide bandgap semiconductor (e.g., semiconductor substrate 101 + paragraph 2 “…power semiconductor devices using a silicon carbide (SiC) substrate…”) and that has a main surface (e.g., top surface of first semiconductor layer 102);
A main surface electrode (e.g., first electrode 159) arranged on the main surface (e.g., top surface of first semiconductor layer 102);
a pad electrode (e.g., electrode 112) that is formed on a part of the main surface electrode (e.g., first electrode 159) which is exposed from an organic protective layer (e.g., organic protective layer 126), and that has an electrode surface (e.g., top surface of electrode 112 between resin layers 126) exposed from the organic protective layer (e.g., organic protective layer 126).
a connecting member (e.g., wiring electrode 113) electrically connected to the terminal electrode (e.g., electrode 110) and to the wide bandgap semiconductor device (e.g., note that wiring electrode 113 is connected electrically to the chip within the wide bandgap semiconductor device);
Kudou (see, e.g., fig. 7B), however, fails to show a thermosetting resin that includes a matrix resin and a plurality of fillers and that covers the main surface such as to expose a part of the main surface electrode, a photosensitive resin covering a peripheral edge portion of the main surface electrode; wherein the thermosetting resin covers the photosensitive resin, the pad electrode has an overhanging portion that rides on an outside surface of the photosensitive resin in a gap of the thermosetting resin, and a conductive plate arranged in the package body between the terminal electrode such as to partially expose the terminal electrode from the package main body.
Miyata (see, e.g., fig. 1A), in a similar device to Kudou, teaches a thermosetting resin (e.g., resin film 18A + paragraph 25 “Resin film 18A…thermosetting resin…may be constituted of a resin material filler is mixed”) that includes a matrix resin that covers a main surface (e.g., bottom surface of semiconductor wafer 24) and such as to expose a part of an electrode (e.g., electrode 20).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include the thermosetting resin of Miyata as part of the organic protective layer of Kudou (hereinafter resin-modified organic protective layer 126), in order to provide an included rigid, cross-linked structure, enhancing the strength and reliability of the protective layer over the electrode. Note that the resin-modified organic protective layer already covers the main surface such as to expose a part of the main surface electrode.
Kudou in view of Miyata, however, fails to teach a photosensitive resin covering a peripheral edge portion of the main surface electrode; wherein the thermosetting resin covers the photosensitive resin, the pad electrode has an overhanging portion that rides on an outside surface of the photosensitive resin in a gap of the thermosetting resin, and a conductive plate arranged in the package body between the terminal electrode such as to partially expose the terminal electrode from the package main body.
Kubota (see, e.g., fig. 40B), in a similar device to Kudou in view of Miyata, teaches a photosensitive resin (e.g., layer 128 + paragraph 640 “When a photosensitive resin is used, the layer 128 can be formed through only light-exposure and development steps, reducing the influence of dry etching, wet etching, or the like on the surfaces of the pixel electrode 111a”) covering a portion of an electrode (e.g., pixel electrode 111a).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include the photosensitive resin layer of Kubota within the inorganic protective layer (hereinafter photosensitive layer 125) of Kudou in view of Miyata, in order to provide additional protection for the chip and main surface electrode. Note that the layer 125 already lies on the peripheral edge portion of the main surface electrode (see, e.g., fig. 7B of Kudou). Note that the pad electrode of Kudou rides on an outside surface of layer 125 (see annotated fig. 1), in a portion.
Kudou in view of Miyata further in view of Kubota, however, fails to teach a conductive plate arranged in the package body between the terminal electrode such as to partially expose the terminal electrode from the package main body.
Hasegawa (see, e.g., fig. 3), in a similar device to Kudou in view of Miyata further in view of Kubota, teaches a plate (e.g., substrate 110 + paragraph 45 “…the substrate 110 of the semiconductor device 100 is a semiconductor with a plate shape…mainly made of gallium nitride”) between a package main body (e.g., semiconductor layer 112 + insulating film 160 + Schottky electrode 150) and an electrode (e.g., cathode electrode 190) so as to expose (e.g., note that the cathode electrode 190 is electrically exposed to the package main body) the electrode.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include the plate configuration of Hasegawa within the device of Kudou in view of Miyata further in view of Kubota, in order to achieve the expected result of expanding the electrical layer profile within the device as necessary.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kudou in view of Miyata further in view of Kubota and Nakano (US 20110018005 A1).
Regarding claim 21, Kudou in view of Miyata further in view of Kubota, fails to teach wherein the chip has a laminated structure including a semiconductor substrate and an epitaxial layer that are each composed of a wide bandgap semiconductor, and the chip includes the main surface formed by the epitaxial layer.
Nakano (see, e.g., fig. 1), in a similar device to Kudou in view of Miyata further in view of Kubota, teaches a chip (e.g., SiC substrate 4 + epitaxial layer 4) has a laminated structure (see, e.g., paragraph 54 “…the SiC substrate 2 is laminated…”) including a semiconductor substrate (e.g., SiC substrate 2) and an epitaxial layer (e.g., epitaxial layer 4) that are each composed of a wide bandgap semiconductor (e.g., note that both substrate 2 and epitaxial layer 4 are SiC), and the chip (e.g., SiC substrate 4 + epitaxial layer 4) includes a main surface (e.g., front face 41) formed by the epitaxial layer (e.g., epitaxial layer 4).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include the lamination and epitaxial configuration of Nakano within the chip of Kudou in view of Miyata further in view of Kubota, in order to provide an increased density and uniform crystal structure within the chip arrangement of the device.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 22 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 22: the primary art of record, Kudou in view of Miyata further in view of Kubota, neither anticipates nor renders obvious wherein the overhanging portion is inclined obliquely downward from a first wall portion of the thermosetting resin toward the outside surface of the photosensitive resin, and is formed in a tapered shape in which a thickness gradually becomes smaller in proportion to a distance receding from the first wall portion. These features in combination with other elements in the claim are neither disclosed nor suggested by the prior art of record.
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 Thomas McCoy at (571) 272-0282 and between the hours of 9:30 AM to 6:30 PM
(Eastern Standard Time) Monday through Friday or by e-mail via Thomas.McCoy@uspto.gov. If attempts
to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Wael Fahmy, can be
reached on (571) 272-1705.
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.
/THOMAS WILSON MCCOY/ Examiner, Art Unit 2814 /WAEL M FAHMY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2814
Prosecution Insights