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 .
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-6, 8, 11, 21 are rejected under 35 U.S. C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang (KR 10-2116475) in view of Shiraiwa (JP 2000-106298) and Tsuji (U.S. Pat. 9,447,881).
INDEPENDENT CLAIM 1:
Regarding claim 1, Kang teaches an apparatus for processing a substrate, the apparatus
comprising: a housing providing a processing space therein; a support unit disposed within the
housing and supporting a substrate; and a plasma generating unit provided above the housing,
wherein the plasma supplying unit includes: a plasma chamber with a discharge space formed
inside; a diffusion member provided between the plasma chamber and the housing, and diffusing
plasma; a plasma source for generating plasma in the discharge space from process gas. (See
Fig. 2 below; Paragraphs 0039-0044)
PNG
media_image1.png
528
744
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The difference between Kang and claim 1 is that a sealing member provided between a
lower flange of the plasma chamber and an upper flange of the diffusion member, and the sealing
member includes: an inner sealing member inserted into a mounting groove formed in an upper
surface of the upper flange; and an outer sealing member inserted into a space formed by
combination of the upper flange and the lower flange, and positioned at a further outward side
from the discharge space than the inner sealing member is not discussed (Claim 1) and wherein the inner sealing member includes: a body portion inserted into the mounting groove; and a protrusion formed to protrude from the body portion, and the body portion includes an inner portion provided at an inner side from the discharge space and an outer portion provided at an outer side from the discharge space is not discussed (Claim 1).
Regarding a sealing member provided between a lower flange of the plasma chamber and an upper flange of the diffusion member, and the sealing member includes: an inner sealing member inserted into a mounting groove formed in an upper surface of the upper flange; and an outer sealing member inserted into a space formed by combination of the upper flange and the lower flange, and positioned at a further outward side from the discharge space than the inner sealing member:
Kang teaches as shown in Fig. 2 a connection between the housing and the diffusion
member. (See Fig. 2 below)
PNG
media_image2.png
152
234
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Shiraiwa teaches that in the prior art there has been a problem of sealing connection
between the various components and a solution is to provide sealing members. (Paragraph 0008,
Background)
Shiraiwa teaches providing inner and outer sealing members in grooves in Figs. 2 and 3
to seal an upper chamber piece to a lower chamber piece. (See Figs. 2, 3)
PNG
media_image3.png
340
710
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the connection of chamber pieces in
Kang with the teachings of Shiraiwa to provide good seal performance between the chamber
pieces.
Regarding wherein the inner sealing member includes: a body portion inserted into the mounting groove; and a protrusion formed to protrude from the body portion, and the body portion includes an inner portion provided at an inner side from the discharge space and an outer portion provided at an outer side from the discharge space:
Tsuji teaches a body portion inserted into a mounting groove; and a
protrusion formed to protrude from the body portion, and the body portion includes an inner
portion provided at an inner side from the discharge space and an outer portion provided at an
outer side from the discharge space. (See Fig. 2)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 3:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the inner portion is provided of a material
that is more corrosion resistant to plasma than a material of the outer portion.
Regarding claim 3, Tsuji teaches wherein the inner portion is provided of a material that
is more corrosion resistant to plasma than a material of the outer portion. (Fig. 5; Column 5 lines
4-22)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 4:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the outer portion and/or the protrusion is
formed of a elastically deformable material to seal a gap formed by a contact of the upper flange
and the lower flange.
Regarding claim 4, Tsuji teaches wherein the outer portion and/or the protrusion is
formed of a elastically deformable material to seal a gap formed by a contact of the upper flange
and the lower flange. (Fig. 4)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 5:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the protrusion extends from a lower end of
the body portion, and is formed with an inclination.
Regarding claim 5, Tsuji teaches wherein the protrusion extends from a lower end of the
body portion, and is formed with an inclination. (Fig. 2)
PNG
media_image4.png
344
502
media_image4.png
Greyscale
DEPENDENT CLAIM 6:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the protrusion is formed with a downward
inclination toward a direction away from the discharge space.
Regarding claim 6, Tsuji teaches wherein the protrusion is formed with a downward
inclination toward a direction away from the discharge space. (See Fig. 2 above)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 8:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein a width of the protrusion is provided to be
smaller than a width of the body portion when viewed in cross-section.
Regarding claim 8, Tsuji teaches wherein a width of the protrusion is provided to be
smaller than a width of the body portion when viewed in cross-section. (See Fig. I - Dis greater
than d)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 11:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the sealing member is ring shaped.
Regarding claim 11, Shiraiwa teaches wherein the sealing member is ring shaped. (Paragraph 0020)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 21:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein a width of the mounting groove is larger than a width of the inner sealing member.
Regarding claim 21, Kang teaches wherein a width of the mounting groove is larger than a width of the inner sealing member. (See Fig. 2)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Shiraiwa is that it allows for improving
sealing. (See Abstract)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Tsuji is that it allows for satisfactory sealing.
(See Abstract)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the
invention was made to have modified Kang by utilizing the features of Shiraiwa and Tsuji because it allows for improving sealing.
Claim(s) 1, 7, 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang (KR 10-2116475) in view of Shiraiwa (JP 2000-106298) and Maheshwari et al. (U.S. PGPUB. 2020/0025292 Al).
INDEPENDENT CLAIM 1:
Regarding claim 1, Kang teaches an apparatus for processing a substrate, the apparatus comprising: a housing providing a processing space therein; a support unit disposed within the housing and supporting a substrate; and a plasma generating unit provided above the housing, wherein the plasma supplying unit includes: a plasma chamber with a discharge space formed inside; a diffusion member provided between the plasma chamber and the housing, and diffusing plasma; a plasma source for generating plasma in the discharge space from process gas. (See Fig. 2 below; Paragraphs 0039-0044)
The difference between Kang and claim 1 is that a sealing member provided between a lower flange of the plasma chamber and an upper flange of the diffusion member, and the sealing member includes: an inner sealing member inserted into a mounting groove formed in an upper surface of the upper flange; and an outer sealing member inserted into a space formed by combination of the upper flange and the lower flange, and positioned at a further outward side from the discharge space than the inner sealing member is not discussed (Claim 1) and wherein the inner sealing member includes: a body portion inserted into the mounting groove; and a protrusion formed to protrude from the body portion, and the body portion includes an inner portion provided at an inner side from the discharge space and an outer portion provided at an outer side from the discharge space is not discussed (Claim 1).
Regarding a sealing member provided between a lower flange of the plasma chamber and an upper flange of the diffusion member, and the sealing member includes: an inner sealing member inserted into a mounting groove formed in an upper surface of the upper flange; and an outer sealing member inserted into a space formed by combination of the upper flange and the lower flange, and positioned at a further outward side from the discharge space than the inner sealing member:
Kang teaches as shown in Fig. 2 a connection between the housing and the diffusion member. (See Fig. 2 below)
Shiraiwa teaches that in the prior art there has been a problem of sealing connection between the various components and a solution is to provide sealing members. (Paragraph 0008, Background)
Shiraiwa teaches providing inner and outer sealing members in grooves in Figs. 2 and 3 to seal an upper chamber piece to a lower chamber piece. (See Figs. 2, 3)
Regarding wherein the inner sealing member includes: a body portion inserted into the mounting groove; and a protrusion formed to protrude from the body portion, and the body portion includes an inner portion provided at an inner side from the discharge space and an outer portion provided at an outer side from the discharge space:
Maheshwari et al. teach a body portion inserted into a mounting groove; and a protrusion formed to protrude from the body portion, and the body portion includes an inner portion provided at an inner side from the discharge space and an outer portion
provided at an outer side from the discharge space. (See Fig. 2)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 7:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the protrusion extends from an upper end of
the body portion and is formed with an upward inclination in a direction away from the discharge
space. (See Fig. 4C)
Regarding claim 7, Maheshwari et al. teach wherein the protrusion extends from an upper
end of the body portion and is formed with an upward inclination in a direction away from the
discharge space.
PNG
media_image5.png
454
392
media_image5.png
Greyscale
DEPENDENT CLAIM 22:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the inner portion includes polytetrafluoroethylene.
Regarding claim 22, Maheshwari et al. teach using polytetrafluoroethylene. (Paragraph 0026)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Shiraiwa is that it allows for improving
sealing. (See Abstract)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Maheshwari et al. is that it allows for sealing
and prolonged life. (See Abstract)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the connection of chamber pieces in Kang with the teachings of Shiraiwa and Maheshwari et al. to provide good seal performance between the chamber pieces and prolonged life.
Claim(s) 1, 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang (KR 10-2116475) in view of Shiraiwa (JP 2000-106298) and Yoshida et al. (JP 2015-086910).
INDEPENDENT CLAIM 1:
Regarding claim 1, Kang teaches an apparatus for processing a substrate, the apparatus
comprising: a housing providing a processing space therein; a support unit disposed within the
housing and supporting a substrate; and a plasma generating unit provided above the housing,
wherein the plasma supplying unit includes: a plasma chamber with a discharge space formed
inside; a diffusion member provided between the plasma chamber and the housing, and diffusing
plasma; a plasma source for generating plasma in the discharge space from process gas. (See
Fig. 2 below; Paragraphs 0039-0044)
PNG
media_image1.png
528
744
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The difference between Kang and claim 1 is that a sealing member provided between a
lower flange of the plasma chamber and an upper flange of the diffusion member, and the sealing
member includes: an inner sealing member inserted into a mounting groove formed in an upper
surface of the upper flange; and an outer sealing member inserted into a space formed by
combination of the upper flange and the lower flange, and positioned at a further outward side
from the discharge space than the inner sealing member is not discussed (Claim 1) and wherein the inner sealing member includes: a body portion inserted into the mounting groove; and a protrusion formed to protrude from the body portion, and the body portion includes an inner portion provided at an inner side from the discharge space and an outer portion provided at an outer side from the discharge space is not discussed (Claim 1).
Regarding a sealing member provided between a lower flange of the plasma chamber and an upper flange of the diffusion member, and the sealing member includes: an inner sealing member inserted into a mounting groove formed in an upper surface of the upper flange; and an outer sealing member inserted into a space formed by combination of the upper flange and the lower flange, and positioned at a further outward side from the discharge space than the inner sealing member:
Kang teaches as shown in Fig. 2 a connection between the housing and the diffusion
member. (See Fig. 2 below)
PNG
media_image2.png
152
234
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Shiraiwa teaches that in the prior art there has been a problem of sealing connection
between the various components and a solution is to provide sealing members. (Paragraph 0008,
Background)
Shiraiwa teaches providing inner and outer sealing members in grooves in Figs. 2 and 3
to seal an upper chamber piece to a lower chamber piece. (See Figs. 2, 3)
PNG
media_image3.png
340
710
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the connection of chamber pieces in
Kang with the teachings of Shiraiwa to provide good seal performance between the chamber
pieces.
Regarding wherein the inner sealing member includes: a body portion inserted into the mounting groove; and a protrusion formed to protrude from the body portion, and the body portion includes an inner portion provided at an inner side from the discharge space and an outer portion provided at an outer side from the discharge space:
Yoshida et al. teach wherein the inner sealing member includes: a body portion inserted into the mounting groove; and a protrusion formed to protrude from the body portion, and the body portion includes an inner portion provided at an inner side from the discharge space and an outer portion provided at an outer side from the discharge space. (See Figures 2-11)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 9:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein a width of the protrusion is provided to be
greater than a width of the body portion when viewed in cross-section.
Regarding claim 9, Yoshida et al. teach wherein a width of the protrusion is provided to
be greater than a width of the body portion when viewed in cross-section. (See Fig. 11)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Shiraiwa is that it allows for improving
sealing. (See Abstract)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Yoshida et al. is that it allows for sealing with
low load. (See Abstract)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the
invention was made to have utilized the features of Shiraiwa and Yoshida et al. because it allows for sealing.
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang in view of Shiraiwa and Tsuji as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jung (KR 10-2017-0070543).
DEPENDENT CLAIM 10:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the upper flange has an inclined surface at an
edge to surround an edge of the lower flange, and the space is formed by combination of the
inclined surface and the edge of the lower flange.
Regarding claim 10, Jung teaches utilizing inclined surfaces joined by sealing means.
(See Abstract; Figures)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Jung is that it allows for improving closure.
(See Abstract)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the
invention was made to have utilized the features of Jung because it allows for improving closure.
Claim(s) 12, 14-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Shiraiwa (JP 2000-106298) in view of Tsuji (U.S. Pat. 9,447,881).
INDEPENDENT CLAIM 12:
Regarding claim 12, Shiraiwa teaches an apparatus for processing a substrate, the
apparatus comprising: a sealing member for sealing a gap between a first member and a second member, which is in contact with the first member, wherein the sealing member includes: an
inner sealing member inserted into a mounting groove formed in an upper surface of the second
member; and an outer sealing member provided on a further outer side than the inner sealing
member, and inserted into a space formed at edges of the first member and the second member.
(See Fig. 2 annotated)
PNG
media_image6.png
312
718
media_image6.png
Greyscale
The difference between Shiraiwa and claim 12 is that the inner sealing member includes:
a body portion inserted into a mounting groove formed in an upper surface of the first member is
not discussed and a protrusion formed to protrude from the body portion is not discussed and wherein the body portion is formed by an inner portion provided at an inner side of the body portion and an outer portion provided at an outer side of the body portion.
Regarding the inner sealing member includes: a body portion inserted into a mounting
groove formed in an upper surface of the first member (Claim 12), Shiraiwa teaches in Fig. 3 that
the upper member 71 can have a groove to support an O-ring. (See Fig. 3)
It would be obvious to add an upper groove in Fig. 2 first member of Shiraiwa as taught
by Shiraiwa in Fig. 3 to increase sealing.
Regarding a protrusion formed to protrude from the body portion (Claim 12), Tusji
teaches a protrusion formed to protrude from the body portion. (See Fig. 2)
Regarding wherein the body portion is formed by an inner portion provided at an inner side of the body portion and an outer portion provided at an outer side of the body portion (Claim12), Tsuji teaches wherein the body portion is formed by an inner portion
provided at an inner side of the body portion and an outer portion provided at an outer side of the
body portion. (See Fig. 2)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 14:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the inner portion is provided of a material
that is more corrosion resistant to plasma than a material of the outer portion.
Regarding claim 14, Tsuji teaches wherein the inner portion is provided of a material that
is more corrosion resistant to plasma than a material of the outer portion. (Fig. 5; Column 5 lines
4-22)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 15:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the outer portion and/or the protrusion is
formed of a elastically deformable material to seal a gap formed by a contact of the upper flange
and the lower flange.
Regarding claim 15, Tsuji teaches wherein the outer portion and/or the protrusion is
formed of a elastically deformable material to seal a gap formed by a contact of the upper flange
and the lower flange. (Fig. 4)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 16:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the protrusion extends from a lower end of
the body portion, and is formed with an inclination.
Regarding claim 16, Tsuji teaches wherein the protrusion extends from a lower end of the
body portion, and is formed with an inclination. (Fig. 2)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 17:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the protrusion is formed with a downward
inclination toward a direction away from the inner space.
Regarding claim 17, Tsuji teaches wherein the protrusion is formed with a downward
inclination toward a direction away from the inner space. (See Fig. 2 above)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 20:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the sealing member is ring shaped.
Regarding claim 20, Shiraiwa teaches wherein the sealing member is ring shaped.
(Paragraph 0020)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Tsuji is that it allows for satisfactory sealing.
(See Abstract)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the
invention was made to have modified Shiraiwa by utilizing the features of Tsuji because it
allows for satisfactory sealing.
Claim(s) 12, 18, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Shiraiwa (JP 2000-106298) in view of Maheshwari et al. (U.S. PGPUB. 2020/0025292 Al).
INDEPENDENT CLAIM 12:
Regarding claim 12, Shiraiwa teaches an apparatus for processing a substrate, the
apparatus comprising: a sealing member for sealing a gap between a first member and a second
member, which is in contact with the first member, wherein the sealing member includes: an
inner sealing member inserted into a mounting groove formed in an upper surface of the second
member; and an outer sealing member provided on a further outer side than the inner sealing
member, and inserted into a space formed at edges of the first member and the second member.
(See Fig. 2 annotated)
PNG
media_image7.png
328
744
media_image7.png
Greyscale
The difference between Shiraiwa and claim 12 is that the inner sealing member includes:
a body portion inserted into a mounting groove formed in an upper surface of the first member is
not discussed and a protrusion formed to protrude from the body portion is not discussed and wherein the body portion is formed by an inner portion provided at an inner side of the body portion and an outer portion provided at an outer side of the body portion.
Regarding the inner sealing member includes: a body portion inserted into a mounting
groove formed in an upper surface of the first member (Claim 12), Shiraiwa teaches in Fig. 3 that
the upper member 71 can have a groove to support an O-ring. (See Fig. 3)
PNG
media_image8.png
268
544
media_image8.png
Greyscale
It would be obvious to add an upper groove in Fig. 2 first member of Shiraiwa as taught
by Shiraiwa in Fig. 3 to increase sealing.
Regarding a protrusion formed to protrude from the body portion (Claim 12), Maheshwari et al. teach a protrusion to protrude from the body portion. (See Figs. 2A-2E; Figs.
4A-4C)
Regarding wherein the body portion is formed by an inner portion provided at an inner side of the body portion and an outer portion provided at an outer side of the body portion (Claim 13), Maheshwari et al. teach wherein the body portion is formed by an inner portion provided at an inner side of the body portion and an outer portion provided at an outer side of the body portion. (See Figs. 2A-2E; Figs. 4A-4C)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 18:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the protrusion includes a first protrusion
formed with an upward inclination toward a direction away from the inner portion and a second
protrusion formed with a downward inclination toward a direction away from the inner portion.
Regarding claim 18, Maheshwari et al. teach wherein the protrusion includes a first
protrusion formed with an upward inclination toward a direction away from the inner portion and
a second protrusion formed with a downward inclination toward a direction away from the inner
portion. (See Figs. 2A-2E; Figs. 4A-4C)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 19:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the protrusion extends from an upper end of
the body portion and is formed with an upward inclination toward a direction away from the
inner portion.
Regarding claim 19, Maheshwari et al. teach wherein the protrusion extends from an
upper end of the body portion and is formed with an upward inclination toward a direction away
from the inner portion. (See Figs. 2A-2E; Figs. 4A-4C)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Maheshwari et al. is that it allows for sealing
and prolonged life. (See Abstract)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the
invention was made to have modified Shiraiwa by utilizing the features of Maheshwari et al.
because it allows for sealing and prolonged life.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 12, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The 35 U.S.C. 112 2nd paragraph rejection has been overcome.
In response to the argument that the prior art does not teach an inner sealing member having a body portion, wherein the body portion includes an inner portion provided at an inner side from the discharge space and an outer portion provided at an outer side from the discharge space, it is argued for example that Tsuji teach a body portion provided with an inner portion and an outer portion. The inner regions and the outer regions are construed to be regions of the same body portions. With respect to the inner portion positioned at an inner side of the discharge space and the outer portion positioned at an outer side of the discharge space the sealing means of Tsuji would meet this limitation when place in the groove.
In response to the argument that Shiraiwa does not teach a body portion with distinct inner and outer portions relative to the discharge space and a protrusion formed to protrude from the body portion, it is argued that Shiraiwa teaches a body portion with distinct inner and outer portions relative to the discharge space and a protrusion formed to protrude from the body portion, it is agreed that Shiraiwa does not teach a body portion with distinct inner and outer portions relative to the discharge space and a protrusion formed to protrude from the body portion however the secondary references suggest these features.
In response to the argument that Tsuji does not teach the body portion including an inner portion provided at an inner side from the discharge space and an outer portion provided at an outer side from the discharge space, Tsuji teach a body portion provided with an inner portion and an outer portion. The inner regions and the outer regions are construed to be regions of the same body portions. With respect to the inner portion positioned at an inner side of the discharge space and the outer portion positioned at an outer side of the discharge space the sealing means of Tsuji would meet this limitation when place in the groove.
In response to the argument that Maheshwari does not teach distinct inner and outer portions of the body portion positioned relative to a discharge space with different material properties, it is argued that Maheshwari teaches a body portion with distinct inner and outer portions relative to the discharge space and a protrusion formed to protrude from the body portion.
PNG
media_image9.png
366
767
media_image9.png
Greyscale
In response to the argument that Yoshida does not teach a structure with distinct inner and outer portions positioned relative to a discharge space, it is argued that Yoshida teaches a body portion with distinct inner and outer portions relative to the discharge space and a protrusion formed to protrude from the body portion.
PNG
media_image10.png
269
480
media_image10.png
Greyscale
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 RODNEY GLENN MCDONALD whose telephone number is (571)272-1340. The examiner can normally be reached Hoteling: M-Th every Fri off.
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, James Lin can be reached at 571-272-8902. 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.
/RODNEY G MCDONALD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794
RM
June 2, 2026
Prosecution Insights