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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 34 recites the limitation "wherein the pressing of the package lid onto the TIM layer is performed such that the TIM layer is between the encapsulant layer and the plurality of recessed portions" in the last clause. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the encapsulant layer” in the claim.
Claims depending from the rejected claims noted above are rejected at least on the same basis as the claim(s) from which the dependent claims depend.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Chaware et al. (“Chaware” US Patent No. 9,418,909), and Lin et al. (“Lin” US 2019/0067157).
Regarding claim 15, Chaware discloses:
A method of forming a package structure (Figures 1, 2), comprising:
forming a package lid (150, 154) comprising a package lid foot portion (154) and a package lid plate portion (150) on the package lid foot portion (154, see Figure 1), wherein the package lid plate portion (150) comprises a patterned bottom surface (see Figures 1, 2) having a plurality of recessed portions (recesses 164, Figure 1);
attaching a package module (dies 114 and interposer 112) to a package substrate (122, see Figure 1), wherein the package module includes a plurality of dies (114, see Figure 1);
placing a thermal interface material (TIM) layer (“adhesive” 140, provides heat dissipation for the dies, see col. 4, lines 4-14, thus is interpreted as a thermal interface material “TIM”) on the package module (114, 112, TIM 140 is placed on the upper surfaces of dies 114 during manufacturing, see Figure 7 and col. 6, lines 52-54); and
attaching the package lid (150, 154) to the package substrate (122, see Figure 1) such that the package lid plate portion (150) is on the package module (114, 112, see Figure 1) and at least a portion of the TIM layer (140) is disposed in the plurality of recessed portions (164, see Figures 1, 2 and col. 6, lines 61-64).
Chaware does not disclose an encapsulant layer around the plurality of dies, and wherein the attaching of the package lid is performed such that the TIM layer is between the encapsulant layer and the plurality of recessed portions.
However, Lin discloses in Figure 18 an encapsulant layer (108) around the plurality of dies (70A/B), and wherein the attaching of the package lid (208/212) is performed such that the TIM layer (122/118) is between the encapsulant layer (108) and the plurality of recessed portions (recessed portions here are considered the recessed portions of the package lid 208/212 occupied or filled by the thermal/dummy bumps 118, which are considered a part of the TIM, since these are disposed such that they fill the recessed portions and aid in heat dissipation, see para. [0062]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teachings of Lin into the teachings of Chaware to include elements as claimed above and as taught by Lin for the purpose of covering and protecting the plurality of dies within the package (Lin, para. [0036]).
Regarding claim 17, Lin teaches wherein the encapsulant layer (108) includes an inner portion between the plurality of dies (70A/B, see portion of 108 between the dies in Figure 18), and the attaching of the package lid (208/212) is performed such that the TIM layer (122/118) is between the inner portion of the encapsulant layer (portion of 108 between dies 70A/B) and the plurality of recessed portions (recessed portions of the package lid 208/212 occupied or filled by the thermal/dummy bumps 118).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teachings of Lin into the teachings of Chaware to include elements as claimed above and as taught by Lin for the purpose of disposing encapsulant between dies which buries the dies and further protects them (Lin, para. [0036]). Further, the combination of the claimed elements above would result with no change in their respective function and the predictable result of heat dissipation through the encapsulant between the dies, because the encapsulant material will transfer heat from the sidewalls of the dies up to the TIM and package lid, thereby further aiding in heat dissipation of the package. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chaware and Lin as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Hoffman et al. (“Hoffman” US 2008/0296757).
Regarding claim 16, Chaware discloses:
The method of claim 15, wherein the attaching of the package lid (150, 154) to the package substrate (122) comprises pressing the patterned bottom surface of the package lid plate portion (150) onto the TIM layer (140, lid is secured to the die which would involve a placement and pressing technique, as the TIM 140 is flowed into the recesses, see col. 7, lines 1-2) such that the plurality of recessed portions (164) are filled with the TIM layer (140, see Figures 1, 2, and col. 7, lines 1-2).
In the event that Chaware does not disclose a pressing method, which the examiner does not concede, Hoffman discloses in Figure 9 pressing the patterned bottom surface of the package lid plate portion (recesses on bottom surface of 10, see, for example, Figure 9, also called “channels”) onto the TIM layer (20) such that the plurality of recessed portions are filled with the TIM layer (para. [0060]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the “pressing” teachings of Hoffman into the teachings of Chaware for the purpose of preventing any voids at interfaces of the channels (recesses) and the fluid (Hoffman, para. [0060]).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chaware, Lin, and Hoffman as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Kishi et al. (“Kishi” US 2018/0076107).
Regarding claim 18, Chaware discloses:
The method of claim 15, wherein the forming of the package lid (150) comprises forming the plurality of recessed portions (164) to be arranged in staggered array (staggered array of recesses 164 shown in Figure 6) having a plurality of columns (see Figure 6).
Chaware does not explicitly disclose wherein the plurality of recessed portions within a column of the plurality of columns are separated by a distance in a range from 100µm to 1000µm.
Kishi discloses:
wherein the plurality of recessed portions (61, mislabeled as “11” in Figure 5, as numeral 11 refers to a semiconductor chip, and 62, para. [0032]) within a column of the plurality of columns (cross-section shown in Figure 5 shows a row, the columns extend in/out of the page, as recesses 61 and 62 correspond to recess portions 41 and 42 in a previous embodiment in Figures 1 and 2A, 2A showing an array of the recesses that are equidistant, thus the pitch P1 would also be the pitch between recesses in the same column) are separated by a distance (P1) in a range from 100µm to 1000µm (P1 is disclosed as no more than 0.1mm, which is equal to 100 microns which overlaps with the claimed range).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teachings of Kishi into the teachings of Chaware to include the plurality of recessed portions within a column of the plurality of columns are separated by a distance in a range from 100µm to 1000µm for the purpose of having a small pitch in order to bond together the patterned surface and the die/semiconductor chip (Kishi, para. [0032]).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chaware, Lin, and Hoffman as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Sikka et al. (“Sikka” US 2020/0303279).
Chaware does not disclose wherein the TIM layer comprises a phase-change material layer.
However, Sikka discloses in Figure 1 and para. [0037] wherein the TIM layer (115) comprises a phase-change material layer (see para. [0037].
It would have been obvious to incorporate the teachings of Sikka into the teachings of Chaware to include a PCM layer for the TIM for the purpose of enhancing thermal conductance between two surfaces (Sikka, para. [0037]). Further, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.07.
Claims 21-22, 25, and 30-34 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Chaware et al. (“Chaware” US Patent No. 9,418,909), Hoffman et al. (“Hoffman” US 2008/0296757), and Lin et al. (“Lin” US 2019/0067157).
Regarding claim 21, Chaware discloses:
A method of making a package structure (Figures 1, 2), comprising:
forming a package lid (150) comprising a bottom surface (162) including a recess array (“engineered features” 180) comprising a plurality of recesses (recesses 164);
attaching a package module (114, 112) to a package substrate (122, see Figure 1), wherein the package modules includes a plurality of dies (114, see Figure 1 which shows multiple dies 114);
placing a thermal interface material (TIM) layer (“adhesive” 140, interpreted to be a TIM layer because the adhesive 140 aids in heat dissipation, see col. 4, lines 4-14) on the package module (114, 112, TIM 140 is placed on upper surfaces of dies 114); and
pressing the package lid (150) onto the TIM layer (140) such that at least a portion of the TIM layer (140) moves into the plurality of recesses (164) of the recess array (the TIM is flowed into the recesses, see col. 7, lines 1-2).
In the event that Chaware does not disclose a pressing method, which the examiner does not concede, Hoffman discloses pressing the package lid (10) onto the TIM layer (20) such that such that at least a portion of the TIM layer (20) moves into the plurality of recesses (“channels”, para. [0060]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the “pressing” teachings of Hoffman into the teachings of Chaware for the purpose of preventing any voids at interfaces of the channels (recesses) and the fluid (Hoffman, para. [0060]).
Chaware and Hoffman do not disclose an encapsulant layer around the plurality of dies, and wherein the pressing of the package lid is performed such that the TIM layer is between the encapsulant layer and the plurality of recessed portions. The Examiner notes that the combination of Chaware and Hoffman above does disclose a pressing method of the package lid.
However, Lin discloses in Figure 18 a package lid (208/212), an encapsulant layer (108) around the plurality of dies (70A/B), and wherein the TIM layer (122/118) is between the encapsulant layer (108) and the plurality of recessed portions (recessed portions here are considered the recessed portions of the package lid 208/212 occupied or filled by the thermal/dummy bumps 118, which are considered a part of the TIM, since these are disposed such that they fill the recessed portions and aid in heat dissipation, see para. [0062]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teachings of Lin into the teachings of Chaware and Hoffman to include elements as claimed above and as taught by Lin for the purpose of covering and protecting the plurality of dies within the package (Lin, para. [0036]).
Regarding claim 22, Chaware discloses:
The method of claim 21, wherein the pressing of the package lid (150) onto the TIM layer (140) is performed such that the TIM layer (140) has a first thickness at the plurality of recesses (164) and a second thickness less than the first thickness outside the plurality of recesses (164, see close up portion of Figure 1, where the thickness of TIM 140 is greater at the plurality of recesses because the depth of the recesses effectively “adds” to the thickness of the TIM at the plurality of recesses, see also annotated Figure 1 below).
Regarding claim 25, Chaware discloses:
The method of claim 21, wherein the pressing of the package lid (150, pressing incorporated by Hoffman) onto the TIM layer (140) comprises filling the plurality of recesses (164) with the TIM layer (140, the TIM is flowed into the recesses, see col. 7, lines 1-2).
Regarding claim 30, Chaware discloses:
The method of claim 21, wherein the forming of the package lid (150) is performed such that the plurality of recesses (164) comprises at least one of a hexagon shape (see Figure 6, recesses 164 have a hexagonal chape in a plan view), a round shape, and oval shape, a capsule shape, a rounded rectangular shape, a square shape, a rectangular shape, a triangular shape, a trapezoid shape and a diamond shape.
Regarding claim 31, Chaware discloses:
The method of claim 21, further comprising:
attaching the package lid (150) to the package substrate (122) concurrently with the pressing of the package lid (150) onto the TIM layer (140, the package lid is placed on the TIM layer 140 which is the same process of attaching the package lid 150 to the package substrate because the lid 150 is attached to the package substrate 122 through the package module 114, 112).
Regarding claim 32, Chaware discloses:
The method of claim 31, wherein the attaching of the package lid (150) to the package substrate (122) is performed such that an outermost recess of the plurality of recesses (164) is located over the package module (114, 112, see col. 4, lines 37-42, the recesses 164, i.e. “engineered features” are disposed only within region 102 in Figure 1, thus the outermost recess would be located over a portion of the package module 114, 112).
Regarding claim 33, Chaware does not explicitly disclose:
The method of claim 32, wherein the attaching of the package lid to the package substrate is performed such that a distance between an outer sidewall of the package module and the outermost recess is in a range from 0.5 mm to 1.0 mm.
Chaware does disclose requiring engineered features (in this case, recesses 164) are located exclusively in region 102 shown in Figure 1 in order to reduce manufacturing costs (col. 4, lines 37-42), and that the engineered features (in this case, recesses 164) is a predefined structure with a predefined geometry, height, depth, width, and pitch between structures (col. 4, lines 29-36). Thus, Chaware does contemplate that a distance between the outermost recess and the sidewall of the package module would also be predetermined.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art under routine optimization and experimentation that a distance between an outer sidewall of the package module and the outermost recess is in a range from 0.5 mm to 1.0 mm because “[t]he normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages” See MPEP 2144.05(II).
Specifically, one having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to optimize the distance between the outermost recess and the sidewall of the package module under routine experimentation/optimization because this distance can be tailored according to criteria such as, but not limited to, heat dissipation requirements of the device and manufacturing costs. For example, one having ordinary skill in the art would be able to determine, during routine experimentation, what distance between the sidewall of the package and the outermost recess is most suitable according to decreasing manufacturing costs while simultaneously achieving optimal heat dissipation. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to determine this optimal distance based on these criteria under routine optimization.
Regarding claim 34, Chaware discloses:
A method of making a package structure (Figures 1, 2), the method comprising:
forming a package lid (150) comprising a bottom surface (162) including a recess array (164) comprising:
a first plurality of recesses (164, left portion of recesses in Figure 1, i.e. portion of recesses directly over the leftmost die 114) having a first configuration (configuration is that the first plurality of recesses is directly over the left die 114); and
a second plurality of recesses (164, right portion of recesses in Figure 1, i.e. portion of recesses directly over the rightmost die 114) having a second configuration (configuration here is that the second plurality of recesses is over the right die 114) different than the first configuration (configurations are different due to different dispositions within the device);
attaching a package module (112, 114) to a package substrate (122, see Figure 1), wherein the package module (112, 114) has a first heat generating region (left die, 114) and a second heat generating region (right die, 114) different than the first heat generating region (the regions are different in their disposition within the device);
placing a thermal interface material (TIM) layer (140) on the package module (112, 114, the TIM layer 140 is disposed on the dies 114); and
pressing the package lid (150) onto the TIM layer (140, lid is secured to the die which would involve a placement and pressing technique, as the TIM 140 is flowed into the recesses, see col. 7, lines 1-2) such that at least a portion of the TIM layer (140) moves into the plurality of recesses (164, see col. 7, lines 1-2) of the recess array, and such that the first plurality of recesses (164, portion over the leftmost die 114) are over the first heat generating region (left die 114, see Figure 1) and the second plurality of recesses (164, portion over the rightmost die 114) are over the second heat generating region (right die 114, see Figure 1).
In the event that Chaware does not disclose a pressing method, which the examiner does not concede, Hoffman discloses pressing the package lid (10) onto the TIM layer (20) such that at least a portion of the TIM layer (20) moves into the plurality of recesses (“channels”) of the recess array (para. [0060]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the “pressing” teachings of Hoffman into the teachings of Chaware for the purpose of preventing any voids at interfaces of the channels (recesses) and the fluid (Hoffman, para. [0060]).
Chaware and Hoffman do not disclose wherein the pressing of the package lid is performed such that the TIM layer is between the encapsulant layer and the plurality of recessed portions. The Examiner notes that the combination of Chaware and Hoffman above does disclose a pressing method of the package lid.
However, Lin discloses in Figure 18 a package lid (208/212), an encapsulant layer (108) around the plurality of dies (70A/B), and wherein the TIM layer (122/118) is between the encapsulant layer (108) and the plurality of recessed portions (recessed portions here are considered the recessed portions of the package lid 208/212 occupied or filled by the thermal/dummy bumps 118, which are considered a part of the TIM, since these are disposed such that they fill the recessed portions and aid in heat dissipation, see para. [0062]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teachings of Lin into the teachings of Chaware and Hoffman to include elements as claimed above and as taught by Lin for the purpose of covering and protecting the plurality of dies within the package (Lin, para. [0036]).
PNG
media_image1.png
424
855
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chaware, Hoffman, and Lin as applied to claim 22 above, and further in view of Ho et al. (“Ho” US 2015/0187679).
Regarding claim 23, Chaware does not explicitly disclose:
The method of claim 22, wherein the pressing of the package lid onto the TIM layer is performed such that the first thickness is in a range from 50 µm to 1000 µm.
Ho discloses a first thickness (T’) is in a range from 50 µm to 1000 µm (para. [0033] discloses that T’ in Figure 2C is 150 microns which is within the claimed range).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teachings of Ho into the teachings of Chaware to include a first thickness in a range of 50 µm to 1000 µm for the purpose of reducing thermal resistance (Ho, para. [0033]).
Regarding claim 24, Chaware does not explicitly disclose:
The method of claim 22, wherein the pressing of the package lid onto the TIM layer is performed such that a ratio of a depth of the plurality of recesses to the first thickness of the TIM layer is in a range from 0.2 to 0.8.
Ho discloses a ratio of a depth of the plurality of recesses (D1, Figure 2A, para. [0027], range from 0.05 mm to 2.5 mm) to the first thickness of the TIM layer (T’, 150 microns) is in a range from 0.2 to 0.8 (in the same embodiment where T’=150 microns, D1 is equal to 100 microns, see para. [0033], thus D1/T’ is equal to 100 microns /150 microns = ~0.67, which is within the claimed ratio range).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teachings of Ho into the teachings of Chaware to include a first thickness in a range of 50 µm to 1000 µm for the purpose of reducing thermal resistance (Ho, para. [0033]).
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chaware, Hoffman, and Lin as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Ho et al. (“Ho” US 2015/0187679) as evidenced by Hoffman.
Regarding claim 26, Chaware does not explicitly disclose:
The method of claim 21, wherein the forming of the package lid is performed such that a width of the plurality of recesses of the recess array is in a range from 100µm to 1000µm.
Ho discloses:
The method of claim 21, wherein the forming of the package lid (24’, Figure 2A) is performed such that a width (W1) of the plurality of recesses (25) of the recess array is in a range from 100µm to 1000µm (see para. [0027], Ho discloses that the width of the recesses 25 is in a range of 0.1mm, or 100 microns, and 4mm, which encompasses the claimed width range).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teachings of Ho into the teachings of Chaware to include a width of the plurality of recessed portions to be in a range from 100µm to 1000µm for the purpose of tuning recess width according to the properties of the TIM (Hoffman, para. [0018]).
Claims 27-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chaware, Lin, and Hoffman as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Kishi et al. (“Kishi” US 2018/0076107).
Regarding claim 27, Chaware discloses:
The method of claim 21, wherein the forming of the package lid (150) is performed such that the plurality of recesses (164) have a staggered arrangement including a plurality of columns (staggered array shown in Figure 6, plurality of columns also shown in Figure 6),
Chaware does not disclose wherein the plurality of recesses within a column of the plurality of columns are separated by a distance in a range from 100µm to 1000µm.
Kishi discloses wherein the plurality of recesses (61, 62) within a column of the plurality of columns (row shown in Figure 5 have columns extending in/out of page, as recesses 61 and 62 correspond to recess portions 41 and 42 in a previous embodiment in Figures 1 and 2A, 2A showing an array of the recesses that are equidistant, thus the pitch P1 would also be the pitch between recesses in the same column) are separated by a distance (P1) in a range from 100µm to 1000µm (P1 is disclosed as no more than 0.1mm, which is equal to 100 microns which overlaps with the claimed range).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teachings of Kishi into the teachings of Chaware to include the plurality of recessed portions within a column of the plurality of columns are separated by a distance in a range from 100µm to 1000µm for the purpose of having a small pitch in order to bond together the patterned surface and the die/semiconductor chip (Kishi, para. [0032]).
Regarding claim 28, Chaware does not disclose:
The method of claim 27, wherein the forming of the package lid is performed such that the column of the plurality of columns is separated from an adjacent column of the plurality of columns by a distance in a range from 100µm to 1000µm.
Kishi discloses the column of the plurality of columns (columns of recesses 61, 62 extend in/out of the page of Figure 5) is separated from an adjacent column of the plurality of columns by a distance in a range from 100µm to 1000µm (P1 is disclosed as no more than 0.1mm, which is equal to 100 microns which overlaps with the claimed range).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teachings of Kishi into the teachings of Chaware to include forming the column of the plurality of columns to be separated from an adjacent column of the plurality of columns by a distance in a range from 100µm to 1000µm for the purpose of having a small pitch in order to bond together the patterned surface and the die/semiconductor chip (Kishi, para. [0032]).
Claims 29 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chaware, Hoffman, and Lin as applied to claims 21 and 34 above, respectively, and further in view of Karlicek, Jr. (“Karlicek” US Patent No. 10,410,958).
Regarding claim 29, Chaware does not explicitly disclose:
The method of claim 21, wherein the forming of the package lid is performed such that a concentration of the plurality of recesses varies over the bottom surface.
Karlicek discloses:
wherein the forming of the package lid (3) is performed such that a concentration of the plurality of recesses (spaces between pillars 5) varies (see Figure 7C) over the bottom surface (bottom surface of 3 is shown at the upper surface in Figure 7C).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teachings of Karlicek into the teachings of Chaware to include a variation of recess density over the bottom surface of the lid for the purpose of optimizing thermal management (Karlicek, col. 6, lines 45-56).
Regarding claim 35,
Chaware does not explicitly disclose:
The method of claim 34, wherein the second plurality of recesses comprises one of:
a greater depth than a depth of the first plurality of recesses; or a greater concentration than a concentration of the first plurality of recesses.
Karlicek discloses:
The method of claim 34, wherein the second plurality of recesses (recesses are spaces between pillars 5, second plurality is the plurality of recesses that are more tightly concentrated in Figure 7C, the first plurality of recesses are the recesses with a lower concentration) comprises one of:
a greater depth than a depth of the first plurality of recesses; or a greater concentration (see Figure 7C and col. 6, lines 45-56) than a concentration of the first plurality of recesses (see Figure 7C).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teachings of Karlicek into the teachings of Chaware to include a second plurality of recesses with a greater concentration than the first plurality of recesses for the purpose of optimizing thermal management (Karlicek, col. 6, lines 45-56).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior art rejections have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant’s amendments regarding the objection to claim 34 overcomes the objection, thus the objection to claim 34 has been withdrawn. Applicant’s amendments regarding the objection to the specification overcomes the objection, thus the objection to the specification has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments regarding the 112(b) rejection of claim 16 and 25 overcomes the rejection, thus the 112 rejections of claims 16 and 25 has been withdrawn.
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 Genevieve G Bullard-Connor whose telephone number is (571)270-0609. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 9am-5pm.
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, Dale Page can be reached at 571-270-7877. 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.
/Genevieve G Bullard-Connor/Examiner, Art Unit 2899 /DALE E PAGE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2899
Prosecution Insights