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 .
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 for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art
relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending
Claims 13-20 have been withdrawn
Claim 1 has been amended
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takahashi et al. (US 20070034231).
Regarding Claim 1:
Takahashi teaches a substrate processing apparatus comprising: a processing tank (treating tank 1) configured to store a processing liquid for processing a substrate; a circulation path (circulating system 5) through which the processing liquid is taken out from the processing tank and is returned to the processing tank; a substrate holder (holding arm 17) configured to hold the substrate; a lifter configured to raise and lower the substrate holder between an immersion position inside the processing tank and a standby position above the processing tank (the holding arm 17 is vertically movable between a "standby position" above the treating tank 1 and a "treating position" inside the treating tank 1; the controller automatically controls the vertical position of the holding arm 17, therefore a controllable lifter can be reasonably inferred); and a controller (controller 57) configured to control the lifter (the controller 57 controls delivery from the pump 11, heating temperature of the heater 13, vertical movement of the holding arm 17, and so on), wherein the processing liquid is a mixed liquid obtained by mixing a first component and a second component and generates a heat of mixing (the treating solution is a solution comprising hydrogen peroxide and sulfuric acid), and wherein the controller (controller 57) is configured to perform a control to immerse the substrate in the mixed liquid before a temperature of the mixed liquid reaches a peak temperature after rising by the heat of mixing (immersion of the substrate takes place only after a predetermined temperature of 160 degrees Celsius is reached) [Fig. 1, 3 & 0006, 0027-0028, 0031-0032, 0044-0047].
It is noted that the examiner is interpreting the peak temperature to refer to substrate immersion prior to a solution temperature of 170 degrees Celsius; the applicant has disclosed a peak of temperature of 170 degrees Celsius for an SPM solution with a hydrogen peroxide to sulfuric acid mixing ratio of greater than 1:4 [IA - 0024]. Takahashi discloses an SPM solution with a hydrogen peroxide to sulfuric acid mixing ratio of 3:7, and it discloses an immersion of the substrate at 160 degrees Celsius [Takahashi - Fig. 3 & 0044-0047]. As such, Takahashi is considered to be teaching the aforementioned limitation.
The examiner would also like to note that structurally, the limitation “wherein the controller is configured to perform a control to immerse the substrate in the mixed liquid before a temperature of the mixed liquid reaches a peak temperature after rising by the heat of mixing,” only merely requires that the controller to immerse a substrate after an arbitrary temperature is reached over a certain period of time. Arguing that the temperature has to be from a heat of mixing would be an argument not commensurate with the scope of the claims. In other words, the limitation “reaches a peak temperature after rising by the heat of mixing,” is merely an intended result of a step positively recited. The court noted that a "‘whereby clause in a method claim is not given weight when it simply expresses the intended result of a process step positively recited.’" Id. (quoting Minton v. Nat’l Ass’n of Securities Dealers, Inc., 336 F.3d 1373, 1381, 67 USPQ2d 1614, 1620 (Fed. Cir. 2003)). Takashi discloses immersing a substrate only after a target temperature is reached [Takashi – Fig. 3 & 0045-0048]. As such, Takashi discloses all the positively recited steps of the claim, and thus performs the intended result.
It is also noted even if the heat of mixing was positively recited, Takashi would still disclose the aforementioned limitation. Takahashi directly discloses that its mixing solution generates heat due to mixing, and there is a mixing step S10 prior to substrate immersion in step S14 [Takashi – 0006, 0045-0048]. The substrate immersion occurs only after a specific target temperature is reached, and as is disclosed by Takashi, that temperature is reached at least partially by heat generated from mixing. As such, Takashi discloses the positively recited steps of the aforementioned limitation including the intended result of immersing a substrate after a peak temperature is reached after rising by the heat of mixing.
Furthermore, although taught by the prior art, the limitations “wherein the substrate holder is configured to be raised and lowered between an immersion position inside the processing tank and a standby position above the processing tank; generates a heat of mixing,” are merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Regarding Claim 7:
Takahashi teaches wherein the first component is a sulfuric acid, and the second component is a hydrogen peroxide (the apparatus utilizes a sulfuric acid and hydrogen peroxide solution) [Fig. 1 & 0004].
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.
Claim(s) 2-5 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi et al. (US 20070034231), as applied to claims 1 and 7 above, and further in view of Kamimura et al. (US 20160184859).
The limitations of claims 1 and 7 have been set forth above.
Regarding Claim 2:
Takahashi teaches a heater (in-line heater 13) configured to heat the mixed liquid [Fig. 1& 0027].
Takahashi does not specifically disclose wherein the controller is further configured to control the heater with different settings before and after the temperature of the mixed liquid reaches the peak temperature.
Kamimura teaches wherein the controller is further configured to control the heater with different settings before and after the temperature of the mixed liquid reaches the peak temperature (the heater 18 is kept at maximum output to heat the solution to a predetermined temperature, after which, the output is lowered once a measured temperature surpasses a boiling point of the solution. Furthermore, when the temperature of the processing liquid does not reach the predetermined temperature, the output of the heater 18 is varied based on the measured temperature) [Fig. 1, 2 & 0048-0050, 0055].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the controller of Takahashi to include instructions for controlling heater output at different temperatures, as in Kamimura, to reduce the risk of contamination [Kamimura - 0050].
Regarding Claim 3:
Takahashi does not specifically disclose wherein the controller is further configured to feedback-control the heater by using different transfer functions before and after the temperature of the mixed liquid reaches the peak temperature.
Kamimura teaches wherein the controller is further configured to feedback-control the heater by using different transfer functions before and after the temperature of the mixed liquid reaches the peak temperature (the heater 18 is kept at maximum output to heat the solution to a predetermined temperature, after which, the output is lowered once a measured temperature surpasses a boiling point of the solution. Furthermore, when the temperature of the processing liquid does not reach the predetermined temperature, the output of the heater 18 is varied based on the measured temperature) [Fig. 1, 2 & 0048-0050, 0055].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the controller of Takahashi to include instructions for controlling heater output at different temperatures, as in Kamimura, to reduce the risk of contamination [Kamimura - 0050].
Regarding Claim 4:
Takahashi does not specifically disclose wherein the controller is further configured to perform a constant-current control on the heater with different current values before and after the temperature of the mixed liquid reaches the peak temperature.
Kamimura teaches wherein the controller is further configured to perform a constant-current control on the heater with different current values before and after the temperature of the mixed liquid reaches the peak temperature (the heater 18 is kept at maximum output to heat the solution to a predetermined temperature, after which, the output is lowered once a measured temperature surpasses a boiling point of the solution. Furthermore, when the temperature of the processing liquid does not reach the predetermined temperature, the output of the heater 18 is varied based on the measured temperature) [Fig. 1, 2 & 0048-0050, 0055].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the controller of Takahashi to include instructions for controlling heater output at different temperatures, as in Kamimura, to reduce the risk of contamination [Kamimura - 0050].
Regarding Claim 5:
The combination of references would disclose "wherein, in a period from a start of the mixing of the first component and the second component until the temperature of the mixed liquid reaches the peak temperature, a total heat quantity of the heat of mixing is larger than a total heat quantity of the heater, and in a period from a time when the temperature of the mixed liquid reaches the peak temperature to a time when the substrate is completely immersed, the total heat quantity of the heat of mixing is smaller than the total heat quantity of the heater," because Kamimura provides instructions for actively adjusting heater output based on measured temperature. Therefore, before a predetermined peak temperature is reached, heater output is high, but after the temperature is reached, heater output is lowered so as to not overheat the processing liquid [Kamimura - Fig. 1, 2 & 0048-0050, 0055].
Furthermore, although taught by the prior art, the limitations of claim 5 are merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Regarding Claim 12:
Takahashi teaches wherein the first component is a sulfuric acid, and the second component is a hydrogen peroxide (the apparatuses utilizes a sulfuric acid and hydrogen peroxide solution) [Fig. 1 & 0004].
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi et al. (US 20070034231), as applied to claims 1 and 7 above, and further in view of Yokoi et al. (US 20090088909).
The limitations of claims 1 and 7 have been set forth above.
Regarding Claim 6:
Takahashi does not specifically disclose a predictor configured to predict a temperature profile in a process in which the temperature of the mixed liquid rises toward the peak temperature; and a transfer device configured to transfer the substrate, wherein the controller is further configured to perform a control to transmit, to the transfer a command to transfer the substrate to the substrate holder based on a prediction result obtained by the predictor before the temperature of the mixed liquid reaches the peak temperature
Yokoi teaches a predictor configured to predict a temperature profile in a process in which the temperature of the mixed liquid rises toward the peak temperature; and a transfer device (loader unit 10) configured to transfer the substrate, wherein the controller is further configured to perform a control to transmit, to the transfer a command to transfer the substrate to the substrate holder based on a prediction result obtained by the predictor before the temperature of the mixed liquid reaches the peak temperature (the control computer 30 predicts an average solution temperature based on database data and chemical solution supply temperature, and accordingly, the predicted values can be used to change the solution temperature at the time of supply of the chemical solution; wafers are supplied after predicted values are obtained and parameters such as solution temperature are adjusted in light of the predicted values) [Fig. 1-4 & 0031-0036, 0044].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the controller of Takahashi to include a transfer device and a predictor to predict temperatures, as in Yokoi, to improve uniformity between batches [Yokoi - Abstract, 0032, 0039].
Furthermore, although taught by the prior art, the limitations “a predictor configured to predict a temperature profile in a process in which the temperature of the mixed liquid rises toward the peak temperature,” are merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi et al. (US 20070034231), as applied to claims 1 and 7 above, and further in view of Brown et al. (US 20130233351), with Hyakutake et al. (US 20170037499) and Miyazawa et al. (US 6055995) as evidentiary references.
The limitations of claims 1 and 7 have been set forth above.
Regarding Claim 8:
Takahashi teaches a sulfuric acid supplier (mixing tank 29) configured to supply the sulfuric acid to the processing tank [Fig. 1 & 0030]; and a hydrogen peroxide supplier (hydrogen peroxide solution source 21) configured to supply the hydrogen peroxide to the processing tank [Fig. 1 & 0058], wherein the controller is further configured to perform a control to replenish the hydrogen peroxide to the processing tank (the controller 57 controls also the control valve 25 to supply a predetermined quantity of hydrogen peroxide solution from the nozzle 19 to the treating tank 1) [Fig. 1 & 0042].
Takahashi does not specifically disclose wherein the controller is further configured to perform a control to replenish the hydrogen peroxide to the processing tank after the temperature of the mixed liquid reaches the peak temperature and before the immersion of the substrate in the mixed liquid is terminated.
Although Brown does not specifically disclose "wherein the controller is further configured to perform a control to replenish the hydrogen peroxide to the processing tank after the temperature of the mixed liquid reaches the peak temperature and before the immersion of the substrate in the mixed liquid is terminated," Brown does disclose that SPM solution mixing ratios and solution temperatures are result effective variables. Specifically, Brown discloses that the temperature of an SPM solution and its mixing ratios affect etch rates [Brown - 0026,0044-0048, 0084]. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to find an optimum mixing ratio for an SPM solution at a certain temperatures to obtain desired etch rates. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05. Brown also discloses that maximal Caro's acid concentration can change as a function of SPM mixing performance, SPM temperature, SPM mixing ratio and initial concentrations of sulfuric acid and hydrogen peroxide [Brown - 0048]. Hyakutake et al. (US 20170037499) discloses that Caro's acid is an acid that is produced when sulfuric acid and hydrogen peroxide are reacted with each other [Hyakutake - 0003]. Miyazawa et al. (US 6055995) also discloses that moisture buildup (due to decomposition of components in the chemicals) would lower chemical concentrations (therefore lowering cleaning/stripping performance), and as such, replenishment of hydrogen peroxide and sulfuric acid would be beneficial to maintain chemical concentrations at desired levels [Miyazawa - Col. 1 lines 30-53].
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi et al. (US 20070034231), as applied to claims 1 and 7 above, and further in view of Siefering et al. (US 20070257011).
The limitations of claims 1 and 7 have been set forth above.
Regarding Claim 9:
Takahashi teaches a temperature detector configured to detect the temperature of the mixed liquid (there is an unshown thermometer that detects liquid temperature) [Fig. 1, 3 & 0046].
Takahashi does not specifically disclose and a concentration detector configured to detect a concentration of the first component or the second component in the mixed liquid, wherein the controller is further configured to acquire at least one of a temperature profile or a concentration profile of the mixed liquid, and to perform control to correct an immersion time of the substrate in the mixed liquid based on acquired data.
Siefering teaches a concentration detector configured to detect a concentration of the first component or the second component in the mixed liquid (the determinations of the temperature and/or concentration of the treatment bath can be carried out by sensors), wherein the controller is further configured to acquire at least one of a temperature profile or a concentration profile of the mixed liquid, and to perform control to correct an immersion time of the substrate in the mixed liquid based on acquired data (a time is determined to control how long etching lasts. This time is determined by the calculated amount of etching rates that are obtained through determinations of concentration and temperature) [Fig. 1 & 0010, 0037, 0071-0077, Claim 5, Claim 8, Claim 11].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the controller of Takahashi to include instructions for correcting immersion time, as in Siefering, to reduce variability in the process [Siefering - 0008, 0022, 0031].
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi et al. (US 20070034231), as applied to claims 1 and 7 above, and further in view of Siefering et al. (US 20070257011), with Fuse et al. (US 5217501), Sakata et al. (US 5447294), and You et al. (US 20020092547) as evidentiary references.
The limitations of claims 1 and 7 have been set forth above.
Regarding Claim 10:
Takahashi does not specifically disclose a discharger configured to discharge the mixed liquid from the processing tank; and a cooler configured to supply a cooling liquid or a cooling gas to the circulation path, wherein the controller is further configured to perform a control to supply the cooling liquid or the cooling gas to the circulation path after discharging the mixed liquid from the processing tank.
Kimura teaches a discharger (pipe 21r) configured to discharge the mixed liquid from the processing tank; and a cooler (cooling mechanism 25) configured to supply a cooling liquid or a cooling gas to the circulation path (when the cooling mechanism 25 is operated, the processing solution flowing in the pipe 21d is cooled) [Fig. 1 & 0066], wherein the controller is further configured to perform a control to supply the cooling liquid or the cooling gas to the circulation path after discharging the mixed liquid from the processing tank (after substrates are drawn up, valves V1 to V5 are opened to drain processing fluid, after which the cooling mechanism 25 cools the processing solution flowing through pipe 21d) [Fig. 1, 5 & 0075, 0108].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Takahashi to include a cooler and a discharger, as in Kimura, to help precipitate and remove impurities from spent processing solution and to more quickly discharge spent solution [Kimura - 0075, 0108].
Modified Takahashi does not specifically disclose wherein the cooler is configured to supply a cooling liquid or cooling gas.
Shindo teaches wherein the cooler is configured to supply a cooling liquid or cooling gas (pure water is supplied from water supply source 58 after the chemical 2 within the treatment bath 10 is discharged from the drain pipes 46) [Fig. 17-22 & Shindo - Col. 9 lines 56-64].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the cooler of Modified Takahashi to supply a cooling liquid, as in Shindo, to more effectively remove unwanted chemicals that adhere to the wafers [Shindo - Col. 9 lines 65-67, Col. 10 lines 1-9]. Fuse et al. (US 5217501) also disclose that directly feeding a cooling gas may shorten cooling time, and it establishes direct gas cooling as a known cooling mechanism in the art [Fuse - Col. 6 lines 40-45]. Sakata et al. (US 5447294) also discloses that the use of a cooling gas may help remove impurities in a fluid flow line [Sakata - Col. 11 lines 50-68, Col. 12 lines 1-3]. You et al. (US 20020092547) also discloses that it might be useful to utilize a purge gas for a circulation route to force fluid movement [You - 0048, 0060].
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi et al. (US 20070034231) in view of Kamimura et al. (US 20160184859), as applied to claims 2-5 and 12 above, and further in view of Yokoi et al. (US 20090088909).
The limitations of claims 2-5 and 12 have been set forth above.
Regarding Claim 11:
Modified Takahashi does not specifically disclose a predictor configured to predict a temperature profile in a process in which the temperature of the mixed liquid rises toward the peak temperature; and a transfer device configured to transfer the substrate, wherein the controller is further configured to perform a control to transmit, to the transfer a command to transfer the substrate to the substrate holder based on a prediction result obtained by the predictor before the temperature of the mixed liquid reaches the peak temperature
Yokoi teaches a predictor configured to predict a temperature profile in a process in which the temperature of the mixed liquid rises toward the peak temperature; and a transfer device (loader unit 10) configured to transfer the substrate, wherein the controller is further configured to perform a control to transmit, to the transfer a command to transfer the substrate to the substrate holder based on a prediction result obtained by the predictor before the temperature of the mixed liquid reaches the peak temperature (the control computer 30 predicts an average solution temperature based on database data and chemical solution supply temperature, and accordingly, the predicted values can be used to change the solution temperature at the time of supply of the chemical solution; wafers are supplied after predicted values are obtained and parameters such as solution temperature are adjusted in light of the predicted values) [Fig. 1-4 & 0031-0036, 0044].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the controller of Modified Takahashi to include a transfer device and a predictor to predict temperatures, as in Yokoi, to improve uniformity between batches [Yokoi - Abstract, 0032, 0039].
Furthermore, although taught by the prior art, the limitations “a predictor configured to predict a temperature profile in a process in which the temperature of the mixed liquid rises toward the peak temperature,” are merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 01/16/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-12 under 35 USC 103 and 35 USC 102(a)(1) have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Takahashi et al. (US 20070034231) does specifically disclose “wherein the controller is configured to perform a control to immerse the substrate in the mixed liquid before a temperature of the mixed liquid reaches a peak temperature after rising by the heat of mixing.” Applicant argues that the combination of references does not specifically disclose the aforementioned limitation because the examiner cannot use the applicant’s disclosed temperature ranges to specifically disclose “a peak temperature.” The examiner respectfully disagrees that the combination of references would not disclose the aforementioned limitation because even if the examiner agreed with this particular argument, the examiner believes that Takashi discloses the limitation regardless of the information provided in the specification.
Firstly, the “peak temperature” is a very broad term and if taken at face value as its written in the claim is merely an arbitrary temperature of a system chosen over an arbitrary division of time. Therefore, the examiner using the applicant’s example temperature ranges is reasonable, as otherwise “the peak temperature” could be any arbitrary number.
Secondly, the examiner would like to note that structurally, the limitation only merely requires that the controller to immerse a substrate after an arbitrary temperature is reached over a certain period of time. Arguing that the temperature has to be from a heat of mixing would be an argument not commensurate with the scope of the claims. In other words, the limitation “reaches a peak temperature after rising by the heat of mixing,” is merely an intended result of a step positively recited. The court noted that a "‘whereby clause in a method claim is not given weight when it simply expresses the intended result of a process step positively recited.’" Id. (quoting Minton v. Nat’l Ass’n of Securities Dealers, Inc., 336 F.3d 1373, 1381, 67 USPQ2d 1614, 1620 (Fed. Cir. 2003)). Takashi discloses immersing a substrate only after a target temperature is reached [Takashi – Fig. 3 & 0045-0048]. As such, Takashi discloses all the positively recited steps of the claim, and thus performs the intended result.
Thirdly, even if the heat of mixing was positively recited, Takashi would still disclose the aforementioned limitation. Takahashi directly discloses that its mixing solution generates heat due to mixing, and there is a mixing step S10 prior to substrate immersion in step S14 [Takashi – 0006, 0045-0048]. The substrate immersion occurs only after a specific target temperature is reached, and as is disclosed by Takashi, that temperature is reached at least partially by heat generated from mixing. As such, Takashi discloses the positively recited steps of the aforementioned limitation including the intended result of immersing a substrate after a peak temperature is reached after rising by the heat of mixing.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA NATHANIEL PINEDA REYES whose telephone number is (571)272-4693. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 AM to 4:30 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at (571) 272-5166. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/J.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1718 /GORDON BALDWIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1718