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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Applicants' amendment of the claims, filed on 05/08/2026, in response to the rejection of claims 16-33 from the non-final office action, mailed on 02/09/2026, by amending claims 16, 18, 23, 25-27, 30, 31 and 33 is acknowledged and will be addressed below.
Claim interpretation
(1) In regards to the “to form a hydrogen fluoride molecular layer to cover an etching residue on the substrate, the hydrogen fluoride molecular layer reacting with the etching residue to produce a reaction product” of Claim 16, and further same limitations across the claim list.
First, the “etching residue on the substrate” is not an applicants’ own invention. When etching is performed, etching residue is intrinsically made, thus the limitation does not add a patentable weight.
Second, the “hydrogen fluoride molecular layer to cover an etching residue” and “hydrogen fluoride molecular layer reacting with the etching residue to produce a reaction product” are intrinsic functional results obtained by supplying a processing gas including hydrogen fluoride;
In other words, when the processing gas including the hydrogen fluoride is supplied to an object, the HF containing gas intrinsically flows towards then contacts with any exposed surfaces of the object, and reacts with the exposed surface, as a result produces a reaction product, see HF vapor of Fig. 2 of one of the IDS filed reference, US 20130161287.
Therefore, when an apparatus of a prior art is capable of supplying the processing gas including hydrogen fluoride to a substrate, the apparatus of the prior art would have clearly obtained the functional results, see the MPEP citations below.
(2) Following limitations are intended use of an apparatus:
The “wherein the substrate includes a silicon-containing film” of Claim 21,
The “wherein the substrate includes a metal-containing film” of Claim 22,
The “the substrate including a first film and a second film formed on the first film, the second film having an opening therein” of Claim 25,
The “wherein the second film contains silicon” of Claim 28,
The “wherein the first film contains carbon” of Claim 29,
The “wherein the second film is a mask” of Claim 30,
The “wherein the first film is selected from the group consisting of a polycrystalline silicon film, an amorphous silicon film, and a SiGe film” of Claim 32.
The features above are related with a substrate to be processed by the claimed apparatus. Further, the films on the substrate are not features obtained by the claimed processing apparatus, rather it is formed on the substrate before processing by the claimed apparatus.
Emphasized again, the applicants claim an apparatus. In a processing apparatus, processing either a substrate having a feature A or a substrate having a feature B is mere different use of the processing apparatus, thus the substrate related features do not add a patentable weight to the claimed processing apparatus, see the MPEP citations below.
Consequently, when an apparatus of a prior art teaches a substrate, it is sufficient to meet the claimed limitation.
MPEP citations:
It has been held that claim language that simply specifies an intended use or field of use for the invention generally will not limit the scope of a claim (See MPEP 2106; Walter, 618 F.2d at 769, 205 USPQ at 409). When apparatus is capable of performing such functions, it is considered to meet the claim limitations. Additionally, in apparatus claims, intended use must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim (See MPEP 2111.02, 2115; In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458,459 (CCPA 1963). When the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent (See MPEP 2112.01; In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430,433 (CCPA 1977). It has further been held that expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim. Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969); and the inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. In re Young, 75 F.2d 966, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)). While features of an apparatus may be described either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus MUST be distinguished from prior art in terms of structure rather than function (See MPEP §2114).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 16-19 and 21-24 are 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
(1) The “the temperature adjusting module including a heater, a heat transfer medium and/or a flow path”, “an exhaust system including at least one of a pressure regulating valve and a vacuum pump” and “wherein in (d), the system controller is further programmed to control at least one of the temperature adjusting module, the gas supply, and the exhaust system” of Claim 16 is not clear.
Based on the claim itself, following analysis is provided.
First, due to the “and/or”, the claim is constructed to have one of followings:
-a. the temperature adjusting module including a heater, a heat transfer medium and a flow path”, OR
-b. the temperature adjusting module including a heater, a heat transfer medium or a flow path”.
In case that the (b) condition above is selected, the temperature adjusting module may have a heater only, may have a heat transfer medium only, may have a flow path only or may have two or all three of them.
Similarly, due to the “at least one of”:
The exhaust system may have a pressure regulating valve only, a vacuum pump only or both, and the system controller may control the temperature adjusting module only, may control the gas supply only, may control the exhaust system only, or may control two or all three of them.
Among them above, when only one component above is selected, it is not clear how the recited temperature and pressure conditions are obtained.
For instance, when the temperature adjusting module requires only the flow path, the exhaust system requires only the pressure regulating valve, and the system controller require to control only the temperature adjusting module, it is not clear how the claimed “such that the second temperature is higher than the first temperature and/or the second pressure is lower than the first pressure” is obtained.
Due to the applicants’ amendment, the metes and bounds for the claimed subject matter cannot be clearly determined.
(2) Following 112 issue is still not resolved.
As discussed in the previous OA, the “and (d) set the temperature of the substrate support to a second temperature, and set the pressure in the chamber to a second pressure, wherein in (d), the system controller is further programmed to control at least one of the temperature adjusting module, the gas supply, and the exhaust system, such that the second temperature is higher than the first temperature and/or the second pressure is lower than the first pressure” of Claim 16 is not clear.
First, due to the term “and” in (d), the “set the temperature of the substrate support to a second temperature, and set the pressure in the chamber to a second pressure” of (d) has a format that both A condition and B condition must be met.
Whereas, in the following “wherein” phrase, due to the term “or” in the phrase;
When the “or” condition is selected, “the second temperature is higher than the first temperature and/or the second pressure is lower than the first pressure” has format that either A condition or B condition must be met, thus the “A or B” contradicts to the “A and B” requirement of (d)
Further, emphasized again, the “and/or” is not clear. When “or” is selected, it includes A or B or (A and B), thus it is not clear what difference is required between “and” and “or”.
(3) The “a temperature” and “a pressure” of Claim 17 is not clear, because it is not clear what they present. The temperature and pressure are different from the recited temperature and pressure of Claim 16? If so, the applicants must clarify them. If they are the same as the claim 16, the graph must present “the temperature” and “the pressure”.
(4) The “wherein the system controller is further configured to control the gas supply to introduce the processing gas into the chamber to remove a substance from a surface of the substrate” of Claim 23 is not clear.
First, the “substance” is different from the etching residue of Claim 16? Or the same?
The applicants’ disclosure appears to state they are the same, see the “a substance (e.g., an etching residue or particles)” of the paragraph [0033] of the published instant application. If the claim means they are the same, why they are differently recited?
For the purpose of examination, it will be examined as the same.
Second, the “further configured to control the gas supply to introduce” is not clear. Does it mean, in addition to the (b) of Claim 16, in the claim 23, the same gas is required to be additionally introduced into the chamber? But the claim merely appears to add “remove” into the process of (b),
If the claim 23 intends to further limit the claim 16 by the terms “to remove”, it is respectfully requested to amend the claim to be:
“wherein the introduced processing gas removes the etching residue from a surface of the substrate”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 16, 19, 21-23 and 25-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Tahara et al. (US 20140083979, hereafter ‘979).
Regarding to Claim 16, ‘979 teaches:
the gas processing apparatus 200 includes an airtightly sealable processing chamber 201 (Fig. 2, [0022], the claimed “A substrate processing apparatus comprising: a chamber”);
Provided in the processing chamber 201 is a stage 202 for mounting thereon a semiconductor wafer (substrate) W. The stage 202 has a temperature control unit (not shown) ([0022], note heater and coolant circulation along a flow path are well-known temperature control unit for the substrate on the stage, for instance see Fig. 1 and [0026] of US 20200098550, the claimed “a substrate support provided in the chamber; a temperature adjusting module configured to adjust a temperature of at least one of the substrate support and a substrate disposed on the substrate support, the temperature adjusting module including a heater, a heat transfer medium and/or a flow path”);
a gas inlet 203 for introducing a predetermined processing gas (a mixture of HF gas and methanol gas in the present embodiment) into the processing chamber 201 ([0023], the claimed “a gas supply configured to supply a processing gas including hydrogen fluoride gas into the chamber”);
The gas exhaust line 207 is connected to a vacuum pump (not shown) or the like, and the inside of the processing chamber 201 can be exhausted to a predetermined pressure ([0024], note it is well-known that the pressure control is obtained by a pressure control valve and a pump, for instance, see Fig. 1 and [0030] of US 20180374740, the claimed “an exhaust system including at least one of a pressure regulating valve and a vacuum pump and configured to adjust a pressure in the chamber”);
It is well-known in the art that overall operation of a processing chamber is controlled by a controller having a processor, for instance, one of the IDS filed reference, Fig. 5 of US 20160351418, thus the apparatus of ‘979 would have a controller (the claimed “and a system controller including a processor and configured to control an overall operation of the substrate processing apparatus, wherein the system controller is programmed to:”);
in the cycle treatment process, the semiconductor wafer W is mounted on the stage 202 that has been previously set to a predetermined temperature and maintained at the predetermined temperature. In that state, a predetermined processing gas (mixture of HF gas and methanol gas in the present embodiment) is introduced through the gas inlet 203, and the exhaust is performed through the exhaust pipe 207. Accordingly, the inside of the processing chamber 201 is set to a processing gas atmosphere at a predetermined pressure ([0045], the claimed “(a) dispose the substrate on the substrate support, (b) supply the processing gas into the chamber, (c) set a temperature of the substrate support to a first temperature, and set a pressure in the chamber to a first pressure”);
in the cycle treatment process, a first period in which a partial pressure of methanol gas is set to a first partial pressure (step 303) and a second period in which a partial pressure of the methanol gas is set to a second partial pressure lower than the first partial pressure by exhausting the inside of the processing chamber ([0046], the claimed “and (d) set the temperature of the substrate support to a second temperature, and set the pressure in the chamber to a second pressure, wherein in (d), the system controller is further programmed to control at least one of the temperature adjusting module, the gas supply, and the exhaust system, such that the second temperature is higher than the first temperature and/or the second pressure is lower than the first pressure”);
removing deposits deposited on the surface of a pattern formed on a substrate by etching (abstract), therefore, as discussed in the claim interpretation above, when the gas including HF is supplied to the substrate having the etching deposit, any exposed surface on the substrate is touched by the HF molecules in the gas and reacted with HF, thus a reaction product is produced (the claimed “and wherein the system controller is further programmed to control the gas supply to expose the substrate to the processing gas to form a hydrogen fluoride molecular layer to cover an etching residue on the substrate, the hydrogen fluoride molecular layer reacting with the etching residue to produce a reaction product”).
In case the applicants argue that the well-known features above are not basis for 102 rejection, the examiner sets forth an alternative 103 rejection by obviousness from the well-known features.
Regarding to Claim 19,
‘979 further teaches At this time, it is preferable to set the temperature of the semiconductor wafer W to a low level of, e.g., about several tens of degrees (e.g., about 30°C.) or less. The pressure in the first period is preferably, e.g., about 665 Pa (5 Torr) to 1330 Pa (10 Torr) ([0048]), thus ‘979 teaches all the limitations, “wherein the system controller is further programmed to control such that the first temperature and the second temperature are in a range of, and the first pressure and the second pressure are in a range of 1 Pa or more and 1x105 Pa or less”, and merely silent about the number range “-140 °C or higher and 0 °C or lower”.
However, ‘979 clearly teaches the temperature is an adjustable parameter to control the process of ‘979, therefore, the temperature is also a result effective parameter.
Consequently, even if ‘979 is silent about the range as claimed, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have found the range as claimed, since 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.
Regarding to Claims 21-22,
‘979 teaches a desired pattern is formed on a substrate such as a semiconductor wafer or the like ([0002]), and silicon dioxide (e.g., a gate oxide film) as a structure in a pattern ([0003], see also the claim interpretation above, the claimed “wherein the substrate includes a silicon-containing film” of Claim 21 and “wherein the substrate includes a metal-containing film” of Claim 22).
Regarding to Claim 23,
‘979 teaches removing deposits deposited on the surface of a pattern formed on a substrate by etching (abstract, the supplied HF gas of ‘979 removes the deposit, the claimed “wherein the system controller is further configured to control the gas supply to introduce the processing gas into the chamber to remove a substance from a surface of the substrate”).
Regarding to Claim 25, ‘979 teaches:
Provided in the processing chamber 101 is a stage 102 for mounting thereon a semiconductor wafer (substrate) W (Fig. 1, [0018], the claimed “A substrate processing apparatus comprising: a chamber; a substrate support provided in the chamber”);
a gas inlet 203 for introducing a predetermined processing gas (a mixture of HF gas and methanol gas in the present embodiment) into the processing chamber 201 ([0023], the claimed “a first gas supply configured to supply a first processing gas including a hydrogen fluoride gas into the chamber”);
a gas inlet 105 for introducing a predetermined processing gas containing oxygen gas (e.g., a single gas of O2 gas) ([0019], the claimed “a second gas supply configured to supply a second processing gas into the chamber”);
a plasma P of the processing gas introduced through the gas inlet 105 is generated by the action of the high frequency power supplied to the RF coil 104 ([0019], the claimed “a plasma generator configured to form a plasma from the second processing gas in the chamber”);
It is well-known in the art that overall operation of a processing chamber is controlled by a controller having a processor, see claim 16 above, thus the apparatus of ‘979 would have a controller (the claimed “and a controller including a processor and configured to control an overall operation of the substrate processing apparatus, wherein the controller is programmed to execute a process comprising:”);
As shown in the flowchart of FIG. 3, the etching process is performed in the previous step (step 301)… For example, when an STI (Shallow Trench Isolation) process is carried out… The etching process (step 301) is performed by, e.g., the following two steps ([0026-0040], note the etching process intrinsically requires disposing the substrate on the stage and it is commonly well-known that the STI process of Figs. 5A-5C is performed by etching through mask layer having opening, nitride or oxide layer, then silicon layer, see the illustration below. Further the substrate feature does not add a patentable weight to the claimed apparatus, see the claim interpretation above, the claimed “(a) disposing a substrate on the substrate support, the substrate including a first film and a second film formed on the first film, the second film having an opening therein; (b) etching the first film by the plasma”);
PNG
media_image1.png
431
569
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
96
435
media_image2.png
Greyscale
the etching process is performed in the previous step (step 301), and deposits generated by the etching process (so-called deposits) are deposited on a sidewall portion of a predetermined pattern of the semiconductor wafer W… Here, the deposits deposited on the sidewall portion of the pattern are removed by the deposit removal process of the present embodiment ([0026]), and the cycle treatment in the deposit removal process is carried out (steps 303 to 305)… a predetermined processing gas (mixture of HF gas and methanol gas in the present embodiment) is introduced ([0044-0045], as discussed in the claim interpreation above, when the gas including HF is supplied to the substrate having the etching deposit, any exposed surface on the substrate is touched by the HF molecules in the gas and reacted with HF, thus a reaction product is produced, the claimed “and (c) exposing the substrate to the first processing gas to form a hydrogen fluoride molecular layer to cover an etching residue on the substrate produced during (b), the hydrogen fluoride molecular layer reacting with the etching residue to produce a reaction product)”.
Regarding to Claims 26-27 and 31,
‘979 does not explicitly teach the other limitations (BOLD and ITALIC letter) of:
Claim 26: wherein the process further comprises:(d) after (c), etching the first film using the plasma.
Claim 27: wherein the process further comprises:(e) after (d), exposing the substrate to the processing gas including the hydrogen fluoride gas, thereby removing the deposit adhering to the opening of the second film in (d).
Claim 31: wherein the process further comprises (f) repeating (b) and (c).
However, ‘979 further teaches the cycle treatment is repeated predetermined number of times ([0050]), therefore ‘979 clearly acknowledges process step can be repeated, depending on an intended purpose.
Because, during the STI process, the depth of the trench can be adjusted depending on a desired application. Therefore, even if ‘979 is silent about the repeating of the process as recited, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have adopted the repetition, for the purpose of obtaining clean deep etched trench, by repeating the etching and removal of deposit, thus preventing accumulation of the deposits during the deep trench etching.
Regarding to Claims 28-30 and 32,
‘979 teaches a desired pattern is formed on a substrate such as a semiconductor wafer or the like ([0002]), and silicon dioxide (e.g., a gate oxide film) as a structure in a pattern ([0003], note it is commonly well-known that the STI process of Figs. 5A-5C is performed by etching through mask layer having opening, nitride or oxide layer, then silicon layer, see the illustration above, and see also the claim interpretation above, the claimed “wherein the second film contains silicon” of Claim 28, “wherein the first film contains carbon” of Claim 29, “wherein the second film is a mask” of Claim 30, and “wherein the first film is selected from the group consisting of a polycrystalline silicon film, an amorphous silicon film, and a SiGe film” of Claim 32).
Regarding to Claim 33,
Claim 33 is rejected for substantially the same reason as claim 25 rejection above, because claim 25 rejection has all the limitations of Claim 33, in other word, the scope of Claim 33 is merely broader than the claim 25.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘979 in view of OTA et al. (US 20130161287, hereafter ‘287).
Regarding to Claim 24,
‘979 does not explicitly teach the other limitations (BOLD and ITALIC letter) of:
Claim 24: wherein the processing gas includes an inert gas.
‘287 is analogous art in the field of processing apparatus (title). ‘287 teaches exhaust of gas by sucking out of the enclosed space and supply of an inert gas into the enclosed space are conducted in parallel. This results in replacement of the process vapor in the enclosed space for the inert gas. This prevents the process vapor from leaking out of the enclosed space when the enclosed space is opened up to the outer space thereof ([0011]).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have added an inert gas, into ‘979, for the purpose of providing purging step, thus preventing the process vapor from leaking or affecting to following processing steps.
Double Patenting
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 16-17 and 19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 11798793 (hereafter ‘793) in view of ‘979.
Regarding to Claim 16-17 and 19,
‘793 teaches all the limitation of Claims 16-17 and 19 (some different limitations are mere synonyms), except followings of Claim 16,
(1) “a temperature adjusting module configured to adjust a temperature of at least one of the substrate support and a substrate disposed on the substrate support, the temperature adjusting module including a heater, a heat transfer medium and/or a flow path”,
(2) “an exhaust system including at least one of a pressure regulating valve and a vacuum pump and configured to adjust a pressure in the chamber”,
(3) “including a processor”
(3) “(a) dispose the substrate on the substrate support”,
(4) “(b) supply the processing gas into the chamber”,
(5) “wherein in (d), the system controller is further programmed to control at least one of the temperature adjusting module, the gas supply, and the exhaust system, such that the second temperature is higher than the first temperature and/or the second pressure is lower than the first pressure and wherein the system controller is further programmed to control the gas supply to expose the substrate to the processing gas to form a hydrogen fluoride molecular layer to cover an etching residue on the substrate, the hydrogen fluoride molecular layer reacting with the etching residue to produce a reaction product”.
However, ‘979 teaches the limitations, see the 102/103 rejection above.
Therefore, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have adopted the features of (1)-(5), into ‘793, for the purpose of performing removal process of unnecessary deposits on the pattern of the substrate.
Claims 16-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6 of U.S. Patent No. 11798793 (hereafter ‘793) in view of ‘979.
Regarding to Claim 16-19,
‘793 teaches all the limitation of Claims 16-19 (some different limitations are mere synonyms), except followings of Claim 16,
(1) “A substrate processing apparatus comprising: a chamber; a substrate support provided in the chamber; a temperature adjusting module configured to adjust a temperature of at least one of the substrate support and a substrate disposed on the substrate support, the temperature adjusting module including a heater, a heat transfer medium and/or a flow path; a gas supply configured to supply a processing gas including hydrogen fluoride gas into the chamber; an exhaust system including at least one of a pressure regulating valve and a vacuum pump and configured to adjust a pressure in the chamber; and a system controller including a processor and configured to control an overall operation of the substrate processing apparatus, wherein the system controller is programmed to”,
(2) “wherein in (d), the system controller is further programmed to control at least one of the temperature adjusting module, the gas supply, and the exhaust system, such that the second temperature is higher than the first temperature and/or the second pressure is lower than the first pressure and wherein the system controller is further programmed to control the gas supply to expose the substrate to the processing gas to form a hydrogen fluoride molecular layer to cover an etching residue on the substrate, the hydrogen fluoride molecular layer reacting with the etching residue to produce a reaction product”.
However, ‘979 teaches the limitations, see the 102/103 rejection above.
Therefore, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have adopted the structural feature of (1), into ‘793, because the method of ‘793 requires an apparatus to perform the method.
Further, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have adopted the feature of (5), into ‘793, for the purpose of performing removal process of unnecessary deposits on the pattern of the substrate.
Allowable Subject Matter
When the 112 and double patenting issues of Claim 17 are resolved, Claim 17 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Further, Claim 19 recites mere operational parameters of the claimed apparatus, thus the claim is not patentable. However, when the claim 19 is a parameter to control the specific process result of the claim 17, it will be reconsidered, in other words, when the claim 19 is combined with the claim 17, the patentability will be reconsidered.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed on 05/08/2026 have been fully considered but they are not convincing in light of the new ground of rejection above.
In regards to the 112 rejections, the applicants’ amendment still does not resolve the issues, therefore, the examiner maintains the rejections.
In regards to the double patenting rejection and 35USC102/103 rejection of claims, the applicants argue that the cited reference fails to disclose exposing the substrate to a first processing gas to form a hydrogen fluoride molecular layer to cover an etching residue to react with the etching residue to produce a reaction product, see pages 8 and 11.
This argument is found not persuasive because as discussed in the claim interpretation above, the claim is merely constructed such that when the HF gas is supplied, it causes the cited functional result. Therefore, the HF gas of ‘979 clearly teaches feature. Emphasized again, to be distinguished, the applicants must add at least the feature of Claim 17 into Claim 1.
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 AIDEN Y LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-1440. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 9am-5pm PT.
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 on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/AIDEN LEE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights