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 .
Response to Amendments/Arguments
In light of Applicant’s amendments and corresponding arguments, the rejections of the independent claims 1, 11, and 17 have been withdrawn. The rejection of dependent claim 14 has been withdrawn. However, upon further search and consideration, new rejections have been made of the independent claims (see below for details), while claim 14 has been objected to as containing allowable subject matter (see below for more details).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kulkarni (US 2009/0037134) in view of Hwang (US 20230003661 A1), Shibata (US 20160011123 A1), and Liu (US 2022/0299448 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kulkarni teaches a substrate test method, comprising:
testing the substrate in the substrate test apparatus (figure 1; paragraphs 73-77),
wherein testing the substrate includes:
testing a first region (a first die) of the substrate (paragraphs 102-104); and
testing a second region (a different die) of the substrate after testing the first region, the second region being spaced apart from the first region (paragraphs 102-104; figure 4),
wherein testing the first region includes:
determining that the first region is aligned (paragraphs 102-104); and
irradiating light to the first region (paragraphs 73-74; figure 1), and
wherein testing the second region includes:
determining that the second region is aligned (paragraphs 102-104); and
irradiating light to the second region (paragraphs 73-74; figure 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
494
442
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
758
604
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Kulkarni implies but doesn’t explicitly teach loading a substrate (16; as explained in paragraphs 65 and 86, the specimen 16 is a substrate) into a substrate test apparatus (figure 1; loading is implied by the substrate being disposed on the stage, 24, of the testing apparatus figure 1; in other words, it’s described as being loaded on the stage and therefore loaded in the substrate testing apparatus, which implies a previous loading; paragraphs 77, 65). Additionally, like Kulkarni (and like the instant application), Hwang is directed to a substrate test method and teaches loading the substrate into a substrate test apparatus (paragraphs 25 and 46). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the method of Kulkarni comprise loading the substrate into the substrate test apparatus as implied by Kulkarni in order to have the substrate in the desired position for testing.
Kulkarni doesn’t explicitly teach the aligning comprises determining that the first region of the substrate is at an allowable location; and the irradiating is after determining that the first region is aligned.
Like Kulkarni (and like the present application), Shibata is directed to a method and system for aligning and testing a substrate and teaches determining that the first region is aligned (for aligning in the z-direction, see “alignment of height of pattern chip” in figure 5A, along with the sub-step of S509), wherein determining that the first region is aligned comprises determining that the first region of the substrate is at an allowable location (for allowable location in the z-direction, see when the position of the wafer in the z-direction is such that the image is “in focus” in paragraph 93; paragraphs 87-93). Additionally, Shibata teaches this provides the benefit of knowing when the alignment can be completed vs when more alignment is necessary to achieve highly accurate and reliable testing results (figure 5 and paragraphs 6 and 130)
PNG
media_image3.png
684
480
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
604
502
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above such that the aligning comprises determining that the first region of the substrate is at an allowable location in order to when the alignment can be completed vs when more alignment is necessary and thus achieve highly accurate and reliable testing results.
The above combination doesn’t explicitly teach the irradiating is after determining that the first region is aligned.
Like Kulkarni (and like the present application), Liu is directed to a method and system for aligning and testing a substrate and teaches irradiating light to the region after determining that the region is aligned (paragraphs 23-24; for irradiating note that the measurement described in paragraphs 23-24 involves irradiating light, as explained in figure 3 and paragraph 17).
PNG
media_image5.png
540
702
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above combination such that the irradiating light to the region is after determining that the region is aligned in order to perform the testing, while minimizing errors due to misalignment (also see additional prior art below for additional evidence of the ordinary skill in the art, such as knowing that doing the alignment before the testing minimizes errors due to alignment error).
Regarding claim 7, Kulkarni teaches testing the first region includes receiving light reflected from the first region (figure 1, paragraphs 73-77).
Regarding claim 8, Kulkarni doesn’t explicitly teach after testing the first region of the substrate and before testing the second region of the substrate, testing the substrate includes moving the substrate.
However, Kulkarni teaches after testing the first region of the substrate and before testing the second region of the substrate, testing the substrate includes (e.g. see scan in paragraph 88-89), and Kulkarni also teaches that the substrate is on a scanning stage (24; paragraph 77). Additionally, Official Notice is taken that it is well known in the art of optical measuring and testing to move the sample to facilitate scanning different regions of the sample with the measurement beam. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to move the substrate to the second region (in the above combination) before testing the second region to ensure that the optical beam irradiates the area that is meant to be tested (in this case, the second region).
Claims 2-3, 5-6, and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kulkarni, Hwang, Shibata, and Liu as applied to claim 1 above, as evidenced by Tsai.
Regarding claim 2, Kulkarni teaches determining that the first region is aligned is performed by an optical camera (paragraph 103, which explains the alignment uses images in a procedure performed as described in Tsai; as evidenced in Tsai, figure 1 and column 3, lines 15-40, this procedure is performed using an optical camera).
Regarding claim 3, Kulkarni teaches determining that the first region is aligned includes: allowing the optical camera to obtain a first image of the first region (paragraph 103); and determining whether the first region is positioned at an allowable location in the first image (paragraph 103; also see Tsai, column 3, lines 15-30).
Regarding claim 5, Kulkarni teaches maintaining the substrate test apparatus when the first region is positioned at the allowable location (paragraph 103; also see Tsai, column 3, lines 15-30).
Regarding claim 6, Kulkarni teaches testing the first region includes allowing the optical camera to determine a position of the first region in the substrate (paragraph 103; also see Tsai, column 3, lines 15-30).
Regarding claim 9, in the above combination testing the first region of the substrate and testing the second region of the substrate are performed by an optical irradiation device (figure 1), wherein, when the first region of the substrate is tested, the substrate is disposed to allow the optical irradiation device to face the first region (figure 1), and wherein moving the substrate (the above combination) includes allowing the optical irradiation device to face the second region (figure 1; paragraphs 88-89 and 101-104).
Regarding claim 10, Kulkarni teaches testing a third region of the substrate after testing the second region, the third region being spaced apart from the second region, wherein testing the third region includes: determining that the third region is aligned; and irradiating light to the third region (paragraphs 88-89, 101-107, and 115; and figure 4).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kulkarni (as evidenced by Tsai), Hwang, Shibata, and Liu as applied to claim 3 above, in further view of Kuwabara (US 6650769 B1)
Regarding claim 4, Kulkarni doesn’t explicitly teach determining whether the first region is positioned at the allowable location is based on a position of an edge line of the first region.
Like Kulkarni (and like the instant application), Kuwabara is directed to a substrate test method and teaches aligning based on a position of an edge line of a die (column 3, lines 20-25).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above combination such that determining whether the first region is positioned at the allowable location is based on a position of an edge line of the first region in order to have precise alignment, since the edges are clues as to the alignment of the region (also see additional prior art).
Claims 11 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kulkarni in view of Lin (US 6091846 A), and Shibata.
Regarding claim 11, Kulkarni teaches a substrate test method, comprising:
irradiating light to a first cell of a substrate by using an optical irradiation device (figure 1; paragraphs 73-77);
receiving light reflected from the first cell (figure 1; paragraphs 73-77);
the substrate on a moving stage (24; paragraph 77);
determining that the substrate is aligned (paragraphs 102-104);
irradiating light to a second cell (second die; the die is considered a cell, for example, see cell-to-cell in paragraph 103) of the substrate by using the optical irradiation device (figures 1 and 4; paragraphs 73-77 and); and
receiving light reflected from the second cell (paragraphs 73-77 and 102-104).
Kulkarni doesn’t explicitly teach moving the substrate after receiving the light reflected from the first cell; determining that the substrate is aligned after moving the substrate; determining that the substrate is aligned comprises determining that a second cell of the substrate is at an allowable location; the irradiating is after determining that the first region is aligned.
However, as mentioned above, Kulkarni teaches the substrate on a movement stage (24; paragraph 77) and determining the substrate is aligned (paragraphs 102-104). Additionally, like Kulkarni (and like the instant application), Lin is directed to a substrate test method and teaches moving the substrate after testing the first cell; determining that the substrate is aligned after moving the substrate; irradiating light to the second cell of the substrate by using the optical irradiation device after determining that the substrate is aligned (column 14, line 65 – column 15, line 11; figures 11a and 11b).
PNG
media_image6.png
746
351
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
754
494
media_image7.png
Greyscale
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above combination such that the method comprises moving the substrate after receiving the light reflected from the first cell and determining that the substrate is aligned after moving the substrate, and irradiating light to the second cell of the substrate by using the optical irradiation device after determining that the substrate is aligned – in order to make high quality measurements of multiple cells on the substrate, since having proper alignment reduces measurement errors (also see additional prior art).
The above combination suggests but doesn’t explicitly teach determining that the substrate is aligned comprises determining that a second cell of the substrate is at an allowable location (suggested by 190, 192, and 194 of Kulnarni, which determines whether alignment is sufficient or additional movement of stage is necessary). Additionally, like Kulkarni (and like the present application), Shibata is directed to a method and system for aligning and testing a substrate and teaches determining that a region is aligned (for aligning in the z-direction, see “alignment of height of pattern chip” in figure 5A, along with the sub-step of S509), wherein determining that a region is aligned comprises determining that the region of the substrate is at an allowable location (for allowable location in the z-direction, see when the position of the wafer in the z-direction is such that the image is “in focus” in paragraph 93; paragraphs 87-93). Additionally, Shibata teaches this provides the benefit of knowing when the alignment can be completed vs when more alignment is necessary to achieve highly accurate and reliable testing results (figure 5 and paragraphs 6 and 130). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above such that the aligning comprises determining that the first region of the substrate is at an allowable location in order to when the alignment can be completed vs when more alignment is necessary and thus achieve highly accurate and reliable testing results.
Regarding claim 16, Kulkarni teaches determining whether the first cell is defective based on a first data about the light reflected from the first cell; and determining whether the second cell is defective based on a second data about the light reflected from the second cell (paragraphs 44, 72-77, and 102-104, and 120).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kulkarni, Lin, and Shibata as applied to claim 11 above, as evidenced by Tsai.
Regarding claim 12, Kulkarni teaches determining that the substrate is aligned includes obtaining an image of the second cell by using an optical camera (paragraph 103, which explains the alignment uses images in a procedure performed as described in Tsai; as evidenced in Tsai, figure 1 and column 3, lines 15-40, this procedure is performed using an optical camera).
Claims 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kulkarni (as evidenced by Tsai), Lin, and Shibata as applied to claim 12 above, in further view of Kuwabara
Regarding claim 13, Kulkarni doesn’t explicitly teach determining that the substrate is aligned includes: determining an edge line of the second cell in the image; and determining whether the second cell is positioned at an allowable location based on the edge line.
Like Kulkarni (and like the instant application), Kuwabara is directed to a substrate test method and teaches aligning based on a position of an edge line of a die (column 3, lines 20-25).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above combination such that the method comprises determining that the substrate is aligned includes: determining an edge line of the second cell in the image; and determining whether the second cell is positioned at an allowable location based on the edge line -- in order to have precise alignment, since the edges are clues as to the alignment of the region (also see additional prior art).
Regarding claim 15, Kulkarni teaches determining that the substrate is aligned includes moving the substrate again when the second cell is not positioned in the allowable location (paragraph 103; also see Tsai, column 3, lines 15-30).
Claims 17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kulkarni in view of Shibata and Liu.
Regarding claim 17, Kulkarni teaches a substrate test method, comprising:
testing a first region (a first die) of a substrate (figure 1; paragraphs 73-77 and 102-104); and
testing a second region (a different die) of the substrate (figures 1 and 4; paragraphs 73-77 and 102-104),
wherein testing the first region includes:
irradiating light to the first region (paragraphs 73-74; figure 1); and
receiving light reflected from the first region (figure 1, paragraphs 73-77), and
wherein testing the second region includes:
determining that the second region is aligned (paragraphs 102-104), the second region being spaced apart from the first region (paragraphs 102-104; figure 4);
irradiating light to the second region (paragraphs 73-74; figure 1); and
receiving light reflected from the second region (figure 1, paragraphs 73-77).
For the reasons given above, the examiner considers the Kulkarni as anticipating the above limitations. Alternatively, if one were to consider Kulkarni as not teaching the aligning and the reflecting in the same embodiment, It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the aligning of paragraphs 102-104 in the embodiment of paragraphs 73-77 (and figures 1 and 4) in order to ensure accurate and precise measurements by reducing errors due to misalignment.
Kulkarni doesn’t explicitly teach the aligning comprises determining that the second region is at an allowable location; and the irradiating is after determining that the second region is aligned.
Like Kulkarni (and like the present application), Shibata is directed to a method and system for aligning and testing a substrate and teaches determining that a region is aligned (for aligning in the z-direction, see “alignment of height of pattern chip” in figure 5A, along with the sub-step of S509), wherein determining that a region is aligned comprises determining that the region of the substrate is at an allowable location (for allowable location in the z-direction, see when the position of the wafer in the z-direction is such that the image is “in focus” in paragraph 93; paragraphs 87-93). Additionally, Shibata teaches this provides the benefit of knowing when the alignment can be completed vs when more alignment is necessary to achieve highly accurate and reliable testing results (figure 5 and paragraphs 6 and 130). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above such that the aligning comprises determining that the second region is at an allowable location in order to when the alignment can be completed vs when more alignment is necessary and thus achieve highly accurate and reliable testing results.
The above combination doesn’t explicitly teach the irradiating is after determining that the second region is aligned.
Like Kulkarni (and like the present application), Liu is directed to a method and system for aligning and testing a substrate and teaches irradiating light to the region after determining that the region is aligned (paragraphs 23-24; for irradiating note that the measurement described in paragraphs 23-24 involves irradiating light, as explained in figure 3 and paragraph 17).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above combination such that the irradiating light to the second region is after determining that the second region is aligned in order to perform the testing, while minimizing errors due to misalignment (also see additional prior art below for additional evidence of the ordinary skill in the art, such as knowing that doing the alignment before the testing minimizes errors due to alignment error).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Kulkarni, Shibata, and Liu, as applied to claim 17 above, and as evidenced by Tsai (US 4845558 A).
Regarding claim 18, Kulkarni teaches determining that the second region is aligned includes: obtaining an image of the second region; and determining whether the second region is positioned at an allowable location in the image (paragraph 103, which explains the alignment uses the procedure performed as described in Tsai; Tsai, column 3, lines 15-30).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kulkarni, Shibata, and Liu as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Takahashi (US 20090304261 A1).
Regarding claim 19, the above combination comprises prior to determining that the second region is aligned, determining that the second region is not positioned at the allowable location (Shibata, figure 5 and paragraphs 87-93).
The above combination doesn’t explicitly teach alarming when the second region is not positioned at the allowable location.
Like Kulkarni (and like the instant application), Takahashi is directed to a substrate test method and teaches alarming when a region is not positioned at the allowable location (paragraph 55).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above combination such that the method of Kulkarni comprises alarming when the second region is not positioned at the allowable location in order to alert the user that it needs to be aligned before continuing the measurements so as to save time from making measurements that will need to be redone to obtain precise measurements.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kulkarni, Shibata, and Liu as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Official Notice.
Regarding claim 20, Kulkarni doesn’t explicitly teach after testing the first region of the substrate and before testing the second region of the substrate, testing the substrate includes moving the substrate.
However, Kulkarni teaches after testing the first region of the substrate and before testing the second region of the substrate, testing the substrate includes (e.g. see scan in paragraph 88-89), and Kulkarni also teaches that the substrate is on a scanning stage (24; paragraph 77). Additionally, Official Notice is taken that it is well known in the art of optical measuring and testing to move the sample to facilitate scanning different regions of the sample with the measurement beam. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to move the substrate to the second region (in the above combination) before testing the second region to ensure that the optical beam irradiates the area that is meant to be tested (in this case, the second region).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 14 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record (taken alone or in combination) fails to anticipate or render obvious, “determining that the substrate is aligned after moving the substrate, wherein determining that the substrate is aligned comprises determining that a second cell of the substrate is at an allowable location; irradiating light to the second cell of the substrate by using the optical irradiation device after determining that the substrate is aligned; and receiving light reflected from the second cell… wherein determining that the substrate is aligned includes obtaining an image of the second cell by using an optical camera… wherein determining that the substrate is aligned includes: determining an edge line of the second cell in the image; and determining that the second cell is positioned at an allowable location based on the edge line… wherein determining that the substrate is aligned includes determining a position of a center of the second cell based on the edge line,” in combination with the other claimed limitations.
Additional Prior Art
KR 20180134004 A discloses
PNG
media_image8.png
484
460
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
384
336
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
382
312
media_image10.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image11.png
486
354
media_image11.png
Greyscale
US 20050122515 A1 discloses
PNG
media_image12.png
812
818
media_image12.png
Greyscale
US 20160061749 A1 reads, “Systems and methods for detecting defects on a wafer are provided. One method includes generating test image(s) for at least a portion of an array region in die(s) on a wafer from frame image(s) generated by scanning the wafer with an inspection system. The method also includes generating a reference image for cell(s) in the array region from frame images generated by the scanning of the wafer. In addition, the method includes determining difference image(s) for at least one cell in the at least the portion of the array region in the die(s) by subtracting the reference image from portion(s) of the test image(s) corresponding to the at least one cell. The method further includes detecting defects on the wafer in the at least one cell based on the difference image(s).
US 20210389256 A1 discloses
PNG
media_image13.png
350
874
media_image13.png
Greyscale
JP 2020122732 A reads, “For example, in the example of the line-and-space pattern shown in FIG. 7A, since the edges of the line pattern exist in the X-axis direction, it is possible to perform alignment using these edges as clues. T
Lazarov (US 20100012855 A1) reads, “[0009] In accordance with one method of the invention, a semiconductor wafer measurement method is provided comprising moving a semiconductor wafer and scanning a first scanning segment of a first portion of a surface of the semiconductor wafer without rotating the semiconductor wafer during the first scanning segment; moving the semiconductor wafer and scanning a second scanning segment of a second different portion of the surface of the semiconductor wafer without rotating the semiconductor wafer during the second scanning segment;”
US 20130241587 A1 discloses, “During testing of a plurality of dies on the wafer 613, the wafer transport (not shown) sequentially positions each die on the wafer 613 to be tested underneath the probe card 605.” (paragraph 64) and “After alignment, the wafer transport 402 moves in the Z direction to contact the selected die on the wafer 413” (paragraph 56).
KR 20180134004 A discloses
PNG
media_image8.png
484
460
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
384
336
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
382
312
media_image10.png
Greyscale
and
Cheng (US 20180364180 A1) reads, [0042] The method includes a step 314 of inspecting the first side surface 14a after effecting alignment between the first side surface 14a and the inspection device 208. The inspection of the first side surface 14a may include capturing an image thereof by the inspection device 208 for assessing the presence of defects thereon.
[0055] The method 400 includes a step 414 of determining whether there is any remaining side surface 14 to be inspected by the first inspection device 208a. If yes, the step 414 returns to the step 410. In this subsequent iteration of the step 410, a subsequent side surface such as the second side surface 14b is aligned with the first inspection device 208a in accordance with the angular and linear offsets of the second side surface 14b. Similarly, the subsequent iteration of the step 412 inspects the second side surface 14b after effecting alignment between the second side surface 14b and the first inspection device 208a.
PNG
media_image14.png
710
450
media_image14.png
Greyscale
US 20080013824 A1 reads, “[0054] As described above, this embodiment extracts an alignment pattern capable of aligning a local area, performs inspection after aligning the local area by using the extracted alignment pattern. This makes it possible to perform defect inspection without any inspection error caused by an alignment error.”
Tsai (US 4845558 A) reads “a determination is made as to whether or not the rows and columns appearing in the image 28 are aligned with the Y axis of the detector surface. If not, and the relative orientation is as indicated by the dashed lines 24', then the object is rotated through the angle .theta. so that the Y axis is aligned with the vertical columns of patterns in the image 28. Numerous well known techniques can be used to determine when the image is aligned with a particular axis of the camera.” (column 3).
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 RUFUS L PHILLIPS whose telephone number is (571)270-7021. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th, 2 -10 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, Michelle Iacoletti can be reached at (571) 270-5789. 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.
/RUFUS L PHILLIPS/ Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights