DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to Applicant’s reply filed 6/22/2026.
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 (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.
Claim Status
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-13, and 33 are pending.
Claim 33 is new.
Claims 3, 6, and 14-32 are cancelled.
Claim Interpretation
To promote clarity of the record and in the interest of brevity, the following claim interpretations are set forth in this section as to apply to all claims.
Claims 1 and 2 are drawn to an apparatus. The preamble “DLC film deposition” is regarded as an intended use of the claimed apparatus and adds no additional structural limitations to the claim. If the prior art would be capable of depositing a DLC film, it meets the preamble limitation. Claims 12-13 are regarded in a similar manner concerning “semiconductor manufacturing”. See MPEP 2111.02(II).
As an evidentiary reference, the Examiner submits Asmussen (US Patent 4,943,345) to demonstrate that it is known in the art to utilize plasma apparatus for deposition and/or etching, as well as for deposition of diamond films (see C5, L16-19 and C2, L42-45, Asmussen).
Additionally, the following claimed features are not construed as structurally limiting of the apparatus: the “DLC film”, “process gas”, “plasma”, “first process gas”, “second process gas”, and “silicon film”. These features are not positively recited and are present only when the claimed apparatus is performing a function, and are thusly construed as an intended use of the apparatus. If the prior art would be capable of providing the above features, it meets the limitations. Claims 12-13 are regarded in a similar manner concerning “DLC film deposition”, “substrate processing”, and “removal module”. See MPEP 2114(II).
Finally, the “mounted substrate” is merely a material or article worked upon by the apparatus, and adds no additional patentability to the claim. See MPEP 2115.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 33, the limitation: “wherein an inner diameter of the focus ring is the same as an inner diameter of the holder” is regarded as indefinite in light of the disclosure. Particularly, this limitation creates multiple interpretations such that the true scope cannot be determined.
The holder #120 is depicted in several embodiments as having a ring shape supporting a wafer W (see at least instant Fig. 1). None of the embodiments with holder #120 are depicted as having a focus ring.
The only embodiment depicted with a focus ring is that shown in Figs. 9-10. Instant par. [0070] describes where in the Fig. 9-10 embodiment, the holder #120 is replaced by an electrostatic chuck #320. In this embodiment, focus ring #324 holds the wafer W, has a ring shape, and has an inner diameter.
In light of the above, it is unclear if this claim is describing 1) a new “mixed” embodiment with both the holder #120 and the electrostatic chuck #320 with focus ring #324, or 2) where the focus ring #324 is the holder.
As 1) would likely involve a recitation of new matter (the word “diameter” does not appear in the instant Specification, nor is there a figure that depicts both the focus ring and holder for a relative comparison), the Examiner believes 2) is most likely. However, the Examiner is not positive that these are the only two interpretations possible. It is also still unclear how Applicant intends the “diameter” limitation to be interpreted, thus the limitation is considered to be indefinite.
In the interest of compact and expedited prosecution, the Examiner interprets the claim such that the holder IS the focus ring (see as depicted in instant Fig. 9).
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.
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, 4-5, and 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US Patent 8,373,086) in view of White (US Pub. 2006/0060302), with various evidentiary references (see specific rejections for the pertinent citations).
Regarding claim 1, Kim teaches a film deposition apparatus (Fig. 1, entirety) comprising:
a chamber (Fig. 1, chamber #100);
a holder in the chamber (Fig. 1, substrate holder #320), the holder configured to support a mounted substrate while being in contact with part of a second surface of the mounted substrate (col. 6, lines 1-2: supporting an edge of bottom surface of substrate; see also Fig. 1: “S”), wherein the mounted substrate is a substrate placed on the holder and having a first surface facing the top of the chamber and the second surface opposite to the first surface (Fig. 1, substrate S with upper and lower surface);
a generator below the holder, in the chamber (C7, L56-59 and Fig. 1, HF power supply #540 applying power to lower electrode #500), the generator configured to process the second surface of the mounted substrate (C7, L59-63: processes underside of substrate), wherein the DLC film generator includes:
a first showerhead facing the second surface of the mounted substrate (Fig. 1, lower electrode #500 includes gas supply holes #530, #560 in a showerhead), and
a first gas supply configured to inject a first process gas into a first space between the mounted substrate and the first showerhead via the first showerhead (Fig. 1, either gas supply part #520 or #550);
a second showerhead above the substrate facing the first surface of the mounted substrate (Fig. 1, upper electrode #200 comprises gas holes #230 formed as a showerhead); and
a second gas supply configured to inject a second process gas into a second space between the mounted substrate and the second showerhead via the second showerhead (Fig. 1, via gas supply part #210; C16, L12-22: injects gas in the claimed region).
Kim does not teach a support member affixing the holder to an inner sidewall of the chamber.
However, White teaches a support member affixing a holder to an inner sidewall of the chamber (White – and Fig. 3A, RF grounding assembly #280 connecting substrate support body #244 to sidewall #206).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the Kim apparatus to include the support member of White in order to increase deposition uniformity and prevent unwanted deposition that can cause cleaning difficulties and time inefficiencies (White – [0004]).
Regarding diamond-like carbon (DLC) film deposition, the Kim apparatus is regarded as having this capability as a PHOSITA would know that CVD/PECVD apparatuses are commonly used for etching and deposition processing, including diamond films (see C5, L16-19 and C2, L42-45, Asmussen, as in Claim Interpretation).
Regarding claim 4, Kim teaches wherein the generator further includes a power supply configured to supply power to the first process gas to generator plasma in the first space (Fig. 1, HF power supply #540; C7, L59-63: forms plasma in the claimed region).
Regarding claim 5, the claim is regarded as an intended use of the apparatus and is given patentable weight only to the extent that the prior art would be capable of performing the recited function. Despite this, Kim explicitly teaches wherein the first process gas includes a hydrocarbon gas (C7, L66: CHF4).
Regarding claim 7, the claim is regarded as an intended use of the apparatus and is given patentable weight only to the extent that the prior art would be capable of performing the recited function. Despite this, Kim explicitly teaches wherein the second process gas includes at least one of nitrogen (N2) and argon (Ar) (C16, L21: nitrogen or inert gas).
Regarding claims 8-9, the claims recite further limitations to the substrate of claim 1- a material or article worked upon by the claimed apparatus. As noted in the Claim Interpretation section herein, these limitations do not impart additional patentability to the claim.
Additionally, the Examiner submits a PHOSITA would know that silicon films such as SiO2 and/or SiN are extremely common in the semiconductor CVD arts. As support for this assertion, the Examiner submits Engle (US Patent 4,223,048, C1, L44-46) as an evidentiary reference. As such, the Examiner regards the Kim apparatus as capable of performing the recited functions.
Regarding claim 10, the claim is regarded as an intended use of the apparatus and is given patentable weight only to the extent that the prior art would be capable of performing the recited function. The Examiner submits Massler (US Pub. 2004/0038033, Abstract) as an evidentiary reference that DLC films having a hardness of 10 GPa to 50 GPa were known in the art at the time of filing. As such, the Examiner regards the Kim apparatus as capable of performing the recited function.
Regarding claim 11, the claim is regarded as an intended use of the apparatus and is given patentable weight only to the extent that the prior art would be capable of performing the recited function. The Examiner submits Chizik (US Pub. 2010/0129615, Abstract) as an evidentiary reference that DLC films having a thickness of 10 nm to 500 nm were known in the art at the time of filing. As such, the Examiner regards the Kim apparatus as capable of performing the recited function.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang (US Pub. 2011/0272275) in view of Chen (US Pub. 2006/0196766).
Regarding claim 2, Kang teaches a film deposition apparatus (Fig. 1, entirety) comprising:
a chamber ([0036] and Fig. 1, chamber #10);
a holder in the chamber ([0039] and Fig. 1, unit #20), the holder configured to support a mounted substrate while being in contact with part of a second surface of the mounted substrate (Fig. 1, mask #22 of unit #20 contacts edge of substrate S and supported by #22 and #21 of #20), wherein the mounted substrate is a substrate placed on the holder and having a first surface facing the top of the chamber and the second surface opposite to the first surface (see Fig. 1); and
a film generator below the holder ([0036] and Fig. 1, electrode #30 and related components), in the chamber (see Fig. 1), the film generator configured to deposit a film on the second surface of the mounted substrate ([0040]), wherein the film generator includes:
a sputtering target facing the second surface of the mounted substrate ([0036] and Fig. 1, target #31),
a sputtering target supporter having an upper surface where the sputtering target is loaded ([0040] and Fig. 1, backing plate #32),
a gas supply configured to inject a process gas into a space between the mounted substrate and the sputtering target ([0036] and Fig. 1, gas unit #50 supplying gas in the claimed space), and
a power supply configured to supply power to the process gas to generate plasma in the space between the mounted substrate and the sputtering target ([0036] and Fig. 1, PSU #40; [0054] for plasma formation).
Kang does not explicitly teach wherein the sputtering target includes carbon (C).
However, Chen teaches wherein sputtering targets for diamond film formation include carbon (Chen – [0026]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the sputtering target material of Kang to comprise carbon as a necessary substitution to obtain diamond films (Chen – [0026]). The Examiner submits the teachings of Chen are such that substituting one target material for another obtains predictable results- namely the particular chemistry of the deposited film.
Regarding diamond-like carbon (DLC) film deposition, the Kang apparatus is regarded as having this capability as a PHOSITA would know that CVD/PECVD/PVD apparatuses are commonly used for etching and deposition processing, including diamond films (see C5, L16-19 and C2, L42-45, Asmussen, as in Claim Interpretation).
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US Pub. 2021/0102841 – hereinafter: ‘841) in view of Kang (US Pub. 2011/0272275) and Fukasawa (US Pub. 2014/0063680).
The Examiner notes that the ‘841 reference was previously labeled “Kim” in the preceding action, but has been changed herein to avoid confusion. The basis of the rejection remains unchanged from the preceding action.
Regarding claim 12, ‘841 teaches a semiconductor manufacturing system (Fig. 1, entirety) comprising: a first chamber ([0020] and Fig. 1, chamber #20); a film deposition module configured to deposit a film on a substrate ([0021]: chamber #20 can be configured for vapor deposition); and a substrate processing module including a second chamber different from the first chamber ([0021]: chamber #20 can alternatively comprise an etching or photo cleaning chamber).
‘841 does not explicitly teach wherein the film deposition module is a diamond-like carbon (DLC) film deposition module configured to deposit a DLC film on a second surface of a substrate, the substrate, when disposed in the first chamber, having a first surface facing the top of the first chamber and the second surface opposite to the first surface, or a holder in the first chamber configured to support part of a second surface of the substrate while the film deposition module is depositing the film on the second surface of the substrate.
However, Kang teaches a film deposition module (Kang - Fig. 1, entirety) configured to deposit a film on a second surface of a substrate (Kang - [0040], [0054]), the substrate having a first surface facing the top of the chamber and the second surface opposite to the first surface (see Fig. 1), a holder in the first chamber (Kang - [0039] and Fig. 1, unit #20) configured to support part of a second surface of the mounted substrate (Kang - Fig. 1, mask #22 of unit #20 contacts edge of substrate S and supported by #22 and #21 of #20) while the film deposition module is depositing the film on the second surface of the substrate (Kang - [0040]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to utilize the deposition module of Kang in the ‘841 system in order to uniformly deposit thin films onto substrates (Kang – [0011]).
Regarding diamond-like carbon (DLC) film deposition, the Kang apparatus is regarded as having this capability as a PHOSITA would know that CVD/PECVD/PVD apparatuses are commonly used for etching and deposition processing, including diamond films (see C5, L16-19 and C2, L42-45, Asmussen, as in Claim Interpretation).
Modified ‘841 does not explicitly teach a substrate processing module including an electrostatic chuck, the electrostatic chuck configured to support the second surface of the substrate, the substrate processing module configured to process the first surface of the substrate with the DLC film deposited on the second surface; and the electrostatic chuck is configured to affix the substrate such that the DLC film and an upper surface of the electrostatic chuck face each other while the substrate processing module is processing the first surface of the substrate.
However, Fukasawa teaches a substrate processing module (Fig. 1, entirety) including an electrostatic chuck (Fukasawa – [0062] and Fig. 1, fixing device #100; [0059] describes it as an electrostatic chuck), the electrostatic chuck configured to support the second surface of the substrate (Fig. 1, bottom surface of #200), the substrate processing module configured to process the first surface of the substrate ([0064]: via gas supplied through showerhead and RF generator); and the electrostatic chuck is configured to affix the substrate such that the second surface and an upper surface of the electrostatic chuck face each other while the substrate processing module is processing the first surface of the substrate (see Fig. 1, bottom surface on ESC and top surface being processed).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to utilize the processing module and electrostatic chuck of Fukasawa with the modified Kim system in order to maintain impedance and temperature of a substrate during processing (Fukasawa – [0059]) as well as processing uniformity (Fukasawa - [0006])
Regarding diamond-like carbon (DLC) film deposition, the Fukasawa apparatus is regarded as having this capability as a PHOSITA would know that CVD/PECVD/PVD apparatuses are commonly used for etching and deposition processing, including diamond films (see C5, L16-19 and C2, L42-45, Asmussen, as in Claim Interpretation).
Regarding claim 13, ‘841 teaches a removal module configured to remove the DLC film from the substrate after the processing of the first surface of the substrate by the substrate processing module ([0021]: process chamber #20 can include an etching/photo cleaning module).
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US Pub. 2021/0102841 – hereinafter: ‘841) in view of Kang (US Pub. 2011/0272275) and Han (US Patent 6,623,597).
Regarding claim 33, ‘841 teaches a semiconductor manufacturing system (Fig. 1, entirety) comprising: a first chamber ([0020] and Fig. 1, chamber #20); a film deposition module configured to deposit a film on a substrate ([0021]: chamber #20 can be configured for vapor deposition); and a substrate processing module including a second chamber different from the first chamber ([0021]: chamber #20 can alternatively comprise an etching or photo cleaning chamber).
‘841 does not explicitly teach wherein the film deposition module is a diamond-like carbon (DLC) film deposition module configured to deposit a DLC film on a second surface of a substrate, the substrate, when disposed in the first chamber, having a first surface facing the top of the first chamber and the second surface opposite to the first surface, or a holder in the first chamber configured to support part of a second surface of the substrate while the film deposition module is depositing the film on the second surface of the substrate.
However, Kang teaches a film deposition module (Kang - Fig. 1, entirety) configured to deposit a film on a second surface of a substrate (Kang - [0040], [0054]), the substrate having a first surface facing the top of the chamber and the second surface opposite to the first surface (see Fig. 1), a holder in the first chamber (Kang - [0039] and Fig. 1, unit #20) configured to support part of a second surface of the mounted substrate (Kang - Fig. 1, mask #22 of unit #20 contacts edge of substrate S and supported by #22 and #21 of #20) while the film deposition module is depositing the film on the second surface of the substrate (Kang - [0040]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to utilize the deposition module of Kang in the ‘841 system in order to uniformly deposit thin films onto substrates (Kang – [0011]).
Regarding diamond-like carbon (DLC) film deposition, the Kang apparatus is regarded as having this capability as a PHOSITA would know that CVD/PECVD/PVD apparatuses are commonly used for etching and deposition processing, including diamond films (see C5, L16-19 and C2, L42-45, Asmussen, as in Claim Interpretation).
Modified ‘841 does not explicitly teach a substrate processing module including an electrostatic chuck, the electrostatic chuck configured to support the second surface of the substrate, the substrate processing module configured to process the first surface of the substrate with the DLC film deposited on the second surface; and the electrostatic chuck is configured to affix the substrate such that the DLC film and an upper surface of the electrostatic chuck face each other while the substrate processing module is processing the first surface of the substrate, a focus ring on the electrostatic chuck in the second chamber, wherein the holder has a ring shape, and wherein an inner diameter of the focus ring is the same as an inner diameter of the holder.
However, Han teaches a substrate processing module (Han – Fig. 3, entirety) including an electrostatic chuck (Fig. 3, electrostatic chuck #204), the electrostatic chuck configured to support the second surface of the substrate (Fig. 3, provides structural support for #208, which holds wafer #210), the substrate processing module configured to process the first surface of the substrate with the DLC film deposited on the second surface (Fig. 3, top surface of #210 processed, bottom surface could be pre-treated); and the electrostatic chuck is configured to affix the substrate such that the DLC film and an upper surface of the electrostatic chuck face each other while the substrate processing module is processing the first surface of the substrate (see Fig. 3, with lower side of #210 facing #204), a focus ring on the electrostatic chuck in the second chamber (Fig. 3, focus ring #208), wherein the holder/focus ring has a ring shape (see Fig. 4), and wherein an inner diameter of the focus ring is the same as an inner diameter of the holder (as the elements are interpreted as the same, this must necessarily be true – see Fig. 4 for visual depiction of said diameter).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to utilize the deposition module of Han in the modified ‘841 system in order to provide focused plasma for processing and collect particulate contaminants during processing, which would deleteriously lower production yield (Han – C1, L47-60; C2, L11-14).
Response to Arguments
As an initial matter, the Examiner has considered Applicant’s arguments (Remarks, pg. 4) concerning Asmussen, relied upon as an evidentiary reference concerning the capability of a CVD apparatus to perform DLC film deposition. These arguments are not persuasive.
In particular, the Examiner respectfully submits that the following statement by Applicant is incorrect: “[t]he mere statement that a tool could be modified to hook up different gases … does not establish that the hardware possesses that inherent capability” (pg. 4, Id.). The Examiner disagrees- the capability of the Kim apparatus to perform a wide variety of processes is rooted in Kim’s structural characteristics- a sealed chamber, substrate support, upper and lower gas showerheads, and a plasma generator (see at least Fig. 1 of Kim), among others.
Additionally, the materials used in each of these components must be suitable for processing in a variety of chemically severe environments (see C7, L63-67 of Kim detailing several hazardous fluorine compounds) including plasma formation (C5, L30-44, Id.). Such materials would be capable of withstanding plasma assisted CVD/PVD processes depositing carbon, a much more chemically benign material.
Instead of merely asserting that Kim would be capable of DLC film deposition, the Examiner supplied Asmussen as evidentiary support to show that it is known in the art to perform diamond film deposition using a plasma apparatus similar to Kim.
For at least these reasons, the Examiner submits that a PHOSITA would reasonably know that the Kim apparatus would be capable of DLC film formation.
Further, the statement: “[a]n apparatus requiring structural rearrangement or alternative gas supply configuration to perform a recited claim function is not inherently capable of that function” (pg. 4, Id.) is not commensurate with the Examiner’s rejection.
Importantly, the Examiner is not suggesting that the Kim apparatus needs to be changed in any way to be “capable of” DLC film formation. The particular chemical nature of the process gas is either not recited (claim 1) or is not positively recited as a structurally limiting member of the apparatus (claim 5). As Kim meets the structural limitations of the claims (with White), it is regarded as capable of performing a DLC film formation process in the absence of additional limitations.
More importantly, Kim teaches wherein a hydrocarbon material can be utilized in the disclosed apparatus (C7, L66: CHF4). As such, Kim would be capable of DLC film formation at least as far as the claims are concerned. If Applicant feels their process gas species, process parameters, resulting crystal structure, etc. are different from the prior art, they are encouraged to incorporate further limitations into the claim.
Applicant has amended claim 12 as suggested, thus the objection is withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments concerning claim 1 have been carefully considered but are moot in light of the new grounds of rejection presented herein. The Examiner submits White remedies any alleged deficiencies of Kim in meeting the limitations of the amended claim. All §102(a)(1) rejections are withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments concerning claim 2 have been carefully considered but are not persuasive.
Particularly, Applicant argues that modifying the sputtering target material of Kang with the carbon sputtering target material of Chen would render Kang unsatisfactory for its intended purpose. Respectfully, the proposed modification would not change or alter the basic operation of the Kang device in any way.
The rejection focuses on the position that it would be obvious to a PHOSITA in the CVD/PVD arts to simply change the material of the sputtering target from one material to another. The purpose of the Kang apparatus, in either case, is to perform vapor deposition on a target substrate. The proposed modification would not obscure this purpose in any way.
The Applicant, in contrast, has overly narrowed the purpose of Kang to be film formation of an integrated circuit using aluminum, titanium, molybdenum, indium, ITO, or an indium/tin alloy (Remarks, pg. 7).
It thus appears that Applicant is arguing that a PHOSITA would not reasonably consider Kang as capable of any other deposition process (integrated circuit formation) with any other material (aluminum, titanium, molybdenum, indium, ITO, or an indium/tin). This position is further reinforced by, and mirrored in, Applicant’s arguments concerning the Asmussen reference (Remarks, pg. 4 – addressed above in detail).
This argument is fundamentally flawed, at least in the Examiner’s opinion, because it incorrectly resolves the level of ordinary skill in the art as significantly lower than it actually is.
The Examiner respectfully submits that a PHOSITA in the CVD/PVD arts is a highly educated, highly trained, highly skilled engineer with a breadth of knowledge spanning multiple scientific disciplines (chemical, mechanical, electrical, material, etc.).
Further, the courts have held that the selection of a known material based upon its suitability for its intended use is supportive of an obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.07. As both Kang and Chen teach sputtering apparatuses/processes, they reasonably teach the same “intended use”.
For at least these reasons, the rejection of claim 2 is maintained on substantially the same grounds as previous claim 3 (now cancelled).
Applicant does not argue any particulars of claim 12 beyond those presented regarding claim 1, thus the Examiner respectfully submits that the arguments presented above to Asmussen and the newly-added White reference fully address the rejection of claim 12.
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 Kurt Sweely whose telephone number is (571)272-8482. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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.
/Kurt Sweely/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights