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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
The amendment filed February 24, 2026 has been received and entered. With the entry of the amendment, claims 2-3, 12-16 and 18 are canceled, and claims 1, 4-11, 17 and 19-20 are pending for examination.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-11 and 17-20, in the reply filed on January 31, 2025 is acknowledged.
It is noted that non-elected claims 12-16 were canceled by the amendment of February 24, 2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed November 24, 2025 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
The Korean Office Action of November 4, 2024 has not been considered as the document is not in English and no explanation of relevance has been provided.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The rejection of claims 1-11, 17 and 19-20 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or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention is withdrawn due to the amendment of February 24, 2026 clarifying these claims.
The rejection of claims 2 and 3 under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends is withdrawn due to the amendment of February 24, 2026 cancelling these claims.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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, 4-11, 17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Strang (US 2006/0093746) in view of Hatanpaa et al (US 2023/0064120) and Kevwitch (US 2006/0254615).
Claim 1: Strang teaches a method of processing a substrate, such as by applying a film on the substrate (note 0002). A processing chamber/reactor is provided and a substate would be moved into the chamber for processing (note 0027, 0031, figure 1). The process includes supplying a first process fluid containing a precursor and a first supercritical fluid (the high pressure fluid) to the reactor (note 0010, 0035 0042). Subsequently a second process fluid containing a reducing fluid (and with supercritical fluid) is supplied to the reactor (note 0035). The precursor and reducing fluid react to form the coating/film on the substrate (note 0035, 0037). The supercritical fluid can be carbon dioxide, indicated at being of a high pressure of above 1070 psi, above the critical pressure (note 0042, where it is not prevented that both supercritical fluids are carbon dioxide). It is indicated that pressure can be controlled with a controller (note 0042) and have a pressure control system, where valves can exhaust the processing chamber and/or regulate pressure and pumps can also increase pressure (note 0050). Strang further describes the process as an ALD (atomic layer deposition) process with use of supercritical fluid to cyclically and sequentially introduce process compositions to a surface of the substrate (note 0024).
As to specifically providing the claimed raising of pressure and lowering of pressure as claimed,
Hatanpaa describes processing that can be an ALD deposition processing with cyclic deposition with sequential introduction of precursors and reactants in a reaction chamber to deposit material (note 0031). The process can be a process where a substrate is provided in a reaction chamber (note 0077), and a metal precursor can be provided in the reaction chamber and subsequently a reducing agent provided into the chamber to form a deposition cycle (note 0079-0082, figures 1A-1B), where further, as described, there can be a first process fluid supplied for a period of time, then directly thereafter a purge, then directly thereafter, a second process fluid/reducing agent supplied for a period of time, and then directly thereafter a purge (note figure 1B, 0079-0083, 0031, 0033, 0029, since purging occurs after each precursor/reducing agent providing step, with no indication of any time required after the providing, note also 0097), where for the purging, excess precursor and/or reactant and/or rection byproducts can be removed from the chamber, and where for purging vapor phase precursors and or byproducts can be removed from the substrate surface, such as by evacuating the reaction chamber with a vacuum pump, or replacing gas inside a chamber (note 0033, 0037),
Kevwitch also provides a method of processing a substrate using supercritical carbon dioxide (note 0002), where it is noted how cleaning of the substrate can be provided with supercritical fluid/CO2 (note 0011), and the substrate can also be treated with supercritical fluid containing supercritical CO2 and functionalizing agents (note 0012), where the substrate to be treated is placed in a processing chamber/module/reactor for treatment (note 0018-0021). A process chemistry supply system is provided that can also introduce film forming compositions to forming metal films, and also reducing agents (note 0026). It is indicated that the process system can have a pressure control system including pressure valves and pumps (note 0037). For operating the system, it is noted that the supercritical fluid can be used to pressurize the processing chamber (where process chemistry may also be introduced at this time, so the supercritical fluid can also have additional material present during pressurizing), where the pressure is desired to exceed the critical pressure (note 0054, 0055). It is noted to provide process chemistry during a period of time above the critical pressure (note 0055-0056, note time 202, where the pressure can be desirably constant during time 202, note 0060, and supercritical processing solution can be supplied during time 202, note 0055, 0059). In the processing example of figure 2, after 202, shown step 203 is optional (note 0062), and so after 202, the pressure would drop. It is further described that subsequently a decompression process can be provided during time 204, the process can be cycled between a first (high pressure, which can be from the end of the previous pressure, note above 2500 psi) and low pressure (below 2500 psi), where the pressure can be lowered by venting the reactor (and pressure increased by adding supercritical CO2, indicating that providing the supercritical fluid to the reactor can raise the pressure in the reactor) (note 0066). Note that 204 is optional (note 0066), but shows in the figure how drop in pressure after a processing step is similar and can be provided. Thereafter a further treatment of the substrate with supercritical fluid and additional material (functionalizing agent) is provided at step 205 with pressure established again using the supercritical carbon dioxide to be above 2500 psi (so raised) where the pressure would drop after(note 0071-0072, figure 2), and then further optional decompression cycle 206 provided (with lowering the pressure by venting) (note 0074).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Strang to raise the pressure in the reactor to a first pressure above a critical pressure with the feeding of the first process fluid containing a precursor and a first supercritical fluid, and then when reaching the first pressure, directly following with venting the reactor to lower the pressure to a second pressure, and then directly supplying the second process fluid with reducing agent and supercritical fluid to raise the pressure in the reactor to a third pressure, and then directly following reaching the third pressure, venting the reactor to lower the pressure in the reactor to a fourth pressure as suggested by Hatanpaa and Kevwitch to provide a desirable pressure pattern when processing with supercritical carbon dioxide, since Strang provides a first process fluid with precursor and a first supercritical fluid that can be carbon dioxide to a reactor and later a second process fluid with supercritical fluid and reducing agent, in a ALD type process, and notes providing supercritical carbon dioxide at a pressure above about 1070 psi, and notes to control pressure where pressure can be controlled by venting, and Hatanpaa describes providing an ALD type process with supplying of first precursor material followed by reducing agent material to deposit on a substrate, where it is indicated to be desirable to have supplying of first precursor material followed directly by purging to remove excess materials and can be by evacuating material/gas from the chamber, followed directly by providing second process material of reducing agent, followed directly by purging, and thus suggests a pattern of supplying material followed by purging/evacuation, which when using Strang would remove supercritical fluid and thereby vent, and Kevwitch indicates providing processing of a substrate with supercritical carbon dioxide where other materials can be added, where processing can include providing precursors and reducing agents, and where processing occurs such that the first process fluid can be provided and raise the pressure in the reactor to a first pressure greater than a critical pressure, and then process at the pressure, and then decompress/vent to a pressure lower than the first pressure (second pressure), and then providing further processing with a second fluid at a raised pressure with the providing of supercritical fluid/added material (giving a raise of pressure to a third pressure) and then venting the reactor to lower the pressure to a further pressure, suggesting that when modifying Strang to provide following the desired processing pattern of Hatanpaa, the providing of supercritical fluid (with the first precursor and/or the reducing agent) acts to also raise pressure in the reactor, where Hatanpaa describes that the providing of the first precursor and/or reducing agent occurs for a period of time followed directly by purging, so therefore, as soon as the top (first or third) pressure reached (at the end of providing the first precursor with supercritical fluid, or reducing agent with supercritical fluid), efficiently the purging/venting (first venting, or second venting respectively) would occur, and similarly immediately after the bottom venting pressure reached (second pressure), the reducing agent/supercritical fluid would be supplied (second supplying), for efficiency, since no other required time or step needed to occur before this supplying, where the purging/evacuation would vent supercritical fluid and thereby lower the pressure.
Furthermore, to the first, second, third, fourth pressure all greater than the critical pressure, Kevwitch would suggest that the first and third pressure (with supplying the first and second process fluid) would be greater than the critical pressure of carbon dioxide (describing above 2500 psi) (note 0072), and as to the second and fourth pressures from venting, Kevwitch notes using a pressure below approximately 2500 psi (note 0066, 0072), which would predictably and acceptably give pressures to apply when processing and venting as discussed above, and since the critical pressure would be 1070 (0055), this would provide a range including above the critical pressure, and it would have been obvious to optimize from the described range, giving a value in the claimed range for the second and fourth pressures. Note In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) and "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Since all the pressures would be equal to or greater than the critical pressure, this would be to respectively maintain the first and second process fluids in a supercritical state.
Claim 4: as to repeating the steps of claim 1 a preset number of times, Strang indicates that the processing sequence can be repeated (note 0061), which would have been obvious to build up a desired thickness, and optimized for a specific number to reach the desired thickness, since each process step would only provide for so much material for reaction. Hatanpaa further describes that the process with supplying the precursor-purging-supplying reducing agent-purging can be repeated to build up a desired thickness (note Figure 1B, 0082). Kevwitch also indicates the process steps can be repeated (note 0077).
Claim 5: after repeating the preset number of times, lowering the pressure to a fifth pressure less than the fourth pressure would have been obvious from Strang, as at the least after all processing is over with, the reactor would have to be opened and the substrate removed, so the pressure would be desirably lowered to allow such removal (note 0031). Also note Kevwitch noting return to normal pressure after the processing (note 0086-0087).
Claim 6: As to supplying a third supercritical fluid to the reactor to remove residue inside the reactor, this would be suggested by Kevwitch, which notes how after the desired processing, a rinsing step can be provided with supercritical carbon dioxide pressure and rinsing chemistry to remove process residue (note 0080, and also note 0084).
Claim 7: Kevwitch also suggests that a third process fluid containing fourth supercritical fluid can be provided to raise the reactor to a sixth pressure greater than the critical pressure and a subsequent third venting to lower the pressure to a seventh pressure (note 0080, 0082).
Claim 8: Strang would indicate that the precursor can be MxLy, such as Cu (acetate)2, etc. and the reducing agent hydrogen (understood to include H2, or at least be suggested to include H2 as the conventional hydrogen gas) (note 0037).
Claim 9: Strang would indicate the second processing fluid can include the reducing fluid and a second supercritical fluid (where it is not prevented that both supercritical fluids can be carbon dioxide, for example) (note 0035, where the high pressure fluid (supercritical fluid) can transport the reducing agent).
Claim 10: as to the time of treatment, Strang indicates to control process time (note 0042), and gives an example of the process compositions (such as the precursor, for one, and the reducing agent, for another) alternately and discontinuously into the during circulation of the high pressure/supercritical fluid, noting circulation times of greater than 1 second and the first or second process fluid can be introduced for at least 1 millisecond (note 0048, 0035). Therefore, it is indicated that the supplying of the first and second process fluids as presently claimed can be provided over a specific range of time, that can be optimized from. One would further expect that the venting time can also be controlled noting the use of pressure valves to vent (0050), and the range of pressures/amount of gas that can be provided in the chamber (as discussed with regard to Kevwitch for claims 2, 3 above). Hatanpaa also describes how purging/evacuating can take a period of time (such as 0.1-20 seconds) (note 0037). It would have been obvious to optimize the specific times for each fluid and the amount of time needed to vent, giving the supplying of the first process fluid/second venting greater than the second period of supplying the second process fluid/second venting.
Claim 11: As to providing an aging operation as claimed before the supplying of the first process fluid, Kevwitch indicates how a substrate can be cleaned with supercritical fluid before a functionalizing agent applied (that is, cleaning before further surface treatment) and where it is also specifically noted that other methods steps can be performed after the cleaning steps (note 0011-0013), where as noted for claim 1 above, the system of Kevwitch can include process chemistry supply of film forming compositions and reducing agents (note 0026), therefore suggesting that a cleaning process can be provided before the precursor/ first venting and reducing agent/second venting providing steps of Strang in view of Hatanpaa and Kevwitch as discussed for claim 1 above. In Kevwitch, cleaning compositions can be provided with the supercritical fluid and provided into the chamber with (fifth) supercritical fluid to raise the pressure of the reactor to an eighth pressure greater than the critical pressure (note 0055-0056) and subsequently venting to lower the pressure occurs (note 0066). This can be considered as providing the aging fluid and venting to the extent claimed. Alternatively, it is indicated in the present specification that the aging fluid can be the same as the second process fluid. Since it is suggested to repeat the steps as discussed for claim 4 above, as well, in the first providing of the steps, the reducing agent/second venting can be considered as providing the aging treatment as claimed, with the next repetition of the steps providing the steps as in claim 1.
Claim 17: the features provided as discussed for claims 1, 4, 8 and 11 would suggest the features of claim 17 as discussed below, where the processing of a substrate is suggested as discussed for claim 1, the supplying of an aging fluid of hydrogen and supercritical carbon dioxide to raise a pressure of the reactor to a first aging pressure greater than a critical pressure, and venting to a second lower pressure would be suggested as discussed for claims 4, 8 and 11 above, where it was noted that it is indicated in the present specification that the aging fluid can be the same as the second process fluid. Since it is suggested to repeat the steps as discussed for claim 4 above, as well, in the first providing of the steps, the supply reducing agent/then venting can be considered as providing the aging treatment as claimed, with the next repetition of the steps providing the steps as in claim 1, where since in the repetition, the second processing fluid/reducing agent would be supplied to raise the pressure as claimed, then directly followed by purging/venting to lower pressure, then directly followed by supplying the first process fluid, directly followed by venting. . . , note figure 1B Hatanpaa), where the reducing fluid includes H2 (as discussed for claim 8 above) and the supercritical fluid carbon dioxide (as discussed for claim 1 above). Then, from repetition of steps, directly following the aging fluid supply and venting, there would be supplying a first precursor fluid containing a metal precursor and carbon dioxide to raise the pressure of the reactor to a first pressure above the critical pressure, directly followed by a second venting to lower the pressure, directly followed by supplying a second process fluid with hydrogen and carbon dioxide to the reactor to raise the pressure of the reactor to a third pressure greater than the critical pressure and directly followed by a third venting to lower the pressure (note as discussed for claims 1, 4 and 8 above). Where the first pressure, second pressure, third pressure and fourth pressure would all be greater than the critical pressure as discussed for claims 1 above, and first aging pressure (corresponding to the third pressure) and the second aging pressure (corresponding to the fourth pressure), would also all be suggested to be predictably and acceptably greater than the critical pressure as discussed for claim 1 above.
Claim 19: As to the first and third pressures being in the range of 85-170 bar (about 1233-2463 psi) and the second and fourth pressures in the range of 75-160 bar (about 1088-2321 psi), Kevwitch suggests that the pressures during the processing (supplying the supercritical carbon dioxide and additional material, which here would be the precursors or reducing agent, so giving the pressures for the first and third pressures) can operate at a pressure above 2200 psi, including at approximately 2500-3000 psi, or alternatively above approximately 2500 psi (note 0055, 0059, 0072). Above 2200 psi would overlap with the taught range, and even above approximately 2500 psi can be considered as overlapping with a high point of 2463 psi (noting the “approximately” and the difference would be within 1.5%), and it would have been obvious to optimize within the ranges, giving values in the claimed ranges. Alternatively even if “approximately 2500” did not overlap with applicant’s claims, the value is so close that it would have been obvious that an optimization of values can still predictably and acceptably give values in applicant’s claimed range. Note "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). As to the second and fourth pressures, Kevwitch indicates that the pressure during the venting can be decreased to below approximately 2500 psi (note 0066, 0074), where this range would overlap with that claimed, and it would have been obvious to optimize within the ranges, giving values in the claimed ranges. Note In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) and "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claim 20: As to repeating the first supplying, first venting, second supplying, and second venting a preset number of times, this would be suggested as discussed for claim 4 above, and to then lowering the pressure of the reactor to a fifth pressure less than the critical pressure, this would be suggested as discussed for claim 5 above for removal of the substrate, note as worded as discussed for claim 17, the first supplying and first venting of aging fluid can be considered as providing the supply of reducing agent and then venting (corresponding to second supplying and second venting in claim 1), and the second supplying and second venting in claim 17 would correspond to the first supplying and first venting of claim 1, and thus repeating steps (as shown in figure 1B of Hatanpaa) would give a same effect. Kevwitch notes that there can be further processing to provide a rinse cycle using supercritical carbon deoxidate with pressure raised by supplying the carbon dioxide to above critical pressure (above approximately 2500 psi) to remove residue inside the reactor (described on the substrate in the reactor) (note 0078-0081), suggesting to provide this when processing, and as well a specific feeding of supercritical carbon dioxide can clean out the residue from the processing chamber and other elements (note 0084). Alternatively, such a step would be obviously provided to an empty chamber after the removal of the substrate, since it would rinse out residue from the processing chamber as a whole.
Claims 6, 7 and 20 are alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Strang in view of Hatanpaa and Kevwitch as applied to claims 1-11, 17 and 19-20 above, and further in view of Japan 2007-270231 (hereinafter ‘231).
Claim 6, 7, 20: Further as to specifically providing rinse fluid containing carbon dioxide to the reactor to raise the pressure to greater than the critical pressure after the metal precursor/reducing agent providing (to provide a metal film) and substrate removal (and repeating as in claim 4 and removal as in claim 5), as discussed for claim 20 above, Kevwitch provides for a rinsing process. For claim 7, Kevwitch also suggests that the third process fluid of third supercritical fluid can be provided to raise the reactor to a sixth pressure greater than a critical pressure and a subsequent third venting to lower the pressure to a seventh pressure (note 0080, 0082).
‘231 further provides a metal deposition process in a chamber where supercritical carbon dioxide/metal precursor is provided and hydrogen reducing agent used (note pages 2, 8-9, translation). Then the substrate/wafer is unloaded (note page 9, translation). Thereafter a rinsing/etching treatment is provided to remove residue from the chamber, where the treatment uses supercritical carbon dioxide and etching agent pressurized in the chamber to obtain supercritical fluid (so above critical pressure) (note page 9, translation).
Therefore, it further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Strang in view of Hatanpaa and Kevwitch to provide a rinse process using a rinse fluid containing carbon dioxide provided to the reactor to raise the pressure to a first rinse pressure greater than critical pressure to remove residue inside the reactor after the substrate removed (and after repeating steps as in claim 4) as suggested by ‘231 to provide a desirably clean reactor, since Strang is providing the formation of a metal coating using metal precursor/supercritical carbon dioxide and reducing agent, Kevwitch notes how rinsing processes can be provided and treatment as well using a fluid containing carbon dioxide and additional material provided to the reactor to raise the pressure to a pressure greater than the critical pressure, where ‘231 indicates how similar such processes are used to remove residue in a process chamber after formation of a metal coating using metal precursor/supercritical carbon dioxide and reducing agent and removal of the substrate, where after treatment it would be suggested to vent to finish the process.
Double Patenting
The provisional rejection of claims 1-11, 17 and 20 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-18 of copending Application No. 18/497,425 (hereinafter ‘425) (reference application) is withdrawn due to the amendments to 18/497,425 of December 16, 2025 changing the scope of the claims.
The US PG Publication of 18/497,425 is US 2024/0186135.
Kim et al (US 2021/0020430) also notes a supercritical fluid supplying and venting process to treat a substrate in a chamber (note abstract, 0094, 0103, figure 1).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 24, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
(A) As to the 35 USC 103 rejections, it is argued that the features as to venting directly following reaching the pressures are not provided, where it is argued that Hatanpaa does not provide venting directly following the reaching the first and third pressures or supplying the second process fluid directly following the reactor reaching the second pressure, or the first-fourth pressure greater than or equal to critical pressure, and Strang and Kevwitch do not cure the deficiencies.
The Examiner has reviewed these arguments, however, the rejections are maintained. Hatanpaa has that the precursor material would be supplied for a period, then purging occurs, then supplying reducing agent, then purging occurs. There is no requirement of any intervening steps, and for efficiency, by providing venting as soon as the feeding done, and the reducing agent as soon as the venting done would be suggested. As to the use of the supercritical fluid with the precursor material, reducing agents, this would be suggested by Strang and Kevwitch. With the feed of the materials giving pressure adding, the feed finishes with the highest pressure (that would be the first and third pressures), and similarly, the venting would be finished with reaching of the lowest pressure (second pressure) where the most material escaped. Thus, the combination of references would provide the features claimed.
(B) The obviousness type double patenting rejection has been withdrawn as discussed above.
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 KATHERINE A BAREFORD whose telephone number is (571)272-1413. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 6:00 am -3:30 pm, 2nd F 6:00 am -2:30 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, GORDON BALDWIN can be reached at 571-272-5166. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KATHERINE A BAREFORD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights