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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 1602. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 300, 500, and 604. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In paragraph 00103, the phrase “second control loop may (in 1002B)” should be amended to read “second control loop may (in 1102B)” because this paragraph refers to Fig. 11 and not Fig. 10.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Applicant’s amendments to the specification have overcome the previously presented rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and thus the rejections are withdrawn.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In claim 23, the limitations “the sputtering parameter comprises an oxygen partial pressure; and wherein adjusting the sputtering parameter comprises adjusting an oxygen supply” in combination with the claim 21 limitation of “adjusting [the] sputtering parameter… based on the determined atomic ratio” is not fully supported by the original specification. The specification does not describe that the oxygen partial pressure is controlled based on the determined atomic ratio between the first and second element, rather the specification describes that the oxygen partial pressure is controlled based on oxygen data from an oxygen sensor and not the atomic ratio of the other elements (e.g., bismuth and iron) (see para 0015, 0255). Therefore, claim 23 lacks written description support.
Claim 24 is rejected by virtue of depending on a claim that lacks written description support.
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 24 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.
In claim 24, the limitation “wherein determining the oxygen partial pressure based on the plasma properties” is indefinite because there is no previous recitation of determining the partial pressure based on the plasma properties and it is unclear whether this limitation is intended to refer back to a determining step or to require that the oxygen partial pressure is determined based on the plasma properties.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 20-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) “detecting plasma properties” and “determining an atomic ratio”.
The limitations of “determining” and “detecting” are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover the performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “determining an atomic ratio” and “detecting plasma properties” in the context of this claim encompass the user manually calculating, choosing, or observing plasma properties and atomic ratios based on observations/data. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly claims 20-29 recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. After the properties are determined/detected, a sputtering parameter is adjusted based on the determined/detected values. Broadly, this recites performing sputtering under operating conditions selected, determined or detected by an operator. Therefore, the method is recited at such a high level of generality that it amounts to just generally applying the abstract idea and linking the abstract idea to a field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(f) and MPEP 2106.05(h)), which are not practical applications.
The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. In particular, the additional elements of claim 21 include sputtering a first and second element to deposit a material layer on a substrate and adjusting a sputtering parameter. These elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional methods of sputtering and thus do not qualify as significantly more than the judicial exception itself (See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)). Additionally, none of the dependent claims contain additional elements that quality as significantly more than the judicial exception. Claims 20, 22-23 and 25-29 recite additional elements that are well-understood, routine, and conventional, as shown by the cited references in the prior art rejections below. Claim 24 includes limitations directed toward abstract ideas and thus does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Therefore, claims 20-29 are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 3, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirata (JP H07316781 A) in view of Guo (NPL – “PHOTOVOLTAIC PROPERTY OF BISMUTH FERRITE THIN FILMS AND ITS APPLICATION IN NON-VOLATILE MEMORY”) and Fujii (US 20100123368 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Hirata (JP H07316781 A) teaches a method of depositing a layer on a substrate by sputtering wherein the layer comprises at least lead (first element) and zirconium (second element) wherein the lead re-evaporates from the substrate at a higher rate than the other components and where the deposition material stream comprises an atomic ratio of lead incident on the substrate of 4 to 6 normalized by the sum of zirconium and titanium where the temperature of the substrate is high to evaporate atoms of lead from the substrate such that the layer has a desired (predefined) atomic ratio of 1:1 when compared to the combination of Zr and Ti (para 0010-0011, 0014, 0022, 0024, 0056-0057).
Hirata fails to explicitly teach the first element is bismuth and the second element is iron. However, Guo (NPL), in the analogous art of deposition, teaches that BiFeO3 films can be deposited by using targets with different Bi content and Bi may re-evaporate based on the substrate temperature to adjust the Bi/Fe ratio (pg. 19-29). Guo and Hirata both teach depositing a perovskite material where one element is re-evaporated compared to the other elements (Guo pg. 4, 28; Hirata para 0019-0020, 0022, 0024, 0057). Furthermore, Fujii (US 20100123368 A1), in the analogous art of deposition, teaches that perovskite oxides like bismuth ferrite (BiFeO3) can be deposited by sputtering as an alternative to PLD and bismuth ferrite is an alternative to PZT (para 0078-0079, 0087-0090). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the PZT material deposition of Hirata with the BiFeO3 material deposition of Guo, while controlling the substrate temperature to control the ratio of each element in the film because this is a substitution of known elements yielding predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Hirata, Guo, and Fujii fails to explicitly teach the temperature dependent re-evaporation rate of the first element from the substrate and/or the material layer is at least two times the temperature-dependent re-evaporation rate of the second element from the substrate and/or the material layer. However, the aforementioned combination teaches the same atomic elements (bismuth and iron). Similar processes performed with similar materials must necessarily yield similar results. Therefore, the temperature-dependent re-evaporation rate of bismuth (first element) from the substrate would necessarily be at least two times the temperature-dependent re-evaporation rate of the second element from the substrate when the temperature is in a range from about 400 to about 800°C. See MPEP 2112.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Hirata, Guo, and Fujii teaches the temperature of the substrate may be set to a temperature value of 550 to 700°C (Hirata para 0056). The aforementioned combination fails to explicitly teach a temperature in the range of 600 to 650°C. However, one would have expected the use of any value within the Hirata range to have yielded similar results. Absent any showing of criticality, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used any values within 550 to 700°C, including values within the claimed range, with a reasonable expectation of success and with predictable results. Please see MPEP 2144.05 (I) for further details.
Claim(s) 21-22 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirata (JP H07316781 A) in view of Atanasoff (US 20190360923 A1) and Curchod (US 20230189946 A1).
Regarding claim 21, Hirata (JP H07316781 A) teaches sputtering lead (first element) and zirconium (second element) on a substrate to form a PZT material layer comprising the first and second element with a predefined atomic ratio, wherein a substrate temperature is selected, and wherein the sputtering deposition process is and controlled using a computer program (para 0010, 0014-0015, 0030, 0035, 0056).
Hirata fails to explicitly teach, during sputtering, detecting plasma properties associated with sputtering the first element and the second element, determining, based on plasma properties, an atomic ratio of the first element to the second element within a deposition material stream, and adjusting a sputtering parameter associated with sputtering of the first element and second element based on the determined atomic ratio. However, Atanasoff (US 20190360923 A1), in the analogous art of sputtering, teaches that optical emission measurement (detecting plasma properties associated with sputtering) may be performed to determine the relative concentration of elements (determining an atomic ratio within a deposition material stream based on plasma properties) sputtered by co-sputtering a first and second element by real-time monitoring and controlling operating process parameters such as particle source power and temperature (adjusting a sputtering parameter based on the determined atomic ratio) (para 0003, 0032-0039, 0041-0042, 0092, 0100, 0150-0153, 0170, claim 1). Additionally, Curchod (US 20230189946 A1), in the analogous art of film deposition, teaches that the power applied to multiple targets in co-sputtering may be corrected automatically using optical emission measurement of the plasma (detecting plasma properties associated with sputtering) to achieve a desired film composition (para 0021). Hirata teaches multi-target co-sputtering where power is applied to each target at the same time, where the power of each target may be controlled (para 0028, 0030, 0038). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include an in situ plasma emission measurement system, as described by Atanasoff and Curchod, to control the power applied to each target determined based on the plasma emission measurement and associated atomic ratio in the plasma (determining, based on the plasma properties, an atomic ratio of the first element to the second element within a deposition material stream and adjusting a sputtering parameter associated with sputtering of the first element and the second element based on the determined atomic ratio) so that the deposition process can account for degradation/wear of the targets over time.
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Hirata, Atanasoff, and Curchod teaches heating the substrate to a set temperature prior to sputtering of 550 to 800°C and the atomic ratio of lead may be at least 4 to 6 when compared to the second element while the ratio is 1:1 in the final film (Hirata para 0014, 0022, 0024, 0056), thus indicating that the re-evaporation rate of lead (first element) from the substrate is at least 4 times greater than the re-evaporation rate of the second element (zirconium) from the substrate.
Regarding claim 25, the combination of Hirata, Atanasoff, and Curchod teaches the sputtering of the first element and second element comprises sputtering the lead (first element) in accordance with a first power applied to a first target and sputtering the zirconium (second element) in accordance with a second power applied to a second target (Hirata para 0033-0038). Additionally, the aforementioned combination teaches that the operation parameters determined and used to control the process include the power applied to each target and thus also the power ratio between the first power and second power (Curchod para 0021).
Claim(s) 23-24 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirata (JP H07316781 A) in view of Atanasoff (US 20190360923 A1) and Curchod (US 20230189946 A1), as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Okami (US 20240166555 A1).
Regarding claim 23, the combination of Hirata, Atanasoff, and Curchod teaches the first element and second element are sputtered in an atmosphere comprising oxygen introduced through a gas pipe (oxygen supply) (Hirata para 0032).
The aforementioned combination fails to explicitly teach the sputtering parameter comprises an oxygen partial pressure and adjusting the sputtering parameter comprises controlling an oxygen supply based on the oxygen partial pressure. However, Okami (US 20240166555 A1), in the analogous art of sputtering, teaches sputtering targets, which may be oxide targets, may have the oxygen partial pressure controlled using a plasma emission monitor for feedback in order to deposit films with desired properties and composition (para 0040, 0042, 0065-0067, 0080, 0095). Hirata also teaches the oxygen ratio is defined as 3:1:1 compared to lead and the combination of zirconium and titanium (para 0014). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to control the oxygen concentration/partial pressure based on the plasma emission monitoring (based on the determined atomic ratio) in order to produce a film with the desired composition and properties.
Regarding claim 24, the combination of Hirata, Atanasoff, Curchod, and Okami teaches the oxygen partial pressure feedback control may be determined using a plasma emission monitor to determine an emission intensity at a specific wavelength (oxygen characteristic) in the plasma or by determining impedance change, voltage, or current (one or more parameters representing electrical properties of a plasma) of the sputtering power supply and controlling/determining the oxygen partial pressure based on the impedance change, voltage, or current (Okami para 0039, 0080, 0123-0124).
Regarding claim 29, the combination of Hirata, Atanasoff, and Curchod teaches the first and second element are sputtered in a vacuum atmosphere (Hirata para 0028, 0030, 0032).
The aforementioned combination fails to explicitly teach the sputtering parameter comprises a pressure value representing a pressure of the atmosphere and wherein adjusting the sputtering parameter comprises adjusting the pressure of the atmosphere based on the pressure value. However, Okami (US 20240166555 A1), in the analogous art of sputtering, teaches sputtering targets, which may be oxide targets, may have the oxygen partial pressure (a pressure value representing a pressure of the atmosphere) controlled using a plasma emission monitor for feedback in order to deposit films with desired properties and composition (para 0040, 0042, 0065-0067, 0080, 0095). Hirata also teaches the oxygen ratio is defined as 3:1:1 compared to lead and the combination of zirconium and titanium (para 0014). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to control the oxygen partial pressure (one or more operation parameters comprise a pressure value) based on the plasma emission monitoring (based on the determined atomic ratio) in order to produce a film with the desired composition and properties.
Claim(s) 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirata (JP H07316781 A) in view of Atanasoff (US 20190360923 A1) and Curchod (US 20230189946 A1), as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Eastep (US 6455326 B1).
Regarding claim 26, the combination of Hirata, Atanasoff, and Curchod teaches the first target used to sputter the first element is applied with a high frequency power of 13.56 MHz (radio frequency sputtering) at a first power and first frequency while the second target made of PZT used to sputter the second element is at a second power (Hirata para 0029-0030, 0035-0038). Additionally, the aforementioned combination teaches that the operation parameters determined and used to control the process include the power applied to each target and thus also the power ratio between the first power and second power (Curchod para 0021).
The aforementioned combination fails to explicitly teach the second element is sputtered by direct-current sputtering. However, Eastep (US 6455326 B1), in the analogous art of deposition, teaches PZT targets may be deposited by a pulsed DC power supply instead of an RF supply (col 4 line 10-29, col 6 line 3-21). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the RF power supply of Hirata supplied to the second (PZT) target with a pulsed DC (direct current) power supply because this is a substitution of known elements yielding predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Claim(s) 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirata (JP H07316781 A) in view of Atanasoff (US 20190360923 A1) and Curchod (US 20230189946 A1), as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Tanabe (US 20210005429 A1).
Regarding claim 27, the combination of Hirata, Atanasoff, and Curchod teaches the first target used to sputter the first element is applied with a high frequency power of 13.56 MHz (radio frequency sputtering) at a first power and first frequency while the second target used to sputter the second element is at a second power and second frequency of about 13.56 MHz (radio frequency sputtering) (Hirata para 0029-0030, 0035-0038).
The aforementioned combination fails to explicitly teach the sputtering parameter comprises a frequency ratio between the first and second power frequency. However, Tanabe (US 20210005429 A1), in the analogous art of sputtering, teaches that a controller 700 may be used to control the high frequency/RF power supply applied to the targets based on the plasma intensity near the electrodes detected by a photoelectric conversion device by adjusting the frequency of the power supply such that the plasma emission intensities are equal to desired values and the amount of sputtering by each target is controlled (para 0219-0220, 0223, 0242, 0261; Fig. 49). Hirata teaches controlling the amount of lead atoms supplied to the substrate compared to the other elements (para 0015, 0022, 0024). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further control the relationship between, or amounts of sputtering performed by, the first and second targets of Hirata by adjusting the frequencies, and thus frequency ratio, according to plasma intensity measurements, as described by Tanabe.
Claim(s) 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirata (JP H07316781 A) in view of Atanasoff (US 20190360923 A1) and Curchod (US 20230189946 A1), as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Miller (US 20090159428 A1).
Regarding claim 28, the combination of Hirata, Atanasoff, and Curchod teaches the first and second targets used for sputtering the first and second elements are magnetron cathodes (magnetron sputtering) (Hirata para 0030, 0035-0038).
The aforementioned combination fails to explicitly teach the sputtering parameter comprises a distance ratio between a first distance and a second distance, wherein the first distance is a distance between the first target and one or more first magnets, and the second distance is a distance between the second target and one or more second magnets. However, Miller (US 20090159428 A1), in the analogous art of magnetron sputtering, teaches the spacing (distance) between the magnetron and sputtering surface (target) may be adjusted using a feedback loop based on monitoring electrical voltage signals of the target (detecting plasma properties associated with sputtering) and determining and controlling the spacing of the target to return the voltage to a desired value to account for target erosion (Abstract, para 0012, 0048). Curchod teaches that the power applied to multiple targets in co-sputtering may be corrected automatically using optical emission measurement of the plasma to account for wear/erosion of targets (para 0021). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to control the spacing/distance of magnets from each target (first and second distance) of Hirata to further account for erosion of the targets over time. As a result of controlling the distance between each target based on its erosion, the combination of Hirata, Atanasoff, Curchod, and Miller necessarily adjusts/determines the distance ratio between the first and second distance based on the target voltage and atomic ratio of elements and controls the sputtering based on the adjusted/set distances.
Claim(s) 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirata (JP H07316781 A) in view of Atanasoff (US 20190360923 A1) and Curchod (US 20230189946 A1), as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Guo (NPL – “PHOTOVOLTAIC PROPERTY OF BISMUTH FERRITE THIN FILMS AND ITS APPLICATION IN NON-VOLATILE MEMORY”) and Fujii (US 20100123368 A1).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Hirata, Atanasoff, and Curchod fails to explicitly teach the first element is bismuth and the second element is iron. However, Guo (NPL), in the analogous art of deposition, teaches that BiFeO3 films can be deposited by using targets with different Bi content and Bi may re-evaporate based on the substrate temperature to adjust the Bi/Fe ratio (pg. 19-29). Guo and Hirata both teach depositing a perovskite material where one element is re-evaporated compared to the other elements (Guo pg. 4, 28; Hirata para 0019-0020, 0022, 0024, 0057). Furthermore, Fujii (US 20100123368 A1), in the analogous art of deposition, teaches that perovskite oxides like bismuth ferrite (BiFeO3) can be deposited by sputtering as an alternative to PLD and bismuth ferrite is an alternative to PZT (para 0078-0079, 0087-0090). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the PZT material deposition of Hirata with the BiFeO3 material deposition of Guo, while controlling the power applied to each target to control the ratio of each element in the film because this is a substitution of known elements yielding predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/19/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Atanasoff (US 20190360923 A1) is newly cited to teach elements of the newly presented claims.
Applicant argues that the previously presented rejections fail to teach a deposition material stream comprises an atomic ratio of bismuth to iron that is higher than the predefined atomic ratio. This argument is not persuasive because Guo and Fujii teach that bismuth ferrite may be deposited by sputtering where and the bismuth re-evaporates faster than iron, thus adjusting the Bi/Fe ratio in the deposited film (predefined atomic ratio) to be lower than the Bi/Fe ratio in the deposition stream. Therefore, it would have been obvious to control the bismuth ferrite deposition in a similar method as the PZT deposition of Hirata.
Applicant argues that Guo decreases the Bi content to 0.8 relative to Fe content and thus teaches away from increasing ratio of bismuth to iron despite bismuth being more volatile than iron. This argument is not persuasive because Guo is actually teaching that the higher volatility of bismuth results in more bismuth being sputtered from the target when compared to Fe in addition to the re-evaporation of bismuth on the substrate and thus proposes lowering the concentration of Bi/Fe in the target to achieve the desired film composition. It should be noted that the target composition is not the same as the deposition stream composition and that the bismuth to iron ratio may be less than 1:1 in the “predefined ratio” depending on what film is desired.
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 PATRICK S OTT whose telephone number is (571)272-2415. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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, James Lin can be reached at (571) 272-8902. 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.
/PATRICK S OTT/Examiner, Art Unit 1794
Prosecution Insights