Application/Control Number: 18/366,820 Page 2
Art Unit: 1716DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Applicants’ submission of replacement drawing, filed on 08/24/2026, is acknowledged. Applicants’ amendment of the claim, filed on 08/24/2026, in response to the rejection of claims 1-15 from the non-final office action (05/22/2026), by amending claims 1-10 and 12-15 and adding new claims 16-20 is entered and will be addressed below.
Claim Interpretations
The “wherein the plurality of dummy openings is configured to attenuate a plasma that is generated in the plurality of dielectric faceplate gas openings“ of claim 2, and “wherein the plurality of dummy openings is configured to minimize plasma-induced damage to the plurality of o-rings” of claim 13, the purpose of the dummy opening is not part of the apparatus. A dummy opening, with some of the properties as required in the dependent claim(s), is considered to have the capability of “to attenuate a plasma that is generated in the plurality of dielectric faceplate gas openings” and “to minimize plasma-induced damage to the plurality of o-rings”.
The “the dielectric faceplate thickness” of claim 1 is considered intrinsic property of the dielectric faceplate 200 and therefore, no 112(b) antecedent issue.
The “a plurality of o-rings surrounding the plurality of conductive plate gas openings and the plurality of dielectric faceplate gas openings and configured to seal the plurality of dielectric faceplate gas openings and the plurality of conductive plate gas openings from atmospheric pressure” of claim 1, Applicants’ Specification states “a plurality of o-rings 220 surround the conductive plate gas openings 260 and the dielectric faceplate gas openings and configured to seal the dielectric faceplate gas openings 210 and the conductive plate gas openings 260 from atmospheric pressure when the plasma showerhead assembly 150 is assembled together” ([0043]), therefore, this atmospheric pressure is during assembly, presumable under atmospheric pressure. Note the plasma showerhead is operated under vacuum during processing, the O-ring is sealed against vacuum in the processing chamber during processing.
The newly added limitation “wherein the microwave plasma processing chamber is configured to deposit a silicon nitride (Si3N4) film on a substrate by plasma-enhanced atomic layer deposition (PEALD)” of claim 20 is considered an intended use of the apparatus. An apparatus that is capable of forming silicon nitride by PEALD by feeding appropriate gases in plasma ALD mode is considered read into the claim.
It has been held that claim language that simply specifies an intended use or field of use for the invention generally will not limit the scope of a claim (Walter, 618 F.2d at 769, 205 USPQ at 409; MPEP 2106). Additionally, in apparatus claims, intended use must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim (In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); MPEP2111.02). When the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent (In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977); MPEP 2112.01).
The newly added limitation “wherein the elongate slots are rectangular in cross-section”, the direction of the cross-section can be from any view angle.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 8-10 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 8-10 recites “a ratio of dummy openings to dielectric faceplate gas openings”, it is not clear this is number ratio or surface area ratio.
Applicants argue that in the context of the drawing in the central region and in the peripheral regions, this ratio has to be number ratio.
The examiner notices Applicants’ Specification describes the drawing are not necessarily drawn to scale.
Furthermore, it is not clear this ratio refers to a ratio of all dummy openings to all dielectric faceplate gas openings or localized regions. Furthermore, as regions is not defined in the claim nor in the Specification, region can be any size or shape.
Claims 8-10 will be examined inclusive all possible interpretations, of all dummy openings to all dielectric faceplate gas openings or any localized region of any size or shape.
Claim 18 recites “wherein the plurality of dummy openings is in line with the geometric center of each of the three adjacent dielectric resonators” which refers to “a plurality of dummy openings” of claim 1. It is not clear each of the plurality of dummy openings need to be in line with the geometric center of each of the three adjacent dielectric resonators, or only the three dummy openings in the center region next to the “one of the plurality of dielectric faceplate gas openings” of claim 18 requires this “in line with …” requirement as shown in Applicants’ Fig. 4A. Note also a single hole is intrinsically in line with “the geometric center of each of the three adjacent dielectric resonators” because two points always makes a line.
Claim 18 will be examined inclusive all of the above interpretations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-2 and 8-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carducci et al. (US 20210098231, from IDS, hereafter ‘231), in view of Chen et al. (US 7584714, hereafter ‘714).
‘231 teaches some limitations of:
Claim 1: Referring now to FIG. 1, a cross-sectional illustration of a plasma processing tool 100 is shown ([0024]), gas may also be injected into the chamber 178 through a monolithic source array 150 (e.g., as a showerhead) for evenly distributing the processing gases over a substrate 174 ([0025], last sentence, includes the claimed “A plasma showerhead assembly comprising”):
the assembly 370 comprises a monolithic source array 350, a housing 372, and a lid plate 376 (Fig. 3, [0034], 2nd sentence), the housing 372 comprises a conductive body 373 ([0037], includes the claimed “a conductive plate including a first surface and a second surface opposite to the first surface defining a conductive plate thickness”),
the protrusions 366 function as the dielectric cavity resonator of the applicator 142 ([0036], 2nd sentence), The housing comprises a plurality of openings 374. The openings 374 may pass entirely through a thickness of the conductive body 373. The openings 374 may be sized to receive the protrusions 366 ([0037], 2nd sentence, includes the claimed “a plurality of resonator openings extending through the conductive plate thickness”),
the couplers 419 may secure an O-ring (not shown) that seals the junction between the end of the second gas line 418 and the hole 414 through the lid plate 476. As shown in FIG. 4B, the hole 414 passes through the conductive body 479 from the first surface 412 to a second surface 411 of the lid plate 476 ([0040], last sentence), the channels 530 are fed processing gasses from the second holes 535 that pass vertically through the conductive body 573. That is, the second holes 535 intersect with the channels 530. The second holes 535 may be fluidically coupled to the holes 414 through the lid plate 476 (Fig. 5B, [0046], see also Fig. 5A, includes the clamed “a plurality of gas channels formed between the first surface and the second surface of the conductive plate”), groups 532 of first holes 537 may pass through the cover 531. The groups 532 of first holes 537 provide exit locations for gas within the gas distribution channels ([0044], includes the claimed “and a plurality of conductive plate gas openings extending from the second surface of the conductive plate in fluid communication with the plurality of gas channels”);
monolithic source array 350 may comprise a dielectric plate 360 and a plurality of protrusions 366 that extend up from the dielectric plate 360 ([0035], includes the claimed “a dielectric faceplate comprising a first surface and a second surface opposite to the first surface defining a dielectric faceplate thickness, a plurality of dielectric resonators protruding from the first surface and arranged in a pattern and configured to mount through the plurality of resonator openings when the dielectric faceplate and the conductive plate are assembled”), A monopole antenna 668 may pass through the lid plate 676 and extend into a hole 665 in the axial center of the protrusion 666 (Fig. 6, [0048], 7th sentence, includes the claimed “each of the plurality of dielectric resonators having a geometric center and an opening configured to receive a microwave antenna”);
the hole 635 intersects with channel 630. The channel 630 laterally distributes the processing gas. The channel 630 is sealed by a cover 631, and gas is distributed out of the housing 672 by passing through groups 632 of holes 637 in the cover 631. In an embodiment, the gas then flows through holes 663 through the dielectric plate 660. The holes 663 may be aligned with the holes 637 in the groups 632. In an embodiment, the holes 663 through the dielectric plate 660 have a diameter that is larger than the diameter of the holes 637 through the cover 631. In an embodiment, an O-ring or the like (not shown) surrounds the interface between the holes 637 in the cover 631 and the holes 663 through the dielectric plate 660 ([0050], includes the claimed “a plurality of dielectric faceplate gas openings extending through the dielectric faceplate thickness in fluid communication with the plurality of the conductive plate gas openings” and “a plurality of o-rings surrounding the plurality of conductive plate gas openings and the plurality of dielectric faceplate gas openings and configured to seal the plurality of dielectric faceplate gas openings and the plurality of conductive plate gas openings from atmospheric pressure”).
2’31 does not teach the other limitations of:
Claim 1: a plurality of dummy openings extending at least 25% into the dielectric faceplate thickness from the first surface of the dielectric faceplate and the second surface of the dielectric faceplate.
‘714 is analogous art in the field of the plasma source 130 of FIG. 1, this source may be … microwave plasma source (including those utilizing electron-cyclotron resonance (ECR) (col. 6, lines 9-13), the mode scrambler 270 comprises one or more gas holes 274 (Fig. 5, col.10, lines 16-17). ’714 teaches that FIG. 3 shows a plasma source 231 that can further include one or more concentric grooves 260 configured to improve the spatial uniformity of plasma in the plasma space 116 (col. 7, lines 36-38), the resonator plate 250 can be fabricated from a high dielectric constant (high-k) material (col. 7, lines 42-43, see also blind holes 276 of Fig. 6 and Fig. 9B). Fig. 3 and shows the grooves 260 or blind holes is about one half the thickness of the dielectric resonator plate 250 as well as Fig. 9B shows blind holes 276 is about one half the thickness of the dielectric resonator plate 250. Note this is comparing portions of the same component, i.e. the resonator plate 250.
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have added grooves of ‘714 about half the thickness to the dielectric plate 360 of ‘231, for the purpose of spatial uniformity of plasma, as taught by ‘714 (col. 7, lines 36-38).
Note ‘714 further teaches that As seen in FIG. 9B, electromagnetic waves, represented by k1, k2, and k3, are depicted as three exemplary modes. Surface waves k1,2 (k1,3) and k2,2 (k2,3) represent effective coupling of energy to plasma in plasma space 116. However, wave k3 does not contribute to plasma heating, and it is reflected by the plasma. The present inventors have determined that this reflection of certain modes of electromagnetic waves diminishes the possibility of mode hopping that may occur in the SWP source and may be enhanced by the cover plate 265 (col. 10, lines 44-53). In other words, a deeper blind holes is desired to avoid mode hopping. Therefore, it is an effect parameter to optimize the dummy openings thickness.
‘231 further teaches the limitations of:
Claims 11-12: Fig. 3 shows the claimed “wherein the pattern of the plurality of dielectric resonators comprises a central region including a group of central dielectric resonators and a peripheral region including a group of peripheral dielectric resonators surrounding the group of central dielectric resonators” of claim 11 and “wherein the pattern of the plurality of dielectric resonators comprises a center dielectric resonator surrounded by the group of central dielectric resonators” of claim 12.
Claim 13: “wherein the plurality of dummy openings is configured to minimize plasma-induced damage to the plurality of o-rings” is a design purpose, see claim interpretation above.
Claim 14: A monopole antenna 668 may pass through the lid plate 676 and extend into a hole 665 in the axial center of the protrusion 666 ([0048], 7th sentence, includes the claimed “wherein the microwave antenna is mounted in the opening of each respective dielectric resonators”).
Claim 15: Referring now to FIG. 1, a cross-sectional illustration of a plasma processing tool 100 is shown ([0024]), In processing tools 100, the chamber 178 may be a vacuum chamber. A vacuum chamber may include a pump (not shown) for removing gases from the chamber to provide the desired vacuum … it is to be appreciated that gas may also be injected into the chamber 178 through a monolithic source array 150 (e.g., as a showerhead) for evenly distributing the processing gases over a substrate 174 ([0025], includes the claimed “A microwave plasma processing chamber comprising: the plasma showerhead assembly of claim 1; a substrate processing region”);
As used herein, “high-frequency” electromagnetic radiation includes radio frequency radiation, very-high-frequency radiation, ultra-high-frequency radiation, and microwave radiation. “High-frequency” may refer to frequencies between 0.1 MHz and 300 GHz ([0024], last sentence), each oscillator module 106 generates high-frequency electromagnetic radiation that is transmitted to the amplification module 130. After processing by the amplification module 130, the electromagnetic radiation is transmitted to the applicator 142. In an embodiment, the applicators 142 each emit electromagnetic radiation into the chamber 178. In some embodiments, the applicators 142 couple the electromagnetic radiation to the processing gasses in the chamber 178 to produce a plasma ([0029], includes the claimed “and a microwave plasma power supply configured to generate a microwave plasma in the plurality of dielectric faceplate gas openings in the plasma showerhead assembly”).
Claims 16-17: Fig. 3 (or Fig. 5A) shows the arrangement of opening 374 has the same arrangement as Applicants’ Fig. 2 (includes the claimed “wherein the group of peripheral dielectric resonators form an outer ring comprising twelve peripheral dielectric resonators” of claim 16 and “wherein the group of central dielectric resonators comprises six central dielectric resonators” of claim 17).
Claim 18: illustration below, enlarged from near center region of Fig. 5A, shows the claimed “wherein one of the plurality of dielectric faceplate gas openings is centered among three adjacent dielectric resonators with respect to the center dielectric resonator and two central dielectric resonators”.
Claim 20: For example, the processing tool 100 may be a processing tool used for plasma enhanced chemical vapor deposition (PECVD), plasma enhanced atomic layer deposition (PEALD) ([0024]), substrate materials where etching is required include silicon dioxide (SiO2), poly-silicon and silicon nitride, for example (col. 1, lines 49-51, includes the claimed “wherein the microwave plasma processing chamber is configured to deposit a silicon nitride (Si3N4) film on a substrate by plasma-enhanced atomic layer deposition (PEALD)”, note this is an intended use of the apparatus).
PNG
media_image1.png
232
322
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Two central
resonators)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (center
resonator)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Gas opening(s)
Near center of
the three
resonators)]
The combination of ‘231 and ‘714 further teaches the limitations of:
Claim 2: FIG. 3 shows a plasma source 231 that can further include one or more concentric grooves 260 configured to improve the spatial uniformity of plasma in the plasma space 116 (‘714, col. 7, lines 36-38, includes the claimed “wherein the plurality of dummy openings is configured to attenuate a plasma that is generated in the plurality of dielectric faceplate gas openings”, note also this is the purpose of the design, not part of the structural of the apparatus).
Claims 8-10: Fig. 3 of ‘714 teaches one or more concentric grooves 260 (col. 7, lines 36-38) Fig. 5 of ‘714 teaches that the mode scrambler 270 comprises one or more gas holes 274 (col.10, lines 16-17), Fig. 6 of ‘714 teaches one or more blind holes 276 formed at an interface of the cover plate 265 and the resonator plate 250 (col. 10, lines 39-41, various choices of localized regions on the number of holes, or the area ratio of the holes, reads into the claimed “wherein a ratio of the dummy openings to the dielectric faceplate gas openings is in a range of from 2:1 to 6:1” of claim 8, “wherein the ratio of the dummy openings to the dielectric faceplate gas openings is 3:1” of claim 9 and “wherein the ratio of the dummy openings to the dielectric faceplate gas openings is 2:1” of claim 10).
Claim 19: the imported blind holes/grooves from ‘714 intrinsically forms a line with neighboring resonator (includes the claimed “wherein the plurality of dummy openings is in line with the geometric center of each of the three adjacent dielectric resonators”, see 112(b) rejection above).
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘231 and ‘714, as being applied to claim 2 rejection above, further in view of Zhao et al. (US 20110039355, hereafter ‘355). Alternatively claims 1-2 and 8-20 are rejected over ‘231, in view of ‘714 and ‘355.
‘231 is silent on the diameter of the holes 537. The combination of ‘231 and ‘714 does not teach the limitations of:
Claim 4: wherein the plurality of dummy openings comprises elongate slots.
Claim 5: wherein the elongate slots are rectangular in cross-section.
‘355 is analogous art in the field of Plasma Generation Controlled By Gravity-Induced Gas-Diffusion Separation (GIGDS) Techniques (title), microwave electron cyclotron resonance (ECR) source ([0016], 2nd sentence), A dielectric plate or resonator plate is positioned in the second region and has a lower surface that includes the plasma-facing surface of the EM wave launcher ([0018]). ’355 teaches that one or more of the first recesses 455 may comprise a cylindrical geometry, a spherical geometry, an aspherical geometry, a rectangular geometry, or any arbitrary shape (Fig. 4, [0137], 2nd sentence, rectangular is considered as an elongated slot, see also Fig. 5, and this is clearly from the bottom view), one or more of the second recesses 465 may comprise a cylindrical geometry, a spherical geometry, an aspherical geometry, a rectangular geometry, or any arbitrary shape ([0138], 2nd sentence), for the purpose of achieving plasma uniformity ([0154], last sentence).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have changed the shape of the grooves in Fig. 3 of ‘714 (or the blind holes 276 of Fig. 7 to rectangular/slot shape, as taught by ‘355, for the purpose of achieving plasma uniformity, as taught by ‘355 ([0154], last sentence).
The combination of ‘231 and ‘714 further teaches the limitations of:
Claim 6: Fig. 3 of ‘714 shows the grooves 260 is about one half the thickness of the dielectric resonator plate 250 (includes the claimed “wherein the plurality of dummy openings extends from 25% to 75% into the dielectric faceplate thickness”, note ‘355 also teaches this limitation, see Figs. 4-11).
Applicants argue that the drawing of ‘231 is not to scale to present “a plurality of dummy openings extending at least 25% into the dielectric faceplate thickness”, which the examiner considers that drawing clearly shows it is well above this 25% ratio of the same component. Besides an additional optimization of the depth of k3 as taught by ‘714, ‘335 further specifically teaches “a plurality of dummy openings extending at least 25% into the dielectric faceplate thickness” throughout. For example, ‘335 teaches the plate thickness 551 may range from about 25 mm (millimeters) to about 45 mm ([0160], last sentence), that the first difference 553 between the plate thickness 551 and the first depth 556 may range from about 10 mm to about 35 mm ([0163], as plate 551 is 25 mm and 556 is 25-10=15 mm, the dummy openings is 60% into the dielectric faceplate thickness). Therefore, the combination of ‘231, ‘714, and ‘355 expressly teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Claims 2 and 8-20 rejections are discussed above.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘231 and ‘714 (optionally with ‘355), as being applied to claim 1 rejection above, further in view of Kofuji et al. (US 20080078505, hereafter ‘505).
‘231 is silent on the diameter of the holes 537. The combination of ‘231 and ‘714 (optionally with ‘355) does not teach the limitations of:
Claim 3: wherein each dielectric faceplate gas openings is substantially circular and has a diameter in a range of from 0.2 millimeters to 5 millimeters.
‘505 is analogous art in the field of the PLASMA ETCHING APPARATUS (title), microwaves generated via a magnetron 53 is supplied via a waveguide 54, a cavity resonator 55 and a dielectric window 26 into the vacuum processing chamber (Fig. 13, [0074], 3rd sentence). ’505 teaches that As an example of the shower plate structure, a plate having five gas feed holes 11 each having a hole diameter of 1 mm and a depth of 10 mm is used ([0074], 2nd last sentence).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have adopted 1 mm hole diameter, as taught by ‘505, as the diameter of the holes 537 of ‘231, for its suitability with predictable results. The selection of something based on its known suitability for its intended use has been held to support a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP 2144.07.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘231 and ‘714 (optionally with ‘355), as being applied to claim 2 rejection above, further in view of Neuberger et al. (US 20040031289, hereafter ‘289).
‘714 further teaches that referring to FIG. 8, the one or more blind holes 276 are filled with a spherical pellet 280. The spherical pellets 280 can, for example, comprise SiO2, or a low-k material, as described above (col. 12, lines 25-28).
The combination of ‘231 and ‘714 (optionally with ‘355) does not teach the limitations of:
Claim 7: wherein at least one dummy opening of the plurality of dummy openings contains a metal insert.
‘289 is analogous art in the field of plasma enhanced chemical vapor deposition (PECVD) … A microwave generator coupled with a resonator (abstract), Silica rod 101, reactor 102, resonator 103, coupled opening 104, H10-waveguide 105, and delivery H10-waveguide 106 (Fig. 1, [0021], last sentence). ’289 teaches that Input and output hole diameters of the E10 resonator must be decreased in accordance with any reduction in the silica tube diameter. In this case metal screens are inserted into resonator holes ([0037], 4th sentence).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have added metal screens of ‘289 to the grooves 260 in Fig. 3 of ‘714 (or blind holes 276 in Fig. 6 of ‘714), and then combined with ‘312, for the purpose of adjusting the resonator output, as taught by ‘289 ([0037], 4th sentence).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regarding to the drawing objection, see the top of page 8, Applicants’ replacement drawing overcomes the objection.
In regarding to 112(d) and 11(b) rejection of claim 14, see the middle of page 8, Applicants’ amendment overcomes the rejection.
In regarding to 112(b) rejection of claims 8-10, Applicants argue that the claims are clear based on the Specification, citing various portion of Fig. 4A for the support, see the top of page 9.
This argument is found not persuasive.
It appears Applicants are arguing the ratio should be considered as number ratio. However, there are two problems with this position. Applicants argue that the primary reference is not to scale. Now Applicants implies that Fig. 4A shows the dielectric faceplate gas openings 210 and the dummy openings 212 are to scale and the ratio means number ratio only. Furthermore, Fig. 4B shows the dummy openings 213 differ to size than the dielectric faceplate gas openings 210.
The examiner suggests Applicants can simply change the claim to number ratio.
Furthermore, Applicants’ reply point out another issue with the ratio, it is merely local regions following this ratio yet claims 8-10 do not define these regions. Therefore, another 112(b) issue for claims 8-10.
In regarding to 103 rejection of claims 1-2, 5, and 8-15 over Carducci ‘231 and Chen ‘714, 8-10, Applicants argue that the drawing of ‘714 is not to scale therefore, does not teach “… dummy openings extending at least 25% into the dielectric faceplate thickness “ of claim 1, the claims are clear based on the Specification, see page 10 to the middle of page 11.
This argument is found not persuasive.
PE2E 2125 II is comparing two different components and deriving the dimension of one component from another based on drawing. The examiner did not use this relationship. Furthermore, multiple figures of ‘714 shows a 50% relationship, much larger than 25% required by the claim.
Furthermore, ‘714 teaches that the depth of the blind holes is an effect parameter to diminish mode hopping (col. 10, lines 44-53).
Still furthermore, ‘355 give many examples of the ratio being much larger than 25% required by the claim as discussed in the alternative rejection above.
Applicants asserted that ‘355 also fails to teaches “… dummy openings extending at least 25% into the dielectric faceplate thickness “ of claim 1, see the 5th paragraph of page 13, see also 2nd paragraph of page 14.
This argument is found not persuasive.
The rejection above, (right before item 4 above) clearly set forth one of the many examples of ‘355 teaching the ration being much larger than 25%.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20110088848 is cited for “a gap is formed surrounding the dielectric members, and a metal mesh is provided in the gap” ([0037]).
US 20070181531 is cited for dielectric part 31 with recesses and gas nozzle 27 (Fig. 1). US 20110285306 is cited for tuning blind hole 680 with metal pin of the resonator 600 (Fig. 6I, [0172]).
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 KEATH T CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1870. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30am-5:00 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, Parviz Hassanzadeh can be reached at 571-272-1435. 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.
/KEATH T CHEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
