DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. Applicant’s amendments, filed 26 June 2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 7 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been entered. The rejection of claims 7 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
3. Applicant’s arguments, filed 26 June 2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not fully persuasive for the reasons set forth below.
4. Applicant argues on pg. 8 that neither Talbot nor Ehberger, alone or in combination, teaches or suggests the claimed timing architecture. The argument is not fully persuasive. Although Talbot and Ehberger does not specify the timing architecture as claimed, such timing architecture of generating a continuous clock or timing signal (the first and second signals) and using an enable signal (the third timing signal) to gate operations is not inventive in view of Siebert and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. See more details in the rejection below.
5. While applicant’s arguments are not fully persuasive, the previous rejections of claims 1, 10-11, and their dependents under 35 U.S.C. 103 are withdrawn since the claim scope has changed. Applicant’s amendments to claims 1, 10-11 have necessitated new grounds of rejection as set forth below.
Claim Objections
6. Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 11 recites “reach the sensor ion an absence of the shielding protective signal”. It appears that the applicant means “in an absence”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. Claims 1-6, 8-16, 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Talbot (US 6091249) in view of Ehberger (US 11545338), further in view of Siebert (US 20060043312).
10. Regarding claim 1:
Talbot discloses a system (fig. 6, element 600) for protecting a sensor (column 8 teaches an electron detector 630. Protecting a sensor is an intended use that does not patentably distinguish the claimed system from the prior art, provided the prior art possesses the structural limitations and is capable of performing the intended used. Column 8 teaches a secondary-electron blind 640 to protect the detector), the system comprising:
a timing circuit configured generate a shielding protective signal (fig. 7, column 4 teaches a system control timing diagram showing operating sequences of the system of fig. 6. Column 9 teaches that the timing sequence is controlled by control logic programmed in a control system 40 under control of computer 42. The control system 40 corresponds to the timing circuit. Column 9 teaches that during charging control intervals, which corresponds to the discharging iteration, the secondary electron blind 640 is switched on, corresponding to the shielding protective signal. Column 9 lines 12-16 teaches that voltage is applied to secondary-electron blind 640); and
an electron shielding unit located upstream to the sensor (column 9 teaches that the secondary electron blind 640 is switched on to prevent secondary electrons from overwhelming detector 630. As shown in fig. 6, since the electron blind is in contact with the electrons first, it is located upstream to the sensor) and operatively coupled to the timing circuit, the electron shielding unit (column 9 lines 28-50 teaches the secondary electron blind 640 coupled to a control system 40) configured to:
(i) operate in an enabling state that permits sensor in an absence of the shielding protective signal during an evaluation iteration in which the region of the sample is illuminated with an electron beam (column 9 teaches that the control logic that includes imaging intervals, which corresponds to the evaluation iteration, in which primary beam is to be scanned for imaging, and that primary beam 670 is directed to wafer 660, and secondary electrons can reach detector 630. Column 9 lines 28-50 teaches that the secondary-electron blind 640 is switched off, corresponding to the absence of the shielding protective signal, so that secondary electrons can reach detector 630); and
(ii) transition to a shielding state that blocks from reaching the sensor in response to receiving the shielding protective signal during a discharging iteration in which the region is illuminated (Column 9 teaches that during charging control intervals, which corresponds to the discharging iteration, the secondary electron blind 640 is switched on, corresponding to receiving the shielding protective signal, to prevent secondary electrons from overwhelming detector 630).
wherein the timing circuit is configured to trigger the discharging iteration and output the shielding protective signal to the electron shielding unit (column 9 teaches that during charging control intervals, which corresponds to the discharging iteration, the secondary electron blind 640 is switched on, corresponding to receiving the shielding protective signal, to prevent secondary electrons from overwhelming detector 630).
Talbot fails to disclose a discharging iteration in which the region is illuminated with a laser beam.
However, Ehberger discloses a discharging iteration in which the region is illuminated with a laser beam (column 13 teaches that in operation 520, a pulsed light beam is directed onto the sample, and that operation 520 may result in the neutralization of surface charges of the sample. Column 6 teaches that the light source can be a laser light source).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Talbot in view of Ehberger to include a discharging iteration in which the region is illuminated with a laser beam. Such modification would allow for transferring energy at a higher energy within a shorter time, thereby improving time efficiency (as taught in Ehberger column 6 lines 67-67. Ehberger column 1 also teaches that known methods such as electron guns have drawbacks such as being time-consuming).
Talbot in view of Ehberger does not specify a timing circuit configured to generate a first timing signal and a second timing signal in an uninterrupted manner during and between scan sessions, generate a third timing signal that is set only during the scan sessions and is reset between consecutive scan sessions, and generate a shielding protective signal based on the second timing signal and the third timing signal. The timing circuit is configured to trigger the discharging iteration and output the shielding protective signal to the electron shielding unit based on a concurrent setting of both the second timing signal and the third timing signal, thereby preventing the discharging iteration from occurring between consecutive scan sessions.
Siebert teaches generating continuous system clocks ([0049] teaches an oscillator 401 and a clock driver 402 to clock the microprocessor 430 and other FPGA hardware. [0052] teaches that the scan controller 400 provides a pixel clock, a horizontal sync signal, and a vertical sync signal). Siebert further teaches session-active signals and flags to define specific active scan regions or sessions and evaluating the concurrent state of the signals to trigger actions ([0104] teaches that during the refresh period at the end of the scan line, the scan generator logic circuit 440 also consults the flood 468 and line 469 flags to determine whether an electron flood operation should be initiated at the end of the scan line).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Talbot’s alternating imaging and discharging system to integrate the timing logic incorporating the system clock and flag gating of Siebert. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make such modification to prevent operations from firing at the wrong time for flood control and to determine whether an electron flood operation should be initiated (Siebert [0042], [0104]).
11. Regarding claim 2:
The modified invention above teaches the system according to claim 1. Talbot further discloses that wherein the timing circuit is configured to determine a timing of the evaluation iteration and the timing of the discharging iteration (column 9 teaches the timing sequency is controlled by control logic. The control logic sequence as shown in line 705 alternates between imaging intervals and charging control intervals. As shown in fig. 7 the timing of the evaluation interval and charging interval is determined).
12. Regarding claim 3:
The modified invention above teaches the system according to claim 1. Talbot further discloses that wherein the timing circuit is configured to determine timings of evaluation iterations and of discharging iterations (column 9 teaches the timing sequency is controlled by control logic. The control logic sequence as shown in line 705 alternates between imaging intervals and charging control intervals. As shown in fig. 7 the timings of the evaluation intervals and charging intervals are determined).
13. Regarding claim 4:
The modified invention above teaches the system according to claim 1. Talbot does not specifically disclose that wherein the timing circuit is configured to trigger one discharging iteration per a triggering of a plurality of two or more consecutive evaluation iterations.
However, Ehberger discloses that wherein the timing circuit is configured to trigger one discharging iteration (Column 11 lines 64-65 teaches performing a sample charge neutralization such as operation 202, which corresponds to the discharging iteration) per a triggering of a plurality of two or more consecutive evaluation iterations (column 10 teaches that in operation 200, an electron beam is scanned across an area on the surface of a sample. Operation 200 corresponds to the evaluation iteration. Column 10 teaches that operation 200 may be repeated for a certain number of times, and that the scanning operation may be interrupted after scanning a certain number of lines, to execute operation 202).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Talbot in view of Ehberger to include that wherein the timing circuit is configured to trigger one discharging iteration. Such modification would allow for improving the scanning efficiency and quality of the resulting image (as taught in Ehberger column 10 lines 56-58).
14. Regarding claim 5:
The modified invention above teaches the system according to claim 1. Talbot further discloses that wherein the electron shielding unit comprises an energy filter (column 9 lines 12-15 teaches that voltage is applied to secondary-electron blind 640 so as to repel secondary electrons and prevent them from entering detector 630 during flooding. The secondary-electron blind 640 corresponds to the energy filter).
15. Regarding claim 6:
The modified invention above teaches the system according to claim 1. Talbot further discloses that wherein the electron shielding unit comprises an electron trajectory timing circuit that is configured to direct the electrons away from the sensor during the discharging iteration (column 9 lines 12-15 teaches that voltage is applied to secondary-electron blind 640 so as to repel secondary electrons and prevent them from entering detector 630 during flooding. Column 9 teaches that the control system 40 switches on the secondary-electron blind 640 during the charging control intervals. The control system 40 corresponds to the electron trajectory timing circuit).
16. Regarding claim 8:
The modified invention above teaches the system according to claim 6. Talbot further discloses that wherein the electron shielding unit comprises an energy filter (column 9 lines 12-15 teaches that voltage is applied to secondary-electron blind 640 so as to repel secondary electrons and prevent them from entering detector 630 during flooding. The secondary-electron blind 640 corresponds to the energy filter).
17. Regarding claim 9:
The modified invention above teaches the system according to claim 1. Talbot further discloses that wherein the sensor is a secondary electron sensor (column 8 teaches a secondary-electron detector 630).
18. Regarding claim 10:
Talbot discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium that stores instructions that once executed by a timing circuit (column 9 teaches that the timing sequence is controlled by control logic programmed in a control system 40 under control of computer 42. The control system 40 corresponds to the timing circuit), causes the timing circuit to:
generate a shielding protective signal (Column 9 teaches that during charging control intervals, which corresponds to the discharging iteration, the secondary electron blind 640 is switched on, corresponding to the shielding protective signal. Column 9 lines 12-16 teaches that voltage is applied to secondary-electron blind 640);
control an electron shielding unit that is located upstream to a sensor (column 9 teaches that the secondary electron blind 640 is switched on to prevent secondary electrons from overwhelming detector 630. As shown in fig. 6, since the electron blind is in contact with the electrons first, it is located upstream to the sensor) to
operate in an enabling state that permitsin an absence of the shielding protective signal during an evaluation iteration in which the region of the sample is illuminated with an electron beam (column 9 teaches that the control logic that includes imaging intervals, which corresponds to the evaluation iteration, in which primary beam is to be scanned for imaging, and that primary beam 670 is directed to wafer 660, and secondary electrons can reach detector 630. Column 9 lines 28-50 teaches that the secondary-electron blind 640 is switched off, corresponding to the absence of the shielding protective signal, so that secondary electrons can reach detector 630); and
control the electron shielding unit to transition to a shielding state that blocks electrons emitted from the region from reaching the sensor in response to receiving the shielding protective signal during a discharging iteration in which the region is illuminated (Column 9 teaches that during charging control intervals, which corresponds to the discharging iteration, the secondary electron blind 640 is switched on, corresponding to receiving the shielding protective signal, to prevent secondary electrons from overwhelming detector 630),
wherein the timing circuit triggers the discharging iteration and outputs the shielding protective signal to the electron shielding unit (column 9 teaches the control logic sequence as shown in line 705 alternates between imaging intervals and charging control intervals, and that the control system synchronizes the imaging with the charging intervals. Column 9 teaches that during charging control intervals, which corresponds to the discharging iteration, the secondary electron blind 640 is switched on, corresponding to receiving the shielding protective signal, to prevent secondary electrons from overwhelming detector 630).
Talbot fails to disclose a discharging iteration in which the region is illuminated with a laser beam.
However, Ehberger discloses a discharging iteration in which the region is illuminated with a laser beam (column 13 teaches that in operation 520, a pulsed light beam is directed onto the sample, and that operation 520 may result in the neutralization of surface charges of the sample. Column 6 teaches that the light source can be a laser light source).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Talbot in view of Ehberger to include a discharging iteration in which the region is illuminated with a laser beam. Such modification would allow for transferring energy at a higher energy within a shorter time, thereby improving time efficiency (as taught in Ehberger column 6 lines 67-67. Ehberger column 1 also teaches that known methods such as electron guns have drawbacks such as being time-consuming).
Talbot in view of Ehberger does not specify generate a first timing signal and a second timing signal in an uninterrupted manner during and between scan sessions; generate a third timing signal that is set only during the scan sessions and is reset between consecutive scan sessions; generate a shielding protective signal based on the second timing signal and the third timing signal; wherein the timing circuit triggers the discharging iteration and outputs the shielding protective signal to the electron shielding unit based on a concurrent setting of both the second timing signal and the third timing signal, thereby preventing the discharging iteration from occurring between consecutive scan sessions.
Siebert teaches generating continuous system clocks ([0049] teaches an oscillator 401 and a clock driver 402 to clock the microprocessor 430 and other FPGA hardware. [0052] teaches that the scan controller 400 provides a pixel clock, a horizontal sync signal, and a vertical sync signal). Siebert further teaches session-active signals and flags to define specific active scan regions or sessions and evaluating the concurrent state of the signals to trigger actions ([0104] teaches that during the refresh period at the end of the scan line, the scan generator logic circuit 440 also consults the flood 468 and line 469 flags to determine whether an electron flood operation should be initiated at the end of the scan line).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Talbot’s alternating imaging and discharging system to integrate the timing logic incorporating the system clock and flag gating of Siebert. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make such modification to prevent operations from firing at the wrong time for flood control and to determine whether an electron flood operation should be initiated (Siebert [0042], [0104]).
19. Regarding claim 11:
Talbot discloses a method for protecting a sensor (column 8 teaches an electron detector 630. Column 8 teaches a secondary-electron blind 640 to protect the detector), the method comprising:
generating, by the timing circuit, a shielding protective signal (fig. 7, column 4 teaches a system control timing diagram showing operating sequences of the system of fig. 6. Column 9 teaches that the timing sequence is controlled by control logic programmed in a control system 40 under control of computer 42. The control system 40 corresponds to the timing circuit. Column 9 teaches that during charging control intervals, which corresponds to the discharging iteration, the secondary electron blind 640 is switched on, corresponding to the shielding protective signal. Column 9 lines 12-16 teaches that voltage is applied to secondary-electron blind 640);
operating an electron shielding unit that is located upstream to the sensor in an enabling state that permits (column 9 teaches that the secondary electron blind 640 is switched on to prevent secondary electrons from overwhelming detector 630. As shown in fig. 6, since the electron blind is in contact with the electrons first, it is located upstream to the sensor)
electrons emitted from a region of a sample to reach the sensor ion an absence of the shielding protective signal during an evaluation iteration in which the region of the sample is illuminated with an electron beam (column 9 teaches that the control logic that includes imaging intervals, which corresponds to the evaluation iteration, in which primary beam is to be scanned for imaging, and that primary beam 670 is directed to wafer 660, and secondary electrons can reach detector 630. Column 9 lines 28-50 teaches that the secondary-electron blind 640 is switched off, corresponding to the absence of the shielding protective signal, so that secondary electrons can reach detector 630);
and transitioning the electron shielding unit to a shielding state that blocks electrons emitted from the region from reaching the sensor in response to receiving the shielding protective signal during a discharging iteration in which the region is illuminated (Column 9 teaches that during charging control intervals, which corresponds to the discharging iteration, the secondary electron blind 640 is switched on, corresponding to receiving the shielding protective signal, to prevent secondary electrons from overwhelming detector 630),
wherein the timing circuit triggers the discharging iteration and outputs the shielding protective signal to the electron shielding unit (Column 9 teaches that during charging control intervals, which corresponds to the discharging iteration, the secondary electron blind 640 is switched on, corresponding to receiving the shielding protective signal, to prevent secondary electrons from overwhelming detector 630).
Talbot fails to disclose a discharging iteration in which the region is illuminated with a laser beam.
However, Ehberger discloses a discharging iteration in which the region is illuminated with a laser beam (column 13 teaches that in operation 520, a pulsed light beam is directed onto the sample, and that operation 520 may result in the neutralization of surface charges of the sample. Column 6 teaches that the light source can be a laser light source).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Talbot in view of Ehberger to include a discharging iteration in which the region is illuminated with a laser beam. Such modification would allow for transferring energy at a higher energy within a shorter time, thereby improving time efficiency (as taught in Ehberger column 6 lines 67-67. Ehberger column 1 also teaches that known methods such as electron guns have drawbacks such as being time-consuming).
Talbot in view of Ehberger does not specify generating, by a timing circuit, a first timing signal and a second timing signal in an uninterrupted manner during and between scan sessions; generating, by the timing circuit, a third timing signal that is set only during the scan sessions and is reset between consecutive scan sessions; generating, by the timing circuit, a shielding protective signal based on the second timing signal and the third timing signal; wherein the timing circuit triggers the discharging iteration and outputs the shielding protective signal to the electron shielding unit based on a concurrent setting of both the second timing signal and the third timing signal, thereby preventing the discharging iteration from occurring between consecutive scan sessions
Siebert teaches generating continuous system clocks ([0049] teaches an oscillator 401 and a clock driver 402 to clock the microprocessor 430 and other FPGA hardware. [0052] teaches that the scan controller 400 provides a pixel clock, a horizontal sync signal, and a vertical sync signal). Siebert further teaches session-active signals and flags to define specific active scan regions or sessions and evaluating the concurrent state of the signals to trigger actions ([0104] teaches that during the refresh period at the end of the scan line, the scan generator logic circuit 440 also consults the flood 468 and line 469 flags to determine whether an electron flood operation should be initiated at the end of the scan line).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Talbot’s alternating imaging and discharging system to integrate the timing logic incorporating the system clock and flag gating of Siebert. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make such modification to prevent operations from firing at the wrong time for flood control and to determine whether an electron flood operation should be initiated (Siebert [0042], [0104]).
20. Regarding claim 12:
Talbot in view of Ehberger discloses the method according to claim 11. Talbot further discloses determining a timing of the evaluation iteration and the timing of the discharging iteration (column 9 teaches the timing sequency is controlled by control logic. The control logic sequence as shown in line 705 alternates between imaging intervals and charging control intervals. As shown in fig. 7 the timing of the evaluation interval and charging interval is determined).
21. Regarding claim 13:
Talbot in view of Ehberger discloses the method according to claim 11. Talbot further discloses determining timings of evaluation iterations and of discharging iterations (column 9 teaches the timing sequency is controlled by control logic. The control logic sequence as shown in line 705 alternates between imaging intervals and charging control intervals. As shown in fig. 7 the timings of the evaluation intervals and charging intervals are determined).
22. Regarding claim 14:
The modified invention above teaches the method according to claim 11. Talbot does not specifically disclose triggering one discharging iteration per a triggering of a plurality of two or more consecutive evaluation iterations.
However, Ehberger discloses triggering one discharging iteration (Column 11 lines 64-65 teaches performing a sample charge neutralization such as operation 202, which corresponds to the discharging iteration) per a triggering of a plurality of two or more consecutive evaluation iterations (column 10 teaches that in operation 200, an electron beam is scanned across an area on the surface of a sample. Operation 200 corresponds to the evaluation iteration. Column 10 teaches that operation 200 may be repeated for a certain number of times, and that the scanning operation may be interrupted after scanning a certain number of lines, to execute operation 202).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Talbot in view of Ehberger to include triggering one discharging iteration per a triggering of a plurality of two or more consecutive evaluation iterations. Such modification would allow for improving the scanning efficiency and quality of the resulting image (as taught in Ehberger column 10 lines 56-58).
23. Regarding claim 15:
The modified invention above teaches the method according to claim 11. Talbot further discloses that wherein the shielding comprises activating an energy filter (column 9 lines 12-15 teaches that voltage is applied to secondary-electron blind 640 so as to repel secondary electrons and prevent them from entering detector 630 during flooding. The secondary-electron blind 640 corresponds to the energy filter).
24. Regarding claim 16:
The modified invention above teaches the method according to claim 11. Talbot further discloses that wherein the shielding comprises directing, by an electron trajectory timing circuit, the electrons away from the sensor during the discharging iteration (column 9 lines 12-15 teaches that voltage is applied to secondary-electron blind 640 so as to repel secondary electrons and prevent them from entering detector 630 during flooding. Column 9 teaches that the control system 40 switches on the secondary-electron blind 640 during the charging control intervals. The control system 40 corresponds to the electron trajectory timing circuit).
25. Regarding claim 18:
The modified invention above teaches the method according to claim 16. Talbot further discloses that wherein the electron shielding unit comprises an energy filter (column 9 lines 12-15 teaches that voltage is applied to secondary-electron blind 640 so as to repel secondary electrons and prevent them from entering detector 630 during flooding. The secondary-electron blind 640 corresponds to the energy filter).
26. Regarding claim 19:
The modified invention above teaches the method according to claim 11. Talbot further discloses that wherein the sensor is a secondary electron sensor (column 8 teaches a secondary-electron detector 630).
27. Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Talbot in view of Ehberger, further in view of Siebert, further in view of Cook (US-10483080).
28. Regarding claim 7:
The modified invention above teaches the system according to claim 1. Talbot in view of Ehberger, further in view of Siebert does not specifically teach that wherein the electron shielding unit comprises a deflecting lens configured to direct the electrons away from the sensor during the discharging iteration.
However, Cook teaches that a blanking deflector comprises a deflecting lens (column 7 teaches deflector electrode controlled by lines that provide electrical signals. The deflector electrode corresponds to the deflecting lens).
Talbot teaches a secondary-electron blind that repels electron to prevent them from entering detector. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Talbot’s shielding blind to include a deflecting lens as taught by Cook. Such modification would allow for steering the beamlet away from the primary path (as taught in Cook column 7).
29. Regarding claim 17:
The modified invention above teaches the method according to claim 11. Talbot in view of Ehberger, further in view of Siebert does not specifically teach that wherein the electron shielding unit comprises a deflecting lens configured to direct the electrons away from the sensor during the discharging iteration.
However, Cook teaches that a blanking deflector comprises a deflecting lens (column 7 teaches deflector electrode controlled by lines that provide electrical signals. The deflector electrode corresponds to the deflecting lens).
Talbot teaches a secondary-electron blind that repels electron to prevent them from entering detector. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Talbot’s shielding blind to include a deflecting lens as taught by Cook. Such modification would allow for steering the beamlet away from the primary path (as taught in Cook column 7).
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 LARRY LI whose telephone number is (571) 272-5043. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30am-4:30pm. 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, Robert Kim can be reached at (571) 272-2293. 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.
/LARRY LI/
Examiner, Art Unit 2881
/WYATT A STOFFA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights