DETAILED ACTION
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
The amendment filed on 11/21/2025 has been entered. Claims 4 and 18 are canceled. Claims 1-3, 5-17 and 19-21 remain pending and have been examined below.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7-10 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shik (Korean Patent Publication No. KR20050006509) as evidenced by the machine translation of Shik, in view of Sakai et al (US PGPUB No. 2024/0076521), and further in view of Chhabra et al (US Patent No. 8,647,445), hereinafter referred to as Shik, Sakai and Chhabra, respectively.
Regarding claims 1 (Currently Amended), 3 (Currently Amended), 5 (Previously Presented), 21 (Previously Presented), Shik discloses a method for conditioning a polishing pad [Shik, fig 2, 2] of a polishing system, the method comprising:
performing an in-situ pad conditioning process [Shik, page 5, pp 26], wherein the in-situ pad conditioning process comprises providing a slurry [Shik, fig, 2, 6] to the polishing pad [Shik, fig 2, 6 is deposited onto 2] and causing a pad conditioner [Shik, fig 2, 5] to contact the polishing pad during a polishing operation [Shik, page 5, pp’s 26-27, 5 conditions 2 in-situ during polishing of a wafer during CMP],
wherein the polishing operation comprises providing the slurry to the polishing pad while the polishing pad is rotating and in contact with a semiconductor workpiece [Shik, pages 2 and 4, pp’s 11 and 18 and fig 2, 6 is applied to 2 during rotation]; and
performing an ex-situ pad conditioning process outside of the polishing operation [Shik, page 5, pp 28, 5 conditions 2 ex-situ, or after the polishing operation], wherein the ex-situ pad conditioning process comprises causing the pad conditioner [Shik, fig 2, 5] to contact the polishing pad [Shik, fig 2, 2] while a cleaning agent is applied to the polishing pad [Shik, pages 2-4, pp’s 16 and 18, the ex-situ pad conditioning process uses deionized water, fig 2, 7 as a cleaning agent on 2].
Shik does not explicitly disclose wherein the slurry comprises one or more of potassium hypochlorite, sodium hypochlorite, ammonium persulfate, potassium peroxymonosulfate, sodium permanganate, potassium permanganate, potassium periodate, and potassium persulfate; and the semiconductor workpiece surface comprising silicon carbide, and wherein the cleaning agent comprises a reducing agent, wherein the reducing agent comprises hydrogen peroxide and/or urea peroxide (clm 3).
Sakai teaches a method for polishing a substrate [Sakai, fig 1, polishing 11], the method comprising:
performing a polishing operation which comprises providing a slurry [Sakai, fig 1, 1 by source 26] to a polishing pad [Sakai, fig 1, 20], wherein the slurry [Sakai, fig 1, 1] comprises one or more of potassium hypochlorite, sodium hypochlorite, ammonium persulfate, potassium peroxymonosulfate, sodium permanganate, potassium permanganate, potassium periodate, and potassium persulfate [Sakai, page 2, pp 0018, comprises sodium permanganate in an aqueous solution] (clms 5 and 21),
wherein the polishing operation comprises providing the slurry to the polishing pad while the polishing pad is rotating and in contact with a semiconductor workpiece surface [Sakai, fig 1, and page 3, pp’s 0032-0035, 12 and 4 are rotated which rotate 20 and the workpiece 11] comprising silicon carbide [Sakai, page 2, pp 0021, the workpiece 11 is made of SiC].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a silicon carbide substrate and the associated slurry containing sodium permanganate as taught by Sakai within the polishing and conditioning process of Shik, because being able to polish multiple different types of workpieces enables the device of Shik to be used in more versatile settings and to therefore recover the return on investment of the purchase of the polishing system of Shik. Further, the device of Shik would be able to be used more often on more workpieces, including those made of silicon carbide.
Further per MPEP 2143(I)(A), the combination of old elements to yield predictable results is held to be obvious over the prior art. Where in the instant case to include the oxidizing element of sodium hypochlorite as taught by Sakai in the system of Shik for the SiC wafer, each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references. The only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the oxidizing element of sodium hypochlorite and/or potassium permanganate within the slurry as taught by Sakai in the slurry of Shik because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, the elements being oxidizing agent including sodium hypochlorite and the polishing slurry. In the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination gave the predictable result of using the oxidizing agent to improve the polishing effect of the slurry when polishing a semiconductor wafer.
Regarding the reducing agent within the cleaning agent, Chhabra teaches a process for cleaning semiconductor devices using a cleaning agent [Chhabra, col 2, lines 49-63], wherein the cleaning agent comprises a reducing agent [Chhabra, col 3, lines 46-51, teaching a aqueous solution comprising a reducing agent], wherein the reducing agent comprises hydrogen peroxide [Chhabra, col 7, lines 60-67, the cleaning process comprises hydrogen peroxide] (clm 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the reducing agent of Chhabra with the distilled water of Shik in the cleaning and rinsing solution because this inhibits oxidation and provides an environment of promoting valence change of the metal ion which is instrumental in a significant cleaning action of the substrate [Chhabra, col 3, lines 55-64, summarized].
Regarding claim 2 (Original), Shik as modified further discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the cleaning agent is applied to the polishing pad while the polishing pad is rotating [Shik, fig 2, showing 7 is spread to 2 in a rotational pattern].
Regarding claim 7 (Original), Shik as modified further discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the in-situ pad conditioning process is performed continuously throughout the polishing operation [Shik, page 4, pp 27, teaching that the conditioning process is continuous and does not stop for a specific time throughout the polishing operation, where the term throughout is interpreted to mean along side and at the same time].
Regarding claim 8 (Original), Shik as modified further discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the in-situ pad conditioning process is performed intermittently throughout the polishing operation [Shik, page 5, pp 27 teaching that the conditioning process is timed and stops before the grinding is done, making it intermittent].
Regarding claim 9 (Original), Shik as modified further discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising stopping the in-situ pad conditioning process during the polishing operation based at least in part on a process condition [Shik, page 5, pp 27 teaches that the in-situ conditioning is based on the process condition of time].
Regarding claim 10 (Original), Shik as modified further discloses the method of claim 9, wherein the process condition is an elapsed time period since starting the in-situ pad conditioning process [Shik, page 5, pp 27, teaches that the in-situ conditioning is based on 1 min 30 secs].
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Shik (Korean Patent Publication No. KR20050006509) as evidenced by the machine translation of Shik, in view of Sakai et al (US PGPUB No. 2024/0076521), and further in view of Chhabra et al (US Patent No. 8,647,445), as applied to claim 4 above and further in view of Kojima et al (US Patent No. 6,531,399), hereinafter referred to as Shik, Sakai, Chhabra and Kojima, respectively.
Regarding claim 6 (Previously Presented), Shik as modified discloses the method of claim 4, but does not explicitly disclose further comprising stopping the polishing process, wherein stopping the polishing operation comprises removing the semiconductor workpiece from contact with the polishing pad and stopping the providing of the slurry to the polishing pad.
Kojima teaches in figure 7, a polishing method comprising: polishing the workpiece on a polishing pad [Kojima, fig 7, 701], in-situ dressing of the polishing pad [Kojimas, col 6, lines 39-67, and fig 7, step 706], and stopping the polishing process, wherein stopping the polishing operation comprises removing the semiconductor workpiece from contact with the polishing pad and stopping the providing of the slurry to the polishing pad [Kojima, col 6, lines 23-38, teaching that when polishing is finished the slurry to the pad 6 is stopped and the wafer is removed].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the stopping of the polishing process, including removing the wafer and stopping the flow of the slurry to the polishing pad, of Kojima with the polishing and conditioning process of Shik as modified because the stopping process will ensure that the process of Shik as modified does not use more slurry than is required and further improves efficiency in moving the workpieces through the process to a final product.
Claims 11 and 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shik (Korean Patent Publication No. KR20050006509) as evidenced by the machine translation of Shik, in view of Sakai et al (US PGPUB No. 2024/0076521), and further in view of Chhabra et al (US Patent No. 8,647,445), as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Daio (US PGPUB No. 2007/0158207), hereinafter referred to as Shik, Sakai, Chhabra, and Daio, respectively.
Regarding claim 11 (Original), Shik as modified discloses the method according to claim 10, but does not explicitly disclose the elapsed time period is determined based on a rate of material removal during a polishing operation performed on at least one preceding semiconductor workpiece.
Daio teaches a method for conditioning a polishing pad [Daio, fig 2, 164] of a polishing system [Daio, fig 2, 130], the method comprising:
performing an in-situ pad conditioning process [Daio, fig 4, 408], wherein the in-situ pad conditioning process comprises causing a pad conditioner [Daio, fig 2, 200] to contact the polishing pad during a polishing operation [Daio, page 5, pp 0056, 408 is done during 406]; and
performing an ex-situ pad conditioning process outside of the polishing operation [Daio, fig 4, 410];
wherein the in-situ conditioning process is based at least in part on a process condition of an elapsed time period, wherein the elapsed time period is determined based on a rate of material removal during a polishing operation performed on at least one preceding semiconductor workpiece [Daio, page 6, pp 0068 teaching that a bias is applied to the polishing pad for a period of time or a cycle, and that the biasing is based on the removal rate and the time and therefore the time period influences the rate of removal and the rate of removal influences the time period and the biasing and that the biasing influences the later processes on that polishing pad, see fig 4].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a biasing using a measured time period and rate of removal as taught by Daio in the conditioning process of Shik as modified because applying the biasing, and hence the measured time and influence on the removal rate, eliminated an in-rush current associated with the polishing process [Daio, pages 5-6, pp’s 0060 and 0068, summarized].
Regarding claim 13 (Original), Shik as modified discloses the method of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose that the method is performed for polishing a plurality of semiconductor workpieces.
Daio teaches a method for conditioning a polishing pad [Daio, fig 2, 164] of a polishing system [Daio, fig 2, 130], the method comprising:
performing an in-situ pad conditioning process [Daio, fig 4, 408], wherein the in-situ pad conditioning process comprises causing a pad conditioner [Daio, fig 2, 200] to contact the polishing pad during a polishing operation [Daio, page 5, pp 0056, 408 is done during 406]; and
performing an ex-situ pad conditioning process outside of the polishing operation [Daio, fig 4, 410];
wherein the method is performed for polishing a plurality of semiconductor workpieces [Diao, fig 4, showing step 414 that at least one other substrate is processed].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the method to repeat the steps for a plurality of workpieces as taught by Daio with the polishing system and method of Shik as modified because using the polishing apparatus saves money for the user to invest in a machine to complete many semiconductor workpieces instead of purchasing a single machine being used once.
Regarding claim 14 (Original), Shik as modified further discloses the method of claim 13, wherein the method comprises performing the ex-situ pad conditioning process after polishing each semiconductor workpiece of the plurality of semiconductor workpieces [Daio, fig 4, 410 is done after 408].
Regarding claim 15 (Original), Shik as modified further discloses the method of claim 13, wherein the method comprises performing the ex-situ pad conditioning process between a predetermined number of substrates [Diao, pp 0057, teaching that 410 may be performed between a predetermined number of substrates].
Shik as modified does not explicitly disclose performing the ex-situ pad conditioning process after every X workpieces of the plurality of semiconductor workpieces, wherein X is an integer from 2 to 10.
Shik as modified discloses that the number of times the polishing pad needs to be ex-situ conditioned needs to be optimized to “be performed as needed” [pp 0057]. As shown in figure 4, the number of times the ex-situ conditioning is done is disclosed to be a result effective variable in that measurement number of times the ex-situ needs to be performed is done as needed as is a judgement call of one of ordinary skill in the art. Further it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in further modifying the Shik as modified apparatus to change how many ex-situ conditioning processes are done and how many polishing processes are performed between the ex-situ conditioning processes as it involves only measuring or judging when the ex-situ conditioning needs to be done. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the apparatus of Shik as modified by making the number of times the ex-situ conditioning process is done after a number of polishing processes be between 2 and 10 times as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” MPEP 2144.05(II)(A-B).
Regarding claim 16 (Original), Shik as modified further discloses the method of claim 13, wherein the method comprises performing the ex-situ pad conditioning process based at least in part on a process condition after completing polishing of each semiconductor workpiece of the plurality of semiconductor workpieces [Diao, fig 4, showing step 418 repeats to 410 after each substrate is polished in step 414].
Regarding claim 17 (Original), Shik as modified further discloses the method of claim 16, wherein the process condition is a material removal rate during polishing of an immediately preceding semiconductor workpiece meeting a threshold material removal rate [Diao, pp 0068 teaching that the biasing is modified based on the removal rate is fig 4, step 412].
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shik (Korean Patent Publication No. KR20050006509) as evidenced by the machine translation of Shik, in view of Sakai et al (US PGPUB No. 2024/0076521), and further in view of Chhabra et al (US Patent No. 8,647,445), as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Behr (US Patent No. 7,840,605), hereinafter referred to as Shik, Sakai, Chhabra, and Behr, respectively.
Regarding claim 12 (Original), Shik as modified discloses the method of claim 9, but does not explicitly disclose the process condition is a temperature of the polishing pad.
Behr teaches a method for conditioning a polishing pad [Behr, fig 5, 102] of a polishing system [Behr, fig 5, 100], the method comprising:
performing an in-situ pad conditioning process [Behr, col 16, lines 37-40, 113 conditions 102], wherein the in-situ pad conditioning process comprises causing a pad conditioner [Behr, fig 5, 113] to contact the polishing pad during a polishing operation [Behr, fig 5, 113 contacts 102 and col 16, lines 37-10, 113 contacts 102 during polishing of 107 on 102]; and
performing an ex-situ pad conditioning process outside of the polishing operation [Behr, col 16, lines 37-40, prior to polishing the wafer, conditioning using 113 is done on 102 and the option allows for conditioning during polishing as well so both are taught];
wherein the process condition is a temperature of the polishing pad [Behr, col 8, lines 6-19, temperature sensor].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the process condition of Shik as modified to be the temperature of the polishing pad as taught by Behr because monitoring the temperature of the polishing pad is instrumental in maintaining a desired wafer surface topography [Behr, col 1, lines 31-41, summarized].
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Behr (US Patent No. 7,840,605) in view of Sakai et al (US PGPUB No. 2024/0076521) and further in view of Chhabra et al (US Patent No. 8,647,445), hereinafter referred to as Behr, Sakai, and Chhabra, respectively.
Regarding claims 20 (Currently Amended), Behr discloses a system for polishing a semiconductor wafer [Behr, fig 5, 100], the system comprising:
a platen operable to rotate about an axis [Behr, fig 5, 101];
a polishing pad coupled to the platen [Behr, fig 5, 102 coupled to 101];
a workpiece carrier operable to bring a semiconductor workpiece into contact with the polishing pad [Behr, fig 5, 104 polishes the workpiece 107];
a pad conditioner [Behr, fig 5, 72];
a delivery system configured to deliver a cleaning agent [] and a slurry to the polishing pad [Behr, fig 5, 108 delivers 109 to polishing pad 102];
a sensor [Behr, fig 5, 18] configured to measure a process condition [Behr, col 7, line 51 – col 8, lines 19 and col 15, lines 6-12, where 18 and other sensors (not shown) may measure CMP processing characteristics]; and
a controller [Behr, fig 5, 80] comprising one or more control devices [Behr, col 15, lines 32-36, 103, 105 and 112] operable to bring the pad conditioner into or out of contact with the polishing pad based at least in part on the process condition [Behr, col 16, line 49 – col 17, line 10, teaching that when sensor 18 measures a characteristic, that the signal is provided to the controller 80, which then gives a control response to “alter a CMP pad conditioner characteristic (e.g. … changing a CMP pad conditioner operating parameter such as rotational speed or pad conditioner pressure)”, where it is interpreted that changing the pressure of the pad conditioner means changing contact pressure with the pad 102 such that it is operable to remove contact of the head of 72 with the surface of 102].
Behr does not explicitly disclose wherein the slurry comprises one or more of potassium hypochlorite, sodium hypochlorite, ammonium persulfate, potassium peroxymonosulfate, sodium permanganate, potassium permanganate, potassium periodate, and potassium persulfate, and wherein the cleaning agent comprises a reducing agent.
Sakai teaches a system for polishing comprising:
performing a polishing operation which comprises providing a slurry [Sakai, fig 1, 1 by source 26] to a polishing pad [Sakai, fig 1, 20], wherein the slurry [Sakai, fig 1, 1] comprises one or more of potassium hypochlorite, sodium hypochlorite, ammonium persulfate, potassium peroxymonosulfate, sodium permanganate, potassium permanganate, potassium periodate, and potassium persulfate [Sakai, page 2, pp 0018, comprises sodium permanganate in an aqueous solution],
wherein the polishing operation comprises providing the slurry to the polishing pad while the polishing pad is rotating and in contact with a semiconductor workpiece surface [Sakai, fig 1, and page 3, pp’s 0032-0035, 12 and 4 are rotated which rotate 20 and the workpiece 11] comprising silicon carbide [Sakai, page 2, pp 0021, the workpiece 11 is made of SiC].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a silicon carbide substrate and the associated slurry containing sodium permanganate as taught by Sakai within the polishing and conditioning process of Behr, because being able to polish multiple different types of workpieces enables the device of Shik to be used in more versatile settings and to therefore recover the return on investment of the purchase of the polishing system of Behr. Further, the device of Behr would be able to be used more often on more workpieces, including those made of silicon carbide.
Further per MPEP 2143(I)(A), the combination of old elements to yield predictable results is held to be obvious over the prior art. Where in the instant case to include the oxidizing element of sodium hypochlorite and/or potassium permanganate as taught by Sakai in the system of Behr, each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references. The only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the oxidizing element of sodium hypochlorite and/or potassium permanganate within the slurry as taught by Sakai in the slurry of Behr because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, the elements being oxidizing agent including sodium hypochlorite and/or potassium permanganate and the polishing slurry. In the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination gave the predictable result of using the oxidizing agent to improve the polishing effect of the slurry when polishing a semiconductor wafer.
Regarding the reducing agent within the cleaning agent, Chhabra teaches a process for cleaning semiconductor devices using a cleaning agent [Chhabra, col 2, lines 49-63], wherein the cleaning agent comprises a reducing agent [Chhabra, col 3, lines 46-51, teaching an aqueous solution comprising a reducing agent], wherein the reducing agent comprises hydrogen peroxide [Chhabra, col 7, lines 60-67, the cleaning process comprises hydrogen peroxide] (clm 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the reducing agent of Chhabra in the cleaning and rinsing solution because this inhibits oxidation and provides an environment of promoting valence change of the metal ion which is instrumental in a significant cleaning action of the substrate [Chhabra, col 3, lines 55-64, summarized].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 19 is allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 19 (Currently Amended), Behr (US Patent No. 7,840,305) discloses a method for conditioning a polishing pad [Behr, fig 5, 102] of a polishing system [Behr, fig 5, 100], the method comprising:
performing an in-situ pad conditioning process [Behr, col 16, lines 37-40, 113 conditions 102], wherein the in-situ pad conditioning process comprises providing a slurry [Behr, fig 5, 109] to the polishing pad [Behr, fig 5, 108 delivers 109 to 102 during polishing of 107 and because 113 conditions during polishing, 109 is delivered during the in-situ pad conditioning as well] and causing a pad conditioner [Behr, fig 5, 113] to contact the polishing pad during a polishing operation [Behr, fig 5, 113 contacts 102 and col 16, lines 37-10, 113 contacts 102 during polishing of 107 on 102];
measuring a process condition, wherein the process condition is a temperature of the polishing pad [Behr, col 8, lines 6-19, temperature sensor]; and
changing the in-situ pad conditioning process based at least in part on the process condition [Behr, col 16, line 49 – col 17, line 10, teaching that when sensor 18 measures a characteristic, that the signal is provided to the controller 80, which then gives a control response to “alter a CMP pad conditioner characteristic (e.g. … changing a CMP pad conditioner operating parameter such as rotational speed or pad conditioner pressure)”]. However, Behr does not teach the changing of the in-situ pad conditioning process with the temperature correlated to the degradation of a component within the slurry. Behr only discloses changing the temperature of the pad, the speed of the pad, and changing to a new conditioner or the speed of the conditioner [Behr, col 13, line 65 – col 14, line 12]
Therefore, the prior art considered as a whole, alone or in combination, neither anticipates nor renders obvious “wherein changing the in-situ pad conditioning process comprises starting or stopping the in-situ pad conditioning process when the temperature reaches a set threshold temperature correlated to a degradation temperature of a component in the slurry” together in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claim and in the independent claim.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/21/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant has argued on page 8 that one of ordinary skill in the art would not turn to Chhabra for the cleaning agent because Chhabra focuses on the removal of Ceria but Shik does not teach the use of Ceria at all. Further that the reducing agent of the present claims serves a different purpose from Chhabra and that for these reasons there is no motivation to combine Chhabra with Shik.
Respectfully the Office disagrees for the following reasons: A) In response to applicant's argument that Chhabra has a different use than Shik and that the reducing agent serves a different purpose, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). B) In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the purpose of the cleaning agent) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
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 ROBERT NEIBAUR whose telephone number is (571)270-7979. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 8:00 am - 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, David Posigian can be reached at 313-446-6546. 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.
/ROBERT F NEIBAUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights