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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/21/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The indefiniteness rejections to claim 11 and 15 of record are withdrawn in light of applicant’s amendments.
Regarding indefiniteness rejections to claim 7:
Claim 1 is amended to include “wherein a physical material is used for at least a portion of the acceleration tube, including the secondary segment or the common segment.” However, this does not establish a complete physical boundary for the acceleration tube since 1) only “at least a portion” must be physical material; 2) the amendment requires physical material for either the secondary or the common segment; and 3) other portions of the acceleration tube can remain virtual. As such, in view of claim 1, claim 7 still does not specify whether “external” means physically outside the material forming one portion, outside the overall charged-particle optical region, or electrically outside the tube-potential region. Applicant relies on specification paragraph [0069] to explain that “external” can refer either to physical position outside a physical tube or to components at a relative low voltage and sufficiently distance from the beam. That explanation in fact confirms that “external” has at least two potentially different meanings. Accordingly, the indefiniteness rejections to claim 7 of record is maintained.
Claim 1 rejection in view of Otten:
Applicant argues that Otten no longer anticipates amended claim 1 which now requires “a physical material” to be used for at least a portion of the acceleration tube, because 1) the Office previously acknowledged, in addressing claim 18, that Otten does not disclose a dialectic material serving as a physical tube; and 2) Otten teaches away from integrating a physical acceleration tube into the column as indicated in paras. [0048] and [0090] of Otten. These arguments are not persuasive.
First, the prior statement that Otten does not expressly disclose the limitation of claim 18 is not an acknowledgement that Otten lacks every form of physical column structure. Claim 18 requires the considerably narrower arrangement of a dialectic material serving as a physical tube, which is different from amended claim 1, which requires only the physical material be used for at least a portion of the acceleration tube. Thus, applicant improperly equates the broader physical-material limitation of claim 1 with the narrower physical-tube and potential arrangement of claim18.
Second, para. [0048] of Otten explains that charged-particle tool 40 may further comprise a flood column 300 and para. [0090] concerns the physical housing and lens-support arrangement of the flood column 300, explaining that spatial and positioning restrictions may take it undesirable to extend flood-column housing 506 down-beam from ground plane 503 to lens arrangement 504 and 505. However, the flood column 300 is used to pre-charge sample 208 before inspection by the separate charged-particle inspection tool 200, which is the apparatus the rejection of claim 1 relied on. Therefore, Otten’s discussion of difficulties associated with extending housing 506 in the separate flood column 300 does not criticize, discredit, or discourage providing physical column material around a portion of the common or secondary path of inspection tool 200.
Claim 1 rejection in view of Nakasuji:
Applicant argues that the instrument described in Nakasuji does not operate as a virtual acceleration tube because the specification of the instant application describes a virtual acceleration tube as having multiple internal components biased to a relatively high common tube potential. This is not persuasive. 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). Amended claim 1 does not recite a common tube potential, a distinction between internal and external components based on voltage, or the dialectic physical tube arrangement. Thus, applicant’s argument improperly imports the narrower tube-potential requirement from the speciation into claim 1.
U.S.C 35 103 rejection regarding claim 18
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 18 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because the recited limitation “…a primary segment, substantially concentric with the first; a secondary segment…” appears to omit “axis.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Amended claim 1 merely requires that “a physical material is used for at least a portion of the acceleration tube, including the secondary segment or the common segment,” which does not require the entire acceleration tube to be physical structure and does not define a complete physical structure and does not define a complete physical boundary for the acceleration tube. Claim 7 nevertheless recites electromagnetic elements “disposed external to the acceleration tub.” The claim does not specify whether “external” means: i) physically outside the material forming the secondary or common segment; ii) outside the entire charged-particle optical region constituting the acceleration tube; iii) outside a region whose components are maintained at a tube potential; or iv) some combination of physical position and electrical potential. The specification, e.g., para. [0069], does not resolve this ambiguity, which explains that “external” may refer either to a physical location outside a physical tube, or to a component maintained at a relatively low or substantially unapplied voltage and positioned sufficiently far from the beam. These alternative criteria do not establish a single reasonably certain boundary for determining whether an electromagnetic element is “external to the acceleration tube.” Accordingly, the amendment to claim 1 does not overcome the rejection of claim 7.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 13, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2006/0060790 A1 [hereinafter Nakasuji].
Regarding Claim 1:
Nakasuji teaches charged particle beam system, comprising:
an objective lens assembly (Fig. 1 – objective lens12), defining an aperture (see annotated Fig. 1 below) collocated with a first axis (objective-lens located on optical axis OA);
an acceleration tube (see annotated Fig. 1 below: the charged-particle optical region along the main beam path includes optical elements operated at applied potentials, such as the positive axisymmetric electrode 14 used to accelerate secondary electrons and the electrostatic portion of the ExB separator 9, while optical components outside the shared bean region such as detector-side structures or other column elements need not be at the same potential), defining a bifurcation, including:
PNG
media_image1.png
794
708
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a primary segment (see annotated Fig. 1above: main path of the primary beams traveling along optical axis OA toward the sample), substantially concentric with the first axis;
a secondary segment (see annotated Fig. 1 above: off-axis path after separation toward the secondary electron detector 21), intersecting the primary segment at the bifurcation, the secondary segment being oriented and substantially concentric with a second axis at an angle, α, relative to the first axis; and
a common segment (see annotated Fig. 1 above: shared objective/aperture region around OA where the primary beams go down and the secondary electrons return upward through the objective-lens region), disposed at least partially in the aperture; and
a separator (Fig. 1- ExB separator 9), including one or more charged-particle optical elements disposed in the common segment and configured to apply a deflection force to electrons having a negative velocity in a first direction, wherein the deflection force redirects the electrons toward a second direction substantially aligned with the second axis (para. [0067]:” The secondary electrons emanating from the scanning points on the sample 15 ... then deflected toward the secondary electron detector 21 by the E×B separator 9.”);
wherein a physical material is used for at least a portion of the acceleration tube, forming at least the second segment or the common segment (Fig. 1 and para. [0060]: Nakasuji expressly teaches physical optical column 17. Fig. 1 depicts the column walls surrounding the electron-optical path. Nakasuji also describes anode 4 as partitioning the space in electron-gun chamber 2d from “space of an optical column 17 in the sample 15 side,” further confirming that optical column 17 defines a physical vacuum-column region).
Regarding Claim 15:
Claim 15 is directed to an acceleration tube including identical elements of the acceleration tube as in claim 1. Nakasuji teaches the charged particle beam system, including its acceleration tube of claim 1. As such, Nakasuji also teaches the acceleration tube of claim 15.
Regarding Claims 2 and 16:
Nakasuji teaches the charged particle beam system of claim 1 and the acceleration tube of claim 15, respectively. Nakasuji further teaches wherein the acceleration tube is configured to increase a magnitude of the negative velocity of the electrons in the first direction (para. [0067]: “The secondary electrons emanating from the scanning points on the sample 15 are accelerated by the positive axisymmetric electrode 14”).
Regarding Claim 13:
Nakasuji teaches the acceleration tube of claim 15. Nakasuji further teaches wherein the objective lens assembly comprises a magnetic lens and an immersion lens or the magnetic lens (Fig. 2- magnetic lens 12) and an electrostatic lens (Fig. 2- axisymmetric electrode 14) (para. [0067]: axisymmetric electrode 14 provides an electrostatic field in the objective-lens region).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3-5, 9-11, 14-15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2024/0006147 A1 [hereinafter Otten] in view of Nakasuji.
Regarding Claim 1:
Otten teaches a charged particle beam system (Abstract- system for projecting charged particle beam), comprising:
PNG
media_image2.png
686
949
media_image2.png
Greyscale
an objective lens assembly (Fig. 2- objective lens 231), defining an aperture (see annotated Fig. 2 above, opening defined by objective lens 231 allowing beam through) collocated with a first axis (Fig. 2- primary electron-optical axis 204);
an acceleration tube, defining a bifurcation (see annotated Fig. 2 above: the charged-particle optical region extending through the primary beam path and separator region include charged particle optical elements operated by applied fields and voltages, such as the beam separator 233 while optical components outside the shared bean region such as detector-side structures or other column elements need not be at the same potential) including:
a primary segment (see annotated Fig. 2 above: main path of the primary sub-beams along axis 204 toward the sample), substantially concentric with the first axis;
a secondary segment (see annotated Fig. 2 above: intersecting the primary segment at the bifurcation), the secondary segment being oriented and substantially concentric with a second axis at an angle, α, relative to the first axis (see annotated Fig. 2 above; and
a common segment (see annotated Fig. 2 above: shared region in the primary projection system 230 around the beam separator 233 / objective lens 231), disposed at least partially in the aperture; and
a separator (Fig. 2-beam separator 233), including one or more charged-particle optical elements disposed in the common segment and configured to apply a deflection force to electrons having a negative velocity in a first direction, wherein the deflection force redirects the electrons toward a second direction substantially aligned with the second axis (paras. [0031, 0041]: “The beam separator 233 is arranged to deflect the path of the secondary electron beams 261, 262, and 263 towards the secondary projection system 250” where “secondary projection system 250 may be aligned with a secondary electron-optical axis 251”).
However, Otten does not expressly teach wherein a physical material is used for at least a portion of the acceleration tube, forming at least the second segment or the common segment.
Nakasuji teaches wherein a physical material is used for at least a portion of the acceleration tube, forming at least the second segment or the common segment, as previously discussed.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skulled person in the art, before the effective time if filing, to provide Otten’s common and/or secondary electron-optical path with physical column structure as taught by Nakasuji. Both references concern electron-beam inspection systems in which primary electrons are directed toward a sample and returning secondary electrons are separated into a detector-side path. providing the known physical optical column of Nakasuji around Otten’s corresponding electron-optical region would have supplied a conventional physical enclosure for defining and maintaining the vacuum beam-transport region and mechanically enclosing the electron-optical components, yielding the predictable result pf a physical enclosed charged-particle column.
Regarding Claim 15:
Claim 15 is directed to an acceleration tube including same elements of the acceleration tube as in claim 1. Otten in view of Nakasuji teaches the charged particle beam system, including its acceleration tube of claim 1. As such, Otten in view of Nakasuji also teaches the acceleration tube of claim 15.
Regarding Claims 3 and 17:
Otten in view of Nakasuji teaches the charged particle beam system of claim 1 and the acceleration tube of claim 15, respectively. Otten further teaches wherein the one or more charged-particle optical elements comprises a Wien filter, coupled with control circuitry configuring the Wien filter to apply negligible or substantially no deflection force to primary electrons having a positive velocity in the first direction (para. [0040]: “Beam separator 233 may be, for example, a Wien filter comprising an electrostatic deflector generating an electrostatic dipole field and a magnetic dipole field ... Primary sub-beams ... may therefore pass at least substantially straight through beam separator 233 with at least substantially zero deflection angles” because the electrostatic and magnetic forces cancel).
Regarding Claim 4:
Otten in view of Nakasuji teaches the charged particle beam system of claim 1. Otten further teaches wherein the separator is coupled with bias circuitry configured to apply a bias potential to the separator (Otten teaches the separator 233 may be “a Wien filter comprising an electrostatic deflector generating an electrostatic dipole field and a magnetic dipole field,” generating those fields necessarily requires the separator’s electrostatic and magnetic components to be coupled with corresponding drive circuitry and power supplies, including circuitry for applying a bias potential to the electrostatic portion of the separator).
Regarding Claim 5:
Otten in view of Nakasuji teaches the charged particle beam system of claim 1. Otten further teaches a projection system, disposed along the second axis (para. [0031]: “secondary projection system 250 may be aligned with a secondary electron-optical axis 251”).
Regarding Claim 9:
Otten in view of Nakasuji teaches the charged particle beam system of claim 1. Otten further teaches wherein the electrons are secondary electrons (secondary electron beams 261, 262, and 263 generated from the sample and propagated to the separator).
Regarding Claim 10:
Otten in view of Nakasuji teaches the charged particle beam system of claim 1. Otten further teaches an aperture array element (Fig. 2- source conversion unit 220), disposed on the first beam axis and configured to generate multiple beamlets of primary electrons having a nonzero velocity along the first beam axis in the first direction (para. [0037]: “Source conversion unit 220 may comprise an image-forming element array...[which] may function as a multi-beam array to generate the plurality of sub-beams in the multi-beam path, i.e. primary sub-beams 211, 212, 213”).
Regarding Claim 11:
Otten in view of Nakasuji teaches the charged particle system of claim 1. Nakasuji further teaches wherein the angle, α, is a first angle, and wherein the one or more charged-particle optical elements comprises a magnetic prism configured to redirect the electrons toward the second direction and to redirect primary electrons from a third direction to the first direction, the third direction being oriented at a second angle, B, relative to the first direction (see annotated Fig. 1A below and para. [0166]: Separator 5 is depicted as a magnetic/electromagnetic beam-routing element in Fig. 1A, electron beams emitted from an electron gun 1 ... are redirected by separator 5 so as to be perpendicular to the surface of a sample 7, while secondary electrons emitted from sample 7 are redirected by the same separator 5 into another path toward detector 12).
PNG
media_image3.png
708
645
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 14:
Otten in view of Nakasuji teaches the charged particle system of claim 1. Nakasuji further teaches wherein the angle, α, is from about 5 degrees to about 40 degrees (Fig. 2 shows the secondary-electron path is redirected from the center axis by an angle of about 18°, which falls within the claimed range of about 5° to about 40°).
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Otten in view of Nakasuji, further in view of US 2019/0355544 A1 [hereinafter Riedesel].
Regarding Claim 6:
Otten in view of Nakasuji teaches the charged particle system of claim 5. The combined references do not specifically note that wherein the projection system comprises one or more electromagnetic elements disposed in the acceleration tube and coupled with bias circuitry configured to apply a potential to the electromagnetic elements. Riedesel teaches wherein the projection system comprises one or more electromagnetic elements disposed in the acceleration tube and coupled with bias circuitry configured to apply a potential to the electromagnetic elements (paras. [0030, 0089]: “The projection system includes a combination of a magnetic lens or several magnetic lenses with electrostatic elements” “The projection system 200 ... includes a set of static (or low frequency) electron optical elements ... for imaging of secondary electrons (SE) 3 from sample 7 onto the detection plane 209 a... A controller 160 controls the static electron optical elements…as well as the static sample potential via a static voltage supply 150”).
Otten teaches separating secondary electron beams from the primary beam and directing the separated secondary electron beams into a detector-side path. Riedesel teaches a charged-particle apparatus having a detector-side projection system for projecting interaction products toward detection. Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to incorporate such a projection system into Otten’s secondary-side path along the second axis to improve controllable projection of the separated secondary electron beams to the detector. An ordinary skilled person would have been motivated to use such a known detector-side projection system in Otten so that the separated secondary electron beams could be optically conveyed and projected to detection in the same manner that Riedesel handles interaction products after separation from the primary path.
Regarding Claim 7:
Otten in view of Nakasuji teaches the charged particle system of claim 5. The combined references do not specifically note that wherein the projection system comprises one or more electromagnetic elements disposed external to the acceleration tube. Riedesel teaches wherein the projection system comprises one or more electromagnetic elements disposed external to the acceleration tube (para. [0030]: “The projection system includes a combination of a magnetic lens or several magnetic lenses with electrostatic elements”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to incorporate such a projection system into Otten’s secondary-side path along the second axis to improve controllable projection of the separated secondary electron beams to the detector. An ordinary skilled person would have been motivated to use such a known detector-side projection system in Otten so that the separated secondary electron beams could be optically conveyed and projected to detection in the same manner that Riedesel handles interaction products after separation from the primary path.
Regarding Claim 8:
Otten in view of Nakasuji teaches the charged particle system of claim 5. The combined references do not specifically note that wherein the projection system comprises a stigmator assembly. Riedesel teaches wherein the projection system comprises a stigmator assembly (para. [0030]: “The projection system 200… include one or more electron optical lenses 251, deflectors 271, and /or stigmators 286”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to implement the projection system in Otten with a stigmator, as taught in Riedesel, to correct astigmatism in the projected charged-particle beam, thereby improving spot shape and image quality at the detector and reducing beam broadening and cross-talk.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Otten in view of Nakasuji, further in view of Hitachi product sheet, “High Resolution Lens EXALENS,” Hitachi High-Tech (2012) [hereinafter Hitachi].
Regarding Claim 12:
Otten in view of Nakasuji teaches the charged particle system of claim 1. The combined references do not specifically note wherein the objective lens assembly comprises a multiple-gap objective lens. Hitachi teaches wherein the objective lens assembly comprises a multiple-gap objective lens (Page 1: teaches Hitachi’s double-gap objective lens technology, i.e., a multiple-gap objective lens).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to substitute the double-gap objective lens technology taught by Hitachi to the objective lens assembly in Otten, because as Hitachi explains, such a multiple-gap objective lens provides improved imaging performance, including a larger field of view at lower magnification and high contrast / high resolution observation, while achieving high spatial resolution at low accelerating voltages with minimal beam damage.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Otten in view of Nakasuji, further in view of US 20030155521A1 [hereafter Feuerbaum].
Regarding Claim 18:
Otten in view of Nakasuji teaches the acceleration tube of claim 15. The combined references further teach the physical tube includes the bifurcation. However, the combined references do not expressly teach wherein the physical material comprises a dielectric material serving as a physical tube including the bifurcation, within which optical components are biased to a tube potential and external to which the optical components are coupled with ground or biased to a potential other than the tube potential.
Feuerbaum teaches wherein the physical material comprises a dielectric material serving as a physical tube, within which optical components are biased to a tube potential and external to which the optical components are coupled with ground or biased to a potential other than the tube potential (paras. [0027-0028, 0036]: Feuerbaum teaches the beam is surrounded by a “linear tube” and placing the housing and optical components near the beam path at a common “beam boost potential”. The linear-tube/housing arrangement has a “insulating layer could be a dielectric material.” Feuerbaum identifies external beam-alignment coils and the surrounding cover/housing as grounded and explains that external power components need not be raised to the beam-boost potential).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to implement the acceleration tube region of Otten, including the region containing the separator and bifurcation, using the known beam-boost tube construction taught by Feuerbaum, in which the optical components adjacent the beam path are enclosed within a dialectic-insulated physical tube and maintained at a common tube potential while components outside the tube are grounded or maintained at another potential. Feuerbaum states that this arrangement shields the charged-particle path from components at differing potentials, permits charged particles to travel through the optical column at increased energy tor educe lens aberration, and avoids unstable operation caused by placing external eletco0rmagnetic power components at the beam-boost potential.
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Otten in view of Nakasuji, further in view of US 2010/0133433 A1 [hereinafter Tanimoto].
Regarding Claim 19:
Otten in view of Nakasuji, teaches the acceleration tube of claim 15. The combined references do not specifically note that wherein the acceleration tube further comprises an accelerator assembly, disposed in the common segment and including a plurality of annular electrodes, the accelerator assembly being coupled with bias circuitry configured to apply a bias voltage to the annular electrodes. Tanimoto teaches wherein the acceleration tube further comprises an accelerator assembly, disposed in the common segment and including a plurality of annular electrodes, the accelerator assembly being coupled with bias circuitry configured to apply a bias voltage to the annular electrodes (Figs. 2 and 3; paras. [0062-0063]: an accelerator arrangement in the region adjacent the wafer 216 including a plurality of annular electrode sections 215a and 215b, where the sections are separately biased by power supplies 219a and 219b).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to incorporate such Tanimoto’s annular-electrode accelerator arrangement into the Otten’s charged particle system in order to provide controlled acceleration of the returning charged particles in the common region by applied electrode potentials.
Regarding Claim 20:
Otten in view of Nakasuji and Tanimoto teaches the acceleration tube of claim 19. Tanimoto further teaches wherein the acceleration tube further comprises a substrate, disposed in the common segment and coupled with the accelerator assembly, the substrate defining multiple apertures configured to selectively transmit a portion of the charged particles incident on the substrate (Figs. 2 and 3; paras. [0062-0063]: the electrode plate structure 215 defines a plurality of apertures / throughholes, such as 301a, 301b, 301c and later 2402a, 2402b, 2402c, through which selected charged-particle beams such as 203a, 203b, 203c pass).
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 JING WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-2504. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-17:00.
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.
/JING WANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2881
/MICHAEL J LOGIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights