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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5, 7, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kailasam et al. (U.S. Pat. 7,781,327) in view of Cho et al. "Reliability of Characteristics of W/WN/TaOxNy/SiO2/S: Metal Oxide Semiconductor Capacitors", Journal of the Electrochemical Society, 149, (7) G403-G407 (2002) and Shaviv et al. (U.S. PGPUB. 2010/0009533 A1).
INDEPENDENT CLAIM 1:
Regarding claim 1, Kailasam et al. teach a method of forming a tungsten (W) film (Column 5 lines 65-67; Column 6 lines 1-3) of a semiconductor device on a semiconductor substrate (Column 3 lines 53) using a physical vapor deposition (PVD) sputtering method (Column 5 lines 27-31; Column 7 lines 40-41), the method comprising: a) first deposition step (Column 7 lines 38-63 - step 401) of depositing a tungsten film (Column 5 lines 65-67; Column 6 lines 1-3 - W or WN) on the semiconductor substrate using magnetron sputtering by applying direct current power (Column 7 lines 4-5 - DC) b) step of modifying a surface of the deposited tungsten by performing radio-frequency (RF) bias treatment under an inert gas atmosphere (Column 7 lines 38-63 - resputtering (403); Column 6 lines 55-67; Column 7 lines 1-9; Column 10 lines 23-36); and c) second deposition step of additionally depositing a tungsten film on the deposited tungsten film using magnetron sputtering by applying DC power (Column 7 lines 38-63 - step 405; Column 7 lines 4-5 – DC power).
The difference between Claim 1 and Kailasam et al. is that the first step operating at a power density of less than 0.5 W/cm² is not discussed (Claim 1) and the second step operating at a power density of 0.5 W/cm2 or more is not discussed (Claim 1) and wherein plasma treatment is performed by applying only RF bias without applying DC power in step b) is not discussed (Claim 1).
Regarding the first step operating at a power density of less than 0.5 W/cm² (Claim 1):
Cho et al. teach utilizing a power density of from 0.3-5 W/cm² to control the roughness of a tungsten containing film. (See Experimental)
Kailasam et al. teach sputtering multiple layers of W or WN as a diffusion barrier. (See Kailasam et al. discussed above)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Kailasam et al. by utilizing the power density features of Cho et al. because it allows for controlling the roughness of the films.
Regarding the second step operating at a power density of 0.5 W/cm2 or more (Claim 1):
Cho et al. teach utilizing a power density of from 0.3-5 W/cm² to control the roughness of a tungsten containing film. (See Experimental)
Kailasam et al. teach sputtering multiple layers of W or WN as a diffusion barrier. (See Kailasam et al. discussed above)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Kailasam et al. by utilizing the power density features of Cho et al. because it allows for controlling the roughness of the films.
With regard to the selection of the various power density levels for steps a) and c):
It would have been obvious to have selected a known power density within a known range in order to control the characteristics of the various layers including roughness characteristic. (See Cho et al. Conclusions).
Furthermore selecting values in a known range has been held obvious for best results.
See MPEP 2144.05 - Obviousness of similar and overlapping ranges, amounts and proportions -
I. OVERLAPPING, APPROACHING, AND SIMILAR RANGES, AMOUNTS, AND PROPORTIONS
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of "about 1-5%" while the claim was limited to "more than 5%." The court held that "about 1-5%" allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (Claim reciting thickness of a protective layer as falling within a range of "50 to 100 Angstroms" considered prima facie obvious in view of prior art reference teaching that "for suitable protection, the thickness of the protective layer should be not less than about 10 nm [i.e., 100 Angstroms]." The court stated that "by stating that ‘suitable protection’ is provided if the protective layer is ‘about’ 100 Angstroms thick, [the prior art reference] directly teaches the use of a thickness within [applicant’s] claimed range."). See also In re Bergen, 120 F.2d 329, 332, 49 USPQ 749, 751-52 (CCPA 1941) (The court found that the overlapping endpoint of the prior art and claimed range was sufficient to support an obviousness rejection, particularly when there was no showing of criticality of the claimed range).
Regarding wherein plasma treatment is performed by applying only RF bias without applying DC power in step b) (Claim 1):
Shaviv et al. teach the plasma treatment (resputter) can take place with 0 power to the target. (Paragraph 0051)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 3:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein steps a) and b) are performed 1 to 4 times before step c).
Regarding claim 3, Kailasam et al. teach wherein steps a) and b) are performed 1 to 4 times before step c). (See Fig. 4)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 5:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein direct current (DC) power applied in step a) is less than or equal to DC power applied in step c).
Regarding claim 5, Kailasam et al. teach utilizing a depositing power of 10 to 60 kW. (Column 7 lines 4-5)
It would be obvious to utilize the same (i.e. equal) power for each step knowing the range from the prior art. Specifically selecting a known value in a known range would have been obvious for best results.
See MPEP 2144.05 - Obviousness of similar and overlapping ranges, amounts and proportions -
I. OVERLAPPING, APPROACHING, AND SIMILAR RANGES, AMOUNTS, AND
PROPORTIONS
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of "about 1-5%" while the claim was limited to "more than 5%." The court held that "about 1-5%" allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (Claim reciting thickness of a protective layer as falling within a range of "50 to 100 Angstroms" considered prima facie obvious in view of prior art reference teaching that "for suitable protection, the thickness of the protective layer should be not less than about 10 nm [i.e., 100 Angstroms]." The court stated that "by stating that ‘suitable protection’ is provided if the protective layer is ‘about’ 100 Angstroms thick, [the prior art reference] directly teaches the use of a thickness within [applicant’s] claimed range."). See also In re Bergen, 120 F.2d 329, 332, 49 USPQ 749, 751-52 (CCPA 1941) (The court found that the overlapping endpoint of the prior art and claimed range was sufficient to support an obviousness rejection, particularly when there was no showing of criticality of the claimed range).
DEPENDENT CLAIM 7:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the inert gas in step b) comprises one or more
selected from the group consisting of Ar, Kr, Ne, and Xe.
Regarding claim 7, Kailasam et al. teach wherein the inert gas in step b) comprises one or more selected from the group consisting of Ar, Kr, Ne, and Xe. (Column 9 lines 61-63)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 10:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the method is performed in a PVD chamber at 1 Pa or less.
Regarding claim 10, Shaviv et al. teach wherein the method is performed in a PVD chamber at 1 Pa or less. (Paragraph 0121)
It should be noted that overlapping ranges have been held to be obvious. See MPEP 2144.05 - Obviousness of similar and overlapping ranges, amounts and proportions -
I. OVERLAPPING, APPROACHING, AND SIMILAR RANGES, AMOUNTS, AND
PROPORTIONS
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of "about 1-5%" while the claim was limited to "more than 5%." The court held that "about 1-5%" allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (Claim reciting thickness of a protective layer as falling within a range of "50 to 100 Angstroms" considered prima facie obvious in view of prior art reference teaching that "for suitable protection, the thickness of the protective layer should be not less than about 10 nm [i.e., 100 Angstroms]." The court stated that "by stating that ‘suitable protection’ is provided if the protective layer is ‘about’ 100 Angstroms thick, [the prior art reference] directly teaches the use of a thickness within [applicant’s] claimed range."). See also In re Bergen, 120 F.2d 329, 332, 49 USPQ 749, 751-52 (CCPA 1941) (The court found that the overlapping endpoint of the prior art and claimed range was sufficient to support an obviousness rejection, particularly when there was no showing of criticality of the claimed range).
The motivation for utilizing the features of Cho et al. is that it allows for controlling characteristic of the deposited films such as the roughness. (See Cho et al. Conclusion)
The motivation for utilizing 0 power to the target as taught by Shaviv et al. is that it allows for etching only. (Paragraph 0051)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Kailasam et al. by utilizing the power density features of Cho et al. and the features of Shaviv et al. because it allows for controlling the roughness of the films and allows for etching (resputtering).
Claim(s) 2, 4, 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kailasam et al in view of Cho et al. and Shaviv et al. as applied to claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 10 above, and further in view of Rozibicki et al. (U.S. Pat. 7,186,648).
DEPENDENT CLAIM 2:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the tungsten film deposited in step a) has a thickness of 0.3 to 0.6 nanometers (nm) (3 Angstroms to 6 Angstroms).
Regarding claim 2, Rozibicki et al. teach depositing a first portion of a diffusion barrier layer at 5 Angstroms. (See Rozibicki et al. claim 23)
It should be noted that overlapping ranges have been held to be obvious.
See MPEP 2144.05 - Obviousness of similar and overlapping ranges, amounts and proportions –
I. OVERLAPPING, APPROACHING, AND SIMILAR RANGES, AMOUNTS, AND PROPORTIONS
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of "about 1-5%" while the claim was limited to "more than 5%." The court held that "about 1-5%" allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (Claim reciting thickness of a protective layer as falling within a range of "50 to 100 Angstroms" considered prima facie obvious in view of prior art reference teaching that "for suitable protection, the thickness of the protective layer should be not less than about 10 nm [i.e., 100 Angstroms]." The court stated that "by stating that ‘suitable protection’ is provided if the protective layer is ‘about’ 100 Angstroms thick, [the prior art reference] directly teaches the use of a thickness within [applicant’s] claimed range."). See also In re Bergen, 120 F.2d 329, 332, 49 USPQ 749, 751-52 (CCPA 1941) (The court found that the overlapping endpoint of the prior art and claimed range was sufficient to support an obviousness rejection, particularly when there was no showing of criticality of the claimed range).
DEPENDENT CLAIM 4:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the tungsten film deposited through steps a) and b) has a thickness of 0.3 to 2.4 nm (3 Angstroms to 24 Angstroms).
Regarding claim 4, Rozibicki et al. teach depositing a barrier diffusion film between about 5 and 10 Angstroms. (Column 8 lines 3-10)
It should be noted that overlapping ranges have been held to be obvious.
See MPEP 2144.05 - Obviousness of similar and overlapping ranges, amounts and proportions -
I. OVERLAPPING, APPROACHING, AND SIMILAR RANGES, AMOUNTS, AND PROPORTIONS -
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of "about 1-5%" while the claim was limited to "more than 5%." The court held that "about 1-5%" allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (Claim reciting thickness of a protective layer as falling within a range of "50 to 100 Angstroms" considered prima facie obvious in view of prior art reference teaching that "for suitable protection, the thickness of the protective layer should be not less than about 10 nm [i.e., 100 Angstroms]." The court stated that "by stating that ‘suitable protection’ is provided if the protective layer is ‘about’ 100 Angstroms thick, [the prior art reference] directly teaches the use of a thickness within [applicant’s] claimed range."). See also In re Bergen, 120 F.2d 329, 332, 49 USPQ 749, 751-52 (CCPA 1941) (The court found that the overlapping endpoint of the prior art and claimed range was sufficient to support an obviousness rejection, particularly when there was no showing of criticality of the claimed range).
DEPENDENT CLAIM 6:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein DC power applied in step a) is less than 1.0 kW, and DC power applied in step c) is 1.0 kW or more and less than 3.0 kW.
Regarding claim 6, Rozibicki et al. teach utilizing a DC power of "About 1 kW" to 10 kW for sputtering. (Column 8 lines 45-46)
It would be obvious to utilize a known power for each step knowing the range from the prior art. Specifically selecting a known value in a known range would have been obvious for
best results.
See MPEP 2144.05 - Obviousness of similar and overlapping ranges, amounts and
proportions -
I. OVERLAPPING, APPROACHING, AND SIMILAR RANGES, AMOUNTS, AND
PROPORTIONS
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of "about 1-5%" while the claim was limited to "more than 5%." The court held that "about 1-5%" allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (Claim reciting thickness of a protective layer as falling within a range of "50 to 100 Angstroms" considered prima facie obvious in view of prior art reference teaching that "for suitable protection, the thickness of the protective layer should be not less than about 10 nm [i.e., 100 Angstroms]." The court stated that "by stating that ‘suitable protection’ is provided if the protective layer is ‘about’ 100 Angstroms thick, [the prior art reference] directly teaches the use of a thickness within [applicant’s] claimed range."). See also In re Bergen, 120 F.2d 329, 332, 49 USPQ 749, 751-52 (CCPA 1941) (The court found that the overlapping endpoint of the prior art and claimed range was sufficient to support an obviousness rejection, particularly when there was no showing of criticality of the claimed range).
Furthermore, "about 1 kW" is close to the claimed first step power range of "less than 1 kW".
Where a range is close a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America V. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of "having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium" as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium. "The proportions are SO close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties."). See also Warner-Jenkinson Co., Inc. V. Hilton Davis Chemical Co., 520 U.S. 17, 41 USPQ2d 1865 (1997) (under the doctrine of equivalents, a purification process using a pH of 5.0 could infringe a patented purification process requiring a pH of 6.0-9.0); In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%); In re Scherl, 156 F.2d 72, 74-75, 70 USPQ 204, 205-206 (CCPA 1946)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Rozibicki et al. is that it allows for forming a diffusion barrier in a low aspect ratio opening. (See Abstract) .
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have utilized the features of Rozibicki et al. because it allows for forming a diffusion barrier in a low aspect ratio opening.
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kailasam et al. in view of Cho et al. and Shaviv et al. as applied to claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 10 above, and further in view of Torazawa (U.S. PGPUB. 2009/0029545 A1).
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the RF bias treatment in step b) is performed at 50 W to 200 W for 2 to 10 seconds.
Regarding claim 8:
Kailasam et al. teach the rf bias treatment (resputtering) can be carried out at 100-3000 W. (Column 6 line 66)
It should be noted that overlapping ranges have been held to be obvious.
See MPEP 2144.05 - Obviousness of similar and overlapping ranges, amounts and proportions -
I. OVERLAPPING, APPROACHING, AND SIMILAR RANGES, AMOUNTS, AND
PROPORTIONS
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of "about 1-5%" while the claim was limited to "more than 5%." The court held that "about 1-5%" allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (Claim reciting thickness of a protective layer as falling within a range of "50 to 100 Angstroms" considered prima facie obvious in view of prior art reference teaching that "for suitable protection, the thickness of the protective layer should be not less than about 10 nm [i.e., 100 Angstroms]." The court stated that "by stating that ‘suitable protection’ is provided if the protective layer is ‘about’ 100 Angstroms thick, [the prior art reference] directly teaches the use of a thickness within [applicant’s] claimed range."). See also In re Bergen, 120 F.2d 329, 332, 49 USPQ 749, 751-52 (CCPA 1941) (The court found that the overlapping endpoint of the prior art and claimed range was sufficient to support an obviousness rejection, particularly when there was no showing of criticality of the claimed range).
Torazawa teaches resputtering for 5 seconds. (Paragraph 0073)
It should be noted that 5 seconds lies inside the range and that has been held to be obvious. See MPEP 2144.05 - Obviousness of similar and overlapping ranges, amounts and proportions –
I. OVERLAPPING, APPROACHING, AND SIMILAR RANGES, AMOUNTS, AND
PROPORTIONS
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of "about 1-5%" while the claim was limited to "more than 5%." The court held that "about 1-5%" allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (Claim reciting thickness of a protective layer as falling within a range of "50 to 100 Angstroms" considered prima facie obvious in view of prior art reference teaching that "for suitable protection, the thickness of the protective layer should be not less than about 10 nm [i.e., 100 Angstroms]." The court stated that "by stating that ‘suitable protection’ is provided if the protective layer is ‘about’ 100 Angstroms thick, [the prior art reference] directly teaches the use of a thickness within [applicant’s] claimed range."). See also In re Bergen, 120 F.2d 329, 332, 49 USPQ 749, 751-52 (CCPA 1941) (The court found that the overlapping endpoint of the prior art and claimed range was sufficient to support an obviousness rejection, particularly when there was no showing of criticality of the claimed range).
The motivation for utilizing the features of Torazawa is that it allows for reducing via resistance. (Paragraph 0016)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have utilized the features of Torazawa because it allows for reducing via resistance.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 16, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to the argument that Cho provides no teaching or motivation to modify Kailasam or Shaviv, it is argued that Cho’s motivation to control power density is that it allows control of the roughness. (See Cho discussed above0
In response to the argument that Kailasam teach applying both DC and RF bias power during the modifying step, it is argued that the secondary reference to Shaviv teach reducing the DC power to 0 to provide only the RF bias for modification of the deposited film.
In response to the argument that Shaviv teach utilizing only RF bias to achieve a net material removal which is not the same as the “modifying” step of the claims where the “modifying” is for surface modification through ion induced energy transfer (apparently without etching), it is argued that Shaviv teach utilizing surface modification through removal of material. The claims do not specify the metes and bounds of what surface modifying encompasses.
In response to applicant's argument that the prior art does not teach the problem solved by the invention, 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).
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 RODNEY GLENN MCDONALD whose telephone number is (571)272-1340. The examiner can normally be reached Hoteling: M-Th every Fri off.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, James Lin can be reached at 571-272-8902. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RODNEY G MCDONALD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794
RM
August 24, 2026
Prosecution Insights