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
Claims 1-2 and 11-20 are amended.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. While applicant cites Figs. 2, 5, 6, 13A-D and 14 and Par. 22-34 and 80-86 of their specification to support the amendments in claims 1 and similarly 11 these sections do not support the recited elements of:
“a prototype of a semiconductor device” and “a semiconductor manufacturing process” (examiner notes that the specification makes no mention of “a prototype” and only page 12 of the secifcation recites “The film FM3 may be formed of a material containing a semiconductor which does not support a semiconductor manufacturing process or a semiconductor device)
“the workpiece film being arranged above the substrate”, (examiner notes that while page 11 states “the side of a workpiece film FM on the sample SP (e.g., substrate)” this does not support “workpiece film being arranged above the substrate”)
“the workpiece film being formed of an insulating material as a main component” (examiner notes that specification page 12 recites “In the workpiece film FM, a film FM2 and a film FM1 are stacked” and “The film FM1 is, for example, an insulating film and can be formed of a material containing an oxide such as silicon oxide as a main component.”, this does not support the claim language as FM1 being made of an insulating film as a main component does not inherently mean the entire workpiece film is formed of an insulating material as a main component;)
“a reactive ion etching apparatus” (examiner notes that while page 11 recites “an ion (reactive ion) of the processing gas is accelerated” this does not support the limitation)
“iterate the measurement, the predicting, the determining, the adjusting, and the reconstructing with gradually elongating etching time to display reconstructed cross-sectional shapes of the sample with a longer etching time serially in turn on a display screen in order to temporally trace, without destruction, changes in processed cross-sectional shapes for the development of the process parameters of the dry etch in the semiconductor manufacturing process.” (examiner notes that looking at the cited figures and specification, it does not support iteratively performing the measurements steps nor “gradually elongating etching time to display reconstructed cross-sectional shapes of the sample with a longer etching time serially in turn on a display screen” as no description of gradually elongating the time is provided nor does the specification or drawings describe a “display”).
Claims 2-10 and 12-20 are rejected based on their inherited deficiencies.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Under step 1, claims 1 and 11 belongs to a statutory category.
Under Step 2A prong 1, the claims as a whole are identified as being directed to a judicial exception as claim 1 and similarly 11 recite(s) “predict a processed cross-sectional shape by applying a process parameter to a shape function including a physical model representing a physical phenomenon where an ion flux amount changes in accordance with an etching depth in a case where the hole pattern is processed in the reactive ion etching apparatus, determine a second spectral pattern in accordance with the processed cross-sectional shape that has been predicted, adjust the process parameter while comparing the first spectral pattern with the second spectral pattern, reconstruct the processed cross-sectional shape of the sample in accordance with an adjustment result”, and ‘iterate… the predicting, the determining, the adjusting, and the reconstructing with gradually elongating etching time’ which are directed to mathematical concepts and/or mental processes in light of applicants description in the specification see for example Figs. 10-11A-C and Par. 55-70.
Under Step 2A prong 2, evaluating whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application of that exception, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because “An inspection device comprising: a positioning mechanism that rotatably supports a sample, the sample including a substrate and a workpiece film, the sample being a prototype of a semiconductor device, the sample being prepared to develop process parameters of a dry etch in a semiconductor manufacturing process, the workpiece film being arranged above the substrate, the workpiece film being formed of an insulating material as a main component, the workpiece film having a hole pattern, the hole pattern extending from a surface of the workpiece film to an inside of the workpiece film, the hole pattern being formed by a reactive ion etching apparatus a radiation applier that applies an X-ray radiation beam to the surface of the workpiece film of the sample supported by the positioning mechanism; a radiation detector that collects the X-ray radiation beam scattered from the surface of the workpiece film of the sample;” are considered to be generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The elements of “a controller configured to: perform a measurement by causing the positioning mechanism to position the sample at a place where the X-ray radiation beam from the radiation applier is incident on the surface of the workpiece film, causing the radiation applier to apply the X-ray radiation beam to the workpiece film, and causing the radiation detector to collect the X-ray radiation beam scattered from the surface of the workpiece film to acquire a two-dimensional intensity distribution of the X-ray radiation beam as a first spectral pattern relating to a cross-sectional shape of the hole pattern which is formed on the surface of the workpiece film of the sample”, “iterate the measurement,” and “to display reconstructed cross-sectional shapes of the sample with a longer etching time serially in turn on a display screen in order to temporally trace, without destruction, changes in processed cross-sectional shapes for the development of the process parameters of the dry etch in the semiconductor manufacturing process” are considered to be data gathering and outputting steps required to use the correlation do not add a meaningful limitation to the method as they are insignificant extra-solution activity.
Under Step 2B, evaluating additional elements to determine whether they amount to an inventive concept both individually and in combination, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because “An inspection device comprising: a positioning mechanism that rotatably supports a sample, the sample including a substrate and a workpiece film, the sample being a prototype of a semiconductor device, the sample being prepared to develop process parameters of a dry etch in a semiconductor manufacturing process, the workpiece film being arranged above the substrate, the workpiece film being formed of an insulating material as a main component, the workpiece film having a hole pattern, the hole pattern extending from a surface of the workpiece film to an inside of the workpiece film, the hole pattern being formed by a reactive ion etching apparatus a radiation applier that applies an X-ray radiation beam to the surface of the workpiece film of the sample supported by the positioning mechanism; a radiation detector that collects the X-ray radiation beam scattered from the surface of the workpiece film of the sample;” are considered to be merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself per MPEP 2106.05(h) and are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities/elements previously known to the industry per MPEP 2106.05(d) (see prior art of record). The elements of “a controller configured to: perform a measurement by causing the positioning mechanism to position the sample at a place where the X-ray radiation beam from the radiation applier is incident on the surface of the workpiece film, causing the radiation applier to apply the X-ray radiation beam to the workpiece film, and causing the radiation detector to collect the X-ray radiation beam scattered from the surface of the workpiece film to acquire a two-dimensional intensity distribution of the X-ray radiation beam as a first spectral pattern relating to a cross-sectional shape of the hole pattern which is formed on the surface of the workpiece film of the sample”, “iterate the measurement,” and “to display reconstructed cross-sectional shapes of the sample with a longer etching time serially in turn on a display screen in order to temporally trace, without destruction, changes in processed cross-sectional shapes for the development of the process parameters of the dry etch in the semiconductor manufacturing process” are considered to be adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception per MPEP 2106.05(g) and are well-understood, routine, conventional activities/elements previously known to the industry per MPEP 2106.05(d)(see prior art of record).
Claims 2-9 and 12-19 further describe the abstract idea and/or data used in said abstract idea and do not include any elements that are integrated into a practical application and/or sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 10 and 20 do not include any elements that are integrated into a practical application and/or sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are considered to be data gathering steps required to use the correlation do not add a meaningful limitation to the method as they are insignificant extra-solution activity and are considered to be necessary data gathering and outputting to perform the abstract idea See MPEP 2106.05(g) and further is well-understood, routine, conventional activity per MPEP 2106.05(d) (see prior art of record).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 11-14 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Fan (US 20210150116 A1).
In claim 11, Fan discloses a method of developing process parameters, the method (Fig. 1) comprising: performing a dry etch (Par. 5, 183) of a sample (Fig. 1, W), the sample including a substrate (Par. 7 “substrate”) and a workpiece film (Par. 66), the sample being a prototype of a semiconductor device (Par. 5), the sample being prepared to develop process parameters of the dry etch (Par. 5, 183) in a semiconductor manufacturing process (Par. 5 “manufacturing”), the workpiece film being arranged above the substrate (Par. 124), the workpiece film being formed of an insulating material as a main component (Par. 257 “silicon wafer” examiner notes that silicon wafers contain silicon oxide), the dry etch making a hole pattern (See Fig. 11, 1112) on a vicinity of a surface of the workpiece film of the sample (See Fig. 11), the hole pattern extending from a surface of the workpiece film to an inside of the workpiece film (See Fig. 11), the hole pattern being formed by a reactive ion etching apparatus (Par. 183, 190); performing a measurement by positioning a sample (Fig. 1, W) with a predetermined pattern (Par. 99, 101-103 “patterning”, “pattern”) at a place where a radiation beam (Fig. 1 B) from a radiation applier is incident on the surface of the workpiece film of the sample (Fig. 1 SO BD); applying the radiation beam to the surface of the workpiece film of the sample (See Fig. 1); and collecting radiation scattered from the surface of the workpiece film of the sample to acquire a two-dimensional intensity distribution of radiation as a first spectral pattern relating to a cross-sectional shape of the hole pattern which is formed on the surface of the workpiece film of the sample (Par. 118, “angle resolved scatterometry is useful in the measurement of asymmetry of features in product and/or resist patterns”, Par. 135 “radiation intensity distribution” Fig. 11); predicting a processed cross-sectional shape (Par. 80, 143 “cross-section”, “an accurate shape using data from cross-sectional profile images”) by applying a parameter (Par. 143 “scatterometry measurements”) to a shape function (Par. 124-125, “function”, “simulation functions”) including a physical model representing a physical phenomenon (Par. 131 “a physical or modeled wafer”) where an ion flux amount changes (Par. 126, 149 “determining the flux information for the masking layer profile comprises adjusting one or more of an ion intensity”) in accordance with an etching depth (Par. 126, 157 “depth information”) in a case where the hole pattern is processed in the dry etching apparatus (Par. 144 examiner notes that dry etching is a technique that uses reactive gases to remove material from a surface thus considered it to be dry etching based on “The trim etching parameters or trim criteria may include a trim time, target dimensions, etch gas(es), etch gas ratios”); determining a second spectral pattern in accordance with the processed cross-sectional shape that has been predicted (Par. 38, 254 “using the predicted etch bias as input for defect prediction”); adjusting the parameter while comparing the first spectral pattern with the second spectral pattern (Par. 33, 145 “adjusting”); reconstructing the processed cross-sectional shape of the sample in accordance with a result that has been adjusted (Par. 110 “reconstructed”) and iterating the dry etch, the measurement, the predicting, the determining, the adjusting, and the reconstructing with gradually elongating etching time to display (Par. 164 “display”) reconstructed cross-sectional shapes of the sample with a longer etching time serially (Par. 152) in turn on a display screen (Par. 164 “display”) to temporally trace, without destruction, changes in processed cross- sectional shapes for the development of the process parameters of the dry etch in the semiconductor manufacturing process (Par. 153).
In claim 12, Fan discloses wherein the shape function is obtained by integrating (Par. 113 “array of CCD or CMOS sensors, and may use an integration time of, for example, 40 milliseconds per frame”) an amount of ion fluxes in a depth direction (Fig. 10, Par. 53), the ion fluxes incident on a sidewall of the hole pattern (Par. 120 “sidewall”) in accordance with an etching depth (Par. 32 “etch depth profile”).
In claim 13, Fan discloses wherein the shape function includes an ion incident angle distribution (Par. 9, 23, 32 86 120 “angle”) based on a velocity distribution function (Par. 120, “numerical Maxwell solver”).
In claim 14, Fan discloses wherein the shape function includes an ion incident angle distribution based on an addition of plural different velocity distribution functions (Par. 120, “numerical Maxwell solver”).
In claim 16, Fan discloses wherein the shape function is a solution of an algebraic equation including, in order, a parameter indicating a degree of divergence of ions (Par. 120 “radiation distribution” “difference between the measured radiation distribution 608 and the computed radiation distribution 612”).
In claim 17, Fan discloses wherein the shape function further indicates a change in shape in accordance with an etching time (Par. 143-144 “shape” “trim time”).
In claim 18, Fan discloses wherein the shape function further includes a coefficient depending on the etching time (Par. 144 “trim etching parameters or trim criteria may include a trim time”).
In claim 19, Fan discloses wherein the coefficient includes an amount obtained (abstract “re-deposition information indicates dependence of the etch rate on an amount of material removed from the masking layer profile”) by multiplying an etching rate by time (Par. 146 “trim etching parameters or trim criteria may include” “etch rate” “trim time”).
In claim 20, Fan discloses measuring radiation diffracted by the sample at a time when radiation is applied to the sample (Par. 103, 119).
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fan (US 20210150116 A1) in view of Bauer (US 20160356729 A1).
In claim 1, Fan discloses an inspection device (Fig. 1) comprising: a positioning mechanism (Fig. 1, PW) that supports a sample (Fig. 1, W), the sample including a substrate (Par. 7 “substrate”) and a workpiece film (Par. 66), the sample being a prototype of a semiconductor device (Par. 5), the sample being prepared to develop process parameters of a dry etch (Par. 5, 183) in a semiconductor manufacturing process (Par. 5 “manufacturing”), the workpiece film being arranged above the substrate (Par. 124), the workpiece film being formed of an insulating material as a main component (Par. 257 “silicon wafer” examiner notes that silicon wafers contain silicon oxide), the workpiece film having a hole pattern (See Fig. 11, 1112), the hole pattern extending from a surface of the workpiece film to an inside of the workpiece film (See Fig. 11), the hole pattern being formed by a reactive ion etching apparatus (Par. 183, 190) a radiation applier that applies an X-ray radiation beam (Par. 256 “wavelengths within a range of 20-5 nm” examiner notes that X-ray beams go from .01 to 10 nm thus included) to the surface of the workpiece film of the sample of the sample supported by the positioning mechanism (See Fig. 1); a radiation detector that collects the X-ray radiation beam scattered from the surface of the workpiece film (Fig. 1, PS Par. 85, 103 “a beam of radiation is directed onto a target on the surface of the substrate and properties of the scattered (diffracted/reflected) beam are measured”); and a controller (Par. 100 “control unit”) configured to perform a measurement by causing the positioning mechanism to position the sample at a place where the X-ray radiation beam from the radiation applier is incident on the surface of the workpiece film, and causing the radiation applier to apply the X-ray radiation beam to the workpiece film (Par. 91 “the substrate table WT can be moved accurately, e.g. so as to position different target portions C in the path of the radiation beam B”), causing the radiation detector to collect X-ray radiation scattered from the surface of the workpiece film to acquire a two-dimensional intensity distribution of the X-ray radiation beam as a first spectral pattern relating to a cross- sectional shape of the hole pattern which is formed on the surface of the workpiece film of the sample, (Par. 118, “angle resolved scatterometry is useful in the measurement of asymmetry of features in product and/or resist patterns”, Par. 135 “radiation intensity distribution” Fig. 11), predict a processed cross-sectional shape (Par. 80, 143 “cross-section”, “an accurate shape using data from cross-sectional profile images”) by applying a parameter (Par. 143 “scatterometry measurements”) to a shape function (Par. 124-125, “function”, “simulation functions”) including a physical model representing a physical phenomenon (Par. 131 “a physical or modeled wafer”) where an ion flux amount (Par. 126, 149 “determining the flux information for the masking layer profile comprises adjusting one or more of an ion intensity”) changes in accordance with an etching depth (Par. 126, 157 “depth information”) in a case where the hole pattern is processed in the reactive ion etching apparatus (Par. 144 examiner notes that dry etching is a technique that uses reactive gases to remove material from a surface thus considered it to be dry etching based on “The trim etching parameters or trim criteria may include a trim time, target dimensions, etch gas(es), etch gas ratios”), determine a second spectral pattern in accordance with the processed cross-sectional shape that has been predicted (Par. 38, 254 “using the predicted etch bias as input for defect prediction”), adjust the process parameter while comparing the first spectral pattern with the second spectral pattern (Par. 33, 145 “adjusting”), and reconstructs the processed cross-sectional shape of the sample in accordance with an adjustment result (Par. 110 “reconstructed”), and iterate the measurement, the predicting, the determining, the adjusting, and the reconstructing with gradually elongating etching time to display (Par. 164 “display”) reconstructed cross-sectional shapes of the sample with a longer etching time serially (Par. 152) in turn on a display screen (Par. 164 “display”) in order to temporally trace, without destruction, changes in processed cross-sectional shapes for the development of the process parameters of the dry etch in the semiconductor manufacturing process (Par. 153).
Fan does not explicitly disclose a positioning mechanism that rotatably supports a sample (emphasis added).
Bauer teaches a positioning mechanism that rotatably supports a sample (Par. 18 “manipulator end effector is adapted to be controlled so as to rotate the sample”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was filled to have a positioning mechanism that rotatably supports a sample as taught by Bauer in Fan in order to allow for bringing the specimen into the required geometry for particle beam processing and then returned to the required geometry to collect the electron diffraction pattern without detaching the end effector from the specimen (Bauer Par. 29) thus improving the efficiency of the transition between steps during the process.
In claim 2, Fan discloses wherein the shape function is obtained by integrating (Par. 113 “array of CCD or CMOS sensors, and may use an integration time of, for example, 40 milliseconds per frame”) an amount of ion fluxes in a depth direction (Fig. 10, Par. 53), the ion fluxes incident on a sidewall of the hole pattern (Par. 120 “sidewall”) in accordance with an etching depth (Par. 32 “etch depth profile”).
In claim 3, Fan discloses wherein the shape function includes an ion incident angle distribution (Par. 9, 23, 32 86 120 “angle”) based on a velocity distribution function (Par. 120, “numerical Maxwell solver”).
In claim 4, Fan discloses wherein the shape function includes an ion incident angle distribution based on an addition of plural different velocity distribution functions (Par. 120, “numerical Maxwell solver”).
In claim 6, Fan discloses wherein the shape function is a solution of an algebraic equation including, in order, a parameter indicating a degree of divergence of ions (Par. 120 “radiation distribution” “difference between the measured radiation distribution 608 and the computed radiation distribution 612”).
In claim 7, Fan discloses wherein the shape function further indicates a change in shape in accordance with an etching time (Par. 143-144 “shape” “trim time”).
In claim 8, Fan discloses wherein the shape function further includes a coefficient depending on the etching time (Par. 144 “trim etching parameters or trim criteria may include a trim time”).
In claim 9, Fan discloses wherein the coefficient includes an amount obtained (abstract “re-deposition information indicates dependence of the etch rate on an amount of material removed from the masking layer profile”) by multiplying an etching rate by time (Par. 146 “trim etching parameters or trim criteria may include” “etch rate” “trim time”).
In claim 10, Fan discloses wherein the radiation applier and the radiation detector measure radiation diffracted by the sample at a time when radiation is applied to the sample (Par. 103, 119), and generate the first spectral pattern in accordance with a measurement result (Par. 103).
Claim(s) 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fan in view of Bauer and Fan as in claims 3 and 13 above respectively, and in further in view of Topographical simulation of intermetal dielectric deposition and interconnection metal disposition processes hence forth NPL1.
In claim 5, Fan discloses wherein, when a divergence angle of ions is defined as θ (Par. 152 “incident angle” Eq. 3) and a parameter indicating a degree of divergence of ions is defined as n (Par. 120 “difference between the measured radiation distribution 608 and the computed radiation distribution 612”, Par. 152 “determining etch rates based on the ion and neutral distributions”).
Fan does not explicitly disclose the shape function includes cosn+2 θ.
NPL1 teaches equations for gas phase particle transport and angular distribution (See page 10 equations).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the shape function includes cosn+2 θ as it is a simply a matter of applying a known mathematical model as taught by NPL1 to Fan’s calculations of said function thus leading to predictable results.
In claim 15, Fan discloses wherein, when a divergence angle of ions is defined as θ (Par. 152 “incident angle” Eq. 3) and a parameter indicating a degree of divergence of ions is defined as n (Par. 120 “difference between the measured radiation distribution 608 and the computed radiation distribution 612”, Par. 152 “determining etch rates based on the ion and neutral distributions”).
Fan does not explicitly disclose the shape function includes cosn+2 θ.
NPL1 teaches equations for gas phase particle transport and angular distribution (See page 10 equations).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filled to have the shape function includes cosn+2 θ as it is a simply a matter of applying a known mathematical model as taught by NPL1 to Fan’s calculations of said function thus leading to predictable results.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/30/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding applicant’s 112a arguments, the rejection is maintained based on the amendments. Regarding applicant’s 101 arguments on pages 9-14 the examiner respectfully disagrees. As cited above, the amended claim language does not overcome the rejection. While the claims may not explicitly recite mathematical equations, it is clear in view of applicant’s specification that they are performing mathematical calculations. Per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C) “There is no particular word or set of words that indicates a claim recites a mathematical calculation. That is, a claim does not have to recite the word “calculating” in order to be considered a mathematical calculation. For example, a step of “determining” a variable or number using mathematical methods or “performing” a mathematical operation may also be considered mathematical calculations when the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification encompasses a mathematical calculation”, thus while the applicant asserts the claims do not recite “mathematical concepts” explicit recitation is not required. Regarding applicant’s first point the cited elements are generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use as cited above. Regarding applicant’s second point per MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) “Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology”.
Regarding applicant’s 102 and 103 arguments, the amendments are disclosed as cited above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20170284949 A1, GRAZING INCIDENCE X-RAY FLUORESCENCE SPECTROMETER AND GRAZING INCIDENCE X-RAY FLUORESCENCE ANALYZING METHOD; US 20200041426 A1, DETERMINING TILT ANGLE IN PATTERNED ARRAYS OF HIGH ASPECT RATIO STRUCTURES; US 20200238284 A1, FLUIDIC CARBON NANOTUBE DEVICE.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRANDON J BECKER whose telephone number is (571)431-0689. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-5:30.
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, Shelby Turner can be reached at (571) 272-6334. 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.
/B.J.B/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/SHELBY A TURNER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857