DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This office action is in response to applicant’s Election/Restriction filed on 11/28/2025.
Currently claims 1-22 and 26-28 are pending in the application.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-22, in the reply filed on 11/28/2025 is acknowledged. New claims 26-28 are accepted for prosecution.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/19/2023 was filed before the mailing date of the office action. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement was considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 26 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 26, the limitation of the claim, “the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the first layer comprises a ferroelectric material comprising hafnium, oxygen, and zirconium”, is identical to claim 16 which states, “the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the first layer comprises a ferroelectric material comprising hafnium, oxygen, and zirconium”.
The applicant may cancel the claim or make amendments to the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 (b)
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.
Claims 1-22 and 22-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly pointing out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regard as their invention.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation of the invention, ‘…the second layer substantially filling the recess such that a volume between adjacent pillars is substantially filled by the second layer…’. The term "substantially" is a relative term. It modifies the target, the target being the “filling the recess” and “filling the volume between adjacent pillars”. Therefore, neither the claim nor the specification reveal what acceptable deviations from “filling the recess” and “filling the volume between adjacent pillars” are acceptable in order to be considered “substantially filling the recess” and “volume between adjacent pillars is substantially filled”, rendering the claim indefinite. Clarification and/or correction are/is required. A review of the specification does not reveal sufficient definition of the term to define the metes and bounds of the claim. For the purpose of examination, the examiner did not give any weight to the term “substantially”.
Claims 2-22 and 22-26 are also rejected due to their dependence on rejected base claim.
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 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 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)(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 1-6, 9-10, 20-21 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by US 2020/028/6984 A1 (Chang).
Regarding claim 1, Chang discloses, an apparatus (100; capacitor; Fig. 7A; [0028]) comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
467
776
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a plurality of pillars (as annotated on Fig. 7A; [0027]) comprising a first metal (electrode 102-1 made of titanium metal, in the form of titanium nitride; [0017]), individual of the pillars comprising a top surface and an outer surface (as annotated on Fig. 7A; [0027]);
a first layer (110; inter-electrode stack, made of ferroelectric material or an antiferroelectric material) comprising a ferroelectric material or an antiferroelectric material, the first layer (110) located on the top surface and the outer surface of the pillars (as evident in Fig. 7A);
a second layer (102-2; electrode; Fig. 7A; [0027]) comprising a second metal (Chang teaches that the electrode 102-1 and the electrode 102-2 may have a different material composition, which means 102-2 can be a second metal; [0017]), wherein the second layer (102-2) is located on the top surface and the outer surface of the pillars, the first layer (110) positioned between the pillars and the second layer (as evident in Fig. 7A),
PNG
media_image2.png
1182
1304
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein the pillars are located (evident from Figs. 7A and 11) within a recess (as annotated on Fig. 11; [0046]) of a dielectric layer (1626; dielectric layer; Fig. 11; [0046]), the second layer (102-2) substantially filling the recess such that a volume between adjacent pillars is substantially filled by the second layer (102-2); and
a substrate (1602; substrate; Fig. 11; [0045]), the pillars located on the substrate (1602).
Regarding claim 2, Chang discloses, the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the volume between adjacent pillars does not comprise a dielectric material (Fig. 11 and 7A; [0046]).
Regarding claim 3, Chang discloses, the apparatus of claim 1, wherein a portion of the first layer (110) encompasses a top surface and an outer surface of one of the pillars (as evident in Fig. 7A), a cross-section of the portion of the first layer (110) having a U-shape that opens toward a surface of the substrate (it is evident in light of Fig. 7A and Fig. 11).
PNG
media_image1.png
467
776
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Chang discloses, the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the substrate (1602) comprises silicon ([0035]).
Regarding claim 5, Chang discloses, the apparatus of claim 1, wherein a base of one of the pillars is located on (including intervening layers; it is evident in Fig. 7A and Fig. 11) and conductively coupled to a surface (top surface) of the substrate (1602; base of the pillar must be conductively coupled to the substrate in order to include the capacitor structure effectively in the integrated circuit).
Regarding claim 6, Chang discloses, the apparatus of claim 5, wherein the base is conductively coupled to a source region or a drain region of transistor (Fig. 8; [0042]), the source region or the drain region located on a surface region of the substrate (1602) and comprising one or more n-type or p-type dopants (source/drain regions will have n-type or p-type dopants).
PNG
media_image3.png
689
628
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, Chang discloses, the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the first metal comprises: copper; tungsten; nickel; molybdenum; or titanium and nitrogen ([0017]).
Regarding claim 10, Chang discloses, the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the second metal comprises: copper; tungsten; nickel; molybdenum; or titanium and nitrogen ([0017]).
Regarding claim 20, Chang discloses, the apparatus of claim 1, wherein one of the pillars is a bottom electrode of a capacitor, a portion of the first layer encompassing the top surface and the outer surface of the one of the pillars is an insulator of the capacitor, and a portion of the second layer positioned adjacent to the portion of the first layer is a second electrode of the capacitor (Fig. 7A; [0027]).
PNG
media_image1.png
467
776
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 21, Chang discloses, the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the apparatus comprises an integrated circuit component (which includes the capacitor 100) comprising the pillars, the first layer, and the second layer (Fig. 7A; [0027]).
PNG
media_image1.png
467
776
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 27, Chang discloses, the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the apparatus further comprises one or more transistors (Fig. 11; [0034]).
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 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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/028/6984 A1 (Chang).
Regarding claim 8, Chang discloses, the apparatus of claim 1, wherein a thickness of the first layer (110) is in a range of about 1-45 nanometers ([0022]). Chang teaches the thickness of the ferroelectric layer between 2 nm and 22 nm which overlaps the claimed thickness of about 1-45 nanometers. In MPEP 2144.05 (I), it is stated that 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). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the above claimed ranges since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working range involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (See MPEP 2144.05 (II) (A)).
Claims 11 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US 2002/0130337 A1 (Machida).
Regarding claim 11, Chang teaches, the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the first layer comprises a ferroelectric material comprising barium and oxygen, but fails to teach explicitly, the ferroelectric material also comprises iron.
However, in analogous art, Machida discloses, the first layer comprises a ferroelectric material comprising barium, iron, and oxygen ([0030]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Chang and Machida before him/her, to modify the teachings of a ferroelectric capacitor including a ferroelectric layer as taught by Chang and to include the teachings of ferroelectric material also comprising iron as taught by Machida since in MPEP 2143 (I) (A), it is stated that Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is obvious. Absent this important teaching in Chang, a person with ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to reach out to Machida while forming a ferroelectric capacitor of Chang.
Regarding claim 15, Chang fails to teach explicitly, the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the first layer comprises a ferroelectric material comprising: calcium, niobium, titanium, and oxygen; lead, bismuth, niobium, and oxygen; calcium, niobium, nitrogen, and oxygen, bismuth, titanium, and oxygen, barium, hafnium, titanium, and oxygen; barium, calcium, zirconium, titanium, and oxygen; gadolinium, iron, and oxygen; or gadolinium, lanthanum, iron, and oxygen.
However, in analogous art, Machida discloses, the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the first layer comprises a ferroelectric material comprising: calcium, niobium, titanium, and oxygen; lead, bismuth, niobium, and oxygen; calcium, niobium, nitrogen, and oxygen, bismuth, titanium, and oxygen, barium, hafnium, titanium, and oxygen; barium, calcium, zirconium, titanium, and oxygen; gadolinium, iron, and oxygen; or gadolinium, lanthanum, iron, and oxygen ([0030]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Chang and Machida before him/her, to modify the teachings of a ferroelectric capacitor including a ferroelectric layer as taught by Chang and to include the teachings of ferroelectric material comprising calcium, niobium, titanium, and oxygen as taught by Machida since in MPEP 2143 (I) (A), it is stated that Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is obvious. Absent this important teaching in Chang, a person with ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to reach out to Machida while forming a ferroelectric capacitor of Chang.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US 2005/0051823 A1 (Nakazawa).
Regarding claim 13, Chang fails to teach explicitly, the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the first layer comprises a ferroelectric material comprising lead, zirconium, titanium, and oxygen.
However, in analogous art, Nakazawa discloses, the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the first layer comprises a ferroelectric material comprising lead, zirconium, titanium, and oxygen ([0040]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Chang and Nakazawa before him/her, to modify the teachings of a ferroelectric capacitor including a ferroelectric layer as taught by Chang and to include the teachings of ferroelectric material comprising lead, zirconium, titanium, and oxygen as taught by Nakazawa since in MPEP 2143 (I) (A), it is stated that Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is obvious. Absent this important teaching in Chang, a person with ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to reach out to Nakazawa while forming a ferroelectric capacitor of Chang.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US 5,244,742 A (Ogi).
Regarding claim 14, Chang fails to teach explicitly, the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the first layer comprises a ferroelectric material comprising: lead, niobium, zirconium, titanium, and oxygen; lead, lanthanum, zirconium, titanium, and oxygen; lanthanum, bismuth, iron, and oxygen; bismuth, iron, cobalt, and oxygen; lithium, niobium, oxygen; or potassium, niobium, and oxygen.
However, in analogous art, Ogi discloses, the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the first layer comprises a ferroelectric material comprising: lead, niobium, zirconium, titanium, and oxygen; lead, lanthanum, zirconium, titanium, and oxygen; lanthanum, bismuth, iron, and oxygen; bismuth, iron, cobalt, and oxygen; lithium, niobium, oxygen; or potassium, niobium, and oxygen (Col. 2, lines 30-40).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Chang and Ogi before him/her, to modify the teachings of a ferroelectric capacitor including a ferroelectric layer as taught by Chang and to include the teachings of ferroelectric material comprising lead, lanthanum, zirconium, titanium, and oxygen as taught by Ogi since in MPEP 2143 (I) (A), it is stated that Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is obvious. Absent this important teaching in Chang, a person with ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to reach out to Ogi while forming a ferroelectric capacitor of Chang.
Claims 16, 18 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US 2016/0372478 A1 (Ino).
Regarding claim 16, Chang fails to teach explicitly, the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the first layer comprises a ferroelectric material comprising hafnium, oxygen, and zirconium.
However, in analogous art, Ino discloses, the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the first layer comprises a ferroelectric material comprising hafnium, oxygen, and zirconium ([0036]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Chang and Ino before him/her, to modify the teachings of a ferroelectric capacitor including a ferroelectric layer as taught by Chang and to include the teachings of ferroelectric material comprising hafnium, oxygen, and zirconium as taught by Ino since in MPEP 2143 (I) (A), it is stated that Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is obvious. Absent this important teaching in Chang, a person with ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to reach out to Ino while forming a ferroelectric capacitor of Chang.
Regarding claim 18, Chang fails to teach explicitly, the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the first layer comprises a ferroelectric material comprising: hafnium; oxygen; and one or more of silicon, aluminum, yttrium, gadolinium, germanium, lead, zirconium, titanium, tin, strontium, lanthanum, and niobium.
However, in analogous art, Ino discloses, the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the first layer comprises a ferroelectric material comprising: hafnium; oxygen; and one or more of silicon, aluminum, yttrium, gadolinium, germanium, lead, zirconium, titanium, tin, strontium, lanthanum, and niobium ([0036]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Chang and Ino before him/her, to modify the teachings of a ferroelectric capacitor including a ferroelectric layer as taught by Chang and to include the teachings of ferroelectric material comprising hafnium, oxygen, and zirconium as taught by Ino since in MPEP 2143 (I) (A), it is stated that Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is obvious. Absent this important teaching in Chang, a person with ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to reach out to Ino while forming a ferroelectric capacitor of Chang.
Regarding claim 26, Chang fails to teach explicitly, the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the first layer comprises a ferroelectric material comprising hafnium, oxygen, and zirconium.
However, in analogous art, Ino discloses, the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the first layer comprises a ferroelectric material comprising hafnium, oxygen, and zirconium ([0036]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Chang and Ino before him/her, to modify the teachings of a ferroelectric capacitor including a ferroelectric layer as taught by Chang and to include the teachings of ferroelectric material comprising hafnium, oxygen, and zirconium as taught by Ino since in MPEP 2143 (I) (A), it is stated that Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is obvious. Absent this important teaching in Chang, a person with ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to reach out to Ino while forming a ferroelectric capacitor of Chang.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US 2021/0359100 A1 (Maeng).
Regarding claim 17, Chang fails to teach explicitly, the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the first layer comprises a antiferroelectric material comprising hafnium, oxygen, and zirconium.
However, in analogous art, Maeng discloses, the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the first layer comprises a antiferroelectric material comprising hafnium, oxygen, and zirconium ([0036] – [0037]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Chang and Maeng before him/her, to modify the teachings of a ferroelectric capacitor including a ferroelectric/anti-ferroelectric layer as taught by Chang and to include the teachings of anti-ferroelectric material comprising hafnium, oxygen, and zirconium as taught by Maeng since in MPEP 2143 (I) (A), it is stated that Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is obvious. Absent this important teaching in Chang, a person with ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to reach out to Maeng while forming a ferroelectric capacitor of Chang.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US 2023/0012093 A1 (Kakushima).
Regarding claim 19, Chang fails to teach explicitly, the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the first layer comprises: silicon and oxygen; silicon, oxygen, and carbon; silicon, oxygen, and fluorine; silicon, oxygen, and hydrogen; or silicon and nitrogen.
However, in analogous art, Kakushima discloses, the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the first layer comprises: silicon and oxygen; silicon, oxygen, and carbon; silicon, oxygen, and fluorine; silicon, oxygen, and hydrogen; or silicon and nitrogen ([0313]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Chang and Kakushima before him/her, to modify the teachings of a ferroelectric capacitor including a first layer as taught by Chang and to include the teachings of first layer comprising oxygen and silicon as taught by Kakushima since in MPEP 2143 (I) (A), it is stated that Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is obvious. Absent this important teaching in Chang, a person with ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to reach out to Kakushima while forming a ferroelectric capacitor of Chang.
Claims 22 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US 2017/0114241 A1 (Almadhoun).
Regarding claim 22, Chang teaches, the apparatus of claim 1, the first integrated circuit component comprising the pillars, the first layer, and the second layer (Fig. 7A; [0027]),
PNG
media_image1.png
467
776
media_image1.png
Greyscale
But Chang fails to teach explicitly, wherein the apparatus comprises: a printed circuit board; and a first integrated circuit component attached to the printed circuit board,
However, in analogous art, Almadhoun discloses, wherein the apparatus comprises: a printed circuit board; and a first integrated circuit component attached to the printed circuit board ([0016]; usually integrated circuit component is attached to the printed circuit board along with the capacitor).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Chang and Almadhoun before him/her, to modify the teachings of a ferroelectric capacitor as taught by Chang and to include the teachings of ferroelectric capacitor being part of a integrated circuit and a printed circuit board as taught by Almadhoun since this is how the ferroelectric capacitors are connected to the integrated circuit package. Absent this important teaching in Chang, a person with ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to reach out to Almadhoun while forming a ferroelectric capacitor of Chang.
Regarding claim 28, the combination of Chang and Almadhoun discloses, the apparatus of claim 22, wherein the apparatus further comprises one or more second integrated circuit components attached to the printed circuit board ([0016]; Almadhoun Ref.; Almadhoun teaches that the ferroelectric material, capacitor, or thin film transistor in the printed circuit board or integrated circuit can be included as part of a communications circuit, a sensing circuit, or a control circuit. Therefore, it is possible to have multiple integrated circuit components attached to the printed circuit board). In MPEP 2144.04 (VI) (B), it is stated that the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 12 are objected to as being dependent upon rejected base claims, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent forms including all of the limitations of the base claims and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 7, the closest prior art, US 2020/028/6984 A1 (Chang), in combination with US 2002/0130337 A1 (Machida), US 2002/0130337 A1 (Nakazawa) and US 5,244,742 A (Ogi), fails to disclose, “the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the first layer comprises a plurality of portions, individual of the portions physically separate from all other portions, individual of the portions encompassing the top surface and the outer surface of at least one of the pillars”, in combination with the additionally claimed features, as are claimed by the Applicant.
Regarding claim 12, the closest prior art, US 2020/028/6984 A1 (Chang), in combination with US 2002/0130337 A1 (Machida), US 2002/0130337 A1 (Nakazawa) and US 5,244,742 A (Ogi), fails to disclose, “the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the first layer comprises a ferroelectric material comprising lanthanum, barium, iron, and oxygen”, in combination with the additionally claimed features, as are claimed by the Applicant.
Note: The objected claims which are also subjected to 112 (b) rejection are shown as rejected claims in PTO-326 Form.
Examiner’s Note (Additional Prior Arts)
The examiner included a few prior arts which were not used in the rejection but are relevant to the disclosure.
US 2020/0066916 A1 (Chen) - A MFM structure is disclosed that includes a resistance component, an inductance component and a capacitance component. The MFM device is equivalent to a series LC circuit with the resistance component coupled in parallel with the capacitance component. The MFM structure is used as a series LC resonant circuit, band-pass circuit, band-stop circuit, low-pass filter, high-pass filter, oscillators, or negative capacitors.
US 2023/0328997 A1 (Lu) - A ferroelectric memory device is disclosed including a multi-layer stack disposed on a substrate. The multi-layer stack has a plurality of conductive layers and a plurality of dielectric layers stacked alternately. A channel layer penetrates through the plurality of conductive layers and the plurality of dielectric layers. A ferroelectric layer is disposed between the channel layer and both of the plurality of conductive layers and the plurality of dielectric layers. A plurality of oxygen scavenging layers are disposed along sidewalls of the plurality of conductive layer. The plurality of oxygen scavenging layers laterally separate the ferroelectric layer from the plurality of conductive layers
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to S M SOHEL IMTIAZ whose telephone number is (408) 918-7566. The examiner can normally be reached on 8AM-5PM, M-F, PST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christine S. Kim can be reached at 571-272-8458. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/S M SOHEL IMTIAZ/Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2812
01/30/2025