DETAILED ACTION
This Office action responds to Applicant’s election filed on 09/09/2025.
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 . In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for a 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.
Amendment Status
The present Office action is made with all previously suggested amendments being fully considered. Accordingly, pending in this Office action are claims 1-2, 4-13, 15-16, and 27-29.
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, 9, 12, 15, and 27-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xue (US 2021/0398926) in view of Henneck (US 2015/0325535).
Regarding claim 1, Xue (see, e.g., figs. 1Aii, and 1B-1E) shows most aspects of the instant invention including a method of manufacturing an integrated circuit 100, comprising:
Depositing a first metal layer 120 over a bonding pad support layer 110
Patterning the first metal layer 120 to define a lower bonding pad layer 120G/120 (see, e.g., par. [0011])
Conformally depositing a passivation layer 130/140 over the lower bonding pad layer 120G/120 (see, e.g., par. [0011])
Forming a passivation opening 124/126 in the passivation layer 130/140 to expose a portion of an upper surface of the lower bonding pad layer 120G/120 (see, e.g., par. [0012])
Conformally depositing a second metal layer 180 over the passivation layer 130/140 and in contact with the upper surface of the lower bonding pad layer 120G/120 in the passivation openings 124/126
Upper and lower bonding pad layers 120G/120/180G/180S form a bonding pad for an integrated circuit 100 (see, e.g., par. [0011])
Xue, however, fails (see, e.g., figs. 1Aii, and 1B-1E) to specify the step of patterning the second metal layer 180 to define un upper bonding pad layer 180G/180S. Xue shows a different step method to define the upper bonding pad layer 180G/180S by removing the patterned photoresist layer underneath the deposited second metal layer 180.
Henneck, in a similar method to Xue, teaches (see, e.g., figs. 4A-4H) the method step of patterning the second metal layer 402/409 to define an upper bonding pad layer 402/409 (see, e.g., fig. 4H, and par. [0113]). Yao further teaches that the method step of patterning the second metal with an etch mask is to perform a wet-etching of the parts of the second metal layer 402/409 in order to define a gate contact pad and a source/drain contact pad (see, e.g., par. [0100] and [0111]).
It would have been obvious at the time of filing the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the method step of patterning the second metal layer in the method of Xue, as taught by Henneck, to perform a wet-etching of the parts of the second metal layer in order to define a gate contact pad and a source/drain contact pad.
Regarding claim 9, Xue in view of Henneck shows (see, e.g., Xue: figs. 1Aii, and 1B-1E) that conformally depositing the second metal layer 180 is performed in the absence of a sputter etch (see, e.g., Xue: fig. 1D, and par. [0015]) (depositing the second metal layer 180 is done by plating).
Regarding claim 12, Xue in view of Henneck shows (see, e.g., Henneck: figs. 4A-4H) that patterning of the second metal layer 402/409 comprises performing a wet etching (see, e.g., Henneck: par. [0111] – [0112]).
Regarding claim 15, Xue in view of Henneck shows (see, e.g., Henneck: figs. 4A-4H) that the lateral dimension of the upper bonding pad layer 402/409 is larger than a corresponding lateral dimension of the lower bonding pad layer 407a/407b. Xue in view of Henneck also shows (see, e.g., Xue: figs. 1Aii, and 1B-1E) that a lateral side edge of the upper bonding pad layer 180 is aligned with a lateral side edge of the passivation layer 130/140.
Regarding claim 27, Xue in view of Henneck shows (see, e.g., Henneck: figs. 4A-4H) that a lateral dimension of the upper bonding pad layer 402/409 is larger than a lateral dimension of the passivation opening in the passivation layer 408.
Regarding claim 28, Xue in view of Henneck shows (see, e.g., Henneck: figs. 4A-4H) the at the first metal layer 407a contains copper (see, e.g., Henneck: par. [0100]). Xue in view of Henneck shows (see, e.g., Xue: figs. 1Aii, and 1B-1E) that the second metal layer 120G contains copper (see, e.g., Xue: par: [0013]). Thus, Xue in view of Henneck shows that the first and the second metal layers are made of a same metal material.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xue in view of Henneck in further view of Chhun (US 2019/0088695).
Regarding claim 2, Xue in view of Henneck shows most aspects of the instant invention (see paragraphs 6-9 above) including that the bonding pad support layer 406 comprises an insulating layer (see, e.g., Henneck: fig. 4A, and par. [0098]).
However, Xue in view of Henneck fails to show that the bonding pad support layer 406 (see, e.g., Henneck: fig. 4A) comprises a premetallization layer. Chhun, in a similar method to the combined teachings of Xue and Henneck, also teaches (see, e.g., fig. 2A) that the bonding pad support layer 120 comprises a premetallization layer (see, e.g., par. [0023]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to use either the insulating layer of the combined teaching of Xue and Henneck or the premetallization layer of Chhun because these were recognized in the semiconductor art for their use as bonding pad support layers in methods of manufacturing semiconductor device, as taught by Xue in view of Henneck and by Chhun, and selecting between known equivalents would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.--,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xue in view of Henneck in further view of Nakano (US 2021/0305369).
Regarding claim 4, Xue in view of Henneck shows most aspects of the instant invention (see paragraphs 6-9 above) including that the passivation layer 408 comprises an imide material layer (see, e.g., Henneck: fig. 4A, and par. [0101]).
However, Xue in view of Henneck fails to show that the passivation layer 408 (see, e.g., Henneck: fig. 4A) comprises a nitride layer. Nakano, in a similar method to the combined teachings of Xue and Henneck, also teaches (see, e.g., fig. 8) that the passivation layer 56 comprises a silicon nitride layer (see, e.g., par. [0161]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to use either the imide material layer of the combined teaching of Xue and Henneck or the silicon nitride layer of Nakano because these were recognized in the semiconductor art for their use as passivation layers in methods of manufacturing semiconductor devices, as taught by Xue in view of Henneck and by Nakano, and selecting between known equivalents would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.--,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xue in view of Henneck in further view of Birner (US 2021/0336043).
Regarding claim 5, Xue in view of Henneck shows most aspects of the instant invention (see paragraphs 6-9 above) including that the passivation layer 408 comprises an imide material layer (see, e.g., Henneck: par. [0101]). However, the combination of Xue reference and the Henneck reference fails to show that the passivation layer 408 (see, e.g., Henneck: fig. 4A) comprises a tetraethyl orthosilicate (TEOS) layer. Birner, in a similar method to the combined teachings of Xue in view of Henneck, also teaches (see, e.g., fig. 8) that the passivation layer 44 comprises a TEOS layer (see, e.g., par. [0095]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to use either the imide material layer of the combined teaching of Xue and Henneck or the TEOS layer of Birner because these were recognized in the semiconductor art for their use as passivation layers in methods of manufacturing semiconductor devices, as taught by Xue in view of Henneck and by Birner, and selecting between known equivalents would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.--,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 6, Xue in view of Henneck shows most aspects of the instant invention (see paragraphs 6-11 above) including that the passivation layer 408 comprises an imide material layer (see, e.g., Henneck: par. [0101]). However, the combination of Xue reference and the Henneck reference fails to show that the passivation layer 408 (see, e.g., Henneck: fig. 4A) comprises a stack including a nitride layer and a tetraethyl orthosilicate (TEOS) layer. Birner, in a similar method to the combined teachings of Xue in view of Henneck, also teaches (see, e.g., fig. 2E) that the passivation layer 65/66 comprises a stack including a silicon nitride layer and a tetraethyl orthosilicate (TEOS) layer (see, e.g., par. [0111]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to use either the imide material layer of the combined teachings of Xue in view of Henneck or the stack of nitride layer/TEOS layer of Birner because these were recognized in the semiconductor art for their use as passivation layers in methods of manufacturing semiconductor devices, as taught by Xue in view of Henneck and by Birner, and selecting between known equivalents would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.--,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xue in view of Henneck in further view of Weichart (US 2013/0248358).
Regarding claim 7, Xue in view of Henneck shows most aspects of the instant invention (see paragraphs 6-9 above) including the method step of forming the passivation opening 124/126 (see, e.g., Xue: par. [0012]) over the lower bonding pad layer 120G/120 (see, e.g., Xue: par. [0011]) and the method step of conformally depositing the second metal layer 180 (see, e.g., Xue: par. [0013]). However, the combination of Xue reference and the Henneck reference fails to show the method step of performing an argon sputter to pre-condition the upper surface of the lower bonding pad layer 120G/120 (see, e.g., Xue: par. [0011]) in the passivation opening 124/126 (see, e.g., Xue: par. [0012]).
Weichart, in a similar method to the combined teachings of Xue in view of Henneck, teaches (see, e.g., Weichart: fig. 1) a method step of performing an argon sputter in passivation opening to pre-condition/clean the upper surface of the lower bonding pad layer 12 (see, e.g., par. [0003] and [0013]). Weichart further teaches that the method step of performing an argon sputter in passivation opening to pre-condition/clean the upper surface of the lower bonding pad layer 12 is to remove metal oxides (MeO) that have accumulated on exposed contact portion 13 of the metal layer 12 prior to a subsequent step to apply metal contacts 16 and 18 (see, e.g., par. [0013]).
It would have been obvious at the time of filing the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the method step of performing an argon sputter in passivation opening to pre-condition/clean the upper surface of the lower bonding pad layer in the method of Xue in view of Henneck, as taught by Weichart, to remove metal oxides that have accumulated on exposed contact portion of the metal layer prior to a subsequent step to apply metal contacts.
Regarding claim 8, Xue in view of Henneck in view of Weichart teaches (see, Weichart: e.g., fig. 1) that the pre-conditioning the upper surface of the layer 12 removes a metal oxide from the upper surface (see, e.g., Weichart: par. [0003] and [0013]).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xue in view of Henneck in further view of Woo (US 2013/0320346).
Regarding claim 10, Xue in view of Henneck shows most aspects of the instant invention (see paragraphs 6-9 above) including the method step of forming the upper bonding pad layer 180 (see, e.g., Xue: par. [0013]). However, the combination of Xue reference and the Henneck reference fails to show the method step of providing a further passivation layer on the upper bonding pad layer 180 (see, e.g., Xue: par. [00113]).
Woo, in a similar method to the combined teachings of Xue in view of Henneck, teaches (see, e.g., Woo: fig. 13) a method step of providing a further passivation layer 260 on the upper bonding pad layer 250 (see, e.g., par. [0072] and [0073], where the lower bonding pad layer is element 210). Woo further teaches that the method step of providing a further passivation layer 260 on the upper bonding pad layer is to define the region on top of the gate pad 210 by opening a contact between the upper bonding pad layer and a further conductive layer (see, e.g., par. [0060], [0072] and [0073]).
It would have been obvious at the time of filing the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to include method step of providing a further passivation layer on the upper bonding pad layer in the method of Xu in view of Henneck, as taught by Woo, to define the region on top of the gate pad by opening a contact between the upper bonding pad layer and a further conductive layer.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xue in view of Henneck in further view of Hong (US 6,674,495).
Regarding claim 11, Xue in view of Henneck shows most aspects of the instant invention (see paragraphs 6-9 above) including that method step of patterning the first metal layer 120 (see, e.g., Xue: par. [0011]). However, the combination of Xue reference and the Henneck reference fails to show that the first metal layer 120 (see, e.g., Xue: fig. 1Aii, and par [0011])) comprising performing a dry etching. Moreover, the combination of Xue reference and the Henneck reference is silent regarding the type of patterning, but shows that the first metal layer is made of aluminum.
Hong, in a similar method to the combined teachings of Xue in view of Henneck, also teaches (see, e.g., figs. 8A-8B) that an aluminum layer used to form gate lines and pads is patterned by being dry etched (see, e.g., col.11/II.5-16).
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to use either the first metal layer patterning of Xue in view of Henneck or the metal layer patterning using dry etching of Hong because these were recognized in the semiconductor art for their use as metal layer patterning in methods of manufacturing semiconductor devices, as taught by Xue in view of Henneck and Hong, and selecting between known equivalents would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.--,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xue in view of Henneck in further view of Nishizawa (US 2020/0365473).
Regarding claim 13, Xue in view of Henneck shows most aspects of the instant invention (see paragraphs 6-9 above) including that method step of depositing a lower bonding pad layer 120G/120 and an upper bonding pad layer 180. However, the combination of Xue reference and the Henneck reference fails to show that the lower bonding pad layer is in a range of 4-5 µm and the upper bonding pad layer is in a range of 4-5 µm.
Nishizawa, in a similar method to the combined teachings of Xue in view of Henneck, teaches (see, e.g., fig. 10) that the bonding pad layer 7/8 is formed by a stack of two layers, a lower bonding pad layer and an upper bonding pad layer see, e.g., par. [0037]). Nishizawa further teaches that the thickness of a lower bonding pad layer is 0.5 µm and the thickness of the upper bonding pad layer is of 1 µm to 10 µm (see, e.g., par. [0037]). Nishizawa also teaches that the thicknesses of the bonding pad layers are selected in accordance with a current to be passed to the electrode (see, e.g., par. [0037]).
It would have been obvious at the time of filing the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the above-mentioned thicknesses of the lower and upper bonding pad layers in the method of Xue in view of Henneck, as taught by Nishizawa, in order to have a designed electrical resistance in accordance with a current to be passed to the electrode.
However, differences in the thicknesses of the lower and upper bonding pad layers will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such thickness values are critical. “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the workable ranges by routine experimentation”. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454,456,105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Accordingly, since the applicant has not established the criticality (see paragraph below) of the thicknesses, and Nishizawa has identified such a thickness as a result-effective variable subject to optimization, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use these values in the method of Xue in view of Henneck.
CRITICALITY
The specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed thickness values or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xue in view of Henneck in further view of Haruhana (US 2002/0081846).
Regarding claim 16, Xue in view of Henneck shows most aspects of the instant invention (see paragraphs 6-9 above) including the method step of patterning a passivation layer 130/140 with passivation openings (see, e.g., Xue: figs. 1Aii, and 1B-1E). However, the combination of Xue reference and the Henneck reference fails to show the method step of lithographical patterning the passivation layer with passivation openings by depositing a resist layer on the passivation layer. Moreover, the combination of Xue reference and the Henneck reference is silent about the type of patterning of the passivation layer (see, e.g., par. [0012]).
Haruhana, in a similar method to the combined teachings of Xue in view of Henneck, teaches (see, e.g., Haruhana: figs. 1A-1D) a method step of lithographical patterning the passivation layer 4 with passivation openings by depositing a resist layer 5 on the passivation layer (see, e.g., abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to use either the pattering method of Xue in view of Henneck or the lithographical patterning the passivation layer by depositing a resist layer of Haruhana because these were recognized in the semiconductor art for their use as patterning methods of passivation layers in manufacturing semiconductor devices, as taught by Xue in view of Henneck and by Haruhana, and selecting between known equivalents would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.--,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Xue in view of Henneck in view of Haruhana further shows (see, e.g., Haruhana: figs. 1A-1D) that:
Forming an opening in the resist layer 5 to form a mask
Performing an etch of the passivation layer 4 through the opening in the resist 5 to provide the passivation opening
Xue in view of Henneck in view of Haruhana also shows (see, e.g., Haruhana figs. 1A-1D) that the resist layer 5 has a thickness that is greater than a thickness of the lower bonding pad layer 3. Moreover, Xue in view of Henneck in view of Haruhana shows that, because the resist 5 becomes an altered layer due to the etching, the resist layer is determined by the process parameters and the passivation layer thickness (see, e.g., Haruhana: par. [0004] and [0013]).
However, differences in the thicknesses of the resist layer and the lower bonding pad layer will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such thicknesses values are critical. “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the workable ranges by routine experimentation”. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454,456,105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Accordingly, since the applicant has not established the criticality (see paragraph 48) of the thicknesses, and Haruhana has identified such thicknesses as result-effective variables subject to optimization, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use these values in the method of Xue in view of Henneck in view of Haruhana.
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xue in view of Henneck in further view of Tsutsui (US 2005/0280149).
Regarding claim 29, Xue in view of Henneck shows (see, e.g., Henneck: fig. 4A, and par. [0100]) most aspects of the instant invention (see paragraphs 6-9 above) including a first metal layer 407a that comprises AlCu (see, e.g., Henneck: par. [0100]). Xue in view of Henneck also shows (see, e.g., Henneck: fig. 4A) a second metal layer 402/409.
However, Xue in view of Henneck fails to show that the second metal layer 402/409 (see, e.g., Henneck: fig. 4A) comprises AlCu. Xue in view of Henneck shows (see, e.g., Xue: figs. 1Aii, and 1B-1E) that the second metal layer 180G comprises copper (Cu). Tsutsui, in a similar method to the combined teachings of Xue and Henneck, also teaches (see, e.g., Tsutsui: fig. 4B-4C) that the second metal layer 24 comprises AlCu (see, e.g., Tsutsui: par. [0035]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to use either the second metal layer 180G made of copper of the combined teaching of Xue and Henneck or the second metal layer made of AlCu of Tsutsui because these were recognized in the semiconductor art for their use as metal layers in methods of manufacturing semiconductor device, as taught by Xue in view of Henneck and by Tsutsui, and selecting between known equivalents would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.--,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Thus, Xue in view of Henneck in view of Tsutsui shows that the first and second layer are made of AlCu.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the previous grounds of rejection.
The applicants argue:
Xue fails to anticipate or otherwise render obvious the limitation of “… conformally depositing a second metal layer over the passivation layer and in contact with the upper surface of the lower bonding pad layer in the passivation opening”, as it was previously recited in exemplary claim 1.
The examiner responds:
In view of the previous grounds of rejection, Xue clearly shows (see, e.g., Xue: fig. 1B and 1D) a method step of conformal deposition of a second metal layer 180G. The deposition of the layers 180G and 180S are over a seed layer 150 that clearly shows a conformal shape, giving its conformal deposition step. Thus, the method step of the deposition of the second metal layers 180G and 180S, on the top of the seed layer 150, is at least initially conformal. The method step of conformal deposition does not require a final shape to be conformal. The limitation of claim 1 claims that there is a step of conformal deposition, not a conformal feature. Thus, the scop of the claim is different from the Applicant’s argument. Plating process is conformal, if the seed layer is conformal (see, e.g., Inoue, F. et al., Perfect Conformal Deposition of Electroless Cu for High Aspect Ratio Through-Si Vias, Electrochemical and Solid-State Letters, 12(10), H381-H384 (2009)). The growth of the layers 180G and 180S is on the conformal seed layer 150, thus the process of plating will have initially a conformal deposition. By a long conformal deposition inside a narrow opening, the two opposing sidewalls merge each other, resulting in a non-conformal feature. The layer 180S is made by the same process as the layer 180G, and layer 180S is evidence that the deposition is conformal. However, since the openings are different, the final shape of the metal layer in openings might diverge from a conformal feature. As proved by the shape of the layer 180S, the layer 180S maintains a conformal feature because it is a conformal deposition in a wide opening. In a narrow opening, the opposing sidewalls merge each other, and the final feature is not conformal.
Xue also clearly shows (see, e.g., Xue: fig. 1B and 1D) that the second metal layer 180G is over the passivation layer 130/140 and in contact with the upper surface of the lower bonding pad layer 120G/120 in the passivation opening 124/126.
Conclusion
This action is made final. 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIBERIU DAN ONUTA whose telephone number is (571) 270-0074 and between the hours of 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM (Eastern Standard Time) Monday through Friday or by e-mail via Tiberiu.Onuta@uspto.gov. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone or email are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Wael Fahmy, can be reached on (571) 272-1705.
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.
/TIBERIU DAN ONUTA/Examiner, Art Unit 2814
/WAEL M FAHMY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2814