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 .
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.
Elections/Restrictions
Applicant’s election with traverse of Species A3, B4, C2, D3, drawn to claims 1-16, in
the reply filed on 10/20/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that no
excessive burden comes from the search and examination of all pending claims. Examiner disagrees. The species have mutually exclusive structural features which would require different search strategies and/or syntaxes. As such, a serious search burden would exist. This
requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show “the electrode support plate” as described in the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 20180166258) in view of de la Llera et al. (US 20130134138), with Wang et al. (US 20080203056) as an evidentiary reference.
Regarding Claim 1:
Kim teaches an electrode assembly, comprising: an electrode support plate; a first electrode (gas supply unit 130) coupled to the electrode support plate, and comprising an upper surface, a lower surface (as evidenced by Fig. 10, the gas supply unit 130 comprises an upper and lower surfaces), and one or more gas delivery openings (as evidenced by Fig. 5, the gas supply unit 130 comprises a plurality of gas openings) extending between the upper surface and the lower surface [Fig. 5 & 0077].
The Fig. 5 embodiment of Kim does not specifically disclose a ground plate mounted over the electrode support plate, and wherein the ground plate comprises: a plurality of first ground plate features that each extend between a surface of the ground plate and an upper surface of the first electrode, wherein each first ground plate feature surrounds at least a portion of a gas distribution pipe that is configured to deliver a fluid to one of the one or more gas delivery openings; and a first radio frequency (RF) delivery feature that at least partially surrounds a portion of a first ground plate feature of the plurality of ground plate features and is coupled to the upper surface of the first electrode.
However, the Fig. 10 embodiment of Kim teaches a ground plate (third protrusion 187) mounted over the electrode support plate [Fig. 10 & 0091].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the Fig. 2 embodiment of Kim to include a ground plate, as in the Fig. 10 embodiment of Kim, to provide better mechanical stability [Kim - 0091].
Modified Kim does not specifically disclose wherein the ground plate is electrically coupled to a ground reference.
While de la Llera does not specifically disclose wherein the ground plate is electrically coupled to a ground reference, it does disclose grounding a chamber wall is a well-known technique in the art [de la Llera - 0008]. The ground plate (protrusion 187) of Kim is connected to the partition 110, which essentially makes up the wall of the processing apparatus [Kim - Fig. 2, 10 & 0053, 0056-0058, 0087]. As such, modification of Kim to have a grounded chamber wall would result in the ground plate being coupled to a ground reference. Wang et al. (US 20080203056) also discloses that grounding a chamber wall is a well-known technique in the art [Wang - 0019].
Regarding Claim 2:
Kim teaches wherein the one or more gas delivery openings further comprises an array of openings (as evidenced by Fig. 5, the gas supply unit 130 comprises a plurality of gas openings on a bottom surface of the gas supply unit 130) that are formed through the lower surface of the first electrode [Fig. 2, 10 & 0056-0058].
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 20180166258) in view of de la Llera et al. (US 20130134138), with Wang et al. (US 20080203056) as an evidentiary reference, as applied to claims 1-2 above, and further in view of Kilpela et al. (US 20030075273).
The limitations of claims 1-2 have been set forth above.
Regarding Claim 3:
Modified Kim does not specifically disclose wherein the array of openings comprise two or more openings that have an inner diameter that is between 50 micrometers and 1 millimeter (mm) in size.
Although Kilpela does not specifically disclose wherein the array of openings comprise two or more openings that have an inner diameter that is between 50 micrometers and 1 millimeter (mm) in size, Kilpela does not disclose that showerhead hole size is a result effective variable. Specifically, showerhead hole sizes can be adjusted to achieve a desired gas flow/uniformity profile. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary before the effective filing date of the invention to find an optimum sizing for an array of holes to obtain a desired gas flow/uniformity profile. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05.
Claim(s) 4 -7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 20180166258) in view of de la Llera et al. (US 20130134138), with Wang et al. (US 20080203056) as an evidentiary reference, as applied to claims 1-2 above, and further in view of Moselhi et al. (US 5286297).
The limitations of claims 1-2 have been set forth above.
Regarding Claim 4:
Modified Kim does not specifically disclose a second electrode coupled to the electrode support plate, and comprising an upper surface and a lower surface, wherein the lower surface of the first electrode and the lower surface of the second electrode are substantially parallel to a first plane, and the second electrode and the first electrode are spaced a distance apart in a direction that is parallel to the first plane.
Moselhi teaches a second electrode (middle concentric ring 188) coupled to the electrode support plate, and comprising an upper surface and a lower surface, wherein the lower surface of the first electrode and the lower surface of the second electrode are substantially parallel to a first plane (as evidenced by Fig. 9, the inner disk 190 and the middle concentric ring 188 have lower surfaces that are parallel to a first plane), and the second electrode and the first electrode are spaced a distance apart in a direction that is parallel to the first plane (as evidenced by Fig. 9, the inner disk 190 and the middle concentric ring 188 are spaced apart) [Fig. 9 & Col. 10 lines 16-34].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the electrode of Modified Kim to be a plurality of concentric electrodes, as in Moselhi, to provide greater control over plasma uniformity [Moselhi - Col. 10 lines 16-34].
Regarding Claim 5:
Modified Kim does not specifically disclose wherein the second electrode further comprises a plurality of gas delivery openings that each extend between the upper surface and the lower surface of the second electrode.
Moselhi teaches wherein the second electrode further comprises a plurality of gas delivery openings that each extend between the upper surface and the lower surface of the second electrode (showerhead assembly 184 is an alternative embodiment of showerhead assembly 52; the showerhead assembly 52 is perforated to allow gas flow from gas channel 60, therefore gas delivery openings can be reasonably inferred) [Fig. 9 & Col. 10 lines 16-34].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the electrode of Modified Kim to be a plurality of concentric electrodes, as in Moselhi, to provide greater control over plasma uniformity [Moselhi - Col. 10 lines 16-34].
Regarding Claim 6:
Modified Kim further modified by Moselhi would disclose wherein a first ground plate feature of the plurality of first ground plate features surrounds at least a portion of a gas distribution pipe that is configured to deliver a fluid to one of the plurality of gas delivery openings formed in the second electrode.
Kim discloses an array of holes disposed throughout a substantial portion of the bottom surface of its electrode (as evidenced by Fig. 5, the gas supply unit 130 comprises a plurality of gas openings on a bottom surface of the gas supply unit 130). As such, modification of the electrode of Kim to be split into a plurality of electrodes would result in the array of holes being disposed throughout a substantial portion of the second electrode, wherein the conduit 120 feeds the array of holes. as evidenced by Fig. 10, at least a portion of the conduit 120 is partially surrounded by the protrusion 187 [Kim - Fig. 2, 10 & 0053, 0056-0058, 0087].
Regarding Claim 7:
Modified Kim does not specifically disclose wherein the second electrode circumscribes the first electrode.
Moselhi teaches wherein the second electrode circumscribes the first electrode (as evidenced by Fig. 9, the inner disk 190 and the middle concentric ring 188 are concentric) [Col. 10 lines 16-34].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the electrode of Modified Kim to be a plurality of concentric electrodes, as in Moselhi, to provide greater control over plasma uniformity [Moselhi - Col. 10 lines 16-34].
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 20180166258) in view of de la Llera et al. (US 20130134138), Kilpela et al. (US 20030075273), and Moselhi et al. (US 5286297), with Wang et al. (US 20080203056) as an evidentiary reference, as applied to claims 4-7 above, and further in view of Ye et al. (US 20170162417), with Hirano et al. (US 20150114563) as a further evidentiary reference.
The limitations of claims 4-7 have been set forth above.
Regarding Claim 8:
Modified Kim does not specifically disclose a tuning circuit having an input that is configured to be coupled to an output of an RF generator and an output coupled to the second electrode, wherein the tuning circuit comprises a variable capacitor and an inductor.
Ye teaches a tuning circuit (circuit 250) having an input that is configured to be coupled to an output of an RF generator (RF generator 258) and an output coupled to an electrode (showerhead 116), wherein the tuning circuit comprises a variable capacitor (capacitor 253) and an inductor (third inductor 252) [Fig. 2 & 0054].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify at least one of the electrodes of Modified Kim to be coupled to a tuning circuit, as in Ye, to provide greater control over plasma behavior and RF characteristics, thereby improving plasma uniformity [Ye - 0069]. Hirano et al. (US 20150114563) also discloses that utilizing a matching circuit for an electrode is beneficial so as to improve plasma generation efficiency [Hirano - 0003, 0012].
Regarding Claim 9:
The limitations of claim 9 are merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). It is noted that the circuit 250 of Ye comprises a variable capacitor, and as such, can be controlled such that the tuning circuit has a resonant frequency at an RF frequency generated by the RF generator 256 [Ye - Fig. 2 & 0054].
Claim(s) 10-11 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 20180166258) in view of de la Llera et al. (US 20130134138), and Moselhi et al. (US 5286297), with Wang et al. (US 20080203056) as an evidentiary reference.
Regarding Claim 10:
Kim teaches a plasma processing chamber, comprising: a substrate support assembly (substrate support unit 150) that comprises a substrate supporting surface that at least partially defines a processing region (reaction space 160) of the plasma processing chamber; an electrode support plate; a first electrode (gas supply unit 130) coupled to the electrode support plate, and comprising an upper surface, a lower surface (as evidenced by Fig. 10, the gas supply unit 130 comprises an upper and lower surfaces), and comprising a first gas delivery opening (as evidenced by Fig. 5, the gas supply unit 130 comprises a plurality of gas openings) formed therein, wherein the first electrode has a lower surface that is positioned over at least a portion of the substrate supporting surface, is substantially parallel to a first plane, and is a first distance from the substrate supporting surface in a first direction that is perpendicular to the first plane (as evidenced by Fig. 5, the gas supply unit 130 is spaced apart from and positioned over substrate support unit 150) [Fig. 5 & 0053, 0077].
The Fig. 5 embodiment of Kim does not specifically disclose a ground plate mounted over the electrode support plate, and wherein the ground plate comprises: a first ground plate feature that extends between a surface of the ground plate and an upper surface of the first electrode, wherein the first ground plate feature surrounds at least a portion of a gas distribution pipe that is configured to deliver a fluid to the first gas delivery opening; and a second ground plate feature that extends between the surface of the ground plate and an upper surface of the second electrode, a first RF delivery feature coupled to the first electrode, and having a feature wall that surrounds a portion of the first ground plate feature; and a second RF delivery feature coupled to the second electrode, and having a feature wall that surrounds a portion of the second ground plate feature.
However, the Fig. 10 embodiment of Kim teaches a ground plate (third protrusion 187) mounted over the electrode support plate, and comprises: a first ground plate feature (a portion of the body of protrusion 187) that extends between a surface of the ground plate and an upper surface of the first electrode (the third protrusion 187 extends from a surface of partition 110), wherein each first ground plate feature surrounds at least a portion of a gas distribution pipe (conduit 120) that is configured to deliver a fluid to one of the one or more gas delivery openings (as evidenced by Fig. 10, at least a portion of the conduit 120 is partially surrounded by the protrusion 187); and a second ground plate feature (another portion of the body of protrusion 187) that extends between the surface of the ground plate and an upper surface of the first electrode (the third protrusion 187 extends from a surface of partition 110), a first RF delivery feature (the left RF rod 140) coupled to the first electrode, and having a feature wall that surrounds a portion of the first ground plate feature (as evidenced by Fig. 10, the RF rod at least partially surrounds a portion of the protrusion 187) and is coupled to the upper surface of the first electrode (RF rod 140 is electrically coupled to the gas supply unit 130), and a second RF delivery feature (the right RF rod 140) coupled to the first electrode, and having a feature wall that surrounds a portion of the first ground plate feature (as evidenced by Fig. 10, the RF rod at least partially surrounds a portion of the protrusion 187) and is coupled to the upper surface of the first electrode (RF rod 140 is electrically coupled to the gas supply unit 130) [Fig. 2, 10 & 0053, 0056-0058, 0087].
Modified Kim does not specifically disclose wherein the ground plate is electrically coupled to a ground reference.
While de la Llera does not specifically disclose wherein the ground plate is electrically coupled to a ground reference, it does disclose grounding a chamber wall is a well-known technique in the art [de la Llera - 0008]. The ground plate (protrusion 187) of Kim is connected to the partition 110, which essentially makes up the wall of the processing apparatus [Kim - Fig. 2, 10 & 0053, 0056-0058, 0087]. As such, modification of Kim to have a grounded chamber wall would result in the ground plate being coupled to a ground reference. Wang et al. (US 20080203056) also discloses that grounding a chamber wall is a well-known technique in the art [Wang - 0019].
Modified Kim does not specifically disclose a second electrode coupled to the electrode support plate, and comprising a second gas delivery opening formed therein, wherein the second electrode has a lower surface that is substantially parallel to the first plane, wherein the second electrode and the first electrode are spaced a distance apart in a second direction that is parallel to the first plane; wherein the second ground plate feature surrounds at least a portion of a gas distribution pipe that is configured to deliver a fluid to the second gas delivery opening.
Moselhi teaches a second electrode (middle concentric ring 188) coupled to the electrode support plate, and comprising a second gas delivery opening formed therein (showerhead assembly 184 is an alternative embodiment of showerhead assembly 52; the showerhead assembly 52 is perforated to allow gas flow from gas channel 60, therefore gas delivery openings can be reasonably inferred), wherein the second electrode has a lower surface that is substantially parallel to the first plane (as evidenced by Fig. 9, the inner disk 190 and the middle concentric ring 188 have lower surfaces that are parallel to a first plane), wherein the second electrode and the first electrode are spaced a distance apart in a second direction that is parallel to the first plane (as evidenced by Fig. 9, the inner disk 190 and the middle concentric ring 188 are spaced apart) [Fig. 9 & Col. 10 lines 16-34].
Modified Kim further modified by Moselhi would disclose wherein the second ground plate feature surrounds at least a portion of a gas distribution pipe that is configured to deliver a fluid to the second gas delivery opening.
Kim discloses an array of holes disposed throughout a substantial portion of the bottom surface of its electrode (as evidenced by Fig. 5, the gas supply unit 130 comprises a plurality of gas openings on a bottom surface of the gas supply unit 130). As such, modification of the electrode of Kim to be split into a plurality of electrodes would result in the array of holes being disposed throughout a substantial portion of the second electrode, wherein the conduit 120 feeds the array of holes. as evidenced by Fig. 10, at least a portion of the conduit 120 is partially surrounded by the protrusion 187 [Kim - Fig. 2, 10 & 0053, 0056-0058, 0087].
Regarding Claim 11:
Kim teaches herein the first gas delivery opening or the second gas delivery opening further comprise an array of openings (as evidenced by Fig. 5, the gas supply unit 130 comprises a plurality of gas openings on a bottom surface of the gas supply unit 130) that are formed through the lower surface of the first electrode or the second electrode [Fig. 2, 10 & 0056-0058].
Regarding Claim 13:
Modified Kim (Kim modified by de la Llera) does not specifically disclose wherein the second electrode circumscribes the first electrode.
Moselhi teaches wherein the second electrode circumscribes the first electrode (as evidenced by Fig. 9, the inner disk 190 and the middle concentric ring 188 are concentric) [Col. 10 lines 16-34].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the electrode of Modified Kim to be a plurality of concentric electrodes, as in Moselhi, to provide greater control over plasma uniformity [Moselhi - Col. 10 lines 16-34].
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 20180166258) in view of de la Llera et al. (US 20130134138), and Moselhi et al. (US 5286297), with Wang et al. (US 20080203056) as an evidentiary reference, as applied to claims 10-11 and 13 above, and further in view of Kilpela et al. (US 20030075273).
The limitations of claim 10-11 and 13 have been set forth above.
Regarding Claim 12:
Modified Kim does not specifically disclose wherein the array of openings comprise two or more openings that have an inner diameter that is between 50 micrometers and 1 millimeter (mm) in size.
Although Kilpela does not specifically disclose wherein the array of openings comprise two or more openings that have an inner diameter that is between 50 micrometers and 1 millimeter (mm) in size, Kilpela does not disclose that showerhead hole size is a result effective variable. Specifically, showerhead hole sizes can be adjusted to achieve a desired gas flow/uniformity profile. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary before the effective filing date of the invention to find an optimum sizing for an array of holes to obtain a desired gas flow/uniformity profile. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05.
Claim(s) 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 20180166258) in view of de la Llera et al. (US 20130134138), and Moselhi et al. (US 5286297), with Wang et al. (US 20080203056) as an evidentiary reference, as applied to claims 10-11 and 13 above, and further in view of Ye et al. (US 20170162417), with Hirano et al. (US 20150114563) as a further evidentiary reference.
The limitations of claim 10-11 and 13 have been set forth above.
Regarding Claim 14:
Modified Kim does not specifically disclose a tuning circuit having an input that is configured to be coupled to an output of an RF generator and an output coupled to the second electrode, wherein the tuning circuit comprises a variable capacitor and an inductor.
Ye teaches a tuning circuit (circuit 250) having an input that is configured to be coupled to an output of an RF generator (RF generator 258) and an output coupled to an electrode (showerhead 116), wherein the tuning circuit comprises a variable capacitor (capacitor 253) and an inductor (third inductor 252) [Fig. 2 & 0054].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify at least one of the electrodes of Modified Kim to be coupled to a tuning circuit, as in Ye, to provide greater control over plasma behavior and RF characteristics, thereby improving plasma uniformity [Ye - 0069]. Hirano et al. (US 20150114563) also discloses that utilizing a matching circuit for an electrode is beneficial so as to improve plasma generation efficiency [Hirano - 0003, 0012].
Regarding Claim 15:
The limitations of claim 9 are merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). It is noted that the circuit 250 of Ye comprises a variable capacitor, and as such, can be controlled such that the tuning circuit has a resonant frequency at an RF frequency generated by the RF generator 256 [Ye - Fig. 2 & 0054].
Claim(s) 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 20180166258) in view of de la Llera et al. (US 20130134138), Moselhi et al. (US 5286297), and Ye et al. (US 20170162417, with Wang et al. (US 20080203056) and Hirano et al. (US 20150114563) as evidentiary references, as applied to claims 14-15 above, and further in view of Jeong et al. (US 20080314408) and Kang et al. (US 20190108985), with Ohmi et al. (US 20020020497) and Kihara et al. (US 20150243524) as further evidentiary references.
The limitations of claim 14-15 have been set forth above.
Regarding Claim 16:
Modified Kim does not specifically disclose a non-transitory computer-readable medium having instructions for performing a method, the method comprising:(a) providing an RF waveform to the first electrode and a phase shifted RF waveform to the second electrode.
Jeong teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium having instructions for performing a method, the method comprising:(a) providing an RF waveform to the first electrode and a phase shifted RF waveform to the second electrode (the electrodes in the chamber can have their phase differences controlled) [Fig. 4 & 0029, 0049].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the electrodes of Modified Kim to have instructions for setting phase differences for different electrodes, as in Jeong, to provide further control over plasma characteristics; controlling electrode phase differences can change plasma characteristics [Jeong - 0049]. Ohmi et al. (US 20020020497) also discloses that phase differences between electrodes can help prevent unwanted sputtering [Ohmi - 0057, 0059].
Modified Kim does not specifically disclose adjusting, by use of the variable capacitor, one or more characteristics of the phase shifted RF waveform provided to the second electrode relative to the RF waveform provided to the first electrode.
Kang teaches adjusting, by use of the variable capacitor, one or more characteristics of the phase shifted RF waveform provided to the second electrode relative to the RF waveform provided to the first electrode (RF power intensity may be adjusted by adjusting the variable capacitors 181) [Fig. 6A & 0089].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the electrodes of Modified Kim to have instructions for adjusting characteristics of the RF power supplied to each electorde, as in Kang, since adjusting variable capacitors provides further control over power intensity, thereby aiding in uniform plasma generation [Kang - 0084, 0089]. Kihara et al. (US 20150243524) also discloses that adjusting capacitor values controls plasma density under an upper electrode, thereby allowing for uniform plasma density [Kihara - 0055].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s
disclosure. Nam et al. (US 20140087488) and Hirayama et al. (US 20190246485) and teach split electrodes [Nam – Fig. 3B; Hirayama – Fig. 3].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA NATHANIEL PINEDA REYES whose telephone number is (571)272-4693. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 AM to 4:30 PM.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at (571) 272-5166. 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.
/J.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1718
/GORDON BALDWIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1718