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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claim 1 is allowable. The restriction requirement as set forth in the Office action mailed on 5/9/25, has been reconsidered in view of the allowability of claims to the elected invention pursuant to MPEP § 821.04(a). The restriction requirement is hereby withdrawn as to any claim that requires all the limitations of an allowable claim. Specifically, the restriction requirement of 5/9/25 is withdrawn as to only claims requiring all the limitations of an allowable claim. Claims 3, 4, directed to a non-elected species are no longer withdrawn from consideration because the claim(s) requires all the limitations of an allowable claim. However, claim 11, directed to a non-elected species remains withdrawn from consideration because it does not require all the limitations of an allowable claim.
In view of the above noted withdrawal of the restriction requirement, applicant is advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application.
Once a restriction requirement is withdrawn, the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 121 are no longer applicable. See In re Ziegler, 443 F.2d 1211, 1215, 170 USPQ 129, 131-32 (CCPA 1971). See also MPEP § 804.01.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 9, 10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 22, 23, 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Pu (US 20010054383).
Regarding claim 9. Pu teaches in fig. 1 a plasma processing system ([34] the entire plasma system/chamber+auxiliary elements), comprising: a plasma chamber (plasma vac chamber w/space 100 [35]) having a top side (fig. 1 upper part of the chamber is closed by the dielectric lid 10 fig. 1 [35]) and a bottom side opposing the top side (fig. 1, including at least 16, 14 forming the bottom side of the chamber and facing said top side); an antenna (the ICP copper coils 40 42 43 [43 46]) configured to generate plasma in a plasma generating region within the plasma chamber (space where plasma is formed in 100 [37 41 43-57]); a dielectric plate (dielectric lid 10 [35]) arranged between the plasma chamber and the antenna (fig. 1, 10 between chamber space 100 and 43), an uppermost surface of the plasma generating region (region w/ the plasma EM field [41]) being a surface corresponding to the bottom side of the dielectric plate ([41] just below the lid ) adjacent to the top side of the plasma chamber (as discussed, fig. 1, bottom of 10 right adjacent to top of 100); and a plurality of magnets (magnetic core 52 [46]) arranged vertically above the uppermost surface of the plasma generating region (fig. 1, 52 above/vertical/y-direction above the top of said region/i.e. bottom of 10) in a direction from bottom side of the plasma chamber towards the top side of the plasma chamber (as disc, it is in the direction is y- or vertical direction), wherein a position or an axis of polarity of one or more of the plurality of magnets is configurable (fig. 6, showing the position of all the 52 are adjustable/configurable by the entire 50 being able to be disassembled [45], hence the 52s are able to be taken out and interchanged or replaced among the slots in the 54, 56, each of the slots being the same dimension to the match the 52s, hence permitting interchangeability of slot position among the 52s).
Regarding claim 10. Pu teaches the plasma processing system of claim 9, wherein one or more magnets of the plurality of magnets are a permanent magnet, an electromagnet, an electro-permanent magnet (EPM), or a combination thereof (the ferrites are electromagnets/electromagnetic components that generate concentrated magnetic fields in the presence of current, [46-50]).
Regarding claim 12. Pu teaches the plasma processing system of claim 9, wherein the antenna is in a shape of a donut (fig. 6, each 43 forms a ring/donut shape, while the collection of 43 from all the 50s on top of the reactor forms a larger ring/donut configuration, fig. 3), wherein a first subset of magnets is arranged on a first plane at an outer circumference of the antenna and parallel to the antenna (see claim 23), and wherein a second subset of magnets is arranged on a second plane within an inner circumference of the antenna (claim 23) and parallel to the antenna (as discussed in claim 23, the curved narrower plane mentioned is now considered to be one that is parallel to the inner narrow tip segment of 43 and which also passes thru the bottom or top of two inner magnets of each 50).
Regarding claim 13. Pu teaches the plasma processing system of claim 12, wherein the first plane and the second plane are the same plane (if we use a horizontal plane that passes thru the outer edge of 43 in the 50 and reaches till the inside edge of the inner tip part of 43, all the bottoms or tops of the magnets inside each 50 on that plane).
Regarding claim 15. Pu teaches Tthe plasma processing system of claim 9, wherein a determination of an arrangement of the magnets is based on a change in density, stability, pressure, ignition stability of the plasma, change in tunability of a matching network coupled to the antenna, or a combination thereof (this relates to engineering design, such as conceptual calculations for designing a reactor, and does not structurally limit the apparatus or add structural elements, MPEP 2114; as discussed in claims 9, 22 all these factors are intertwined with the arrangement/position of the magnets).
Regarding claim 16. Pu teaches the plasma processing system of claim 9, wherein the plasma is a low- pressure plasma corresponding to a pressure of 10 millitorr (mTorr) or less (this clearly relates to intended processes and does not structurally limit the apparatus, MPEP 2114; various gas flows, types and exhaust speeds can be set to achieve plasma pressures according to user-desired intended uses).
Regarding claim 22. Pu teaches a plasma processing system (claim 9), comprising: a plasma chamber (claim 9); a planar antenna (the antenna 43 in claim 9, which form helix/donut, commensurate w/ applicant’s planar aspect as disc in claim 1, and shown in Pu fig. 1, 4, 6) configured to generate plasma within the plasma chamber (claim 9); a dielectric plate disposed between the plasma chamber and the planar antenna (claim 9); a housing structure (cover 58+base 56 fig. 1 [58] housing/enclosing 40 42 43 50 and other elements), the planar antenna arranged within the housing structure (fig. 1, 43 housed in 58+56, commensurate w applicant’s 104/102), the dielectric plate positioned between the housing structure and the plasma chamber (fig. 1, 10 between 56+58 and 100); and a plurality of magnets (52, see claim 9) arranged on a plane parallel to the planar antenna (fig. 6 52 are arranged in y planes/vertical planes which are parallel to the antenna’s up/down wind/helix orientation/vertically), wherein one or more magnets of the magnets are arranged in a ring pattern (fig. 3, all the 52 are arranged in a ring pattern orientation around the top of the lid/chamber), and wherein placement and arrangement of the plurality of magnets are configurable (as discussed in claim 9, the placement/position of the magnets are adjustable by disassembling/interchanging positions of each of the magnets) to adjust plasma stability, plasma density, plasma ignition stability, or tunability of a matching network coupled to the planar antenna at a pressure of 10 millitorr (mTorr) or less (this is intended use and relates to processing/operation without further adding structural limitations to the apparatus, MPEP 2114; further, removing magnets in at least some of the areas/250, i.e. taking out from the slots in fig. 6, will reduce/alter the EM field concentration hence plasma density in that area and overall plasma stability/uniformity due to weakening of the magnetic concentration effect of the EM field [46]).
Regarding claim 23. Pu teaches the plasma processing system of claim 22, wherein the plurality of magnets comprises a first subset of magnets (fig. 4, 6, those six magnets 52 at the outer portion of each 50) arranged on a first plane at an outer circumference of the planar antenna (the six magnets radially outer sides are on an imaginary curved plane at an outer periphery/circumf of 43) and a second subset of magnets (2 magnets 52 at the inner portion/tip end of slice 50) arranged on a second plane within an inner circumference of the planar antenna (the inner sides of the 2 magnets are on a narrower imaginary 2nd curved plane located inside the inner perimeter/circumf/tip end side of the 43 that is more radially inward than said outer circumf, fig. 4 6).
Regarding claim 25. Pu teaches the plasma processing system of claim 22, wherein the plurality of magnets comprises electromagnets (see claim 10), and wherein a current in one or more of the electromagnets is configurable to enable, disable, adjust, or reverse a magnetic field generated by the one or more electromagnets (as disc in claim 10 [46-50] the induced current, via an EM field, flowing into the magnetic ferrites 52 is directly enabling/causing a concentrated magnetic field generated by the magnetic ferrites as prev discussed).
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) 14, 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pu (US 20010054383) in view of Shajii (US 20120035766).
Regarding claim 14. Pu teaches the plasma processing system of claim 12, but does not teach wherein the magnets of the first subset of magnets are arranged symmetrically around the outer circumference of the antenna. However, Shajii teaches in fig. 6b, 2c, 2h the outer portions of the magnetic ferrites 204 symmetrically around the outer circumference of the antenna (primary winding 240 thru which current passes [67 86]), and it would be obvious to those skilled in the art at the time of invention to modify Pu in order to produce a strong magnetic field in the magnetic ferrite to excite gas to form plasma [56 86] and wherein the magnets of the second subset of magnets are arranged symmetrically within the inner circumference of the antenna (Pu fig. 3-6, the two magnets are symmetrically arranged in the tip area within the inside perimeter of 43).
Regarding claim 24. Pu teaches the plasma processing system of claim 23, wherein, further in view of Shajii, teaches the magnets of the first subset of magnets are arranged symmetrically around the outer circumference of the planar antenna (see claim 14), and wherein the magnets of the second subset of magnets are arranged symmetrically within the inner circumference of the planar antenna (see claim 14, the planar antenna being the ring/donut antenna 43).
Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pu (US 20010054383) in view of Collins (US 20120034136).
Regarding claim 26. Pu teaches the plasma processing system of claim 22, but does not teach wherein the magnets are arranged on a mechanical structure parallel to the outer surface of the dielectric plate, and wherein the mechanical structure is configured to vertically shift between a first plane and a second plane, the first plane being at the outer surface of the dielectric plate, the second plane being a plane vertically above the planar antenna. However Collins teaches in fig. 1-10 the magnets (fig. 9 250-1-4 that are parts of a movable conductive element 250 [20 22] which is an electromagnet [his claim 15]) are arranged on a mechanical structure (drives 260 255 [20] fig. 7-9) parallel to the outer surface of the dielectric plate (fig. 7 the lower part of the drive is parallel to 110, equivalent to the said dielec plate as a lid of the chamber/process space; both being horizontal/parallel), and wherein the mechanical structure is configured to vertically shift between a first plane and a second plane (fig. 7 the rods of the motors shift/extend between a location/xy horizontal plane from near 110/lid/showerhead and near 235 well above), the first plane being at the outer surface of the dielectric plate (as discussed the lower first xy plane at/near the 110), the second plane being a plane vertically above the planar antenna (as discussed higher xy plane near 235 which is well above the entire chamber, i.e. the plate/ring antennas thar are located just on the lid in Pu), it would be obvious to those skilled in the art at invention time to modify Pu to reduce or control non-uniformities in plasma ion distribution Collins [4 20 21].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-8 allowed.
REASONS FOR ALLOWANCE
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The arguments filed 11/11/25 regarding claim 1 and its dependents are persuasive. Furthermore, the prior art of record does not teach or fairly suggest a plasma processing system, comprising: a housing structure; a plasma chamber; a planar antenna arranged within the housing structure, the planar antenna configured to generate plasma within the plasma chamber; a dielectric plate disposed between the plasma chamber and the planar antenna; and a plurality of magnets arranged at a vertical location between an outer surface of the dielectric plate that faces the plasma chamber and a first plane, the first plane being between a top surface of the housing structure and the dielectric plate as cited in claim 1. For instance, Okumura does not teach magnets positioned in this defined vertical zone. Rather, the magnets in Okumura are integrated into the three-dimensional walls of plasma generating chamber. Accordingly, in Okumura, the magnets are embedded within or form part of the walls that define and surround the annular plasma generation spaces; they are not positioned in a vertical zone above an outer surface of a dielectric plate. Okumura's magnets are positioned within the walls surrounding these intermediate spaces, not in a vertical zone above a surface that faces the main plasma chamber where substrate processing occurs. Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/11/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding claim 9, the applicant argues that Pu does not teach "wherein a position or an axis of polarity of one or more of the plurality of magnets is configurable" because "configurable" means capable of being arranged or set up in different ways to achieve different operational characteristics. The mere ability to disassemble and reassemble a structure, as recited in Pu and cited by the Office, in the same fixed configuration, does not satisfy this requirement. Pu's magnetic cores 52 are fixed components of the induction coil system, positioned in specific locations to enhance the magnetic field generated by the coils, with no teaching of adjustability or configurability of their positions or magnetic orientations.
The argument was considered but is unpersuasive. First, nowhere does Pu state that each of the cores 52 is limited to only a single permanently fixed position among all the same size slots and cannot switch position among all other the same slots. The applicant is reminded that there is no requirement that the prior art has to explicitly state it performs the function or intended use, as long as it has structure that provides the capability of doing so, MPEP 707.07(f) 7.37.09, MPEP 2114. Pu clearly teaches such a system. For instance, all the cores 52 are the same in shape/dimension as well as the corresponding slots, fig. 6. Pu does not state or show that each core and slot is differently shaped and cannot be used in an interchangeable way. On the contrary, Pu clearly shows in Fig. 6 all the cores 52 and the corresponding slots are the same.
The applicant argues that Pu describes a fixed design in which twelve ferrite bars 52 are positioned in specific locations within each coil form to maintain "spacing and alignment." See, e.g., id. at [0048]. Pu is silent on adjusting, moving, or reconfiguring the position of the magnetic cores. Pu explicitly discloses a specific, fixed configuration with twelve ferrite bars per coil having defined positions, not a system where magnet positions can be adjusted or reconfigured.
The argument was considered but is unpersuasive. Regarding [48], Pu simply states that the top and bottom frames 54 and 56 are used to hold all the cores in position in a pie-slice shaped arrangement of spaced apart slots as shown in Fig. 6, wherein each core is fitted into clearly visible/distinct slots in 54 and 56. Pu does not state or show in the drawings that each core and slot is differently shaped from each other and cannot be used in an interchangeable way. On the contrary, Pu clearly shows in Fig. 6 all the cores 52 and the corresponding slots are the same. Further, Pu does not state that each of the cores 52 is limited to only a single permanently fixed position among all the same size slots and cannot switch position among all other the same slots. The applicant is reminded that there is no requirement that the prior art has to explicitly state it performs the function or intended use, as long as it has structure that provides the capability of doing so.
The applicant argues that the magnetic cores can be "interchanged or replaced among the slots" is not supported by Pu's disclosure. Pu describes specific openings for specific bars to maintain proper spacing and alignment, with no teaching that cores can be moved to different slot positions or that their positions can be varied.
The argument was considered but is unpersuasive. Again, there is no requirement that the prior art has to explicitly state it performs the function or intended use, as long as it has structure that provides the capability of doing so. In regards to “specific openings for specific bars to maintain proper spacing and alignment”, Pu simply states in [48], “The gaps between ferrite bars are occupied by air. To maintain the spacing and alignment of the ferrite bars, the top of each bar occupies a distinct opening in the top 54 of the coil form 50, and the bottom of each bar occupies a distinct opening in the base plate 56” in reference to Fig. 6. Pu simply states that the top and bottom frames 54 and 56 are used to hold all the cores in position in a pie-slice shaped arrangement as shown in Fig. 6, wherein each core is fitted into clearly visible/distinct slots in 54 and 56. Pu does not state or show in the drawings that each core and slot is differently shaped from each other and cannot be used in an interchangeable way.
The applicant argues that Pu does not teach that the position or axis of polarity of the magnetic cores 52 is "configurable" because Pu describes a coil assembly structure that can be mounted and removed as a unit for installation and maintenance purposes. See, e.g., Pu at [0045]. The ability to disassemble and reassemble a structure for mounting or maintenance does not teach that the component positions are "configurable."
The argument was considered but is unpersuasive. As discussed in the previous rejection, it not just the ability of disassembling and reassembling; rather is the combination of same shaped slots and matching same shaped cores 52 being disassembled and reassembled, as shown in Fig. 6, that provides the structure to be able to switch/change each of the same shaped cores among the same shaped slots.
The applicant argues that Pu is silent on adjusting or configuring the axis of polarity of the magnetic cores. While Pu describes the ferrite bars as having specific magnetic properties, it is silent on rotating, reorienting, or otherwise adjusting their magnetic polarity orientation to achieve different magnetic field configurations.
The argument was considered but is unpersuasive. It is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., rotating, reorienting, or otherwise adjusting their magnetic polarity orientation) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims, MPEP 707.07(f) 7.37.08. Furthermore, only the claimed aspect of position was used for examination, not axis of polarity.
Regarding claim 22, the applicant argues that with respect to "wherein placement and arrangement of the magnets are configurable” that as with claim 9, Pu describes a coil assembly structure that can be mounted and removed as a unit for installation and maintenance purposes, not a system with configurable magnet placement. [0045]. Pu explicitly discloses a fixed design with twelve ferrite bars 52 positioned in specific locations within each coil form to maintain "spacing and alignment." [0048]. There is no disclosure in Pu of adjusting the placement or arrangement of the magnetic cores to, for example, optimize plasma characteristics. Pu discloses a specific, predetermined configuration designed to achieve particular magnetic field characteristics, not a system where magnet placement and arrangement can be reconfigured to adjust plasma performance parameters.
The argument was considered but is unpersuasive. As discussed with regards to claim 9, nowhere does Pu state that each of the cores 52 is limited to only a single permanently fixed position among all the same size slots and cannot switch position among all other the same slots. The applicant is reminded that there is no requirement that the prior art has to explicitly state it performs the function or intended use, as long as it has structure that provides the capability of doing so, MPEP 707.07(f) 7.37.09, MPEP 2114. Pu clearly teaches such a system wherein placement and arrangement, i.e. position, of the magnets are configurable, as in claim 9. For instance, all the cores 52 are the same in shape/dimension as well as the corresponding slots, fig. 6, and can be disassembled/reassembled, thus can be interchanged/reconfigured among the slots. Pu does not state or show that each core and slot is differently shaped and cannot be used in an interchangeable way. On the contrary, Pu clearly shows in Fig. 6 all the cores 52 and the corresponding slots are the same.
The applicant argues that in response to the result of the configurability of the magnets as "intended use" that does not impose structural limitations, the claim explicitly requires that the configurable placement and arrangement serve to adjust plasma characteristics at, for example, a specified low pressure. Pu provides no teaching that its fixed magnetic core configuration can be adjusted, nor any teaching regarding optimizing plasma performance, for example, at 10 mTorr or less through magnet configuration changes.
The argument was considered but is unpersuasive. In response to the assertion that “Pu provides no teaching that its fixed magnetic core configuration can be adjusted,” the applicant is reminded that there is no requirement that the prior art has to explicitly state it performs the function or intended use, as long as it has structure that provides the capability of doing so, MPEP 707.07(f) 7.37.09, MPEP 2114, which Pu clearly does as discussed previously. Regarding the intended result “to adjust plasma characteristics”, it noted that this in itself is a broad statement, i.e. changing magnets positions to change plasma characteristics. There is no clear structural consequence or limitation, degree of scale, resulting from that effect. At the fine/minute levels of perturbation and sensitivity in the semiconductor industry, it is indeed likely and highly plausible that even with magnets that outwardly appear the same, detectable fluctuations appear especially over a period of usage, and a technician or engineer would disassemble and rearrange them to address the fluctuations. Furthermore, the intended result is quite obvious, as the term adjusting simply refers to applying/ or causing something to undergo a process of change, irrespective of the result. Thus, even the act of adjusting/interchanging the same magnets over the slots caused the plasma characteristics, which are directly linked to each magnet such as field, to also undergo the same/corresponding positional adjustment process.
The applicant argues that "removing magnets" would alter plasma characteristics is speculative and not disclosed by Pu. Even if removing components from a fixed design might theoretically alter performance, this does not teach a system designed with "configurable" placement and arrangement for the purpose of adjusting plasma characteristics. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, "configurable" implies a system designed to permit adjustment or reconfiguration to achieve different operational results. Pu's fixed design with specific magnet positions intended to maintain proper spacing and alignment does not teach or suggest such configurability.
The argument was considered but is unpersuasive. As discussed previously, Pu does indeed teach structure that permits adjustment or reconfiguration, such as the cores 52 are the same in shape/dimension as well as the corresponding slots, fig. 6, and can be disassembled/reassembled, thus can be interchanged/reconfigured among the slots. The assertion of “Pu’s fixed design with specific magnet positions intended to maintain proper spacing and alignment does not teach or suggest such configurability” is in reference to Pu [48] and is incorrect since Pu simply states in [48], “The gaps between ferrite bars are occupied by air. To maintain the spacing and alignment of the ferrite bars, the top of each bar occupies a distinct opening in the top 54 of the coil form 50, and the bottom of each bar occupies a distinct opening in the base plate 56” in reference to Fig. 6. Pu simply states that the top and bottom frames 54 and 56 are used to hold all the cores in position in a pie-slice shaped arrangement as shown in Fig. 6, wherein each core is fitted into clearly visible/distinct slots in 54 and 56. Regarding “to achieve different operational results” is clearly an intended use/result with no clear structural confines or limitation, metes and bounds, or degree of scale, resulting from that effect, as discussed previously.
The applicant argues that the assertion that magnets can be "disassembled/interchanged" or "removed" to adjust plasma characteristics is unsupported by Pu's disclosure. Pu provides no teaching that the magnetic cores can be repositioned, that their arrangement can be varied, or that removing magnets from certain positions would be desirable or beneficial. To the contrary, Pu describes the magnetic cores as essential components that "concentrate and shape the magnetic field so that the magnetic flux lines 120 extending between adjacent coils 40, 42 will be concentrated primarily in an arc extending through the interior 100 of the plasma chamber." [0046]. This description indicates that the cores in Pu serve a specific, necessary function in the designed system, not that they are optional elements whose placement can be varied to tune performance.
The argument was considered but is unpersuasive. The assertion of “Pu provides no teaching that the magnetic cores can be repositioned, that their arrangement can be varied” is incorrect as previously discussed, Pu clearly teaches such a system wherein placement and arrangement, i.e. position, of the magnets can/capable of being varied, as in claim 9. For instance, all the cores 52 are the same in shape/dimension as well as the corresponding slots, fig. 6, and can be disassembled/reassembled, thus can be interchanged/reconfigured among the slots. Pu does not state or show that each core and slot is differently shaped and cannot be used in an interchangeable way. On the contrary, Pu clearly shows in Fig. 6 all the cores 52 and the corresponding slots are the same. Regarding the [46], Pu simply states, “[0046] Preferably, each induction coil 40, 42 encircles a magnetic core 52. We believe the magnetic cores 52 concentrate and shape the magnetic field so that the magnetic flux lines 120 extending between adjacent coils 40, 42 will be concentrated primarily in an arc extending through the interior 100 of the plasma chamber between the respective lower axial ends of each coil as shown in FIG. 7. Without the magnetic cores 52, a greater proportion of the magnetic flux would extend laterally between the central turns 43 of the coils above the lid 10. In other words, we believe the magnetic cores 52 concentrate the magnetic flux 120 in the region of the chamber interior 100 occupied by the plasma, thereby improving the efficiency with which the induction coils 40, 42 couple RF power to the plasma.” In relation to the cores 52, this is simply a description of their function. Furthermore, Pu prefaces the paragraph with “preferably” suggesting allowance of other options/alternatives. Pu does not discredit, criticize or teach against the taking out of cores as alleged by the applicant. Regarding claim 8, the arguments are moot since it depends on amended claim 1 that is allowed, and the rejections of claim 1 and its dependents are withdrawn. The comments regarding the other dependent claims depend on the arguments above and thus are also addressed by the responses above.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YUECHUAN YU whose telephone number is (571)272-7190. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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.
/YUECHUAN YU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718