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.
Status of Claims
Responsive to communication filed 08/05/2026
Claims 1-13 and 17-23 are pending
Claims 14-16 have been cancelled
Claims 1, 17, and 21 have been amended
Claims 19-20 are withdrawn
Claims 1-13, 17-18, and 21-23 are rejected
Continued Examination
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in
37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is
eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e)
has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to
37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 08/05/2026 has been entered.
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) 1-3 and 5-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishimura et al. (US 20100269980) in view of Holland et al. (US 5800619), Patrick et al. (US 5556549), and Yamawaku et al. (US 20160126064).
Regarding Claim 1:
Nishimura teaches a resonator antenna system for a plasma processing tool, the resonator antenna system comprising: a resonator antenna (antenna element 142B) coupled to a RF source (power supply 150B) at a first point on the resonator antenna; a ground coupled to the resonator antenna at a second point on the resonator antenna (as evidenced by Fig. 4, a ground is coupled to the antenna at a second point), the second point not being an inner end or an outer end of the resonator antenna (as evidenced by Fig. 4, the second point of the antenna element 142B is not an end of the antenna element 142B) [Fig. 1, 2, 4 & 0050, 0055].
Nishimura does not specifically disclose a current balancing circuit coupled to the resonator antenna at a second point on the resonator antenna, the current balancing circuit comprising a first variable component, the current balancing circuit being further coupled to a ground terminal.
Holland teaches a current balancing circuit (variable impedance 145; it's noted that the variable impedance 145 is similar to the impedances 132 and 134 in Fig. 2) coupled to the resonator antenna at a second point on the resonator antenna, the current balancing circuit comprising a first variable component (capacitors 131 and 133),
the current balancing circuit being further coupled to a ground terminal (as evidenced by Fig. 4, the impedance 145 is coupled to a ground terminal) [Fig. 2, 4 & Col. 8 lines 54-64, Col. 9 lines 43-59].
It would have been obvious to modify the ground line of Nishimura to include a current balancing circuit, as in Holland, to provide further control over antenna current, thereby aiding in the formation of uniform plasma flux [Holland - Col. 5 lines 10-22, Col. 7 lines 34-64, Col. 10 lines 33-44].
Modified Nishimura does not specifically disclose a first current sensor coupled between the RF source and the resonator antenna; and a second current sensor coupled between the current balancing circuit and the resonator antenna.
Patrick teaches a first current sensor (sensor 704) coupled between the RF source (RF source 702) and the resonator antenna (the RF source may be connected to a chamber electrode or a planar coil) [Fig. 5, 7 & Col. 3 lines 47-55, Col. 8 lines 35-38, Col. 9 lines 40-55].
It would have been obvious to modify the RF source of Modified Nishimura to include a current sensor, controller, and matching circuit, as in Patrick, to provide further control over electrical parameters, thereby aiding in the formation of uniform plasma [Patrick - Col. 7 lines 40-45, Col. 9 lines 40-55].
Furthermore, although Patrick does not specifically disclose a current sensor between an antenna and a current balancing circuit, Patrick does disclose that it is beneficial to utilize sensors prior to impedance adjusters (an to utilize multiple current sensors at different points of a circuit) [Patrick - Col. 7 lines 40-45, Col. 9 lines 40-55]. As such, it would be obvious to utilize sensors between any two points on the antenna of Modified Holland.
Modified Nishimura does not specifically disclose a length of the resonator antenna from the second point to the end of the resonator antenna being equal to a quarter-wavelength of a first resonant frequency of the resonator antenna.
Yamawaku teaches a length of the resonator antenna from the second point to the end of the resonator antenna being equal to a quarter-wavelength of a first resonant frequency of the resonator antenna (middle portion 8 may be grounded and the distance between the middle portion 8 and the outer end 7 may be a length of λ/4) [Fig. 2 & 0035].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the second point of modified Nishimura to include be a quarter wavelength of a resonant frequency away from the end, as in Yamawaku, to generate an effective standing wave suitable for obtaining a plasma intensity strong enough to process a wafer [Yamawaku - 0035]. It is noted that two halves of the antenna of Yamawaku would result in an antenna length of λ/2.
Regarding Claim 2:
Modified Nishimura (Nishimura modified by Holland) does not specifically disclose a controller coupled to the first current sensor, the second current sensor, and the first variable component, the controller being configured to balance a first current measured by the first current sensor with a second current measured by the second current sensor by adjusting a parameter of the first variable component.
Patrick teaches a controller (control computer system 716) coupled to the first current sensor, the second current sensor, and the first variable component (the control computer system 716 is coupled to all elements in the circuit shown in Fig. 7), the controller being configured to balance a first current measured by the first current sensor with a second current measured by the second current sensor by adjusting a parameter of the first variable component (the computer system 716 controls the RF source 702, matching network 706, and parameter network 710 based off of measurements from the sensors 704, 708, and 712; the matching network 706 may comprise variable capacitors 106 as shown in the Fig. 1 which may have their values adjusted so as to obtain desired RF characteristics) [Fig. 1, 5, 7 & Col. 3 lines 47-55, Col. 7 lines 13-25, Col. 8 lines 35-38, Col. 9 lines 15-23, 40-55].
It would have been obvious to modify the RF source of Modified Nishimura to include a current sensor, controller, and matching circuit, as in Patrick, to provide further control over electrical parameters, thereby aiding in the formation of uniform plasma [Patrick - Col. 7 lines 40-45, Col. 9 lines 40-55].
Furthermore, although taught by the prior art, the limitations “the controller being configured to balance a first current measured by the first current sensor with a second current measured by the second current sensor by adjusting a parameter of the first variable component,” 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).
Regarding Claim 3:
Nishimura does not specifically disclose wherein the first variable component is a variable capacitor.
Holland teaches wherein the first variable component is a variable capacitor (capacitors 131 and 133 are variable capacitors, as evidenced by Fig. 2) [Fig. 2, 4 & Col. 8 lines 54-64, Col. 9 lines 43-59].
It would have been obvious to modify the ground line of Nishimura to include a current balancing circuit, as in Holland, to provide further control over antenna current, thereby aiding in the formation of uniform plasma flux [Holland - Col. 5 lines 10-22, Col. 7 lines 34-64, Col. 10 lines 33-44].
Regarding Claim 5:
Nishimura does not specifically disclose wherein the first variable component is a variable resistor.
Holland teaches wherein the first variable component is a variable resistor (the variable impedance 134 may comprise a variable resistor 135) [Fig. 2, 4 & Col. 8 lines 54-64, Col. 9 lines 43-59].
It would have been obvious to modify the ground line of Nishimura to include a current balancing circuit, as in Holland, to provide further control over antenna current, thereby aiding in the formation of uniform plasma flux [Holland - Col. 5 lines 10-22, Col. 7 lines 34-64, Col. 10 lines 33-44].
Regarding Claim 6:
Nishimura does not specifically disclose wherein the current balancing circuit further comprises a second variable component, the second variable component being a different type of component from the first variable component.
Holland teaches wherein the current balancing circuit further comprises a second variable component, the second variable component being a different type of component from the first variable component (the variable impedance 134 comprises a plurality of variable capacitors 133 and variable resistors 135) [Fig. 2, 4 & Col. 8 lines 54-64, Col. 9 lines 43-59].
It would have been obvious to modify the ground line of Nishimura to include a current balancing circuit, as in Holland, to provide further control over antenna current, thereby aiding in the formation of uniform plasma flux [Holland - Col. 5 lines 10-22, Col. 7 lines 34-64, Col. 10 lines 33-44].
Regarding Claim 7:
Nishimura teaches wherein the resonator antenna is a flat coil antenna (the antenna element 142B is a planar antenna) [Fig. 4 & 0109].
Regarding Claim 8:
Nishimura teaches an absorption coil (antenna element 142B) surrounded by the resonator antenna (as evidenced by Fig. 2, the antenna element 142B surrounds antenna element 142A) [Fig. 1, 2, 4 & 0050, 0055].
Regarding Claim 9:
Nishimura teaches wherein an inner end and an outer end of the resonator antenna are electrically floating (as evidenced by Fig. 4, the ground and power connections are not at the ends of antenna element 142B) [Fig. 1, 2, 4 & 0050, 0055].
Regarding Claim 10:
Nishimura teaches wherein a frequency of the RF source is at least 13.56 MHz (the power supply 150B may operate at 13.56 MHz) [Fig. 4 & 0057].
Furthermore, although taught by the prior art, the limitations of claim 10 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).
Regarding Claim 11:
The limitations of claim 11 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 power supply 150B of Nishimura is controllable and is capable of supplying pulsed power at a variety of frequencies [Nishimura - 0125].
Regarding Claim 12:
The limitations of claim 11 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 power supply 150B of Nishimura is controllable and is capable of supplying pulsed power at a variety of frequencies [Nishimura - 0125].
Regarding Claim 13:
Modified Nishimura (Nishimura modified by Holland) does not specifically disclose a matching circuit coupled between the RF source and the first current sensor, wherein the matching circuit is separate from the current balancing circuit.
Patrick teaches a matching circuit (matching network 706) coupled between the RF source (RF source 702) and the first current sensor (sensor 704), wherein the matching circuit is separate from the current balancing circuit [Fig. 5, 7 & Col. 8 lines 35-38, Col. 9 lines 40-55].
It would have been obvious to modify the RF source of Modified Nishimura to include a current sensor and matching circuit, as in Patrick, to provide further control over electrical parameters, thereby aiding in the formation of uniform plasma [Patrick - Col. 7 lines 40-45, Col. 9 lines 40-55].
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishimura et al. (US 20100269980) in view of Holland et al. (US 5800619), Patrick et al. (US 5556549), and Yamawaku et al. (US 20160126064), as applied to claims 1-3 and 5-13 above, and further in view of Chen et al. (US 20140302256) and Collins et al. (US 5392018).
The limitations of claims 1-3 and 5-13 have been set forth above.
Regarding Claim 4:
Modified Nishimura does not specifically disclose wherein a component is an inductor.
Chen teaches wherein a first component is an inductor (inductance L20) [Fig. 4 & 0052].
It would have been obvious to modify the current balancing circuit of Modified Nishimura to comprise an inductor, as in Chen, to provide further control over impedance [Chen - 0032, 0053-0055].
Modified Nishimura does not specifically disclose wherein the first variable component is a variable inductor.
Collins teaches wherein the first variable component is a variable inductor (variable inductor 74) [Fig. 3 & Col. 4 lines 30-54].
It would have been obvious to modify the inductor of Modified Nishimura to be a variable inductor, as in Collins, to provide the capabilities for further real-time control over impedance [Collins - Col. 6 lines 26-34, Col. 7 lines 23-35]. Furthermore, substituting a fixed inductor with a variable inductor would be a simple substitution to obtain predictable results (see MPEP 2143 B).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishimura et al. (US 20100269980) in view of Holland et al. (US 5800619), Patrick et al. (US 5556549), and Yamawaku et al. (US 20160126064).
Regarding Claim 17:
Nishimura teaches a plasma processing system comprising: a plasma processing chamber (processing chamber 102); a resonator antenna (antenna element 142B) coupled to a RF source (power supply 150B) outside the plasma processing chamber, the resonator antenna coupled to an RF source (power supply 150B) at a first point on the resonator antenna; and a ground terminal coupled to a second point on the resonator antenna (as evidenced by Fig. 4, a ground is coupled to the antenna at a second point), a first resonant frequency being in a range from 1 MHz to 27 MHz (the electrical lengths of the antenna elements can be made to resonate with various frequencies coming from the high frequency power supplies 150A and 150B; the frequencies can be 13.56 MHz or 27 MHz) [Fig. 1, 2, 4 & 0050-0057].
Nishimura does not specifically disclose a filter circuit being coupled between the second point and the ground terminal.
Holland teaches a filter circuit (variable impedance 145; it's noted that the variable impedance 145 is similar to the impedances 132 and 134 in Fig. 2) coupled between the second point and the ground terminal.
It would have been obvious to modify the ground line of Nishimura to include a current balancing circuit, as in Holland, to provide further control over antenna current, thereby aiding in the formation of uniform plasma flux [Holland - Col. 5 lines 10-22, Col. 7 lines 34-64, Col. 10 lines 33-44].
Modified Nishimura does not specifically disclose a matching circuit and a first current sensor being coupled between the RF source and the first point; a second current sensor coupled between the second point and the ground terminal.
It would have been obvious to modify the RF source of Modified Nishimura to include a current sensor, controller, and matching circuit, as in Patrick, to provide further control over electrical parameters, thereby aiding in the formation of uniform plasma [Patrick - Col. 7 lines 40-45, Col. 9 lines 40-55].
Patrick teaches a matching circuit (matching network 706) and a first current sensor (sensor 704) coupled between the RF source (RF source 702) and the first point (sensor 704) [Fig. 5, 7 & Col. 8 lines 35-38, Col. 9 lines 40-55].
It would have been obvious to modify the RF source of Modified Nishimura to include a current sensor and matching circuit, as in Patrick, to provide further control over electrical parameters, thereby aiding in the formation of uniform plasma [Patrick - Col. 7 lines 40-45, Col. 9 lines 40-55].
Furthermore, although Patrick does not specifically disclose a current sensor between an antenna and a current balancing circuit, Patrick does disclose that it is beneficial to utilize sensors prior to impedance adjusters (an to utilize multiple current sensors at different points of a circuit) [Patrick - Col. 7 lines 40-45, Col. 9 lines 40-55]. As such, it would be obvious to utilize sensors between any two points on the antenna of Modified Holland.
Modified Nishimura does not specifically disclose a length of the resonator antenna from the second point to an end of the resonator antenna being equal to a quarter-wavelength of a first resonant frequency of the resonator antenna.
Yamawaku teaches a length of the resonator antenna from the second point to an end of the resonator antenna being equal to a quarter-wavelength of a first resonant frequency of the resonator antenna (middle portion 8 may be grounded and the distance between the middle portion 8 and the outer end 7 may be a length of λ/4) [Fig. 2 & 0035].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the second point of modified Nishimura to include be a quarter wavelength of a resonant frequency away from the end, as in Yamawaku, to generate an effective standing wave suitable for obtaining a plasma intensity strong enough to process a wafer [Yamawaku - 0035]. It is noted that two halves of the antenna of Yamawaku would result in an antenna length of λ/2.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishimura et al. (US 20100269980) in view of Holland et al. (US 5800619), Patrick et al. (US 5556549), and Yamawaku et al. (US 20160126064), as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Chen et al. (US 20140302256).
The limitations of claim 17 has been set forth above.
Regarding Claim 18:
Modified Nishimura does not specifically disclose wherein the filter circuit is an LC circuit.
Chen teaches wherein the filter circuit is an LC circuit (RF filter includes inductance L20) [Fig. 4 & 0052].
It would have been obvious to modify the current balancing circuit of Modified Nishimura to comprise an inductor, as in Chen, to provide further control over impedance [Chen - 0032, 0053-0055].
Claim(s) 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishimura et al. (US 20100269980) in view of Holland et al. (US 5800619), Patrick et al. (US 5556549), and Yamawaku et al. (US 20160126064).
Regarding Claim 21:
Nishimura teaches a plasma processing system comprising: a plasma processing chamber (processing chamber 102); a resonator antenna (antenna element 142B) coupled to a RF source (power supply 150B) outside the plasma processing chamber, the resonator antenna coupled to an RF source (power supply 150B) at a first point on the resonator antenna, the second point not being an inner end or an outer end of the resonator antenna (as evidenced by Fig. 4, the second point of the antenna element 142B is not an end of the antenna element 142B) [Fig. 1, 2, 4 & 0050, 0055].
Nishimura does not specifically disclose a current balancing circuit coupled to the resonator antenna at a second point on the resonator antenna, the current balancing circuit comprising a first variable component, the current balancing circuit being further coupled to a ground terminal.
Holland teaches a current balancing circuit (variable impedance 145; it's noted that the variable impedance 145 is similar to the impedances 132 and 134 in Fig. 2) coupled to the resonator antenna at a second point on the resonator antenna, the current balancing circuit comprising a first variable component (capacitors 131 and 133), the current balancing circuit being further coupled to a ground terminal (as evidenced by Fig. 4, the impedance 145 is coupled to a ground terminal) [Fig. 2, 4 & Col. 8 lines 54-64, Col. 9 lines 43-59].
It would have been obvious to modify the ground line of Nishimura to include a current balancing circuit, as in Holland, to provide further control over antenna current, thereby aiding in the formation of uniform plasma flux [Holland - Col. 5 lines 10-22, Col. 7 lines 34-64, Col. 10 lines 33-44].
Modified Nishimura does not specifically disclose a first current sensor coupled between the RF source and the first point; and a second current sensor coupled between the second point and the ground terminal.
Patrick teaches a first current sensor (sensor 704) coupled between the RF source (RF source 702) and the first point (sensor 704) [Fig. 5, 7 & Col. 8 lines 35-38, Col. 9 lines 40-55].
It would have been obvious to modify the RF source of Modified Nishimura to include a current sensor and matching circuit, as in Patrick, to provide further control over electrical parameters, thereby aiding in the formation of uniform plasma [Patrick - Col. 7 lines 40-45, Col. 9 lines 40-55].
Furthermore, although Patrick does not specifically disclose a current sensor between an antenna and a current balancing circuit, Patrick does disclose that it is beneficial to utilize sensors prior to impedance adjusters (an to utilize multiple current sensors at different points of a circuit) [Patrick - Col. 7 lines 40-45, Col. 9 lines 40-55]. As such, it would be obvious to utilize sensors between any two points on the antenna of Modified Holland.
Modified Nishimura does not specifically disclose a length of the resonator antenna from the second point to either the inner end or the outer end of the resonator antenna being equal to a quarter-wavelength of a first resonant frequency of the resonator antenna.
Yamawaku teaches a length of the resonator antenna from the second point to either the inner end or the outer end of the resonator antenna being equal to a quarter-wavelength of a first resonant frequency of the resonator antenna (middle portion 8 may be grounded and the distance between the middle portion 8 and the outer end 7 may be a length of λ/4) [Fig. 2 & 0035].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the second point of modified Nishimura to include be a quarter wavelength of a resonant frequency away from the end, as in Yamawaku, to generate an effective standing wave suitable for obtaining a plasma intensity strong enough to process a wafer [Yamawaku - 0035]. It is noted that two halves of the antenna of Yamawaku would result in an antenna length of λ/2.
Regarding Claim 22:
Nishimura does not specifically disclose wherein the first variable component is a variable capacitor.
Holland teaches wherein the first variable component is a variable capacitor (capacitors 131 and 133 are variable capacitors, as evidenced by Fig. 2) [Fig. 2, 4 & Col. 8 lines 54-64, Col. 9 lines 43-59].
It would have been obvious to modify the RF source of Modified Nishimura to include a current sensor and matching circuit, as in Patrick, to provide further control over electrical parameters, thereby aiding in the formation of uniform plasma [Patrick - Col. 7 lines 40-45, Col. 9 lines 40-55].
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishimura et al. (US 20100269980) in view of Holland et al. (US 5800619), Patrick et al. (US 5556549), and Yamawaku et al. (US 20160126064), as applied to claims 21-22 above, and further in view of Chen et al. (US 20140302256) and Collins et al. (US 5392018).
The limitations of claims 21-22 have been set forth above.
Regarding Claim 23:
Modified Nishimura does not specifically disclose wherein a component is an inductor.
Chen teaches wherein a first component is an inductor (inductance L20) [Fig. 4 & 0052].
It would have been obvious to modify the current balancing circuit of Modified Nishimura to comprise an inductor, as in Chen '256, to provide further control over impedance [Chen - 0032, 0053-0055].
Modified Nishimura does not specifically disclose wherein the first variable component is a variable inductor.
Collins teaches wherein the first variable component is a variable inductor (variable inductor 74) [Fig. 3 & Col. 4 lines 30-54].
It would have been obvious to modify the inductor of Modified Nishimura to be a variable inductor, as in Collins, to provide the capabilities for further real-time control over impedance [Collins - Col. 6 lines 26-34, Col. 7 lines 23-35]. Furthermore, substituting a fixed inductor with a variable inductor would be a simple substitution to obtain predictable results (see MPEP 2143 B).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see Remarks, filed 08/05/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 19-20 under 35 USC 112a have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 19-20 under 35 USC 112a has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, see Remarks, filed 08/05/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 17-20 under 35 USC 112b have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claim 17-20 under 35 USC 112b has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, see Remarks, filed 08/05/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-13, 17-18, and 21-23 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the combination of references being used in the current rejection. The teachings of Yamawaku et al. (US 20160126064) remedy anything lacking in the combination of references as applied above the top amended claims.
Conclusion
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
/Kurt Sweely/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights