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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election, without traverse, of Group I, claims 1-20 in the “Response To Restriction Requirement Under 37 C.F.R. §1.111” filed on February 18, 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 21 and 22 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to the nonelected inventions of Group II, claim 21 and Group III, claim 22.
Information Disclosure Statements
The Information Disclosure Statements (IDSs) submitted on October 5, 2023 and June 25, 2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98. Accordingly, the IDSs are being considered by the Examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities:
on line 1, “wherein in (a)” should be “wherein in step (a)”; and
on line 3, “wherein in (b)” should be “wherein in step (b)”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informality: on line 1, “wherein in (c)” should be “wherein in step (c)” . Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informality: on line 1, “wherein in (a)” should be “wherein in step (a)” . Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informality: on line 1, “wherein in (a)” should be “wherein in step (a)” . Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informality: on line 1, “wherein in (a)” should be “wherein in step (a)” . Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informality: on line 1, “wherein in (a)” should be “wherein in step (a)” . Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informality: on line 1, “wherein in (b)” should be “wherein in step (b)” . Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informality: on line 1, “wherein in (c)” should be “wherein in step (c)” . Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informality: on line 1, “wherein in (d)” should be “wherein in step (d)” . Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informality: on line 2, “more in (b) and (c)” should be “more in step (b) and step (c)” . Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informality: on lines 1-2, “a processing time in (b) is equal to or longer than a processing time in (c)” should be “a processing time in step (b) is equal to or longer than a processing time in step (c)” . Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, lines 2-3 partially recite: “forming a layer including a surface terminated with an element X on a surface of a substrate”. This recited language used to define the invention is ambiguous and clarification and/or correction are/is required to make its meaning clear and precise whereby the metes and bounds of the claimed invention can be ascertained. No new matter may be added. For example, the meaning of “a surface terminated with an element X” is unclear. Does “a surface terminated with an element X” mean that endings have been formed on the surface of the layer that include element X? If so, then how are these endings formed and what is their structure? As another example, does “a surface terminated with an element X” mean that the surface of the layer only extends to a certain limit? If so, then what is that limit and what does element X have to do with this limit? As an additional example, does “a surface terminated with an element X” have a specific physical or chemical property? If so, then what is that physical or chemical property? Perhaps “a surface terminated with an element X” has a meaning other than these three possible interpretations. As a further example, it is unclear whether “a substrate” is a different substrate than the one already recited in the preamble (i.e., line 1) of claim 1. For purpose of examination, the Examiner is interpreting the above-quoted lines 2-3 of claim 1 as reciting: “forming a layer including a surface with an element X on a surface of the substrate” because of these ambiguities.
Regarding claim 1, lines 5-6 partially recite: “changing a surface termination with the element X on the surface of the layer to a surface termination with an element Y”. This recited language used to define the invention is ambiguous and clarification and/or correction are/is required to make its meaning clear and precise whereby the metes and bounds of the claimed invention can be ascertained. No new matter may be added. For example, the meaning of “changing a surface termination with the element X on the surface of the layer to a surface termination with an element Y” is unclear. Does “a surface termination with an element Y” mean that endings have been formed on the surface that include element Y? If so, then how are these endings formed and what is their structure? As another example, does “a surface termination with an element Y” mean that the surface only extends to a certain limit? If so, then what is that limit and what does element Y have to do with this limit? As an additional example, does “a surface termination with an element Y” have a specific physical or chemical property? If so, then what is that physical or chemical property? Perhaps “a surface termination with an element Y” has a meaning other than these three possible interpretations. As a further example, how is “a surface termination” “changed” and why is it “changed” to “a surface termination with an element Y”? For purpose of examination, the Examiner is interpreting the above-quoted lines 5-6 of claim 1 as reciting: “a surface with the element X on the surface of the layer to a surface with an element Y” because of these ambiguities.
Regarding claim 1, lines 8-9 partially recite: “desorbing the element Y constituting the surface termination with the element Y on the surface of the layer”. This recited language used to define the invention is ambiguous and clarification and/or correction are/is required to make its meaning clear and precise whereby the metes and bounds of the claimed invention can be ascertained. No new matter may be added. For example, the meaning of “desorbing the element Y constituting the surface termination with the element Y on the surface of the layer” is unclear. Does “the surface termination with an element Y” mean that endings have been formed on the surface that include element Y? If so, then how are these endings formed and what is their structure? As another example, does “the surface termination with an element Y” mean that the surface only extends to a certain limit? If so, then what is that limit and what does element Y have to do with this limit? As an additional example, does “the surface termination with an element Y” have a specific physical or chemical property? If so, then what is that physical or chemical property? Perhaps “the surface termination with an element Y” has a meaning other than these three possible interpretations. As a further example, what does “desorbing the element Y” mean? Does it mean removing all of the element Y or a portion of the element? If so, then how is the element Y removed and why is it removed? Perhaps “desorbing the element Y” means something else? For purpose of examination, the Examiner is interpreting the above-quoted lines 8-9 of claim 1 as reciting: “removing at least a portion of the element Y on the surface of the layer” because of these ambiguities.
Regarding claim 1, line 10 partially recites: “forming a film on the layer from which the element Y is desorbed”. This recited language used to define the invention is ambiguous and clarification and/or correction are/is required to make its meaning clear and precise whereby the metes and bounds of the claimed invention can be ascertained. No new matter may be added. For example, what does “on the layer from which the element Y is desorbed” mean? Does it mean removing all of the element Y or a portion of the element? If so, then how is the element Y removed and why is it removed? Perhaps “on the layer from which the element Y is desorbed” means something else? For purpose of examination, the Examiner is interpreting the above-quoted line 10 of claim 1 as reciting: “forming a film on the layer from which at least a portion of the element Y is removed” because of this ambiguity.
Dependent claims 2-20 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) because of their dependency on independent claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, lines 1-4 recite: “wherein in (a), a surface with a Si-X termination is formed as the surface terminated with the element X, and wherein in (b), the Si-X termination on the surface of the layer is changed to a Si-Y termination.” This recited language used to define the invention is ambiguous and clarification and/or correction are/is required to make its meaning clear and precise whereby the metes and bounds of the claimed invention can be ascertained. No new matter may be added. For example, the meaning of “Si-X termination” is unclear. Does “Si-X termination” mean that endings have been formed on the surface that include silicon and the element X? If so, then how are these endings formed and what is their structure? As another example, does “Si-X termination” mean that the surface only extends to a certain limit? If so, then what is that limit and what does silicon and element X have to do with this limit? As an additional example, does “Si-X termination” have a specific physical or chemical property? If so, then what is that physical or chemical property? Perhaps Si-X termination” has a meaning other than these three possible interpretations. As a further example, what does “a Si-Y termination” mean? Does “Si-Y termination” mean that endings have been formed on the surface that include silicon and element Y? If so, then how are these endings formed and what is their structure? As another further example, does “Si-Y termination” mean that the surface only extends to a certain limit? If so, then what is that limit and what does silicon and element Y have to do with this limit? As an additional further example, does “Si-Y termination” have a specific physical or chemical property? If so, then what is that physical or chemical property? Perhaps Si-Y termination” has a meaning other than these three possible interpretations. For purpose of examination, the Examiner is interpreting lines 1-4 of claim 2 as reciting: “wherein in step (a), a surface where Si-X is formed and wherein in step (b), the Si-X on the surface of the layer is changed to a Si-Y” because of these ambiguities.
Regarding claim 3, lines 1-3 partially recite: “a Si-Y bond in the Si-Y termination on the surface of the layer is cut, and Si at the surface of the layer is made to have a dangling bond”. This recited language used to define the invention is ambiguous and clarification and/or correction are/is required to make its meaning clear and precise whereby the metes and bounds of the claimed invention can be ascertained. No new matter may be added. For example, the meaning of “the Si-Y termination on the surface of the layer” is unclear. Does “the Si-Y termination on the surface of the layer” mean that endings have been formed on the surface of the layer that include element Y? If so, then how are these endings formed and what is their structure? As another example, does “the Si-Y termination on the surface of the layer” mean that the surface of the layer only extends to a certain limit? If so, then what is that limit and what does element Y have to do with this limit? As an additional example, does “the Si-Y termination on the surface of the layer” have a specific physical or chemical property? If so, then what is that physical or chemical property? Perhaps “the Si-Y termination on the surface of the layer” has a meaning other than these three possible interpretations. As a further example, what does “is cut” mean and why is this step performed? As a still further example, how is “Si” made “at the surface of layer” and why is this step performed? What happens to element Y? As yet a still further example, how is “Si at the surface of layer” “made to have a dangling bond” and why is this step performed? Again, what happens to element Y and does it also have a dangling bond? For purpose of examination, the Examiner is interpreting the above-quoted lines 1-3 of claim 3 as reciting: “a Si-Y bond in the Si-Y on the surface of the layer” because of these ambiguities.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d), as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 20 recites: A method of manufacturing a semiconductor device, comprising the method of Claim 1.
MPEP 608.01(n)(III) provides that “a claim in dependent form shall contain:
a reference to a claim previously set forth, and
then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed” (emphasis added).
Regarding claim 20, there is no further limitation of the subject matter claimed then specified after the reference to previously set forth claim 1. Rather, the further limitation of the subject matter claimed appears before the reference to claim 1. Therefore, claim 20 is not in correct form as required by MPEP 608.01(n)(III). Applicant may cancel the claim, amend the claim to place the claim in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-12, 14-16, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2021/0125828 A1 (Horita).
Regarding claim 1, Horita discloses, A method (FIG. 4; [0038]) of processing substrate(substrate (200); FIG. 1; [0017]), comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
855
708
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(a) forming a layer including a surface terminated with an element X on a surface of a substrate (200) ([0066]) by supplying an element X-containing gas ([0064] and [0022]) to the substrate (200) which is set to have a first temperature ([0053], [0060], and [0061]);
PNG
media_image2.png
682
867
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(b) changing a surface termination with the element X on the surface of the layer to a surface termination with an element Y by supplying an element Y-containing gas ([0068]) to the substrate (200) which is set to have a second temperature ([0053], [0060], and [0061]);
(c) desorbing the element Y constituting the surface termination with the element Y on the surface of the layer ([0070]) by setting the substrate (200) to have a third temperature ([0053], [0060], and [0061]); and
(d) forming a film on the layer from which the element Y is desorbed, by supplying a film-forming gas ([0097]) to the substrate (200) which is set to have a fourth temperature ([0095]).1
Regarding claim 3, Horita discloses, The method of Claim 2, wherein in (c), a Si-Y bond in the Si-Y termination on the surface of the layer (a Si-Y bond is an inherent property of the Si-Y on the surface of the layer; please see, MPEP 2112 and 2112.01) is cut, and Si at the surface of the layer is made to have a dangling bond.2
Regarding claim 4, Horita discloses, The method of Claim 1, wherein the second temperature ([0053], [0060], and [0061]) is set to be higher than the first temperature ([0053], [0060], and [0061]), and
wherein the third temperature is set to be higher than the first temperature ([0053], [0060], and [0061]—Horita discloses that the first, second, and third temperatures may be set within a range of 350 to 450 degrees Celsius which discloses that these temperatures may be set differently such that the second temperature is set to be higher than the first temperature, and the third temperature is set to be higher than the first temperature, as recited in claim 4).
Regarding claim 5, Horita discloses, The method of Claim 4, wherein the fourth temperature is set to be equal to or lower than the first temperature ([0053] and [0060]—first temperature may range between 350 to 450 degrees Celsius and [0106]—fourth temperature may range between 450 to 550 degrees Celsius which discloses that the fourth temperature is set to be equal to the first temperature).
Regarding claim 6, Horita discloses, The method of Claim 4, wherein the fourth temperature (0095]) is set to be higher than the first temperature ([0053], [0060], and [0061]).
Regarding claim 7, Horita discloses, The method of Claim 1, wherein the element X includes halogen ([0066]—chlorine is a halogen]).
Regarding claim 8, Horita discloses, The method of Claim 1, wherein the element X includes chlorine ([0066]).
Regarding claim 9, Horita discloses, The method of Claim 1, wherein the element Y includes hydrogen or deuterium ([0068]).
Regarding claim 10, Horita discloses, The method of Claim 7, wherein in (a), a halosilane-based gas is supplied to the substrate (200) as the element X-containing gas ([0022]).
Regarding claim 11, Horita discloses, The method of Claim 7, wherein in (a), a chlorosilane-based gas is supplied to the substrate (200) as the element X-containing gas ([0022]).
Regarding claim 12, Horita discloses, The method of Claim 10, wherein in (a), a silicon hydride-based gas is further supplied to the substrate (200) ([0021]).
Regarding claim 14, Horita discloses, The method of Claim 9, wherein in (b), at least one selected from the group of a hydrogen gas and a deuterium gas is supplied to the substrate (200) as the element Y-containing gas ([0023]).
Regarding claim 15, Horita discloses, The method of Claim 1, wherein in (c), at least one selected from the group of supplying an inert gas ([0073] and [0048]—N2 is an inert gas) to the substrate (200) and evacuating a space in which the substrate (200) exists is performed.
Regarding claim 16, Horita discloses, The method of Claim 1, wherein in (d), at least one selected from the group of a germanium-containing gas and a silicon-containing gas is supplied to the substrate (200) as the film-forming gas ([0097] and [0021]).
Regarding claim 19, Horita discloses, The method of Claim 1, wherein a processing time in (b) is equal to or longer than a processing time in (c) ([0078]—Horita discloses that the processing time for steps (b) and (c) may range between 0.5 to 2 minutes).
Regarding claim 20, Horita discloses, A method of manufacturing a semiconductor device, comprising the method of Claim 1 ([0002]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 2, 12, 13, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horita.
Regarding claim 2, Applicant may argue that Horita does not explicitly disclose,
wherein in (a), a surface with a Si-X termination is formed as the surface terminated with the element X, and
wherein in (b), the Si-X termination on the surface of the layer is changed to a Si-Y termination.3
However, Horita does disclose that step (a) causes the surface of substrate (200) to include silicon (Si) ([0066]). Horita also discloses that step (b) causes the surface of substrate (200) to include silicon (Si) ([0071]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention having the teachings of Horita before him/her that, a surface with a Si-X termination is formed as the surface terminated with the element X and the Si-X termination on the surface of the layer is changed to a Si-Y termination because formation of Si-X and formation of Si-Y are result effective variables which can be controlled through routine experimentation with a reasonable expectation of success by, for example, selecting the supply of the element X-containing gas to substrate (200) and/or the supply of the element Y-containing gas to substrate (200). Please see, MPEP 2144.05(II).
Regarding claim 12, Applicant may argue that Horita does not explicitly disclose, The method of Claim 10, wherein in (a), a silicon hydride-based gas is further supplied to the substrate (200).
But, Horita discloses that a silicon hydride gas helps ensure that the crystal state of the Si film at the completion of the Si film formation is amorphous ([0108]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention having the teaching of Horita before him/her that in step (a), a silicon hydride-based gas is further supplied to the substrate (200), as taught by Horita, to help ensure that the crystal state of the Si film at the completion of the Si film formation is amorphous. Please see, MPEP 2144(IV)—Rational Different From Applicant’s Is Permissible—The reason or motivation to modify the reference may often suggest what the inventor has done, but for a different purpose or to solve a different problem. It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant.
Regarding claim 13, Applicant may argue that Horita does not explicitly disclose, wherein in (a), the halosilane-based gas and the silicon hydride-based gas are alternately supplied to the substrate.
However, Horita does disclose that the gas cycle may be repeated a predetermined number of times (n times, where n is an integer of 1 or more) ([0074]). As noted above, Horita also discloses that halosilane-based gas and silicon hydride-based gas may be utilized in step (a). Horita additionally discloses that the thickness of the layer formed on substrate (200) can be adjusted by controlling processing conditions such as the number of times processing is repeated (0075]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention having the teachings of Horita before him/her that the type of gas utilized and sequence of application thereof are result effective variables which can be chosen through routine experimentation with a reasonable expectation of success which could include that the halosilane-based gas and the silicon hydride-based gas are alternately supplied to the substrate (200) to control thickness of the layer formed on substrate (200). Please see, MPEP 2144(IV), above, and MPEP 2144.05(II).
Regarding claim 17, Horita discloses, wherein the second temperature and the third temperature are set to 400 degrees C or higher and 520 degrees C or lower. ([0053] and [0060]—Horita discloses that the second and third temperatures may be set within a range of 350 to 450 degrees Celsius which overlaps with 400 degrees C or higher and 520 degrees C or lower). Please see, MPEP 2144.05(I)—“ In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists.”
Regarding claim 18, Horita discloses, wherein a pressure in a space in which the substrate (200) exists is set to 500 Pa or more in (b) and (c) ([0080]—Horita discloses that the pressures in a space in which the substrate (200) exists in steps (b) and (c) of claim 1 range from 277 to 1,200 Pa with overlaps with 500 Pa or more). Please see, MPEP 2144.05(I), above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2020/0083097 A1 (Kitamura)—Discloses A method (FIG. 4) of processing substrate (200), comprising: forming a layer including a surface terminated with an element X on a surface of a substrate (200) by supplying an element X-containing gas to the substrate (200) which is set to have a first temperature ([0048]); changing a surface termination with the element X on the surface of the layer to a surface termination with an element Y by supplying an element Y-containing gas to the substrate (200) which is set to have a second temperature ([0052]); and forming a film on the layer from which the element Y is desorbed, by supplying a film-forming gas to the substrate (200) which is set to have a fourth temperature ([0072]).
US 2017/0263441 A1 (Orihashi)— Discloses A method (FIG. 4) of processing substrate (200), comprising: forming a layer including a surface terminated with an element X on a surface of a substrate (200) by supplying an element X-containing gas to the substrate (200) which is set to have a first temperature ([0064]); changing a surface termination with the element X on the surface of the layer to a surface termination with an element Y by supplying an element Y-containing gas to the substrate (200) which is set to have a second temperature ([0071]); and forming a film on the layer from which the element Y is desorbed, by supplying a film-forming gas to the substrate (200) which is set to have a fourth temperature ([0113]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Erik A. Anderson whose telephone number is (703) 756-1217. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m. (Pacific Time Zone).
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, William B. Partridge, can be reached at (571) 270-1402. 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.
/ERIK A. ANDERSON/Examiner, Art Unit 2812
/William B Partridge/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2812
1 Please see the rejections of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), above, for how the language of claim 1 is being interpreted for purpose of examination.
2 Please see the rejections of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), above, for how the language of claim 3 is being interpreted for purpose of examination.
3 Please see the rejections of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), above, for how the language of claim 2 is being interpreted for purpose of examination.