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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 215 in Fig. 2A. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: In Pg. 1, “GENERAL DESCRIPTION” should read –SUMMARY–.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 5, “the area” should read –the at least one area–. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 7, an “or” should be placed after the limitation “an estimate of a distance between a first top point of the sidewall and a second top point of the second sidewall, extracted from the image data”. This is based on Para. 007 of Applicant’s specification.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: In lines 2 and 3, “the area” should read –the at least one area–. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 2, “the area” should read –the at least one area–. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: In lines 3 and 5, “the area” should read –the at least one area–. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 2, “the area” should read –the at least one area–. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: In lines 3 and 4, “the area” should read –the at least one area–. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 2, “data” should read –the data–. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 5, an “and” should be placed after the limitation “one or more values of the one or more attributes, generated based on given image data informative of the given cavity”. This is based on Para. 0016 of Applicant’s specification.
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: In lines 3 and 4, “the area” should read –the at least one area–. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 2, “the attributes” should read –the one or more attributes–. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 6, “the given specimen” should read –the given semiconductor specimen–. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: In lines 3 and 5, “the given area” should read –the least one given area–. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 2, “the area” should read –the at least one given area–. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 7, “the area” should read –the at least one area–. 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 3, 8, and 15 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.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the element" in line 3. It is unclear and indefinite which element is being referred to (i.e., the element located at the bottom part of the cavity, or the one or more elements coupled to the sidewall).
Additionally, the term “more accurate than” in claim 3 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “more accurate than” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Therefore, the limitation “said estimate is more accurate than a raw estimate” is rendered indefinite.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the acquisition" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Only an obtaining step, not an acquisition step, is previously recited in the claim(s).
Claim 15 recites the limitations "the first range of values” and “the second range of values” in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Only a “first space of values” and a “second space of values” is previously recited in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-12, 14-16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite system(s) and a non-transitory computer readable medium for determine whether a sidewall is undercut. With respect to the analysis of claim 1 (claim 20 is similar):
Step 1:
With regard to Step 1, claim 1 is directed to a system; and therefore, the claim is directed to one of the statutory categories of inventions.
Step 2A, Prong One:
With regard to Step 2A, Prong One, the following limitations in claim 1 (and similarly claim 20) as drafted recite an abstract idea: “use the image data to determine one or more attributes of at least one area of the image data, wherein the area is informative of at least one of: at least part of the sidewall, or one or more elements coupled to the sidewall, and use the one or more attributes to determine data indicative of whether the sidewall is undercut.” The limitations recite an abstract idea, such as a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation manually or in the mind by a human. That is, a person can determine/identify features of an area of the image (i.e., a sidewall of the semiconductor), and determine whether the sidewall is undercut. These are concepts that fall under the grouping of abstract idea mental processes, i.e., a concept performed in the human mind, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion of a human.
Step 2A, Prong Two:
The 2019 PEG defines the phrase “integration into a practical application” to require an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception. In the instant case, there are no additional steps/elements/limitations in the claims, with the exception of the following in claim 1 (system claim) and claim 20 (non-transitory computer readable medium claim): “one or more processing circuitries” and “obtain image data informative of a cavity in a semiconductor specimen, wherein the cavity is associated with a sidewall” in claim 1, and “one or more processing circuitries” and “obtaining image data informative of a cavity in a semiconductor specimen, wherein the cavity is associated with at least one sidewall” in claim 20. The obtaining limitation is mere data/image gathering. The one or more processing circuitries are generic computer components. These are regarded as adding routine and conventional elements to perform the judicial exception, and do not apply it into a practical application. Accordingly, the above-mentioned additional elements/limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application; and therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2B:
Because the claims fail under Step 2A, the claims are further evaluated under Step 2B. The claims herein do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, because as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into practical application, the additional elements/limitations to perform the steps, amount to no more than insignificant routine and conventional elements. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic components cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, claims 1 and 20 are not patent eligible.
Furthermore, with regard to claims 2-12 and 14-16 when viewed individually, these additional steps, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, provide extra-solution activities to cover performance of the limitations as an abstract idea, and do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, they are not patent eligible.
However, claims 13 and 17-19 provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, they are patent eligible.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 12, 13, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Donegan et al. (US 2024/0361529 A1, hereinafter “Donegan”) in view of Shaubi et al. (US 2022/0222806 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Donegan teaches, a system (Para. 0030: “The cavity 46 may include a bottom 54 at a maximum depth in the semiconductor substrate 16 and opposite sidewalls 50, 52 that are inclined relative to the bottom 54 of the cavity 46…The width dimension W of the cavity 46 may vary over the portion of the undercut region 47 adjacent to the edge 40”; Para. 0036: an image is taken by the optics of a metrology tool; As shown below in Fig. 4, there is a semiconductor substrate 16, cavity 46, and sidewalls 50 and 52:
PNG
media_image1.png
619
717
media_image1.png
Greyscale
),
use the image data to determine one or more attributes of at least one area of the image data, wherein the area is informative of at least one of: at least part of the sidewall, or one or more elements coupled to the sidewall (Para. 0036: an image is taken by the optics of a metrology tool and a dimension (i.e., width dimension) is measured; Para. 0030: “The cavity 46 may have a width dimension W between the sidewall 50 and the sidewall 52. The width dimension W of the cavity 46 may vary over the portion of the undercut region 47 adjacent to the edge 40”; Note: the Examiner selects the at least part of the sidewall limitation, and the Examiner interprets width as an example of an attribute),
and use the one or more attributes to determine data indicative of whether the sidewall is undercut (Para. 0030: “The cavity 46 may have a width dimension W between the sidewall 50 and the sidewall 52. The width dimension W of the cavity 46 may vary over the portion of the undercut region 47 adjacent to the edge 40”; Fig. 4; As shown below in Fig. 5, there is an undercut region 47:
PNG
media_image2.png
897
723
media_image2.png
Greyscale
).
Donegan does not expressly disclose the following limitation: comprising one or more processing circuitries.
However, Shaubi teaches, comprising one or more processing circuitries (Fig. 1: examination system 100 has a processor and memory circuitry 104; Paras. 0028-0029).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art, to combine a system having a processor/processing circuitry as taught by Shaubi with the metrology tool in Donegan in order to classify defects in a semiconductor specimen in an automated manner (Shaubi, Para. 0007). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be capable to have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. It is for at least the aforementioned that the Examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Donegan and Shaubi teaches the limitations as explained above in claim 1.
The combination of Donegan and Shaubi further teaches, The system of claim 1 (see claim 1 above), configured to use the data indicative of whether the sidewall is undercut to estimate a dimension of at least part of a bottom part of the cavity, or of an element located at the bottom part of the cavity (Donegan, Para. 0030: “The cavity 46 may include a bottom 54 at a maximum depth in the semiconductor substrate 16 and opposite sidewalls 50, 52 that are inclined relative to the bottom 54 of the cavity 46. The sidewalls 50, 52 are positioned at the periphery of the cavity 46 and are angled relative to the bottom 54 of the cavity 46. The sidewalls 50, 52 and bottom 54 extend in a lateral direction into the undercut region 47 of the cavity 46.…The cavity 46 may have a width dimension W between the sidewall 50 and the sidewall 52. The width dimension W of the cavity 46 may vary over the portion of the undercut region 47 adjacent to the edge 40”; Donegan: Fig. 4; Donegan: As shown in Figs. 3 and 5, there is an undercut region 47; Note: the Examiner selects the dimension of at least a bottom part of the cavity limitation).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Donegan and Shaubi teaches the limitations as explained above in claim 1.
The combination of Donegan and Shaubi further teaches, The system of claim 1 (see claim 1 above), wherein the cavity is further associated with a second sidewall, wherein, when said data is indicative that the sidewall is undercut, the system is configured to estimate a dimension of at least part of a bottom part of the cavity, or of an element located at the bottom part of the cavity, based on at least one of (Donegan, Para. 0030: “The cavity 46 may include a bottom 54 at a maximum depth in the semiconductor substrate 16 and opposite sidewalls 50, 52 that are inclined relative to the bottom 54 of the cavity 46. The sidewalls 50, 52 are positioned at the periphery of the cavity 46 and are angled relative to the bottom 54 of the cavity 46. The sidewalls 50, 52 and bottom 54 extend in a lateral direction into the undercut region 47 of the cavity 46.…The cavity 46 may have a width dimension W between the sidewall 50 and the sidewall 52. The width dimension W of the cavity 46 may vary over the portion of the undercut region 47 adjacent to the edge 40”; Donegan: Fig. 4; Donegan: As shown in Figs. 3 and 5, there is an undercut region 47; Note: the Examiner selects the dimension of at least a bottom part of the cavity limitation):
an estimate of a distance between a first top point of the sidewall and a second top point of the second sidewall, extracted from the image data (Note: the Examiner did not select this limitation based on the claim objection above and Para. 007 of Applicant’s specification stating there is an “or” between the limitations);
a width of a segment of the image data, informative of the second sidewall (Donegan, Para. 0030: “The cavity 46 may have a width dimension W between the sidewall 50 and the sidewall 52. The width dimension W of the cavity 46 may vary over the portion of the undercut region 47 adjacent to the edge 40”; Note: the Examiner selects this limitation. Since the width is measured between the sidewalls, it is informative of the sidewalls).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Donegan and Shaubi teaches the limitations as explained above in claim 1.
The combination of Donegan and Shaubi further teaches, the system of claim 1 (see claim 1 above), wherein the one or more attributes include data informative of a width of the area, or of a width of a segment in the area (Donegan, Para. 0036: a dimension (i.e., width dimension) is measured between the edge 51 and the edge 53; Para. 0030: “The cavity 46 may have a width dimension W between the sidewall 50 and the sidewall 52. The width dimension W of the cavity 46 may vary over the portion of the undercut region 47 adjacent to the edge 40”; Note: the Examiner selects the width of the area limitation).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Donegan and Shaubi teaches the limitations as explained above in claim 1.
The combination of Donegan and Shaubi further teaches, The system of claim 1 (see claim 1 above), configured to use the one or more attributes and a classifier to determine data indicative of whether the sidewall is undercut (Donegan, Para. 0030: “The cavity 46 may have a width dimension W between the sidewall 50 and the sidewall 52. The width dimension W of the cavity 46 may vary over the portion of the undercut region 47 adjacent to the edge 40”; Donegan: Fig. 4; Donegan: As shown in Fig. 5, there is an undercut region 47; Shaubi, Fig. 1: classifier 112; Shaubi: Fig. 2; Shaubi, Para. 0007: defects are classified in a semiconductor specimen).
The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the Donegan and Shaubi references presented in the rejection of claim 1 apply to claim 12 and are incorporated herein by reference. Thus, the system recited in claim 12 is met by Donegan and Shaubi.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Donegan and Shaubi teaches the limitations as explained above in claim 12.
The combination of Donegan and Shaubi further teaches, The system of claim 12 (see claim 12 above), wherein the classifier has been obtained using a data set comprising, for each given cavity associated with a given sidewall, of a plurality of given cavities (Shaubi: Abstract; Shaubi, Fig. 1: classifier 112; Shaubi, Para. 0009: a first machine learning model is trained to process a sample comprising one or more images; Shaubi, Para. 0010: a second machine learning model is trained to provide a multi-label classification and is used for classifying defects; Shaubi: Fig. 2; Shaubi, Para. 0007: defects are classified in a semiconductor specimen; Shaubi, Para. 0013: the physical attributes in the set of the defects’ physical attributes can be informative of a sidewall angle; Donegan, Fig. 4: cavity 46 has sidewalls 50 and 52; Donegan: Para. 0030):
- one or more values of the one or more attributes, generated based on given image data informative of the given cavity (Shaubi: Abstract; Shaubi, Paras. 0007-0009: generating a multi-label output vector informative of values of the physical attributes and generating multi-label descriptors of defects in the specimen; Shaubi, Para. 0013: the physical attributes in the set of the defects’ physical attributes can be informative of a sidewall angle; Donegan, Para. 0030: The cavity 46 may have a width dimension W between the sidewall 50 and the sidewall 52 and the sidewalls are angled relative to the bottom 54 of the cavity 46);
- a label indicative of whether the given sidewall is undercut (Shaubi: Abstract; Shaubi, Paras. 0007-0009: generating a multi-label output vector informative of values of the physical attributes and generating multi-label descriptors of defects in the specimen; Shaubi: Figs. 2 and 3; Shaubi: Para. 0013; Donegan, Para. 0030: “The cavity 46 may have a width dimension W between the sidewall 50 and the sidewall 52. The width dimension W of the cavity 46 may vary over the portion of the undercut region 47 adjacent to the edge 40”; Donegan: As shown in Fig. 5, there is an undercut region 47).
The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the Donegan and Shaubi references presented in the rejection of claim 12 apply to claim 13 and are incorporated herein by reference. Thus, the system recited in claim 13 is met by Donegan and Shaubi.
Regarding claim 17, Donegan teaches, A system comprising (Para. 0028: “additional cavities similar or identical to the cavity 46 may be arranged adjacent to the cavity 46”; Para. 0030: “The cavity 46 may include a bottom 54 at a maximum depth in the semiconductor substrate 16 and opposite sidewalls 50, 52 that are inclined relative to the bottom 54 of the cavity 46…The width dimension W of the cavity 46 may vary over the portion of the undercut region 47 adjacent to the edge 40”; Para. 0036: an image is taken by the optics of a metrology tool; As shown below in Fig. 4, there is a semiconductor substrate 16, cavity 46, and sidewalls 50 and 52:
PNG
media_image1.png
619
717
media_image1.png
Greyscale
):
one or more values for one or more attributes informative of at least one given area of given image data of the given specimen, wherein the given area is informative of at least one of: at least part of the given sidewall, or one or more elements coupled to the given sidewall (Para. 0036: an image is taken by the optics of a metrology tool and a dimension (i.e., width dimension) is measured; Para. 0030: The cavity 46 may have a width dimension W between the sidewall 50 and the sidewall 52 and the sidewalls are angled relative to the bottom 54 of the cavity 46. The width dimension W of the cavity 46 may vary over the portion of the undercut region 47 adjacent to the edge 40; Note: the Examiner selects the at least part of the sidewall limitation, and the Examiner interprets width dimension W as an example of a value of an attribute),
and (Para. 0030: “The cavity 46 may have a width dimension W between the sidewall 50 and the sidewall 52. The width dimension W of the cavity 46 may vary over the portion of the undercut region 47 adjacent to the edge 40”; Fig. 4; As shown below in Fig. 5, there is an undercut region 47:
PNG
media_image2.png
897
723
media_image2.png
Greyscale
),
and (Para. 0030: “The cavity 46 may have a width dimension W between the sidewall 50 and the sidewall 52. The width dimension W of the cavity 46 may vary over the portion of the undercut region 47 adjacent to the edge 40”; Fig. 4; As shown in Fig. 5, there is an undercut region 47).
Donegan does not expressly disclose the following limitations: comprising one or more processing circuitries; a given label, indicative of the given sidewall, thereby obtaining a data set; and use the data set to generate a model usable to determine, based on image data of a semiconductor specimen, data indicative of a sidewall.
However, Shaubi teaches, comprising one or more processing circuitries (Fig. 1: examination system 100 has a processor and memory circuitry 104; Paras. 0028-0029);
a given label, indicative of the given sidewall, thereby obtaining a data set (Abstract; Paras. 0007-0009: data informative of a set of defects’ physical attributes usable to distinguish between defects of different classes is obtained, a multi-label output vector informative of values of the physical attributes is generated, and multi-label descriptors of defects in the specimen are generated; Para. 0010: a second machine learning model is trained to provide a multi-label classification and is used for classifying defects; Figs. 2 and 3; Para. 0013: the physical attributes in the set of the defects’ physical attributes can be informative of a sidewall angle);
and use the data set to generate a model usable to determine, based on image data of a semiconductor specimen, data indicative of a sidewall (Abstract; Fig. 1: classifier 112; Paras. 0007-0008; Para. 0009: there is a system to classify defects in a semiconductor specimen and a first machine learning model is trained to process a sample comprising one or more images; Para. 0010: a second machine learning model is trained to provide a multi-label classification and is used for classifying defects; Shaubi: Fig. 2; Shaubi, Para. 0013: the physical attributes in the set of the defects’ physical attributes can be informative of a sidewall angle).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art, to combine a system having a processor/processing circuitry, a label being indicative of a sidewall and obtaining a data set, and generating a model to determine data indicative of a sidewall as taught by Shaubi with the metrology tool in Donegan in order to classify defects in a semiconductor specimen in an automated manner (Shaubi, Para. 0007). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be capable to have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. It is for at least the aforementioned that the Examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to claim 17.
Claim 20 recites a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions that, when executed by one or more processing circuitries, cause the one or more processing circuitries to perform the elements recited in claim 1. Therefore, the recited instructions of this claim are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding elements in its corresponding system claim. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine the Donegan and Shaubi references, presented in the rejection of claim 1, apply to this claim. Finally, the combination of Donegan and Shaubi discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions (for example, see Shaubi, Para. 0029: “The processor of PMC 104 can be configured to execute several functional modules in accordance with computer-readable instructions implemented on a non-transitory computer-readable memory comprised in the PMC”).
Claims 5, 7, 9-11, 14, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Donegan et al. (US 2024/0361529 A1, hereinafter “Donegan”) in view of Shaubi et al. (US 2022/0222806 A1) and further in view of Shao (US 2013/0071006 A1).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of the combination of Donegan and Shaubi teaches the limitations as explained above in claim 1.
The combination of the combination of Donegan and Shaubi further teaches, The system of claim 1 (see claim 1 above), wherein the cavity is further associated with a second sidewall (Donegan, Para. 0030: “The cavity 46 may include a bottom 54 at a maximum depth in the semiconductor substrate 16 and opposite sidewalls 50, 52 that are inclined relative to the bottom 54 of the cavity 46. The sidewalls 50, 52 are positioned at the periphery of the cavity 46 and are angled relative to the bottom 54 of the cavity 46. The sidewalls 50, 52 and bottom 54 extend in a lateral direction into the undercut region 47 of the cavity 46.…The cavity 46 may have a width dimension W between the sidewall 50 and the sidewall 52”; Donegan: Fig. 4), (Donegan, Para. 0030: “The cavity 46 may have a width dimension W between the sidewall 50 and the sidewall 52. The width dimension W of the cavity 46 may vary over the portion of the undercut region 47 adjacent to the edge 40”; Donegan: Fig. 4; Donegan: As shown in Fig. 5, there is an undercut region 47) to select between (i) and (ii): (i) dimension of at least part of a bottom part of the cavity, or of an element located at the bottom part of the cavity (Donegan, Para. 0030: “The cavity 46 may include a bottom 54 at a maximum depth in the semiconductor substrate 16 and opposite sidewalls 50, 52 that are inclined relative to the bottom 54 of the cavity 46. The sidewalls 50, 52 are positioned at the periphery of the cavity 46 and are angled relative to the bottom 54 of the cavity 46. The sidewalls 50, 52 and bottom 54 extend in a lateral direction into the undercut region 47 of the cavity 46.…The cavity 46 may have a width dimension W between the sidewall 50 and the sidewall 52. The width dimension W of the cavity 46 may vary over the portion of the undercut region 47 adjacent to the edge 40”; Donegan: Fig. 4; Donegan: As shown in Figs. 3 and 5, there is an undercut region 47; Note: the Examiner selects the dimension of at least a bottom part of the cavity limitation); (ii) (Donegan, Para. 0030: “The cavity 46 may include a bottom 54 at a maximum depth in the semiconductor substrate 16 and opposite sidewalls 50, 52 that are inclined relative to the bottom 54 of the cavity 46. The sidewalls 50, 52 are positioned at the periphery of the cavity 46 and are angled relative to the bottom 54 of the cavity 46. The sidewalls 50, 52 and bottom 54 extend in a lateral direction into the undercut region 47 of the cavity 46.…The cavity 46 may have a width dimension W between the sidewall 50 and the sidewall 52. The width dimension W of the cavity 46 may vary over the portion of the undercut region 47 adjacent to the edge 40”; Donegan: Fig. 4; Donegan: As shown in Figs. 3 and 5, there is an undercut region 47; Note: the Examiner selects the dimension of at least a bottom part of the cavity limitation).
The combination of Donegan and Shaubi does not expressly disclose the following limitations: wherein the area comprises a first set of points of the area indicative of a first transition in pixel intensity, and a second set of points of the area indicative of a second transition in pixel intensity; using the first set of points to estimate, from the image data, a dimension; using the second set of points to estimate, from the image data, a dimension.
However, Shao teaches, wherein the area comprises a first set of points of the area indicative of a first transition in pixel intensity, and a second set of points of the area indicative of a second transition in pixel intensity (Para. 0003: “Different features and portions of the features of the processor device emit varying intensities of charges that correspond to different grey scale levels in the image. For a given row or rows of pixels in the image, the intensity of each pixel in the row may be plotted on an intensity graph, where the horizontal axis of the graph represents the position of a particular pixel in the row and the vertical axis of the graph represents the intensity of the pixel in the position. Peak portions of the plotted graph represent higher intensity pixels that are often found at edges of features in the processor device. Thus, by measuring a distance between the peaks of a graph, one may calculate the distance between features or the dimensions of features that are shown on the image”; Para. 0019; Para. 0027; As shown Para. 0025 and Fig. 6, there are high intensity regions 602 which are edges of a feature; As shown in Fig. 4 and Para. 0022, there are side walls 406; Note: the Examiner interprets pixels as points and interprets peak portions that represent higher intensity pixels often found at edges as transitions in pixel intensities);
using the first set of points to estimate, from the image data, a dimension (Para. 0003; Para. 0019: “FIG. 2 illustrates a side cross-sectional view of an example of features 202 that have been fabricated on a substrate 201. A plotted graph 204 has been overlaid on the features 202 that represents the intensity (grayscale or color value) of a row of pixels of an example image (not shown) of the features 202…The position of the peaks may be used to determine a dimension of the features. For example, the distance (d) represents the width (i.e., the distance between the edges of the feature) of one of the features 202, and may be measured by calculating the distance between the peaks 203 and 205 of the plotted graph 204. The distance (d') represents the width of a gap 206 (i.e., the distance between two of the features 202) that may be measured by calculating the distance between the peaks 205 and 207 of the plotted graph 204”; Para. 0027; As shown Para. 0025 and Fig. 6, there are high intensity regions 602 which are edges of a feature; As shown in Fig. 4 and Para. 0022, there are side walls 406);
using the second set of points to estimate, from the image data, a dimension (Para. 0003; Para. 0019: “FIG. 2 illustrates a side cross-sectional view of an example of features 202 that have been fabricated on a substrate 201. A plotted graph 204 has been overlaid on the features 202 that represents the intensity (grayscale or color value) of a row of pixels of an example image (not shown) of the features 202…The position of the peaks may be used to determine a dimension of the features. For example, the distance (d) represents the width (i.e., the distance between the edges of the feature) of one of the features 202, and may be measured by calculating the distance between the peaks 203 and 205 of the plotted graph 204. The distance (d') represents the width of a gap 206 (i.e., the distance between two of the features 202) that may be measured by calculating the distance between the peaks 205 and 207 of the plotted graph 204”; Para. 0027; As shown Para. 0025 and Fig. 6, there are high intensity regions 602 which are edges of a feature; As shown in Fig. 4 and Para. 0022, there are side walls 406).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art, to combine points being indicative of transitions in pixel intensities and using the points to estimate dimensions as taught by Shao with the combined system of Donegan and Shaubi in order to ensure that the features have been fabricated within design specifications (Shao, Para. 0002). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be capable to have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. It is for at least the aforementioned that the Examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to claim 5.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of the combination of Donegan and Shaubi teaches the limitations as explained above in claim 1.
The combination of Donegan and Shaubi does not expressly disclose the following limitation: wherein the one or more attributes include data informative of a distance between: a first set of points of the area indicative of a first transition in pixel intensity, and a second set of points of the area indicative of a second transition in pixel intensity.
However, Shao teaches, wherein the one or more attributes include data informative of a distance between: a first set of points of the area indicative of a first transition in pixel intensity, and a second set of points of the area indicative of a second transition in pixel intensity (Para. 0003: “Different features and portions of the features of the processor device emit varying intensities of charges that correspond to different grey scale levels in the image. For a given row or rows of pixels in the image, the intensity of each pixel in the row may be plotted on an intensity graph, where the horizontal axis of the graph represents the position of a particular pixel in the row and the vertical axis of the graph represents the intensity of the pixel in the position. Peak portions of the plotted graph represent higher intensity pixels that are often found at edges of features in the processor device. Thus, by measuring a distance between the peaks of a graph, one may calculate the distance between features or the dimensions of features that are shown on the image”; Para. 0019; Para. 0027; As shown Para. 0025 and Fig. 6, there are high intensity regions 602 which are edges of a feature; As shown in Fig. 4 and Para. 0022, there are side walls 406; Note: the Examiner interprets pixels as points and interprets peak portions that represent higher intensity pixels often found at edges as transitions in pixel intensities).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art, to combine attributes including data informative of a distance between points of areas indicative transitions in pixel intensities as taught by Shao with the combined system of Donegan and Shaubi in order to ensure that the features have been fabricated within design specifications (Shao, Para. 0002). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be capable to have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. It is for at least the aforementioned that the Examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to claim 7.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Donegan and Shaubi teaches the limitations as explained above in claim 1.
The combination of Donegan and Shaubi does not expressly disclose the following limitation: wherein the one or more attributes include pixel intensity of different segments of the image data.
However, Shao teaches, wherein the one or more attributes include pixel intensity of different segments of the image data (Para. 0003: “Different features and portions of the features of the processor device emit varying intensities of charges that correspond to different grey scale levels in the image. For a given row or rows of pixels in the image, the intensity of each pixel in the row may be plotted on an intensity graph, where the horizontal axis of the graph represents the position of a particular pixel in the row and the vertical axis of the graph represents the intensity of the pixel in the position. Peak portions of the plotted graph represent higher intensity pixels that are often found at edges of features in the processor device. Thus, by measuring a distance between the peaks of a graph, one may calculate the distance between features or the dimensions of features that are shown on the image”; Para. 0019; As shown Para. 0025 and Fig. 6, there are high intensity regions 602 which are edges of a feature; As shown in Para. 0027 and Fig. 8, there are higher intensity regions 808 and 810 that correspond to edges of the features; As shown in Fig. 4 and Para. 0022, there are side walls 406).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art, to combine attributes including pixel intensity of image segments/regions as taught by Shao with the combined system of Donegan and Shaubi in order to ensure that the features have been fabricated within design specifications (Shao, Para. 0002). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be capable to have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. It is for at least the aforementioned that the Examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to claim 9.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Donegan and Shaubi teaches the limitations as explained above in claim 1.
The combination of Donegan and Shaubi does not expressly disclose the following limitation: wherein the one or more attributes include data informative of variations of a position of a set of points of the area, along at least one axis, wherein the set of points is indicative of a transition in pixel intensity.
However, Shao teaches, wherein the one or more attributes include data informative of variations of a position of a set of points of the area, along at least one axis, wherein the set of points is indicative of a transition in pixel intensity (As shown in Fig. 2 and Para. 0019, there are horizontal and vertical axes that represent the position of pixels in the image and the intensity of the pixels, respectively; Para. 0003: “Different features and portions of the features of the processor device emit varying intensities of charges that correspond to different grey scale levels in the image. For a given row or rows of pixels in the image, the intensity of each pixel in the row may be plotted on an intensity graph, where the horizontal axis of the graph represents the position of a particular pixel in the row and the vertical axis of the graph represents the intensity of the pixel in the position. Peak portions of the plotted graph represent higher intensity pixels that are often found at edges of features in the processor device. Thus, by measuring a distance between the peaks of a graph, one may calculate the distance between features or the dimensions of features that are shown on the image”; Para. 0019; As shown Para. 0025 and Fig. 6, there are high intensity regions 602 which are edges of a feature; As shown in Para. 0027 and Fig. 8, there are higher intensity regions 808 and 810 that correspond to edges of the features; As shown in Fig. 4 and Para. 0022, there are side walls 406; Note: the Examiner interprets pixels as points and interprets peak portions that represent higher intensity pixels often found at edges as transitions in pixel intensities).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art, to combine attributes including data informative of variations of a position of a set of points of the area, along an axis, in which the set of points is indicative of a transition in pixel intensity as taught by Shao with the combined system of Donegan and Shaubi in order to ensure that the features have been fabricated within design specifications (Shao, Para. 0002). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be capable to have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. It is for at least the aforementioned that the Examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to claim 10.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of the combination of Donegan and Shaubi teaches the limitations as explained above in claim 1.
The combination of the combination of Donegan and Shaubi does not expressly disclose the following limitation: wherein the one or more attributes include at least one of: data informative of variations of a signal informative of a derivative of pixel intensity in at least part of the area, or data informative of variations of a signal informative of a derivative of pixel intensity in a region of pixels of the area corresponding to a pixel intensity transition.
However, Shao teaches, wherein the one or more attributes include at least one of: data informative of variations of a signal informative of a derivative of pixel intensity in at least part of the area, or data informative of variations of a signal informative of a derivative of pixel intensity in a region of pixels of the area corresponding to a pixel intensity transition (Para. 0023: the intensity graph includes peaks that correspond to edges and the slope of the peak can be positive or negative; Para. 0003: “Different features and portions of the features of the processor device emit varying intensities of charges that correspond to different grey scale levels in the image. For a given row or rows of pixels in the image, the intensity of each pixel in the row may be plotted on an intensity graph, where the horizontal axis of the graph represents the position of a particular pixel in the row and the vertical axis of the graph represents the intensity of the pixel in the position. Peak portions of the plotted graph represent higher intensity pixels that are often found at edges of features in the processor device. Thus, by measuring a distance between the peaks of a graph, one may calculate the distance between features or the dimensions of features that are shown on the image”; Para. 0019; Para. 0027; As shown Para. 0025 and Fig. 6, there are high intensity regions 602 which are edges of a feature; As shown in Fig. 4 and Para. 0022, there are side walls 406; Note: the limitations are claimed in the alternative. The Examiner interprets slope of the intensity peak as a derivative of pixel intensity, and peak portions that represent higher intensity pixels often found at edges as transitions in pixel intensities).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art, to combine attributes including data informative of variations of a signal informative of a derivative of pixel intensity in at least part of the area/in a region of pixels of the area corresponding to a pixel intensity transition as taught by Shao with the combined system of Donegan and Shaubi in order to ensure that the features have been fabricated within design specifications (Shao, Para. 0002). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be capable to have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. It is for at least the aforementioned that the Examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to claim 11.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of the combination of Donegan and Shaubi teaches the limitations as explained above in claim 1.
The combination of Donegan and Shaubi does not expressly disclose the following limitations: wherein the one or more attributes include both: a first attribute informative of a distance between a first set of points of the area indicative of a first transition in pixel intensity, and a second set of points of the area indicative of a second transition in pixel intensity, and a second attribute informative of variations, along one axis, of the second set of points.
However, Shao teaches, wherein the one or more attributes include both: a first attribute informative of a distance between a first set of points of the area indicative of a first transition in pixel intensity, and a second set of points of the area indicative of a second transition in pixel intensity (Para. 0003: “Different features and portions of the features of the processor device emit varying intensities of charges that correspond to different grey scale levels in the image. For a given row or rows of pixels in the image, the intensity of each pixel in the row may be plotted on an intensity graph, where the horizontal axis of the graph represents the position of a particular pixel in the row and the vertical axis of the graph represents the intensity of the pixel in the position. Peak portions of the plotted graph represent higher intensity pixels that are often found at edges of features in the processor device. Thus, by measuring a distance between the peaks of a graph, one may calculate the distance between features or the dimensions of features that are shown on the image”; Para. 0019; Para. 0027; As shown Para. 0025 and Fig. 6, there are high intensity regions 602 which are edges of a feature; As shown in Fig. 4 and Para. 0022, there are side walls 406; Note: the Examiner interprets pixels as points and interprets peak portions that represent higher intensity pixels often found at edges as transitions in pixel intensities),
and a second attribute informative of variations, along one axis, of the second set of points (As shown in Fig. 2 and Para. 0019, there are horizontal and vertical axes that represent the position of pixels in the image and the intensity of the pixels, respectively; Para. 0003: “Different features and portions of the features of the processor device emit varying intensities of charges that correspond to different grey scale levels in the image. For a given row or rows of pixels in the image, the intensity of each pixel in the row may be plotted on an intensity graph, where the horizontal axis of the graph represents the position of a particular pixel in the row and the vertical axis of the graph represents the intensity of the pixel in the position. Peak portions of the plotted graph represent higher intensity pixels that are often found at edges of features in the processor device. Thus, by measuring a distance between the peaks of a graph, one may calculate the distance between features or the dimensions of features that are shown on the image”; Para. 0019; As shown Para. 0025 and Fig. 6, there are high intensity regions 602 which are edges of a feature; As shown in Para. 0027 and Fig. 8, there are higher intensity regions 808 and 810 that correspond to edges of the features; As shown in Fig. 4 and Para. 0022, there are side walls 406; Note: the Examiner interprets pixels as points and interprets different/varying pixel intensities as variations).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art, to combine attributes being informative of both a distance between points in an area indicative of a pixel intensity transition and of variations, along one axis, of the points as taught by Shao with the combined system of Donegan and Shaubi in order to ensure that the features have been fabricated within design specifications (Shao, Para. 0002). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be capable to have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. It is for at least the aforementioned that the Examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to claim 14.
Regarding claim 18, the combination of the combination of Donegan and Shaubi teaches the limitations as explained above in claim 17.
The combination of Donegan and Shaubi does not expressly disclose the following limitation: wherein the one or more attributes include data informative of a distance between: a first set of points of the given area indicative of a first transition in pixel intensity, and a second set of points of the given area indicative of a second transition in pixel intensity.
However, Shao teaches, wherein the one or more attributes include data informative of a distance between: a first set of points of the given area indicative of a first transition in pixel intensity, and a second set of points of the given area indicative of a second transition in pixel intensity (Para. 0003: “Different features and portions of the features of the processor device emit varying intensities of charges that correspond to different grey scale levels in the image. For a given row or rows of pixels in the image, the intensity of each pixel in the row may be plotted on an intensity graph, where the horizontal axis of the graph represents the position of a particular pixel in the row and the vertical axis of the graph represents the intensity of the pixel in the position. Peak portions of the plotted graph represent higher intensity pixels that are often found at edges of features in the processor device. Thus, by measuring a distance between the peaks of a graph, one may calculate the distance between features or the dimensions of features that are shown on the image”; Para. 0019; Para. 0027; As shown Para. 0025 and Fig. 6, there are high intensity regions 602 which are edges of a feature; As shown in Fig. 4 and Para. 0022, there are side walls 406; Note: the Examiner interprets pixels as points and interprets peak portions that represent higher intensity pixels often found at edges as transitions in pixel intensities).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art, to combine attributes including data informative of a distance between points of areas indicative transitions in pixel intensities as taught by Shao with the combined system of Donegan and Shaubi in order to ensure that the features have been fabricated within design specifications (Shao, Para. 0002). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be capable to have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. It is for at least the aforementioned that the Examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to claim 18.
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Donegan and Shaubi teaches the limitations as explained above in claim 17.
The combination of Donegan and Shaubi does not expressly disclose the following limitation: wherein the one or more attributes include data informative of variations of a position of a set of points of the area, along at least one axis, wherein the set of points is indicative of a transition in pixel intensity.
However, Shao teaches, wherein the one or more attributes include data informative of variations of a position of a set of points of the area, along at least one axis, wherein the set of points is indicative of a transition in pixel intensity (As shown in Fig. 2 and Para. 0019, there are horizontal and vertical axes that represent the position of pixels in the image and the intensity of the pixels, respectively; Para. 0003: “Different features and portions of the features of the processor device emit varying intensities of charges that correspond to different grey scale levels in the image. For a given row or rows of pixels in the image, the intensity of each pixel in the row may be plotted on an intensity graph, where the horizontal axis of the graph represents the position of a particular pixel in the row and the vertical axis of the graph represents the intensity of the pixel in the position. Peak portions of the plotted graph represent higher intensity pixels that are often found at edges of features in the processor device. Thus, by measuring a distance between the peaks of a graph, one may calculate the distance between features or the dimensions of features that are shown on the image”; Para. 0019; As shown Para. 0025 and Fig. 6, there are high intensity regions 602 which are edges of a feature; As shown in Para. 0027 and Fig. 8, there are higher intensity regions 808 and 810 that correspond to edges of the features; As shown in Fig. 4 and Para. 0022, there are side walls 406; Note: the Examiner interprets pixels as points and interprets peak portions that represent higher intensity pixels often found at edges as transitions in pixel intensities).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art, to combine attributes including data informative of variations of a position of a set of points of the area, along an axis, in which the set of points is indicative of a transition in pixel intensity as taught by Shao with the combined system of Donegan and Shaubi in order to ensure that the features have been fabricated within design specifications (Shao, Para. 0002). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be capable to have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. It is for at least the aforementioned that the Examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to claim 19.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Donegan et al. (US 2024/0361529 A1, hereinafter “Donegan”) in view of Shaubi et al. (US 2022/0222806 A1) and further in view of Shishido et al. (US 2003/0015660 A1; hereinafter “Shishido”).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Donegan and Shaubi teaches the limitations as explained above in claim 1.
The combination of Donegan and Shaubi does not expressly disclose the following limitation: wherein at least one attribute of the one or more attributes depends on a parameter informative of a physical effect induced on an electron beam of an examination tool by the sidewall, in the acquisition of the image data.
However, Shishido teaches, wherein at least one attribute of the one or more attributes depends on a parameter informative of a physical effect induced on an electron beam of an examination tool by the sidewall, in the acquisition of the image data (Fig. 1: CD-SEM 200 and acquiring an electron beam image 2001; Para. 0018: the electron beam irradiates the substrate part, signal strength/intensity is determined based on the slope of the sample; Paras. 0166-0167: pixels increase/decrease in resist parts of the side-wall, and the amount of signal of the resist side-wall part can be used as a feature quantity that indicates the slope angle of the resist side-wall; Paras. 0171-0172).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art, to combine an attribute depending on a parameter informative of a physical effect induced on an electron beam of an examination tool by the sidewall as taught by Shishido with the combined system of Donegan and Shaubi in order to detect variations in conditions in exposure equipment at a product wafer level in the lithography process (Shishido, Abstract). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be capable to have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. It is for at least the aforementioned that the Examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to claim 8.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Donegan et al. (US 2024/0361529 A1, hereinafter “Donegan”) in view of Shaubi et al. (US 2022/0222806 A1) and further in view of Kobayashi et al. (US 2019/0013207 A1, hereinafter “Kobayashi”).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Donegan and Shaubi teaches the limitations as explained above in claim 1.
The combination of Donegan and Shaubi does not expressly disclose the following limitation: wherein the cavity belongs to a 3D NAND.
However, Kobayashi teaches, wherein the cavity belongs to a 3D NAND (Para. 0005: manufacturing process of a 3D-NAND in which a cavity is formed; Paras. 0024-0027).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art, to combine a cavity belonging to a 3D NAND as taught by Kobayashi with the combined system of Donegan and Shaubi in order to remove an etching residue and form a tungsten electrode (Kobayashi, Para. 0027). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be capable to have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. It is for at least the aforementioned that the Examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to claim 16.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 15 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Jiang (US 2021/0097671 A1)
Vinslava et al. (US 2019/0131433 A1)
Bistritzer et al. (US 2022/0082376 A1)
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Daniella M. DiGuglielmo whose telephone number is (571)272-0183. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 AM - 4:00 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, Emily Terrell can be reached at (571)270-3717. 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.
/Daniella M. DiGuglielmo/Examiner, Art Unit 2666
/EMILY C TERRELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2666