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 .
Specification
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the previously presented objection to the specification and thus the objection is withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the previously presented rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and thus the rejections are withdrawn.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 5 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In claim 5, the limitation states the wafer information comprises “an average atomic mass of materials constituting the wafer or an average atomic number of the materials constituting the wafer” after stating the second parameter regarding the chemical reaction is “based on the wafer information” in claim 4 which appears to indicate that the second parameter requires average atomic mass or atomic number; however, this limitation is not supported by the original specification. In paragraphs 0079-0091, the chemical reaction based equations do not mention atomic mass or atomic number and the only “wafer information” used appears to be the temperature of the wafer or the energy of the target substrate/wafer. Therefore, claim 5 is rejected for lacking written description support. For the purposes of examination, the “wafer information” of claim 5 will be interpreted to include wafer information used in the second parameter in addition to wafer information used in the first parameter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 9-10, filed 10/15/2025, with respect to claims 1, 9, and 18 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been withdrawn.
Claims 1 and 9 recite calculating a reaction parameter based on a physical reaction and chemical reaction that occur at the wafer, which appears to be the source of the alleged improvement (see specification para 0092-0094), and the calculation of the reaction parameter and generating of a simulation profile are incorporated into a practical application of performing a plasma treatment. Claim 18 recites calculating a reaction parameter where the reaction parameter includes information of a material included in the wafer, information of a plasma, energy of a neutral radical gas, and temperature of a wafer, which appears achieve the alleged improvement of reliability and yield because the reaction parameter is calculated using information related to the plasma reactions.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-3, 9-13 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103) as being unpatentable over Tetiker (US 20170176983 A1) in view of Samukawa (US 9620338 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Tetiker (US 20170176983 A1) teaches determining/generating a simulation profile of a feature on a semiconductor substrate after the feature has been etched by a plasma etching process through a simulation that depends on modeled reaction rates (defining a plasma reaction for the wafer), wherein the simulation model depends on physical and chemical parameters (reaction parameter) associated with the chemical reaction mechanisms, wherein the parameters may be calculated from models and describe physical and chemical reaction mechanisms, such as reaction probabilities and sticking coefficients (calculating a reaction parameter of the plasma reaction based on a physical reaction and chemical reaction that occur at the wafer), wherein the etch simulation profile computed/generated from the input parameters, including reaction parameters, is compared to an experimental etch simulation profile obtained from an etch experiment using the same initial conditions by determining an error metric indicative of the difference between the experimental and computed etch profiles, wherein a final/optimized simulation profile is generated by minimizing the error metric, and wherein the etching (plasma treatment) is performed using/based on the optimized/final simulation profile model (para 0007, 0019-0022, 0038-0044, 0055, 0059-0060, 0101, 0120, 0129, 0133-0134; Fig. 3).
Tetiker teaches the plasma parameters used in the optimization may include energy of radicals (para 0041) but fails to explicitly teach the reaction parameter comprises an energy of a neutral radical gas. However, Samukawa (US 9620338 B2), in the analogous art of simulating/predicting plasma processes, teaches that a simulator for a plasma etching/deposition process includes data for neutral particle/radical adsorption where the adsorption rate depends upon the energy of the neutral radical (an energy of a neutral radical gas) (col 5 line 35-67, col 6, col 7 line 1-53, col 11 line 37-59, col 14 line 50-57). Tetiker teaches calculating reaction rates associated with the etch process and that the reaction parameters are incorporated into the etch model/simulation to simulate the surface reactions on the wafer (para 0020-0021, 0038-0039, 0041, 0044). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the deposition and etching equations of Samukawa, which include neutral radical energy, in the model/simulation of Tetiker to more accurately simulate the surface reactions on the wafer with energy of neutral radical gas being a reaction parameter.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Tetiker and Samukawa teaches the reaction parameter includes process parameters such as substrate (wafer) temperature or pedestal temperature (a temperature of a bottom electrode supporting the wafer) (Tetiker para 0032, 0038-0039, 0042).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Tetiker and Samukawa teaches the reaction parameter depends on (has information of) the material composition of the surface being etched, including the wafer, and plasma parameters describing the plasma conditions (Tetiker para 0030, 0038, 0041, 0080).
Regarding claim 9, Tetiker (US 20170176983 A1) teaches determining/generating a simulation profile of a feature on a semiconductor substrate (wafer) after the feature has been etched by a plasma etching process through a simulation that depends on modeled reaction rates (defining a plasma reaction for the wafer), wherein the simulation model depends on physical and chemical parameters (reaction parameter) associated with the reaction mechanisms such as sputter yields and energies (based on a physical sputtering reaction) as well as reactant sticking coefficients (based on a chemical adsorption reaction), wherein the parameters may be calculated from models or literature, wherein the calculated etch simulation profile computed/generated from the input parameters, including reaction parameters, is compared to an experimental etch simulation profile obtained from an etch experiment using the same initial conditions by determining an error metric indicative of the difference between the experimental and computed etch profiles, wherein the final/optimized simulation profile is generated by minimizing the error metric, and the etching (plasma treatment) for the wafer is performed based on the optimized/final simulation profile (para 0007, 0019-0022, 0038-0044, 0055, 0059-0060, 0101, 0120, 0129, 0133-0134; Fig. 3).
Tetiker teaches the plasma parameters used in the optimization may include energy of radicals (para 0041) but fails to explicitly teach the reaction parameter includes an energy of a neutral radical gas. However, Samukawa (US 9620338 B2), in the analogous art of simulating/predicting plasma processes, teaches that a simulator for a plasma etching/deposition process includes data for neutral particle/radical adsorption where the adsorption rate depends upon the energy of the neutral radical (an energy of a neutral radical gas) (col 5 line 35-67, col 6, col 7 line 1-53, col 11 line 37-59, col 14 line 50-57). Tetiker teaches calculating reaction rates associated with the etch process and that the reaction parameters are incorporated into the etch model/simulation to simulate the surface reactions on the wafer (para 0020-0021, 0038-0039, 0041, 0044). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the deposition and etching equations of Samukawa, which include neutral radical energy, in the model/simulation of Tetiker to more accurately simulate the surface reactions on the wafer with energy of neutral radical gas being a reaction parameter.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Tetiker and Samukawa teaches generating the optimized/final simulation profile comprises comparing the calculated simulation profile to an experimental simulation profile (Tetiker para 0059-0060; Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Tetiker and Samukawa teaches that the model parameters are adjusted (correcting the reaction parameter) if the error metric (difference between the calculated simulation profile and the experimental simulation profile) is not locally minimized (outside an error range) (Tetiker para 0039, 0059-0060; Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Tetiker and Samukawa teaches that when the error metric (difference between the calculated simulation profile and the experimental simulation profile) is locally minimized (within an error range), the optimization procedure concludes and thus the calculated simulation profile is selected as the final/optimized simulation profile (Tetiker para 0054, 0059-0060; Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Tetiker and Samukawa teaches that when the error metric (difference between the calculated simulation profile and the experimental simulation profile) is locally minimized, the optimization procedure concludes and thus the calculated simulation profile is selected as the final/optimized simulation profile because there is no other experimental simulation profile to be compared to (based on no existence of an experimental simulation profile) (Tetiker para 0054, 0059-0060; Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 18, Tetiker (US 20170176983 A1) teaches determining/generating a simulation profile of a feature on a semiconductor substrate after the feature has been etched by a plasma etching process through a simulation that depends on modeled reaction rates (defining a plasma reaction for the wafer), wherein the simulation model depends on physical and chemical parameters (reaction parameter) associated with the chemical reaction mechanisms, wherein the parameters may be calculated from models and describe physical and chemical reaction mechanisms, such as reaction probabilities and sticking coefficients, wherein the etch simulation profile computed/generated from the input parameters, including reaction parameters, is compared to an experimental etch simulation profile obtained from an etch experiment using the same initial conditions by determining an error metric indicative of the difference between the experimental and computed etch profiles and the final/optimized simulation profile is generated by minimizing the error metric (para 0007, 0019-0022, 0038-0044, 0059-0060; Fig. 3). Tetiker also teaches preparing the semiconductor wafer 719 by placing it on a chuck 717 (bottom electrode), wherein the etching chamber operation may be adjusted in response to the computed etch profile using an optimized etch profile model (performing a plasma treatment for the wafer based on the final simulation profile) to etch the wafer (performing semiconductor processes on the wafer based on the plasma treatment) (para 0101, 0120, 0129, 0133-0134; Fig. 7). Tetiker also teaches the reaction parameter may include a wafer temperature, plasma properties such as flux and energies of ions (information of the plasma), and chemical reactions based on the material composition being etched (information of a material included in the wafer) (para 0038, 0041, 0044, 0080).
Tetiker teaches the plasma parameters used in the optimization may include energy of radicals (para 0041) but fails to explicitly teach the reaction parameter includes an energy of a neutral radical gas. However, Samukawa (US 9620338 B2), in the analogous art of simulating/predicting plasma processes, teaches that a simulator for a plasma etching/deposition process includes data for neutral particle/radical adsorption where the adsorption rate depends upon the energy of the neutral radical (an energy of a neutral radical gas) (col 5 line 35-67, col 6, col 7 line 1-53, col 11 line 37-59, col 14 line 50-57). Tetiker teaches calculating reaction rates associated with the etch process and that the reaction parameters are incorporated into the etch model/simulation to simulate the surface reactions on the wafer (para 0020-0021, 0038-0039, 0041, 0044). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the deposition and etching equations of Samukawa, which include neutral radical energy, in the model/simulation of Tetiker to more accurately simulate the surface reactions on the wafer with energy of neutral radical gas being a reaction parameter.
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Tetiker and Samukawa teaches generating the optimized/final simulation profile comprises comparing the calculated simulation profile to an experimental simulation profile and modifying the model parameters (correcting the reaction parameter) when the error metric error metric representing the difference between the calculated simulation profile and the experimental etching profile is not at a local minimum (correcting based on a difference being outside an error range) (Tetiker para 0059-0060; Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Tetiker and Samukawa teaches the plasma process simulation profile, including the final simulation profile, may include a wafer temperature, angular distribution of ions (angle of incidence of plasma ions with respect to the wafer), and an (incident) energy of the plasma ions as parameters (variables) (Tetiker para 0038, 0041).
Claim(s) 4-6, 14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tetiker (US 20170176983 A1) in view of Samukawa (US 9620338 B2), as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of Shindo (NPL – “An Empirical Formula for Angular Dependence of Sputtering Yields”).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Tetiker and Samukawa teaches the calculating of the reaction parameter includes utilizing, and thus obtaining, flux and energy of ions in the plasma (ion information of the plasma) and material composition of the layer to be etched (information of the wafer) (Tetiker para 0021, 0038, 0041-0042, 0044, 0080). The aforementioned combination also teaches calculating the parameters includes determining/calculating sputter yields, etch threshold energy for physical sputtering, and angular yield functions (calculating a first parameter regarding the physical reaction) in addition to determining/calculating reactant sticking coefficients and rate constants (calculating a second parameter regarding the chemical reaction) (Tetiker para 0038, 0041-0042, 0055, 0057), wherein the sticking/adsorption to the wafer (second parameter) may depend on the energy of radicals (energy of the neutral radical gas) and the adsorption rate between the radical and the clean to-be-etched layer (information of the wafer) (Samukawa col 11 line 37-59).
The combination of Tetiker and Samukawa fails to explicitly teach the first parameter regarding the physical reaction is based on the plasma ion information. However, Shindo (NPL), in the analogous art of sputtering, teaches calculating a sputtering yield using an equation dependent on the (average) atomic numbers and atomic masses of the projectile (plasma ions) and the target material (wafer) as well as the energy of the plasma ions and the angle of incidence of the ions (pg. 58-59, 65-71). Tetiker teaches calculating the reaction parameter includes calculating parameters of a physical sputtering reaction based on a sputtering yield as well as an angular yield function (para 0041, 0055). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the sputtering yield and angular dependence equations of Shindo, which include plasma ion information, to represent the physical sputtering reaction more accurately when calculating the reaction parameters of Tetiker.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Tetiker, Samukawa, and Shindo teaches the plasma ion information in the first parameter comprises average atomic mass and average atomic number of projectile (plasma ions) as well as the energy of the plasma ions and the angle of incidence of the plasma ions and that some of the wafer information includes an average atomic mass and atomic number of the wafer materials to be used in the physical/sputtering reaction (Shindo pg. 58-59, 65-71).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Tetiker, Samukawa, and Shindo teaches calculating a sputtering yield using an equation dependent on the sublimation energy (cohesive energy) and the threshold energy calculated based on the cohesive energy and calculating an optimal (maximum) angle of incidence based on the ion energy (Shindo pg. 58-59, 65-71).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Tetiker and Samukawa teaches the reaction parameter may include a temperature of the wafer as a variable (Tetiker para 0020, 0038) but fails to explicitly teach the reaction parameter has an average atomic mass of materials constituting the wafer, an average atomic number of the materials constituting the wafer, an average atomic mass of plasma ions, an average atomic number of the plasma ions. However, Shindo (NPL), in the analogous art of sputtering, teaches calculating a sputtering yield using an equation dependent on the (average) atomic numbers and atomic masses of the projectile (plasma ions) and the target material (wafer) (pg. 58-59, 65-71). Tetiker teaches calculating the reaction parameter includes calculating parameters of a physical sputtering reaction based on a sputtering yield as well as an angular yield function (para 0041, 0055). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the sputtering yield and angular dependence equations of Shindo, which include average atomic mass and average atomic number of the plasma ions and wafer, to represent the physical sputtering reaction more accurately when calculating the reaction parameters of Tetiker.
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Tetiker and Samukawa teaches calculating the reaction parameter includes calculating parameters of a physical sputtering reaction based on a sputtering yield as well as an angular yield function (Tetiker para 0041, 0055) but fails to explicitly teach calculating a maximum angle of incidence of plasma ions based on the claimed equation and calculating the sputtering yield based on the claimed equations. However, Shindo (NPL), in the analogous art of sputtering, teaches an optimal sputtering angle (maximum angle of incidence) may be calculated according to the equation
90
°
-
286
Ψ
0.45
(Eqn 21), which is equivalent to the claimed equation except that the art recites the angle in degrees rather than radians where Ψ is described by an equation similar to that of the claim and the sputtering yield at an angle may be calculated according to an equation similar to that of the claim (Eqn 20) as well as that the sputtering yield may be calculated using an equation similar to that of the claimed invention (Eqn 17) depending on f, fs, and Eth/E, which are described by similar equations (Eqn 12, 16, and 19) (pg. 66-71). Tetiker teaches calculating the reaction parameter includes calculating parameters of a physical sputtering reaction based on a sputtering yield as well as an angular yield function (para 0041, 0055). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the sputtering yield and angular dependence equations of Shindo to represent the physical sputtering reaction more accurately when calculating the reaction parameters of Tetiker. The equations of claim 16 are similar to those described by Shindo; therefore, the equations taught by Shindo are necessarily a modification or approximation of (calculated based on) the claimed equation.
Claim(s) 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tetiker (US 20170176983 A1) in view of Samukawa (US 9620338 B2) and Shindo (NPL – “An Empirical Formula for Angular Dependence of Sputtering Yields”), as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Doshita (NPL – “Dynamical aspect of Cl2 reaction on Si surfaces”).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Tetiker, Samukawa, and Shindo teaches calculating the reaction parameter includes calculating parameters of chemical adsorption based on a sticking coefficient (calculating the second parameter) (Tetiker para 0021, 0041, 0055) but fails to explicitly teach calculating adsorption energy based on the energy of the neutral radical gas and calculating a sticking coefficient based on the adsorption energy. However, Doshita (NPL), in the analogous art of adsorption, teaches that the precursor mediated sticking probability (sticking coefficient) may be described by a sticking coefficient equation, wherein (Ed-Ea) in the equation of Doshita is equal to the difference between the detrapping energy and the sticking energy, which is equivalent to an adsorption energy (pg. 265-268, Eqn 5). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to calculate the sticking coefficient of Tetiker using a calculation at least including the sticking probability equation of Doshita in order to improve accuracy of the simulation. As a result, the combination of Tetiker, Samukawa, and Doshita includes calculating a sticking coefficient based on a calculated adsorption energy where the adsorption energy is inherently at least dependent/based on the energy of the neutral radical gas. Alternatively, the sticking energy of Doshita, which is used in the calculation of the adsorption energy, may be defined as the energy of the adsorbed particles (neutral radical gas).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Tetiker, Samukawa, Shindo, and Doshita teaches the sticking coefficient depends on (has) the surface temperature Ts (temperature of the wafer) (Doshita pg. 265, 268).
Claim(s) 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tetiker (US 20170176983 A1) in view of Samukawa (US 9620338 B2), as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Shinagawa (US 20220406580 A1).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Tetiker and Samukawa fails to explicitly teach generating the final simulation profile comprises, based on no existence of experimental simulation profile, setting the calculated simulation profile as the final profile. However, Shinagawa (US 20220406580 A1), in the analogous art of plasma processing, teaches a method of building a control model that describes a relationship between a plasma parameter and a recipe parameter, measuring the wafer characteristic after performing the plasma process according to the recipe, and determining whether the wafer characteristic is within a predetermined range before recalibrating and optimizing the model if the wafer characteristic is not within a predetermined range, wherein the profile and characteristic are estimated by a virtual metrology model (para 0004, 0039-0040, 0052-0057; Fig. 1). Tetiker teaches a similar method of optimizing parameters and then comparing the model results to an experimental profile (para 0052-0060; Fig. 3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the evaluation method of Tetiker relying on an experimental profile with the evaluation method of Shinagawa relying on the wafer characteristics because this is a substitution of known elements yielding predictable results of optimizing operating parameters. See MPEP 2143(I)(B). As a result, the combination of Tetiker and Shinagawa does not rely on an experimental simulation profile and therefore the selecting of the calculated simulation profile as the final simulation profile is based on no existence of experimental simulation profile.
Claim(s) 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tetiker (US 20170176983 A1) in view of Samukawa (US 9620338 B2), as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Yamamura (NPL – “Energy Dependence of Ion-Induced Sputtering Yields from Monoatomic Solids at Normal Incidence”).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Tetiker and Samukawa teaches calculating the reaction parameter comprises calculating parameters of the physical sputtering reaction based on a threshold energy (Tetiker para 0041, 0055) but fails to explicitly teach the threshold energy is calculated according to the recited equation. However, Yamamura (NPL), in the analogous art of plasma processing, teaches that the threshold energy is equal to
6.7
U
s
γ
when M1 is greater than or equal to M2 and equal to
(
1
+
5.7
(
M
1
M
2
)
)
U
s
γ
when M1 is less than or equal to M2, where γ is equal to
4
*
M
1
*
M
2
M
1
+
M
2
2
where Us is the surface binding energy (cohesive energy), M1 is the (average) atomic mass of the projectile (plasma ion), M2 is the (average) atomic mass of the target material (wafer), where the formulas provide an improved approximation compared to previous work (pg. 151-154, Eqn. 18-19). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to calculate the threshold energy of sputtering for the plasma process of Tetiker using the equations of Yamamura to improve accuracy of the simulation.
Claim(s) 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tetiker (US 20170176983 A1) in view of Samukawa (US 9620338 B2), as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Doshita (NPL – “Dynamical aspect of Cl2 reaction on Si surfaces”).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Tetiker and Samukawa teaches calculating the reaction parameter includes calculating parameters of chemical adsorption based on a sticking coefficient (Tetiker para 0021, 0041, 0055) but fails to explicitly teach the sticking coefficient is calculated based on the recited equations. However, Doshita (NPL), in the analogous art of adsorption, teaches that the precursor mediated sticking probability (sticking coefficient) may be described by the claimed sticking coefficient equation with additional pre-exponential factors in the denominator (calculated based on the claimed equation), wherein (Ed-Ea) in the equation of Doshita is equal to the difference between the detrapping energy and the sticking energy, which is equivalent to an adsorption energy, and wherein Ptrap is the trapping probability and may be calculated as a decreasing function of E predicted by a model (pg. 265-268, Eqn 5). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to calculate the sticking coefficient of Tetiker using a calculation at least including the sticking probability equation of Doshita in order to improve accuracy of the simulation. The Ptrap equation of claim 17 is also a function decreasing with E; therefore, the Ptrap decreasing function taught by Doshita and used in the sticking probability equation is necessarily a modification or approximation of (calculated based on) the claimed Ptrap equation.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 11-12, filed 10/15/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 9, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Samukawa (US 9620338 B2).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK S OTT whose telephone number is (571)272-2415. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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, James Lin can be reached at (571) 272-8902. 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.
/PATRICK S OTT/Examiner, Art Unit 1794