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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5, 14-15, 20-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bao et al. US 2020/0020686.
Regarding claim 1, Bao et al. in Fig. 8 discloses a circuit comprising:
a first capacitor 890 MOSCAP that has a semiconductor layer 804a, 804b, an insulating layer 821 over the semiconductor layer 804a, 804b, and a conductive layer 801 over the insulating layer 821;
a first insulating layer over the conductive layer of the first capacitor;
a first metal layer 892 (MOMCAP 892 includes conductive layer M1, M2, M3 and M4) over the first insulating layer, the first metal layer having a first portion 823a that has a first plurality of fingers Fig. 4A [0067], and
a second portion 823b that has a second plurality of fingers that are interdigitated with the first plurality of fingers Fig. 4A [0067];
one or more first electrical connections 895 that electrically couple the first portion 823a of the first metal layer to the semiconductor layer 804a, 804b of the first capacitor 890 MOSCAP through the first insulating layer; and
one or more second electrical connections 896 that electrically couple the second portion 823b of the first metal layer to the conductive layer 801 of the first capacitor through the first insulating layer.
Regarding claim 2, Bao et al. in Fig. 8 discloses the circuit of claim 1 wherein the first capacitor 890 is a metal-oxide-semiconductor capacitor [0065].
Regarding claim 3, Bao et al. in Fig. 8 discloses the circuit of claim 1 wherein the conductive layer 801 of the first capacitor 890 overlaps the semiconductor layer 804a, 804b of the first capacitor 890 at an area that also overlaps a plurality of the first fingers 892 and a plurality of the second fingers 892 [0067]-[0068].
Regarding claim 4, Bao et al. in Fig. 8 discloses the circuit of claim 3 wherein the plurality of the first fingers 892 [0067]-[0068] extend fully across the area where the conductive layer 801 overlaps the semiconductor layer 808.
Regarding claim 5, Bao et al. in Fig. 8 discloses the circuit of claim 3 wherein the one or more first electrical connections 895 connect to a portion of the semiconductor layer 808 of the first capacitor 890 that extends laterally past an edge of the conductive layer 801 of the first capacitor 890.
Regarding claim 14, Bao et al. in Fig. 8 discloses a method of making a circuit, the method comprising:
forming a semiconductor layer 804a, 804b over a substrate 802;
forming a dielectric layer 821 over the semiconductor layer 804a, 804b;
forming a conductive layer 801 over the dielectric layer 821 to provide a capacitor 890;
forming an insulating layer over the conductive layer;
forming a first metal layer 892 (MOMCAP 892 includes conductive layer M1, M2, M3 and M4) over the insulating layer, the first metal layer having a first portion 823a and a second portion 823b that is insulated from the first portion, the first portion 823a electrically coupled to the semiconductor layer 804a, 804b and having a first plurality of fingers, and the second portion 823b electrically coupled to the conductive layer 801 and having a second plurality of fingers that are interdigitated with the first plurality of fingers [0067]-[0068].
Regarding claim 15, Bao et al. in Fig. 8 discloses the method of claim 14 wherein a footprint of the interdigitated first and second plurality of fingers overlaps with a footprint of the capacitor [0067]-[0068].
Regarding claim 20, Bao et al. in Fig. 8 discloses a capacitor comprising:
a cathode layer 804a, 804b;
an anode layer 801;
an insulating layer 821 between the cathode layer 804a and the anode layer 801;
a first plurality of fingers that are electrically coupled to the cathode layer 804a; and a second plurality of fingers that are electrically coupled to the anode layer 801, the second plurality of fingers interdigitated with the first plurality of fingers to inherently increase the capacitance of the capacitor [0066]-[0068].
Regarding claim 21, Bao et al. in Fig. 8 discloses the capacitor of claim 20 wherein the cathode layer 804a, 804b is a semiconductor material, the insulating layer 821 is an oxide material, and the anode layer is a metal material 801 [0065].
Regarding claim 22, Bao et al. in Fig. 8 discloses the capacitor of claim 20 wherein the cathode layer 804a, 804b is substantially planar, the anode layer 801 is substantially planar, a first line normal to the cathode 804a, 804b and anode layers 801 intersects the cathode layer 804a, 804b, the anode layer 801, and one of the first plurality of fingers, and a second line normal to the cathode 804a, 804b and anode layers 801 intersects the cathode layer 804a, 804b, the anode layer 801, and one of the second plurality of fingers 892.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 6-10, 16-19 and 23-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bao et al. as applied to claims 1, 14 and 20 above.
Regarding claim 6, Bao et al. in Fig. 8 discloses the circuit of claim 1 but does not expressly disclose further comprising: a second insulating layer over the first metal layer; and a second metal layer over the second insulating layer, the second metal layer having a first portion that has a third plurality of fingers and a second portion that has a fourth plurality of fingers that are interdigitated with the third plurality of fingers; one or more third electrical connections that electrically couple the first portion of the second metal layer to the first portion of the first metal layer; and one or more fourth electrical connections that electrically couple the second portion of the second metal layer to the second portion of the first metal layer.
However, Bao in [0043]-[0063] and Figs. 3-7B teaches a MOMCAP including multiple conductive interconnect layers, conductive fingers and electrical connections.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to try the capacitor configurations of Bao et al., as the court has held that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success is prima facie obvious. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding claim 7, Bao et al. in Fig. 8 teaches the circuit of claim 6 wherein the third plurality of fingers extend along a direction that is substantially parallel to a direction that the first plurality of fingers extend along [0047]-[0056].
Regarding claim 8, Bao et al. in Fig. 8 teaches the circuit of claim 6 wherein the third plurality of fingers extend along a direction that is substantially perpendicular to a direction that the first plurality of fingers extend along [0048]-[0053].
Regarding claim 9, Bao et al. in Fig. 8 teaches the circuit of claim 6 further comprising: [0043]-[0063] and Figs. 3-7B discloses a third insulating layer over the second metal layer; and a third metal layer over the third insulating layer, the third metal layer having a first portion that has a fifth plurality of fingers and a second portion that has a sixth plurality of fingers that are interdigitated with the fifth plurality of fingers; one or more fifth electrical connections that electrically couple the first portion of the third metal layer to the first portion of the second metal layer; and one or more sixth electrical connections that electrically couple the second portion of the third metal layer to the second portion of the second metal layer.
Regarding claim 10, Bao et al. in Fig. 8 discloses the circuit of claim 1 but does not expressly disclose wherein the first portion of the first metal layer is electrically coupled to a first external electrical contact, and the second portion of the first metal layer is electrically coupled to a second external electrical contact.
However, Bao in [0043]-[0063] and Figs. 3-7B teaches a MOMCAP including multiple conductive interconnect layers, conductive fingers and electrical connections.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to try the capacitor configurations of Bao et al., as the court has held that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success is prima facie obvious. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding claim 16, Bao et al. in Fig. 8 discloses the method of claim 14 but does not expressly disclose further comprising: forming a second insulating layer over the first metal layer; and forming a second metal layer over the second insulating layer, the second metal layer having a first portion and a second portion that is insulated from the first portion, the first portion of the second metal layer electrically coupled to the first portion of the first metal layer and having a third plurality of fingers, the second portion of the second metal layer electrically coupled to the second portion of the first metal layer and having a fourth plurality of fingers that are interdigitated with the third plurality of fingers.
However, Bao in [0043]-[0063] and Figs. 3-7B teaches a MOMCAP device and method including multiple conductive interconnect layers, conductive fingers and electrical connections.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to try the capacitor configurations of Bao et al., as the court has held that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success is prima facie obvious. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding claim 17, Bao et al. in Fig. 8 teaches the method of claim 16 wherein the third plurality of fingers extend along a direction that is substantially parallel to a direction that the first plurality of fingers extend along [0047]-[0056].
Regarding claim 18, Bao et al. in Fig. 8 teaches the method of claim 16 wherein the third plurality of fingers extend along a direction that is substantially perpendicular to a direction that the first plurality of fingers extend along [0048]-[0053].
Regarding claim 19, Bao et al. in Fig. 8 teaches the method of claim 16 further comprising: [0043]-[0063] and Figs. 3-7B discloses forming a third insulating layer over the second metal layer; and forming a third metal layer over the third insulating layer, the third metal layer having a first portion and a second portion that is insulated from the first portion, the first portion of the third metal layer electrically coupled to the first portion of the second metal layer and having a fifth plurality of fingers, the second portion of the third metal layer electrically coupled to the second portion of the second metal layer and having a sixth plurality of fingers that are interdigitated with the fifth plurality of fingers.
Regarding claim 23, Bao et al. in Fig. 8 discloses the capacitor of claim 20 but does not expressly disclose further comprising: a third plurality of fingers that are electrically coupled to the cathode layer; and a fourth plurality of fingers that are electrically coupled to the anode layer, the fourth plurality of fingers are interdigitated with the third plurality of fingers to inherently increase the capacitance of the capacitor.
However, Bao in [0043]-[0068] and Figs. 3-7B teaches a MOMCAP including multiple conductive interconnect layers, conductive fingers and electrical connections.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to try the capacitor configurations of Bao et al., as the court has held that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success is prima facie obvious. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding claim 24, Bao et al. in Fig. 8 teaches the capacitor of claim 23 wherein the cathode layer is substantially planar, the anode layer is substantially planar, a first line normal to the cathode and anode layers intersects the cathode layer, the anode layer, one of the first plurality of fingers, and one of the third plurality of fingers, and a second line normal to the cathode and anode layers intersects the cathode layer, the anode layer, one of the second plurality of fingers, and one of the fourth plurality of fingers [0047]-[0056].
Regarding claim 25, Bao et al. in Fig. 8 teaches the capacitor of claim 23 wherein the third plurality of fingers extend along a direction that is substantially parallel to a direction that the first plurality of fingers extend along [0047]-[0056].
Regarding claim 26, Bao et al. in Fig. 8 teaches the capacitor of claim 23 wherein the third plurality of fingers extend along a direction that is substantially perpendicular to a direction that the first plurality of fingers extend along [0048]-[0053].
Regarding claim 27, Bao et al. in Fig. 8 teaches the capacitor of claim 23 further comprising: a fifth plurality of fingers that are electrically coupled to the cathode layer; and a sixth plurality of fingers that are electrically coupled to the anode layer, the sixth plurality of fingers are interdigitated with the fifth plurality of fingers to inherently increase the capacitance of the capacitor [0043]-[0068] and Figs. 3-7B.
Claim(s) 11-13 and 28-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bao et al. as applied to claims 1, 11 and 20 above, and further in view of Roehner et al. US 2014/0273394.
Regarding claim 11, Bao et al. in Fig. 8 discloses the circuit of claim 1 but does not expressly disclose wherein a capacitance provided by the interdigitated first and second pluralities of fingers is at least about 3% of a capacitance provided by the first capacitor.
Applicant has not disclosed that having the capacitance provided by the interdigitated first and second pluralities of fingers is at least about 3% of a capacitance provided by the first capacitor, solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose.
However, Roehner et al. in [0025] teaches that the properties of capacitors are a function of size. A larger amount of energy or charge may be stored by a capacitor the larger the capacitor plates are. Roehner et al. further teaches an improved integrated circuit with capacitors in series and parallel provide enhanced reliability of the capacitor network, less area consumption and better capacitance stability.
This demonstrates that capacitor reliability can be improved by adjusting plate dimensions, which directly affect the stored energy and charge.
Accordingly, the claim is obvious without showing that the claimed range(s) achieve unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Huang, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (claimed ranges of a result effective variable, which do not overlap the prior art ranges, are unpatentable unless they produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art) and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would recognize that it would be obvious to adjust the size of the capacitor plates in order to “improve the reliability of the capacitor” thereof and optimize “capacitance provided by the interdigitated first and second pluralities of fingers to be at least about 3% of a capacitance provided by the first capacitor” as “result effective variables”, and arrives at the recited limitation.
Regarding claim 12, Bao et al. in Fig. 8 discloses the circuit of claim 1 but does not expressly disclose wherein a capacitance provided by the interdigitated first and second pluralities of fingers is at least about 5% of a capacitance provided by the first capacitor.
Applicant has not disclosed that having the capacitance provided by the interdigitated first and second pluralities of fingers is at least about 5% of a capacitance provided by the first capacitor, solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose.
However, Roehner et al. in [0025] teaches that the properties of capacitors are a function of size. A larger amount of energy or charge may be stored by a capacitor the larger the capacitor plates are. Roehner et al. further teaches an improved integrated circuit with capacitors in series and parallel provide enhanced reliability of the capacitor network, less area consumption and better capacitance stability.
This demonstrates that capacitor reliability can be improved by adjusting plate dimensions, which directly affect the stored energy and charge.
Accordingly, the claim is obvious without showing that the claimed range(s) achieve unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Huang, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (claimed ranges of a result effective variable, which do not overlap the prior art ranges, are unpatentable unless they produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art) and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would recognize that it would be obvious to adjust the size of the capacitor plates in order to “improve the reliability of the capacitor” thereof and optimize “capacitance provided by the interdigitated first and second pluralities of fingers to be at least about 5% of a capacitance provided by the first capacitor” as “result effective variables”, and arrives at the recited limitation.
Regarding claim 13, Bao et al. in Fig. 8 discloses the circuit of claim 1 but does not expressly disclose wherein a capacitance provided by the interdigitated first and second pluralities of fingers is at least about 10% of a capacitance provided by the first capacitor.
Applicant has not disclosed that having the capacitance provided by the interdigitated first and second pluralities of fingers is at least about 10% of a capacitance provided by the first capacitor, solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose.
However, Roehner et al. in [0025] teaches that the properties of capacitors are a function of size. A larger amount of energy or charge may be stored by a capacitor the larger the capacitor plates are. Roehner et al. further teaches an improved integrated circuit with capacitors in series and parallel provide enhanced reliability of the capacitor network, less area consumption and better capacitance stability.
This demonstrates that capacitor reliability can be improved by adjusting plate dimensions, which directly affect the stored energy and charge.
Accordingly, the claim is obvious without showing that the claimed range(s) achieve unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Huang, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (claimed ranges of a result effective variable, which do not overlap the prior art ranges, are unpatentable unless they produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art) and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would recognize that it would be obvious to adjust the size of the capacitor plates in order to “improve the reliability of the capacitor” thereof and optimize “capacitance provided by the interdigitated first and second pluralities of fingers to be at least about 10% of a capacitance provided by the first capacitor” as “result effective variables”, and arrives at the recited limitation.
Regarding claim 28, Bao et al. in Fig. 8 discloses the circuit of claim 20 but does not expressly disclose wherein a capacitance provided by the interdigitated first and second pluralities of fingers is at least about 3% of a capacitance provided by the first capacitor.
Applicant has not disclosed that having the capacitance provided by the interdigitated first and second pluralities of fingers is at least about 3% of a capacitance provided by the first capacitor, solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose.
However, Roehner et al. in [0025] teaches that the properties of capacitors are a function of size. A larger amount of energy or charge may be stored by a capacitor the larger the capacitor plates are. Roehner et al. further teaches an improved integrated circuit with capacitors in series and parallel provide enhanced reliability of the capacitor network, less area consumption and better capacitance stability.
This demonstrates that capacitor reliability can be improved by adjusting plate dimensions, which directly affect the stored energy and charge.
Accordingly, the claim is obvious without showing that the claimed range(s) achieve unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Huang, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (claimed ranges of a result effective variable, which do not overlap the prior art ranges, are unpatentable unless they produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art) and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would recognize that it would be obvious to adjust the size of the capacitor plates in order to “improve the reliability of the capacitor” thereof and optimize “capacitance provided by the interdigitated first and second pluralities of fingers to be at least about 3% of a capacitance provided by the first capacitor” as “result effective variables”, and arrives at the recited limitation.
Regarding claim 29, Bao et al. in Fig. 8 discloses the circuit of claim 20 but does not expressly disclose wherein a capacitance provided by the interdigitated first and second pluralities of fingers is at least about 5% of a capacitance provided by the first capacitor.
Applicant has not disclosed that having the capacitance provided by the interdigitated first and second pluralities of fingers is at least about 5% of a capacitance provided by the first capacitor, solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose.
However, Roehner et al. in [0025] teaches that the properties of capacitors are a function of size. A larger amount of energy or charge may be stored by a capacitor the larger the capacitor plates are. Roehner et al. further teaches an improved integrated circuit with capacitors in series and parallel provide enhanced reliability of the capacitor network, less area consumption and better capacitance stability.
This demonstrates that capacitor reliability can be improved by adjusting plate dimensions, which directly affect the stored energy and charge.
Accordingly, the claim is obvious without showing that the claimed range(s) achieve unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Huang, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (claimed ranges of a result effective variable, which do not overlap the prior art ranges, are unpatentable unless they produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art) and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would recognize that it would be obvious to adjust the size of the capacitor plates in order to “improve the reliability of the capacitor” thereof and optimize “capacitance provided by the interdigitated first and second pluralities of fingers to be at least about 5% of a capacitance provided by the first capacitor” as “result effective variables”, and arrives at the recited limitation.
Regarding claim 30, Bao et al. in Fig. 8 discloses the circuit of claim 20 but does not expressly disclose wherein a capacitance provided by the interdigitated first and second pluralities of fingers is at least about 10% of a capacitance provided by the first capacitor.
Applicant has not disclosed that having the capacitance provided by the interdigitated first and second pluralities of fingers is at least about 10% of a capacitance provided by the first capacitor, solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose.
However, Roehner et al. in [0025] teaches that the properties of capacitors are a function of size. A larger amount of energy or charge may be stored by a capacitor the larger the capacitor plates are. Roehner et al. further teaches an improved integrated circuit with capacitors in series and parallel provide enhanced reliability of the capacitor network, less area consumption and better capacitance stability.
This demonstrates that capacitor reliability can be improved by adjusting plate dimensions, which directly affect the stored energy and charge.
Accordingly, the claim is obvious without showing that the claimed range(s) achieve unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Huang, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (claimed ranges of a result effective variable, which do not overlap the prior art ranges, are unpatentable unless they produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art) and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would recognize that it would be obvious to adjust the size of the capacitor plates in order to “improve the reliability of the capacitor” thereof and optimize “capacitance provided by the interdigitated first and second pluralities of fingers to be at least about 10% of a capacitance provided by the first capacitor” as “result effective variables”, and arrives at the recited limitation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SONYA D MCCALL-SHEPARD whose telephone number is (571)272-9801. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:30 AM-5:00 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, Julio J. Maldonado can be reached at (571)272-1864. 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.
/Sonya McCall-Shepard/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898