www.uspto.gov
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 2231371450
`
`15/714,231
`
`09/25/2017
`
`Tetsuhiro IWAI
`
`PIPMM-55095U51
`
`4424
`
`759°
`52°“
`PEARNE & GORDON LLP
`
`08m”
`
`1801 EAST 9TH STREET
`SUITE 1200
`
`CLEVELAND, OH 44114-3108
`
`KENDALL BENJAMIN R
`
`1718
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`08/28/2018
`
`ELECTRONIC
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above—indicated "Notification Date" to the
`
`following e—mail address(es):
`
`patdoeket@pearne.eom
`
`PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`

`

`Off/09 A0170” Summary
`
`Application No.
`15/714,231
`Examiner
`BENJAMIN R KENDALL
`
`Applicant(s)
`IWAI et al.
`Art Unit
`1718
`
`AIA Status
`Yes
`
`- The MAILING DA TE of this communication appears on the cover sheet wit/7 the correspondence address -
`Period for Reply
`
`A SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD FOR REPLY IS SET TO EXPIRE g MONTHS FROM THE MAILING
`DATE OF THIS COMMUNICATION.
`Extensions of time may be available under the provisions of 37 CFR 1.136(a). In no event, however, may a reply be timely filed
`after SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
`|f NO period for reply is specified above, the maximum statutory period will apply and will expire SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
`-
`- Failure to reply within the set or extended period for reply will, by statute, cause the application to become ABANDONED (35 U.S.C. § 133).
`Any reply received by the Office later than three months after the mailing date of this communication, even if timely filed, may reduce any
`earned patent term adjustment. See 37 CFR 1.704(b).
`
`Status
`
`1). Responsive to communication(s) filed on 08/14/2018.
`[:1 A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/were filed on
`
`2a). This action is FINAL.
`
`2b) C] This action is non-final.
`
`3)[:] An election was made by the applicant in response to a restriction requirement set forth during the interview on
`; the restriction requirement and election have been incorporated into this action.
`
`4)[:] Since this application is in condition for allowance except for formal matters, prosecution as to the merits is
`closed in accordance with the practice under Expat/7e Quay/e, 1935 CD. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`Disposition of Claims*
`5)
`Claim(s)
`
`1—12 is/are pending in the application.
`
`5a) Of the above claim(s)
`
`is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`
`E] Claim(s)
`
`is/are allowed.
`
`Claim(s) fl is/are rejected.
`
`[:1 Claim(s) _ is/are objected to.
`
`) ) ) )
`
`6 7
`
`8
`
`
`
`are subject to restriction and/or election requirement
`[j Claim(s)
`9
`* If any claims have been determined aflowabte. you may be eligible to benefit from the Patent Prosecution Highway program at a
`
`participating intellectual property office for the corresponding application. For more information, please see
`
`http://www.uspto.gov/patents/init events/pph/index.jsp or send an inquiry to PPeredback@uspto.gov.
`
`Application Papers
`10)[:] The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`
`11). The drawing(s) filed on 09/25/2017 is/are: a). accepted or b)[:] objected to by the Examiner.
`
`Applicant may not request that any objection to the drawing(s) be held in abeyance. See 37 CFR 1.85(a).
`Replacement drawing sheet(s) including the correction is required if the drawing(s) is objected to. See 37 CFR 1.121 (d).
`
`Priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119
`12). Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d) or (f).
`Certified copies:
`
`a). All
`
`b)D Some”
`
`C)D None of the:
`
`1..
`
`Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`
`2.[:]
`
`Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No.
`
`3:] Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been received in this National Stage
`application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).
`
`** See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received.
`
`Attachment(s)
`
`1) C] Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
`
`2) E] Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08a and/or PTO/SB/08b)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date_
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`3) C] Interview Summary (PTO-413)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date
`4) CI Other-
`
`PTOL-326 (Rev. 11-13)
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Part of Paper No./Mai| Date 20180814
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/714,231
`Art Unit: 1718
`
`Page 2
`
`1.
`
`The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013,
`
`is being examined
`
`under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA.
`
`2.
`
`In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35
`
`U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any
`
`correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of
`
`rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be
`
`the same under either status.
`
`DETAILED ACTION
`
`Status of Claims
`
`3.
`
`This action is in response to Applicant’s Request for Reconsideration dated
`
`08/14/2018.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`Claims 1-12 are currently pending.
`
`Claim 1 has been amended.
`
`Claims 10-12 have been added.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
`
`7.
`
`This application currently names joint inventors.
`
`In considering patentability of the
`
`claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was
`
`commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any
`
`evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to
`
`point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly
`
`owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/714,231
`Art Unit: 1718
`
`Page 3
`
`consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2)
`
`prior art against the later invention.
`
`8.
`
`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 maynotbe obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed
`invention is not identicallydisclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences
`between the claimed invention and the priorartare such that the claimed invention as awhole
`would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person
`having ordinaryskill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentabilityshall not
`be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
`
`9.
`
`Claims 1-6 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being
`
`unpatentable over Yoshida (US 5,735,993) in view of Chen et al (US 5,226,967),
`
`Yoshida etal (US 5,690,781), and Ghanbari (US 5,982,100).
`
`Regarding claim 1:
`
`Yoshida’993 teaches a plasma processing apparatus (plasma processing
`
`apparatus) [fig 7 & col 5, lines 59-61], comprising: a vessel which comprises a reaction
`
`chamber (vacuum reaction vessel, 10), wherein atmosphere within the reaction
`
`chamber (10) is capable of being depressurized (via vacuum) [fig 7 & col 4, lines 12-27];
`
`a lower electrode (lower electrode, 11) which supports an object to be processed
`
`(sample, 27) within the reaction chamber (vacuum reaction vessel, 10) [fig 7 & col 4,
`
`lines 3-11]; a dielectric member (dielectric portion, 2) which comprises a first surface
`
`(top surface of 2) and a second surface (bottom surface of 2) opposite to the first
`
`surface (top surface of 2) [fig 7 & col 5-6, lines 59-4], and which closes an opening of
`
`the vessel (dielectric plate 2 which constitutes part of a vacuum reaction vessel 10)
`
`such that the first surface (top surface of 2) opposes an outside of the reaction chamber
`
`(area above 10) and the second surface (bottom surface of 2) opposes the object to be
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/714,231
`Art Unit: 1718
`
`Page 4
`
`processed (sample, 27) [fig 7 & col 3, lines 52-63]; and a coil (spiral coil, 1) which
`
`opposes the first surface of the dielectric member (top surface of 2), and which
`
`generates plasma (causes generation of a plasma) within the reaction chamber (10) [fig
`
`7 & col 4, lines 12-27].
`
`Yoshida’993 does not teach the dielectric member has a groove having an
`
`annular shape and formed on the surface of the dielectric member, and wherein a depth
`
`of the groove increases stepwise from an inner circumference of the groove toward an
`
`outer circumference of the groove.
`
`Chen teaches adielectric member (window, 18) has a groove having an annular
`
`shape (surface around thickened central portion) and formed on the surface of the
`
`dielectric member (bottom surface of 18), and wherein a depth of the groove (surface
`
`around thickened central portion) increases stepwise (series of steps) from an inner
`
`circumference of the groove (window portion, 183) toward an outer circumference of the
`
`groove (window portion, 181) [fig 7 & col 6, lines 23-62].
`
`Yoshida’993 and Chen are analogous inventions in the field of plasma
`
`processing apparatuses.
`
`It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the
`
`effective filing date to modify the dielectric member of Yoshida’993 with a groove, as in
`
`Chen, to achieve substantially uniform ion current density across the diameter of the
`
`substrate [Chen — col 5-6, lines 67-8].
`
`Yoshida’993 modified by Chen does not teach the dielectric member has a
`
`groove formed in the first surface of the dielectric member, and wherein at least a part
`
`of the coil is disposed in the groove, and the part of the coil disposed in the groove is a
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/714,231
`Art Unit: 1718
`
`Page 5
`
`peripheral part of the coil and a remaining part of the coil disposed outside of the
`
`groove.
`
`Yoshida’781 teaches a dielectric member (dielectric plate, 4) has a groove
`
`(surface around upwardly convex shape) formed in the first surface of the dielectric
`
`member (top surface of 4), and wherein at least a part of the coil (spiral coil, 2) is
`
`disposed in the groove (provided to conform along the surface around convex shape),
`
`and the part of the coil disposed in the groove is a peripheral part of the coil (periphery
`
`of 2 provided along the surface around convex shape) provided and a remaining part of
`
`the coil disposed outside of the groove (remainder of 2 provided above convex shape)
`
`[fig SB & col 4-5, lines 56-6].
`
`Modified Yoshida’993 and Yoshida’781 are analogous inventions in the field of
`
`plasma processing apparatuses.
`
`It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art
`
`before the effective filing date to modify the groove of modified Yoshida’993 to be
`
`formed in the top surface of the dielectric member, as in Yoshida’781,
`
`to make
`
`maintenance of the reaction chamber easier while achieving the same effect of a
`
`uniform processing rate across the diameter of the substrate [Yoshida’781 — col 4-5,
`
`lines 61-6].
`
`Yoshida’993 modified by Chen and Yoshida’781 does not teach a distance
`
`between the peripheral part of the coil and the dielectric member is shorter than a
`
`distance between a remaining part of the coil and the dielectric member.
`
`Ghanbari teaches a distance between the peripheral part of the coil and the
`
`dielectric member is shorter than a distance between a remaining part of the coil and
`
`the dielectric member (segments of lesser radii are arranged to reside further away from
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/714,231
`Art Unit: 1718
`
`Page 6
`
`the dielectric plate than segments of greater radii) [fig 1 & col 2, lines 44-63 and col 3,
`
`lines 39-50].
`
`Modified Yoshida’993 and Ghanbari are analogous inventions in the field of
`
`plasma processing apparatuses.
`
`It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art
`
`before the effective filing date to modify the coil of modified Yoshida’993 with the coil
`
`configuration of Ghanbari to vary the field configuration within the chamber to
`
`accommodate different size and shape workpieces [Ghanbari
`
`- col 2, lines 44-63].
`
`Regarding claim 2:
`
`Modified Yoshida’993 teaches a center of the groove (surface around thick part
`
`at the center) is substantially overlapped with a center of the coil (coil to be axially
`
`symmetrical about the center of the reaction chamber) as viewed from a direction
`
`perpendicular to the first surface of the dielectric member (direction depicted in fig BA-
`
`BB) [Yoshida’781 - fig 3A-BB & col 2, lines 6-38 and col 4, lines 22-41].
`
`Regarding claim 3:
`
`Yoshida’993 modified by Chen does not teach the coil comprises a conductor
`
`having a length L and extending from a first end on a center side to a second end on an
`
`outer peripheral side, wherein the conductor comprises a center side portion having a
`
`length 0.5L extending from the first end and a remaining outer peripheral side portion,
`
`and wherein a ratio of the center side portion disposed within the groove is smaller than
`
`a ratio of the remaining outer peripheral side portion disposed within the groove.
`
`Yoshida’781 teaches a coil (spiral coil, 2) comprises a conductor having a length
`
`L (length of coil from center to outer peripheral side —the radius of 2) and extending
`
`from a first end on a center side (center of reaction chamber) to a second end on an
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/714,231
`Art Unit: 1718
`
`Page 7
`
`outer peripheral side (outer right side of 2) [fig 5B & & col 2, lines 6-38 and col 4-5, lines
`
`56-6], wherein the conductor comprises a center side portion (center portion of radius of
`
`2) having a length 0.5L (length of coil from center to 0.5 the distance to outer peripheral
`
`side) extending from the first end and a remaining outer peripheral side portion (halfway
`
`between center and outer right side of 2) [fig 5B & & col 2, lines 6-38 and col 4-5, lines
`
`56-6].
`
`Yoshida’781 does not specifically disclose “a ratio of the center side portion
`
`disposed within the groove is smaller than a ratio of the remaining outer peripheral side
`
`portion disposed within the groove” but teaches a ratio of the center side portion to the
`
`remaining outer side portion (d/D) is a result-effective variable [fig 3A—3D & col 4, lines
`
`22-41].
`
`It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the
`
`effective filing date to discover the optimum range for the ratio of the center side portion
`
`to the remaining outer side portion through routine experimentation in order to discover
`
`the optimum ratio for reducing the induction field at the center to achieve a uniform ion
`
`current density [fig 3A—3D & col 4, lines 22-41]. Absent a showing of criticality with
`
`respect to the ratio of the center side portion to the remaining outer side portion,
`
`it has
`
`been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only
`
`routine skill in the art [MPEP 2144.05].
`
`Modified Yoshida’993 and Yoshida’781 are analogous inventions in the field of
`
`plasma processing apparatuses.
`
`It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art
`
`before the effective filing date to modify the groove of modified Yoshida’993 with the
`
`dimensions of Yoshida’781 to achieve a uniform processing rate across the diameter of
`
`the substrate [Yoshida’781 — col 2, lines 6-38].
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/714,231
`Art Unit: 1718
`
`Regarding claim 4:
`
`Page 8
`
`Yoshida’993 modified by Chen and Yoshida’781 does not specifically disclose a
`
`winding density of the coil in the center side portion is smaller than that of the remaining
`
`outer peripheral side portion.
`
`Ghanbari does not specifically disclose “a winding density of the coil in the center
`
`side portion is smaller than that of the remaining outer peripheral side portion” but
`
`teaches the winding density is a result-effective variable [fig 2 & col 3, lines 51-65].
`
`It
`
`would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing
`
`date to discover the optimum range for the winding density through routine
`
`experimentation in order to modify the field configuration within the plasma chamber [fig
`
`2 & col 3, lines 51-65]. Absent a showing of criticality with respect to the winding
`
`density,
`
`it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable
`
`involves only routine skill in the art [MPEP 2144.05].
`
`Modified Yoshida’993 and Ghanbari are analogous inventions in the field of
`
`plasma processing apparatuses.
`
`It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art
`
`before the effective filing date to modify the coil of modified Yoshida’993 with the
`
`winding density of Ghanbari to adjust the coil to produce a more uniform plasma
`
`[Ghanbari — col 3, lines 51-65].
`
`Regarding claims 5-6:
`
`Yoshida’993 teaches an electrode pattern (1a/1b) and an insulation film (portion
`
`of 2 surrounding 1a/1 b) which covers the electrode pattern (1a/1 b), which are formed on
`
`the second surface of the dielectric member (bottom surface of 2) [fig 7 & col 5-6, lines
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/714,231
`Art Unit: 1718
`
`Page 9
`
`59-4]; wherein the electrode pattern (1a/1 b) comprises an electric heater (heater, 1b)
`
`which heats the dielectric member (dielectric portion, 2) [fig 7 & col 5-6, lines 59-4].
`
`Yoshida’993 does not specifically disclose that the insulation film and dielectric
`
`member are separate structures.
`
`It would have been obvious to one having ordinary
`
`skill in the art before the effective filing date to separate the dielectric member into two
`
`structures (dielectric member and insulation film), since it has been held that making a
`
`formerly integral structure separable involves only routine skill
`
`in the art [MPEP
`
`2144.04].
`
`Regarding claim 10:
`
`Modified Yoshida’993 teaches the part of the coil (spiral coil, 2) disposed in the
`
`groove (surface around upwardly convex shape) follows a bottom shape of the groove
`
`(provided to conform along the surface around convex shape) [Yoshida’781 - fig 5B &
`
`col 4-5, lines 56-6].
`
`Regarding claim 11:
`
`Modified Yoshida’993 teaches a maximum depth of the groove (surface around
`
`thickened central portion) is in a range from 0.25T to 0.45T, where T is a thickness of
`
`the dielectric member before forming the groove (1 :6 to 1:1.5 = 0.17T to 0.67T) [Chen -
`
`fig 7 & col 6, lines 9-22].
`
`In a case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the
`
`prior art a prima facia base of obviousness exists. See In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257,
`
`191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1946), and MPEP 2144.05.
`
`Regarding claim 12:
`
`Modified Yoshida’993 teaches an area of the dielectric member in which the
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/714,231
`Art Unit: 1718
`
`Page 10
`
`groove (surface around thickened central portion) is formed is in a range from 0.028 to
`
`0.58, where 8 is an area of the first surface of the dielectric member (diameter of 3 to 4
`
`inches of a total diameter of 9 to 10 inches = 1T*(3/2)22 1'r*(10/2)2 to Tr*(4/2)2: 1'r*(9/2)2 =
`
`7.1 :78.5 to 12.6:63.6 = 0.098 to 0.28) [Chen - fig 7 & col 6, lines 43-55].
`
`In a case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the
`
`prior art a prima facia base of obviousness exists. See In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257,
`
`191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1946), and MPEP 2144.05.
`
`10.
`
`Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
`
`Yoshida (US 5,735,993) in view of Chen etal (US 5,226,967), Yoshida et al (US
`
`5,690,781), and Ghanbari (US 5,982,100) as applied to claims 1-6 and 10-12 above,
`
`and further in view of Collins et al (US 6,361,644).
`
`The limitations of claims 1-6 and 10-12 have been set forth above.
`
`Regarding claim 7:
`
`Nbdified Yoshida’993 teaches the electrode pattern (1a/1 b) comprises a plate
`
`electrode (metallic plate, 1a) [Yoshida’993 - fig 7 & col 5-6, lines 59-4].
`
`Modified Yoshida’993 does not teach the plate electrode is capacitively coupled
`
`to the plasma when the plate electrode is supplied with radio frequency power.
`
`Collins teaches a plate electrode (conductive backplane, 400) is capacitively
`
`coupled (parallel plates) to the plasma when the plate electrode (400) is supplied with
`
`radio frequency power (via RF generator) [fig 25A & col 1, lines 12-16 and col 20-21,
`
`lines 66-19].
`
`Modified Yoshida’993 and Collins are analogous inventions in the field of plasma
`
`processing apparatuses.
`
`It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/714,231
`Art Unit: 1718
`
`Page 11
`
`effective filing date to modify the plate electrode of modified Yoshida’993 to be
`
`capacitively coupled to the plasma, as in Collins, to combine the advantages of
`
`inductive and capacitive coupling in a single reactor [Collins — col 5, lines 33-44].
`
`Regarding claim 8:
`
`Modified Yoshida’993 teaches a first electrode pattern (metallic plate, 1a) and a
`
`first insulation film (portion of 2 surrounding 1a) which covers the first electrode pattern
`
`(1a), which are formed on the second surface of the dielectric member (bottom surface
`
`of 2) [Yoshida’993 - fig 7 & col 5-6, lines 59-4], a second electrode pattern (heater, 1b)
`
`and a second insulation film (portion of 2 surrounding 1b) which covers the second
`
`electrode pattern (1b), which are formed on a surface of the first insulation film opposite
`
`to the dielectric member (portion of 2 surrounding 1a) [Yoshida’993 - fig 7 & col 5-6,
`
`lines 59-4], wherein one of the first and second electrode patterns (1a/1 b) comprises an
`
`electric heater (heater, 1b) which heats the dielectric member (dielectric portion, 2), and
`
`wherein the other of the first and second electrode patterns (1a/1 b) comprises a plate
`
`electrode (metallic plate, 1a) [Yoshida’993 - fig 7 & col 5-6, lines 59-4].
`
`Modified Yoshida’993 does not specifically disclose that the first insulation film,
`
`second insulation film, and dielectric member are separate structures.
`
`It would have
`
`been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to
`
`separate the dielectric member into three structures (dielectric member and first/second
`
`insulation films), since it has been held that making a formerly integral structure
`
`separable involves only routine skill in the art [MPEP 2144.04].
`
`Additionally, modified Yoshida’993 does not teach the plate electrode is
`
`capacitively coupled to the plasma within the reaction chamber when the other of the
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/714,231
`Art Unit: 1718
`
`Page 12
`
`first and second electrode patterns is supplied with radio frequency power.
`
`Collins teaches a plate electrode (conductive backplane, 400) is capacitively
`
`coupled (parallel plates) to the plasma within the reaction chamber when the other of
`
`the first and second electrode patterns (400) is supplied with radio frequency power (via
`
`RF generator) [fig 25A & col 1, lines 12-16 and col 20-21, lines 66-19].
`
`Modified Yoshida’993 and Collins are analogous inventions in the field of plasma
`
`processing apparatuses.
`
`It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the
`
`effective filing date to modify the plate electrode of modified Yoshida’993 to be
`
`capacitively coupled to the plasma, as in Collins, to combine the advantages of
`
`inductive and capacitive coupling in a single reactor [Collins — col 5, lines 33-44].
`
`Regarding claim 9:
`
`Modified Yoshida’993 teaches the electric heater (heater, 1b) as a whole is
`
`disposed within the plate electrode (metallic plate, 1a) as viewed from a direction
`
`perpendicular to the second surface of the dielectric member (same geometry)
`
`[Yoshida’993 - fig 2, 7 & col 5-6, lines 59-10].
`
`Response to Arguments
`
`11.
`
`Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 08/14/2018, with respect to the
`
`rejection of claim(s) 1-9 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but are moot
`
`because the arguments do not apply to the combination of references being used in the
`
`current rejection.
`
`The teachings of Ghanbari (US 5,982,100) remedy anything lacking in the
`
`combination of references as applied above to the amended claims.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/714,231
`Art Unit: 1718
`
`Page 13
`
`To the extent applicant argues that Ghanbari was merely cited for the
`
`independent features of claim 4, examiner agrees. However, Ghanbari teaches the
`
`newly cited limitations of the claim [see above], and therefore the amendments have
`
`necessitated a new grounds of rejection of independent claim 1
`
`involving Ghanbari.
`
`Conclusion
`
`12.
`
`The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to
`
`applicant's disclosure. Nozawa et al (US 2007/0113788) teaches a groove having an
`
`annular shape [fig 8 and 12].
`
`13.
`
`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
`
`CFR1.136(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
`
`extension fee 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 date of this final action.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/714,231
`Art Unit: 1718
`
`Page 14
`
`14.
`
`Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
`
`examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN R KENDALL whose telephone number is
`
`(571)272-5081. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Thurs 9-5 EST.
`
`If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s
`
`supervisor, Gordon Baldwin can be reached on (571)272-5166. The fax phone number
`
`for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
`
`Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the
`
`Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for
`
`published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR.
`
`Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only.
`
`For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should
`
`you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic
`
`Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
`
`If you would like assistance from a
`
`USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information
`
`system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272—1000.
`
`/BENJAMIN KENDALL/
`
`Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
`
`