DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to Applicant’s Reply filed 2/4/2026.
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 .
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.
Claim Status
Claims 1-9, 17-20, and 23-25 are pending.
Claims 10-16 and 21-22 are cancelled.
Claims 1, 6, and 17 are currently amended.
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.
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 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.
Claims 1, 7-9, and 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aubuchon (US Pub. 2018/0294144) in view of Wu (US Pub. 2019/0385825) and Nozawa (US Pub. 2016/0189931).
Regarding claim 1, Aubuchon teaches a plasma processing system ([0016] and Fig. 1, system #100), comprising: a processing chamber comprising a chamber body having walls with a first material ([0017]: lid/plate comprises aluminum or stainless steel) enclosing an interior volume ([0019] and Fig. 1, chamber #100 with volume #112); a plasma source configured to expose a substrate disposed within the processing chamber to plasma related fluxes ([0030] and Fig. 1, RPS unit #105), wherein the first material has a first set of recombination coefficients associated with the plasma related fluxes ([0019]), wherein the first material comprises stainless steel ([0017]), further comprising an annular plasma injection site (Fig. 1, at least one annular region can be identified in #110).
Aubuchon does not teach a second material disposed along a first region on at least one of the walls of the chamber body, the second material having a second set of plasma recombination coefficients associated with the plasma related fluxes, wherein the second set of plasma recombination coefficients is different from the first set of plasma recombination coefficients, wherein the second material is selected from a list consisting of borosilicate glass, boron nitride, quartz, titanium, and stainless steel, a third material disposed along a second region within the chamber body, the third material having a third set of plasma recombination coefficients associated with the plasma related fluxes.
However, Wu teaches a quartz coating for a stainless steel chamber (Wu – [0017]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify any of the walls/surfaces of the Aubuchon apparatus to comprise a quartz coating in order to increase plasma resistance (Wu – [0017]). Additionally, it has been held that the selection of a known material based upon its suitability for its intended use is supportive of an obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.07. The Examiner notes nothing in the claim prohibits the second and third materials from being the same.
Regarding the limitation: “wherein the second material and the third material in combination control variation in process result values across the substrate based on the second set of plasma recombination coefficients and the third set of plasma recombination coefficients”, this limitation is regarded as a property inherent in the combination of materials as recited in the claim. In accordance with established case law and procedure (see MPEP 2112, 2112.01(I)-(II)), if the prior art teaches the claimed materials, it is regarded as having the inherent properties recited in the claim and fully meets the related limitations. As such, Aubuchon modified by Wu teaches this limitation.
Aubuchon modified by Wu does not teach wherein the first region comprises a ring concentric to an annular plasma injection site in the plasma source, wherein the first region is disposed at a first radius of the chamber body, the second region comprising a second ring proximate to the annular plasma injection site, wherein the second region is disposed at a second radius of the chamber body, wherein the second radius is smaller than the first radius.
However, Nozawa teaches first and second annularly-shaped coating zones (Nozawa – [0043] and Fig. 2, coatings C1 and C2; see Fig. 1 for chamber design as well as [0029]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the shapes of the coatings of modified Aubuchon to comprise first/second annular zones (on adjacent surfaces of the members of Aubuchon) comprising different materials as a “marker” in order to identify an individual component for replacement (Nozawa – [0052]).
Regarding claim 7, Aubuchon teaches an actuator coupled to the second material, the actuator configured to vary a first distance between the second material and the chamber body ([0019]: pedestal configured to vertically/axially adjust/reposition the pedestal/substrate).
Regarding claim 8, Aubuchon teaches wherein at least one of the first set of plasma recombination coefficients is associated with silicon nitridation occurring within the processing chamber ([0018]).
Regarding claim 9, Aubuchon teaches wherein: the processing chamber comprises an annular plasma injection site formed between a first radius and a second radius of a first surface of the chamber body (Fig. 1, annular plasma region formed between radius of #107 inlet and radius of the inner chamber wall), the annular plasma injection site is configured to deliver plasma from the plasma source to the interior volume of the processing chamber ([0018]); and the first material is disposed along the first surface of the chamber body within the first radius ([0017]: lid/plate comprises aluminum or stainless steel).
Regarding claim 23, modified Aubuchon does not teach the added limitations of the claim.
However, Nozawa teaches first and second concentric annularly-shaped coating zones (Nozawa – [0043] and Fig. 2, coatings C1 and C2; see Fig. 1 for chamber design as well as [0029]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the shapes of the coatings of modified Aubuchon to comprise first/second annular zones (on adjacent surfaces of the members of Aubuchon) comprising different materials as a “marker” in order to identify an individual component for replacement (Nozawa – [0052]).
Regarding claim 24, modified Aubuchon does not teach the added limitations of the claim.
However, Nozawa teaches first and second concentric annularly-shaped coating zones (Nozawa – [0043] and Fig. 2, coatings C1 and C2; see Fig. 1 for chamber design as well as [0029]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the shapes of the coatings of modified Aubuchon to comprise first/second annular zones (on adjacent surfaces of the members of Aubuchon) comprising different materials as a “marker” in order to identify an individual component for replacement (Nozawa – [0052]).
Regarding claim 25, Aubuchon teaches wherein the walls of the chamber body comprise one or more horizontal surfaces and one or more vertical surfaces configured to enclose the interior volume (see Fig. 1).
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aubuchon (US Pub. 2018/0294144), Wu (US Pub. 2019/0385825), and Nozawa (US Pub. 2016/0189931), as applied to claims 1, 7-9, and 23-25 above, further in view of Raj (US Pub. 2017/0152968).
The limitations of claims 1, 7-9, and 23-25 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 2, modified Aubuchon does not teach the added limitations of the claim.
However, Raj teaches a fourth material disposed along a third region of the chamber body, the fourth material having a fourth set of plasma recombination coefficients associated with the plasma related fluxes, wherein the fourth set of plasma recombination coefficients are different from the first, second, and third set of plasma recombination coefficients (Raj – [0040]: various chamber components can be coated with different coatings, including three different coatings #220, #224, #226 as they relate to #180).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to further modify the modified Aubuchon apparatus to comprise the third material of Raj in order to compensate for local temperatures, exposure amounts, underlying material, elasticity/flexibility requirements, or other factors (Raj – [0040]).
Regarding claim 3, modified Aubuchon does not teach the added limitations of the claim.
However, Raj teaches wherein: one or more of the plasma recombination coefficients of the second set are greater than corresponding plasma recombination coefficients of the first set; and one or more of the plasma recombination coefficients of the third set are less than corresponding plasma recombination coefficients of the first set (Raj – [0040]: various chamber components can be coated with different coatings, including three different coatings #220, #224, #226 as they relate to #180; [0034]: describes various examples of coating materials and formation techniques).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the modified Aubuchon apparatus to comprise the different coating materials of Raj in order to compensate for local temperatures, exposure amounts, underlying material, elasticity/flexibility requirements, or other factors (Raj – [0040]).
Regarding claim 4, Aubuchon teaches wherein: the chamber body further comprises a support structure to support the substrate ([0019] and Fig. 1, pedestal #150 supporting substrate #151)
Modified Aubuchon does not teach wherein the second material is disposed along a surface of the support structure.
However, Raj teaches a second material disposed along a surface of the support structure (Raj – [0040]: coating on substrate support #120 may be different than other coatings on other components).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the modified Aubuchon apparatus to comprise the second material of Raj in order to compensate for local temperatures, exposure amounts, underlying material, elasticity/flexibility requirements, or other factors (Raj – [0040]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aubuchon (US Pub. 2018/0294144), Wu (US Pub. 2019/0385825), and Nozawa (US Pub. 2016/0189931), as applied to claims 1, 7-9, and 23-25 above, and further in view of Kim (US Pub. 2008/0202689).
The limitations of claims 1, 7-9, and 23-25 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 5, modified Aubuchon does not teach the added limitations of the claim.
However, Kim teaches wherein a material is disposed along a region in a plurality of concentric rings (Kim – [0038] and Figs. 2-3, coating only lower and side surfaces of #200b, which can be formed by various ring-shaped members- thus would comprise multiple concentric coating regions by virtue of its construction).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the shape of the second material coating of modified Aubuchon to comprise a plurality of concentric rings in order to reduce manufacturing cost relating to excess coating and preventing the attachment of particles (Kim – [0038]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aubuchon (US Pub. 2018/0294144), Wu (US Pub. 2019/0385825), and Nozawa (US Pub. 2016/0189931), as applied to claims 1, 7-9, and 23-25 above, and further in view of Sant (US Pub. 2016/0358749).
The limitations of claims 1, 7-9, and 23-25 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 6, Aubuchon teaches wherein the first material comprises at least one of: a borosilicate based material, titanium, or stainless steel ([0017]: lid/plate comprises aluminum or stainless steel).
Modified Aubuchon does not teach wherein the wall comprises quartz.
However, Sant teaches wherein a wall comprises quartz with a coating (Sant – [0006]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to fabricate the walls of the Aubuchon apparatus to comprise quartz since the courts have held that material selection suitable for an intended purpose is indicative of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.07 and Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Claims 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aubuchon (US Pub. 2018/0294144) in view of Wu (US Pub. 2019/0385825), Raj (US Pub. 2017/0152968), Martin (US Pub. 2012/0070963), and Nozawa (US Pub. 2016/0189931).
Regarding claim 17, Aubuchon teaches a plasma processing system ([0016] and Fig. 1, system #100), comprising: a chamber body having walls with a first material ([0017]: lid/plate comprises aluminum or stainless steel) enclosing an interior volume ([0019] and Fig. 1, chamber #100 with volume #112), wherein the first material has a first set of plasma recombination coefficients ([0019]).
Aubuchon does not teach a second material disposed along a first region of the chamber body, the second material having a second set of plasma recombination coefficients that are different from the first set of plasma recombination coefficients, wherein the second material is selected from a list consisting of: borosilicate glass, boron nitride, quartz, titanium, and stainless steel.
However, Wu teaches a quartz coating for a stainless steel chamber (Wu – [0017]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the Aubuchon apparatus to comprise a quartz coating in order to increase plasma resistance (Wu – [0017]). Additionally, it has been held that the selection of a known material based upon its suitability for its intended use is supportive of an obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.07.
Modified Aubuchon does not teach a third material, different from a second material, disposed along a second region of the chamber body, the third material having a third set of plasma recombination coefficients and the second set of plasma recombination coefficients.
However, Raj teaches a second material and third material (Raj – [0040]: various chamber components can be coated with different coatings, including three different coatings #220, #224, #226 as they relate to #180).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to further modify the Aubuchon apparatus to comprise an additional coating according to Raj in order to compensate for local temperatures, exposure amounts, underlying material, elasticity/flexibility requirements, or other factors (Raj – [0040]).
Modified Aubuchon does not teach wherein the third material is selected from a list consisting of: borosilicate glass, boron nitride, quartz, titanium, and stainless steel.
However, Martin teaches wherein quartz and borosilicate glass are both known materials for plasma resistance (Martin – [0077]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to further modify the Aubuchon apparatus to comprise a further additional coating according to Martin in order to increase plasma resistance (Martin – [0077]). Additionally, it has been held that the selection of a known material based upon its suitability for its intended use is supportive of an obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding the limitation: “wherein the second material and the third material in combination control variation in process result values across the substrate based on the second set of plasma recombination coefficients and the third set of plasma recombination coefficients”, this limitation is regarded as a property inherent in the combination of materials as recited in the claim. In accordance with established case law and procedure (see MPEP 2112, 2112.01(I)-(II)), if the prior art teaches the claimed materials, it is regarded as having the inherent properties recited in the claim and fully meets the related limitations. As such, Aubuchon modified by Wu, Raj, and Martin teaches this limitation.
Modified Aubuchon does not teach wherein the first region comprises a ring concentric to an annular plasma injection site in the plasma source, wherein the first region is disposed at a first radius of the chamber body, the second region comprising a second ring proximate to the annular plasma injection site, wherein the second region is disposed at a second radius of the chamber body, wherein the second radius is smaller than the first radius.
However, Nozawa teaches first and second annularly-shaped coating zones (Nozawa – [0043] and Fig. 2, coatings C1 and C2; see Fig. 1 for chamber design as well as [0029]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the shapes of the coatings of modified Aubuchon to comprise first/second annular zones (on adjacent surfaces of the members of Aubuchon) comprising different materials as a “marker” in order to identify an individual component for replacement (Nozawa – [0052]).
Regarding claim 18, Aubuchon does not teach the added limitations of the claim.
However, Wu teaches a quartz coating for a stainless steel chamber (Wu – [0017]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the Aubuchon apparatus to comprise a quartz coating in order to increase plasma resistance (Wu – [0017]). Additionally, it has been held that the selection of a known material based upon its suitability for its intended use is supportive of an obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.07.
Modified Aubuchon does not teach a third material, different from a second material, disposed along a second region of the chamber body, the third material having a third set of plasma recombination coefficients and the second set of plasma recombination coefficients.
However, Raj teaches a second material and third material (Raj – [0040]: various chamber components can be coated with different coatings, including three different coatings #220, #224, #226 as they relate to #180).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to further modify the Aubuchon apparatus to comprise an additional coating according to Raj in order to compensate for local temperatures, exposure amounts, underlying material, elasticity/flexibility requirements, or other factors (Raj – [0040]).
Modified Aubuchon does not teach wherein the third material is selected from a list consisting of: borosilicate glass, boron nitride, quartz, titanium, and stainless steel.
However, Martin teaches wherein quartz and borosilicate glass are both known materials for plasma resistance (Martin – [0077]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to further modify the Aubuchon apparatus to comprise a further additional coating according to Martin in order to increase plasma resistance (Martin – [0077]). Additionally, it has been held that the selection of a known material based upon its suitability for its intended use is supportive of an obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.07.
Thus, as a combination, the materials as disclosed by modified Aubuchon are regarded as meeting the limitations of the claim since they conform to materials as specifically listed in claim 17.
Regarding claim 19, Aubuchon teaches wherein: the chamber body further comprises a support structure to support the substrate ([0019] and Fig. 1, pedestal #150 supporting substrate #151)
Aubuchon does not teach wherein the second material is disposed along a surface of the support structure.
However, Raj teaches a second material disposed along a surface of the support structure (Raj – [0040]: coating on substrate support #120 may be different than other coatings on other components).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the Aubuchon apparatus to comprise the second material of Raj in order to compensate for local temperatures, exposure amounts, underlying material, elasticity/flexibility requirements, or other factors (Raj – [0040]).
Regarding claim 20, Aubuchon teaches wherein at least one of the first set of plasma recombination coefficients is associated with silicon nitridation occurring within the processing chamber ([0018]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant has appropriately amended claims 1, 6, and 17 to correct minor informalities, thus the objections to the aforementioned claims are withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments have been carefully considered but are not persuasive for at least the reasons as forth herein.
The primary focus of Applicant’s arguments appear to be that Nozawa does not explicitly recite that the coatings/materials disclosed therein “control variation in process result values across the substrate based on the second set of plasma recombination coefficients and the third set of plasma recombination coefficients” and, therefore, does not meet the limitations of at least claims 1 and 17.
As an initial matter, the Examiner respectfully points out that Nozawa is not relied upon to teach any particular material. Instead, Nozawa is relied upon to teach first/second annularly-shaped coating zones as chemical markers for component replacement.
Aubuchon is relied upon to teach a chamber body with the first materials, and Wu is relied upon to teach the second/third materials. Applicant merely asserts Aubuchon and Wu do not explicitly recite the limitation identified above. As such, Applicant’s arguments are essentially moot because they do not apply to the particular combination of references as presented by the Examiner.
In the interest of compact prosecution, however, the Examiner provides the following rebuttal to Applicant’s arguments concerning Nozawa with the understanding that this rebuttal also applies to Aubuchon and/or Wu (either alone or in combination):
The Examiner respectfully submits that an explicit recitation of the above limitation is not necessary for the prior art to meet the limitations of the claim. The standard the courts have applied to this principle are set forth in MPEP 2112.01. Namely:
“[w]here the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). ‘When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.’ In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product. In re Best, 562 F.2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433. See also Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).” (emphasis added)
The Examiner respectfully submits that the prior art, notably Aubuchon and Wu, teaches the particular materials as claimed as part of a coating for a plasma processing device (see at least the rejections of claims 1 and 17 herein). The Examiner respectfully maintains that because these particular materials are taught by the prior art, they would necessarily possess the property of “control[ling] variation in process result values across the substrate”.
The courts have also held that:
“the discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer.” Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999), and
the claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
In further support of the Examiner’s assertions herein, the Examiner submits Doba (US 2017/0256382) as an evidentiary reference that explicitly teaches wherein it is known in the PECVD arts prior to filing that recombination coefficients of coatings affect processing results (see at least par. [0076]).
As a final matter, the Examiner notes that the claims are drawn to a plasma processing system/chamber and its structural components. The claimed substrate is merely recited as an intended use of the apparatus- a material/article that is worked upon by the structure itself.
The courts have held that a claim containing an “inclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims”. See MPEP 2115.
In accordance, even if Applicant were able to persuasively argue that the prior art references fail to support the inherency aspects of the rejection, the “process values across the substrate” are not structurally limiting of the claim. By extension, the property “control variation in process result values” is also not structurally limiting since it is recited as part of this same intended use- processing a substrate.
Considering all of the above, the Applicant would also need to successfully rebut where the prior art materials would merely be capable of “control[ling] variation in process result values”. The courts have held that a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2114(II).
The breadth of the limitation “variation in process result values” is broad enough to include any type of “process result”- deposition thickness, porosity, crystal structure, temperature, reflectivity, conductivity, etc. With this in mind, Applicant would also need to rebut each and every potential type of “process result” in their argument in order to negate a “capable of” argument.
For at least the reasons set forth herein, the §103 rejections are maintained.
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 Kurt Sweely whose telephone number is (571)272-8482. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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, 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 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.
/Kurt Sweely/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718