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 .
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.
Status of Claims
Claims 1 and 12 has been amended
Claims 1-20 are pending
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1-2, 6-8, and 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by LeFevre et al. (20150126033).
Regarding Claim 1:
LeFevre teaches a plasma processing apparatus (processing system 500) comprising: a reaction chamber (process chamber 510) having a gas inlet (gas distribution system 540) and a gas outlet (vacuum pumping system 550); a gas supply (gas distribution system 540 supplies a mixture of gases, therefore a gas supply can be reasonably inferred) connected to the gas inlet; a substrate support (substrate holder 520) disposed in the reaction chamber; a plasma generator (upper electrode 570 and lower electrode 522) configured to form a plasma in the reaction chamber [Fig. 5 & 0035, 0038, 0045]; and processing circuitry (controller 550) configured to: control provision of a substrate on the substrate support (program stored in the memory can be utilized to activate the inputs to the components of plasma processing system 500 according to a process recipe in order to perform a plasma assisted process, such as a plasma etch process, on substrate 525) [Fig. 5 & 0042], the substrate including an etching layer and a mask on the etching layer (the substrate has a patterned mask layer defining openings that expose a silicon surface) [Fig. 1A, 1B & 0008, 0027]; control provision of a Si-containing gas to the reaction chamber to deposit a Si-containing film on at least a sidewall of a recess in the etching layer (in step 420, a first process gas mixture is flowed into the plasma processing system, such as into a space or plasma processing region above the substrate. The first process gas mixture comprises silicon, oxygen, and at least one halogen) [Fig. 1A, 1B, 4 & 0028]; after deposition of the Si-containing film, control the gas supply to supply a gas mixture to the reaction chamber (gas supply of the second process gas mixture in step 430 occurs after gas supply of the first process gas mixture in step 420. The first process gas mixture is an SiO depositing gas that creates halogen-rich oxide films or oxide-like films) [Fig. 4 & 0029-0031], the gas mixture including a fluorine-containing gas and at least one selected from a group consisting of an oxygen-containing gas and a nitrogen-containing gas (in step 430, a second process gas mixture is flowed into the plasma processing system. The second process gas mixture comprises a halogen-containing gas and a fluorocarbon gas. For example, the halogen-containing gas from the second process gas mixture can be selected from the group consisting of SF6, NF3, XeF2, chlorine, and bromine. Products from the halogen-containing gas from the second process gas mixture can be used to etch silicon within the substrate. The fluorocarbon gas from the second process gas mixture can be CxFyHz, where x and y are greater than or equal to one, and where z is greater than or equal to zero) [Fig. 4 & 0029]; and control the plasma generator to generate a first plasma from the gas mixture (in step 440, plasma is formed from the first process gas mixture and from the second process gas mixture such that the silicon surface, through the patterned mask layer, is exposed to the plasma. Such plasma generation can occur within the plasma processing system in a region above the substrate. Plasma formation occurs in step 440 occurs after gas supply of the first process gas mixture in step 420) [Fig. 4 & 0029-0031], thereby modifying the Si-containing film to form a protective film on the sidewall of the recess (in step 450, an oxide layer is formed on sidewalls and bottom surfaces of one or more silicon features within the substrate using products from the first gas mixture and the plasma) [Fig. 4 & 0031].
It’s further noted that since all the previous method steps are disclosed by LeFevre, the intended result of “modifying the Si-containing film to form a protective film on the sidewall of the recess,” would be performed. The court noted that a "‘whereby clause in a method claim is not given weight when it simply expresses the intended result of a process step positively recited.’" Id. (quoting Minton v. Nat’l Ass’n of Securities Dealers, Inc., 336 F.3d 1373, 1381, 67 USPQ2d 1614, 1620 (Fed. Cir. 2003)).
Regarding Claim 2:
LeFevre teaches wherein the gas mixture is continuously supplied (flowing the first process gas mixture and flowing the second process gas mixture can include maintaining respective flow rates above a predetermined amount such that there is a minimum continuous flow of each gas mixture during the step of etching the one or more silicon features. Duty cycle of each gas mixture can be equivalent or different. For example, the etch chemistry time can last longer than the oxidation chemistry time, and this etch-heavy pulsing can have some advantages, such as deeper etching lengths, and thus may be selected for particular etch applications) [Fig. 4 & 0033].
Regarding Claim 6:
LeFevre teaches wherein the fluorine-containing gas is a CxFy gas (the fluorocarbon gas from the second process gas mixture can be CxFyHz, where x and y are greater than or equal to one, and where z is greater than or equal to zero) [Fig. 4 & 0029].
Regarding Claim 7:
LeFevre teaches wherein the nitrogen- containing gas is at least one selected from a group consisting of NH3, N2 and NF3 (the halogen-containing gas from the second process gas mixture can be selected from the group consisting of SF6, NF3, XeF2, chlorine, and bromine) [Fig. 4 & 0029].
It is noted that claim 1 recites “the gas mixture including a fluorine-containing gas and at least one selected from a group consisting of an oxygen-containing gas and a nitrogen-containing gas.” In the rejection of claim 1 above, the examiner has disclosed a gas containing fluorine and nitrogen. As such, despite claim 7 reciting “wherein the oxygen-containing gas is at least one selected from a group consisting of O2, CO, CO2 and O3,” the examiner is disclosing a nitrogen species since the limitation of claim 1 is directed to an oxygen-containing gas or a nitrogen-containing gas.
Regarding Claim 8:
LeFevre teaches wherein the nitrogen- containing gas is at least one selected from a group consisting of NH3, N2 and NF3 (the halogen-containing gas from the second process gas mixture can be selected from the group consisting of SF6, NF3, XeF2, chlorine, and bromine) [Fig. 4 & 0029].
Regarding Claim 10:
LeFevre teaches wherein the etching includes applying a bias power to an electrode in the reaction chamber (substrate holder 520 can be electrically biased at a RF voltage via the transmission of RF power from a RF generator 530 through an optional impedance match network 532 to substrate holder 520) [Fig. 5 & 0038].
Regarding Claim 11:
LeFevre teaches wherein a radio frequency (RF) is supplied to an electrode in the reaction chamber to generate the first plasma (upper electrode 570 can have RF power applied from RF generator 572) [Fig. 5 & 0045].
Claim(s) 12-13, 16-18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by LeFevre et al. (20150126033).
Regarding Claim 12:
LeFevre teaches a plasma processing apparatus (processing system 500) comprising: a reaction chamber (process chamber 510) having a gas inlet (gas distribution system 540) and a gas outlet (vacuum pumping system 550); a substrate support (substrate holder 520) disposed in the reaction chamber; a plasma generator (upper electrode 570 and lower electrode 522) configured to form a plasma in the reaction chamber [Fig. 5 & 0035, 0038, 0045];
a controller (controller 550) configured to cause: placing a substrate on the substrate support (program stored in the memory can be utilized to activate the inputs to the components of plasma processing system 500 according to a process recipe in order to perform a plasma assisted process, such as a plasma etch process, on substrate 525) [Fig. 5 & 0042], the substrate including an etching layer and a mask on the etching layer (the substrate has a patterned mask layer defining openings that expose a silicon surface) [Fig. 1A, 1B & 0008, 0027]; control provision of a Si-containing gas to the reaction chamber to deposit a Si-containing film on at least a sidewall of a recess in the etching layer, the precursor including silicon or amino-silane (in step 420, a first process gas mixture is flowed into the plasma processing system, such as into a space or plasma processing region above the substrate. The first process gas mixture comprises silicon, oxygen, and at least one halogen) [Fig. 1A, 1B, 4 & 0028]; after deposition of the Si-containing film, supplying a gas mixture into the reaction chamber (gas supply of the second process gas mixture in step 430 occurs after gas supply of the first process gas mixture in step 420. The first process gas mixture is an SiO depositing gas that creates halogen-rich oxide films or oxide-like films) [Fig. 4 & 0029-0031], the gas mixture including a fluorine-containing gas and at least one selected from a group consisting of an oxygen-containing gas and a nitrogen-containing gas (in step 430, a second process gas mixture is flowed into the plasma processing system. The second process gas mixture comprises a halogen-containing gas and a fluorocarbon gas. For example, the halogen-containing gas from the second process gas mixture can be selected from the group consisting of SF6, NF3, XeF2, chlorine, and bromine. Products from the halogen-containing gas from the second process gas mixture can be used to etch silicon within the substrate. The fluorocarbon gas from the second process gas mixture can be CxFyHz, where x and y are greater than or equal to one, and where z is greater than or equal to zero) [Fig. 4 & 0029]; and after deposition of the Si-containing film, generating a first plasma from the gas mixture (in step 440, plasma is formed from the first process gas mixture and from the second process gas mixture such that the silicon surface, through the patterned mask layer, is exposed to the plasma. Such plasma generation can occur within the plasma processing system in a region above the substrate. Plasma formation occurs in step 440 occurs after gas supply of the first process gas mixture in step 420) [Fig. 4 & 0029-0031], thereby modifying the Si-containing film to form a protective film on the sidewall of the recess (in step 450, an oxide layer is formed on sidewalls and bottom surfaces of one or more silicon features within the substrate using products from the first gas mixture and the plasma) [Fig. 4 & 0031].
It’s further noted that since all the previous method steps are disclosed by LeFevre, the intended result of “modifying the Si-containing film to form a protective film on the sidewall of the recess,” would be performed. The court noted that a "‘whereby clause in a method claim is not given weight when it simply expresses the intended result of a process step positively recited.’" Id. (quoting Minton v. Nat’l Ass’n of Securities Dealers, Inc., 336 F.3d 1373, 1381, 67 USPQ2d 1614, 1620 (Fed. Cir. 2003)).
Regarding Claim 13:
LeFevre teaches wherein the gas mixture is continuously supplied (flowing the first process gas mixture and flowing the second process gas mixture can include maintaining respective flow rates above a predetermined amount such that there is a minimum continuous flow of each gas mixture during the step of etching the one or more silicon features. Duty cycle of each gas mixture can be equivalent or different. For example, the etch chemistry time can last longer than the oxidation chemistry time, and this etch-heavy pulsing can have some advantages, such as deeper etching lengths, and thus may be selected for particular etch applications) [Fig. 4 & 0033].
Regarding Claim 16:
LeFevre teaches wherein the fluorine-containing gas is a CxFy gas (the fluorocarbon gas from the second process gas mixture can be CxFyHz, where x and y are greater than or equal to one, and where z is greater than or equal to zero) [Fig. 4 & 0029].
Regarding Claim 17:
LeFevre teaches wherein the nitrogen- containing gas is at least one selected from a group consisting of NH3, N2 and NF3 (the halogen-containing gas from the second process gas mixture can be selected from the group consisting of SF6, NF3, XeF2, chlorine, and bromine) [Fig. 4 & 0029].
It is noted that claim 1 recites “the gas mixture including a fluorine-containing gas and at least one selected from a group consisting of an oxygen-containing gas and a nitrogen-containing gas.” In the rejection of claim 1 above, the examiner has disclosed a gas containing fluorine and nitrogen. As such, despite claim 7 reciting “wherein the oxygen-containing gas is at least one selected from a group consisting of O2, CO, CO2 and O3,” the examiner is disclosing a nitrogen species since the limitation of claim 1 is directed to an oxygen-containing gas or a nitrogen-containing gas.
Regarding Claim 18:
LeFevre teaches wherein the nitrogen- containing gas is at least one selected from a group consisting of NH3, N2 and NF3 (the halogen-containing gas from the second process gas mixture can be selected from the group consisting of SF6, NF3, XeF2, chlorine, and bromine) [Fig. 4 & 0029].
Regarding Claim 20:
LeFevre teaches wherein the etching includes applying a bias power to an electrode in the reaction chamber (substrate holder 520 can be electrically biased at a RF voltage via the transmission of RF power from a RF generator 530 through an optional impedance match network 532 to substrate holder 520) [Fig. 5 & 0038].
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) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LeFevre et al. (20150126033), as applied to claims 1-2, 6-8, and 10-11 above, and further in view of Luo et al. (US 6500357).
The limitations of claims 1-2, 6-8, and 10-11 have been set forth above.
Regarding Claim 3:
LeFevre does not specifically disclose wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to exhaust the Si-containing gas from the reaction chamber.
Luo teaches wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to exhaust a spent gas from the reaction chamber (chamber A may include a gas system that establishes a gas flow that pumps particles out of the chamber and into the exhaust stream by flowing a purge gas from the bottom or sidewall of the chamber) [Fig. 3A & Col. 9 lines 25-30, Col. 12 lines 10-17].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of LeFevre to exhaust spent gases, as in Luo, to prevent unwanted buildup [Luo - Col. 12 lines 10-17].
Regarding Claim 4:
LeFevre does not specifically disclose wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to exhaust the gas mixture from the reaction chamber.
Luo teaches wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to exhaust a spent gas from the reaction chamber (chamber A may include a gas system that establishes a gas flow that pumps particles out of the chamber and into the exhaust stream by flowing a purge gas from the bottom or sidewall of the chamber) [Fig. 3A & Col. 9 lines 25-30, Col. 12 lines 10-17].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of LeFevre to exhaust spent gases, as in Luo, to prevent unwanted buildup [Luo - Col. 12 lines 10-17].
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LeFevre et al. (20150126033), as applied to claims 1-2, 6-8, and 10-11 above, and further in view of Hudson (US 20160343580).
The limitations of claims 1-2, 6-8, and 10-11 have been set forth above.
Regarding Claim 5:
LeFevre does not specifically disclose wherein the Si-containing gas is an amino-silane gas.
Hudson teaches wherein the Si- containing gas is an amino-silane gas (silicon deposition can be conducted utilizing an aminosilane, wherein the aminosilane includes at least one nitrogen atom bonded to a silicon atom, but may also contain hydrogens, oxygens, halogens and carbons) [Fig. 2A & 0084].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the Si-containing gas of LeFevre to be an amino-silane gas, as in Hudson, since it is a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results (See MPEP 2141 III B). Furthermore, LeFevre states that its silicon gas may be a variety of halogen-containing silicon gases [LeFevre - 0028]. Hudson discloses that amino-silanes can have halogens, such as SiHCl—(N(CH3)2)2 [Hudson - 0084].
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LeFevre et al. (20150126033), as applied to claims 1-2, 6-8, and 10-11 above, and further in view of Shvets et al. (US 6419752).
The limitations of claims 1-2, 6-8, and 10-11 have been set forth above.
Regarding Claim 9:
LeFevre teaches wherein the processing circuitry further configured to control etching the substrate after forming the protective film on the sidewall of the recess (in step 460, the one or more silicon features within the substrate are etched using products from the second process gas mixture and the plasma. Controller 555 can also have programming for a plasma etch process) [Fig. 4, 5 & 0032, 0042].
Additionally/alternatively, Shvets teaches wherein the processing circuitry further configured to control etching the substrate with a plasma (the apparatus of Fig. 1 utilizes plasma etching) [Fig. 1 & Col. 4 lines 56-65, Col. 7 lines 6-21].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the etching step of LeFevre to utilize plasma, as in Shvets, since plasma etching allows for a high directionality where the material is removed preferentially along a certain crystallographic direction on the substrate [Shvets & Col. 1 lines 50-60].
Claim(s) 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LeFevre et al. (20150126033), as applied to claims 12-13, 16-18, and 20 above, and further in view of Luo et al. (US 6500357).
The limitations of claims 12-13, 16-18, and 20 have been set forth above.
Regarding Claim 14:
LeFevre does not specifically disclose wherein the controller is further configured to cause: exhausting the precursor from the reaction chamber.
Luo teaches wherein the controller is further configured to cause: exhausting a spent gas from the reaction chamber (chamber A may include a gas system that establishes a gas flow that pumps particles out of the chamber and into the exhaust stream by flowing a purge gas from the bottom or sidewall of the chamber) [Fig. 3A & Col. 9 lines 25-30, Col. 12 lines 10-17].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of LeFevre to exhaust spent gases, as in Luo, to prevent unwanted buildup [Luo - Col. 12 lines 10-17].
Regarding Claim 15:
LeFevre does not specifically disclose wherein the controller is further configured to cause: exhausting the gas mixture from the reaction chamber.
Luo teaches wherein the controller is further configured to cause: exhausting a spent gas from the reaction chamber (chamber A may include a gas system that establishes a gas flow that pumps particles out of the chamber and into the exhaust stream by flowing a purge gas from the bottom or sidewall of the chamber) [Fig. 3A & Col. 9 lines 25-30, Col. 12 lines 10-17].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of LeFevre to exhaust spent gases, as in Luo, to prevent unwanted buildup [Luo - Col. 12 lines 10-17].
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LeFevre et al. (20150126033), as applied to claims 12-13, 16-18, and 20 above, and further in view of Shvets et al. (US 6419752).
The limitations of claims 12-13, 16-18, and 20 have been set forth above.
Regarding Claim 19:
LeFevre teaches wherein the controller is further configured to cause: etching the substrate after forming the protective film on the sidewall of the recess (in step 460, the one or more silicon features within the substrate are etched using products from the second process gas mixture and the plasma. Controller 555 can also have programming for a plasma etch process) [Fig. 4, 5 & 0032, 0042].
Additionally/alternatively teaches wherein the controller is further configured to cause: etching the substrate with a plasma (the apparatus of Fig. 1 utilizes plasma etching) [Fig. 1 & Col. 4 lines 56-65, Col. 7 lines 6-21].
It would have bene obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the etching step of LeFevre to utilize plasma, as in Shvets, since plasma etching allows for a high directionality where the material is removed preferentially along a certain crystallographic direction on the substrate [Shvets & Col. 1 lines 50-60].
Response to Arguments
Applicant' s arguments, see Remarks, filed 08/18/2025, with respect to the objection of the drawings have been fully considered and are persuasive. The drawing objection as previously set forth has been withdrawn in full.
Applicant' s arguments, see Remarks, filed 08/18/2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-2, 6-8, 10-16, and 20 under 35 USC 102(a)(1) have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the combination of references does not specifically disclose “after deposition of the Si-containing film, control the gas supply to supply a gas mixture to the reaction chamber, the gas mixture including a fluorine-containing gas and at least one selected from a group consisting of an oxygen-containing gas and a nitrogen-containing gas, and after the deposition of the Si-containing film, control the plasma generator to generate a first plasma from the gas mixture, thereby modifying the Si-containing film to form a protective film on the sidewall of the recess,” because LeFevre et al. (US 20150126033) provides continuous and simultaneous flows of both the fluorine and Si-containing gases, and performs plasma formation from both the gases simultaneously, and therefore does not suggest separate plasma formation steps as the limitation discloses.
In response, the examiner would like to note that the limitation currently does not suggest completely separate plasma formation steps for both the process gas mixture and the Si-containing gas, but rather, it merely suggests that after an Si-containing film is deposited, a fluorine-containing gas mixture is supplied, and plasma is generated from the fluorine-containing gas mixture. LeFevre explicitly discloses the generation of plasma from the fluorine-containing gas mixture in step 440, and it discloses supplying a fluorine-containing gas mixture in step 430. Both steps 430 and 440 occur chronologically after the first process gas mixture (comprising an Si-containing gas) is supplied in step 420 [LeFevre- Fig. 4 & 0028, 0030]. Furthermore, LeFevre explicitly discloses that the two process gas flows can be alternatively supplied, one after the other (see Fig. 2A-2C), wherein each gas mixture can have a minimum flow of zero or greater at their respective minimum flows [LeFevre – Fig. 2A-2C & 0033].
Furthermore, the examiner would like to note that in the applicant’s disclosure, RF power is supplied after both the Si-containing (the precursor) and the fluorine-containing gases are supplied, wherein the fluorine-containing and Si-containing gases are supplied simultaneously [IA – Fig. 7C & 0091-0093]. Furthermore, the instant application also discloses that plasma may be formed from the Si-containing gas for adsorption, and that gas purging may be optional [IA – 0056, 0076]. In essence, the embodiment of Fig. 7C (which was elected in the in the reply filed on 02/13/2025 as Species A3), generates plasma only after both the gas mixtures are supplied. LeFevre discloses both a plasma formation (step 440) and a fluorine-containing gas supply step (step 430) after an Si-containing film formation step (step 420), and it also discloses alternative embodiments where both gas mixtures can be provided simultaneously, therefore LeFevre would also disclose the aforementioned limitation in light of the specification.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JOSHUA NATHANIEL PINEDA REYES whose telephone number is (571)272-4693. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 AM to 4:30 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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at (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.
/J.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1718
/GORDON BALDWIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1718