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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on January 30, 2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 6 depends from cancelled claim 2. Applicant may cancel the claims, amend the claims to place the claims in proper dependent form, rewrite the claims in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claims complies with the statutory requirements. Claim 6 is assumed to depend from claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 3, 6-8, 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Tatsuoka; Sho et al. (US 20160333478 A1) in view of Basceri, Cem et al. (US 20040035358 A1) and/or Lin; Ming Shing et al. (US 20210113972 A1). Tatsuoka teaches a gas injector (3+5; Figure 1,2,5-7, 10A-Applicant’s 100; Figure 1) for injecting a process gas into a process chamber (6; Figure 1), the gas injector (3+5; Figure 1,2,5-7, 10A-Applicant’s 100; Figure 1) being elongated along a first axis (coaxial with 5; Figure 1) from a first end to a second end (bottom of 5, Figure 1), and comprising: an injector tube (5; Figure 1,5-7, 10A-Applicant’s 125; Figure 1) extending to the first end (top of 5; Figure 1,5-7, 10A) and comprising a plurality of process gas injection holes (16,17; Figure 3,4-Applicant’s 120; Figure 1a) spaced apart from one another along said first axis (coaxial with 5; Figure 1) to deliver the process gas in the process chamber (6; Figure 1), a feed entry (5-12 interface; Figure 1; Applicant’s 135; Figure 1b) of the injector tube (5; Figure 1,5-7, 10A-Applicant’s 125; Figure 1) for injecting the process gas into the injector tube (5; Figure 1,5-7, 10A-Applicant’s 125; Figure 1); and a mixing chamber (12; Figure 2-Applicant’s 102; Figure 1a,b) provided near the second end (bottom of 5, Figure 1) and configured to mix a first reactant gas ([0011]) (left 10; Figure 2) and a second reactant gas (right 10; Figure 2), thereby forming the process gas, wherein the mixing chamber (12; Figure 2-Applicant’s 102; Figure 1a,b) is directly connected to the feed entry (5-12 interface; Figure 1; Applicant’s 135; Figure 1b) and has first and second inlets (holes in 12 coaxial with left, right 8; Figure 2) for feeding the first reactant gas ([0011]) and second reactant gas (left,right 10; Figure 2; [0011]), respectively, into the mixing chamber (12; Figure 2-Applicant’s 102; Figure 1a,b), and wherein the first and the second inlets (holes in 12 coaxial with left, right 8; Figure 2) are facing each other to improve mixing in the mixing chamber (12; Figure 2-Applicant’s 102; Figure 1a,b) of the first reactant source and the second reactant gas (right 10; Figure 2), as claimed by claim 1
Tatsuoka further teaches:
The gas injector (3+5; Figure 1,2,5-7, 10A-Applicant’s 100; Figure 1) according to claim 1, wherein the gas injector (3+5; Figure 1,2,5-7, 10A-Applicant’s 100; Figure 1) is constructed to be positioned in the process chamber (6; Figure 1) with the first axis (coaxial with 5; Figure 1) extending in a vertical direction, as claimed by claim 3
The gas injector (3+5; Figure 1,2,5-7, 10A-Applicant’s 100; Figure 1) according to claim 2(1), wherein the mixing chamber (12; Figure 2-Applicant’s 102; Figure 1a,b) has a bottom floor (inner bottom of 12; Figure 2-Applicant’s 133; Figure 1b) near the second end (bottom of 5, Figure 1) which is constructed planar along the second axis to support the gas injector (3+5; Figure 1,2,5-7, 10A-Applicant’s 100; Figure 1) in the process chamber (6; Figure 1), as claimed by claim 6
The gas injector (3+5; Figure 1,2,5-7, 10A-Applicant’s 100; Figure 1) according to claim 1, wherein the first and second inlets (holes in 12 coaxial with left, right 8; Figure 2) are connected to first and second inlet tubes (left,right 10; Figure 2), respectively, for providing the first and second reactant gases (left,right 10; Figure 2) in the mixing chamber (12; Figure 2-Applicant’s 102; Figure 1a,b), as claimed by claim 7
The gas injector (3+5; Figure 1,2,5-7, 10A-Applicant’s 100; Figure 1) according to claim 7, wherein the first and second inlet tubes (left,right 10; Figure 2) for providing the first and second reactant gases (left,right 10; Figure 2) in the mixing chamber (12; Figure 2-Applicant’s 102; Figure 1a,b) are provided near the second end (bottom of 5, Figure 1) of the gas injector (3+5; Figure 1,2,5-7, 10A-Applicant’s 100; Figure 1), as claimed by claim 8
The gas injector according to claim 1, wherein the mixing chamber (12; Figure 2-Applicant’s 102; Figure 1a,b) comprises: an open portion (top of 12; Figure 2) connected at the second end (bottom of 5; Figure 1) to the feed entry (5-12 interface; Figure 1; Applicant’s 135; Figure 1b) in the direction of the first axis (coaxial with 5; Figure 1); a bottom floor (inner bottom floor of 12; Figure 1) perpendicular to the first axis (coaxial with 5; Figure 1) and opposite the open portion (top of 12; Figure 2); and an enclosed surface (enclosed inner surface of 12; Figure 1) between the open portion (top of 12; Figure 2) and bottom floor (inner bottom floor of 12; Figure 1), wherein the first and the second inlets (holes in 12 coaxial with left, right 8; Figure 2) pass through the enclosed surface (enclosed inner surface of 12; Figure 1) perpendicular to the first axis (coaxial with 5; Figure 1), as claimed by claim 17
The gas injector according to claim 17, wherein the first and the second inlets (holes in 12 coaxial with left, right 8; Figure 2) are positioned in the enclosed surface (enclosed inner surface of 12; Figure 1) closer to the bottom floor (inner bottom floor of 12; Figure 1) than to the open portion (top of 12; Figure 2), as claimed by claim 18
The gas injector according to claim 18, wherein the mixing chamber (12; Figure 2-Applicant’s 102; Figure 1a,b) is longer in the direction of the first axis (coaxial with 5; Figure 1) than in directions perpendicular to the first axis (coaxial with 5; Figure 1), as claimed by claim 19
The gas injector according to claim 1, wherein a cross-section of the feed entry (5-12 interface; Figure 1; Applicant’s 135; Figure 1b) is greater than a cross section of the first and the second inlets (holes in 12 coaxial with left, right 8; Figure 2), as claimed by claim 20
Tatsuoka does not teach the gas injector (3+5; Figure 1,2,5-7, 10A-Applicant’s 100; Figure 1) wherein the first and the second inlets (holes in 12 coaxial with left, right 8; Figure 2) are facing each other along a second axis perpendicular to the first axis (coaxial with 5; Figure 1) - claim 1
Basceri also teaches a gas mixing chamber (384; Figure 7A) upstream of a wafer processing environment (120; Figure 4) where Basceri’s first and second inlets (270; Figure 7A) are facing each other.
Lin also teaches a gas mixing chamber (102; Figure 1-2) upstream of a wafer processing environment (808; Figure 8) where Lin’s first and second inlets (104,106; Figure 1-2) are facing each other.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made for Tatsuoka to make Tatsuoka’s first and second inlets (holes in 12 coaxial with left, right 8; Figure 2) face each other as taught by Basceri and/or Lin.
Motivation for Tatsuoka to make Tatsuoka’s first and second inlets (holes in 12 coaxial with left, right 8; Figure 2) face each other as taught by Basceri is for improved gas mixing as taught by Basceri (throughout).
Motivation for Tatsuoka to make Tatsuoka’s first and second inlets (holes in 12 coaxial with left, right 8; Figure 2) face each other as taught by Lin is for “The diametrically opposite arrangement causes a first gas from the first gas channel and a second gas from the second gas channel to meet head on or at an angle of 180 degrees in the gas mixing chamber to encourage mixing of the first gas and the second gas.” as taught by Lin ([0014]).
Claims 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Tatsuoka; Sho et al. (US 20160333478 A1) in view of Basceri, Cem et al. (US 20040035358 A1). Tatsuoka and Basceri are discussed above. Tatsuoka further teaches Tatsuoka’s gas injector (3+5; Figure 1,2,5-7, 10A-Applicant’s 100; Figure 1) according to claim 10, wherein the mixing chamber (12; Figure 2-Applicant’s 102; Figure 1a,b) has a bottom floor (inner bottom of 12; Figure 2-Applicant’s 133; Figure 1b) at the second end (bottom of 5, Figure 1) which is constructed planar along a second axis, which is perpendicular to the first axis (coaxial with 5; Figure 1) – claim 11
Tatsuoka and Basceri do not teach:
The gas injector (3+5; Figure 1,2,5-7, 10A-Applicant’s 100; Figure 1) according to claim 8, wherein the first and second inlet tubes (left,right 10; Figure 2) are constructed with an elongated portion being elongated along the first axis (coaxial with 5; Figure 1) to position the gas injector (3+5; Figure 1,2,5-7, 10A-Applicant’s 100; Figure 1) in the process chamber (6; Figure 1) with the first axis (coaxial with 5; Figure 1) extending in a vertical direction, as claimed by claim 9
The gas injector (3+5; Figure 1,2,5-7, 10A-Applicant’s 100; Figure 1) according to claim 9, wherein the first and the second inlet tubes (left,right 10; Figure 2) are constructed with a substantially bowed portion connecting the elongated portion to the mixing chamber (12; Figure 2-Applicant’s 102; Figure 1a,b), as claimed by claim 10
the substantially bowed portion connects to the mixing chamber (12; Figure 2-Applicant’s 102; Figure 1a,b) away from the bottom floor (inner bottom of 12; Figure 2-Applicant’s 133; Figure 1b) – claim 11
The gas injector (3+5; Figure 1,2,5-7, 10A-Applicant’s 100; Figure 1) according to claim 10, wherein the substantially bowed portion connects to a middle of the mixing chamber (12; Figure 2-Applicant’s 102; Figure 1a,b) between a bottom floor (inner bottom of 12; Figure 2-Applicant’s 133; Figure 1b) and the feed entry (5-12 interface; Figure 1; Applicant’s 135; Figure 1b), as claimed by claim 12
Basceri is discussed above. Basceri also teaches numerous tube/conduit arrangements (Figure 5) including elongate portions (232a,b) and bowed (right-angle) portions between gas sources (132a-c) and mixing chamber (384; Figure 7A) outlets (Figure 7A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made for Tatsuoka to make necessary piping dimensions between Tatsuoka’s gas sources and Tatsuoka’s mixing chamber (12; Figure 2-Applicant’s 102; Figure 1a,b) as taught by Basceri.
Motivation for Tatsuoka to make necessary piping dimensions between Tatsuoka’s gas sources and Tatsuoka’s mixing chamber (12; Figure 2-Applicant’s 102; Figure 1a,b) as taught by Basceri is to avoid premature reactivity as taught by Tatsuoka ([0017]).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tatsuoka; Sho et al. (US 20160333478 A1) and, if necessary, Basceri, Cem et al. (US 20040035358 A1) in view of Nonomura; Kazuki et al. (US 20220002873 A1). Tatsuoka and Basceri are discussed above. Tatsuoka and Basceri do not teach the gas injector (3+5; Figure 1,2,5-7, 10A-Applicant’s 100; Figure 1) according to claim 1, wherein the process gas injection holes (16,17; Figure 3,4-Applicant’s 120; Figure 1a) have a pitch value being larger near the second end (bottom of 5, Figure 1) of the gas injector (3+5; Figure 1,2,5-7, 10A-Applicant’s 100; Figure 1) than near the first end (top of 5; Figure 1,5-7, 10A), as claimed by claim 14
Nonomura also teaches a vertically stacked wafer processing chamber (Figure 1) including Nonomura’s gas injector (Figure 3) with holes (411a) at optimized pitch along the length of Nonomura’s gas injector.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made for Tatsuoka to optimize Tatsuoka’s hole (16,17; Figure 3,4) pitch as taught by Nonomura.
Motivation for Tatsuoka to optimize Tatsuoka’s hole (16,17; Figure 3,4) pitch as taught by Nonomura is for improving thickness uniformity as taught by Nonomura ([0003]).
Claims 4,5,13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tatsuoka; Sho et al. (US 20160333478 A1) and, if necessary, Basceri, Cem et al. (US 20040035358 A1) in view of Hasper; Albert (US 20080286981 A1). Tatsuoka and Basceri are discussed above. Tatsuoka and Basceri do not teach a hook for their respective injectors. As a result, Tatsuoka and Basceri do not teach:
The gas injector (3+5; Figure 1,2,5-7, 10A-Applicant’s 100; Figure 1) according to claim 3, wherein the gas injector (3+5; Figure 1,2,5-7, 10A-Applicant’s 100; Figure 1) is constructed with a hook (Applicant’s 110; Figure 1) near the first end (top of 5; Figure 1,5-7, 10A) of the gas injector (3+5; Figure 1,2,5-7, 10A-Applicant’s 100; Figure 1), and wherein the hook (Applicant’s 110; Figure 1) is constructed to position the gas injector (3+5; Figure 1,2,5-7, 10A-Applicant’s 100; Figure 1) in the process chamber (6; Figure 1) with its first axis (coaxial with 5; Figure 1) extending in the vertical direction, as claimed by claim 4
The gas injector (3+5; Figure 1,2,5-7, 10A-Applicant’s 100; Figure 1) according to claim 4, wherein the hook (Applicant’s 110; Figure 1) is constructed with an elongated end portion aligned along the first axis (coaxial with 5; Figure 1) to position the gas injector (3+5; Figure 1,2,5-7, 10A-Applicant’s 100; Figure 1) in the process chamber (6; Figure 1) with the first axis (coaxial with 5; Figure 1) extending along the vertical direction, as claimed by claim 5
The gas injector (3+5; Figure 1,2,5-7, 10A-Applicant’s 100; Figure 1) according to claim 5, wherein a cross section of the gas injector (3+5; Figure 1,2,5-7, 10A-Applicant’s 100; Figure 1) near its first end (top of 5; Figure 1,5-7, 10A) is smaller than that near its second end (bottom of 5, Figure 1), and wherein the elongated end portion of the hook (Applicant’s 110; Figure 1) is positioned in a space provided next to the smaller cross section of the gas injector (3+5; Figure 1,2,5-7, 10A-Applicant’s 100; Figure 1) near its first end (top of 5; Figure 1,5-7, 10A), as claimed by claim 13
Hasper also teaches a vertically stacked wafer processing chamber (Figure 2) including an injector (40; Figure 7) with a hook (553; Figure 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made for Tatsuoka to add a hook to Tatsuoka’s gas injector (3+5; Figure 1,2,5-7, 10A-Applicant’s 100; Figure 1) as taught by Hasper.
Motivation for Tatsuoka to add a hook to Tatsuoka’s gas injector (3+5; Figure 1,2,5-7, 10A-Applicant’s 100; Figure 1) as taught by Hasper is for securing a gas injector as taught by Hasper ([0054]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 30, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant states:
“
Tatsuoka, in view of Basceri, does not render claim 1 obvious because: a) the Office fails to provide a rational basis for combining their teachings, b) Tatsuoka teaches away from the modification, c) the combination would render Tatsuoka's system unsatisfactory for its intended purpose, and d) the combination would change the principle of operation of Tatsuoka.
Tatsuoka, in view of Basceri, also does not render claim 1 obvious. The Office cites inlets 270 in Fig. 7A (reproduced below) of Basceri, for the claimed "first and second inlets [] facing each other," and asserts that it would have been obvious to modify Tatsuoka's holes in rotary gas introduction part 12 illustrated above (and in part 112 in Figure 13) that are coaxial with the left and right inlets 8 to face each other as allegedly taught in Basceri. Final Office Action at 7. The motivation provided for such a modification is allegedly "for improved gas mixing as taught by Basceri (throughout)."
“
And…
“
Moreover, as previously described in the Amendment dated October 2, 2025, the alleged modification of Tatsuoka with Basceri would change Tatsuoka's principle of operation, because the gas introduction part 12 in Tatsuoka operates by rotation. Either the gas introduction part 12 would be required not to rotate, so that fixed opposing inlets as in Basceri could be connected to and feed gas into gas introduction part 12 directly, or two opposing inlets would feed and mix two different gases in the same space outside of gas introduction part 12, and the premixed gas would be fed into gas introduction part 12 via the through holes (allegedly the "first and second inlet ports") that rotate within the space. Either modification would change at least one principle of operation-either by eliminating the rotation gas introduction part 12, or by mixing the gases outside the alleged mixing chamber. See MPEP 2143.01(V).
“
In response, the Examiner disagrees and again concludes that Tatsuoka, in view of Basceri, does render claim 1 obvious because:
a) In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. Specifically, both Tatsuoka and Basceri teach, suggest, and motivate the combination of the references themselves and in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. Both Tatsuoka ([0006], [0010]-[0011], etc..) and Basceri (abstract, etc..) discuss the criticality of mixing precursor gases upstream of the respective reactors.
b) Tatsuoka supports the Examiner’s proposed modification because Basceri teach, suggest, and motivate the combination of the references themselves. Basceri (abstract, etc..) discuss the criticality of mixing precursor gases upstream of the respective reactors, such as, for example:
“
Systems that present the precursors through dedicated ports proximate to the surface of the workpiece, however, may not sufficiently mix the precursors. Accordingly, the precursors may not react properly to form a thin solid film at the workpiece surface. Furthermore, conventional systems also have a jetting effect that produces a higher deposition rate directly below the ports. Thus, conventional CVD systems may not be appropriate for many thin film applications.
”
Basceri ([0005])
c) The combination would enhance Tatsuoka's system as taught by Basceri ([0005]).
d) The combination maintains the principle of operation of Tatsuoka. Specifically, the principle of operation of Tatsuoka is consistent with both Tatsuoka ([0006], [0010]-[0011], etc..) and Basceri (abstract, etc..) and is directed to the criticality of mixing precursor gases upstream of the respective reactors.
Applicant states:
“
As previously explained, the Office's asserted motivation of "improved gas mixing" as allegedly taught in Basceri cannot be squared with Tatsuoka's teaching of avoiding the gas mixing "to avoid troubles on the operation due to occlusion in the gas inlet and to perform chemical vapor deposition safely." See Tatsuoka, 11 [0012]-[0013], [0017]-[0020], [0046].
“
And…
“
Positioning Tatsuoka's inlet ports directly opposite each other would eliminate the vertical separation expressly taught by Tatsuoka to avoid the occlusion problem this design element was intended to solve. For this reason, the Office's alleged modification of Tatsuoka with Basceri would render Tatsuoka unsatisfactory for its intended purpose (i.e., by causing occlusions), and the Office's alleged motivation is expressly taught away from by Tatsuoka. See MPEP 2141.02(VI), 2145(D).
“
In response, the Examiner notes that Applicant’s grounds ignore Tatsuoka's teaching, in Figures 1 and 2, for pre-mixing gases. Specifically, Tatsuoka's “gas supply tube 5” as shown in Figure 1 and 3 is located down stream of Tatsuoka's mixing chamber (12; Figure 2-Applicant’s 102; Figure 1a,b). Further, it is noted that Tatsuoka's pre-mixing is a function of how Tatsuoka choses the precursor gases and how reactive these precursors are with one another. See Tatsuoka ([0095], [0099], [0100], etc..).
“
Applicant states:
“
Indeed, Tatsuoka expressly teaches that to avoid occlusions in the gas supply tube, "it is necessary that these gas species are kept being separated in the gas supply tube without being mixed together; and each of the separated gases is ejected individually from the rotating gas supply tube." Id., 11 [0020] (emphasis added), [0046].
“
In response, Applicant is referencing a completely distinct and uncited embodiment of Tatsuoka at Figure 11. The Examiner’s rejections do not cite Tatsuoka’s Figure 11 which does not promote pre-mixing based on precursor reactivity.
Applicant states:
“
The Final Office Action's additional citation to Figure 13 of Tatsuoka only weakens the rejection and demonstrates further that the stated motivation is irrational. In the Figure 13 embodiment (reproduced below), the gas from left inlet 127 (annotated red) is kept separate from the gas from right inlet 128 (annotated blue) by a sealing 112c (which is also in the Fig. 2 embodiment) and a partition 135, inside the rotary gas introduction part 112. Id., 1 [0125]- [0127].
“
In response, the Examiner has removed the references to Figure 13 which are a distinct embodiment to Tatsuoka’s Figure 1-3.
Applicant states:
“
All of Tatsuoka's embodiments (including cited Figs. 2 and 13) teach avoiding premature mixing of the gases flowing into gas supply tube 105. Id.; see also Fig. 14 (showing cross section of tube 105 with separate sections for the two gases),1 [0130]. The different motivations and incompatibilities between the Tatsuoka and Basceri designs stem from the fact that they address two distinct applications. In Basceri, the mixing recess 380, shown in Fig. 7A above, opens into the reaction chamber directly above the workpiece W as shown in Fig. 5 (reproduced below). Basceri, 11 [0028]-[0030]. In Basceri, there is no gas supply tube, and thus the issue of occlusions in a gas supply tube does not arise. Thus, while in Basceri it may be beneficial to improve gas mixing because the recess 380 introduces the gas directly into the chamber, as shown in Fig. 5, Tatsuoka teaches that such pre- mixing should be avoided when introducing the gas into its gas supply tube 105. Tatsuoka teaches, in all embodiments, to avoid gas mixing before the gases enter the tube. Tatsuoka teaches the exact opposite of the Office's alleged modification by introducing Basceri. Thus, Tatsuoka teaches away from the combination of
“
In response the Examiner disagrees. See above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and either relied on or not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Vertically integrated gas distribution systems for stacked substrate reactors with common attributes to the claimed invention include: US 20030044533 A1 US 6772710 B2; US 20040255858 A1; US 7381274 B2
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Examiner Rudy Zervigon whose telephone number is (571) 272- 1442. The examiner can normally be reached on a Monday through Thursday schedule from 8am through 6pm EST. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Any Inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the Chemical and Materials Engineering art unit receptionist at (571) 272-1700. If the examiner cannot be reached please contact the examiner's supervisor, Parviz Hassanzadeh, at (571) 272- 1435.
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:/Awww.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
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.
/Rudy Zervigon/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716