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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 July 17, 2026 has been entered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “first corner” must be shown or the features canceled from the claims. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: See drawing objections.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Choi; Soo Young et al. (US 20080302303 A1). See Choi’s faceplate (198; Figure 1) and passages (111; Figure 1; 1007; Figure 10C; 1008; Figure 10D). The noted illustrations, not quantified, appear to show Choi’s claimed entry angle within the claimed range. In the event that the claimed range is not deed to be taught, then, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Choi to optimize Choi’s entry angle. Motivation for Choi to optimize Choi’s entry angle is for an optimized flow gradient as taught by Choi ([0077]).
Claims 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Choi; Soo Young et al. (US 6942753 B2). See Choi’s faceplate (506; Figure 5) and passages therein 524; Figure 5 corresponds to the claimed “small bore”. The noted illustrations, not quantified, appear to show Choi’s claimed entry angle within the claimed range. In the event that the claimed range is not deed to be taught, then, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Choi to optimize Choi’s entry angle. Motivation for Choi to optimize Choi’s entry angle is to “…to minimize the flow restriction as gases flow from the first bore into the orifice hole 210.” as taught by Choi (column 6; lines 14-21).
Claims 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Chen; Chen-An et al. (US 6024799 A). See Chen’s faceplate (“manifold”; throughout) and passage (250; Figure 9). The noted illustrations, not quantified, appear to show Chen’s claimed entry angle within the claimed range. In the event that the claimed range is not deed to be taught, then, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Chen to optimize Chen’s entry angle. Motivation for Chen to optimize Chen’s entry angle is at least for “The invention may thus be used to both increase the uniformity of deposition within individual wafers and to increase consistency of deposition on subsequent batches of wafers processed in the reactor.” as taught by Chen (column 8; lines 10-15).
Claims 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Iyengar; Prahallad et al. (US 20120097330 A1). See Iyengar’s faceplate (showerhead; throughout) and passages (307, 309, 311, 313; Figure 11). The noted illustrations, not quantified, appear to show Iyengar’s claimed entry angle within the claimed range. In the event that the claimed range is not deed to be taught, then, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Iyengar to optimize Iyengar’s entry angle. Motivation for Iyengar to optimize Iyengar’s entry angle is at least for optimized shapes as taught by Iyengar ([0065]).
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, 5, 8, 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Metzner; Craig R. et al. (US 6454860 B2) in view of Choi; Soo Young et al. (US 20080302303 A1; US 6942753 B2), or Chen; Chen-An et al. (US 6024799 A), or Iyengar; Prahallad et al. (US 20120097330 A1). Metzner teaches a gas distribution apparatus (240-”showerhead”; Figure 4, 7, 9; column 8; lines 8-13) comprising: a faceplate (240-”showerhead”; Figure 4, 7, 9; column 8; lines 8-13; thickness = 0.5inches = 12.7mm; column 10; lines 52-59) having a front surface (284; Figure 7,9-Applicant’s 114; Figure 3) and a back surface (263; Figure 7,9-Applicant’s 112; Figure 3) defining a thickness; and a plurality of passages (249; Figure 7,9; column 9; line 65-column 10; line 24) extending through the thickness, each of the plurality of passages (249; Figure 7,9; column 9; line 65-column 10; line 24) having a first conical bore section (289; Figure 9-Applicant’s 111A; Figure 2), a small bore section (246; Figure 9-Applicant’s 111C; Figure 2), and a second conical bore section (290; Figure 9-Applicant’s 111B; Figure 2), wherein: the first conical bore section (289; Figure 9-Applicant’s 111A; Figure 2) comprises a longitudinal axis (267; Figure 9 - Applicant’s “L”; Figure 3), a first corner (assumed to be Applicant’s “corner/edge 132”; [0026],[0031]) formed by a first intersection with the back surface (263; Figure 7,9-Applicant’s 112; Figure 3), and an entry angle (90º; Figure 9) relative to the longitudinal axis (267; Figure 9 - Applicant’s “L”; Figure 3) in a range of greater than or equal to 20º to or less than or equal to 40º; the small bore sections (246; Figure 9-Applicant’s 111C; Figure 2) is defined by a cylindrical wall (286; Figure 9); and the second conical bore section (290; Figure 9-Applicant’s 111B; Figure 2) comprises a non-perpendicular angle (90º< β<130º; Figure 9; column 14; lines 47-58) to the front surface (284; Figure 7,9-Applicant’s 114; Figure 3) of the faceplate (240-”showerhead”; Figure 4, 7, 9; column 8; lines 8-13; thickness = 0.5inches = 12.7mm; column 10; lines 52-59) - claim 1.
Metzner further teaches:
The gas distribution apparatus (240-”showerhead”; Figure 4, 7, 9; column 8; lines 8-13) of claim 1, wherein the gas distribution apparatus (240-”showerhead”; Figure 4, 7, 9; column 8; lines 8-13) is a showerhead, as claimed by claim 2
The gas distribution apparatus (240-”showerhead”; Figure 4, 7, 9; column 8; lines 8-13) of claim 1, wherein the plurality of passages (249; Figure 7,9; column 9; line 65-column 10; line 24) are uniformly sized and shaped, as claimed by claim 3
The gas distribution apparatus (240-”showerhead”; Figure 4, 7, 9; column 8; lines 8-13) of claim 1, wherein the first conical bore section (289; Figure 9-Applicant’s 111A; Figure 2) is configured to protect a first corner of the small bore section (246; Figure 9-Applicant’s 111C; Figure 2) from damage during bead blast operations, and the second conical bore section (290; Figure 9-Applicant’s 111B; Figure 2) is configured to protect a second corner of the small bore section (246; Figure 9-Applicant’s 111C; Figure 2) from damage during the bead blast operations, as claimed by claim 5. Applicant has not provided sufficient distinguishing structural characteristics of Applicant's claimed invention to contrast the Examiner's cited prior art. When the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Examiner notes MPEP 2112 which states the express, implicit, and inherent disclosures of a prior art reference may be relied upon in the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103. "The inherent teaching of a prior art reference, a question of fact, arises both in the context of anticipation and obviousness." In re Napier, 55 F.3d 610, 613, 34 USPQ2d 1782, 1784 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (affirmed a 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection based in part on inherent disclosure in one of the references). See also In re Grasselli, 713 F.2d 731, 739, 218 USPQ 769, 775 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Further, the above italicized claim requirements are considered intended use recitations for the pending apparatus claims.
The gas distribution apparatus (240-”showerhead”; Figure 4, 7, 9; column 8; lines 8-13) of claim 1, wherein the cylindrical wall (286; Figure 9) of the small-bore sections (246; Figure 9-Applicant’s 111C; Figure 2) is co-axial with a longitudinal axis of the respective one of the plurality of passages (249; Figure 7,9; column 9; line 65-column 10; line 24), as claimed by claim 8
The gas distribution apparatus (240-”showerhead”; Figure 4, 7, 9; column 8; lines 8-13) of claim 1, wherein the thickness of the faceplate (240-”showerhead”; Figure 4, 7, 9; column 8; lines 8-13; thickness = 0.5inches = 12.7mm; column 10; lines 52-59) is in a range of greater than or equal to 2 mm to less than or equal to 50 mm, as claimed by claim 9
Metzner does not teach Metzner’s entry angle (90º; Figure 9) relative to Metzner’s longitudinal axis (267; Figure 9 - Applicant’s “L”; Figure 3) in a range of greater than or equal to 20º to or less than or equal to 40º.
The Chois, Chen, and Iyengar are discussed above.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Metzner to optimize Metzner’s inlet parallel wall (269; Figure 9) depth as taght by the Chois, Chen, and Iyengar.
Motivations for Metzner to optimize Metzner’s inlet parallel wall (269; Figure 9) depth as taught by the Chois, Chen, and Iyengar is discussed above in the Examiner’s §102/103 rejections.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Metzner; Craig R. et al. (US 6454860 B2) and Choi; Soo Young et al. (US 20080302303 A1; US 6942753 B2), or Chen; Chen-An et al. (US 6024799 A), or Iyengar; Prahallad et al. (US 20120097330 A1) and further in view of Alayavalli; Kaushik et al. (US 10276353 B2). Based on Metzner’s Figure 9 it appears the claimed inequality of claim 9 is met. Metzner is believed to teach the gas distribution apparatus (240-”showerhead”; Figure 4, 7, 9; column 8; lines 8-13) of claim 1, wherein a first height (Applicant’s H1; Figure 3) of the first conical bore section (289; Figure 9-Applicant’s 111A; Figure 2) from the back surface (263; Figure 7,9-Applicant’s 112; Figure 3) to a first corner of the small bore section (246; Figure 9-Applicant’s 111C; Figure 2) is larger than a second height (Applicant’s H2; Figure 3) of the second conical bore section (290; Figure 9-Applicant’s 111B; Figure 2) from the front surface (284; Figure 7,9-Applicant’s 114; Figure 3) to a second corner of the small bore section (246; Figure 9-Applicant’s 111C; Figure 2).
Chois, Chen, and Iyengar are discussed above. Alayavalli also teaches a showerhead (118,211; Figure 1,3-7) with conical inlets (310A,310B; Figure 3) and outlets (330A,330B; Figure 3) at optimized depths (350A,350B; Figure 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Metzner to optimize Metzner’s relative bore heights as taught by Alayavalli.
Motivation for Metzner to optimize Metzner’s relative bore heights as taught by Alayavalli is for “..desired flow characteristic and/or a desired electric field formation for forming plasma.” as taught by Alayavalli (column 7; lines 23-25).
Claim 4, 6, 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Metzner; Craig R. et al. (US 6454860 B2) and Choi; Soo Young et al. (US 20080302303 A1; US 6942753 B2), or Chen; Chen-An et al. (US 6024799 A), or Iyengar; Prahallad et al. (US 20120097330 A1) and further in view of Rasheed; Muhammad M. et al. (US 20160319428 A1). Metzner, Chois, Chen, and Iyengar are discussed above. Metzner further teaches a showerhead comprising: a faceplate (240-”showerhead”; Figure 4, 7, 9; column 8; lines 8-13; thickness = 0.5inches = 12.7mm; column 10; lines 52-59) having a front surface (284; Figure 7,9-Applicant’s 114; Figure 3) and a back surface (263; Figure 7,9-Applicant’s 112; Figure 3) defining a thickness; and a plurality of uniformly sized and shaped passages (249; Figure 7,9; column 9; line 65-column 10; line 24) extending through the thickness, each of the plurality of uniformly sized and shaped passages (249; Figure 7,9; column 9; line 65-column 10; line 24) having a first conical bore section (289; Figure 9-Applicant’s 111A; Figure 2), a small bore section (246; Figure 9-Applicant’s 111C; Figure 2), and a second conical bore section (290; Figure 9-Applicant’s 111B; Figure 2), wherein: the first conical bore sections (289; Figure 9-Applicant’s 111A; Figure 2) comprise a longitudinal axis (267; Figure 9 - Applicant’s “L”; Figure 3), a first corner (assumed to be Applicant’s “corner/edge 132”; [0026],[0031]) formed by a first intersection with the back surface (263; Figure 7,9-Applicant’s 112; Figure 3), and an entry angle (90º; Figure 9) relative to the longitudinal axis (267; Figure 9 - Applicant’s “L”; Figure 3) in a range of greater than or equal to 20° to less than or equal to 40°; the small bore sections (246; Figure 9-Applicant’s 111C; Figure 2) is defined by a cylindrical wall (286; Figure 9) that is co-axial with a longitudinal axis of the respective one of the plurality of uniformly sized and shaped passages (249; Figure 7,9; column 9; line 65-column 10; line 24); the second conical bore sections (290; Figure 9-Applicant’s 111B; Figure 2) comprises an exit angle (90º< β<130º; Figure 9; column 14; lines 47-58) to the front surface (284; Figure 7,9-Applicant’s 114; Figure 3) of the faceplate (240-”showerhead”; Figure 4, 7, 9; column 8; lines 8-13; thickness = 0.5inches = 12.7mm; column 10; lines 52-59) – claim 10
Metzner further teaches:
The showerhead of claim 10, wherein the thickness of the faceplate (240-”showerhead”; Figure 4, 7, 9; column 8; lines 8-13; thickness = 0.5inches = 12.7mm; column 10; lines 52-59) is in a range of greater than or equal to 2 mm to less than or equal to 50 mm, and/or a back surface (263; Figure 7,9-Applicant’s 112; Figure 3) diameter of each of the plurality of uniformly sized and shaped passages (249; Figure 7,9; column 9; line 65-column 10; line 24) is in a range of greater than or equal to 10 mil (254 micrometers) to less than or equal to 90 mil (2.28 millimeters), as claimed by claim 11
A semiconductor processing chamber (200; Figure 2,4) comprising: a housing; a chamber (250; Figure 4) having a support surface; and the gas distribution apparatus (240-”showerhead”; Figure 4, 7, 9; column 8; lines 8-13) of claim 1, wherein the front surface (284; Figure 7,9-Applicant’s 114; Figure 3) of the faceplate (240-”showerhead”; Figure 4, 7, 9; column 8; lines 8-13; thickness = 0.5inches = 12.7mm; column 10; lines 52-59) is spaced a distance from the support surface, as claimed by claim 12
The semiconductor processing chamber (200; Figure 2,4) of claim 12 further comprising a controller (528; Figure 18) configured to provide a flow of gas to the gas distribution apparatus (240-”showerhead”; Figure 4, 7, 9; column 8; lines 8-13), as claimed by claim 13
The semiconductor processing chamber (200; Figure 2,4) of claim 12, wherein the gas distribution apparatus (240-”showerhead”; Figure 4, 7, 9; column 8; lines 8-13) is a showerhead, as claimed by claim 14
The semiconductor processing chamber (200; Figure 2,4) of claim 12, wherein the plurality of passages (249; Figure 7,9; column 9; line 65-column 10; line 24) are uniformly sized and shaped, as claimed by claim 15
The semiconductor processing chamber (200; Figure 2,4) of claim 12, wherein the first conical bore section (289; Figure 9-Applicant’s 111A; Figure 2) is configured to protect a first corner of the small bore section (246; Figure 9-Applicant’s 111C; Figure 2) from damage during bead blast operations, and the second conical bore section (290; Figure 9-Applicant’s 111B; Figure 2) is configured to protect a second corner of the small bore section (246; Figure 9-Applicant’s 111C; Figure 2) from damage during bead blast operations, as claimed by claim 17. Applicant has not provided sufficient distinguishing structural characteristics of Applicant's claimed invention to contrast the Examiner's cited prior art. When the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Examiner notes MPEP 2112 which states the express, implicit, and inherent disclosures of a prior art reference may be relied upon in the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103. "The inherent teaching of a prior art reference, a question of fact, arises both in the context of anticipation and obviousness." In re Napier, 55 F.3d 610, 613, 34 USPQ2d 1782, 1784 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (affirmed a 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection based in part on inherent disclosure in one of the references). See also In re Grasselli, 713 F.2d 731, 739, 218 USPQ 769, 775 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Further, the above italicized claim requirements are considered intended use recitations for the pending apparatus claims.
The semiconductor processing chamber (200; Figure 2,4) of claim 12, wherein a first height (Applicant’s H1; Figure 3) of the first conical bore section (289; Figure 9-Applicant’s 111A; Figure 2) from the back surface (263; Figure 7,9-Applicant’s 112; Figure 3) to a first corner of the small bore section (246; Figure 9-Applicant’s 111C; Figure 2) is larger than a second height (Applicant’s H2; Figure 3) of the second conical bore section (290; Figure 9-Applicant’s 111B; Figure 2) from the front surface (284; Figure 7,9-Applicant’s 114; Figure 3) to a second corner of the small bore section (246; Figure 9-Applicant’s 111C; Figure 2), as claimed by claim 18. This is argued above under a possible anticipation argument.
The semiconductor processing chamber (200; Figure 2,4) of claim 12, wherein the cylindrical wall (286; Figure 9) of each of the small-bore sections (246; Figure 9-Applicant’s 111C; Figure 2) is co-axial with a longitudinal axis of the respective one of the plurality of uniformly sized and shaped passages (249; Figure 7,9; column 9; line 65-column 10; line 24), as claimed by claim 19
The semiconductor processing chamber (200; Figure 2,4) of claim 12, wherein the thickness of the faceplate (240-”showerhead”; Figure 4, 7, 9; column 8; lines 8-13; thickness = 0.5inches = 12.7mm; column 10; lines 52-59) is in a range of greater than or equal to 2 mm to less than or equal to 50 mm and/or a back surface (263; Figure 7,9-Applicant’s 112; Figure 3) diameter of each of the plurality of uniformly sized and shaped passages (249; Figure 7,9; column 9; line 65-column 10; line 24) is in a range of greater than or equal to 10 mil (254 micrometers) to less than or equal to 90 mil (2.28 millimeters), as claimed by claim 20
Metzner does not teach:
Metzner’s entry angle (90º; Figure 9) relative to Metzner’s longitudinal axis (267; Figure 9 - Applicant’s “L”; Figure 3) in a range of greater than or equal to 20º to or less than or equal to 40º - claim 10
The gas distribution apparatus (240-”showerhead”; Figure 4, 7, 9; column 8; lines 8-13) of claim 1 wherein the front surface (284; Figure 7,9-Applicant’s 114; Figure 3) and the back surface (263; Figure 7,9-Applicant’s 112; Figure 3) each independently have a roughness value in a range of greater than or equal to 24 µ-in Ra to less than or equal to 300 µ-in Ra, as claimed by claim 4
The gas distribution apparatus (240-”showerhead”; Figure 4, 7, 9; column 8; lines 8-13) of claim 1, wherein an exit angle (90º< β<130º; Figure 9; column 14; lines 47-58) of the second conical bore section (290; Figure 9-Applicant’s 111B; Figure 2) is in a range of greater than or equal to 20° to less than or equal to 40°, as claimed by claim 6
an exit angle (90º< β<130º; Figure 9; column 14; lines 47-58) to the front surface (284; Figure 7,9-Applicant’s 114; Figure 3) of the faceplate (240-”showerhead”; Figure 4, 7, 9; column 8; lines 8-13; thickness = 0.5inches = 12.7mm; column 10; lines 52-59) is in a range of greater than or equal to 20° to less than or equal to 40°; and the front surface (284; Figure 7,9-Applicant’s 114; Figure 3) and the back surface (263; Figure 7,9-Applicant’s 112; Figure 3) each independently have a roughness value in a range of greater than or equal to 10 µ-in Ra to less than or equal to 300 µ-in Ra – claim 10
The semiconductor processing chamber (200; Figure 2,4) of claim 12, wherein the front surface (284; Figure 7,9-Applicant’s 114; Figure 3) and the back surface (263; Figure 7,9-Applicant’s 112; Figure 3) each independently has a roughness value in a range of greater than or equal to 24 µ-in Ra to less than or equal to 300 µ-in Ra, as claimed by claim 16
The Chois, Chen, and Iyengar are discussed above. Rasheed also teaches a wafer processing reactor system (Figure 1) including a showerhead (110) with roughened surfaces of 10-300 µ-in Ra ([0025]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Metzner to optimize Metzner’s inlet parallel wall (269; Figure 9) depth as taught by the Chois, Chen, and Iyengar and for Metzner to optimize Metzner’s exit angle and for Metzner to roughen Metzner’s faceplate (240-”showerhead”) as taught by Rasheed.
Motivation for Metzner to optimize Metzner’s exit angle is for optimizing the showerhead emissivity as taught by Metzner (column 13; lines 55-65).
Motivation for Metzner to roughen Metzner’s faceplate (240-”showerhead”) as taught by Rasheed is for film adhesion to the protective aluminum oxide coating as taught by Rasheed ([0025]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-10, filed July 17, 2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-3, 5, 8, 9 under §102 and Metzner; Craig R. et al. (US 6454860 B2) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of the above §103 rejection under Metzner; Craig R. et al. (US 6454860 B2) in view of Choi; Soo Young et al. (US 20080302303 A1; US 6942753 B2), or Chen; Chen-An et al. (US 6024799 A), or Iyengar; Prahallad et al. (US 20120097330 A1).
Applicant’s remaining arguments are directed to Metzner not teaching the amended claim features.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and relied on and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and include gas distribution plates / showerheads with optimized hole geometries - US 20220093368 A1; US 20050223986 A1; US 20210335574 A1; US 20100006031 A1; US 20180090300 A1; US 20120097330 A1; US 20080141941 A1; US 20160319428 A1; US 20130117986 A1; US 20210156028 A1; US 20240170266 A1; US 20140116338 A1; US 20080020146 A1; US 20160240726 A1; US 20080302303 A1; US 20030209323 A1; US 20060228496 A1; US 20170178867 A1; US 20050255257 A1; US 6454860 B2; US 10276353 B2; US 6565661 B1; US 9394615 B2; US 6041734 A; US 6942753 B2; US 7514125 B2; US 6024799 A
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
Prosecution Insights