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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 December 12, 2025 was received and has been entered. Claim 1 was amended. Claims 2-4, 7-10, and 15-20 were cancelled. Claims 1, 5-6, 11-14, and 21 are in the application. Replacement paragraph 11 was submitted.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Specification
The previous objection to the title of the invention for not being descriptive is maintained. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The previous objection to paragraph 11 is withdrawn based on the submission of a replacement paragraph 11.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “substrate support unit”, “introduction unit”, “discharge unit” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The previous rejection of claims 3 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP-2001-274051 A to Aoki et al (hereinafter Aoki) and KR 20140084728 to Hong Nam Ki (hereinafter Hong) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20210028008 A1 to Yohei Sano (hereinafter Sano) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 1.
Claims 1 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP-2001-274051 A to Aoki et al (hereinafter Aoki) and US Pat. Pub No. 2018016489 A1 to Sano and Kawakami et al, Assignee: Tokyo Electron (hereinafter Kawakami) .
Regarding claim 1, Aoki teaches a substrate processing apparatus comprising: a chamber (S) including an upper body (portion including 90 in Figs. 4, 10, and 16) and a lower body ( lower portion including 76, 78) and having a processing space (area surrounding S in Figs. 4, 10, and 16) formed therein by the upper body and the lower body;
a substrate support unit (67) disposed in the processing space and having a support surface (upper surface of 67) on which the substrate (w) is supported;
a heater (70) disposed to heat gas in the processing space;
an introduction unit (80) configured to supply gas toward an edge of the support surface; and a discharge unit (130b in Fig. 15) configured to discharge the gas in the processing space, and wherein the discharge unit (130b) comprises a plurality of outlets (130c) spaced apart from a centerline of the support surface in the upper body and disposed to be closer to the centerline of the support surface than to the introduction unit. (See Aoki, Abstract, paragraphs 1, 27-29, 51-52; Figs.4-16.)
Regarding claim 1, Aoki does not explicitly teach a porous diffusion plate between the introduction unit and the support surface of the substrate support unit such that the gas supplied from the introduction unit passes through the porous diffusion plate to be supplied towards the edge of the support surface.
Kawakami teaches a porous diffusion plate (bottom of 330) between the introduction unit (top of 332) and the support surface of the substrate support unit (360 supporting W) such that the gas supplied from the introduction unit passes through the porous diffusion plate (330) to be supplied towards the edge of the support surface (360 supporting W). (See Kawakami, Abstract, paragraphs 65, 70-71, 80-82, 87-93 ; 95-102, 107-108, 130, 137, 151, 161, 164, and 170 Figs. 7, 8-9, 15-16.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a porous diffusion plate between the introduction unit and the support surface of the substrate support unit such that the gas supplied from the introduction unit passes through the porous diffusion plate to be supplied towards the edge of the support surface, because Kawakami teaches this would enable collection of by-product inside the treatment chamber and suppress contamination and defects of semiconductor devices. (See Kawakami, Abstract, paragraphs 65, 70-71, 80-82, 87-93 ; 95-102, 107-108, 130, 137, 151, 161, 164, and 170 Figs. 7, 8-9, 15-16.)
It has been held that an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F. 2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982).
Regarding claim 14, Aoki teaches the introduction unit (blowhole 80) is provided in the lower body (support ring 78). (See Aoki, Abstract, paragraphs 1, 27-29, 51-52; Figs. 4, 10, 16.)
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP-2001-274051 A to Aoki et al (hereinafter Aoki) and US Pat. Pub No. 2018016489 A1 to Sano and Kawakami et al, Assignee: Tokyo Electron (hereinafter Kawakami) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of KR 20140084728 to Hong Nam Ki (hereinafter Hong) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20210028008 A1 to Yohei Sano (hereinafter Sano).
Regarding claim 21, Aoki teaches the plurality of outlets (130c) have a same circular cross-section and are disposed in positions spaced apart by the same distance from the centerline of the support surface. (See Aoki, Abstract, paragraphs 1, 27-29, 51-52; Fig.15.)
Regarding claim 21, Aoki teaches the discharge unit comprises at least three outlets, and the plurality of outlets (8) are arranged at intervals of 360/N degrees around the centerline of the support surface, where N (8) is the number of outlets. (See Aoki, Abstract, paragraphs 1, 27-29, 51-52; Fig. 15.)
It has been held that the shape or configuration is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular shape (orientation, alignment, dimensions, or configuration) is significant. In this case, no evidence to the significance of the shape (orientation, alignment, dimensions, or configuration) is provided and the shape (orientation, alignment, dimensions, or configuration) is considered an obvious matter of design choice based on other known (orientation, alignment, or configuration) in the art. (See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) )
Additionally regarding claim 21, Aoki does not explicitly teach the discharge unit comprises a discharge pipe disposed on the centerline of the support surface, and connected to a discharge device.
Sano is directed to substrate processing system with an exhaust port which is opened downwards to evacuate gas from inside of chamber through exhaust holes formed above the processing space.
Sano teaches the discharge unit (70) comprises a discharge pipe (71), disposed on the centerline of the support surface, and connected to a discharge device (72). (See Sano, Abstract, Figs. 4 and 8-9, and paragraph 76.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the discharge unit comprises a discharge pipe, disposed on the centerline of the support surface, and connected to a discharge device, because Sano teaches this structure of the exhaust device allows the gas to be discharged to the outside of the chamber. (See Sano, Abstract, Figs. 4 and 8-9, and paragraph 76.)
Regarding claim 21, Aoki does not explicitly teach the discharge unit comprises a discharge pipe and connection pipes connecting the plurality of outlets to the discharge pipe on an external side of the upper body and disposed to be symmetrical to each other.
Hong is directed to exhaust lines for a substrate treating apparatus.
Hong teaches the discharge unit comprises a discharge pipe (162b) and connection pipes (125b, 125b) connecting the plurality of outlets (126, 126) to the discharge pipe (162b) on an external side of the upper body (122b) and disposed to be symmetrical to each other. (See Hong, Abstract, Fig. 1 and 7, page 5, paragraphs 5-9, Machine Translation.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the discharge unit comprises a discharge pipe and connection pipes connecting the plurality of outlets to the discharge pipe on an external side of the upper body and disposed to be symmetrical to each other., because Hong teaches this structure allows the pressure space to be adjusted. (See Hong, Abstract, Fig. 1 and 7, page 5, paragraphs 5-9, Machine Translation.)
Additionally regarding claim 21, Aoki does not explicitly teach the discharge pipe is disposed on the centerline of the support surface, and the connection pipes are disposed to be symmetrical with each other.
Hong teaches the discharge pipe (162b) is disposed on the centerline of the support surface, and the connection pipes (125b, 125b) are disposed to be symmetrical with each other. (See Hong, Abstract, Fig. 1 and 7, page 5, paragraphs 5-9, Machine Translation.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the discharge pipe is disposed on the centerline of the support surface, and the connection pipes are disposed to be symmetrical with each other, because Hong teaches this structure allows the pressure space to be adjusted. (See Hong, Abstract, Fig. 1 and 7, page 5, paragraphs 5-9, Machine Translation.)
The previous rejection to claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP-2001-274051 A to Aoki et al (hereinafter Aoki) and KR 20140084728 to Hong Nam Ki (hereinafter Hong) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20210028008 A1 to Yohei Sano (hereinafter Sano) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20020127509 A1 to Minoru Watanabe (hereinafter Watanabe)is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 1.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP-2001-274051 A to Aoki et al (hereinafter Aoki) and US Pat. Pub No. 2018016489 A1 to Sano and Kawakami et al, Assignee: Tokyo Electron (hereinafter Kawakami) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20020127509 A1 to Minoru Watanabe (hereinafter Watanabe).
Regarding claim 5, Aoki does not explicitly teach a distance from a center of the outlet to the centerline of the support surface corresponds to half of a radius of the support surface.
Watanabe is directed to heat treatment equipment directed to gas flow in a substrate treatment apparatus and ensuring the temperature distribution in the plane of the substrate. (See Watanabe, Abstract, Figs. 1-10, and 74.)
Watanabe teaches it is possible to select the proper locations for gas holes, as a result-effective variable, in order to provide the optimal flow of gas to ensure uniform temperature distribution in the plane of the substrate. (See Watanabe, Abstract, Figs. 1-10, and paragraphs 58, 63, 65-66, 69-70 and 74.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have a distance from a center of the outlet to the centerline of the support surface corresponds to half of a radius of the support surface, through routine experimentation, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Watanabe teaches it is possible to select the proper locations for the holes for gas, as a result-effective variable, in order to provide the optimal exhaust. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1969)) (See Watanabe, Abstract, Figs. 1-10, and paragraphs 58, 63, 65-66, 69-70 and 74.
It has been held that the shape or configuration is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular shape (orientation, alignment, dimensions, or configuration) is significant. In this case, no evidence to the significance of the shape (orientation, alignment, dimensions, or configuration) is provided and the shape (orientation, alignment, dimensions, or configuration) is considered an obvious matter of design choice based on other known (orientation, alignment, or configuration) in the art. (See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) )
Further, this dimension is obvious in light of the cited art, because the limitation does not produce any unexpected result. The routine varying of parameters to produce expected changes are within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art. Patentability over the prior art only occurs if the parameter variation produces an unexpected result.
It has been held that when the difference between a claimed invention and the prior art is the range or value of a particular variable, then a prima facie rejection is properly established when the difference in the range or value is minor. Titanium Metals Corp. of Am. V. Banner, 778 F. 2d 775, 783, 779 ( Fed. Cir. 1985). Generally differences in ranges will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such ranges is critical.
The previous rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP-2001-274051 A to Aoki et al (hereinafter Aoki) and KR 20140084728 to Hong Nam Ki (hereinafter Hong) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20210028008 A1 to Yohei Sano (hereinafter Sano as applied to claim 1 in view of US Pat. Num. 6,033,474 to Mita et al (hereinafter Mita) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 1.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP-2001-274051 A to Aoki et al (hereinafter Aoki) and US Pat. Pub No. 2018016489 A1 to Sano and Kawakami et al, Assignee: Tokyo Electron (hereinafter Kawakami) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Num. 6,033,474 to Mita et al (hereinafter Mita).
Regarding claim 5, Aoki does not explicitly teach a distance from a center of the outlet to the centerline of the support surface corresponds to half of a radius of the support surface.
Mita is directed to a baking chamber for a semiconductor substrate.
Mita teaches a distance of the plurality of introduction holes (28) of the outlet can be desirably adjusted in accordance with the thickness of the substrate using an arm and a ball and screw. (See Mita, Abstract, Figs. 10-15, col. 10, lines 41-48; col 11, lines 12-67; col. 12, lines 1-3.) Examiner is considering distance to be equivalent to straight line distance across more than one plane.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have a distance from a center of the outlet to the centerline of the support surface corresponds to half of a radius of the support surface, through routine experimentation, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Mita teaches it is possible to select the proper locations for the holes for gas, as a result-effective variable, based on the thickness of the substrate. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1969)) (See Mita, Abstract, Figs. 10-15, col. 10, lines 41-48; col 11, lines 12-67; col. 12, lines 1-3.)
It has been held that the shape or configuration is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular shape (orientation, alignment, dimensions, or configuration) is significant. In this case, no evidence to the significance of the shape (orientation, alignment, dimensions, or configuration) is provided and the shape (orientation, alignment, dimensions, or configuration) is considered an obvious matter of design choice based on other known (orientation, alignment, or configuration) in the art. (See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) )
Further, this dimension is obvious in light of the cited art, because the limitation does not produce any unexpected result. The routine varying of parameters to produce expected changes are within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art. Patentability over the prior art only occurs if the parameter variation produces an unexpected result.
It has been held that when the difference between a claimed invention and the prior art is the range or value of a particular variable, then a prima facie rejection is properly established when the difference in the range or value is minor. Titanium Metals Corp. of Am. V. Banner, 778 F. 2d 775, 783, 779 ( Fed. Cir. 1985). Generally differences in ranges will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such ranges is critical.
The previous rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP-2001-274051 A to Aoki et al (hereinafter Aoki) and KR 20140084728 to Hong Nam Ki (hereinafter Hong) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20210028008 A1 to Yohei Sano (hereinafter Sano) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Num. 6,033,474 to Mita et al (hereinafter Mita) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20020127509 A1 to Minoru Watanabe (hereinafter Watanabe) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 1.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP-2001-274051 A to Aoki et al (hereinafter Aoki) and US Pat. Pub No. 2018016489 A1 to Sano and Kawakami et al, Assignee: Tokyo Electron (hereinafter Kawakami) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Num. 6,033,474 to Mita et al (hereinafter Mita) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20020127509 A1 to Minoru Watanabe (hereinafter Watanabe).
Regarding claim 6, Aoki does not explicitly teach the discharge unit comprises four outlets, the outlets are arranged at intervals of 90 degrees around the centerline of the support surface.
Watanabe teaches it is possible to select the proper location and size for gas holes, as a result-effective variable, in order to provide the optimal flow of gas to ensure uniform temperature distribution in the plane of the substrate. (See Watanabe, Abstract, Figs. 1-10, and paragraphs 58, 63, 65-66, 69-70 and 74.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have a diameter of the circular cross-section corresponds to the distance from a center of the outlet to the centerline of the support surface, through routine experimentation, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Watanabe teaches it is possible to select the proper locations and sizes for the holes for gas, as a result-effective variable, in order to provide the optimal exhaust. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1969)) (See Watanabe, Abstract, Figs. 1-10, and paragraphs 58, 63, 65-66, 69-70 and 74.)
Regarding claim 6, Aoki does not explicitly teach a distance from a center of the outlet to the centerline of the support surface corresponds to half of a radius of the support surface.
Mita is directed to a baking chamber for a semiconductor substrate.
Mita teaches a distance of the plurality of introduction holes (28) of the outlet can be desirably adjusted in accordance with the thickness of the substrate using an arm and a ball and screw. (See Mita, Abstract, Figs. 10-15, col. 10, lines 41-48; col 11, lines 12-67; col. 12, lines 1-3.) Examiner is considering distance to be equivalent to straight line distance across more than one plane.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have a distance from a center of the outlet to the centerline of the support surface corresponds to half of a radius of the support surface, through routine experimentation, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Mita teaches it is possible to select the proper locations for the holes for gas, as a result-effective variable, based on the thickness of the substrate. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1969)) (See Mita, Abstract, Figs. 10-15, col. 10, lines 41-48; col 11, lines 12-67; col. 12, lines 1-3.)
Further, regarding claim 6, Aoki does not explicitly teach a diameter of the circular cross-section corresponds to the distance from a center of the outlet to the centerline of the support surface.
Watanabe teaches it is possible to select the proper size for gas holes, as a result-effective variable, in order to provide the optimal flow of gas to ensure uniform temperature distribution in the plane of the substrate. (See Watanabe, Abstract, Figs. 1-10, and paragraphs 58, 63, 65-66, 69-70 and 74.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have a diameter of the circular cross-section corresponds to the distance from a center of the outlet to the centerline of the support surface, through routine experimentation, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Watanabe teaches it is possible to select the proper locations for the holes for gas, as a result-effective variable, in order to provide the optimal exhaust. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1969)) (See Watanabe, Abstract, Figs. 1-10, and paragraphs 58, 63, 65-66, 69-70 and 74.)
It has been held that the shape or configuration is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular shape (orientation, alignment, dimensions, or configuration) is significant. In this case, no evidence to the significance of the shape (orientation, alignment, dimensions, or configuration) is provided and the shape (orientation, alignment, dimensions, or configuration) is considered an obvious matter of design choice based on other known (orientation, alignment, or configuration) in the art. (See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) )
Further, this set of dimensions is obvious in light of the cited art, because the limitation does not produce any unexpected result. The routine varying of parameters to produce expected changes are within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art. Patentability over the prior art only occurs if the parameter variation produces an unexpected result.
It has been held that when the difference between a claimed invention and the prior art is the range or value of a particular variable, then a prima facie rejection is properly established when the difference in the range or value is minor. Titanium Metals Corp. of Am. V. Banner, 778 F. 2d 775, 783, 779 ( Fed. Cir. 1985). Generally differences in ranges will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such ranges is critical.
The previous rejection of claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP-2001-274051 A to Aoki et al (hereinafter Aoki) and KR 20140084728 to Hong Nam Ki (hereinafter Hong) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20210028008 A1 to Yohei Sano (hereinafter Sano) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 1.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP-2001-274051 A to Aoki et al (hereinafter Aoki) and US Pat. Pub No. 2018016489 A1 to Sano and Kawakami et al, Assignee: Tokyo Electron (hereinafter Kawakami) as applied to claim 1.
Regarding claim 13, Aoki does not explicitly teach a porous diffusion plate connected to the upper body and disposed in a position, downwardly spaced apart from the discharge unit in the same embodiment as listed above.
Aoki teaches a porous diffusion plate (135) connected to the upper body and disposed in a position, downwardly spaced apart from the discharge unit (130b) in a separate embodiment. (See Aoki, Abstract, paragraphs 1, 27-29, 51-52; Figs. 12, 14, 17.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute a porous diffusion plate connected to the upper body and disposed in a position, downwardly spaced apart from the discharge unit as an art recognized equivalent.
It has been held that an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F. 2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982).
The previous rejection of claims 11-12 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP-2001-274051 A to Aoki et al (hereinafter Aoki) and KR 20140084728 to Hong Nam Ki (hereinafter Hong) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20210028008 A1 to Yohei Sano (hereinafter Sano) and further in view of US Pat. Num. 6,033,474 to Mita et al (hereinafter Mita) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 1.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP-2001-274051 A to Aoki et al (hereinafter Aoki) and US Pat. Pub No. 2018016489 A1 to Sano and Kawakami et al, Assignee: Tokyo Electron (hereinafter Kawakami) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Num. 6,033,474 to Mita et al (hereinafter Mita).
Regarding claim 11, Aoki does not explicitly teach the introduction unit includes a plurality of introduction holes formed to extend from the upper body toward an edge of the support surface.
Mita is directed to a baking chamber for a semiconductor substrate.
Mita teaches the introduction unit (29) includes a plurality of introduction holes (28) formed to extend from the upper body toward an edge of the support surface (21). (See Mita, Abstract, Figs. 10-11, 13, 15, col. 5, lines 48- col. 6, line 3; col. 8, lines 3-36; and col. 10, lines 41-48.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the introduction unit includes a plurality of introduction holes formed to extend from the upper body toward an edge of the support surface, because Mita teaches introducing the gas with the suitable temperature and flow rate, the uniformity of the temperature in the substrate can be improved. (See Mita, Abstract, Figs. 10-11, 13, 15, col. 5, lines 48- col. 6, line 3; col. 8, lines 3-36; and col. 10, lines 41-48.)
Regarding claim 12, Aoki does not explicitly teach the plurality of introduction holes are arranged at equal intervals at the same distance from the centerline of the support surface.
Mita teaches the plurality of introduction holes (28) are arranged at equal intervals at the same distance from the centerline of the support surface (21). (See Mita, Abstract, Figs. 10-11, 13, 15, col. 5, lines 48- col. 6, line 3; col. 8, lines 3-36; and col. 10, lines 41-48.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the plurality of introduction holes are arranged at equal intervals at the same distance from the centerline of the support surface, because Mita teaches introducing the gas with the suitable temperature and flow rate, the uniformity of the temperature in the substrate can be improved. (See Mita, Abstract, Figs. 10-11, 13, 15, col. 5, lines 48- col. 6, line 3; col. 8, lines 3-36; and col. 10, lines 41-48.)
It has been held that the shape or configuration is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular shape (orientation, alignment, dimensions, or configuration) is significant. In this case, no evidence to the significance of the shape (orientation, alignment, dimensions, or configuration) is provided and the shape (orientation, alignment, dimensions, or configuration) is considered an obvious matter of design choice based on other known (orientation, alignment, or configuration) in the art. (See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) )
Further, this set of dimensions is obvious in light of the cited art, because the limitation does not produce any unexpected result. The routine varying of parameters to produce expected changes are within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art. Patentability over the prior art only occurs if the parameter variation produces an unexpected result.
It has been held that when the difference between a claimed invention and the prior art is the range or value of a particular variable, then a prima facie rejection is properly established when the difference in the range or value is minor. Titanium Metals Corp. of Am. V. Banner, 778 F. 2d 775, 783, 779 ( Fed. Cir. 1985). Generally differences in ranges will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such ranges is critical.
Claims 1 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP-2001-274051 A to Aoki et al (hereinafter Aoki) and US Pat. Num. 5,817,178 to Mita and Matsuoka (hereinafter Masuoka).
Regarding claim 1, Aoki teaches a substrate processing apparatus comprising: a chamber (S) including an upper body (portion including 90 in Figs. 4, 10, and 16) and a lower body ( lower portion including 76, 78) and having a processing space (area surrounding S in Figs. 4, 10, and 16) formed therein by the upper body and the lower body;
a substrate support unit (67) disposed in the processing space and having a support surface (upper surface of 67) on which the substrate (w) is supported;
a heater (70) disposed to heat gas in the processing space;
an introduction unit (80) configured to supply gas toward an edge of the support surface; and a discharge unit (130b in Fig. 15) configured to discharge the gas in the processing space, and wherein the discharge unit (130b) comprises a plurality of outlets (130c) spaced apart from a centerline of the support surface in the upper body and disposed to be closer to the centerline of the support surface than to the introduction unit. (See Aoki, Abstract, paragraphs 1, 27-29, 51-52; Figs.4-16.)
Regarding claim 1, Aoki does not explicitly teach a porous diffusion plate between the introduction unit and the support surface of the substrate support unit such that the gas supplied from the introduction unit passes through the porous diffusion plate to be supplied towards the edge of the support surface.
Matsuoka teaches a porous diffusion plate (26) between the introduction unit (29) and the support surface of the substrate support unit (21 supporting W) such that the gas supplied from the introduction unit passes through the porous diffusion plate (26) to be supplied towards the edge of the support surface (edge of 24). (See Matsuoka, Abstract, col. 5, lines 24- col. 6, line 6; col. 10, lines 17-63, and Figs. 3-11, 13, 15.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a porous diffusion plate between the introduction unit and the support surface of the substrate support unit such that the gas supplied from the introduction unit passes through the porous diffusion plate to be supplied towards the edge of the support surface, because Matsuoka teaches this would enable temperature uniformity of the substrate to be improved. (See Matsuoka, Abstract, col. 5, lines 24- col. 6, line 6; col. 10, lines 17-63, and Figs. 3-11, 13, 15.)
Regarding claim 14, Aoki teaches the introduction unit (blowhole 80) is provided in the lower body (support ring 78). (See Aoki, Abstract, paragraphs 1, 27-29, 51-52; Figs. 4, 10, 16.)
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP-2001-274051 A to Aoki et al (hereinafter Aoki) and US Pat. Num. 5,817,178 to Mita and Matsuoka (hereinafter Masuoka) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of KR 20140084728 to Hong Nam Ki (hereinafter Hong) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20210028008 A1 to Yohei Sano (hereinafter Sano).
Regarding claim 21, Aoki teaches the plurality of outlets (130c) have a same circular cross-section and are disposed in positions spaced apart by the same distance from the centerline of the support surface. (See Aoki, Abstract, paragraphs 1, 27-29, 51-52; Fig.15.)
Regarding claim 21, Aoki teaches the discharge unit comprises at least three outlets, and the plurality of outlets (8) are arranged at intervals of 360/N degrees around the centerline of the support surface, where N (8) is the number of outlets. (See Aoki, Abstract, paragraphs 1, 27-29, 51-52; Fig. 15.)
It has been held that the shape or configuration is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular shape (orientation, alignment, dimensions, or configuration) is significant. In this case, no evidence to the significance of the shape (orientation, alignment, dimensions, or configuration) is provided and the shape (orientation, alignment, dimensions, or configuration) is considered an obvious matter of design choice based on other known (orientation, alignment, or configuration) in the art. (See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) )
Additionally regarding claim 21, Aoki does not explicitly teach the discharge unit comprises a discharge pipe disposed on the centerline of the support surface, and connected to a discharge device.
Sano is directed to substrate processing system with an exhaust port which is opened downwards to evacuate gas from inside of chamber through exhaust holes formed above the processing space.
Sano teaches the discharge unit (70) comprises a discharge pipe (71), disposed on the centerline of the support surface, and connected to a discharge device (72). (See Sano, Abstract, Figs. 4 and 8-9, and paragraph 76.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the discharge unit comprises a discharge pipe, disposed on the centerline of the support surface, and connected to a discharge device, because Sano teaches this structure of the exhaust device allows the gas to be discharged to the outside of the chamber. (See Sano, Abstract, Figs. 4 and 8-9, and paragraph 76.)
Regarding claim 21, Aoki does not explicitly teach the discharge unit comprises a discharge pipe and connection pipes connecting the plurality of outlets to the discharge pipe on an external side of the upper body and disposed to be symmetrical to each other.
Hong is directed to exhaust lines for a substrate treating apparatus.
Hong teaches the discharge unit comprises a discharge pipe (162b) and connection pipes (125b, 125b) connecting the plurality of outlets (126, 126) to the discharge pipe (162b) on an external side of the upper body (122b) and disposed to be symmetrical to each other. (See Hong, Abstract, Fig. 1 and 7, page 5, paragraphs 5-9, Machine Translation.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the discharge unit comprises a discharge pipe and connection pipes connecting the plurality of outlets to the discharge pipe on an external side of the upper body and disposed to be symmetrical to each other., because Hong teaches this structure allows the pressure space to be adjusted. (See Hong, Abstract, Fig. 1 and 7, page 5, paragraphs 5-9, Machine Translation.)
Additionally regarding claim 21, Aoki does not explicitly teach the discharge pipe is disposed on the centerline of the support surface, and the connection pipes are disposed to be symmetrical with each other.
Hong teaches the discharge pipe (162b) is disposed on the centerline of the support surface, and the connection pipes (125b, 125b) are disposed to be symmetrical with each other. (See Hong, Abstract, Fig. 1 and 7, page 5, paragraphs 5-9, Machine Translation.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the discharge pipe is disposed on the centerline of the support surface, and the connection pipes are disposed to be symmetrical with each other, because Hong teaches this structure allows the pressure space to be adjusted. (See Hong, Abstract, Fig. 1 and 7, page 5, paragraphs 5-9, Machine Translation.)
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP-2001-274051 A to Aoki et al (hereinafter Aoki) and US Pat. Num. 5,817,178 to Mita and Matsuoka (hereinafter Masuoka) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20020127509 A1 to Minoru Watanabe (hereinafter Watanabe).
Regarding claim 5, Aoki does not explicitly teach a distance from a center of the outlet to the centerline of the support surface corresponds to half of a radius of the support surface.
Watanabe is directed to heat treatment equipment directed to gas flow in a substrate treatment apparatus and ensuring the temperature distribution in the plane of the substrate. (See Watanabe, Abstract, Figs. 1-10, and 74.)
Watanabe teaches it is possible to select the proper locations for gas holes, as a result-effective variable, in order to provide the optimal flow of gas to ensure uniform temperature distribution in the plane of the substrate. (See Watanabe, Abstract, Figs. 1-10, and paragraphs 58, 63, 65-66, 69-70 and 74.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have a distance from a center of the outlet to the centerline of the support surface corresponds to half of a radius of the support surface, through routine experimentation, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Watanabe teaches it is possible to select the proper locations for the holes for gas, as a result-effective variable, in order to provide the optimal exhaust. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1969)) (See Watanabe, Abstract, Figs. 1-10, and paragraphs 58, 63, 65-66, 69-70 and 74.
It has been held that the shape or configuration is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular shape (orientation, alignment, dimensions, or configuration) is significant. In this case, no evidence to the significance of the shape (orientation, alignment, dimensions, or configuration) is provided and the shape (orientation, alignment, dimensions, or configuration) is considered an obvious matter of design choice based on other known (orientation, alignment, or configuration) in the art. (See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) )
Further, this dimension is obvious in light of the cited art, because the limitation does not produce any unexpected result. The routine varying of parameters to produce expected changes are within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art. Patentability over the prior art only occurs if the parameter variation produces an unexpected result.
It has been held that when the difference between a claimed invention and the prior art is the range or value of a particular variable, then a prima facie rejection is properly established when the difference in the range or value is minor. Titanium Metals Corp. of Am. V. Banner, 778 F. 2d 775, 783, 779 ( Fed. Cir. 1985). Generally differences in ranges will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such ranges is critical.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP-2001-274051 A to Aoki et al (hereinafter Aoki) and US Pat. Num. 5,817,178 to Mita and Matsuoka (hereinafter Masuoka) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Num. 6,033,474 to Mita et al (hereinafter Mita).
Regarding claim 5, Aoki does not explicitly teach a distance from a center of the outlet to the centerline of the support surface corresponds to half of a radius of the support surface.
Mita is directed to a baking chamber for a semiconductor substrate.
Mita teaches a distance of the plurality of introduction holes (28) of the outlet can be desirably adjusted in accordance with the thickness of the substrate using an arm and a ball and screw. (See Mita, Abstract, Figs. 10-15, col. 10, lines 41-48; col 11, lines 12-67; col. 12, lines 1-3.) Examiner is considering distance to be equivalent to straight line distance across more than one plane.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have a distance from a center of the outlet to the centerline of the support surface corresponds to half of a radius of the support surface, through routine experimentation, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Mita teaches it is possible to select the proper locations for the holes for gas, as a result-effective variable, based on the thickness of the substrate. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1969)) (See Mita, Abstract, Figs. 10-15, col. 10, lines 41-48; col 11, lines 12-67; col. 12, lines 1-3.)
It has been held that the shape or configuration is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular shape (orientation, alignment, dimensions, or configuration) is significant. In this case, no evidence to the significance of the shape (orientation, alignment, dimensions, or configuration) is provided and the shape (orientation, alignment, dimensions, or configuration) is considered an obvious matter of design choice based on other known (orientation, alignment, or configuration) in the art. (See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) )
Further, this dimension is obvious in light of the cited art, because the limitation does not produce any unexpected result. The routine varying of parameters to produce expected changes are within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art. Patentability over the prior art only occurs if the parameter variation produces an unexpected result.
It has been held that when the difference between a claimed invention and the prior art is the range or value of a particular variable, then a prima facie rejection is properly established when the difference in the range or value is minor. Titanium Metals Corp. of Am. V. Banner, 778 F. 2d 775, 783, 779 ( Fed. Cir. 1985). Generally differences in ranges will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such ranges is critical.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP-2001-274051 A to Aoki et al (hereinafter Aoki) and US Pat. Num. 5,817,178 to Mita and Matsuoka (hereinafter Masuoka) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Num. 6,033,474 to Mita et al (hereinafter Mita) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20020127509 A1 to Minoru Watanabe (hereinafter Watanabe).
Regarding claim 6, Aoki does not explicitly teach the discharge unit comprises four outlets, the outlets are arranged at intervals of 90 degrees around the centerline of the support surface.
Watanabe teaches it is possible to select the proper location and size for gas holes, as a result-effective variable, in order to provide the optimal flow of gas to ensure uniform temperature distribution in the plane of the substrate. (See Watanabe, Abstract, Figs. 1-10, and paragraphs 58, 63, 65-66, 69-70 and 74.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have a diameter of the circular cross-section corresponds to the distance from a center of the outlet to the centerline of the support surface, through routine experimentation, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Watanabe teaches it is possible to select the proper locations and sizes for the holes for gas, as a result-effective variable, in order to provide the optimal exhaust. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1969)) (See Watanabe, Abstract, Figs. 1-10, and paragraphs 58, 63, 65-66, 69-70 and 74.)
Regarding claim 6, Aoki does not explicitly teach a distance from a center of the outlet to the centerline of the support surface corresponds to half of a radius of the support surface.
Mita is directed to a baking chamber for a semiconductor substrate.
Mita teaches a distance of the plurality of introduction holes (28) of the outlet can be desirably adjusted in accordance with the thickness of the substrate using an arm and a ball and screw. (See Mita, Abstract, Figs. 10-15, col. 10, lines 41-48; col 11, lines 12-67; col. 12, lines 1-3.) Examiner is considering distance to be equivalent to straight line distance across more than one plane.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have a distance from a center of the outlet to the centerline of the support surface corresponds to half of a radius of the support surface, through routine experimentation, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Mita teaches it is possible to select the proper locations for the holes for gas, as a result-effective variable, based on the thickness of the substrate. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1969)) (See Mita, Abstract, Figs. 10-15, col. 10, lines 41-48; col 11, lines 12-67; col. 12, lines 1-3.)
Further, regarding claim 6, Aoki does not explicitly teach a diameter of the circular cross-section corresponds to the distance from a center of the outlet to the centerline of the support surface.
Watanabe teaches it is possible to select the proper size for gas holes, as a result-effective variable, in order to provide the optimal flow of gas to ensure uniform temperature distribution in the plane of the substrate. (See Watanabe, Abstract, Figs. 1-10, and paragraphs 58, 63, 65-66, 69-70 and 74.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have a diameter of the circular cross-section corresponds to the distance from a center of the outlet to the centerline of the support surface, through routine experimentation, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Watanabe teaches it is possible to select the proper locations for the holes for gas, as a result-effective variable, in order to provide the optimal exhaust. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1969)) (See Watanabe, Abstract, Figs. 1-10, and paragraphs 58, 63, 65-66, 69-70 and 74.)
It has been held that the shape or configuration is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular shape (orientation, alignment, dimensions, or configuration) is significant. In this case, no evidence to the significance of the shape (orientation, alignment, dimensions, or configuration) is provided and the shape (orientation, alignment, dimensions, or configuration) is considered an obvious matter of design choice based on other known (orientation, alignment, or configuration) in the art. (See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) )
Further, this set of dimensions is obvious in light of the cited art, because the limitation does not produce any unexpected result. The routine varying of parameters to produce expected changes are within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art. Patentability over the prior art only occurs if the parameter variation produces an unexpected result.
It has been held that when the difference between a claimed invention and the prior art is the range or value of a particular variable, then a prima facie rejection is properly established when the difference in the range or value is minor. Titanium Metals Corp. of Am. V. Banner, 778 F. 2d 775, 783, 779 ( Fed. Cir. 1985). Generally differences in ranges will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such ranges is critical.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP-2001-274051 A to Aoki et al (hereinafter Aoki) and US Pat. Num. 5,817,178 to Mita and Matsuoka (hereinafter Masuoka) as applied to claim 1.
Regarding claim 13, Aoki does not explicitly teach a porous diffusion plate connected to the upper body and disposed in a position, downwardly spaced apart from the discharge unit in the same embodiment as listed above.
Aoki teaches a porous diffusion plate (135) connected to the upper body and disposed in a position, downwardly spaced apart from the discharge unit (130b) in a separate embodiment. (See Aoki, Abstract, paragraphs 1, 27-29, 51-52; Figs. 12, 14, 17.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute a porous diffusion plate connected to the upper body and disposed in a position, downwardly spaced apart from the discharge unit as an art recognized equivalent.
It has been held that an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F. 2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982).
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP-2001-274051 A to Aoki et al (hereinafter Aoki) and US Pat. Num. 5,817,178 to Mita and Matsuoka (hereinafter Masuoka) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Num. 6,033,474 to Mita et al (hereinafter Mita).
Regarding claim 11, Aoki does not explicitly teach the introduction unit includes a plurality of introduction holes formed to extend from the upper body toward an edge of the support surface.
Mita is directed to a baking chamber for a semiconductor substrate.
Mita teaches the introduction unit (29) includes a plurality of introduction holes (28) formed to extend from the upper body toward an edge of the support surface (21). (See Mita, Abstract, Figs. 10-11, 13, 15, col. 5, lines 48- col. 6, line 3; col. 8, lines 3-36; and col. 10, lines 41-48.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the introduction unit includes a plurality of introduction holes formed to extend from the upper body toward an edge of the support surface, because Mita teaches introducing the gas with the suitable temperature and flow rate, the uniformity of the temperature in the substrate can be improved. (See Mita, Abstract, Figs. 10-11, 13, 15, col. 5, lines 48- col. 6, line 3; col. 8, lines 3-36; and col. 10, lines 41-48.)
Regarding claim 12, Aoki does not explicitly teach the plurality of introduction holes are arranged at equal intervals at the same distance from the centerline of the support surface.
Mita teaches the plurality of introduction holes (28) are arranged at equal intervals at the same distance from the centerline of the support surface (21). (See Mita, Abstract, Figs. 10-11, 13, 15, col. 5, lines 48- col. 6, line 3; col. 8, lines 3-36; and col. 10, lines 41-48.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the plurality of introduction holes are arranged at equal intervals at the same distance from the centerline of the support surface, because Mita teaches introducing the gas with the suitable temperature and flow rate, the uniformity of the temperature in the substrate can be improved. (See Mita, Abstract, Figs. 10-11, 13, 15, col. 5, lines 48- col. 6, line 3; col. 8, lines 3-36; and col. 10, lines 41-48.)
It has been held that the shape or configuration is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular shape (orientation, alignment, dimensions, or configuration) is significant. In this case, no evidence to the significance of the shape (orientation, alignment, dimensions, or configuration) is provided and the shape (orientation, alignment, dimensions, or configuration) is considered an obvious matter of design choice based on other known (orientation, alignment, or configuration) in the art. (See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) )
Further, this set of dimensions is obvious in light of the cited art, because the limitation does not produce any unexpected result. The routine varying of parameters to produce expected changes are within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art. Patentability over the prior art only occurs if the parameter variation produces an unexpected result.
It has been held that when the difference between a claimed invention and the prior art is the range or value of a particular variable, then a prima facie rejection is properly established when the difference in the range or value is minor. Titanium Metals Corp. of Am. V. Banner, 778 F. 2d 775, 783, 779 ( Fed. Cir. 1985). Generally differences in ranges will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such ranges is critical.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 12, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1, 5-6, 11-14 and 21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
US Pat. Pub No. 2018016489 A1 to Sano and Kawakami et al, Assignee: Tokyo Electron (hereinafter Kawakami) and US Pat. Num. 5,817,178 to Mita and Matsuoka (hereinafter Masuoka) are being used to address the limitations added to claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KARL V KURPLE whose telephone number is (571)270-3477. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8 AM-5 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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached on (571) 272-1295. 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.
/KARL KURPLE/Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1717