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 .
Status of Claims/Amendments
This Office Action Correspondence is in response to Applicant’s amendments filed 29 September 2025.
Claims 1-18 are pending. Claims 1, 2, 3, 5, 9, 10, 11, 15, 16 are amended.
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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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: Sealing member (claim 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, 10).
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. For the purpose of examination, sealing member (claim 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, 10) shall be interpreted as comprising an O-ring or gasket or equivalents thereof, in light of Fig. 2, 4-8, para. [0058], [0082].
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 2 (and dependent claims 3-14), claim 3 (and depending claims 4-13), claim 4 (and depending claims 5-13), claim 6 (and depending claims 7-13), claim 7 (and depending claims 8-13), claim 8 (and depending claims 9-13), claim 9 (and depending claims 10-13), claim 13, claim 14, claim 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 2, limitation “further comprising: at least one selected from the group of a first sealing member held between the first member and each of the plurality of third members and a second sealing member held between the second member and each of the plurality of third members” is unclear and confusing if a single first sealing member, a plurality of first sealing members, a single second sealing member, or a plurality of second sealing members or any of the combinations thereof are required to meet the claim limitation. The claim appears to imply requiring a plurality of first sealing members corresponding with the plurality of third members, respectively, or a plurality of second sealing members corresponding with the plurality of third members, respectively.
For the purpose of examination, the examiner interprets the above discussed claim limitation as “further comprising: at least one selected from the group of a plurality of first sealing members wherein a corresponding first sealing member of the plurality of first sealing members is held between the first member and a corresponding third member of the plurality of third members and a plurality of second sealing members wherein a corresponding second sealing member of the plurality of second sealing members is held between the second member and a corresponding third member of the plurality of third members,” in light of para. [0058] and [0082] of the original Specification. Examiner notes that to meet claim 2 limitation the prior art must teach a plurality of first sealing members wherein a corresponding first sealing member of the plurality of first sealing members is held between the first member and a corresponding third member of the plurality of third members OR a plurality of second sealing members wherein a corresponding second sealing member of the plurality of second sealing members is held between the second member and a corresponding third member of the plurality of third members OR both of the aforementioned limitations.
In light of the above, dependent claims 3-14 are also rejected at least due to dependency on rejected claim 2.
Regarding claim 3, limitation “wherein the second sealing member is held between the sidewall and the second member or between the ceiling portion and the second member” is unclear and confusing how many second sealing members is required, in light of dependency on claim 2 limitations as discussed above. Examiner further explains it is unclear if only a single second sealing member is required to be held between the sidewall of the third member and the second member or between the ceiling portion the third member and the second member or if each third member of the plurality of third members has a respective second sealing member in the claimed positional relationship is required to meet this limitation.
For the purpose of examination, the Examiner interprets the above discussed limitations in light of Fig. 7 and 8 and para. [0078]-[0084] of the original Specification as, “further comprising the plurality of second sealing members wherein each corresponding second sealing member of the plurality of second sealing members is held between the sidewall of the corresponding third member of the plurality of third members and the second member or between the ceiling portion of the corresponding third member of the plurality of third members and the second member.”
In light of the above, dependent claims 4-13 are also rejected at least due to dependency on rejected claim 3.
Regarding claim 4, limitation “wherein the ceiling portion is disposed to face an open end of each of the plurality of first gas holes on a side of the gas diffusion chamber” is unclear if “the ceiling portion” is referring to the ceiling portion of each of the plurality of third members or if the claim limitation would be met if at least one of the ceiling portions amongst the plurality of third members is disposed to face an open end of each of the plurality of first gas holes on the gas diffusion chamber.
For the purpose of examination, the Examiner interprets the above discussed claim limitation as, “wherein the ceiling portion of each of the plurality of third members is disposed to face an open end of each of the plurality of first gas holes on a side of the gas diffusion chamber defined by each of the plurality of third members.”
In light of the above, dependent claims 5-13 are also rejected at least due to dependency on rejected claim 4.
Regarding claim 6, limitation “wherein the bottom portion provides a plurality of third gas holes aligned with the plurality of first gas holes, respectively” is unclear and confusing if “the bottom portion is referring to the bottom portion of each of the plurality of third members or if the claim limitation would be met if at least one of the bottom portions amongst the plurality of third members provides a plurality of third gas holes aligned with the plurality of first gas holes respectively.
For the purpose of examination, the Examiner interprets the above discussed claim limitation as, “wherein the bottom portion of each of the plurality of third members provides a plurality of third gas holes aligned with the plurality of first gas holes, respectively.”
In light of the above, dependent claims 7-13 are also rejected at least due to dependency on rejected claim 6.
Regarding claim 7, limitation “wherein the second sealing member is held between the second member and the bottom portion” is unclear and confusing in light of dependency on claim 2 and claim 6 limitations, which second sealing member is being referred to and if only one second sealing member and one bottom portion of the plurality of third members is required to meet this limitation.
For the purpose of examination, the Examiner interprets the above discussed claim limitation as, “wherein each of the plurality of second sealing members is held between the second member and the bottom portion of a corresponding third member of the plurality of third members.”
In light of the above, depending claims 8-13 are also rejected at least due to dependency on rejected claim 7.
Regarding claim 8, limitation “wherein the first sealing member is held between the first member and the bottom portion” is unclear and confusing in light of dependency on claim 2-7 limitations above regarding the first member and the bottom portion. Examiner further explains that it is unclear in light of claim 2 limitation that the claim is further requiring a plurality of the first sealing members to correspond with each third member of the plurality of third members. Additionally, it is unclear if only on first sealing member and one bottom portion of the plurality of third members is required to meet claim 8 limitation or if each of the first sealing members and each bottom portion of the plurality of third members is required to meet claim 8 limitations.
For the purpose of examination, the Examiner interprets the above discussed claim limitation as, “further comprising the plurality of first sealing members wherein [[the]] each first sealing member of the plurality of first sealing members is held between the first member and the bottom portion of a corresponding third member of the plurality of third members.”
In light of the above, depending claims 9-13 are also rejected at least due to dependency on rejected claim 8.
Regarding claim 9, limitation “wherein at least one selected from the group of the first sealing member and the second sealing member separates a boundary between the first member and the second member from the plurality of gas diffusion chambers” is unclear and confusing the number of first and second sealing members required to meet the claim. See discussion of claim interpretation for claim 2 above.
For the purpose of examination, the Examiner interprets the above discussed claim limitation as, “wherein at least one first sealing member of the plurality of first sealing members or at least one second sealing member of the plurality of second sealing members separates a boundary between the first member and the second member from a corresponding gas diffusion chamber of the plurality of gas diffusion chambers.”
In light of the above, depending claims 10-13 are also rejected due to dependency on rejected claim 9.
Regarding claim 13, limitation “wherein at least one selected from the group of the first sealing member and the second sealing member separates a boundary between the first member and the second member from the plurality of third gas holes” is unclear and the number of first and second sealing members required to meet the claim. See discussion of claim interpretation for claim 2 above.
For the purpose of examination, the Examiner interprets the above discussed claim limitation as, “wherein at least one first sealing member of the plurality of first sealing members or at least one second sealing member of the plurality of second sealing members separates a boundary between the first member and the second member from the plurality of third gas holes.”
Regarding claim 14, limitation “wherein at least one selected from the group of the first sealing member and the second sealing member is an O-ring or a gasket” is unclear and confusing the number of first and second sealing members required to meet the claim. See discussion of claim interpretation for claim 2 above.
For the purpose of examination, the Examiner interprets the above discussed claim limitation as, “wherein the plurality of first sealing members or the plurality of second sealing members comprise [[an]] O-rings or [[a]] gaskets.”
Regarding claim 16, limitation “wherein the contact portion is formed of a low friction member having a lower friction coefficient than that of a portion other than the contact portion” is unclear if “the contact portion” is referring to at least one contact portion of the plurality of third members or each contact portion of the plurality of third members in light of early recited limitation “each of the plurality of third members has a contact portion.”
For the purpose of examination, the Examiner interprets the above discussed claim limitation as, “wherein the contact portion of each of the plurality of third members is formed of a low friction member having a lower friction coefficient than that of a portion other than the contact portion of each of the plurality of third members.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-7, 13-15, 17, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamamushi et al. (US 2020/0234930 A1 hereinafter “Tamamushi”) in view of Fischer et al. (US 2012/0045902 A1 hereinafter “Fischer”) and Tanaka (JP2020088317A hereinafter “Tanaka ‘317” and referring to English Machine translation).
Regarding independent claim 1, Tamamushi teaches an upper electrode (comprising upper electrode 30, Fig. 1 and 2) forming a shower head in a capacitively- coupled plasma processing apparatus (comprising 10, Fig. 1 para. [0059]), the upper electrode comprising:
a first member (comprising gas plate 36, Fig. 2) that is formed of a conductor (i.e. aluminum, para. [0068]), the first member (comprising 36, Fig. 2) providing a plurality of first gas holes (comprising gas flow paths 36a, Fig. 1 and 2) that penetrate the first member (comprising 36, Fig. 1 and 2) (para. [0070]);
a second member (comprising cooling plate 37, Fig. 2, para. [0069]) that is formed of a conductor (i.e. aluminum, para. [0069]) and provided on the first member (comprising 36, Fig. 2),
the second member (comprising 37, Fig. 2) providing one or more second gas holes (comprising gas introduction paths 37a, Fig. 2, para. [0070]) and a plurality of grooves (comprising gas diffusion chambers 37b, Fig. 2, para. [0070]),
wherein the plurality of first gas holes (comprising 36a, Fig. 2) and the one or more second gas holes (comprising 37a, Fig. 2) are connected.
Tamamushi does not explicitly teach: the plurality of annular grooves (Tamamushi: 37b, Fig. 2) each extending in a peripheral direction around a central axis of the second member; and a plurality of third members formed of a dielectric and provided between the first member and the second member, wherein the plurality of third members is provided in the plurality of annular grooves, respectively, wherein the plurality of third members defines a plurality of gas diffusion chambers, respectively, wherein the plurality of first gas holes and the one or more second gas holes are connected in the plurality of gas diffusion chambers, and wherein the plurality of gas diffusion chambers is formed in the plurality of the annular grooves, respectively.
However, Fischer teaches an upper electrode (comprising showerhead electrode 24, fig. 1) comprising a second member (comprising 40, Fig. 1) providing one or more second gas holes (comprising gas inlet 52, Fig. 1, para. [0011]) and a plurality of annular grooves (comprising plenums 58 and 68 formed of concentric annular channels, Fig. 1 and 2, para. [0010]) each extending in a peripheral direction around a central axis of the second member (para. [0010]). Fischer teaches/suggest that such a configuration can provide multiple gas flow zones allowing independent gas flow control between center, edge, or mid-range portions of the substrate (para. [0013]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the grooves (Tamamushi: comprising 37b, Fig. 2) to comprise a plurality of annular grooves each extending in a peripheral direction around a central axis of the second member because Fischer teaches/suggests that such a configuration can provide multiple gas flow zones allowing independent gas flow control between center, edge, or mid-range, portions of the substrate (Tamamushi: para. [0013]).
Tamamushi in view of Fischer as applied above does not explicitly teach a plurality of third members formed of a dielectric and provided between the first member and the second member, wherein the plurality of third members is provided in the plurality of annular grooves, respectively, wherein the plurality of third members defines a plurality of gas diffusion chambers, respectively, wherein the plurality of first gas holes and the one or more second gas holes are connected in the plurality of gas diffusion chambers, and wherein the plurality of gas diffusion chambers is formed in the plurality of the annular grooves, respectively.
However, Tanaka '317 teaches a showerhead (comprising showerhead 2, Fig. 4, para. [0037], [0072]) including a first member (comprising shower plate 53 including substrate 71, Fig. 4 and 8) comprising a conductor (para. [0027]) and a second member (comprising base member 52 including substrate 61, Fig. 4 and 8) formed of a conductor (para. [0027]) and provided on the first member (comprising 71, Fig. 4, 7 8), wherein the second member (comprising 61, Fig. 4) comprises a groove (comprising groove in 61 that surrounds gas diffusion space 51, Fig. 4, para. [0028]); a third member (comprising corrosion resistant coating 63 and/or corrosion resistant coating 73, Fig. 4, para. [0037]-[0038]; comprising 67 and/or 73, Fig. 7; comprising 67, Fig. 8, para.[0047] [0056]) comprising a dielectric (i.e. teflon, ceramic, or alumina, para. [0039], [0047]) and provided between the first member (comprising 71, Fig. 4, 7, 8) and the second member (comprising 61, Fig. 4, 7, 8), wherein the third member (comprising 63 and/or 73, Fig. 4; comprising 67 and/or 73, Fig. 7; comprising 67, Fig. 8) is provided in the groove (comprising groove in 61 that surrounds gas diffusion space 51, Fig. 4), wherein the third member (comprising 63 and/or 73, Fig. 4) defines a gas diffusion chamber (comprising gas diffusion space 51, Fig. 4, 7, 8) , wherein the plurality of first gas hole (comprising 54, Fig. 1 and 4) and the second gas hole (comprising hole in 52/61 connected to gas supply line 21, Fig. 1, para. [0061]) are connected in the gas diffusion chamber (comprising 51, Fig. 4, 7, 8), wherein the gas diffusion chamber is formed in the groove (comprising groove in 61 that surrounds gas diffusion space 51, Fig. 4, 7, 8). Tanaka '317 teaches the third member provides corrosion resistance and protects the showerhead comprising the first and second member from corrosive process gases (para. [0042]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a third member formed of dielectric in each of the plurality of annular grooves (Tamamushi: comprising 37b, Fig. 2 modified in view of Fischer to comprise annular grooves) such that the third member is between the first member (Tamamushi: comprising 36, Fig. 2) and the second member (Tamamushi: comprising 37, Fig. 2)(i.e. provide "a plurality of third members formed of dielectric provided between the first member and the second member, wherein the plurality of third members is provided in the plurality of annular grooves, respectively,") such that the third members define a plurality of gas diffusion chambers, respectively, wherein the plurality of first gas holes and the one or more second gas holes are connected in the plurality of gas diffusion chambers, and wherein the plurality of gas diffusion chambers is formed in the plurality of the annular grooves, respectively because Tanaka '317 teaches/suggests that such a configuration enables protecting the showerhead comprising the first and the second member from corrosive process gases (Tanaka '317: para. [0042]).
Regarding claim 2, see discussion regarding claim interpretation in U.S.C. 112(b) rejection above, Tamamushi in view of Fischer and Tanaka '317 teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as applied above but does not explicitly teach at least one selected from the group of a plurality of first sealing members wherein a corresponding first sealing member of the plurality of first sealing members is held between the first member and each of the plurality of third members and a plurality of second sealing members wherein a corresponding second sealing member of the plurality of second sealing members is held between the second member and each of the plurality of third members.
However, Tanaka '317 further teaches a second sealing member (comprising ring-shaped seal member 87, Fig. 7) held between the second member (comprising 61, Fig 7) and the third member (comprising 67 and/ or 73, Fig. 7). Tanaka '317 teaches that such a configuration enables further sealing and preventing the processing gas from reaching parts that may be corroded (para. [0068]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add/provide a corresponding second sealing member to each third member of the plurality of third members such that each corresponding second sealing member is held between the second member and a corresponding third member of the plurality of third members (i.e. “a plurality of second sealing members wherein a corresponding second sealing member of the plurality of second sealing members is held between the second member and each of the plurality of third members”) because Tanaka '317 teaches that such a configuration enables further sealing and preventing the processing gas from reaching parts that may be corroded (para. [0068]).
Regarding claim 3, see discussion regarding claim interpretation in U.S.C. 112(b) rejections above, Tamamushi in view of Fischer and Tanaka '317 teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, 2 as applied above including a third member (see teachings of Tanaka '317 as applied above in claim 1 rejection) and Tanaka '317 further teaches wherein each of the plurality of third members (comprising corrosion resistant coating 63 and/or corrosion resistant coating 73, Fig. 4, para. [0037]-[0038]; comprising 67 and/or 73, Fig. 7; comprising 67, Fig. 8, para.[0047] [0056]) includes a sidewall extending in a peripheral direction to surround the gas diffusion chamber (comprising 51, Fig. 4, 7, 8) defined by the each of the plurality of third members, and a ceiling portion extending on the gas diffusion chamber (comprising 51, Fig. 7) defined by the each of the plurality of third members (comprising 67,Fig. 7), and each third member has a corresponding second sealing member (comprising 87, Fig. 7) that is held between the sidewall and the second member (comprising 61, Fig. 7). See annotated Fig. 7 of Tanaka '317 below. Thus, the combination of Tamamushi in view of Fischer and Tanaka '317 teaches claim 2 limitations “each of the plurality of third member includes a sidewall extending in a peripheral direction to surround the gas diffusion chamber defined by the each of the plurality of third members, and a ceiling portion extending on the gas diffusion chamber defined by the each of the plurality of third members, and further comprising the plurality of second sealing members wherein each corresponding second sealing member of the plurality of second sealing members is held between the sidewall of the corresponding third member of the plurality of third members and the second member or between the ceiling portion of the corresponding third member of the plurality of third members and the second member.”
PNG
media_image1.png
979
1417
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Tamamushi in view of Fischer and Tanaka '317 teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, 2, 3 as applied above including a third member (see teachings of Tanaka '317 as applied above) wherein the ceiling portion (see annotated Fig. 7 of Tanaka '317 above) of each of the third members is disposed to face an open end of each of the plurality of first gas holes (Tanaka: comprising holes 54 formed in 71, Fig. 4, 7, 8) on a side of the gas diffusion chamber (Tanaka: comprising 51, Fig. 4, 7, 8) of defined by each of the plurality of third members. Thus, the combination meets claim 4 limitations.
Regarding claim 5, Tamamushi in view of Fischer and Tanaka '317 teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, 2, 3, 4 as applied above including a third member (see teachings of Tanaka '317 as applied above). Tanaka '317 further teaches the third member (comprising corrosion resistant coating 63 and/or corrosion resistant coating 73, Fig. 4, para. [0037]-[0038]; comprising 67 and/or 73, Fig. 7; comprising 67, Fig. 8, para.[0047] [0056]) includes a bottom portion (comprising 73, Fig. 4 and 7) disposed below the gas diffusion chamber (comprising 51, Fig. 4 and 7) defined by the third member. Thus, the combination meets claim 5 limitation "wherein each of the plurality of third members includes a bottom portion disposed below the gas diffusion chamber defined by the each of the plurality of third members."
Regarding claim 6, see claim interpretation in U.S.C. 112(b) rejections above. Tamamushi in view of Fischer and Tanaka '317 teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 as applied above including a third member (see teachings of Tanaka '317 as applied above). Tanaka '317 further teaches the third member (comprising corrosion resistant coating 63 and/or corrosion resistant coating 73, Fig. 4, para. [0037]-[0038]; comprising 67 and/or 73, Fig. 7; comprising 67, Fig. 8, para.[0047] [0056]) having the bottom portion (comprising 73, Fig. 4 and 7) provides a plurality of third gas holes (comprising holes formed in 73, Fig. 7) aligned with the plurality of first gas holes, respectively (as understood from Fig. 7). Thus, the combination meets claim 6 limitations “wherein the bottom portion of each of the plurality of third members provides a plurality of third gas holes aligned with the plurality of first gas holes, respectively.”
Regarding claim 7, Tamamushi in view of Fischer and Tanaka '317 teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 as applied above and Tanaka '317 further teaches wherein the second sealing member (comprising 87, Fig. 7) of a corresponding third member (comprising corrosion resistant coating 63 and/or corrosion resistant coating 73, Fig. 4, para. [0037]-[0038]; comprising 67 and/or 73, Fig. 7; comprising 67, Fig. 8, para.[0047] [0056]) is held between the second member (comprising 61, Fig. 7) and the bottom portion (comprising 73, Fig. 7) of a corresponding third member. Thus, the combination meets claim 7 limitations “wherein each of the plurality of second sealing members is held between the second member and the bottom portion of a corresponding third member of the plurality of third members.”
Regarding claim 13, Tamamushi in view of Fischer and Tanaka '317 teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 as applied above and Tanaka '317 further teaches wherein the second sealing member (comprising 87, Fig. 7) of a corresponding third member separates a boundary between the first member (comprising 71, Fig. 7) and the second member (comprising 61, Fig. 7) from the plurality of third gas holes (comprising holes 54 formed in 73, Fig. 7). (See annotated Fig. 7 of Tanaka '317 below). Thus, the combination meets claim 13 limitations “wherein at least one first sealing member of the plurality of first sealing members or at least one second sealing member of the plurality of second sealing members separates a boundary between the first member and the second member from the plurality of third gas holes.”
PNG
media_image2.png
988
1316
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 14, Tamamushi in view of Fischer and Tanaka '317 teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, 2 as applied above and Tanaka '317 further teaches wherein the second sealing member (comprising 87, Fig. 7) is an O-ring or a gasket (para. [0050]). Thus the combination meets claim 14 limitation “wherein the plurality of first sealing members or the plurality of second sealing members comprise [[an]] O-rings or [[a]] gaskets.”
Regarding claim 15, Tamamushi in view of Fischer and Tanaka '317 teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as applied above and Tanaka '317 further teaches wherein the third member (comprising corrosion resistant coating 63 and/or corrosion resistant coating 73, Fig. 4, para. [0037]-[0038]; comprising 67 and/or 73, Fig. 7; comprising 67, Fig. 8, para.[0047] [0056]) having the bottom portion (comprising 73, Fig. 4 and 7) separates a boundary between the first member (comprising 71, Fig. 4, 7, 8) and the second member (comprising 61, Fig. 4, 7, 8) from the gas diffusion chamber (comprising 51, Fig. 4, 7, 8) defined by the third member (comprising 63 and 73, Fig. 4; comprising 67 and 73, Fig. 7). Thus, the combination meets "wherein each of the plurality of third members separates a boundary between the first member and the second member from the gas diffusion chamber defined by the each of the plurality of third members."
Regarding claim 17, Tamamushi in view of Fischer and Tanaka '317 teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as applied above and Tanaka '317 further teaches wherein the dielectric of the third member (comprising 73, Fig. 4 and 7) is a porous body (i.e. comprises pores/holes or permeable to fluids, as understood from Fig. 4 and 7).
Regarding claim 18, Tamamushi in view of Fischer and Tanaka '317 teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as applied above and Tamamushi further teaches plasma processing apparatus (comprising 10, Fig. 1 para. [0059]),) comprising: a plasma processing chamber (comprising main chamber body 12, Fig. 1) that provides a processing space (comprising internal space 12s, Fig. 1) inside the plasma processing chamber (comprising 12, Fig. 1) (para. [0059]); a substrate support (comprising stage 14, Fig. 1, para. [0061]-[0062]) that is provided in the plasma processing chamber (comprising 12, Fig. 1); and the upper electrode of Claim 1 (comprising upper electrode 30 of Tamamushi as modified in claim 1 rejection above), the upper electrode being provided above the substrate support (comprising 14, Fig. 1).
Claim(s) 8, 9, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamamushi et al. (US 2020/0234930 A1 hereinafter “Tamamushi”) in view of Fischer et al. (US 2012/0045902 A1 hereinafter “Fischer”) and Tanaka (JP2020088317A hereinafter “Tanaka ‘317” and referring to English Machine translation) as applied to claims 1-7, 13-15, 17, 18 above and further in view of Nakagawa (US 2009/0183832 A1).
Regarding claim 8, see claim interpretation discussion in U.S.C. 112(b) rejections above, Tamamushi in view of Fischer and Tanaka '317 teaches all of the limitations of claim 1-7 as applied above but does not explicitly teach further comprising the plurality of first sealing members wherein [[the]] each first sealing member of the plurality of first sealing members is held between the first member and the bottom portion of a corresponding third member of the plurality of third members.
However, Tanaka ‘317 teaches various sealing configurations (Fig. 3-9) including sealing configurations having a first sealing member (comprising 86, Fig. 4, 5, 6) and a second sealing member (comprising 85, Fig. 4, 5, 6).
However, Nakagawa teaches a sealing configuration in a plasma apparatus (Fig. 1 and 2, para. [0046]-[0047]) wherein the sealing configuration comprises a first sealing member (comprising 41, Fig. 2), a second sealing member (comprising 45, Fig. 2), a first member (comprising 11a, Fig 2), a second member (comprising 11b, Fig. 2), and a third member (comprising alumite film 43 and 39, Fig. 2) having a bottom portion (comprising 39, Fig. 2), wherein the first sealing member (comprising 41, Fig. 2) is held between the first member (comprising 11a, Fig. 2) and the bottom portion (comprising 39, Fig. 2) (para. [0060-[0064]]). Nakagawa teaches that such a sealing configuration enables preventing corrosion and abnormal discharge (abstract, para. [0072]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further provide a plurality of first sealing members such that each third member of the plurality of third members has a corresponding first sealing member and to configure each first sealing member to be held between the first member and the bottom portion of a corresponding third member of the plurality of third members (i.e. by changing the shape of the first member (Tanaka ‘317: comprising 71, Fig. 7) to include a corresponding trenches for each third member of the plurality of third members and adding a first sealing member each trench to oppose a corresponding second sealing member 87 of Tanaka ‘317 and configure each first and second sealing member to have a similar configuration as that shown in Fig. 2 of Nakagawa) because Tanaka ‘317 already teaches/suggests providing different sealing configurations and because Nakagawa teaches that such a configuration is a known suitable alternative sealing configuration in a plasma apparatus which would enable preventing corrosion and abnormal discharge(Nakagawa: abstract, para. [0072]). Thus, claim limitation “further comprising the plurality of first sealing members wherein [[the]] each first sealing member of the plurality of first sealing members is held between the first member and the bottom portion of a corresponding third member of the plurality of third members,” would be met by the combination.
Regarding claim 9, see claim interpretation discussion in U.S.C. 112(b) rejections above, Tamamushi in view of Fischer, Tanaka '317, and Nakagawa teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) 8 as applied above and Tanaka ‘317 further teaches the second sealing member (comprising 87, Fig. 7) separates a boundary between the first member and the second member from the corresponding gas diffusion chamber (comprising 51, Fig. 7)(See annotated Fig. 7 in claim 13 rejection above). Thus, the combination teaches claim 9 limitations “wherein at least one first sealing member of the plurality of first sealing members or at least one second sealing member of the plurality of second sealing members separates a boundary between the first member and the second member from a corresponding gas diffusion chamber of the plurality of gas diffusion chambers.”
Regarding claim 10, Tamamushi in view of Fischer, Tanaka '317, and Nakagawa teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) 9 as applied above and Tanaka '317 further teaches wherein the third member (comprising corrosion resistant coating 63 and/or corrosion resistant coating 73, Fig. 4, para. [0037]-[0038]; comprising 67 and/or 73, Fig. 7; comprising 67, Fig. 8, para.[0047] [0056]) having the bottom portion (comprising 73, Fig. 4 and 7) separates the boundary (see annotated Fig. 7 in claim 13 rejection above) between the first member (comprising 71, Fig. 4, 7, 8) and the second member (comprising 61, Fig. 4, 7, 8) from the gas diffusion chamber (comprising 51, Fig. 4, 7, 8) defined by the third member (comprising 63 and 73, Fig. 4; comprising 67 and 73, Fig. 7). Thus, the combination meets "wherein each of the plurality of third members separates a boundary between the first member and the second member from the gas diffusion chamber defined by the each of the plurality of third members."
Claim(s) 11, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamamushi et al. (US 2020/0234930 A1 hereinafter “Tamamushi”) in view of Fischer et al. (US 2012/0045902 A1 hereinafter “Fischer”) and Tanaka (JP2020088317A hereinafter “Tanaka ‘317” and referring to English Machine translation) and Nakagawa (US 2009/0183832 A1) as applied to claims 8, 9, 10 and further substantiated by NPL references Pack ((2018). Australian Guidebook for Structural Engineers - A Guide to Structural Engineering on a Multidiscipline Project - 2.3.3.4 Vehicle Loads. CRC Press) and Oberg et al. ((2020). Machinery's Handbook (31st Edition) - 2.1.5.4 Coefficients of Friction. Industrial Press.).
Regarding claim 11, Tamamushi in view of Fischer, Tanaka '317, and Nakagawa teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) 10 as applied above including a third member (see teachings of Tanaka ‘317 in claim 1 rejection). Tanaka ‘317 further teaches that the third member (comprising 63 and 73, Fig. 4; comprising 67 and 73, Fig. 7) has a contact portion (comprising a lower surface of 73, Fig. 7) that is contact with the first member (comprising 71, Fig. 7). Thus, the combination teaches “wherein each of the plurality of the third members has a contact portion that is in contact with the first member.”
Regarding limitation “wherein the contact portion is formed of a low friction member having a lower friction coefficient than that of a portion other than the contact portion” is interpreted to mean that any portion (of the components of the apparatus including the first and second member) other than the contact portion has a high coefficient of friction than the contact portion.
Tanaka ‘317 further teaches that the contact portion (comprising lower surface of 73, Fig. 7) includes Teflon (para. [0039]).
NPL reference Pack further substantiates the coefficient of friction of Teflon is 0.05
Tanaka ‘317 further teaches that the first member (comprising 71, Fig. 2 and 7) comprises aluminum (para. [0027]). Tamamushi further teaches that the first member (comprising 36, Fig. 1) comprises aluminum (para. [0068]).
NPL reference Oberg substantiates the coefficient of friction of aluminum is 1.35.
Thus, the combination teaches limitation “wherein the contact portion is formed of a low friction member having a lower friction coefficient than that of a portion other than the contact portion.”
Regarding claim 12, Tamamushi in view of Fischer, Tanaka '317, and Nakagawa (further substantiated by Pack and Oberg) teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) 11 as applied above and Tanaka '317 further teaches wherein the dielectric of the third member (comprising 73, Fig. 4 and 7) is a porous body (i.e. comprises pores/holes or permeable to fluids, as understood from Fig. 4 and 7).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamamushi et al. (US 2020/0234930 A1 hereinafter “Tamamushi”) in view of Fischer et al. (US 2012/0045902 A1 hereinafter “Fischer”) and Tanaka (JP2020088317A hereinafter “Tanaka ‘317” and referring to English Machine translation) as applied to claims 1-7, 13-15, 17, 18 above and further substantiated by NPL references Pack ((2018). Australian Guidebook for Structural Engineers - A Guide to Structural Engineering on a Multidiscipline Project - 2.3.3.4 Vehicle Loads. CRC Press) and Oberg et al. ((2020). Machinery's Handbook (31st Edition) - 2.1.5.4 Coefficients of Friction. Industrial Press.).
Regarding claim 16, Tamamushi in view of Fischer and Tanaka '317 teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) 1 as applied above including a third member (see teachings of Tanaka ‘317 in claim 1 rejection). Tanaka ‘317 further teaches that the third member (comprising 63 and 73, Fig. 4; comprising 67 and 73, Fig. 7) has a contact portion (comprising a lower surface of 73, Fig. 7) that is contact with the first member (comprising 71, Fig. 7). Thus, the combination teaches “wherein each of the plurality of the third members has a contact portion that is in contact with the first member.”
Regarding limitation, “wherein the contact portion of each of the plurality of third members is formed of a low friction member having a lower friction coefficient than that of a portion (i.e. any other portion of the apparatus including the first member or second member) other than the contact portion of each of the plurality of third members.”
Tanaka ‘317 further teaches that the contact portion (comprising lower surface of 73, Fig. 7) includes Teflon (para. [0039]).
NPL reference Pack further substantiates the coefficient of friction of Teflon is 0.05
Tanaka ‘317 further teaches that the first member (comprising 71, Fig. 2 and 7) comprises aluminum (para. [0027]). Tamamushi further teaches that the first member (comprising 36, Fig. 1) comprises aluminum (para. [0068]).
NPL reference Oberg substantiates the coefficient of friction of aluminum is 1.35.
Thus, the combination teaches limitation , “wherein the contact portion of each of the plurality of third members is formed of a low friction member having a lower friction coefficient than that of a portion other than the contact portion of each of the plurality of third members.”
Claim(s) 1, 17, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fischer et al. (US 2012/0045902 A1 hereinafter “Fischer”) in view of Noorbakhsh et al. (US 2011/0162800 A1 hereinafter “Noorbakhsh”) and Wang et al. (US 2019/0271082 A1 hereinafter “Wang”).
Regarding independent claim 1, Fischer teaches an upper electrode (comprising showerhead electrode 24, fig. 1) forming a shower head in a capacitively- coupled plasma processing apparatus (comprising capacitively-coupled plasma processing chamber 10, Fig. 1) (para. [0009]-[0010]), the upper electrode (comprising 24, Fig. 1) comprising:
a first member (comprising bottom electrode 42, Fig. 1) that is formed of a conductor (para. [0014] discloses Si or SiC, which instant application para. [0051] discloses is a suitable conductor material for the upper electrode), the first member (comprising 42, Fig. 1) providing a plurality of first gas holes (comprising gas holes 66, 68, 70, Fig. 1) that penetrate the first member(comprising 42, Fig. 1) (para. [0013]);
a second member (comprising top electrode 40, Fig. 1) that is formed of a conductor (para. [0014] discloses Si or SiC, which instant application para. [0051] discloses is a suitable conductor material for the upper electrode) and provided on the first member (comprising 42, Fig. 1),
the second member (comprising 40, Fig. 1) providing one or more second gas holes (comprising gas inlet 52, Fig. 1, para. [0011]) and a plurality of annular grooves (comprising plenums 58 and 68 formed of concentric annular channels, Fig. 1 and 2, para. [0010]) each extending in a peripheral direction around a central axis of the second member; and
wherein the plurality of first gas holes (comprising 68, 70, Fig. 1) and the one or more second gas holes (comprising 52, Fig. 1) are connected.
Fischer does not explicitly teach a plurality of third members formed of a dielectric and provided between the first member and the second member, wherein the plurality of third members is provided in the plurality of annular grooves, respectively, wherein the plurality of third members defines a plurality of gas diffusion chambers, respectively, the plurality of first gas holes and the one or more second gas holes are connected in the plurality of gas diffusion chambers, and wherein the plurality of gas diffusion chambers is formed in the plurality of the annular grooves, respectively.
However, Noorbaksh teaches a plurality of third members (comprising inserts 220, Fig. 2, para. [0032] ; comprising body 308 and cap 310, Fig. 2, para. [0035]) provided between the first member (comprising second plate 204, Fig. 2, para. [0030]) and the second member (comprising first plate 202, Fig. 2, para. [0030]), wherein the plurality of third members (comprising inserts 220, Fig. 2) is provided in the plurality of grooves (comprising plenums 208, Fig. 2), respectively, wherein the plurality of third members (comprising 220, Fig. 2) defines a plurality of gas diffusion chambers (comprising flow paths 306a and 306b, Fig. 3, para. [0036]), respectively, the plurality of first gas holes (comprising 210, fig. 2) and the one or more second gas holes (comprising 218, Fig. 2) are connected in (i.e. connected via or connected to) the plurality of gas diffusion chambers (comprising 306a and 306b, Fig. 3), and wherein the plurality of gas diffusion chambers is formed in the plurality of the grooves (comprising 208, Fig. 2 and 3), respectively. Noorbaksh teaches that the third members (comprising 220, Fig. 2; comprising 308, 310, Fig. 3) enables providing different independent gas zones with different flow rates or compositions enabling reconfiguring the showerhead for a wide variety of processes (para. [0034],[0040]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a plurality of third members provided between the first member and the second member, wherein the plurality of third members is provided in the plurality of annular grooves, respectively, wherein the plurality of third members defines a plurality of gas diffusion chambers, respectively, the plurality of first gas holes and the one or more second gas holes are connected in the plurality of gas diffusion chambers, and wherein the plurality of gas diffusion chambers is formed in the plurality of the annular grooves, respectively because Noorbaksh teaches that such a configuration enables providing different independent gas zones with different flow rates or compositions enabling reconfiguring the showerhead for a wide variety of processes (para. [0034],[0040]).
Fischer in view of Noorbaksh as applied above does not explicitly disclose the material of the plurality of third members and thus does not teach that the third members are formed of dielectric.
However, Wang teaches an upper electrode (comprising showerhead assembly 130, Fig. 1) comprising a shower head and comprising third members (comprising insert 300, Fig .2A and 2B) formed of a dielectric such as ceramic, polyetrafluoroethylene, or polyamide-imide which enables enhancing the electrical breakdown threshold and prevents plasma ignition within the showerhead/upper electrode assembly (para. [0034]-[0035]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a dielectric material (i.e. ceramic, polyetrafluoroethylene, or polyamide-imide) because Wang teaches that such a material enables enhancing the electrical breakdown threshold and prevents plasma ignition within the showerhead/upper electrode assembly (Wang: para. [0034]-[0035]).
Regarding claim 17, Fischer in view of Noorbaksh and Wang teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) 1 above wherein the combination further teaches wherein the dielectric of the third member is a porous body. Examiner explains that the third member (comprising 220, Fig. 2; comprising 308 and 310, Fig. 3) of Noorbaksh comprises pores (as understood from Fig. 3) and wherein the third member of Noorbaksh was modified to have a dielectric material in claim 1 rejection in view of teachings of Wang. Thus, the combination meets claim 17 limitations.
Regarding claim 18, Fischer in view of Noorbaksh and Wang teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) 1 above and Fischer further teaches a plasma processing apparatus (comprising capacitively-coupled plasma chamber 10, Fig. 1, para. [0009]) comprising: a plasma processing chamber (comprising 10, Fig. 1) that provides a processing space (comprising plasma confinement zone 38, Fig. 1, para. [0009]) inside the plasma processing chamber (comprising 10, Fig 1); a substrate support (comprising substrate support assembly 22, Fig. 1, para. [0009]) that is provided in the plasma processing chamber (comprising 10, Fig. 1); and the upper electrode (comprising 24, Fig. 1) of claim 1 (see combination of Fischer in view of Noorbaksh and Wang as applied in claim 1 rejection), the upper electrode (comprising 24, Fig. 1) being provided above the substrate support (comprising 22, Fig. 1).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fischer et al. (US 2012/0045902 A1 hereinafter “Fischer”) in view of Noorbakhsh et al. (US 2011/0162800 A1 hereinafter “Noorbakhsh”) and Wang et al. (US 2019/0271082 A1 hereinafter “Wang”) as applied in claims 1, 17, 18 above and further in view of Yang (CN110942969A hereinafter referring to English Machine Translation).
Regarding claim 16, see claim interpretation discussion in U.S.C. 112(b) rejections above, Fischer in view of Noorbaksh and Wang teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as applied above including a third member (see teachings of Noorbaksh and Wang as applied above).
Fischer in view of Noorbaksh and Wang as applied above does not explicitly teach wherein each of the plurality of third members has a contact portion that is contact with the first member, wherein the contact portion of each of the plurality of third members is formed of a low friction member having a lower friction coefficient than that of a portion other than the contact portion of each of the plurality of third members.
However, Yang teaches a showerhead (comprising gas showerhead assembly 400, Fig. 2) comprising a low friction member (comprising Teflon layer 604 and 608, Fig. 3) of a third member (comprising 106, Fig. 2) at contact surfaces between the third member and the first member (comprising 110, Fig. 2) wherein the low friction member prevents particle generation during thermal expansion and contraction of the showerhead due to temperature adjustments/fluctuations during substrate processing (para. [0035]-[0036]). Examiner notes that the low friction member comprises Teflon/PTFE (Yang: para. [0036]) which is the same material taught in the instant application para. [0053].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide each of the plurality of third members to have a contact portion and to configure the contact portion of each of the plurality of third members to be formed of a low friction member (i.e. PTFE/Teflon) having a lower friction coefficient than that of a portion other than the contact portion of each of the plurality of third members because Yang teaches that such a configuration is a known suitable assembly configuration of a showerhead which would enable reduced particle generation from thermal expansion and contraction of the showerhead during substrate processing (Yang: para. [0035]-[0036]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 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, as further discussed hereunder.
Applicant argues (remarks page 9) regarding U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejection of independent claim 1, Tanaka does not disclose or suggest at least the limitations of "the second member providing…a plurality of annular grooves each extending in a peripheral direction around a central axis of the second member" and "wherein the plurality of third members is provided in the plurality of annular grooves, respectively" and "wherein the plurality of gas diffusion chambers is formed in the plurality of the annular grooves respectively" as recited in amended claim 1.
Examiner responds that independent claim 1 rejection has been modified as necessitated by Applicant’s amendments to the claims. Currently claim 1 is rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamamushi in view of Fischer and Tanaka ‘317 and additionally as being unpatentable over Fischer in view of Noorbakhsh and Wang as discussed in detail above in claims rejections.
In light of the above, independent claim 1 is rejected. Further, in view of Examiner’s remarks regarding independent claim(s) 1, the dependent claims 2-17 are also rejected, as detailed above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAUREEN CHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3778. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30AM-5:30PM EST.
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, PARVIZ HASSANZADEH can be reached at (571)272-1435. 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.
/LAUREEN CHAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1716 /RAM N KACKAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716