DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on Oct. 21st 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on Oct. 6th, 2025 has been entered. Claims 14-17 and 19-34 remain pending in the application.
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.
Claims 21-34 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.
Claim 21 recites the limitation "an intensity of oxidation increasing from the first side of the first inner spacer and then decreasing by a parabolic gradient curve until reaching a second side of the first inner spacer" in line 6-8. However, fig. 14B of Drawings just show a decreasing of intensity of oxidation in panel (A), or increasing and decreasing of intensity of N and C in panel (B) and (C). Therefore, the claim is unclear. For examination purposes, examiner has interpreted this limitation to be consistent with the cited prior art. Claims 22-29 and 34 would also be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) because they are dependent on claim 21.
Claim 30 recites the limitation "after performing the oxygen radical treatment, a concentration profile of oxygen in the sidewall spacer layer increases from a first side of the sidewall spacer layer to a vertex and then decreases to a second side of the sidewall spacer layer" in lin. 10-13. However, fig. 14B of Drawings just show a decreasing of intensity of oxidation in panel (A), or increasing and decreasing of intensity of N and C in panel (B) and (C). Therefore, the claim is unclear. For examination purposes, examiner has interpreted this limitation to be consistent with the cited prior art. Claims 31-33 would also be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) because they are dependent on claim 30.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 21-23 and 25-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 20190006485 from IDS) in view of Han et al. (US 20180151690) and Ching et al. (US 20200006577).
Regarding claim 21, Kim teaches a method (Abstract) comprising:
forming a first nanostructure (fig. 8, first nanowire 131; para. 0073), a second nanostructure (sacrificial layers 102; para. 0073) over the first nanostructure (131), and a third nanostructure (second nanowire 132; para. 0073) over the second nanostructure (102);
recessing (fig. 9, etched sacrificial layer 102 through R) an end of the second nanostructure (end of 102) to form a sidewall recess (first exposed region ER1; para. 0075);
forming a first inner spacer (fig. 11, first spacer film 141; para. 0077) in the sidewall recess (ER1), the first inner spacer (141) having high oxidation (141 may include silicon oxide; para. 0045) on a first side of the first inner spacer (outside of 141);
after forming the first inner spacer (141), forming a source/drain region (fig. 16, source/drain region 150; para. 0091) adjacent the first nanostructure and the third nanostructure (131, 132), the first side of the first inner spacer (outside of 141) physically contacting the source/drain region (150); and
forming a gate structure (fig. 18, gate insulating film 121 and gate electrode 120; para. 0093) surrounding the third nanostructure (132), the first inner spacer (141) interposed between the gate structure (121, 122) and the source/drain region (150).
Kim fails to teach an intensity of oxidation increasing from the first side of the first inner spacer and then decreasing by a parabolic gradient curve until reaching a second side of the first inner spacer.
However, Han teaches a generic intensity of oxidation (Han: fig. 2, the oxidation in inner spacer 22, center spacer 24 and outer spacer 26; para. 0016, similar to 141 of Kim) increasing (Han: increase from 29~33 in 26 to 46.2 in 24; para. 0035 and table 2) from the first side (Han: out/exposed side of 26) of the first inner spacer (Han: 22, 24, 26) and then decreasing (Han: decreasing from 46.2 in 24 to 41 in 22; table 2) until reaching a second side of the first inner spacer (Han: inner/unexposed side of 22).
Han and Kim are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of semiconductor devices.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the intensity of oxidation changing in inner spacer as taught by Han.
Doing so would realize an improved structure for spacers to boost circuit speed and protect against erosion (Han: para. 0004).
In additional, Kim in view of Han fails to explicitly teach the generic intensity of oxidation decreasing by a parabolic gradient curve until reaching a second side of the first inner spacer.
However, Ching teaches the generic intensity of oxidation (Ching: oxidation in inner spacer material layer 252; para. 0044, similar to 141 of Kim) decreasing by a parabolic gradient curve (Ching: oxidation decrease from almost 100% of SiO2 in portion 252a to almost 0% SiO2 in portion 252b; para. 0044) until reaching a second side of the first inner spacer (Ching: unexposed side of 252).
Ching, Han and Kim are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of semiconductor devices.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed method to add the intensity of oxidation as taught by Ching.
Doing so would realize the intensity of oxidation from the annealing treatment to increase the device's performance (Ching: para. 0046).
Regarding claim 22, Kim in view of Han and Ching teaches the method of claim 21, wherein the parabolic gradient curve (Ching: oxidation decrease in 252) flattens (Ching: oxidation flatten at 252b) at first lateral depth (Ching: depth of 252a) of the first inner spacer (Ching: 252).
Kim in view of Han and Ching as applied to claim 21 fails to explicitly teach the first lateral depth is between 20% and 50% of a total width of the first inner spacer.
However, Ching teaches the first lateral depth (Ching: fig. 11B, depth of 252a) is between 30% and 70% of a total width of the first inner spacer (Ching: 252), which overlaps the range of 20% and 50%.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the first lateral depth of a total width of the first inner spacer range from 30% and 70% to 20% and 50%.
Here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP Chapter 2100-Section 2144.05-Optimization of Ranges).
Regarding claim 23, Kim further teaches the method of claim 21, wherein the first inner spacer (fig. 19, 141) comprises SiOCN (141 include SiOCN; para. 0045).
Regarding claim 25, Kim in view of Ching teaches the method of claim 21 including the first inner spacer (Ching: fig. 11B, 252 include SiOCN and 252a has SiO2; para. 0043, 0044)
Kim in view of Han and Ching as applied to claim 21 fails to explicitly teach a material composition of the first inner spacer comprises 40% to 60% more oxygen at the first side of the first inner spacer than at the second side of the first inner spacer.
However, Han teaches a material composition (Han: SiOCN; para. 0021) of the first inner spacer (Han: fig. 2, spacers 22, 24, 26; para. 0015, similar to 252 of Ching) comprises 6% to 73% more oxygen at the first side of the first inner spacer (Ching: 252a SiO2, oxygen content of 67 atomic percent) than at the second side of the first inner spacer (Han: SiOCN with oxygen content of 38 atomic percent to 62 atomic percent; para. 0021), which overlaps 40% to 60% more oxygen.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed method to add the material composition as taught by Han and and modified the material composition from 6% to 73% more oxygen to 40% to 60% more oxygen.
Here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP Chapter 2100-Section 2144.05-Optimization of Ranges).
Regarding claim 26, Kim in view of Han and Ching teaches the method of claim 21 including a contact angle of the first sidewall spacer (Ching: fig. 11D, contact angle of 252b depending on distance d2; para. 0047) of an outer surface of the first inner spacer (Ching: outer surface of 252b).
Kim in view of Han and Ching as applied to claim 21 fails to explicitly teach the contact angle is between 30 degrees and 45 degrees.
However, Ching teaches the contact angle (Ching: fig. 11D, the contact angle of 252b around 5 to 60 degrees depending on d2) between 5 degrees and 60 degrees (Ching: depending on d2), which overlaps the range of between 30 degrees and 45 degrees.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the contact angle from 5 degrees and 60 degrees to between 30 degrees and 45 degrees.
Here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP Chapter 2100-Section 2144.05-Optimization of Ranges).
Regarding claim 27, Kim teaches the method of claim 21 including the first inner spacer (fig. 15, 141 includes SiOCN; para. 0045)
Kim in view of Han and Ching as applied to claim 21 fails to explicitly teach a material composition of the first inner spacer comprises C at 5-20%, N at o-15%, O at 30-70%, and Si at 30-40%.
However, Han teaches a material composition of the first inner spacer (Han: fig. 2, material of 22; table 2, similar to 141 of Kim) comprises C at 14%, N at 13%, O at 41%, and Si at 32% (Han: table 2), which overlaps the range of C at 5-20%, N at o-15%, O at 30-70%, and Si at 30-40%.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the material composition to C at 5-20%, N at o-15%, O at 30-70%, and Si at 30-40%.
Here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP Chapter 2100-Section 2144.05-Optimization of Ranges).
Regarding claim 28, Kim further teaches the method of claim 21, wherein a length of the first nanostructure (fig. 19, length of 131) in a direction (horizontal) extending from the source/drain region (150) is greater than a distance (distance between 131 and 102 is 0) between the first nanostructure (131) and the second nanostructure (102).
Regarding claim 29, Kim in view of Han and Ching teaches the method of claim 21 including the first inner spacer (Ching: fig. 11B, 252) has a width (Ching: thickness of 252 is the same as 206 about 6 nm to about 10 nm; para. 0059) between 2 nm and 15 nm.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Han and Ching as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Chou et al. (US 20040256664).
Regarding claim 24, Kim further teaches the method of claim 23 including the first inner spacer (fig. 11, 141 may include silicon oxynitride; para. 0045).
Kim in view of Han and Ching fails to teach the first inner spacer further comprises trace H or trace Cl.
However, Chou teaches the first inner spacer (Chou: silicon oxynitride gate dielectric 80; para. 0067, similar to the material of 141 of Kim) further comprises trace H or trace Cl (Chou: trace amounts of Cl; para. 0067).
Chou, Ching, Han and Kim are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of semiconductor devices.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed method to add the detail of trace H or trace Cl as taught by Chou.
Doing so would realize a silicon oxynitride layer with improved electrical properties (Chou: para. 0003).
Claims 30-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Han.
Regarding claim 30, Kim teaches a method (Abstract) comprising:
etching a first recess (fig. 8, etch the stacked structure 101 and form a recess R; para. 0072) adjacent a first nanostructure (first nanowire 131; para. 0073), a second nanostructure (sacrificial layers 102; para. 0073) over the first nanostructure (131), and a third nanostructure (second nanowire 132; para. 0073) over the second nanostructure (102);
etching, through the first recess (fig. 9, etched sacrificial layer 102 through R), a sidewall of the second nanostructure (sidewalls of 102) to form a sidewall recess (first exposed region ER1; para. 0075);
forming a sidewall spacer layer (fig. 11, first spacer film 141; para. 0077) along a sidewall of first recess (sidewall of R), the sidewall spacer layer (41) covering ends of the first nanostructure, the second nanostructure, and the third nanostructure (131, 102, 132), the sidewall spacer layer (141) having a horizontal seam (second exposed region ER2; para. 0079) between an upper portion (portion above ER2) and a lower portion (portion below ER2) in the sidewall recess (ER1);
after a generic treatment (fig. 14, forming second spacer 142, a third spacer 143; para. 0021), etching the sidewall spacer layer (fig. 15, etching 141, 142, 143) to expose the ends of the first nanostructure (131) and the third nanostructure (132) in the first recess (R), and forming a first sidewall spacer (141, 142, 143) adjacent the second nanostructure (102); and
after etching the sidewall spacer layer (141, 142, 143), forming a source/drain region (fig. 16, source/drain region 150; para. 0091) contacting the exposed ends of the first nanostructure (131) and the third nanostructure (132) in the first recess (R).
Kim fails to teach performing an oxygen radical treatment on the sidewall spacer layer as the generic treatment, wherein after performing the oxygen radical treatment, a concentration profile of oxygen in the sidewall spacer layer increases from a first side of the sidewall spacer layer to a vertex and then decreases to a second side of the sidewall spacer layer.
However, Han teaches an oxygen radical treatment (Han: fig. 1, ALD reaction with oxygen-containing precursor; para. 0020) on the sidewall spacer layer (Han: conformal layer 16; para. 0016, similar to 141 of Kim) as the generic treatment (Han: forming conformal layers 18, 20; para. 0016, similar to 142, 143 of Kim), wherein after performing the oxygen radical treatment (Han: ALD reaction), a concentration profile of oxygen in the sidewall spacer layer (Han: fig. 2, oxygen concentration in inner spacer 22, center spacer 24 and outer spacer 26; para. 0016, similar to 141, 142, 143 of Kim) increases (Han: increase from 29~33 in 26 to 46.2 in 24; para. 0035 and table 2) from a first side of the sidewall spacer layer (Han: out/exposed side of 26) to a vertex (Han: max at 46.2 in 24 and decreasing to 41 in 22; table 2) and then decreases to a second side of the sidewall spacer layer (Han: inner/unexposed side of 22).
Han and Kim are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of semiconductor devices.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed method to add an oxygen radical treatment on the sidewall spacer layer as taught by Han.
Doing so would realize an improved structure for spacers to boost circuit speed and protect against erosion (Han: para. 0004).
Regarding claim 31, Kim in view of Han teaches the method of claim 30, wherein the oxygen radical treatment (Han: oxygen-containing ALD reaction) incorporates oxygen into a first portion (Han: 18) of the sidewall spacer layer at a greater rate (Han: 46.2 greater than 41; table 2) than at a second portion (Han: 16) of the sidewall spacer layer.
Regarding claim 32, Kim in view of Han teaches the method of claim 31, wherein a k-value of the sidewall spacer layer (Han: k-value of 16; table 2) is reduced by 5% to io% (Han: 4.6 to 4.3 around 6%; table 2) after the oxygen radical treatment (Han: oxygen-containing ALD reaction).
Claims 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Han as applied to claim 30 above, and further in view of Doris (US 20180294151).
Regarding claim 33, Kim teaches the method of claim 30 including the first sidewall spacer (141).
Kim in view of Han fails to teach the first sidewall spacer has a first surface merged with a second surface to form a closed seam.
However, Doris teaches the first sidewall spacer (Doris: fig. 4B, atomic layer deposited (ALD) conformal dielectric layer 30; para. 0067, similar to 141 of Kim) has a first surface (Doris: top surface of substantially central seam 31; para. 0063) merged with a second surface (Doris: bottom surface of 31) to form a closed seam (Doris: fig. 9, 30 has two self-limiting surfaces reactions and leave a smaller closed seam 31 in the middle of the spacer; para. 0045).
Doris, Han and Kim are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of semiconductor devices.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the first sidewall spacer has a first surface merged with a second surface to form a closed seam as taught by Doris.
Doing so would realize a spacer in a monolayer or sub-monolayer thickness regime to reduce, risk of shorting, and current leakage (Doris: para. 0030, 0045).
Claims 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Han and Ching as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Doris.
Regarding claim 34, Kim teaches the method of claim 21 including the first inner spacer (141).
Kim in view of Han and Ching fails to teach a first surface of the first inner spacer is cross-linked to a second surface of the first inner spacer.
However, Doris teaches a first surface (Doris: fig. 4B, top surface of substantially central seam 31; para. 0063) of the first inner spacer (Doris: atomic layer deposited (ALD) conformal dielectric layer 30; para. 0067, similar to 141 of Kim) is cross-linked (Doris: fig. 9, 30 has two self-limiting surfaces reactions; para. 0045) to a second surface of the first inner spacer (Doris: bottom surface of 31).
Doris, Ching, Han and Kim are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of semiconductor devices.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a first surface of the first inner spacer is cross-linked to a second surface of the first inner spacer as taught by Doris.
Doing so would realize a spacer in a monolayer or sub-monolayer thickness regime to reduce, risk of shorting, and current leakage (Doris: para. 0030, 0045).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14-17 and 19-20 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
"performing an oxygen radical treatment on the sidewall spacer layer, the oxygen radical treatment incorporating oxygen into a first portion of the sidewall spacer layer at a greater rate than at a second portion of the sidewall spacer layer; causing an upper surface of the horizontal seam to crosslink with a lower surface of the horizontal seam" recited in claim 14.
Claims 15-17 and 19-20 depend on claims 14, and are allowable for implicitly including the allowable subject matter above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed Oct. 6th, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to pages 7-8 of applicant’s response of claims 21 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.103.
The Office Action has not provided any basis that the cited reference discloses the features "the first inner spacer having an intensity of oxidation increasing from the first side of the first inner spacer and then decreasing by a parabolic gradient curve until reaching a second side of the first inner spacer" in claim 21.
The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Besides the 112b issue of the features. As shown in fig. 2 of Han and table 2, in an alternative view, Han teaches the first inner spacer (22, 24, 26) having an intensity of oxidation increasing (increase from 29~33 in 26 to 46.2 in 24) from the first side (out/exposed side of 26) of the first inner spacer (22, 24, 26) and then decreasing (decreasing from 46.2 in 24 to 41 in 22) until reaching a second side of the first inner spacer (inner/unexposed side of 22). In addition, as cited in para. 0044 of Ching, Ching further teaches the intensity of oxidation decreasing by a parabolic gradient curve (oxidation decrease from almost 100% of SiO2 in portion 252a to almost 0% SiO2 in portion 252b in a parabolic gradient curve). As result, given a broadest reasonable interpretation, Kim in view of Han and Ching teaches all limitations of claim 21. Details of rejections are discussed above.
The Office Action has not provided any basis that the cited reference discloses these features "a concentration profile of oxygen in the sidewall spacer layer increases from a first side of the sidewall spacer layer to a vertex and then decreases to a second side of the sidewall spacer layer" "etching the sidewall spacer layer to expose the ends of the first nanostructure and the third nanostructure in the first recess" and "forming a source/drain region contacting the exposed ends of the first nanostructure and the third nanostructure in the first recess" in claim 30.
The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Besides the 112b issue of the features. As shown in fig. 2 of Han and table 2, in an alternative view, Han teaches a concentration profile of oxygen in the sidewall spacer layer (oxygen concentration in 22, 24, 26) increases (increase from 29~33 in 26 to 46.2 in 24) from a first side of the sidewall spacer layer (out/exposed side of 26) to a vertex (max at 46.2 in 24 and decreasing to 41 in 22) and then decreases to a second side of the sidewall spacer layer (inner/unexposed side of 22). In addition, as shown in fig. 15-16 of Kim, Kim teaches etching the sidewall spacer layer (etching 141, 142, 143) to expose the ends of the first nanostructure (131) and the third nanostructure (1312) in the first recess (R) and forming a source/drain region (150) contacting the exposed ends of the first nanostructure (131) and the third nanostructure (132) in the first recess (R). As result, given a broadest reasonable interpretation, Kim in view of Han teaches all limitations of claim 30. Details of rejections are discussed above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ngo et al. (US 6483154) teaches an oxide treatment on sidewall spacer.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZHIJUN XU whose telephone number is (571)270-3447. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9am-5pm ET.
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, Eva Montalvo can be reached at (571) 270-3829. 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.
/ZHIJUN XU/Examiner, Art Unit 2818
/DUY T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2818 1/7/26