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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 19-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on October 13, 2025.
Additionally, claims 3 and 16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on October 13, 2025.
The species election included the following typographical error: Species b should have included claim 3 only and not claims 3-4. Claims 1-2, 17, and 18 are considered generic.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Pat. Pub. No. 20220129698 A1 to Moradian et al (hereinafter Moradian).
Regarding claim 1, Moradian teaches a semiconductor processing system, comprising: a chamber arrangement (103); an exhaust arrangement (106) connected to the chamber arrangement; an accretion sensor (124-133, see paragraph 29) supported within the exhaust arrangement; and a processor (401) disposed in communication with the accretion sensor and responsive to instructions recorded on a non-transitory machine-readable medium to: receive an accretion signal from the accretion sensor (305), the accretion signal indicative of an accretion amount disposed within the exhaust arrangement (310); receive a predetermined accretion amount value (threshold in paragraph 19) ; compare the accretion amount to the predetermined accretion amount value (paragraphs 36, 39, 42, and 48) ; and execute an accretion countermeasure when the accretion amount is greater than the predetermined accretion amount value (315). (See Moradian, Abstract, paragraphs 4, 6-9, 17, 19-20, 22, 24, 27-36, 38-42, 44-45, 47-48, 50, 54-56, 61.)
Regarding claim 2, Moradian teaches the accretion sensor includes a quartz crystal microbalance (QCM) structure. (See Moradian, Abstract, Figs. 1-4, and paragraph 29. )
Regarding claim 4, Moradian teaches the accretion amount is disposed at least in part on the QCM structure. (See Moradian, Abstract, Figs. 1-4, and paragraph 29. )
Regarding claim 5, Moradian teaches the exhaust arrangement (106) comprises an exhaust conduit (section of 106 extending between 103 and 112, perpendicular to the foreline ) connected to the chamber arrangement (103) , wherein the accretion sensor (124-133) is supported within the exhaust conduit (section of 106 extending between 103 and 112, perpendicular to the foreline ) . (See Moradian, Abstract, Figs. 1-4, and paragraph 29. )
Regarding claim 6, Moradian teaches further comprising an isolation valve (115, 118, 121) connecting the exhaust conduit to the chamber arrangement (103) , wherein the isolation valve (115,121) separates the accretion sensor (127-133) from the chamber arrangement (103). (See Moradian, Abstract, Figs. 1-4, and paragraph 29. )
Regarding claim 7, Moradian teaches a pressure control valve arranged along the exhaust conduit (section of 106 extending between 103 and 112, perpendicular to the foreline ) , wherein the pressure control valve (118) is between the accretion sensor (127-133) and the chamber arrangement (103). (See Moradian, Abstract, Figs. 1-4, and paragraph 29. )
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
US Pat. Pub. No. 20220129698 A1 to Moradian et al (hereinafter Moradian) as applied to claim 7 and further in view of US Pat. Num. 5,154,773 to Takayuki Furusawa (hereinafter Furusawa).
Regarding claim 8, Moradian does not explicitly teach the exhaust conduit has an etchant port, wherein the pressure control valve is between the accretion sensor and the etchant port.
Furusawa teaches a structure for removing deposit on the exhaust unit.
Furusawa teaches the exhaust conduit (13) has an etchant port (19). (See Furusawa, Abstract, Fig. 1, col. 4, lines 25-35, col. 5, lines 1-36.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the exhaust conduit has an etchant port, because Furusawa teaches this structure would enable unwanted deposits to be removed. (See Furusawa, Abstract, Fig. 1, col. 4, lines 25-35, col. 5, lines 1-36.)
Regarding claim 8, Moradian the pressure control valve is between the accretion sensor and the etchant port.
Furusawa the pressure control valve (118) is between the accretion sensor (133) and foreline clean system 210. (See Furusawa, Abstract, Fig. 1, col. 4, lines 25-35, col. 5, lines 1-36.)
Examiner is considering the foreline clean system which receives gases NF3 and Argon to remove build-up from the pipes (See Moradian, paragraph 44) to be an art recognized equivalent of the etchant port in Furusawa.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the pressure control valve is between the accretion sensor and the etchant port, because a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize this location would enable the gas etchant gas to clean the pressure control valve and the sensor would be able to determine the level of build-up and cleaning required. (See Moradian, Abstract, Figs. 1-4, and paragraphs 8, 19, 28-29, 31-32, 39, 44. )
Regarding claim 9, Moradian does not explicitly teach an etchant conduit connected to the etchant port; and an etchant source connected to the etchant conduit and bypassing the chamber arrangement, etchant provided to the exhaust conduit bypassing the chamber arrangement.
Furusawa teaches an etchant conduit connected to the etchant port; and an etchant source connected to the etchant conduit and bypassing the chamber arrangement, etchant provided to the exhaust conduit bypassing the chamber arrangement (See Furusawa, Abstract, Fig. 1, col. 4, lines 25-35, col. 5, lines 1-36.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have an etchant conduit connected to the etchant port; and an etchant source connected to the etchant conduit and bypassing the chamber arrangement, etchant provided to the exhaust conduit bypassing the chamber arrangement, because Furusawa teaches this structure would enable unwanted deposits to be removed. (See Furusawa, Abstract, Fig. 1, col. 4, lines 25-35, col. 5, lines 1-36.)
Regarding claim 10, Moradian does not explicitly teach the etchant source includes chlorine (Cl2) gas.
Furusawa teaches the etchant source includes a hydrogen chloride gas and a gas containing chlorine may be used in place of hydrogen chloride. (See Furusawa, Abstract, Fig. 1, col. 4, lines 25-35, col. 5, lines 1-36.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the etchant source includes chlorine (Cl2) gas as an art recognized equivalent for a chloride containing gas. (See Furusawa, Abstract, Fig. 1, col. 4, lines 25-35, col. 5, lines 1-36.)
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 10, applicant claims a specific material or article worked upon including chlorine gas. The coating apparatus in the applied references would be capable of coating these substrates. Inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. In re Young, 75 F.2d 966, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)).
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 11, Moradian teaches a maintenance valve (121) connected to the exhaust conduit (section of 106 extending between 103 and 112, perpendicular to the foreline ), wherein the accretion sensor (130) is supported within the exhaust conduit (section of 106 extending between 103 and 112, perpendicular to the foreline ) between the maintenance valve (121) and the chamber arrangement (103). (See Moradian, Abstract, Figs. 1-4, and paragraph 29. )
Regarding claim 12, Moradian teaches an exhaust conduit (section of 106 extending between 103 and 112, perpendicular to the foreline ), connected to the chamber arrangement (103), wherein the accretion sensor (124, 127, 130, 133) is supported within the exhaust conduit. (See Moradian, Abstract, paragraphs 4, 6-9, 17, 19-20, 22, 24, 27-36, 38-42, 44-45, 47-48, 50, 54-56, 61.)
Regarding claim 12, Moradian does not explicitly teach an etchant conduit connected to the etchant port; and an etchant source connected to the etchant conduit and bypassing the chamber arrangement.
Furusawa teaches an etchant conduit (19) connected to the etchant port; and an etchant source (square at end of 19) connected to the etchant conduit and bypassing the chamber arrangement (21). (See Furusawa, Abstract, Fig. 1, col. 4, lines 25-35, col. 5, lines 1-36.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have an etchant conduit connected to the exhaust conduit; and an etchant source connected to the etchant conduit, the etchant conduit bypassing the chamber arrangement, because Furusawa teaches this structure would enable unwanted deposits to be removed from the exhaust conduit. (See Furusawa, Abstract, Fig. 1, col. 4, lines 25-35, col. 5, lines 1-36.)
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
US Pat. Pub. No. 20220129698 A1 to Moradian et al (hereinafter Moradian) in view of US Pat. Num. 5,154,773 to Takayuki Furusawa (hereinafter Furusawa) as applied to claim 12 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20090170328 A1 to Kameda et al (hereinafter Kameda).
Regarding claim 13, Moradian does not explicitly teach a reducing agent conduit connected to the etchant conduit; a reducing agent supply valve arranged along the reducing agent conduit; an etchant supply valve arranged along the etchant conduit; and wherein the reducing agent conduit is connected to the etchant conduit between the etchant supply valve and the exhaust conduit to introduce a reducing agent into an etchant provided by the etchant source within the etchant conduit.
Kameda teaches a structure for cleaning a processing chamber.
Kameda teaches a cleaning gas including hydrogen to form a cleaning gas mixture. (See Kameda, Abstract, Fig. 1, paragraphs 5, 29, 117, 169.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a reducing agent conduit connected to the etchant conduit; a reducing agent supply valve arranged along the reducing agent conduit; an etchant supply valve arranged along the etchant conduit; and wherein the reducing agent conduit is connected to the etchant conduit between the etchant supply valve and the exhaust conduit to introduce a reducing agent into an etchant provided by the etchant source within the etchant conduit, because Kameda teaches this mixtures of cleaning gas can be formed with hydrogen gas and this structure would enable the mixture of cleaning gas to be formed. (See Kameda, Abstract, Fig. 1, paragraphs 5, 29, 117, 169.)
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
US Pat. Pub. No. 20220129698 A1 to Moradian et al (hereinafter Moradian) in view of US Pat. Num. 5,154,773 to Takayuki Furusawa (hereinafter Furusawa) and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20090170328 A1 to Kameda et al (hereinafter Kameda) as applied to claim 13 and US Pat. Pub. No. 20240271273 A1 to Mizushima et al (hereinafter Mizushima).
Regarding claim 14, Moradian does not explicitly teach the etchant supply valve and the reducing agent supply valve are operably associated to heat the exhaust conduit using heat generated by reducing the etchant with the reducing agent within the etchant conduit.
Mizushima teaches a structure for cleaning a processing chamber.
Mizushima teaches a cleaning gas including hydrogen to form a cleaning gas mixture. (See Mizushima, Abstract, Fig. 1-6, 8-10, 14-21, paragraphs 6, 32, 52, 83, 111-112, 129, 131.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the etchant supply valve and the reducing agent supply valve are operably associated to heat the exhaust conduit using heat generated by reducing the etchant with the reducing agent within the etchant conduit, because Mizushima teaches this mixtures of cleaning gas can be formed with hydrogen gas and this structure would enable the mixture of cleaning gas to be formed. (See Mizushima, Abstract, Fig. 1-6, 8-10, 14-21, paragraphs 6, 32, 52, 83, 111-112, 129, 131.)
Regarding claim 14, Moradian does not explicitly teach the etchant supply valve and the reducing agent supply valve are operably associated with the processor to heat the exhaust conduit using heat generated by reducing the etchant with the reducing agent within the etchant conduit .
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before, because Moradian teaches the use of the processor allows the timing of the cleaning or preventative maintenance to be predictively determined or more efficiently scheduled.
The selection of something based on its known suitability for its intended use has been held to support a prima facie case of obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. lnterchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). See MPEP 2144.07. Therefore, taking the references as a whole, it would have been obvious to have the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the etchant supply valve and the reducing agent supply valve are operably associated with the processor to heat the exhaust conduit using heat generated by reducing the etchant with the reducing agent within the etchant conduit, with a reasonable expectation of success because the use of the processor is known in the art to control processing operations and allow for more efficient scheduling. (See Moradian, Abstract, paragraphs 4, 6-9, 17, 19-20, 22, 24, 27-36, 38-42, 44-45, 47-48, 50, 54-56, 61.)
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
US Pat. Pub. No. 20220129698 A1 to Moradian et al (hereinafter Moradian) in view of US Pat. Num. 5,154,773 to Takayuki Furusawa (hereinafter Furusawa) and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20090170328 A1 to Kameda et al (hereinafter Kameda) as applied to claim 13 and US Pat. Pub. No. 20200230666 A1 to Takezawa et al (hereinafter Takezawa).
Regarding claim 15, Moradian does not explicitly teach the etchant source comprises chlorine (Cl2) gas, wherein the reducing agent comprises hydrogen (H2) gas.
Takezawa teaches a structure for cleaning a processing chamber.
Takezawa teaches the etchant source comprises chlorine (Cl2) gas, wherein the reducing agent comprises hydrogen (H2) gas. (See Takezawa, Abstract, Fig. 1-6, 8-10, 14-21, paragraphs 3, 30-31, 50, and 79-80.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the etchant source comprises chlorine (Cl2) gas, wherein the reducing agent comprises hydrogen (H2) gas, because Takezawa teaches the etchant source comprises chlorine (Cl2) gas, wherein the reducing agent comprises hydrogen (H2) gas as effective cleaning gases. (See Takezawa, Abstract, Fig. 1-6, 8-10, 14-21, paragraphs 3, 30-31, 50, and 79-80.)
Regarding claim 15, applicant claims a specific material or article worked upon including chlorine gas. The coating apparatus in the applied references would be capable of coating these substrates. Inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. In re Young, 75 F.2d 966, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
US Pat. Pub. No. 20220129698 A1 to Moradian et al (hereinafter Moradian) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Num. 5,154,773 to Takayuki Furusawa (hereinafter Furusawa) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20240271273 A1 to Mizushima et al (hereinafter Mizushima).
Regarding claim 17, Moradian does not explicitly teach wherein the countermeasure executed by the processor comprises: fluidly separating the exhaust arrangement from the chamber arrangement.
Furusawa teaches the countermeasure executed by the processor comprises: fluidly separating (16) the exhaust arrangement from the chamber arrangement (21). (See Furusawa, Abstract, Fig. 1, col. 4, lines 25-35, col. 5, lines 1-36.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the countermeasure executed by the processor comprises: fluidly separating the exhaust arrangement from the chamber arrangement, because Furusawa teaches this step would allow the exhaust unit to be heated and cleaned. (See Furusawa, Abstract, Fig. 1, col. 4, lines 25-35, col. 5, lines 1-36.)
Regarding claim 17, Moradian does not explicitly teach fluidly coupling the exhaust arrangement to an etchant source.
Furusawa teaches fluidly coupling the exhaust arrangement to an etchant source (19). (See Furusawa, Abstract, Fig. 1, col. 4, lines 25-35, col. 5, lines 1-36.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the fluidly coupling the exhaust arrangement to an etchant source, because Furusawa teaches this step would allow the exhaust unit to be cleaned. (See Furusawa, Abstract, Fig. 1, col. 4, lines 25-35, col. 5, lines 1-36.)
Regarding claim 17, Moradian does not explicitly teach wherein the countermeasure executed by the processor comprises: heating the exhaust arrangement using a reducing agent provided by the reducing agent source and an etchant provided by the etchant source.
Mizushima teaches the countermeasure executed by the processor comprises: heating the exhaust arrangement using a reducing agent provided by the reducing agent source and an etchant provided by the etchant source. (See Mizushima, Abstract, Fig. 1-6, 8-10, 14-21, paragraphs 6, 32, 52, 83, 111-112, 129, 131.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the countermeasure executed by the processor comprises: heating the exhaust arrangement using a reducing agent provided by the reducing agent source and an etchant provided by the etchant source, because Mizushima teaches this step would allow the by-products in the exhaust pipe to be removed. (See Mizushima, Abstract, Fig. 1-6, 8-10, 14-21, paragraphs 6, 32, 52, 82-83, 111-112, 129, 131.)
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
US Pat. Pub. No. 20220129698 A1 to Moradian et al (hereinafter Moradian) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Num. 6,368,567 B2 to Comita et al (hereinafter Comita).
Regarding claim 18, Moradian does not explicitly teach the chamber arrangement comprises susceptor supported from rotation within a chamber body, the chamber body configured to flow a material layer precursor across a substrate seated on the susceptor.
Comita teaches the chamber arrangement comprises susceptor (115) supported from rotation within a chamber body (100) , the chamber body configured to flow a material layer precursor across a substrate seated on the susceptor. (See Comita, Abstract, Fig. 1, col. 1, lines 12-25, lines 33-46; col. 2, lines 15-25.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the chamber arrangement comprises susceptor supported from rotation within a chamber body, because Comita teaches this structure is effective for forming a deposit on a substrate. (See Comita, Abstract, Fig. 1, col. 1, lines 12-25, lines 33-46; col. 2, lines 15-25.)
Regarding claim 18, Moradian does not explicitly teach the chamber body configured to flow a material layer precursor across a substrate seated on the susceptor.
Comita teaches the chamber body configured to flow a material layer precursor across a substrate seated on the susceptor. (See Comita, Abstract, Fig. 1, col. 1, lines 12-25, lines 33-46; col. 2, lines 15-25.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the chamber body configured to flow a material layer precursor across a substrate seated on the susceptor, because Comita teaches this structure is effective for forming a deposit on a substrate. (See Comita, Abstract, Fig. 1, col. 1, lines 12-25, lines 33-46; col. 2, lines 15-25.)
Claim 18 recites an intended use clause (i. e. the chamber body configured to flow a material layer precursor across a substrate seated on the susceptor ). A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Comita is capable of performing the intended use and as a result meets the claim limitation.
Claims 1-2, 4-7, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20220129698 A1 to Mizushima et al (hereinafter Mizushima) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20220129698 A1 to Moradian et al (hereinafter Moradian).
Regarding claim 1, Mizushima teaches a semiconductor processing system, comprising: a chamber arrangement (10); an exhaust arrangement (18) connected to the chamber arrangement (10). (See Mizushima, Abstract, paragraphs 33-47, 55, 70, and 140.)
Mizushima does not explicitly teach an accretion sensor supported within the exhaust arrangement; and a processor disposed in communication with the accretion sensor and responsive to instructions recorded on a non-transitory machine-readable medium to: receive an accretion signal from the accretion sensor, the accretion signal indicative of an accretion amount disposed within the exhaust arrangement; receive a predetermined accretion amount value ; compare the accretion amount to the predetermined accretion amount value; and execute an accretion countermeasure when the accretion amount is greater than the predetermined accretion amount value.
Moradian teaches an accretion sensor (124-133, see paragraph 29) supported within the exhaust arrangement; and a processor (401) disposed in communication with the accretion sensor and responsive to instructions recorded on a non-transitory machine-readable medium to: receive an accretion signal from the accretion sensor (305), the accretion signal indicative of an accretion amount disposed within the exhaust arrangement (310); receive a predetermined accretion amount value (threshold in paragraph 19) ; compare the accretion amount to the predetermined accretion amount value (paragraphs 36, 39, 42, and 48) ; and execute an accretion countermeasure when the accretion amount is greater than the predetermined accretion amount value (315). (See Moradian, Abstract, paragraphs 4, 6-9, 17, 19-20, 22, 24, 27-36, 38-42, 44-45, 47-48, 50, 54-56, 61.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to include an accretion sensor supported within the exhaust arrangement; and a processor disposed in communication with the accretion sensor and responsive to instructions recorded on a non-transitory machine-readable medium to: receive an accretion signal from the accretion sensor, the accretion signal indicative of an accretion amount disposed within the exhaust arrangement; receive a predetermined accretion amount value ; compare the accretion amount to the predetermined accretion amount value; and execute an accretion countermeasure when the accretion amount is greater than the predetermined accretion amount value, because Moradian teaches this arrangement allows the timing of the cleaning or preventative maintenance to be predictively determined or more efficiently scheduled. (See Moradian, Abstract, paragraphs 4, 6-9, 17, 19-20, 22, 24, 27-36, 38-42, 44-45, 47-48, 50, 54-56, 61.)
Regarding claim 2, Mizushima does not explicitly teach the accretion sensor includes a quartz crystal microbalance (QCM) structure.
Moradian teaches the accretion sensor includes a quartz crystal microbalance (QCM) structure. (See Moradian, Abstract, Figs. 1-4, and paragraph 29. )
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to include the accretion sensor includes a quartz crystal microbalance (QCM) structure, because Moradian teaches this arrangement allows the timing of the cleaning or preventative maintenance to be predictively determined or more efficiently scheduled. (See Moradian, Abstract, paragraphs 4, 6-9, 17, 19-20, 22, 24, 27-36, 38-42, 44-45, 47-48, 50, 54-56, 61.)
Regarding claim 4, Mizushima does not explicitly teach the accretion amount is disposed at least in part on the QCM structure.
Moradian teaches the accretion amount is disposed at least in part on the QCM structure. (See Moradian, Abstract, Figs. 1-4, and paragraph 29. )
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to include the accretion amount is disposed at least in part on the QCM structure, because Moradian teaches this arrangement allows the timing of the cleaning or preventative maintenance to be predictively determined or more efficiently scheduled. (See Moradian, Abstract, paragraphs 4, 6-9, 17, 19-20, 22, 24, 27-36, 38-42, 44-45, 47-48, 50, 54-56, 61.)
Regarding claim 5, Mizushima teaches the exhaust arrangement (18) comprises an exhaust conduit (conduit from 26 to bottom of 10) connected to the chamber arrangement (10). (See Mizushima, Fig. 1.)
Mizushima does not explicitly teach the accretion sensor is supported within the exhaust conduit.
Moradian teaches the exhaust arrangement (106) comprises an exhaust conduit (section of 106 extending between 103 and 112, perpendicular to the foreline ) connected to the chamber arrangement (103) , wherein the accretion sensor (124-133) is supported within the exhaust conduit (section of 106 extending between 103 and 112, perpendicular to the foreline ) . (See Moradian, Abstract, Figs. 1-4, and paragraph 29. )
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to include the accretion sensor is supported within the exhaust conduit, because Moradian teaches this arrangement allows the timing of the cleaning or preventative maintenance to be predictively determined or more efficiently scheduled. (See Moradian, Abstract, paragraphs 4, 6-9, 17, 19-20, 22, 24, 27-36, 38-42, 44-45, 47-48, 50, 54-56, 61.)
Regarding claim 6, Mizushima does not explicitly teach an isolation valve connecting the exhaust conduit to the chamber arrangement, wherein the isolation valve separates the accretion sensor from the chamber arrangement.
Moradian teaches further comprising an isolation valve (115, 118, 121) connecting the exhaust conduit to the chamber arrangement (103) , wherein the isolation valve (115,121) separates the accretion sensor (127-133) from the chamber arrangement (103). (See Moradian, Abstract, Figs. 1-4, and paragraph 29. )
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to include an isolation valve connecting the exhaust conduit to the chamber arrangement, wherein the isolation valve separates the accretion sensor from the chamber arrangement, because Moradian teaches this arrangement allows the timing of the cleaning or preventative maintenance to be predictively determined or more efficiently scheduled. (See Moradian, Abstract, paragraphs 4, 6-9, 17, 19-20, 22, 24, 27-36, 38-42, 44-45, 47-48, 50, 54-56, 61.)
Regarding claim 7, Mizushima does not explicitly teach a pressure control valve arranged along the exhaust conduit, wherein the pressure control valve is between the accretion sensor and the chamber arrangement.
Moradian teaches a pressure control valve arranged along the exhaust conduit (section of 106 extending between 103 and 112, perpendicular to the foreline ) , wherein the pressure control valve (118) is between the accretion sensor (127-133) and the chamber arrangement (103). (See Mizushima, Abstract, Figs. 1-4, and paragraph 29. )
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to include a pressure control valve arranged along the exhaust conduit, wherein the pressure control valve is between the accretion sensor and the chamber arrangement, because Moradian teaches this arrangement allows the timing of the cleaning or preventative maintenance to be predictively determined or more efficiently scheduled. (See Moradian, Abstract, paragraphs 4, 6-9, 17, 19-20, 22, 24, 27-36, 38-42, 44-45, 47-48, 50, 54-56, 61.)
Regarding claim 11, Mizushima does not teach a maintenance valve connected to the exhaust conduit, wherein the accretion sensor is supported within the exhaust conduit between the maintenance valve and the chamber arrangement.
Moradian teaches a maintenance valve (121) connected to the exhaust conduit (section of 106 extending between 103 and 112, perpendicular to the foreline ), wherein the accretion sensor (130) is supported within the exhaust conduit (section of 106 extending between 103 and 112, perpendicular to the foreline ) between the maintenance valve (121) and the chamber arrangement (103). (See Moradian, Abstract, Figs. 1-4, and paragraph 29. )
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to include a maintenance valve connected to the exhaust conduit, wherein the accretion sensor is supported within the exhaust conduit between the maintenance valve and the chamber arrangement, because Moradian teaches this arrangement allows the timing of the cleaning or preventative maintenance to be predictively determined or more efficiently scheduled. (See Moradian, Abstract, paragraphs 4, 6-9, 17, 19-20, 22, 24, 27-36, 38-42, 44-45, 47-48, 50, 54-56, 61.)
Claims 8-10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20220129698 A1 to Moradian et al (hereinafter Moradian) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20240271273 A1 to Mizushima et al (hereinafter Mizushima) as applied to claim 7 and further in view of US Pat. Num. 5,154,773 to Takayuki Furusawa (hereinafter Furusawa).
Regarding claim 8, Mizushima does not explicitly teach the exhaust conduit has an etchant port, wherein the pressure control valve is between the accretion sensor and the etchant port.
Furusawa teaches the exhaust conduit (13) has an etchant port (19). (See Furusawa, Abstract, Fig. 1, col. 4, lines 25-35, col. 5, lines 1-36.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the exhaust conduit has an etchant port, because Furusawa teaches this structure would enable unwanted deposits to be removed. (See Furusawa, Abstract, Fig. 1, col. 4, lines 25-35, col. 5, lines 1-36.)
Regarding claim 8, Mizushima the pressure control valve is between the accretion sensor and the etchant port.
Furusawa the pressure control valve (118) is between the accretion sensor (133) and foreline clean system 210. (See Furusawa, Abstract, Fig. 1, col. 4, lines 25-35, col. 5, lines 1-36.)
Examiner is considering the foreline clean system which receives gases NF3 and Argon to remove build-up from the pipes (See Moradian, paragraph 44) to be an art recognized equivalent of the etchant port in Furusawa.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the pressure control valve is between the accretion sensor and the etchant port, because a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize this location would enable the gas etchant gas to clean the pressure control valve and the sensor would be able to determine the level of build-up and cleaning required. (See Moradian, Abstract, Figs. 1-4, and paragraphs 8, 19, 28-29, 31-32, 39, 44. )
Regarding claim 9, Mizushima does not explicitly teach an etchant conduit connected to the etchant port; and an etchant source connected to the etchant conduit and bypassing the chamber arrangement, etchant provided to the exhaust conduit bypassing the chamber arrangement.
Furusawa teaches an etchant conduit connected to the etchant port; and an etchant source connected to the etchant conduit and bypassing the chamber arrangement, etchant provided to the exhaust conduit bypassing the chamber arrangement (See Furusawa, Abstract, Fig. 1, col. 4, lines 25-35, col. 5, lines 1-36.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have an etchant conduit connected to the etchant port; and an etchant source connected to the etchant conduit and bypassing the chamber arrangement, etchant provided to the exhaust conduit bypassing the chamber arrangement, because Furusawa teaches this structure would enable unwanted deposits to be removed. (See Furusawa, Abstract, Fig. 1, col. 4, lines 25-35, col. 5, lines 1-36.)
Regarding claim 10, Mizushima does not explicitly teach the etchant source includes chlorine (Cl2) gas.
Furusawa teaches the etchant source includes a hydrogen chloride gas and a gas containing chlorine may be used in place of hydrogen chloride. (See Furusawa, Abstract, Fig. 1, col. 4, lines 25-35, col. 5, lines 1-36.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the etchant source includes chlorine (Cl2) gas as an art recognized equivalent for a chloride containing gas. (See Furusawa, Abstract, Fig. 1, col. 4, lines 25-35, col. 5, lines 1-36.)
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 10, applicant claims a specific material or article worked upon including chlorine gas. The coating apparatus in the applied references would be capable of coating these substrates. Inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. In re Young, 75 F.2d 966, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)).
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 12, Mizushima an exhaust conduit, connected to the chamber arrangement, wherein the accretion sensor is supported within the exhaust conduit.
Moradian teaches an exhaust conduit (section of 106 extending between 103 and 112, perpendicular to the foreline ), connected to the chamber arrangement (103), wherein the accretion sensor (124, 127, 130, 133) is supported within the exhaust conduit. (See Moradian, Abstract, paragraphs 4, 6-9, 17, 19-20, 22, 24, 27-36, 38-42, 44-45, 47-48, 50, 54-56, 61.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to include an exhaust conduit, connected to the chamber arrangement, wherein the accretion sensor is supported within the exhaust conduit, because Moradian teaches this arrangement allows the timing of the cleaning or preventative maintenance to be predictively determined or more efficiently scheduled. (See Moradian, Abstract, paragraphs 4, 6-9, 17, 19-20, 22, 24, 27-36, 38-42, 44-45, 47-48, 50, 54-56, 61.)
Regarding claim 12, Mizushima does not explicitly teach an etchant conduit connected to the etchant port; and an etchant source connected to the etchant conduit and bypassing the chamber arrangement.
Furusawa teaches an etchant conduit (19) connected to the etchant port; and an etchant source (square at end of 19) connected to the etchant conduit and bypassing the chamber arrangement (21). (See Furusawa, Abstract, Fig. 1, col. 4, lines 25-35, col. 5, lines 1-36.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have an etchant conduit connected to the exhaust conduit; and an etchant source connected to the etchant conduit, the etchant conduit bypassing the chamber arrangement, because Furusawa teaches this structure would enable unwanted deposits to be removed from the exhaust conduit. (See Furusawa, Abstract, Fig. 1, col. 4, lines 25-35, col. 5, lines 1-36.)
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20240271273 A1 to Mizushima et al (hereinafter Mizushima) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20220129698 A1 to Moradian et al (hereinafter Moradian) in view of US Pat. Num. 5,154,773 to Takayuki Furusawa (hereinafter Furusawa) as applied to claim 12 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20090170328 A1 to Kameda et al (hereinafter Kameda).
Regarding claim 13, Mizushima does not explicitly teach a reducing agent conduit connected to the etchant conduit; a reducing agent supply valve arranged along the reducing agent conduit; an etchant supply valve arranged along the etchant conduit; and wherein the reducing agent conduit is connected to the etchant conduit between the etchant supply valve and the exhaust conduit to introduce a reducing agent into an etchant provided by the etchant source within the etchant conduit.
Kameda teaches a structure for cleaning a processing chamber.
Kameda teaches a cleaning gas including hydrogen to form a cleaning gas mixture. (See Kameda, Abstract, Fig. 1, paragraphs 5, 29, 117, 169.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a reducing agent conduit connected to the etchant conduit; a reducing agent supply valve arranged along the reducing agent conduit; an etchant supply valve arranged along the etchant conduit; and wherein the reducing agent conduit is connected to the etchant conduit between the etchant supply valve and the exhaust conduit to introduce a reducing agent into an etchant provided by the etchant source within the etchant conduit, because Kameda teaches this mixtures of cleaning gas can be formed with hydrogen gas and this structure would enable the mixture of cleaning gas to be formed. (See Kameda, Abstract, Fig. 1, paragraphs 5, 29, 117, 169.)
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
US Pat. Pub. No. 20240271273 A1 to Mizushima et al (hereinafter Mizushima) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20220129698 A1 to Moradian et al (hereinafter Moradian) in view of US Pat. Num. 5,154,773 to Takayuki Furusawa (hereinafter Furusawa) and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20090170328 A1 to Kameda et al (hereinafter Kameda) as applied to claim 13.
Regarding claim 14, Mizushima does not explicitly teach the etchant supply valve and the reducing agent supply valve are operably associated to heat the exhaust conduit using heat generated by reducing the etchant with the reducing agent within the etchant conduit.
Mizushima teaches a structure for cleaning a processing chamber.
Mizushima teaches a cleaning gas including hydrogen to form a cleaning gas mixture. (See Mizushima, Abstract, Fig. 1-6, 8-10, 14-21, paragraphs 6, 32, 52, 83, 111-112, 129, 131.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the etchant supply valve and the reducing agent supply valve are operably associated to heat the exhaust conduit using heat generated by reducing the etchant with the reducing agent within the etchant conduit, because Mizushima teaches this mixtures of cleaning gas can be formed with hydrogen gas and this structure would enable the mixture of cleaning gas to be formed. (See Mizushima, Abstract, Fig. 1-6, 8-10, 14-21, paragraphs 6, 32, 52, 83, 111-112, 129, 131.)
Regarding claim 14, Moradian does not explicitly teach the etchant supply valve and the reducing agent supply valve are operably associated with the processor to heat the exhaust conduit using heat generated by reducing the etchant with the reducing agent within the etchant conduit .
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before, because Moradian teaches the use of the processor allows the timing of the cleaning or preventative maintenance to be predictively determined or more efficiently scheduled.
The selection of something based on its known suitability for its intended use has been held to support a prima facie case of obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. lnterchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). See MPEP 2144.07. Therefore, taking the references as a whole, it would have been obvious to have the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the etchant supply valve and the reducing agent supply valve are operably associated with the processor to heat the exhaust conduit using heat generated by reducing the etchant with the reducing agent within the etchant conduit, with a reasonable expectation of success because the use of the processor is known in the art to control processing operations and allow for more efficient scheduling. (See Moradian, Abstract, paragraphs 4, 6-9, 17, 19-20, 22, 24, 27-36, 38-42, 44-45, 47-48, 50, 54-56, 61.)
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
US Pat. Pub. No. 20240271273 A1 to Mizushima et al (hereinafter Mizushima) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20220129698 A1 to Moradian et al (hereinafter Moradian) in view of US Pat. Num. 5,154,773 to Takayuki Furusawa (hereinafter Furusawa) and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20090170328 A1 to Kameda et al (hereinafter Kameda) as applied to claim 13 and US Pat. Pub. No. 20200230666 A1 to Takezawa et al (hereinafter Takezawa).
Regarding claim 15, Mizushima does not explicitly teach the etchant source comprises chlorine (Cl2) gas, wherein the reducing agent comprises hydrogen (H2) gas.
Takezawa teaches a structure for cleaning a processing chamber.
Takezawa teaches the etchant source comprises chlorine (Cl2) gas, wherein the reducing agent comprises hydrogen (H2) gas. (See Takezawa, Abstract, Fig. 1-6, 8-10, 14-21, paragraphs 3, 30-31, 50, and 79-80.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the etchant source comprises chlorine (Cl2) gas, wherein the reducing agent comprises hydrogen (H2) gas, because Takezawa teaches the etchant source comprises chlorine (Cl2) gas, wherein the reducing agent comprises hydrogen (H2) gas as effective cleaning gases. (See Takezawa, Abstract, Fig. 1-6, 8-10, 14-21, paragraphs 3, 30-31, 50, and 79-80.)
Regarding claim 15, applicant claims a specific material or article worked upon including chlorine gas. The coating apparatus in the applied references would be capable of coating these substrates. Inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. In re Young, 75 F.2d 966, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
US Pat. Pub. No. 20240271273 A1 to Mizushima et al (hereinafter Mizushima) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20220129698 A1 to Moradian et al (hereinafter Moradian) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Num. 5,154,773 to Takayuki Furusawa (hereinafter Furusawa).
Regarding claim 17, Mizushima does not explicitly teach wherein the countermeasure executed by the processor comprises: fluidly separating the exhaust arrangement from the chamber arrangement.
Furusawa teaches the countermeasure executed by the processor comprises: fluidly separating (16) the exhaust arrangement from the chamber arrangement (21). (See Furusawa, Abstract, Fig. 1, col. 4, lines 25-35, col. 5, lines 1-36.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the countermeasure executed by the processor comprises: fluidly separating the exhaust arrangement from the chamber arrangement, because Furusawa teaches this step would allow the exhaust unit to be heated and cleaned. (See Furusawa, Abstract, Fig. 1, col. 4, lines 25-35, col. 5, lines 1-36.)
Regarding claim 17, Mizushima does not explicitly teach fluidly coupling the exhaust arrangement to an etchant source.
Furusawa teaches fluidly coupling the exhaust arrangement to an etchant source (19). (See Furusawa, Abstract, Fig. 1, col. 4, lines 25-35, col. 5, lines 1-36.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the fluidly coupling the exhaust arrangement to an etchant source, because Furusawa teaches this step would allow the exhaust unit to be cleaned. (See Furusawa, Abstract, Fig. 1, col. 4, lines 25-35, col. 5, lines 1-36.)
Regarding claim 17, Mizushima does not explicitly teach wherein the countermeasure executed by the processor comprises: heating the exhaust arrangement using a reducing agent provided by the reducing agent source and an etchant provided by the etchant source.
Mizushima teaches the countermeasure executed by the processor comprises: heating the exhaust arrangement using a reducing agent provided by the reducing agent source and an etchant provided by the etchant source. (See Mizushima, Abstract, Fig. 1-6, 8-10, 14-21, paragraphs 6, 32, 52, 83, 111-112, 129, 131.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the countermeasure executed by the processor comprises: heating the exhaust arrangement using a reducing agent provided by the reducing agent source and an etchant provided by the etchant source, because Mizushima teaches this step would allow the by-products in the exhaust pipe to be removed. (See Mizushima, Abstract, Fig. 1-6, 8-10, 14-21, paragraphs 6, 32, 52, 82-83, 111-112, 129, 131.)
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
US Pat. Pub. No. 20240271273 A1 to Mizushima et al (hereinafter Mizushima) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20220129698 A1 to Moradian et al (hereinafter Moradian) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Num. 6,368,567 B2 to Comita et al (hereinafter Comita).
Regarding claim 18, Mizushima does not explicitly teach the chamber arrangement comprises susceptor supported from rotation within a chamber body, the chamber body configured to flow a material layer precursor across a substrate seated on the susceptor.
Comita teaches the chamber arrangement comprises susceptor (115) supported from rotation within a chamber body (100) , the chamber body configured to flow a material layer precursor across a substrate seated on the susceptor. (See Comita, Abstract, Fig. 1, col. 1, lines 12-25, lines 33-46; col. 2, lines 15-25.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the chamber arrangement comprises susceptor supported from rotation within a chamber body, because Comita teaches this structure is effective for forming a deposit on a substrate. (See Comita, Abstract, Fig. 1, col. 1, lines 12-25, lines 33-46; col. 2, lines 15-25.)
Regarding claim 18, Moradian does not explicitly teach the chamber body configured to flow a material layer precursor across a substrate seated on the susceptor.
Comita teaches the chamber body configured to flow a material layer precursor across a substrate seated on the susceptor. (See Comita, Abstract, Fig. 1, col. 1, lines 12-25, lines 33-46; col. 2, lines 15-25.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the chamber body configured to flow a material layer precursor across a substrate seated on the susceptor, because Comita teaches this structure is effective for forming a deposit on a substrate. (See Comita, Abstract, Fig. 1, col. 1, lines 12-25, lines 33-46; col. 2, lines 15-25.)
Claim 18 recites an intended use clause (i. e. the chamber body configured to flow a material layer precursor across a substrate seated on the susceptor ). A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Comita is capable of performing the intended use and as a result meets the claim limitation.
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 at (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