DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to Applicant’s reply filed 7/20/2026.
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 .
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.
Claim Status
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 18-20 are withdrawn.
Claims 1, 5, 7-10, 12-14, and 16-17 are currently amended.
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 14 is 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 14, the scope of the claim is indefinite because the claim recites physical characteristics of the apparatus (form of the plurality of apertures) as a function of an object that is variable (individual flow conductances). See MPEP 2173.05(b)(II).
Particularly, a PHOSITA would recognize that flow conductance through individual apertures of a showerhead is highly dependent on a number of factors as well as time-dependent degradation of the showerhead and the surfaces of each aperture. As such, a PHOSITA would be unable to determine the exact metes and bounds of the claim.
In the interest of compact and expedited prosecution, the Examiner interprets the claim as being met by any showerhead with apertures meeting the limitations of claims 12-13.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rajeev (US Pub. 2022/0130687) in view of Woong (KR 20070089533 A, using the attached English machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, Rajeev teaches a semiconductor processing chamber ([0029] and Fig. 2, either left/right chamber), comprising: a chamber body ([0029] and Fig. 2, chamber body #202); a substrate support disposed within the chamber body ([0028] and Fig. 2, pedestal #228), the substrate support defining a substrate support surface (see Fig. 2, for substrate #229); and a faceplate supported atop the chamber body ([0029] and Fig. 2, faceplate #246), wherein: the substrate support and a bottom surface of the faceplate at least partially define a processing region within the semiconductor processing chamber ([0025] and Fig. 2, processing region #220), the bottom surface of the faceplate defines a main surface (see Fig. 2) and the faceplate defines a plurality of apertures through the faceplate ([0029]: showerhead dispenses gas through faceplate, apertures not depicted).
Rajeev does not teach the remainder of the limitations of the claim.
However, Woong teaches wherein the bottom surface of the faceplate defines an annular protrusion (Woong - Fig. 2b, downward protruding annular feature) that is disposed directly above at least a portion of a radially outer 10% of the substrate support surface (see Fig. 2b) and an annular groove (Woong - Fig. 1a, indented outer portion) that is positioned radially outward of the annular protrusion (given the positioning of the aforementioned features in Fig. 1a and 2b), wherein at least a portion of the annular groove extends radially outward beyond the substrate support surface (see Fig. 1a); the faceplate comprises a first depth from a top surface of the faceplate to the main surface (see Fig. 2b, depth at center), a depth from the top surface of the faceplate to a bottom surface of the annular protrusion (see Fig. 2b, depth to bottom of #123), and a third depth from the top surface of the faceplate to a bottom surface of the annular groove (see Fig. 2b, depth at edge), wherein the second depth is greater than the first depth (see Fig. 2b, protrusion depth greater than center), wherein a first subset of the plurality of apertures extend through the annular protrusion and a second subset of the plurality of apertures extend through the annular groove (see Figs. 1a and 2b).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to combine the features of the Fig. 1a/2b embodiments of Woong and modify the faceplate of the Rajeev apparatus in order to correct and uniformize the plasma etch rate across the wafer (Woong – pg. 3, last ~15 lines of penultimate paragraph, final paragraph). Additionally, Woong states that a PHOSITA would be capable of modifications to explicitly shown embodiments to achieve the described results (Woong – last 4 lines of penultimate paragraph).
While Woong does not explicitly show the limitation: wherein the third depth is less than the first depth, the Examiner regards the particular teachings of Woong as rendering this limitation obvious to a PHOSITA.
Particularly, Woong teaches that the center and edge plasma generation is directly affected by the height of the center and edge portions of the upper electrode #120 and, by tailoring the profile of the upper electrode, plasma uniformity can be obtained (English translation provided 1/30/2026, pg. 3, lines 7-17). In closing, Woong remarks:
PNG
media_image1.png
98
630
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The Examiner regards the disclosure of Woong, particularly the passage above, as proof that a PHOSITA could arrive at the claimed invention (thinner edges, thicker middle) despite showing an exemplary embodiment in Fig. 2B with thicker edges and thinner middle. The technical teachings of Woong appear to be sufficient to allow a PHOSITA to tailor the upper electrode profile, most notably the inner and outer thicknesses/distances, to optimize the plasma uniformity of the process.
Thus it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to combine the features of the Fig. 1a/2b embodiments of Woong and modify the faceplate of the Rajeev apparatus in order to correct and uniformize the plasma etch rate across the wafer (Woong – pg. 3, last ~15 lines of penultimate paragraph, final paragraph). Additionally, Woong states that a PHOSITA would be capable of modifications to explicitly shown embodiments to achieve the described results (Woong – last 4 lines of penultimate paragraph).
To complete the Graham factors, the Examiner respectfully submits that a PHOSITA in the CVD arts is a highly educated, highly trained, highly skilled engineer with a breadth of knowledge spanning multiple scientific disciplines (chemical, mechanical, electrical, material, etc.)- thus would be capable of arriving (and motivated to arrive) at the claimed invention using Rajeev and Woong without benefit of the instant disclosure.
Regarding claim 2, Rajeev teaches wherein: the substrate support comprises a heater pocket that protrudes upward from an upper surface of the substrate support (see Fig. 2, portion of #228 radially outward of #229, comprises heating elements #232).
Rajeev does not teach the remainder of the limitations of the claim.
However, Woong teaches wherein the annular protrusion is disposed radially inward of a peripheral edge of the heater pocket (see Fig. 1a, compared to region identified in Rajeev).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to combine the features of the Fig. 1a/2b embodiments of Woong and modify the faceplate of the Rajeev apparatus in order to correct and uniformize the plasma etch rate across the wafer (Woong – pg. 3, last ~15 lines of penultimate paragraph, final paragraph). Additionally, Woong states that a PHOSITA would be capable of modifications to explicitly shown embodiments to achieve the described results (Woong – last 4 lines of penultimate paragraph).
Regarding claim 3, Rajeev does not teach the added limitations of the claim.
However, Woong teaches wherein: an outer edge of the annular protrusion is at a same radial position as an inner edge of the annular groove (see Figs. 1a and 2b, when features combined, they would necessarily be directly adjacent as claimed).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to combine the features of the Fig. 1a/2b embodiments of Woong and modify the faceplate of the Rajeev apparatus in order to correct and uniformize the plasma etch rate across the wafer (Woong – pg. 3, last ~15 lines of penultimate paragraph, final paragraph). Additionally, Woong states that a PHOSITA would be capable of modifications to explicitly shown embodiments to achieve the described results (Woong – last 4 lines of penultimate paragraph).
Regarding claims 4 and 6-8, Rajeev does not teach the added limitations of the claim.
While Woong does not explicitly teach wherein: a vertical distance between a peak of the annular protrusion and a valley of the annular groove is between about 0.05 inches and 0.3 inches (claim 4), a width of one or both of the annular protrusion and the annular groove is between about 0.05 inches and 0.5 inches (claim 6), the annular protrusion protrudes from a main surface of the bottom surface of the faceplate by a distance of between about 0.005 inches and 0.2 inches (claim 7), or the annular groove is recessed relative to a main surface of the bottom surface of the faceplate by a distance of between about 0.001 inches and 0.05 inches (claim 8), such a difference amounts to an obvious change of size/proportion.
The courts have held that: “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” – see MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A) and Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to combine the features of the Fig. 1a/2b embodiments of Woong and modify the faceplate of the Rajeev apparatus in order to correct and uniformize the plasma etch rate across the wafer (Woong – pg. 3, last ~15 lines of penultimate paragraph, final paragraph). Additionally, Woong states that a PHOSITA would be capable of modifications to explicitly shown embodiments to achieve the described results (Woong – last 4 lines of penultimate paragraph).
Regarding claim 5, Rajeev does not teach the added limitations of the claim.
However, Woong teaches wherein: transition areas between the main surface of the bottom surface of the faceplate one or both of the annular protrusion and the annular groove comprise rounded corners (see rounded edges around groove in Fig. 1a and protrusion in Fig. 2b).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to combine the features of the Fig. 1a/2b embodiments of Woong and modify the faceplate of the Rajeev apparatus in order to correct and uniformize the plasma etch rate across the wafer (Woong – pg. 3, last ~15 lines of penultimate paragraph, final paragraph). Additionally, Woong states that a PHOSITA would be capable of modifications to explicitly shown embodiments to achieve the described results (Woong – last 4 lines of penultimate paragraph).
Regarding claim 9, Rajeev does not teach the added limitations of the claim
However, Woong teaches wherein: walls defining the annular groove extend at an angle of between about 10 degrees and 45 degrees relative to the main surface of the bottom surface of the faceplate (see Fig. 1a, appears to be in the claimed range even considering the drawings are not necessarily to scale).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to combine the features of the Fig. 1a/2b embodiments of Woong and modify the faceplate of the Rajeev apparatus in order to correct and uniformize the plasma etch rate across the wafer (Woong – pg. 3, last ~15 lines of penultimate paragraph, final paragraph). Additionally, Woong states that a PHOSITA would be capable of modifications to explicitly shown embodiments to achieve the described results (Woong – last 4 lines of penultimate paragraph) such that even if Woong does not explicitly meet the limitations of the claim, it would be an obvious modification of Woong that would.
Claims 10-11 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woong (KR 20070089533 A, using the attached English machine translation).
Regarding claim 10, Woong teaches a semiconductor processing faceplate (Fig. 1a/2b, upper electrode #20/#120), comprising: a body defining a top surface and a bottom surface of the faceplate (see Fig. 2b), wherein
the bottom surface of the faceplate defines a main surface (see Fig. 2b), an annular protrusion (Fig. 2b, downward protruding annular feature) and an annular groove (Woong - Fig. 1a, indented outer portion) that is positioned radially outward of the annular protrusion (given the positioning of the aforementioned features in Fig. 1a and 2b), wherein at least a portion of the annular groove extends radially outward beyond the substrate support surface (see Fig. 1a); the faceplate comprises a first depth from a top surface of the faceplate to the main surface (see Fig. 2b, depth at center), a depth from the top surface of the faceplate to a bottom surface of the annular protrusion (see Fig. 2b, depth to bottom of #123), and a third depth from the top surface of the faceplate to a bottom surface of the annular groove (see Fig. 2b, depth at edge), wherein the second depth is greater than the first depth (see Fig. 2b, protrusion depth greater than center),
the faceplate defines a plurality of apertures through the faceplate (see Fig. 2b), wherein a first subset of the plurality of apertures extend through the annular protrusion and a second subset of the plurality of apertures extend through the annular groove (see Figs. 1a and 2b).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to combine the features of the Fig. 1a/2b embodiments of Woong in order to correct and uniformize the plasma etch rate across the wafer (Woong – pg. 3, last ~15 lines of penultimate paragraph, final paragraph). Additionally, Woong states that a PHOSITA would be capable of modifications to explicitly shown embodiments to achieve the described results (Woong – last 4 lines of penultimate paragraph).
Thus, as a combination of embodiments, Woong would teach wherein the annular protrusion is positioned radially inward of the annular groove (given the positioning of the aforementioned features in Fig. 1a and 2b).
While Woong does not explicitly show the limitation: wherein the third depth is less than the first depth, the Examiner regards the particular teachings of Woong as rendering this limitation obvious to a PHOSITA.
Particularly, Woong teaches that the center and edge plasma generation is directly affected by the height of the center and edge portions of the upper electrode #120 and, by tailoring the profile of the upper electrode, plasma uniformity can be obtained (English translation provided 1/30/2026, pg. 3, lines 7-17). In closing, Woong remarks:
PNG
media_image1.png
98
630
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The Examiner regards the disclosure of Woong, particularly the passage above, as proof that a PHOSITA could arrive at the claimed invention (thinner edges, thicker middle) despite showing an exemplary embodiment in Fig. 2B with thicker edges and thinner middle. The technical teachings of Woong appear to be sufficient to allow a PHOSITA to tailor the upper electrode profile, most notably the inner and outer thicknesses/distances, to optimize the plasma uniformity of the process.
Thus it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to combine the features of the Fig. 1a/2b embodiments of Woong and modify the faceplate of the Rajeev apparatus in order to correct and uniformize the plasma etch rate across the wafer (Woong – pg. 3, last ~15 lines of penultimate paragraph, final paragraph). Additionally, Woong states that a PHOSITA would be capable of modifications to explicitly shown embodiments to achieve the described results (Woong – last 4 lines of penultimate paragraph).
To complete the Graham factors, the Examiner respectfully submits that a PHOSITA in the CVD arts is a highly educated, highly trained, highly skilled engineer with a breadth of knowledge spanning multiple scientific disciplines (chemical, mechanical, electrical, material, etc.)- thus would be capable of arriving (and motivated to arrive) at the claimed invention using Rajeev and Woong without benefit of the instant disclosure.
While Woong does not explicitly teach wherein an outer edge of the annular protrusion is within 5 mm of an inner edge of the annular groove, such a difference amounts to an obvious change of size/proportion. The courts have held that: “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” – see MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A) and Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Regarding claim 11, Woong teaches wherein: a transition area between the annular protrusion and the annular groove comprises rounded corners (see rounded edges around groove in Fig. 1a and protrusion in Fig. 2b).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to combine the features of the Fig. 1a/2b embodiments of Woong in order to correct and uniformize the plasma etch rate across the wafer (Woong – pg. 3, last ~15 lines of penultimate paragraph, final paragraph).
Regarding claim 15, Woong teaches wherein: a protrusion distance of the annular protrusion varies across a width of the annular protrusion (see Fig. 2b, width decreases from top to bottom).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to combine the features of the Fig. 1a/2b embodiments of Woong in order to correct and uniformize the plasma etch rate across the wafer (Woong – pg. 3, last ~15 lines of penultimate paragraph, final paragraph).
Regarding claim 16, while Woong does not explicitly teach wherein: a distance from a trough of the annular groove and a main surface of the bottom surface of the faceplate is greater than or equal to a distance from a peak of the annular protrusion and the main surface, such a difference amounts to an obvious change of size/proportion. The courts have held that: “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” – see MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A) and Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Additionally, Woong states that a PHOSITA would be capable of modifications to explicitly shown embodiments to achieve the described results (Woong – last 4 lines of penultimate paragraph).
Regarding claim 17, Woong teaches wherein: the annular protrusion is not parallel with the main surface of the bottom surface of the faceplate (see Fig. 2b, angled portions of the protrusion are not parallel to flat bottom surface).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to combine the features of the Fig. 1a/2b embodiments of Woong in order to correct and uniformize the plasma etch rate across the wafer (Woong – pg. 3, last ~15 lines of penultimate paragraph, final paragraph).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woong (KR 20070089533 A, using the attached English machine translation), as applied to claims 10-11 and 15-17 above, and further in view of Allayavalli (US Pub. 2016/0322200).
The limitations of claims 10-11 and 15-17 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 12, Woong does not teach the added limitations of the claim.
However, Allayavalli teaches wherein: each of the plurality of apertures comprises an upper cylindrical portion and a lower cylindrical portion, the lower cylindrical portion having a smaller diameter than the upper cylindrical portion (Allayavalli – Fig. 7, upper portion #705 and narrower lower portion #710).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the shape of the apertures of Woong to comprise the shape shown in Fig. 7 of Allayavalli in order to minimize flow of gases therethrough, which minimizes plasma formation near the openings (Allayavalli – [0047]).
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woong (KR 20070089533 A, using the attached English machine translation) and Allayavalli (US Pub. 2016/0322200), as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Choi (US Pub. 2010/0006031).
The limitations of claims 12 are set forth above.
Regarding claims 13 and 14, modified Woong does not explicitly teach the added limitations of the claim.
However, Choi teaches wherein: the lower cylindrical portion of each of the plurality of apertures has a same length and diameter (Choi – Fig. 8: portions #312 have same length and diameter on a curved showerhead).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to set the length of the lower cylindrical portions of modified Woong to the same length and diameter since Choi teaches such a feature ensures gas is uniformly distributed (Choi – [0058]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant has appropriately amended the Specification and claims 12-14, thus the objections are withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments concerning the §112(b) rejection of claim 14 have been carefully considered, but are not persuasive.
Particularly, the Examiner disagrees with the assertion that “without requiring a certain flow conductance” (Remarks, pg. 8) – the claim specifically states: “wherein: a flow conductance through substantially all apertures of the plurality of apertures is substantially equal”.
Thus while there is no recited numerical value, the claim still requires that the apertures all have substantially the same numerical flow conductance. As set forth in the rejection, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear because they relate a physical feature of the apparatus to an object that is variable- namely the flow conductance therethrough. For at least these reasons, the rejection is maintained.
The Applicant is encouraged to recite additional structural features of the apertures relating to their diameters, lengths, etc- not their flow conductances.
Applicant’s arguments concerning the §103 rejections have been carefully considered, but are not persuasive.
Particularly, the Applicant is only looking to the Drawings for a particular structure (thinner edges and thicker middle, as in instant Fig. 2A). However, Applicant has not considered the teachings of the reference as a whole and what they would convey to a PHOSITA.
Woong teaches that the center and edge plasma generation is directly affected by the height of the center and edge portions of the upper electrode #120 and, by tailoring the profile of the upper electrode, plasma uniformity can be obtained (English translation provided 1/30/2026, pg. 3, lines 7-17). In closing, Woong remarks:
PNG
media_image1.png
98
630
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The Examiner regards the disclosure of Woong, particularly the passage above, as proof that a PHOSITA could arrive at the claimed invention (thinner edges, thicker middle) despite showing an exemplary embodiment in Fig. 2B with thicker edges and thinner middle. The technical teachings of Woong appear to be sufficient to allow a PHOSITA to tailor the upper electrode profile, most notably the inner and outer thicknesses/distances, to optimize the plasma uniformity of the process.
For at least these reasons, the rejections are maintained on substantially the same grounds.
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 Kurt Sweely whose telephone number is (571)272-8482. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at (571)-272-5166. 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.
/Kurt Sweely/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights