Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims/Amendments
This Office Action Correspondence is in response to Applicant’s amendments filed 05 Dec 2025.
Claims 1, 6-9, 21-26, 28-29, 31-37 are pending. Claims 1, 6, 7, 8, 9, 21, 22, 26 are amended. Claims 2-5, 10-20, 27, 30 are canceled. Claims 32-37 are new.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 6 limitation “wherein the one or more slits include a plurality of separate slits” in the context of being dependent on claim 1 which recites “one or more slits include a first cross slit” is understood to mean that the one or more slits includes a first cross slit and further includes a plurality of separate slits wherein the separate slits is not limited to being a cross slit but can have various different shapes and configurations.
Claim Objections
Claim 26 is objected to because of the following informalities: “an inner tube” in the second line of the claim should be corrected to read as “the inner tube” in light of preamble limitation “An inner tube of a furnace.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Park et al. (US 2015/0059978 A1 hereinafter “Park”).
Regarding independent claim 26, Park teaches an inner tube (comprising inner tube 112, Fig. 3 and 4) of a furnace (comprising process chamber 100, Fig. 3, para. [0057]) for semiconductor processing (para. [0002]-[0003], [0045]), comprising:
a sidewall defined along a longitudinal axis of the inner tube (comprising 112, Fig. 3) and comprising a plurality of separate slits (comprising cutoff part 113, Fig. 6, para. [0063]-[0065]) defined through the sidewall in a radial direction with respect to the longitudinal axis, wherein the plurality of separate slits (comprising 113, Fig. 6) are arranged at different positions along the longitudinal axis, wherein the plurality of separate slits are oriented perpendicular to the longitudinal axis without any slits in the inner tube being oriented in a different direction (as understood from Fig. 6);
a closed end (Fig. 3, para. [0063] discloses a blocked upper portion) substantially enclosing a reaction chamber (comprising inner space of 112, Fig. 3, para. [0063]) defined within the inner tube (comprising 112, Fig. 3); and
an open end (i.e. lower end) opposite the closed end with respect to the longitudinal axis, wherein the reaction chamber (comprising inner space of 112, Fig. 3, para. [0063]) is configured to be loaded with one or more semiconductor wafers via the open end (para. [0067], [0080]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 2015/0059978 A1 hereinafter “Park”) in view of Jung et al. (US 2018/0090322 A1 hereinafter “Jung”).
Regarding claim 28, Park teaches all of the limitations of claim 26 as applied above including wherein each of the plurality of separate slits extends around a circumferential portion of the sidewall by an angle of about 5 degrees (see annotated Fig. 4 of Park below).
PNG
media_image1.png
770
700
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Park does not explicitly teach the plurality of separate slits extends around a circumferential portion of the sidewall by an angle in a range between about 10 degrees and about 180 degrees.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the angle within the circumferential portion of the sidewall that the plurality of separate slits span is a measurement of the dimension of the slit.
Furthermore, Jung teaches that the dimensions (i.e. height and width) of exhaust slits (comprising exhaust holes 151, Fig. 4-6) in an apparatus for semiconductor processing (comprising substrate processing apparatus 100, Fig. 2, para. [0044], [0060]) is a result-effective variable affecting the flow rate of the processing gas (para. [0080]). Without evidence of unexpected results, one of ordinary skill in the art cannot consider the spanning angle of the slit to be critical.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the spanning angle of the plurality of separate slits because Jung teaches that the dimensions of the exhaust slit is a result affective variable which affects the flow rate of the processing gases (para. [0080]) wherein one of ordinary skill in the art would optimize the spanning angle of each of the plurality of separate exhaust slits to enable optimized flow rate of processing gases for optimized substrate/wafer processing.
Claim(s) 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 2015/0059978 A1 hereinafter “Park”) in view of Kim et al. (US 2018/0025926 A1 hereinafter "Kim").
Regarding claim 29, Park teaches all of the limitations of claim 26 as applied above but does not explicitly teach wherein the plurality of separate slits are spaced along the longitudinal axis by a distance in a range between about 50 mm and about 1000 mm.
Kim teaches an example of 7 mm interval/gap distance (comprising L1, Fig. 3, para. [0048]) in the longitudinal axis (i.e. vertical direction) that the distances between exhaust holes is a result-effective variable that affects the density of the exhaust holes (para. 0074]), wherein one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the density of the exhaust holes affects the flow and amount of gas exhausted.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the spacing along the longitudinal axis of the plurality of separate slits because Kim teaches the spacing of the exhaust openings as a result-effective variable affects the density of the exhaust openings wherein one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the density of the exhaust openings affects the flow and amount of gas exhausted and would be motivated to optimize the spacing to optimize the flow and amount of gas exhausted from the inner tube for optimal substrate/wafer processing.
Claim(s) 1, 6, 7, 8, 9, 31, 32, 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamaguchi et al. (WO2004027846A1 hereinafter “Yamaguchi” and referring to English Machine Translation) in view of Joo et al. (US 2014/0174352 A1 hereinafter “Joo”) and Jung et al. (US 2018/0090322 A1 hereinafter “Jung”).
Regarding independent claim 1, Yamaguchi teaches a furnace for semiconductor processing (comprising CVD apparatus, Fig. 11 and 12, para. [0002],[0022], [0052]-[0056], [0073]-[0075]), comprising:
an inner tube (comprising 2, Fig. 11 and 12, para. [0023]) defining a reaction chamber (comprising process chamber 4, Fig. 11 and 12, para. [0023]) and including:
a sidewall (comprising a sidewall including exhaust duct 26, Fig. 11 and 12) defined along a longitudinal axis (i.e. vertical axis) of the inner tube (comprising 2, Fig. 11 and 12) and including one or more slits (comprising exhaust holes 26a and 25, Fig. 11 and 12, para. [0049], [0054]-[0055]) defined through the sidewall in a radial direction with respect to the longitudinal axis, wherein the one or more slits (comprising 26a and 25, Fig. 11 and 12) includes a first cross slit (see annotated Fig. 12 below) including a first portion (comprising a portion of 25, Fig. 12) extending parallel to the longitudinal axis and a second portion (comprising one of 26a, Fig. 12, see annotated Fig. 12 below) extending perpendicular to the first portion (comprising a portion of 25, Fig. 12) with a second width, wherein a length of the second portion in a circumferential direction of the sidewall is greater than the second width of the second portion (see annotated Fig. 12 below);
a closed end (comprising upper part of inner tube 2, Fig. 11) substantially enclosing the reaction chamber (comprising 4, Fig. 11); and
an open end (comprising lower end of 2, Fig. 11, para. [0024]) opposite the closed end with respect to the longitudinal axis, wherein the reaction chamber (comprising 4, Fig. 11) is configured to be loaded with one or more semiconductor wafers (comprising wafers 10, Fig. 11, para. [0002],[0073] ) via the open end (para. [0032]);
an outer tube (comprising outer tube 3, Fig. 11 and 12) that surrounds the inner tube (comprising 2, Fig. 11 and 12) (para. [0023]);
one or more heat sources (comprising heater unit 20, Fig. 11) configured to cause a temperature change in the reaction chamber (comprising 4, Fig. 11) (para. [0026]);
an injector assembly (comprising gas introduction nozzle 22 and inlet portion 23, Fig. 11 and 12, para. [0027]) coupled to at least one of the inner tube (comprising 2, Fig. 11 and 12) or the outer tube (comprising 3, Fig. 11) and configured to inject one or more process gases into the reaction chamber (para. [0027]); and
an exhaust assembly (comprising exhaust port 7, Fig. 11) coupled to the outer tube (comprising 3, Fig. 11 and 12) and configured to exhaust one or more exhaust gases from the reaction chamber (comprising 4, Fig. 11) via the one or more slits (comprising 26a and 25, Fig. 11 and 12) of the inner tube (comprising 2, Fig. 11 and 12) (para. [0049], [0054]-[0055]).
PNG
media_image2.png
1057
1052
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Yamaguchi does not explicitly teach wherein the first portion has a first width in a range between 10 mm and 100 mm.
However, Joo teaches a furnace for semiconductor processing (comprising wafer processing apparatus 100, Fig. 1 to 4, para. [0005], [0049]) comprising a first longitudinally extending exhaust slit (comprising 122, Fig. 3 and 4) with the width in the range between 10 mm and 100 mm (para. [0058]).
Additionally, Jung teaches that the dimensions (i.e. height and width) of exhaust slits (comprising exhaust holes 151, Fig. 4-6) in an apparatus for semiconductor processing (comprising substrate processing apparatus 100, Fig. 2, para. [0044], [0060]) is a result-effective variable affecting the flow rate of the processing gas (para. [0080]). Without evidence of unexpected results, one of ordinary skill in the art cannot consider the width of the slit to be critical.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the first width of the first portion (i.e. longitudinally extending slit portion) because Kong teaches an example starting value of an exhaust slit width and Jung teaches that the width of the exhaust slit is a result affective variable which affects the flow rate of the processing gases (para. [0080]) wherein one of ordinary skill in the art would optimize the first width of the first portion to enable optimized flow rate of processing gases for optimized substrate/wafer processing.
Regarding claim 6, Yamaguchi in view of Joo and Jung teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as applied above and Yamaguchi further teaches wherein the one or more slits include a plurality of separate slits (comprising 26a, Fig. 11 and 12).
Regarding claim 7, Yamaguchi in view of Joo and Jung teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, 6 as applied above but does not explicitly teach that each slit of the plurality of separate slits includes at least a portion that is parallel to the longitudinal axis.
However, Yamaguchi teaches at least one slit (comprising 25, Fig. 12) that is parallel to the longitudinal axis configured to exhaust the gas from the reaction chamber (para. [0049], [0054]-[0055]).
Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that providing each slit of a plurality of separate slits that includes at least a portion that is parallel to the longitudinal axis would be a duplication of part 25 of Yamaguchi and would suitably exhaust the gas from the reaction chamber.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to duplicate the slit 25 of Yamaguchi to provide each slit of a plurality of separate slits that includes at least a portion that is parallel to the longitudinal axis because Yamaguchi already teaches one slit that is parallel to the longitudinal axis and because the courts have ruled that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. (In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). See MPEP 2144.04 VI. B.)
Regarding claim 8, Yamaguchi in view of Joo and Jung teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, 6 as applied above and Yamaguchi further wherein each slit of the plurality of separate slits (comprising 26a, Fig. 12) includes at least a portion that is perpendicular to the longitudinal axis (i.e. vertical axis). Examiner interprets this to mean that each of the slits 26a extend in a horizontal direction which is perpendicular to the longitudinal/vertical axis.
Regarding claim 9, Yamaguchi in view of Joo and Jung teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, 6 as applied above but does not clearly and explicitly teach wherein each slit of the plurality of separate slits is a cross slit that includes the first portion extending parallel to the longitudinal axis and the second portion extending perpendicular to the first portion.
However, Yamaguchi already teaches at least one first cross slit (see annotated Fig. 12 of Yamaguchi above in claim 1 rejection) comprising a first portion (comprising 25, Fig. 12) that extends parallel to the longitudinal direction and a second portion that extends perpendicular portion. Yamaguchi further teaches a plurality of second portions (comprising 26a, Fig. 12) that extend perpendicular to the longitudinal direction.
Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that providing each slit of a plurality of separate slits is a cross slit that includes the first portion extending parallel to the longitudinal axis and the second portion extending perpendicular to the first portion would be a duplication of the cross slit that Yamaguchi already teaches (i.e. a duplication of 25 to provide a plurality of first portions that extend parallel to the longitudinal axis).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to duplicate the slit 25 of Yamaguchi to provide each slit of a plurality of separate slits to include a plurality of first portions that is parallel to the longitudinal axis resulting in a plurality of separate cross slits with the first portion extending parallel to the longitudinal axis and the second portion extending perpendicular to the first portion because Yamaguchi already teaches one slit that is parallel to the longitudinal axis and at least one cross slit and because the courts have ruled that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. (In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). See MPEP 2144.04 VI. B.).
See annotated Fig. 12 below showing modification/combination.
PNG
media_image3.png
1013
693
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 31, Yamaguchi in view of Joo and Jung teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as applied above does not explicitly teach wherein the injector assembly comprises a plurality of injectors arranged at different circumferential positions about the sidewall of the inner tube, the plurality of injectors extending around the sidewall by an angle in a range between about 60 degrees and about 90 degrees.
However, Yamaguchi teaches another embodiment in Fig. 16 comprising an injector assembly (comprising gas introduction nozzle 22 and inlet portion 23, Fig. 16, para. [0027], [0065]) comprising a plurality of injectors (comprising 22, Fig. 16, para. [0065]) arranged at different circumferential positions about the sidewall of the inner tube (comprising 2, Fig. 16). Yamaguchi explicitly teaches the number injectors (comprising gas introduction nozzles) is not limited to one, but two or more, para. [0071].
In other words, Yamaguchi already teaches/suggests providing an injector assembly comprising a plurality of injectors arranged at different circumferential positions about the sidewall of the inner tube is an obvious alternative embodiment for supplying gas to the reaction chamber.
Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the injector assembly to include a plurality of injectors arranged at different circumferential positions about the sidewall of the inner tube because Yamaguchi already teaches/suggests that such a configuration is an obvious alternative embodiment for supplying gas to the reaction chamber.
Yamaguchi in view of Joo and Jung as applied above does not explicitly teach that the plurality of injectors extending around the sidewall by an angle in a range between 60 degrees and about 90 degrees.
However, Joo does teach that the plurality of injectors (comprising 200, 210, 230, Fig. 3, 4, 5) extend around the sidewall by an angle of 60 degrees (para. [0060]){examiner notes that an angle of 60 degrees overlaps/touches the claimed range}. Joo teaches different angles including 50 degrees (para. [0054]). Examiner explains that one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that adjusting the angle of the positions of the plurality of injectors would affect the flow of process gas. Thus, one of ordinary skill would understand that the angle the plurality of injectors extends around the sidewall would be a result-effective variable.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the angle the plurality of injectors extends around the sidewall because Joo teaches an example of the angle between a plurality of injectors wherein one of ordinary skill in the would recognize that optimizing the angle of the plurality of injectors would optimize the gas flow conditions in the reactor chamber for optimized substrate processing.
Furthermore, the courts have held that the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976)(See MPEP § 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 32, Yamaguchi in view of Joo and Jung teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as applied above and further teaches wherein the first cross slit is non-symmetrical with respect to at least the circumferential direction. Examiner explains, as understood from annotated Fig .12 of Yamaguchi above, the first cross slit is non-symmetrical across the circumferential direction axis.
Regarding claim 33, Yamaguchi in view of Joo and Jung teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) 1 above but does not clearly and explicitly teach a second cross slit that intersects the first cross slit.
However, Yamaguchi already teaches at least one first cross slit (see annotated Fig. 12 of Yamaguchi above in claim 1 rejection) comprising a first portion (comprising 25, Fig. 12) that extends parallel to the longitudinal direction and a second portion that extends perpendicular portion. Yamaguchi further teaches a plurality of second portions (comprising 26a, Fig. 12) that extend perpendicular to the longitudinal direction.
Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that providing a second cross slit that intersects the first cross slit would be a duplication of the cross slit that Yamaguchi already teaches (i.e. a duplication of 25 to provide a plurality of first portions that extend parallel to the longitudinal axis such that the plurality of second portions 26a also intersect the additional slit 25).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to duplicate the slit 25 of Yamaguchi to provide a second cross slit that intersects the first cross slit (i.e. duplication of 25 to provide a plurality of second portions 26a also intersect the additional slit 25) because Yamaguchi already teaches one slit that is parallel to the longitudinal axis and at least one cross slit and because the courts have ruled that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. (In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). See MPEP 2144.04 VI. B.). See annotated Fig. 12 showing modification in claim 9 rejection above.
Regarding claim 34, Yamaguchi in view of Joo and Jung teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) 1, 9 as applied above and further teach wherein the plurality of separate slits intersect to define a grid (see annotated Fig. 12 of Yamaguchi showing modifications in claim 9 rejection above).
Regarding claim 35, Yamaguchi in view of Joo and Jung teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) 1, 9, 34 as applied above but does not clearly and explicitly teach wherein the grid is uniform with respect to one of the longitudinal axis or the circumferential direction.
However, Yamaguchi teaches that the second portions (comprising 26a which extend horizontally, Fig. 12) are uniformly/evenly spaced along the longitudinal axis.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try configuring the grid to be uniform with respect to at least one of the longitudinal axis or the circumferential direction because Yamaguchi already teaches that the second portions (comprising 26a, Fig. 12) are uniformly/evenly spaced and because trying to configure the grid to be uniform with respect to at least one of the longitudinal axis or the circumferential direction is one of a finite number of obvious/predictable arrangements (i.e. uniform or non-uniform) for the grid with reasonable expectation of success (i.e. suitable exhaustion of gas from the reaction/process chamber).
Additionally and/or alternatively Claim(s) 7, 9, 33, 34, 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamaguchi et al. (WO2004027846A1 hereinafter “Yamaguchi” and referring to English Machine Translation) in view of Joo et al. (US 2014/0174352 A1 hereinafter “Joo”) and Jung et al. (US 2018/0090322 A1 hereinafter “Jung”) and Asano (US 2022/0081772 A1).
Additionally and/or alternatively regarding claim 7, Yamaguchi in view of Joo and Jung teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, 6 as applied above but does not explicitly teach that each slit of the plurality of separate slits includes at least a portion that is parallel to the longitudinal axis.
However, Yamaguchi teaches at least one slit (comprising 25, Fig. 12) that is parallel to the longitudinal axis configured to exhaust the gas from the reaction chamber (para. [0049], [0054]-[0055]).
Furthermore, Asano teaches providing a plurality of separate slits (comprising 31b including 31ms and 31ss, Fig. 3B) wherein each slit of the plurality of slits includes at least a portion that is parallel to the longitudinal axis (see Fig. 3B) (para. [0040],[0042]). Asano teaches that such a configuration is suitable for exhausting the gas from the process chamber (para. [0038]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a plurality of separate slits wherein each slit comprises at least a portion that is parallel to the longitudinal axis because Yamaguchi already teaches/suggest one slit that has at least a portion that is parallel to the longitudinal axis and because Asano teaches/suggests providing a plurality of separates slits wherein each slit of the plurality of slits comprises a portion that is parallel to the longitudinal axis as a known suitable alternative exhaust slit configuration that is suitable for exhausting the process gas.
Additionally and/or alternatively regarding claim 9, Yamaguchi in view of Joo and Jung teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, 6 as applied above but does not clearly and explicitly teach wherein each slit of the plurality of separate slits is a cross slit that includes the first portion extending parallel to the longitudinal axis and the second portion extending perpendicular to the first portion.
However, Yamaguchi already teaches at least one first cross slit (see annotated Fig. 12 of Yamaguchi above in claim 1 rejection) comprising a first portion (comprising 25, Fig. 12) that extends parallel to the longitudinal direction and a second portion that extends perpendicular portion. Yamaguchi further teaches a plurality of second portions (comprising 26a, Fig. 12) that extend perpendicular to the longitudinal direction, wherein the first cross slit (comprising 25 and 26a, Fig .12) is configured to exhaust the gas from the reaction chamber (para. [0049], [0054]-[0055]).
Furthermore, Asano teaches providing a plurality of separate slits (comprising 31b including 31ms and 31ss, Fig. 3B) wherein each slit of the plurality of slits includes at least a portion that is parallel to the longitudinal axis (see Fig. 3B) (para. [0040],[0042]). Asano teaches that such a configuration is suitable for exhausting the gas from the process chamber (para. [0038]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide each slit of a plurality of separate slits to include a plurality of first portions that is parallel to the longitudinal axis resulting in a plurality of separate cross slits with the first portion extending parallel to the longitudinal axis and the second portion extending perpendicular to the first portion (i.e. by providing a plurality of longitudinal extending slits instead of the one slit 25) because Yamaguchi already teaches one slit that is parallel to the longitudinal axis and at least one cross slit and because Asano teaches/suggests providing a plurality of separates slits wherein each slit of the plurality of slits comprises a portion that is parallel to the longitudinal axis as a known suitable alternative exhaust slit configuration that is suitable for exhausting the process gas wherein one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the resulting combination/apparatus would have a plurality of cross slits (i.e. a plurality of slits each with a first longitudinally extending portions and a second horizontally extending portion) and would thus meet limitation “each slit of the plurality of separate slits is a cross slit that includes the first portion extending parallel to the longitudinal axis and the second portion extending perpendicular to the first portion.”
PNG
media_image3.png
1013
693
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Additionally and/or alternatively, regarding claim 33, Yamaguchi in view of Joo and Jung teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) 1 above but does not clearly and explicitly teach a second cross slit that intersects the first cross slit.
However, Yamaguchi already teaches at least one first cross slit (see annotated Fig. 12 of Yamaguchi above in claim 1 rejection) comprising a first portion (comprising 25, Fig. 12) that extends parallel to the longitudinal direction and a second portion that extends perpendicular portion. Yamaguchi further teaches a plurality of second portions (comprising 26a, Fig. 12) that extend perpendicular to the longitudinal direction, wherein the first cross slit (comprising 25 and 26a, Fig .12) is configured to exhaust the gas from the reaction chamber (para. [0049], [0054]-[0055]).
Furthermore, Asano teaches providing a plurality of separate slits (comprising 31b including 31ms and 31ss, Fig. 3B) wherein each slit of the plurality of slits includes at least a portion that is parallel to the longitudinal axis (see Fig. 3B) (para. [0040],[0042]). Asano teaches that such a configuration is suitable for exhausting the gas from the process chamber (para. [0038]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a second cross slit that intersects the first cross slit (i.e. by providing a plurality of longitudinal extending slits instead of the one slit 25) because Yamaguchi already teaches one slit that is parallel to the longitudinal axis and at least one cross slit and because Asano teaches/suggests providing a plurality of separates slits wherein each slit of the plurality of slits comprises a portion that is parallel to the longitudinal axis as a known suitable alternative exhaust slit configuration that is suitable for exhausting the process gas wherein one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the resulting combination/apparatus would have a plurality of cross slits (i.e. a plurality of slits each with a first longitudinally extending portion and a second horizontally extending portion) and would thus meet limitation “a second cross slit that intersects the first cross slit.” See annotated Fig. 12 showing modification in claim 9 rejection above.
Additionally and/or alternatively, regarding claim 34, Yamaguchi in view of Joo, Jung, Asano teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) 1, 9 as applied above and further teach wherein the plurality of separate slits intersect to define a grid (see annotated Fig. 12 of Yamaguchi showing modifications in claim 9 rejection above).
Additionally and/or alternatively, regarding claim 35, Yamaguchi in view of Joo, Jung, Asano teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) 1, 9, 34 as applied above but does not clearly and explicitly teach wherein the grid is uniform with respect to one of the longitudinal axis or the circumferential direction.
However, Yamaguchi teaches that the second portions (comprising 26a which extend horizontally, Fig. 12) are uniformly/evenly spaced along the longitudinal axis.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try configuring the grid to be uniform with respect to at least one of the longitudinal axis or the circumferential direction because Yamaguchi already teaches that the second portions (comprising 26a, Fig. 12) are uniformly/evenly spaced and because trying to configure the grid to be uniform with respect to at least one of the longitudinal axis or the circumferential direction is one of a finite number of obvious/predictable arrangements (i.e. uniform or non-uniform) for the grid with reasonable expectation of success (i.e. suitable exhaustion of gas from the reaction/process chamber).
Claim(s) 21, 23, 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamaguchi et al. (WO2004027846A1 hereinafter “Yamaguchi” and referring to English Machine Translation) in view of Yudovsky et al. (US 2007/0084406 A1 hereinafter “Yudovsky”).
Regarding independent claim 21, Yamaguchi teaches a furnace for semiconductor processing (comprising CVD apparatus, Fig. 11 and 12, para. [0002],[0022], [0052]-[0056], [0073]-[0075]), comprising:
an inner tube (comprising 2, Fig. 11 and 12, para. [0023]) defining a reaction chamber (comprising process chamber 4, Fig. 11 and 12, para. [0023]) and including:
a sidewall (comprising a sidewall including exhaust duct 26, Fig. 11 and 12) defined along a longitudinal axis (i.e. vertical axis) of the inner tube (comprising 2, Fig. 11 and 12) and including a plurality of separate slits (comprising exhaust holes 26a and 25, Fig. 11 and 12, para. [0049], [0054]-[0055]) defined through the sidewall in a radial direction with respect to the longitudinal axis, wherein a first slit of the plurality of separate slits (comprising 26a and 25, Fig. 11 and 12) is a cross slit (see annotated Fig. 12 below) including a first portion (comprising a portion of 25, Fig. 12) extending parallel to the longitudinal axis and a second portion (comprising one of 26a, Fig. 12, see annotated Fig. 12 below) extending perpendicular to the first portion (comprising a portion of 25, Fig. 12) with a second width, wherein a length of the second portion in a circumferential direction of the sidewall is greater than the second width of the second portion (see annotated Fig. 12 below);
a closed end (comprising upper part of inner tube 2, Fig. 11) substantially enclosing the reaction chamber (comprising 4, Fig. 11); and
an open end (comprising lower end of 2, Fig. 11, para. [0024]) opposite the closed end with respect to the longitudinal axis, wherein the reaction chamber (comprising 4, Fig. 11) is configured to be loaded with one or more semiconductor wafers (comprising wafers 10, Fig. 11, para. [0002],[0073] ) via the open end (para. [0032]);
an outer tube (comprising outer tube 3, Fig. 11 and 12) that surrounds the inner tube (comprising 2, Fig. 11 and 12) and defining and enclosure (para. [0023]);
one or more heat sources (comprising heater unit 20, Fig. 11) (para. [0026]);
an injector assembly (comprising gas introduction nozzle 22 and inlet portion 23, Fig. 11 and 12, para. [0027]) coupled to at least one of the inner tube (comprising 2, Fig. 11 and 12) or the outer tube (comprising 3, Fig. 11) and configured to inject one or more process gases into the reaction chamber (para. [0027]); and
an exhaust assembly (comprising exhaust port 7, Fig. 11) coupled to the outer tube (comprising 3, Fig. 11 and 12) (para. [0049], [0054]-[0055]).
PNG
media_image4.png
783
780
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Yamaguchi embodiment in Fig. 11 and 12 does not explicitly teach the wherein the one or more heat sources is disposed between the inner tube and the outer tube; and the injector assembly comprises a plurality of injectors arranged at different circumferential positions about the sidewall of the inner tube.
However, Yamaguchi teaches another embodiment in Fig. 16 comprising an injector assembly (comprising gas introduction nozzle 22 and inlet portion 23, Fig. 16, para. [0027], [0065]) comprising a plurality of injectors (comprising 22, Fig. 16, para. [0065]) arranged at different circumferential positions about the sidewall of the inner tube (comprising 2, Fig. 16). Yamaguchi explicitly teaches the number injectors (comprising gas introduction nozzles) is not limited to one, but two or more, para. [0071].
In other words, Yamaguchi already teaches/suggests providing an injector assembly comprising a plurality of injectors arranged at different circumferential positions about the sidewall of the inner tube is an obvious alternative embodiment for supplying gas to the reaction chamber.
Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the injector assembly to include a plurality of injectors arranged at different circumferential positions about the sidewall of the inner tube because Yamaguchi already teaches/suggests that such a configuration is an obvious alternative embodiment for supplying gas to the reaction chamber.
Yamaguchi as applied above does not explicitly teach that the one or more heat sources is disposed between the inner tube and the outer tube.
However, Yudovsky teaches a furnace for semiconductor processing (comprising batch processing chamber 500, Fig. 7 and 8, para. [0036],[0037], [0057]-[0063]), comprising: one or more heat sources (heater blocks 511, Fig. 7 and 8) disposed between the inner tube (comprising 501, Fig. 7 and 8) and the outer tube (comprising 513, Fig. 7 and 8)(para. [0057]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the one or more heat sources to be disposed between the inner tube and the outer tube (i.e. rearrange the one or more heat sources) because Yudovsky teaches this is a known suitable alternative configuration of a furnace for semiconductor processing wherein one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that providing the heat source between the inner tube and the outer tube would enable more direct heating of the reaction chamber with less heat energy used to heat any intervening parts between the inner tube and the one or more heat source which would ultimately lead to more efficient/optimized heating or temperature control of the reaction chamber. Furthermore, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention which does not modify the operation of a device only involves routine skill in the art and is prima facie obvious. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975). MPEP 2144.04 VI C.
Regarding claim 23, Yamaguchi in view of Yudovsky teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) 21.
Yamaguchi in view of Yudovsky as applied above does not explicitly teach wherein the plurality of separate slits is spaced uniformly around the sidewall at an angle in a range between about 10 degrees and about 90 degrees.
However, Yamaguchi Fig. 16 embodiment teaches the plurality of separate slits (comprising 25, Fig. 16) appears to be arranged about 90 degrees apart and Fig. 15 appears to teach an embodiment wherein the plurality of separate slits (comprising 25, Fig. 15) is less than 90 degrees apart and approximately larger than 10 degrees apart. Thus, Yamaguchi appears to teach a range of angles of the positions of the separates slits that overlap with the claimed range. Furthermore, Yamaguchi teaches that the angle of the position of the separate slits (comprising 25, Fig. 15 and 16) affects the direction of the gas flow from the injector assembly (comprising 22, Fig. 15 and 6) para. [0063]-[0066]). In other words, the angle of the separate slits is a result-effective variable which affects gas flow in the reaction chamber.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the plurality of separate slits to be spaced around the sidewall and to further optimize the angle of the plurality of separate slits because Yamaguchi teaches that the angle/position of the plurality of separate slits is a result-effective variable which affects the gas flow in the reaction chamber wherein one of ordinary skill in the art would optimize the angle of the plurality of separate slits in order to optimize the gas flow in the reaction chamber for optimal substrate/wafer processing.
Regarding claim 37, Yamaguchi in view of Yudovsky teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) 21 above and further teaches wherein the cross slit is non-symmetrical with respect to at least the circumferential direction. Examiner explains, as understood from annotated Fig .12 of Yamaguchi above, the cross slit is non-symmetrical across the circumferential direction axis.
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamaguchi et al. (WO2004027846A1 hereinafter “Yamaguchi” and referring to English Machine Translation) in view of Yudovsky et al. (US 2007/0084406 A1 hereinafter “Yudovsky”) as applied to claim 21, 23, 37 above and further in view of Kong et al. (US 2024/0318307 A1 hereinafter “Kong”) and Jung et al. (US 2018/0090322 A1 hereinafter “Jung”).
Regarding claim 22, Yamaguchi in view of Yudovsky teaches all of the limitations of claim 21 as applied above but does not explicitly teach wherein each of the plurality of separate slits has a width in a range between 10 mm and 100 mm.
However, Kong teaches a furnace for semiconductor processing (comprising substrate processing device 10, Fig. 1, para. [0003], [0024]) with a plurality of exhaust slits (comprising 1211, 1212, 1213, 1214, Fig. 1) having a width (comprising height H1211, Fig. 4) of 5-10 mm (para. [0034]).
Additionally, Jung teaches that the dimensions (i.e. height and width) of exhaust slits (comprising exhaust holes 151, Fig. 4-6) in an apparatus for semiconductor processing (comprising substrate processing apparatus 100, Fig. 2, para. [0044], [0060]) is a result-effective variable affecting the flow rate of the processing gas (para. [0080]). Without evidence of unexpected results, one of ordinary skill in the art cannot consider the width of the slit to be critical.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the width of the second portion because Kong teaches an example starting value of an exhaust slit width and Jung teaches that the width of the exhaust slit is a result affective variable which affects the flow rate of the processing gases (para. [0080]) wherein one of ordinary skill in the art would optimize the width of each of the exhaust slits to enable optimized flow rate of processing gases for optimized substrate/wafer processing.
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamaguchi et al. (WO2004027846A1 hereinafter “Yamaguchi” and referring to English Machine Translation) in view of Yudovsky et al. (US 2007/0084406 A1 hereinafter “Yudovsky”) as applied to claim 21, 23, 37 above and further in view of Jung et al. (US 2018/0090322 A1 hereinafter “Jung”).
Regarding claim 24, Yamaguchi in view of Yudovsky teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) 21.
Yamaguchi in view of Yudovsky as applied above does not clearly and explicitly teach wherein the plurality of separate slits are positioned within a circumferential portion of the sidewall spanning an angle in a range between about 10 degrees and about 180 degrees.
However, Yamaguchi teaches an embodiment Fig. 9(a) showing the plurality of separate slits (comprising 26a, Fig. 9a, 11, 12) are positioned within a circumferential portion of the sidewall spanning an angle of approximately 20 degrees. See annotated Fig. 9(a) below.
PNG
media_image5.png
728
755
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the angle within the circumferential portion of the sidewall that the plurality of separate slits span is a measurement of the dimension of the slit.
Furthermore, Jung teaches that the dimensions (i.e. height and width) of exhaust slits (comprising exhaust holes 151, Fig. 4-6) in an apparatus for semiconductor processing (comprising substrate processing apparatus 100, Fig. 2, para. [0044], [0060]) is a result-effective variable affecting the flow rate of the processing gas (para. [0080]). Without evidence of unexpected results, one of ordinary skill in the art cannot consider the spanning angle of the slit to be critical.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the spanning angle of the plurality of separate slits because Jung teaches that the dimensions of the exhaust slit is a result affective variable which affects the flow rate of the processing gases (Jung: para. [0080]) wherein one of ordinary skill in the art would optimize the spanning angle of each of the plurality of separate exhaust slits to enable optimized flow rate of processing gases for optimized substrate/wafer processing.
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamaguchi et al. (WO2004027846A1 hereinafter “Yamaguchi” and referring to English Machine Translation) in view of Yudovsky et al. (US 2007/0084406 A1 hereinafter “Yudovsky”) as applied to claim 21, 23, 37 above and further in view of Inoue (JP2008258207A hereinafter referring to English Machine translation), Yamaguchi et al. (US 2014/0087565 A1 hereinafter “Yamaguchi ‘565”) and Koshimizu (JPH10321605A hereinafter referring to English Machine Translation).
Regarding claim 25, Yamaguchi in view of Yudovsky teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) 21 above but does not explicitly teach wherein at least one of the plurality of separate slits comprises a top portion defined in the closed end of the inner tube, the top portion being connected to a sidewall portion of the slit.
However, Inoue teaches a plurality of separate holes (comprising exhaust holes 71, Fig. 12) in the closed end of the inner tube as well as a plurality of separate slits (comprising 73, Fig. 12) in the sidewall (comprising 20, Fig. 12) (see embodiments show in Fig. 12) for exhausting the processing gas (para. [0020]).
Additionally, Yamaguchi ‘565 teaches that the shape of the exhaust hole (comprising 270, Fig. 14, para. [0090]) formed at a top/closed end of the inner tube can be a slit shape (para. [00160]).
Further, Koshimizu teaches that an exhaust slit (comprising holes 134, Fig. 2 and 3, para. [0030]) can comprise a top portion defined in an upper end of an inner tube (comprising baffle plate 132, Fig. 2 and 3) the top portion of the slit being connected to a sidewall portion of the slit (Fig. 2). Koshimizu teaches this is an obvious variation of the holes having a top portion and a sidewall portion which are not connected (see Fig. 3 embodiment).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure at least one of the plurality of separate slits (Yamaguchi: comprising 25, Fig. 12) to include a top portion defined in the closed end of the inner tube, the top portion being connected to a sidewall portion of the slit) because Inoue teaches/suggests a plurality of openings/holes at the closed end of the inner tube for exhausting gas and Yamaguchi ‘565 teaches/suggests that a slit shape is an obvious/known alternative shape for an exhaust hole formed at a closed/top end of the inner tube and because Koshimizu teaches/suggests connecting a top portion of an exhaust hole with a sidewall portion of an exhaust hole as an obvious variation of an exhaust configuration, wherein one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the resulting slit shape would be suitable for exhausting the reaction chamber for suitable substrate/processing.
Furthermore, Examiner notes that the configuration of “at least one of the plurality of separate slits comprises a top portion defined in the closed end of the inner tube, the top portion being connected to a sidewall portion of the slit” does not appear to have any criticality in light of the other disclosed embodiments in the instant application (i.e. Fig. 6 and 7).
Claim(s) 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamaguchi et al. (WO2004027846A1 hereinafter “Yamaguchi” and referring to English Machine Translation) in view of Yudovsky et al. (US 2007/0084406 A1 hereinafter “Yudovsky”) as applied to claim 21, 23, 37 above and further in view of Joo et al. (US 2014/0174352 A1 hereinafter “Joo”), Kong et al. (US 2024/0318307 A1 hereinafter “Kong”) and Jung et al. (US 2018/0090322 A1 hereinafter “Jung”).
Regarding claim 36, Yamaguchi in view of Yudovsky teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) 21 as applied above but does not explicitly teach wherein the first portion (i.e. vertical portion of the cross slit) has a first width in a range between 10 mm and 100mm and the second portion (i.e. horizontal portion of the cross slit) has a second width in a range between 10 mm and 100 mm.
However, Joo teaches a furnace for semiconductor processing (comprising wafer processing apparatus 100, Fig. 1 to 4, para. [0005], [0049]) comprising a first longitudinally extending exhaust slit (comprising 122, Fig. 3 and 4) with the width in the range between 10 mm and 100 mm (para. [0058]).
Additionally, Kong teaches a furnace for semiconductor processing (comprising substrate processing device 10, Fig. 1, para. [0003], [0024]) with a plurality of horizontally extending exhaust slits (comprising 1211, 1212, 1213, 1214, Fig. 1) having a width (comprising height H1211, Fig. 4) of 5-10 mm (para. [0034]).
Further, Jung teaches that the dimensions (i.e. height and width) of exhaust slits (comprising exhaust holes 151, Fig. 4-6) in an apparatus for semiconductor processing (comprising substrate processing apparatus 100, Fig. 2, para. [0044], [0060]) is a result-effective variable affecting the flow rate of the processing gas (para. [0080]). Without evidence of unexpected results, one of ordinary skill in the art cannot consider the width of the slit to be critical.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the width of each of the first and second portion because Joo teaches an example starting value of a width of a longitudinally extending slit Kong teaches an example starting value of a width of a horizontally extending exhaust slit and Jung teaches that the width /dimensions of the exhaust slit is a result affective variable which affects the flow rate of the processing gases (para. [0080]) wherein one of ordinary skill in the art would optimize the width of each of the exhaust slits to enable optimized flow rate of processing gases for optimized substrate/wafer processing.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05 Dec 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (remarks page 8) regarding U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejection of independent claim 1, claim 1 has been amended to include features based on dependent claim 5 and currently claim 1 recites "a first cross slit including a first portion extending parallel to the longitudinal axis with a first width in a range between 10 mm and 100 mm and a second portion extending perpendicular to the first portion with a second width, wherein a length of the second portion in a circumferential direction of the sidewall is greater than the second width of the second portion" wherein Asano does not teach "wherein a length of the second portion in a circumferential direction of the sidewall is greater than the second width of the second portion."
Examiner responds claim 1 rejection has been modified as necessitated by Applicant’s amendments to the claims. Claim 1 is no longer rejected under U.S.C. 102(a)(10. In the current rejections claim 1 is rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamaguchi in view of Joo and Jung as discussed in detail in claims rejections above. Examiner has changed interpretation of teachings of Yamaguchi in light of Applicant’s amendments to the claims as explained in detail in claims rejections above.
Applicant argues (remarks bottom page 8) regarding U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejection of independent claim 21, claim 21 is amended to recite that "a first slit, of the plurality of separate slits, is a cross slit that includes a first portion extending parallel to the longitudinal axis and a second portion extending perpendicular to the first portion, wherein a length of the second portion in a circumferential direction of the sidewall is greater than a width of the second portion along the longitudinal axis."
Examiner responds independent claim 21 rejection has been modified as necessitated by Applicant’s amendments to the claims. Claim 21 is no longer rejected under U.S.C. 102(a)(10. In the current rejections claim 21 is rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamaguchi in view of Yudovsky, as explained in detail in claims rejections above. Examiner has changed interpretation of teachings of Yamaguchi in light of Applicant’s amendments to the claims as explained in detail in claims rejections above.
Applicant argues (remarks page 9) regarding U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejection of independent claim 26, Yamaguchi does not teach amended claim limitation "wherein the plurality of separate slits are oriented perpendicular to the longitudinal axis without any slits in the inner tube being oriented in a different direction."
Examiner responds claim 26 rejection has been modified as necessitated by Applicant’s amendments to the claims. Currently claim 26 is rejected under U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Park as explained in detail in claims rejections above. Yamaguchi is no longer cited to reject claim 26. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are moot.
Applicant argues (remarks page 11) regarding U.S.C. 103 rejection of independent claim 1 and its dependent claims none of the cited references teaches/suggests the shape of a cross slit and do not teach/suggest amended claim limitation “the one or more slits include a first cross slit including a first portion extending parallel to the longitudinal axis with a first width in a range between 10 mm and 100 mm and a second portion extending perpendicular to the first portion with a second width, wherein a length of the second portion in a circumferential direction of the sidewall is greater than the second width of the second portion.”
Examiner responds claim 1 rejection has been modified as necessitated by Applicant’s amendments to the claims. In the current rejections claim 1 is rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamaguchi in view of Joo and Jung as discussed in detail in claims rejections above. Examiner has changed interpretation of teachings of Yamaguchi (see Fig. 11 and 12 embodiment of Yamaguchi) in light of Applicant’s amendments to the claims as explained in detail in claims rejections above.
Applicant argues (remarks page 11-12) regarding U.S.C. 103 rejection independent claim 21 and its dependent claims, none of the cited reference (Yudovsky, Inoue, Yamaguchi) teach/suggest the shape of the cross slit as claimed in amended claim 21 and specifically do not teach “"a first slit, of the plurality of separate slits, is a cross slit that includes a first portion extending parallel to the longitudinal axis and a second portion extending perpendicular to the first portion, wherein a length of the second portion in a circumferential direction of the sidewall is greater than a width of the second portion along the longitudinal axis." Fink teaches “open polygon shapes include letters or characters” is a generalized statement that the outline of an exhaust hole may vary arbitrarily and provides no technical reasoning or motivation to select a specific cross-slit geometry in the furnace contact no does it contemplate the combination of longitudinal and circumferential segments as current recited in amended claim 21.
Examiner responds independent claim 21 rejection has been modified as necessitated by Applicant’s amendments to the claims. Claim 21 is no longer rejected under U.S.C. 102(a)(10. In the current rejections claim 21 is rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamaguchi in view of Yudovsky, as explained in detail in claims rejections above. Examiner has changed interpretation of teachings of Yamaguchi in light of Applicant’s amendments to the claims as explained in detail in claims rejections above. Fink is no longer cited in claims rejections. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments directed toward Fink are moot.
Further, in view of Examiner’s remarks regarding independent claims 1, 21, 26, the dependent claims 6-9, 22-25, 28-29, 31-37, are also rejected, as detailed above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAUREEN CHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3778. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30AM-5:30PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, PARVIZ HASSANZADEH can be reached at (571)272-1435. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LAUREEN CHAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1716 /RAM N KACKAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716