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 .
Restriction/Election
The election of Group I in the response filed 10/31/2025 is acknowledged.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-17 and 21-23 are pending.
Claims 18-20 are cancelled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-9, 11, and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1-9, and 14-17: The term “about” in claims 1-2, 5, and 14-17 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Dependent claims 3-9 are also rejected as being based on a rejected claim under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
For the purposes of examination, the term “about” in claims 1-2, 5, and 14-17 will be interpreted as “exactly”, for example, the phrase in claim 1 using the term “about” will be interpreted and examined as the following:
“… and a ratio of the precursor to the reactant is exactly 1.”
Regarding claim 3: The term “liquid-like” in claim 3 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “liquid-like” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For the purposes of examination, the term “liquid-like” in claim 3 will be interpreted using context from the independent claim wherein the material is deposited using a flowable chemical vapor deposition step, as during this deposition phase the material would have liquid like properties, like for instance the property of being a fluid, for example, the phrase in claim 3 using the term “liquid-like” will be interpreted and examined as the following:
“… wherein the gap-fill material is deposited using a flowable chemical vapor deposition process.”
Regarding claim 11: The term “aspect ratio” in claim 11 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “aspect ratio” is not defined by the claim (specifically there is no indication within the claim what the aspect ratio pertains to), the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For the purposes of examination, the term “aspect ratio” will be interpreted as “the aspect ratio of the height with respect to the width of the trench”, thus the claim will be interpreted as the following:
“…wherein the aspect ratio of the height with respect to the width of the trench is no less than 3”
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2021/0183855 A1 Ng et al (herein “Ng”).
Regarding Claim 10, Ng discloses:
See Figs. 2A – 2K-4. Specifically note Figs. 2F-5 and 2G-5 unless otherwise stated, showing a gate-cut trench and subsequent deposition of dielectric material in the gate-cut trench using CVD.
A method for forming a semiconductor device structure, comprising: forming a transistor layer (comprising s/d #134, semiconductor layers #104, #110 and #112, and fin #103, herein #TL) over a substrate (#102), the transistor layer (#TL) comprising a plurality of nanostructures (fin structure #118 comprises first through fourth semiconductor layers and portion of fin element #103 corresponding to each nanostructure), source/drain structures (#134, #136) aside the nanostructures (#NS), and gate structure (dummy gate structure #126 and dummy gate electrode layer #130 shown in Fig. 2E-4) around the nanostructures (#118); and
forming a non-functional structure (see gate cut feature insolation feature #146 in Fig. 2G-5) in the transistor layer (#TL), wherein the forming of the non-functional structure (#146) comprises:
patterning the transistor layer (see Fig. 2F-5) to form a trench (Fig. 2F-5, #144) for accommodating the non- functional structure (#146); and
forming a silicon nitride layer (see paragraph [0060], dielectric fill layer #150 comprises SiN) filling the trench (#144) using a bottom-up deposition process (not explicitly references as a bottom up process, however deposition includes CVD (such as HDP-CVD, PECVD, or HARP) which are examples of bottom up deposition processes), wherein a wet etching rate of the silicon nitride layer to 0.1% diluted hydrofluoric acid is less than 10Å/min (see note below).
Note, see MPEP Sections 2112.01 and 2144.05. The claimed method of depositing a silicon nitride layer using a CVD process to fill the trench is identical to the method of deposition disclosed by Ng, although not explicitly disclosed in the specification, the deposited layer would have the same etch properties (MPEP 2112.01). ). Additionally, in a case of optimizing the etch selectivity for a specific purpose, a person of ordinary skill would recognize the ability to adjust the material compositions/ratios in order to achieve a specific etch selectivity for an optimized device/method, specifically, targeting a slower etch selectivity (the claimed example being 10Å/min) would result in more accurate etching of the material leading to a more optimized and accurate resulting product. In the alternative, increasing the targeted rate of etch selectivity would subsequently speed up the manufacturing process for this stage of development, but may result in a less optimized or less accurate material removal process. The specific chosen etch selectivity is therefore a result effective variable that may be optimized by the person of ordinary skill to meet specific applications, which in this case would be accuracy vs. speed during the material removal process. (MPEP 2144.05.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to consider adjusting the material compositions/ratios of the deposited silicon nitride layer in order to achieve the targeted etch selectivity rate of 10Å/min, in order to optimize for application specific objectives. Additionally, adjusting the compositions/ratios of the silicon nitride layer in order to achieve a targeted etch selectivity would be an example of applying a known technique to a known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results
Regarding Claim 11, Ng discloses:
wherein an aspect ratio of the trench (#144) is no less than 3 (see Fig. 2F-5).
Note, see 112(b) rejection of claim 11 above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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, 3, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2021/0183855 A1 Ng et al in view of US 2016/0314965 A1 Nguyen et al et al (herein “Nguyen”). See also teaching reference US 2020/0343365 A1 Lin et al paragraph [0034].
Regarding Claim 1, Ng discloses:
See Figs. 2A – 2K-4. Specifically note Figs. 2F-5 and 2G-5 showing a gate-cut trench and subsequent deposition of dielectric material in the gate-cut trench using CVD.
A method for forming a semiconductor device structure, comprising: forming a transistor layer (comprising s/d #134, semiconductor layers #104, #110 and #112, and fin #103, herein #TL) over a substrate (#102); forming a trench (Fig. 2F-5, #144) in the transistor layer (#TL), a depth to width ratio of the trench being greater than or equal to 3 (see Fig. 2F-5); and filling the trench with a gap-fill material (#148, #150) using a flowable chemical vapor deposition process (see paragraph [0060]), wherein a precursor and a reactant are used in the flowable chemical vapor deposition process (see paragraph [0060], resulting liner is made up of silicon oxide, and the dielectric fill layer 150 is made of a dielectric material such as silicon nitride, silicon oxynitride, silicon oxycarbonitride, silicon carbonitride, silicon oxycarbide, or a combination thereof, therefore a precursor and reactant are taught);
Ng does not explicitly disclose:
a ratio of the precursor to the reactant is about 1;
However, in analogous art, Nguyen teaches:
a ratio of the precursor to the reactant is about 1 (see paragraphs [0024] and [0025]);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to consider combining the teachings of Nguyen to the method disclosed by Ng, as Ng is silent on the ratio of the precursor and the reactant, thus a person of ordinary skill would seek out the teachings of Nguyen to complete the method. Paragraphs [0024] and [0025] of Nguyen discloses “The composition of Si, C, N and O can be varied by changing the precursors and the reactant source ratio during the deposition…. The composition profile of C, N, and/or O atoms of one or more SiCNO layers in the multilayer dielectric structure 10 can be varied with regard to atomic percentages of C, N, and/or O atoms so as to adjust electrical and/or physical properties of each SiCNO layer, and thereby obtain desired electrical and/or physical characteristics of the multilayer dielectric structure 10 overall.” and thus, the concentrations of the reactants are examples of result effective variables that correlate to the electrical or physical characteristics of the deposited layer, in this case they may be optimized by the person of ordinary skill to meet specific applications. See MPEP 2144.05 (II)
Note, see 112(b) rejection of claim 1 above. Additional note, FCVD (flowable chemical vapor deposition) is not explicitly taught by the reference in regards to the deposition of the dielectric liner and the fill layer, flowable chemical vapor deposition is a known equivalent to CVD or high-density plasma CVD, as taught by US 2020/0343365 A1 paragraph [0034] wherein suitable deposition technique for filling gate cut trenches include “CVD, flowable chemical vapor deposition (FCVD), high density plasma CVD (HDPCVD), other suitable technique or a combination thereof”.
Regarding Claim 3, Ng in view of Nguyen discloses: the method of claim 1.
Ng further discloses:
wherein the gap-fill material is liquid-like (see paragraph [0017], the material is deposited using a flowable chemical vapor deposition process which therefore exhibits liquid-like properties).
Note, see 112(b) rejection of claim 3 above.
Regarding Claim 21, Ng discloses:
See Figs. 2A – 2K-4. Specifically note Figs. 2F-5 and 2G-5 showing a gate-cut trench and subsequent deposition of dielectric material in the gate-cut trench using CVD.
A method for forming a semiconductor device structure, comprising:
forming a plurality of nanostructure stacks (fin structure #118 comprises first through fourth semiconductor layers and portion of fin element #103 corresponding to each nanostructure), wherein each of the nanostructure (#118) stacks includes nanostructures (#104, #110, #112) stacked over one another;
forming source/drain structures (#134, #136) between adjacent nanostructure stacks (#118); forming a gate electrode layer (dummy gate structure #126 and dummy gate electrode layer #130 shown in Fig. 2E-4) surrounding the nanostructures (#118); and
forming a silicon nitride layer (see paragraph [0060], dielectric fill layer #150 comprises SiN) vertically extending through the gate electrode layer (#126, #130).
Ng does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the silicon nitride layer has a nitrogen content gradient.
However, in analogous art, Nguyen teaches:
See paragraphs [0024] and [0025].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to consider combining the teachings of Nguyen to the method disclosed by Ng, as Ng is silent on the ratio of the precursor and the reactant, thus a person of ordinary skill would seek out the teachings of Nguyen to complete the method. Paragraphs [0024] and [0025] of Nguyen discloses “The composition of Si, C, N and O can be varied by changing the precursors and the reactant source ratio during the deposition…. The composition profile of C, N, and/or O atoms of one or more SiCNO layers in the multilayer dielectric structure 10 can be varied with regard to atomic percentages of C, N, and/or O atoms so as to adjust electrical and/or physical properties of each SiCNO layer, and thereby obtain desired electrical and/or physical characteristics of the multilayer dielectric structure 10 overall.” and thus, the concentrations of the reactants, and thus the gradient of concentration of, in this case nitrogen, could be adjusted during deposition. This is an example of result effective variables that correlates directly to the electrical or physical characteristics of the deposited layer, in this case they may be optimized by the person of ordinary skill to meet specific applications. See MPEP 2144.05 (II)
Note, see 112(b) rejection of claim 1 above. Additional note, FCVD (flowable chemical vapor deposition) is not explicitly taught by the reference in regards to the deposition of the dielectric liner and the fill layer, flowable chemical vapor deposition is a known equivalent to CVD or high-density plasma CVD, as taught by US 2020/0343365 A1 paragraph [0034] wherein suitable deposition technique for filling gate cut trenches include “CVD, flowable chemical vapor deposition (FCVD), high density plasma CVD (HDPCVD), other suitable technique or a combination thereof”.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2021/0183855 A1 Ng et al in view of US 2016/0314965 A1 Nguyen et al et al and further in view of US 2017/0033179 A1 Lin et al (herein “Lin”).
Regarding Claim 2, Ng in view of Nguyen discloses: the method of claim 1.
Ng in view of Nguyen does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the flowable chemical vapor deposition process is performed at a temperature of about 0°C to about 200°C.
However, in analogous art, Lin teaches:
wherein the flowable chemical vapor deposition process is performed at a temperature of about 0°C to about 200°C (see paragraphs [0014] and [0018]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to consider combining the teachings of Lin to the method disclosed by Ng in view of Nguyen and deposit the flowable dielectric at a temperature in the range of 0°C to about 200°C, as Ng in view of Nguyen are silent on the temperature this process is performed at, thus a person of ordinary skill would seek out the teachings of Lin to complete the method.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2021/0183855 A1 Ng et al in view of US 2016/0314965 A1 Nguyen et al et al and further in view of US 2021/0280451 A1 Lee et al (herein “Lee”).
Regarding Claim 4 Ng in view of Nguyen discloses: the method of claim 1.
Ng in view of Nguyen does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the precursor is trisilylamine and the reactant includes ammonia and oxygen.
However, in analogous art, Lee teaches:
See claim 19.
“wherein the precursor mixture comprises one or more of a silane, trisilylamine (TSA), and a reactant gas, the silane comprising one or more of silane, disilane, trisilane, tetrasilane, higher order silanes, and substituted silanes, and the reactant gas comprising one or more of argon (Ar), oxygen (O.sub.2), hydrogen (H.sub.2), nitrogen (N.sub.2), hydrogen/nitrogen (H.sub.2/N.sub.2), and ammonia (NH.sub.3).”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to consider combining the teachings of Lee to the method disclosed by Ng in view of Nguyen and form the trench fill layer using the claimed materials. Ng in view of Nguyen is silent on specifically what precursors and reactants are to be used to supply the sources of silicon, nitrogen, and/or oxygen, thus a person of ordinary skill would seek out the teachings of Lee to find such precursors/reactants.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2021/0183855 A1 Ng et al in view of US 2016/0314965 A1 Nguyen et al et al and further in view of US 2021/0280451 A1 Lee et al and further in view of US 2022/0406598 A1 Lee et al (herein referenced using Co-Author “Chui”).
Regarding Claim 5, Ng in view of Nguyen and further in view of Lee discloses: the method of claim 4.
Ng in view of Nguyen and further in view of Lee does not explicitly disclose:
performing a curing process to the gap-fill material after the flowable chemical vapor deposition process with a UV light to form a cured gap-fill material, wherein the curing process is performed at a temperature of about 0°C to about 200°C.
However, in analogous art, Chui teaches:
performing a curing process to the gap-fill material after the flowable chemical vapor deposition process with a UV light to form a cured gap-fill material, wherein the curing process is performed at a temperature of about 0°C to about 200°C.
Specifically see paragraph [0071] disclosing the curing process of the FCVD SiNO layer. Reference is made to previous elements and processes introduced in paragraphs [0069] and [0070].
[0070]“…The sacrificial layer 126 may be deposited using a non-conformal deposition process (e.g., a flowable CVD process), which provides improved bottom-up growth profile and allows the sacrificial layer 126 to be formed free of any seams or voids, thereby reducing manufacturing defects…”
“…For example, in embodiments where the sacrificial layer 126 comprises SiNO.sub.x, the precursors flowed may include a first precursor that is a silane-based precursor (e.g., silane, trisiliylamine, or the like), a second precursor that is a nitrogen-based precursor (e.g., N.sub.2, NH.sub.3, combinations thereof, or the like), and an oxidant (e.g., H.sub.2O, O.sub.2, O.sub.3, combinations thereof, or the like)…
“…The precursors may be mixed at a pressure in a range of 0.5 Torr to 1 Torr and at a temperature in a range of 30° C. to 200° C...”
[0071] …“a cure with ultraviolet (UV) light may be performed to fully cure the sacrificial layer 126. The UV cure may be performed at a wavelength in a range of 100 nm to 400 nm and at a temperature in a range of 25° C. to 150° C.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to consider combining the teachings of Chui to the method disclosed by Ng in view of Nguyen and further in view of Lee, as performing the UV curing process to the flowable material deposited by the FCVD process would achieve a desired material quality (hardness, stress, and insulation).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2021/0183855 A1 Ng et al in view of US 2016/0314965 A1 Nguyen et al and further in view of US 2022/0406598 A1 Lee et al (reminder for convenience, referenced as “Chui”).
Regarding Claim 22, Ng in view of Nguyen discloses: the method of claim 21.
Ng in view of Nguyen does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the silicon nitride layer is formed to be free of vertical seam and void.
However, in analogous art, Chui teaches:
wherein the silicon nitride layer is formed to be free of vertical seam and void (see paragraph [0070]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to consider combining the teachings of Chui to the method disclosed by Ng in view of Nguyen and form the gate cut isolation layer to be free of seams/voids as a result of the deposition process. Chui discloses a bottom up FCVD process analogous to the method disclosed by Ng in view of Nguyen, thus the deposition resulting in a lack of seams/voids would be a simple substitution of one known method for another resulting in the claimed limitation.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2021/0183855 A1 Ng et al in view of US 2016/0314965 A1 Nguyen et al and further in view of US 2022/0131004 A1 Chen et al (herein “Chen”).
Regarding Claim 23, Ng in view of Nguyen discloses: the method of claim 21.
Ng in view of Nguyen does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the silicon nitride layer is formed to include tapered sidewalls.
However, in analogous art, Chen teaches:
See Figs. 12 and 13.
wherein the gate cut feature (#2820 (opening), #2880 (gate cut feature)) is formed to include tapered sidewalls (see paragraph [0035]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to consider combining the teachings of Chen to the method disclosed by Ng in view of Nguyen and include a tapering profile to the gate cut trench. Doing so would be a matter of substituting the vertical walls for tapered walls to adjust the electrical/physical properties of the gate cut feature that a person skilled in the art would recognize, that would result in the claimed limitation.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
US 2020/0343365 A1 Lin et al
US 2017/0004975 A1 Farmer et al
US 9406547 B2 Jhaveri et al
US 2015/0340274 A1 Ryan et al
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-9 and 12-17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding Claim 6: The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record as considered pertinent to the applicant's disclosure does not teach or suggest the claimed invention having the following limitation, in combination with the remaining claimed limitations. The prior art fails to teach or suggest the claimed limitations, namely: “performing a nitrogen plasma treatment to the cured gap-fill material after the curing process to form a silicon nitride layer in the trench.”
Regarding Claims 7-9: Claims 7-9 are dependent upon objected to but allowable claim 6, and are also objected to but allowable for at least the same reasons.
Regarding Claim 12: The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record as considered pertinent to the applicant's disclosure does not teach or suggest the claimed invention having the following limitation, in combination with the remaining claimed limitations. The prior art fails to teach or suggest the claimed limitations, namely: “UV curing the flowable nitride-based material to form a solid-like film; and plasma treating the solid-like film with a nitrogen plasma to form the silicon nitride layer.”
Regarding Claims 13-17: Claims 13-17 are dependent upon objected to but allowable claim 12, and are also objected to but allowable for at least the same reasons.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Andrew V. Prostor whose telephone number is (571) 272-2686. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00a-4:30p.
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, Christine S Kim can be reached at (571) 272-8458. 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.
/ANDREW VICTOR PROSTOR/Examiner, Art Unit 2812 /CHRISTINE S. KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2812